1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Displays 27" Resolution.

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Corky42, 29 Mar 2019.

  1. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    I've decided to retire my venerable 226bw and could really do with some advise on buying a new monitor from you fine folks as a lots changed in the last 10+ years and i keep reading conflicting information when it comes to monitors.

    I'm currently looking at 27" but i can't decide between 1080p and 1440p, i know pixel density would be lower at 1080p and apparently that causes blurry text and images, however no one seems to agree how noticeable that is, some say it's awful others that it's not noticeable.

    So what's your experience with it? I normally sit around 40cm from the screen and have started to need glasses for reading so with a 27" screen what would you go for? 1080p with blurry text and images but great FPS in games or 1440p and the opposite.
     
  2. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    14,422
    Likes Received:
    3,213
    Not so: any resolution of monitor will be pin-sharp when running at its native resolution. What you get with a lower pixel density is the ability to see individual pixels - things, at the extreme end of the spectrum, look blocky, not blurry.

    The resolution you need depends on how close you sit to the screen - which is why we have 90dpi TVs and 400dpi smartphones. The closer the screen, the higher the density - which you can achieve by increasing resolution or reducing size.

    Going for a higher resolution means you have more screen space to work in - but everything will be smaller. You can get around the latter using hi-dpi scaling options, which makes everything bigger again - but then you're paying extra for just making things look a little smoother than before.

    So, basically, the answer is "it depends." Helpful, I know(!)
     
    Corky42 likes this.
  3. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Ah, yes, blocky is what i meant, trying to juggle all things monitor'y in my head is leading to some confusion i must admit.
    That genuinely made me laugh as it perfectly sums up where i am ATM in trying to decide. :)
     
  4. bawjaws

    bawjaws Multimodder

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    4,069
    Likes Received:
    714
    Going from your old Samsung 226BW (I used to have one, and when I upgraded to a Dell U2412M IPS it was a real "WOW" moment :D ) I'd say that 27" for 1080p might be a little bit blocky - for me, 24" for 1080p is the sweet spot, and to get the same pixel density at 1440p you need to go up to 32". At 27" I'd go for 1440p rather than 1080p, personally.

    But of course, 1440p is going to be harder work in games for your GPU - it's 78% more pixels than 1080p, after all.

    I just wish there were more 16:10 displays out there. 2560 x 1600 is what I'd really like to upgrade to from my 1920 x 1200 but they're not exactly common, and rather expensive as a result :(
     
    Corky42 likes this.
  5. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    14,422
    Likes Received:
    3,213
    Samesies, although I fancied a bit more vertical so my monitor's a 24" 1920x1200.
     
  6. B1GBUD

    B1GBUD ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Accidentally Funny

    Joined:
    29 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,442
    Likes Received:
    469
    A Samsung 226BW iirc is a 1680x1050 resolution / 16:10 aspect ration panel, which means that your quite limited to choice as 16:9 is pretty much king, closely followed by ultra wide 21:9.

    Using 16:9 aspect ratio, here are the differences between sizes and their PPI (pixels per inch) or DPI (dots per inch) or just plain old pixel density, call it what you like. Using the DPI / PPI calculator you get the following:

    A 22" panel @ 1680 x 1050 is 90.05 PPI (pixels per inch)
    A 27" panel @ 1920 x 1080 is 81.59 PPI
    A 27" panel @ 2560 x 1440 is 108.79 PPI
    A 27" panel @ 3840 x 2160 is 163.18 PPI

    If I was looking at a monitor right now, my preference would be to go for a higher PPI count, but probably also look at the wider 21:9 as I still enjoy games. But then I'd probably also want IPS, 144hz or higher and G-sync..... the list goes on!
     
    Last edited: 29 Mar 2019
    Corky42 likes this.
  7. bawjaws

    bawjaws Multimodder

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    4,069
    Likes Received:
    714
    Twinsies! My Dell is also a 24" 16:10 1200p. I only really mentioned 1080p because 1200p monitors are super rare these days, as are 1600p jobbers.
     
  8. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    14,422
    Likes Received:
    3,213
    Philips Brilliance 240S1SB here, bought from Ebuyer for £221.40... Christ, nearly eight years ago. 's been a trouper, although the power button became dislodged and would spin on its axis to a point where it wouldn't work any more - until I threw a bit of Blu-tack around the periphery, and it's been fine (though a little ugly) since.
     
  9. adidan

    adidan Guesswork is still work

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    16,736
    Likes Received:
    3,125
    Personally, I find 1440p the minimum for a 27" screen but then I like smaller text.
     
  10. bawjaws

    bawjaws Multimodder

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    4,069
    Likes Received:
    714
    I think I bought mine back in 2013. It's been absolutely rock solid and I've not really been tempted to upgrade at all so far, although I would quite like a 32" 1600p screen, but such a beast doesn't seem to exist and I've got better things to spend my money on :)
     
  11. edzieba

    edzieba Virtual Realist

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    591
    Thankfully Dell are still pumping out 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 Ultrasharps.
     
