Monitor recommendations

[Sol_Badguy]

Hello.

I'm almost decided on which monitor I should get but it never hurts asking for other opinions.
So the TL;DR is that after researching various articles/videos discussing this subject, also details like the correlation of the distance from the monitor and the diagonal + resolution which determine PPI, the viewing angle and the pixel density per degree etc. I came to the conclusion that a 27" 1440 monitor is the best for me.

Usage will be productivity so to speak, video editing, some photo editing as well, and I will delve as much as I can into AI stuff, like Topaz upscaling, image generation (Hollywood celebrities eating spaghetti and such), also some 3D/CAD modeling/rendering. No gaming.
Also from time to time I will be viewing some movies on my PC. I figured that if I watch 1080p movies and I back away a bit from the monitor the image quality will still be good.
It's clear that I cannot afford a QD-OLED monitor so I'll have to settle for something more modest. Like an IPS.

Okay so my initial option was the Dell U2724D. It's not cheap (compared to an usual budget gaming monitor) but the info I found suggested it might be pretty good for me (at least from my understanding). There's also the U2724DE which has extra connectivity but otherwise is the same, and this one is apparently getting more attention online so there's more info for this particular one (but I figured that display/panel test results apply to both).
Unfortunately it's not reviewed on rtings (yet), I would have liked a review there simply due to easier comparisons with other monitors tested using the same methods.
Another option would be the ASUS PA278CGV. Somewhat more expensive but it seems a notch better. Unfortunately this one also isn't reviewed on rtings (yet).
Price-wise the cheapest offer for U2724D is currently 320 €, (it was 300 € a few days ago, but me being an idiot I missed that opportunity).
The PA278CGV is 342 € so now there is a smaller price gap between the two. 3-year warranty for both.
Another possible option would be the AOC Q27G3XMN, reviewed here. This one is 336 €.
It's a gaming monitor (with a VA panel nonetheless) but from the test it seems it has the chops for productivity as well. Kind of like the Dell G2724D but even better.

Seems I am somewhat stuck, any help would be appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[AleXXX666]

Hello.

I'm almost decided on which monitor I should get but it never hurts asking for other opinions.
So the TL;DR is that after researching various articles/videos discussing this subject, also details like the correlation of the distance from the monitor and the diagonal + resolution which determine PPI, the viewing angle and the pixel density per degree etc. I came to the conclusion that a 27" 1440 monitor is the best for me.

Usage will be productivity so to speak, video editing, some photo editing as well, and I will delve as much as I can into AI stuff, like Topaz upscaling, image generation (Hollywood celebrities eating spaghetti and such), also some 3D/CAD modeling/rendering. No gaming.
Also from time to time I will be viewing some movies on my PC. I figured that if I watch 1080p movies and I back away a bit from the monitor the image quality will still be good.
It's clear that I cannot afford a QD-OLED monitor so I'll have to settle for something more modest. Like an IPS.

Okay so my initial option was the Dell U2724D. It's not cheap (compared to an usual budget gaming monitor) but the info I found suggested it might be pretty good for me (at least from my understanding). There's also the U2724DE which has extra connectivity but otherwise is the same, and this one is apparently getting more attention online so there's more info for this particular one (but I figured that display/panel test results apply to both).
Unfortunately it's not reviewed on rtings (yet), I would have liked a review there simply due to easier comparisons with other monitors tested using the same methods.
Another option would be the ASUS PA278CGV. Somewhat more expensive but it seems a notch better. Unfortunately this one also isn't reviewed on rtings (yet).
Price-wise the cheapest offer for U2724D is currently 320 €, (it was 300 € a few days ago, but me being an idiot I missed that opportunity).
The PA278CGV is 342 € so now there is a smaller price gap between the two. 3-year warranty for both.
Another possible option would be the AOC Q27G3XMN, reviewed here. This one is 336 €.
It's a gaming monitor (with a VA panel nonetheless) but from the test it seems it has the chops for productivity as well. Kind of like the Dell G2724D but even better.

