Monitor recommendations

[Waldorf]

couple of screem makers on the planet, most brands dont make the actual screen, and times in the past multiple brands have used the same panel, while not getting the same rating/reviews.

when i got my previous 32 QHD ("prosumer"), the identical one from Dell cost more and was "behind" the Asus/BenQ equivalenti reviews/tests.

i still prefer anything non ips.
to me they look like the typical samsung tv with oversaturated and/or incorrect skin color/tones.
AMVA+ for me, if its not oled, but havent looked at Details of any minileds im interested in.

 

[AleXXX666]

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.?

I'd like to add my 2 pences here, that's the thing where I've tried "this and that" like A LOT.
So.
I think I have rather "normal" vision. Yes, maybe a little worse than it was some years ago, but, still. I am also nowadays very concerned about SAVING my vision at least on same "good" grade. What I do - mess up always with screens brightness AND scaling too. When I am at work, 9-5 routines, for what sake I should strain my eyes to stare at 24" 1080p at 100%? Back days I was laughing why some co-worker uses like 125% on 1080p 24". Now I understand. I can see PERFECTLY text at 27" 4K (27" 1440p is EZ asf) from "arm distance". Hence, eyes will work HARD. So, instead, I could put some scaling on and let my eyes RELAX. I won't be paid 2x my salary if I strain my eyes more than I "want". The "productivity" isn't affected like, "a lot" by using zoom and scrolling. For REAL PRODUCTIVITY, I worked some time ago from home using my 27" 4K monitor. That's where, no matter of scaling factor, you could do MUCH MORE than on timy 24" 1080p display.
And, why I am telling all that BS? Because you put in example 32" 4K screen. That's the whole another game I VERY BELIEVE. 27" could be "usable" with 4K at 100% only for specific/or short time use-case. It's also PERFECT for "media consumption" (especially I loved watching photos & native 4K videos there!!). But, for 32, it's the whole different ball game.
Let's compare the PPI too:

Spoiler

Not hard to guess, we consider ~91 and ~108 PPI "easily viewable", I tell you I could use 27" 4K ~163 PPI without a problem, though, the monitor was very close to me, not thing I use at work. So, the 32" 4K should be "perfectly balanced" here.

 

[Deleted member 245263]

@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.

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.

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"?

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?

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.

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?

whatever,

i even tried to watch those reviews.

the worst was this guy: - he makes benchmarks - 32gb vs 64gb- , but one laptop is 14" and the other is 16".. fills 32GB with browser tabs before starting benchmarks. He has milion subs on yt

@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).



View attachment 397350

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

you felt better posting some synthetic benchamarks?

again - its how i wrote - burning money on this only gives a couple FPS more in games - in production the improvenments are even less noticable.

"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."

 

[Waldorf]

@fevgatos
i used it so i can do a stock vs tweaked comparison.
cant tell why you keep are guing about facts: higher clocks until you reach 1:1 ratio with IF will make a difference.
or do you want to tell me that moving ~15GB/s LESS for ram read/write/copy (at stock) will not impact system perf? right.

ignoring that doesnt even look at lower perf from slower ccd/ccx communication.


and if there is zero difference, with major review sites seen the same, why not list something here, that supports your argument (clock/timing change, not the "gaming" part) right from the start?

 

[Deleted member 245263]

@fevgatos
or do you want to tell me that moving ~15GB/s LESS for ram read/write/copy (at stock) will not impact system perf? right.

idk what are you doing with your rams, i skipped ddr4, i changed from ddr3 to ddr5. Im happy for your transfer rates.

Regarding DDR5 gaming rams - it is exactly what im saying - you maybe gained 3% FPS in some game. In productivity tasks 0-1%. Get over it. Stop posting synthetic transfer rates benchmarks. You wasted more time tuning this than you will ever gain.

 

[Endymio]

Another option would be the ASUS PA278CGV. Somewhat more expensive but it seems a notch bette

I have three of these, and the color rendition and text sharpness is phenomenal. For your intended application(s), I'd recommend them highly.

