I have a big desk like 32 myself, but 27" isn't a new trend. It's been the vast majority of high res displays since 27" 2560x1440 displays displaced 24" 1920x1200/1080 as high end non-halo displays. The vast majority of 4k displays have been 27" since they started coming out.
I use a 24" 4k at home. I have no need to scale anything up. I think I'd also be fine with a 27" 4k, but I dislike how much desk real estate ever-larger monitors take. My eyes are perfectly fine with smaller content.
You use 4K at 24" with no scaling. I am impressed. I have 20/20, but much smaller and I don't think I could see it without getting closer. I sit at arms length form from my monitor.
Even if you are happy with 24" 4k without scaling almost everyone else is not. Anecdotally I'm young and have 20/20 yet find that size and resolution to be comical to use without scaling. 27" at 1440p and 32-34" for 4k are the PPI norms for a reason. Being that what's usable for most people on windows without scaling
I found 150% or 175% scaling to work best for me with the display same size and resolution. Using it at 100% is an impressive feat, but probably not practical for the majority of people.
My work monitor is 24" 2560x1440 and I use that at 100% scaling. The vast majority of my colleagues set it to 150%, though.
How? I have slightly better than 20/20 (thanks lasers) and I still need at least 125% scaling on a 27" to avoid eye strain. Personally I think the ideal 4K screen size for desk use is closer to 32", and wish that were the most common panel size
How? I dunno. Maybe the general UI elements don't need to be so large to use dynamically sized content?
Like, here's the thing, why would I need to use windows display scaling at non-integer scales to make everything look fuzzy/bad? That bothers me a lot more than smaller UI elements.
What are the benefits to smaller UI elements? More tabs are shown along the top bad of a browser. Less vertical real estate taken up by a URL bar or the start bar. (Note: I used the minimal size Start bar icons on a 24" 1080p display before this, now I just use the standard size on a 24" 4K and it's about the same size) Smaller X icon makes it less accidental to close windows by accident.
As far as webcontent, it's like less than a second to CTRL + Scrollwheel up to fit the content onto the browser so that there's less wasted whitespace. Web browser remembers your scaling size for that website on the future. Generally, 125% to 150% is fine for a web browser docked to 1 half of the display. Sometimes, some archaic websites you need to do 175% or 200% normal size for it to look right. Good websites you don't even need to touch since they dynamically size whether on a mobile display or on a large 4k.
Video games? Just turn off AA (4k at 24" is effectively such a dense resolution that the difference betwee AA and no AA is nigh imperceptible, but you CAN tell a huge difference in framerate) and low to mid shadows and turn off the nasty gunk like motion blur or awful blinding lighting effects like adaptive exposure. Still runs 60fps+ on modern titles. Most content on videogames scale just fine, even menus. Sometimes chat box might be small, but people are usually posting garbage on global chat so I disable it if possible anyways.
Honestly, it's not a question of "how do you see that stuff, it's so small" but moreso I don't need large UI elements to do what I need to do on my PC. And even then, most content just scales the actual content you're doing just fine to the display. Like, consider a Word document on a 1080p vs 4k screen. The document you're typing into is still the same size, it's just the ribbon buttons along the top are less in the way.
Also, technically, I fail sight tests on my right eye, but my left eye is fine, but probably not 20/20.
The only thing Windows display scaling does is adjust UI element sizing which I don't care for. It's a big misunderstanding when people think high DPI monitors are only usable if you increase display scaling. You don't really need to, even on a 4k 24".
Personally I prefer the way things look on a high PPI display. I'm perfectly happy with the *size* of the display, I just want the elements occupying that space to be more detailed. I suspect this speaks to a difference in the tasks we use our monitors for.
Honestly those monitors get too tall to be really useful. I'd rather have a curved ultrawide when it gets bigger than 27" in 16:9. I get the pixel density, but scanning up and down is distracting.
Have none of you used 4k on a 27 inch monitor? While 4k on 27 inch screen is good, I would say that 5k is the ideal resolution at that 27 inches. This is from using both the 5k imac and a 4k 27 screen for quite some time.