Seems I am somewhat stuck, any help would be appreciated.

Thank you.

AOC - budget stuff, let the "gamers" use that.
ASUS - OVERPRICE.
Dell U - same, overprice.
Though I like Dell. P Series only the most. I suggest you Dell P2723D. If you could find some S-series Dells too - get it. It's a little budget side - but not that "crap" like Dell E-series cheap BS.

 

[Deleted member 245263]

Usage will be productivity so to speak, video editing, some photo editing as well, and I will delve as much as I can into AI stuff, like Topaz upscaling, image generation (Hollywood celebrities eating spaghetti and such), also some 3D/CAD modeling/rendering. No gaming.

Arrow Lake Z890 board + RAM

Hello. Okay so it seems like I need to pull trigger pretty soon or else I'll be stuck in this procrastination limbo that will result in some serious regrets down the line. Right so I'm almost convinced that I should go with 265K + Z890 + 48 GB 7200 MT/s instead of 7950X + X870E + 64 GB 6000...

www.techpowerup.com

what?
you plan to spend so much on a silly atx board and gaming ram to hook it to 27" wqhd for supposed productivity pc?

you want at least 2 wqhd monitors or one 4k. dont buy atx it makes no sense in 2025 unless you need 5 onboard nvmes. good cpu wont hurt, but you are gaining very little with gaming rams.

 

[_roman_]

What's wrong with WHQD and 27". I use the same with a machine which is as of now overbuild.

your suggested asus monitor looks a bit different as my asus proart PA278QV. I'm very happy with it. I bought it only for the specs.

Only advice: check for bad pixels. I should have used those webpages which cycle through to see dead pixels. For some reason i have now one stuck green pixel which developed over the time - which sometimes is shown.

I bought the asus as most ohter monitors are crap in regards of what green they show vs the picture source. A factory calibrated monitor with calibration sheet is something else as the consumer e-waste

#3 You wrote 3d modelling. Check if your desired Software and operating system is able to scale. Also check if two monitors make sense.

You know the usual viewing distance, ppi and the other stuff. I would not recommend fake 4k resolution with 27" for every purpose.

hint: you may check how many future processor that intel mainboard will support. If you intend to not build it yourself and never upgrade the processor you may go for the intel solution. some other page claimed that intel mainboard will not support future processor generations from intel.

 

[Shrek]

I have a Dell P2416D (2560 x 1440) which I really like and while it is end-of-life, it can be got for just over $100 second-hand (on ebay)

 

[Deleted member 245263]

What's wrong with WHQD and 27". I use the same with a machine which is as of now overbuild.

27" wqhd is great, 4k should be obv bigger 32". sorry if it wasnt clear.

 

[Macro Device]

If you're like me and absolutely need your monitor to be at least a meter away from the eyes don't go 1440p. At least at 27 inches. That'll hurt.

I would go 4K. Especially since gaming is no concern. You get equal real estate but 4K will provide better detail and smoother fonts.

 

[GerKNG]

It's a gaming monitor (with a VA panel nonetheless)

out of experience and extensive usage. please... stay away from ANY VA Panel that is not a (800€+) High END! Samsung Panel.
Any other Panel is a awful and barely usable smeary mess.

 

[Sol_Badguy]

AOC - budget stuff, let the "gamers" use that.
ASUS - OVERPRICE.
Dell U - same, overprice.
Though I like Dell. P Series only the most. I suggest you Dell P2723D. If you could find some S-series Dells too - get it. It's a little budget side - but not that "crap" like Dell E-series cheap BS.

Well there's a reason "ASUS tax" was coined, so I agree.
That P2723D is available at 252 € but I'm not going with 60Hz in 2025. P2725D at 268 € seems like a better choice at this cheaper level. S2725DS at 200 € seems like a decent budget choice.