  12. Fingers66

    Fingers66 Kiwi in London

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    8,678
    Likes Received:
    915
    I just upgraded this week from a Dell U2412M to an AOC Q3279VWFD8.

    Note that this model is the IPS version (note the "D" suffix) and is 32" at 2560 x 1440 - they also do an MVA model - go for an IPS.

    Like you, I wanted to upgrade the screen real estate to at least 27" but was worried that the text would be too small with a 27".

    The Dell U2412M 24" (1920x1200) has a PPI (pixels per inch) of 94.34. At 27" 2560x1440 the PPI is 103.8. A 32" at 2560x1440 has a PPI of 91.79.

    I basically find that the AOC 32" at 2560x1440 looks the same as my 24" Dell just with more "screen real estate". I don't need to scale anything.

    It also does 75Hz Freesync although I don't use that.

    My request for help thread: https://forums.bit-tech.net/index.php?threads/recommend-me-a-monitor.358973/
    Amazon page for the AOC 32Q3279VWFD8: https://www.amazon.co.uk/AOC-Q3279VWFD8-32-Monitor-LED/dp/B07CG41Y8Z
    Hexus review: https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/monitors/124574-aoc-q3279vwfd8/
    Manufacturer page: https://eu.aoc.com/en/products/q3279vwfd8

    If you can do without all the bells and whistles such as speakers, USB ports etc, its a bargain at £193 delivered (sold and dispatched by Amazon) for a quality screen.

    Edit - picture taken just now...
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 29 Mar 2019
    Corky42 likes this.
  13. bawjaws

    bawjaws Multimodder

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    4,069
    Likes Received:
    714
    Aye, although when I last looked on Dell's website, the only 2560x1600 monitor they had was a cool £1,300.
     
  14. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Thanks for all the answers so far everyone, I'm more in two minds than when i started, now. ;)

    I'd not considered 24" as i just thought a 2" increase wouldn't be worth much but after so many of you seem to like 24" I'm going to read some reviews, i was just dismissing that size before.

    @Fingers66, I had read your post before making this one but you decided on a 32" and i think that will be just too big for me, i think 27" is near the top end of what I'd feel comfortable using.
     
  15. adidan

    adidan Guesswork is still work

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    16,736
    Likes Received:
    3,125
    On my phone so forgive me if I missed it but what GPU are you using @Corky42 ?

    That may tip you one way or the other.

    I went from a 206bw (your 226bw's younger sibling in the loft - i still have a soft spot for it), to a 1680x1050 22" before onto my 27" 1440p.

    22 to 27 isn't as overly big a jump as you may think, I know I thought it may be.
     
  16. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    13,044
    Likes Received:
    1,309
    I'd echo this, I made the same change and even on first use, the move from 22 to 27 never felt "big" - more like moving from a bit small, to just right.
    On the other hand, jump from 27 to 32 still feels big, even two years later.

    27 is the sweet spot IMO.
     
  17. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    @adidan The GPU is currently undecided, it will probably be whatever's in the £300-500 range around the time Ryzen 3 is released or before the end of the year.

    My first thought was a 27" Freesync (non-TN) monitor in either 1080 or 1440p but after a week of reading reviews, recommendations, and everything in-between I'm still no closer to an answer, i think I'll do what Mr Halfacree's alluded to and take a trip to PCWorld or some place with monitors on display and see what 1080p on a 27" looks like.
     
  18. spolsh

    spolsh Multimodder

    Joined:
    4 Feb 2012
    Posts:
    1,049
    Likes Received:
    315
    I'll echo Fingers66 in this one - 32" sounds like it'll be too big, but it's actually a really nice size, and the AOC really is a nice monitor - Q3279VWFD8 is a lot nicer than the original version - Q3279VWF. A lot of monitor for the money.
     
  19. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    I've not even managed to decide on the resolution yet, let along the screen size. :)

    I'm leaning towards 1080p due to the lower demand on hardware / higher frame rates but IDK how bad the blockyness would be on a 27". :confused:
     
  20. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    12,133
    Likes Received:
    2,003
    Frame rate, if you have a reasonable GPU, can be lower at 1080p dependent on your CPU. I use low clocked high core count xeons and I did a test with FC New Dawn and Division 2 using my Alienware 25" 1080p running at native first, then VSR to 1440p.

    At 1080p my mins were terrible, max fantastic. At 1440p I got 12fps more min, but max was about 30% lower. However at 1440p the experience was much better as the drops were bad and caused stutter.

    A lot of people don't understand "optimal" resolutions very well and pour loads of money down the drain on cards too powerful for purpose.

    Personally I would go 24" 1080p or 27" 1440p. Mostly as I used to have a 1080p 27" monitor and it was a bit fuzzy. Well not so much fuzzy, more the textures looked a bit poo.
     
    Corky42 likes this.

Share This Page