It's definitely preference to some extent - the setup I have now I really like, 4k 32" 175% scaling as my main monitor and a 2k 27" 125% scaling monitor in Portrait mode as my secondary. I'm in my 40s with average vision, I don't enjoy squinting so these scalings work well for me but I'm sure there are folks who would think everything is a bit large.
Agreed. I have a 27" 1440p monitor and I'm after a 4k monitor to go alongside it. What I definitely don't want is lower pixel density though - I want similar pixel density in a larger display.
I prefer more DPI, with the OS set to a "High DPI" mode. 27" 4K is the sweet spot for me, with macOS set to "Looks like 2560x1440" or Windows set to "175%" scaling. That way, text is super-smooth while not being too small.
That said, at home I have a 23.5" 4K display. On that, I have it set to "Looks like 1920x1080" / "200%", and even then, things are a *TOUCH* too small if I lean back at my desk.
I personally love the 27" 4k setup, running two of those at work right now. I'd really love 5k @27", but I can't afford that! I don't want more pixels just to have more screen space, but to have sharp text! I think interface size is about right at 27" and 1440p, so that's what I scale to on my 4k monitors -- definitely works best on MacOS, but 150% in Windows is about right too.
DisplayPort's a better connector than USB-C, and they carry the same signals so who cares?
Tech's not changed much between 2017 and 2019. That's why we're confusing connector shapes for meaningful differences. Flash memory got a little cheaper, processors got a little faster, graphics adapters got a little more expensive... and people started mistaking a new connector for technological advancement.
What would be the ideal size and resolution for a monitor used primarily for coding (1 or more instance of IDE, browsers & 1 or 2 VM)? Also multi-monitor of 2K instead?
Same here - 32" is really the bare minimum for 4K 100%. I was disappointed to find that 27" 4K with anti-glare was too hard to read at 100% scaling, and non-integer scaling is a blurry mess. That monitor is now relegated to 200% scaling, which gives less desktop real estate than my old 24" 1920x1200.
Windows 10's 1.5x scaling has been perfectly fine for me personally, which is all I need for my 24 inch 4K. It basically functions as a 1440p monitor, but with better video compatibility.
Only app I've hated using with scaling is Oracle SQL Developer.
I got lucky and found a Seiki 39" 4K at Goodwill for $100. Been working fantastic as a monitor for the last year. I'm gonna cry when it breaks or wears out.
All my monitors are still 16:10, so moving to 16:9 is horrifying, lol. Really wish there were more options at that aspect ratio. I guess that's why many want bigger.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
Back to Article
imaheadcase - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Nice, but i just can't stand this 27 inch trend that started. 32+ is ideal for 4k stuff.jeremyshaw - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
I agree. I'm personally at 32" for 1440p, and am aiming for 43" for 4k (desktop use).I'm making an unfounded guess on the Adobe RGB coverage: 92%. DCI P3 I'd put around 94%. Also unfounded guess.
DanNeely - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
I have a big desk like 32 myself, but 27" isn't a new trend. It's been the vast majority of high res displays since 27" 2560x1440 displays displaced 24" 1920x1200/1080 as high end non-halo displays. The vast majority of 4k displays have been 27" since they started coming out.imaheadcase - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Never said it was a new trend, said it was a trend. Used to be monitors went 14,15,17, 20, 22, 24. Now they are stuck at 24, 27 or 32, 35, etc.JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
>27 inch trend that started>THAT STARTED
>Never said it was a new trend
I think I'm getting where you got your username now.
Lord of the Bored - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
In fairness, there's a period after started. And BY DEFINITION, any trend which is ongoing must have started.CU - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Same. I want to use all the pixel space. Not have to scale everything up larger so I can see it.JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
I use a 24" 4k at home. I have no need to scale anything up. I think I'd also be fine with a 27" 4k, but I dislike how much desk real estate ever-larger monitors take. My eyes are perfectly fine with smaller content.CU - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
You use 4K at 24" with no scaling. I am impressed. I have 20/20, but much smaller and I don't think I could see it without getting closer. I sit at arms length form from my monitor.Skeptical123 - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Even if you are happy with 24" 4k without scaling almost everyone else is not. Anecdotally I'm young and have 20/20 yet find that size and resolution to be comical to use without scaling. 27" at 1440p and 32-34" for 4k are the PPI norms for a reason. Being that what's usable for most people on windows without scalingSpunjji - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
I found 150% or 175% scaling to work best for me with the display same size and resolution. Using it at 100% is an impressive feat, but probably not practical for the majority of people.My work monitor is 24" 2560x1440 and I use that at 100% scaling. The vast majority of my colleagues set it to 150%, though.