Highest Refresh Rate Monitor: Do You Need It For Your Usage?

Monitors have a wide range of refresh rates, from 60Hz to over 500Hz. But what refresh rate is best for you?

www.rtings.com

Of particular interest for me were the office work, content consumption and editing chapters where the 120Hz refresh rate seems like a very good choice, that's why I was drawn to the U2724D. I agree that it may very well be overpriced for it what offers but if it's good then I wouldn't lose sleep about forking some extra money for it.

what?
you plan to spend so much on a silly atx board and gaming ram to hook it to 27" wqhd for supposed productivity pc?

you want at least 2 wqhd monitors or one 4k. dont buy atx it makes no sense in 2025 unless you need 5 onboard nvmes. good cpu wont hurt, but you are gaining very little with gaming rams.

I will add extra monitors when the workflow demands it not before.

Spoiler

I don't like small FF boards, I never did.
Gaming RAM in what sense? The fact that it has XMP/EXPO profile and has heatsinks?
Non-K CPU saves me like 5-10 € and 265F like 20-25 €, but I want the iGPU. Also going with a smaller FF, budget chipset (B860M) would save me I don't know like 110 € at the most. And what does that money (120 € at the most) actually get me that would make the new config so much better?
At least with that combo I have access to OC (not necessarily the 200S Boost feature recently announced but replicate it manually) if at one point I decide to squeeze out more performance.
Also it's better to have some extra features in case I will need them. Also not worry about the number of lanes, lane switching and all that crap.

your suggested asus monitor looks a bit different as my asus proart PA278QV. I'm very happy with it. I bought it only for the specs.

Only advice: check for bad pixels. I should have used those webpages which cycle through to see dead pixels. For some reason i have now one stuck green pixel which developed over the time - which sometimes is shown.

I bought the asus as most ohter monitors are crap in regards of what green they show vs the picture source. A factory calibrated monitor with calibration sheet is something else as the consumer e-waste

#3 You wrote 3d modelling. Check if your desired Software and operating system is able to scale. Also check if two monitors make sense.

You know the usual viewing distance, ppi and the other stuff. I would not recommend fake 4k resolution with 27" for every purpose.

hint: you may check how many future processor that intel mainboard will support. If you intend to not build it yourself and never upgrade the processor you may go for the intel solution. some other page claimed that intel mainboard will not support future processor generations from intel.

PA278QV is an older model, CV is an updated version and the CGV is a further update of the CV. It's obviously the most expensive, the CV is only a little cheaper, the QV is 2/3 of the price. I have no idea how much progress there is with regards to picture quality. But as an extra that higher refresh rate is what lured me. Both are reviewed over at rtings (though with the older methdology).
A quote from the CV review:
"It competes alongside monitors with similar features, like the Dell U2724D and the BenQ PD2705Q."
That BenQ is available at 278 €, too bad about the refresh rate.

Spoiler

I don't expect LGA1851 to be continued, I would actually be surprised if it did, but I am perfectly fine with that. I've tried different configurations for this level of performance and the result is always the same, the 265K platform wins (price to performance). Sure there is some wiggle room like saving some money when going with a 14700K platform (for me the negatives outweigh the positives) and there is also the option of going for that extra muscle with 7950X + 64 GB for more money (the extra performance is the sole reason not upgrade path as I would completely change the platform after say 5-6 years).

If you're like me and absolutely need your monitor to be at least a meter away from the eyes don't go 1440p. At least at 27 inches. That'll hurt.

I would go 4K. Especially since gaming is no concern. You get equal real estate but 4K will provide better detail and smoother fonts.

The distance is 70-80 cm.
Going with 4K even outside of gaming forces me to edit in higher resolution than 1080p thus everything will need more resources, storage, compute everything. Every content I consume will need to be higher quality otherwise it won't look as good, so basically the initial choice forces me to hunt for the best of everything visually down the line in order to justify the initial investment.
I can always scale up if at one point I feel 1440p doesn't cut it anymore (and keep that display as secondary), but I would probably never scale down from 4K 32".

out of experience and extensive usage. please... stay away from ANY VA Panel that is not a (800€+) High END! Samsung Panel.
Any other Panel is a awful and barely usable smeary mess.

Roger that!
If I had that sort of money I would get something like the MSI 271QRX and call it a day. But since I don't... I'll stick with IPS then.

 

[Macro Device]

everything will need more resources, storage, compute everything

I recently swapped a 1080p for a 4K. Minimal impact outside gaming.

 

[Sol_Badguy]

@Macro Device

From the videos I've watched on YT the requirements for video editing 4K are clearly higher than for 1080p. RAM and all of that. I've seen videos of multitasking with several programs open and the larger the files (photo/video) the more taxing it is. Even if the CPUs weren't flagships they still carried it but the RAM was the most critical resource and often 32 GB setups ended up memory swapping.

Also if I'm discussing downloading some movies, 4K is going to be 4 times larger than 1080p (assuming identical bit/pixel). That means it takes 4 times longer to download (assuming the same download speed) and it takes 4 times the storage space (forcing me to upscale the storage, including my future plan for a NAS). And if I'm getting into TBW it means it chews up the SSD lifespan 4 times quicker. And in the end does it look 4 times better?

So maybe I'm using poor people reasoning/arguments but I prefer it that way instead of jumping in the deep end from the start.

 

[Macro Device]

You're thinking like owning a 4K display obliges you to only produce and consume 4K content. No it doesn't. You can watch movies at 1080p no problem (it still will be better than on a 1440p display because the scaling is integer), you can work with lower resolution photos/videos etc. There's no reason to go all-in.

 

[Deleted member 245263]

I don't like small FF boards, I never did.

What is the mechanism behind liking or disliking a certain motherboard form factor? It's just an electronic component. One makes more sense than the other depending on the application. There’s nothing to "like" here. You only have so many PCIe lanes, and SLI is no longer a thing.

I think you’re simply rationalizing the purchase of something that builds a certain comfort zone.

Gaming RAM in what sense? The fact that it has XMP/EXPO profile and has heatsinks?

High clocks, low latency - thats the gaming rams. It might bring some benefits for frames/s in gaming but little gain in design and production. Face it. CPU, GPU, screen real estate is way more important.

Non-K CPU saves me like 5-10 € and 265F like 20-25 €, but I want the iGPU. Also going with a smaller FF, budget chipset (B860M) would save me I don't know like 110 € at the most. And what does that money (120 € at the most) actually get me that would make the new config so much better?
At least with that combo I have access to OC (not necessarily the 200S Boost feature recently announced but replicate it manually) if at one point I decide to squeeze out more performance.
Also it's better to have some extra features in case I will need them. Also not worry about the number of lanes, lane switching and all that crap.

z890m is 80% of a price of z890, if you can go 860m thats like 55% of the orginal price where i live in the EU

@Macro Device

From the videos I've watched on YT the requirements for video editing 4K are clearly higher than for 1080p. RAM and all of that. I've seen videos of multitasking with several programs open and the larger the files (photo/video) the more taxing it is. Even if the CPUs weren't flagships they still carried it but the RAM was the most critical resource and often 32 GB setups ended up memory swapping.

Also if I'm discussing downloading some movies, 4K is going to be 4 times larger than 1080p (assuming identical bit/pixel). That means it takes 4 times longer to download (assuming the same download speed) and it takes 4 times the storage space (forcing me to upscale the storage, including my future plan for a NAS). And if I'm getting into TBW it means it chews up the SSD lifespan 4 times quicker. And in the end does it look 4 times better?

So maybe I'm using poor people reasoning/arguments but I prefer it that way instead of jumping in the deep end from the start.

Please send a link to those videos. IMO, that's simply not true.