FullmetalTitan - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
How? I have slightly better than 20/20 (thanks lasers) and I still need at least 125% scaling on a 27" to avoid eye strain. Personally I think the ideal 4K screen size for desk use is closer to 32", and wish that were the most common panel sizeJoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link
How? I dunno. Maybe the general UI elements don't need to be so large to use dynamically sized content?Like, here's the thing, why would I need to use windows display scaling at non-integer scales to make everything look fuzzy/bad? That bothers me a lot more than smaller UI elements.
What are the benefits to smaller UI elements?
More tabs are shown along the top bad of a browser.
Less vertical real estate taken up by a URL bar or the start bar. (Note: I used the minimal size Start bar icons on a 24" 1080p display before this, now I just use the standard size on a 24" 4K and it's about the same size)
Smaller X icon makes it less accidental to close windows by accident.
As far as webcontent, it's like less than a second to CTRL + Scrollwheel up to fit the content onto the browser so that there's less wasted whitespace. Web browser remembers your scaling size for that website on the future. Generally, 125% to 150% is fine for a web browser docked to 1 half of the display. Sometimes, some archaic websites you need to do 175% or 200% normal size for it to look right. Good websites you don't even need to touch since they dynamically size whether on a mobile display or on a large 4k.
Video games? Just turn off AA (4k at 24" is effectively such a dense resolution that the difference betwee AA and no AA is nigh imperceptible, but you CAN tell a huge difference in framerate) and low to mid shadows and turn off the nasty gunk like motion blur or awful blinding lighting effects like adaptive exposure. Still runs 60fps+ on modern titles. Most content on videogames scale just fine, even menus. Sometimes chat box might be small, but people are usually posting garbage on global chat so I disable it if possible anyways.
Honestly, it's not a question of "how do you see that stuff, it's so small" but moreso I don't need large UI elements to do what I need to do on my PC. And even then, most content just scales the actual content you're doing just fine to the display. Like, consider a Word document on a 1080p vs 4k screen. The document you're typing into is still the same size, it's just the ribbon buttons along the top are less in the way.
JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link
Also, technically, I fail sight tests on my right eye, but my left eye is fine, but probably not 20/20.The only thing Windows display scaling does is adjust UI element sizing which I don't care for. It's a big misunderstanding when people think high DPI monitors are only usable if you increase display scaling. You don't really need to, even on a 4k 24".
Spunjji - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
Personally I prefer the way things look on a high PPI display. I'm perfectly happy with the *size* of the display, I just want the elements occupying that space to be more detailed. I suspect this speaks to a difference in the tasks we use our monitors for.Dug - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Absolutely agree. 4k on 27" is not ideal for content creation and editing. 32" is really a benefit at 4k.Midwayman - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Honestly those monitors get too tall to be really useful. I'd rather have a curved ultrawide when it gets bigger than 27" in 16:9. I get the pixel density, but scanning up and down is distracting.imaheadcase - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
You shouldn't be scanned up and down at all, you are sitting to close.akvadrako - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
27" is perfect for 200% scaling with 4K, though 5K would be fine too. For me, 4K @ 32" means either non-integer scaling or UI elements are too large.rmm584 - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Have none of you used 4k on a 27 inch monitor? While 4k on 27 inch screen is good, I would say that 5k is the ideal resolution at that 27 inches. This is from using both the 5k imac and a 4k 27 screen for quite some time.Icehawk - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
It's definitely preference to some extent - the setup I have now I really like, 4k 32" 175% scaling as my main monitor and a 2k 27" 125% scaling monitor in Portrait mode as my secondary. I'm in my 40s with average vision, I don't enjoy squinting so these scalings work well for me but I'm sure there are folks who would think everything is a bit large.althaz - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Agreed. I have a 27" 1440p monitor and I'm after a 4k monitor to go alongside it. What I definitely don't want is lower pixel density though - I want similar pixel density in a larger display.CharonPDX - Thursday, July 4, 2019 - link
I prefer more DPI, with the OS set to a "High DPI" mode. 27" 4K is the sweet spot for me, with macOS set to "Looks like 2560x1440" or Windows set to "175%" scaling. That way, text is super-smooth while not being too small.That said, at home I have a 23.5" 4K display. On that, I have it set to "Looks like 1920x1080" / "200%", and even then, things are a *TOUCH* too small if I lean back at my desk.