You won't utilize 32GB of RAM on a single-user workstation, even when multitasking across multiple engineering applications. Maybe if you find some production task for the PC.
When I run multiple apps on a Linux desktop, have 4GB worth of browser tabs open alongside the apps, run Windows in a VM with iGPU passthrough to handle several 3D designs, and a Home Assistant VM running, I still only reach about 25GB of RAM usage.
48GB of RAM would only make sense if I planned to run an additional Windows VM for someone else to use via Remote Desktop/streaming — but a single person wouldn't be able to actively use that many apps at once.

Also, when I turn off a 4K display, my RAM usage doesn't decrease — apps don't care.

 

[Sol_Badguy]

@Macro Device

Nobody is forcing me, but isn't it expected to go after higher quality content otherwise why get a 4K in the first place?
Good mention about the integer scaling, shows that everything has both pros and cons.
What you said is something along the lines of you can drive a Ferrari to the supermarket, it can also do 40 km/h not just 300 km/h.
A 32" 4K is going to cost more money you know, so it's not like picking the same shoes but in a different color.

What is the mechanism behind liking or disliking a certain motherboard form factor? It's just an electronic component. One makes more sense than the other depending on the application. There’s nothing to "like" here. You only have so many PCIe lanes, and SLI is no longer a thing.

I think you’re simply rationalizing the purchase of something that builds a certain comfort zone.

That's what humans do. Some people get comfort with RGB, others with a certain color theme etc. I like ATX, go figure. Shoot me for that.
It's not like there's a perfect board out there for me anyway, everything is a compromise in a general sense, for me personally yes there are some boards that are a better fit than others, but still not perfect.

High clocks, low latency - thats the gaming rams. It might bring some benefits for frames/s in gaming but little gain in design and production. Face it. CPU, GPU, screen real estate is way more important.

7200 is high clocks, really? And CL36 low latency? Not that low for that speed. That's 800 more than the rated speed for Arrow Lake which is 6400.
A lot of testers use 6000 MT/s for Ryzen 7000 CPUs even though the rated speed is 5200 (so in this case also 800 more). And for 9000 series is 5600 (400 more). Here on TPU the 9800X3D is tested with 6200 (600 more) just to shut up the naysayers.
So how exactly is 7200 such a red flag that it screams gaming and not "productivity"?

z890m is 80% of a price of z890, if you can go 860m thats like 55% of the orginal price where i live in the EU

Okay I'll indulge you with the following example.
Let's say I pick a 6400 kit (the one from my other topic) at 146 €. The 7200 is 172 € so 26 € saved. 48GB for both.
Let's also say I get the Intel 265 for 10 € less than the K.
And finally for the mobo I get ASRock B860M Steel Legend WiFi for 174 € instead of Z890 Tomahawk for 264 €. 90 € saved.
Well unless it's not too hardcore and maybe you want me to get something like ASRock B860M-H2 for 111 €.
Right so 26 +10 + 90 = 126 € saved.
That is almost as much as I need to go from ASUS PA278CGV at 342 € to LG UltraGear 32GR93U-B at 482 €.
There, happy now? Is this new config that much better? Does it look like a "productivity" system instead of a gaming one?

Please send a link to those videos. IMO, that's simply not true.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUFWalEf31w
All over the place but the more I watched the more apparent it is that it's not easy to pinpoint this as in the case of gaming benchmarks.

Also, when I turn off a 4K display, my RAM usage doesn't decrease — apps don't care.

What, I didn't mean RAM usage from the screen resolution. I meant that if I get a 4K monitor it makes sense to film in 4K, then edit 4K so larger files -> more taxing on the resources, also other stuff, for photo editing, getting larger assets whatever because I want everything to look crisp and amazing right?