clawsonj - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
I personally love the 27" 4k setup, running two of those at work right now. I'd really love 5k @27", but I can't afford that! I don't want more pixels just to have more screen space, but to have sharp text! I think interface size is about right at 27" and 1440p, so that's what I scale to on my 4k monitors -- definitely works best on MacOS, but 150% in Windows is about right too.Spunjji - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
Agreed here - when I was running Bootcamp on a 27" iMac as a daily driver, 150% scaling in Windows 10 worked beautifully.hardwickj - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
No USB-C (DP Alt Mode)? It feels like 2019 prices but w/ 2017 tech.Lord of the Bored - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
DisplayPort's a better connector than USB-C, and they carry the same signals so who cares?Tech's not changed much between 2017 and 2019. That's why we're confusing connector shapes for meaningful differences. Flash memory got a little cheaper, processors got a little faster, graphics adapters got a little more expensive... and people started mistaking a new connector for technological advancement.
Spunjji - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
Buy a USB-C to DisplayPort cable. Voila, you have a USB-C connection on your monitor - and it's less likely to fall out the back of the display.Teckk - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
What would be the ideal size and resolution for a monitor used primarily for coding (1 or more instance of IDE, browsers & 1 or 2 VM)? Also multi-monitor of 2K instead?imaheadcase - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
For coding you wouldn't care about 4k at all. Most people code with multimonitor setup anyway so text is easier to read.nicolaim - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
I disagree. I think two of these would be a great coding setup. 4K makes all text so much sharper, there's no going back once you make the switch.CU - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
I code with a 4K 32" monitor with no scaling. I use all the pixels with windows everywhere. I like it better than 2 smaller monitors.voicequal - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
"I code with a 4K 32" monitor with no scaling."Same here - 32" is really the bare minimum for 4K 100%. I was disappointed to find that 27" 4K with anti-glare was too hard to read at 100% scaling, and non-integer scaling is a blurry mess. That monitor is now relegated to 200% scaling, which gives less desktop real estate than my old 24" 1920x1200.
Teckk - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
I have 27" 2K. Maybe have to see this personally once to notice the difference before thinking of buyingDark42 - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Does it have freesync?timecop1818 - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
How can they call this shit professional if its only 350cdm?Also what happened to all the 24" 10bit 4K panels that dell & co used to use with GB/GB-R led backlight that produced proper whites without blue tint?
Dell UP2414Q has garbage firmware that freezes/crashes on every wake up from standby, and NEC & Eizo etc clones are severely overpriced.
WTB $400-500$ 4K 24" with 10bit IPS panel, 400-450+ cdm GB-R backlight, and proper displayport input (not MST crashy garbage like on Dell).
lmcd - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Windows 10's 1.5x scaling has been perfectly fine for me personally, which is all I need for my 24 inch 4K. It basically functions as a 1440p monitor, but with better video compatibility.Only app I've hated using with scaling is Oracle SQL Developer.
hanselltc - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
When the specs are the real clickbaitYouInspireMe - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
I got lucky and found a Seiki 39" 4K at Goodwill for $100. Been working fantastic as a monitor for the last year. I'm gonna cry when it breaks or wears out.jmunjr - Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - link
All my monitors are still 16:10, so moving to 16:9 is horrifying, lol. Really wish there were more options at that aspect ratio. I guess that's why many want bigger.