 

[AleXXX666]

I have a Dell P2416D (2560 x 1440) which I really like and while it is end-of-life, it can be got for just over $100 second-hand (on ebay)

"apple retina fetish" - I got 24" 2K (oh, sorry, WQHD) - that thing is UNUSABLE at 100% scale, if you won't put your nose inside (just like toddlers watch TV lol). Sure, you could concentrate your "eagle vision" like mine, but, I do know that eyes will be tired soon and also it will impact overall your eyes vision.
Same my stupid experience goes to 27" 4K - a lot better than 24" 2K, but still - you need to make your eyes work HARD.
Don't get yourself fooled - in case you use bigger than 100% scaling factor - you WON'T get the RESOLUTION. You'll get it SHRINKED.
24" 2K goes even below "old good" 1200p by vertical in 125% scale, and for 27" 4K with 125% you get exactly 1440p - wow, pretty "smart" to pay for larger resolution, and use smaller one?

About 2nd hand - yes, Dells are very bulletproof monitors. But even they don't last eternity. So better get 2nd hand in case of very "budget-considering", otherwise, better new and cheap, than used. (I strictly disagree with same statement about cars tho, lol)

out of experience and extensive usage. please... stay away from ANY VA Panel that is not a (800€+) High END! Samsung Panel.
Any other Panel is a awful and barely usable smeary mess.

IPS only, especially for productivity!

 

[Chomiq]

Some budget minded suggestions:
Lenovo R27q-30
Gigabyte GS27Q

And VA is still a valid option since you're not gaming and you will always have some sort of backlight bleed/IPS glow with an IPS model:
AOC Q27G4XN
AOC marks their monitors with Gx where x is the gen, the one you mentioned is the G3, but mine is G4 so a newer model.

All of them should be under or around €250 mark. Lenovo is the closest in spec to the Dell you mentioned in the first post.

 

[AleXXX666]

Some budget minded suggestions:
Lenovo R27q-30
Gigabyte GS27Q

And VA is still a valid option since you're not gaming and you will always have some sort of backlight bleed/IPS glow with an IPS model:
AOC Q27G4XN
AOC marks their monitors with Gx where x is the gen, the one you mentioned is the G3, but mine is G4 so a newer model.

All of them should be under or around €250 mark. Lenovo is the closest in spec to the Dell you mentioned in the first post.

I would exclude Gigabyte from monitor manufacturers. They do "hype" with 165 Hz (over 144 "common", lol), but this concrete one:
no HEIGHT adj, HDR-"ready" only - BS for "productivity". It's pure budget "gaming" crap for "wannabe-cybersport".

 

[Chomiq]

I would exclude Gigabyte from monitor manufacturers. They do "hype" with 165 Hz (over 144 "common", lol), but this concrete one:
no HEIGHT adj, HDR-"ready" only - BS for "productivity". It's pure budget "gaming" crap for "wannabe-cybersport".

If it has VESA mount height adjustment isn't an issue if OP invests in €47.99 in monitor arm (https://www.arctic.de/en/X1-3D/AEMNT00062A) which will last him more than the monitor itself and will also help save space on the desk.
I wouldn't care about HDR unless we're talking FALD/miniLED and that would be:
- out of the budget
- probably not needed for the type of work that OP is planning.

 

[Waldorf]

@Sol_Badguy

its a lot harder to find recommendations, when we dont even know the location/market your in.

having travelled for work and forced to use a 32" @2-3ft (to watch tv), i still prefer my 50in @6ft, with the image still being bigger (and better).
ppl forget, you cant see a lot of detail on small screens, even with high res, so anytime use includes editing, go as big as you can, and calibrate (if not out of box).

for quali, i wouldnt look into res as much, as most of the time artifacts/motion issues will be more noticeable than one step lower res,
e.g. at same file size, i prefer 720p/150Mbit/10 bit/stereo over say 2160p/50Mbit/8bit/DD/DTS, not matter if movies or video content.

whatever the moni/os resolution used, has nothing to do with the res used for de/encoding/editing, same way i can drive a 1500 HP Bugatti at 50 mph/kmh,
but non 4K screens will not allow to see the "detail" the content has.

i personally have to say, look at miniLED tvs with VRR, Hisense has some, not sure on accuracy out of the box, tho.


@fevgatos
how does the cpu talk to ram or gpu? right thru the BUS.
what do you think happens when i go from stock to 1:1 clocks?

quick aida bench, only change is IF/Ram clocks (timings) to 1800/3600C16, not even running ram as specced (3600C14).

so yeah, no gains with higher clocked/better timings from "gaming" ram

 

[Ruru]

27" wqhd is great, 4k should be obv bigger 32". sorry if it wasnt clear.

My main monitor is a 27" 4K, but I somewhat agree, 1440p is fine for this size. My secondary monitor is a 32" 4K and it gives that resolution more rights.

 

[cvaldes]

I have a lightly used Dell 32" gaming monitor now five years old and still functioning well. I use a 27" LG monitor that's about seven years old as my primary monitor (for productivity tasks).

The LG replaced a 24" Dell that lasted 13 years.

When my LG dies, I will replace it with another LG or a Dell. I'm no monitor brand fanboy but as long as you don't buy the entry-level models, both LG and Dell seem to be able to put out decent products. Dell's customer service has a good reputation, always a plus.

 

[AleXXX666]

If it has VESA mount height adjustment isn't an issue if OP invests in €47.99 in monitor arm (https://www.arctic.de/en/X1-3D/AEMNT00062A) which will last him more than the monitor itself and will also help save space on the desk.
I wouldn't care about HDR unless we're talking FALD/miniLED and that would be:
- out of the budget
- probably not needed for the type of work that OP is planning.

mounting is different story.. also, $50 is non-sense for THAT.

 

[Sol_Badguy]

Okay so to clarify something.
I am not totally against the idea of a 32" 2160p monitor, so I wasn't stubborn just for the sake of it, however I have some reasonable doubts and having these doubts when paying extra is not negligible for me.
Because as I showed in an example in post #14, making this change in the same overall budget implies some sacrifices for other things.

About my reasonable doubts I've researched some more on this and here is what I found. Wall-of-text incoming!

Spoiler

There is no question that for media consumption a 32" 2160p monitor will be a better choice than 27" 1440p (bigger screen, sharper image, more immersion etc.). However that is not the primary use for me.
When doing office type of work with a lot of text/tables etc. the size of the text is smaller on the 32" 2160p than on the 27" 1440p.
Regarding comfort when reading text I think we can all agree that a 24" 1080p monitor scores very good (viewed from arm's length or so). The 27" 1440p will have slightly smaller text, and the 32" 2160p even smaller. How much smaller?
Doing a bit of math, let's say that the size (height) of the letters for some text on the 24" 1080p monitor is 3 mm high -> that is when putting the ruler next to the screen.For the 27" 1440p the same text will be 2.5 mm and for the 32" 2160p it will be 2 mm.

Now looking around on the internet regarding monitor size and resolution, pretty often one comes across the subject of scaling.
Obviously for 24" 1080p basically no one with normal vision has to use scaling, for 27" 1440p it rarely pops up, but for 32" 2160p it's definitely not rare.
Of course for 25" 1440p it's more often mentioned and especially for 27" 2160p it's almost implied that scaling has to be used. So these two particular options are totally out of the question.
Now about productivity work and screen size, more specifically work space. A 2160p (let's say 48") monitor will provide four times the area of a 1080p (let's say 24") monitor with identical sized elements, but usually (now a typical screen size comes into play) the elements are smaller, in this particular case 32" vs 24" (due to the ratio) the elements will be 2/3 of the size they appear on the 1080p monitor. That means that when viewed from the same distance, they might be too small to comfortably look at. So one solution is to get closer, that usually works, but if the screen is too large relative to the viewing distance you can't fit the whole screen in your FOV so you need to constantly move your head.
The other solution is to use scaling, and the value that's often mentioned is 125% for a 32" 2160p screen.
Again doing a bit a math and the result is that the text becomes identical in size to the 27" 1440p screen, going from 2 mm to 2.5 mm. Basically it's like superimposing the area of the 27" screen on top of the 32" monitor, everything will have the same size and there will also be some extra working space left (20% more on each axis).
But the caveat here is that the experience is not identical to the smaller monitor + 20% extra space but somewhat similar because it's partially ruined by the misalignment issues of the scaling.
Also this 125% scaling indicates that the size of the text for a 27" 1440p monitor is usually large enough to not require scaling, thus giving me more confidence in choosing this option.

No luck with trying to improvise something to make an actual comparison, unfortunately I only have two old TVs one 28" and the other 32" both HD resolution. So sitting close to them as with a PC monitor the image quality is poor. But ignoring that and strictly focusing on screen size and FOV with regard to the viewing distance (which can be adjusted somewhat), the only comparison I can make is watching news/movies, so something full-screen (the same elements are present and their actual size is dictated by the screen size, regardless of resolution), but this scenario is not relevant to the office work, program windows, menus and such.
At work I have a 27" 1080p monitor and using it for office work at about arm's length I never had a problem, with the text so large it's no surprise. With 24" 1080p that some of my colleagues use also no problem with text size. Regarding screen size and FOV for the 27" again no problem.

For actual testing sure, there are methods that some people use, like ordering two different monitors, using them for almost the entire 14-day return window, then returning the one that they don't like. I honestly don't condone this, it's not the retailer's obligation to provide "samples for testing" so to speak, but a lot of people push the boundaries and it works in their favor. Still I wouldn't risk the relation with a retailer and also there could be a certain amount withheld when giving my money back for using the monitor and reducing its value, the retailer then cannot sell it as brand new.
So in conclusion, I cannot afford the luxury to test them side-by-side and decide accordingly having first hand experience. Thus I have to rely on what info I find and sift through it trying to get to a plausible answer, something that makes the most sense.

With regards to the 27" 1440p monitor I have no doubts, I know it's a reliable option and the cost is taken into account.
The other option, the 32" 2160p monitor, requires more money (seems like 50% more to have comparable quality/specs/features etc.) and comes with the risk of not being the best fit for me.

@Waldorf

Romania, I've updated my location stats.

I agree bigger is usually better, but only if you can afford it.

@Ruru

Thanks, I'm very interested to hear your opinion about text and scaling with regards to your two monitors.

@cvaldes

I see it's 27" 4K, any thoughts on text size and scaling, do you sit very close to it etc.?

 

[Waldorf]

just example.
55
on mobile rn, havent checked pcpartpicker

 

[Todestrieb]

I'm one of the weird guys that ended up fine at 27" 4K without scaling and without actually closing up the viewing distance, but I know it's something that can't be recommended to anyone.
And I need 70% scaling when dealing with Excel files on the generic 1080p office monitor for my day job.
Yes I'm on arms length blablabla.

---

A few other thoughts:

- The ASUS model listed in OP is a ProArt model. It is supposed to be super accurate in color reproduction. It has a few color space modes that would be useful for extremely serious productions and justify some of the ProArt tax. But I would also assume if OP is that serious he would have considered the ProArt line or similar serious production monitors as the only options.
It has relatively bad contrast though.
The review I have checked is this.

-The Dell model listed should have much better contrast and black levels thanks to its IPS Black panel, It is slightly worse in color accuracy, but more than good enough for normie usage.
The review I have checked is this.

- DLDSR (on NVIDIA side) or Radeon Super Resolution (on AMD side) can be utilized to simulate the scaling on your existing displays. I have tried to simulate 8K on my 27" 4K for the lolz.
It will not do a good job at simulating text clarity / picture quality because your displays are not going to magically have more real pixels, but you get the idea.