 

[Sol_Badguy]

@Todestrieb

Thanks.
Yes I've also read those reviews and arrived at about the same conclusions.
Each has its strengths (and weaknesses), for me specifically probably the ASUS is a better fit, as you said if in the end the monitor is good then being somewhat overpriced can be forgiven.
Assuming about $50/€50 usual street price difference between these two, it could be a coin toss for some people in my opinion.

I see that "dell u2724d vs asus pa278cgv" gives a good amount of reddit results, I've read them, goes to show that many people would like these reviewed by the same site in order to have an apples-to apples comparison. And as always no one rises to the occasion.

@Endymio

Thank you, I'll take that into consideration.

I'd like to add my 2 pences here

Very helpful, thank you.
It goes to show it's still up for debate, if one has the money for a quality 32" 2160p and also he tests it and is comfortable using it, it's absolutely ideal.

@fevgatos

I know and I am just as dissapointed by the lack of realistic RAM capacity videos.
Doing a "torture test" is probably relevant to a minority of power users, few ordinary people do such heavy multi-tasking on a PC.

Spoiler

There are channels with a lot of resources that only make teasers rather than in-depth videos, like Linus and his LMG corporation.
Even though he admitted in one of the videos I posted that testing rigs are not the same as regular user PCs because they don't have other stuff/junk running in the background, and he also mentioned gamers that stream and have a chat app open, also listen to music etc. he and his staff seem unable/unwilling to replicate that scenario, even though they have all of the necessary resources: hardware, staff and financial ones (by the look of it they're almost shoveling money).
The best video we probably got from him is this:

What should've followed is a gaming/streaming session video, with chatting, listening to music, having a lot of stuff open at the same time (but realistic not overboard just for the sake of it) and show people (serious gamers) what kind of resources that scenario requires.
Also for productivity, he has editors, how hard can it be for them to record their editing session and show what kind of resources does a xyz size file with xyz resolution and xyz effects and such require?
But going back to the LMG revenue video, maybe I have too high demands from basically screwdriver salesmen and actors. That's how they make the most of their revenue, why should I expect high quality, in-depth, professional hardware/software videos from them?

 

[Waldorf]

@fevgatos
"productivity" looks different for many, and has no specific definition for me.
as long as you keep going back and forth arguing, instead of showing/listing just 2-3 sites that support your argument, and i wouldnt be responding for a while already.

the minute of online search showed with things like cinebench/handbrake, test results increased with higher clocks on ddr5, scaling from low to high more or less parallel to clock.
i can use my editing/encoding stuff with tweaked ram on power savings profile (max cpu clock 50%) without any stutter, while using stock i have to go with full clock speed on cpu.
yeah, i gained more (either in perf for things like games, or able to use a lower power state on my rig when doing other things, saving money on electricity)
time spend tweaking (1 min doing settings, 24h of testing dont require me sitting in front of it, so zero time wasted.

but its fine, used to it.
+10y of waiting for ppl to name a single "study" with statistically relevant data (randomized; blind; at least 2500 units involved), that shows that water cooling is less reliable than air cooling

 

[Deleted member 245263]

@fevgatos
"productivity" looks different for many, and has no specific definition for me.
as long as you keep going back and forth arguing, instead of showing/listing just 2-3 sites that support your argument, and i wouldnt be responding for a while already.

the minute of online search showed with things like cinebench/handbrake, test results increased with higher clocks on ddr5, scaling from low to high more or less parallel to clock.
i can use my editing/encoding stuff with tweaked ram on power savings profile (max cpu clock 50%) without any stutter, while using stock i have to go with full clock speed on cpu.
yeah, i gained more (either in perf for things like games, or able to use a lower power state on my rig when doing other things, saving money on electricity)
time spend tweaking (1 min doing settings, 24h of testing dont require me sitting in front of it, so zero time wasted.

but its fine, used to it.
+10y of waiting for ppl to name a single "study" with statistically relevant data (randomized; blind; at least 2500 units involved), that shows that water cooling is less reliable than air cooling

 

[AleXXX666]

@fevgatos

I know and I am just as dissapointed by the lack of realistic RAM capacity videos.
Doing a "torture test" is probably relevant to a minority of power users, few ordinary people do such heavy multi-tasking on a PC.

Spoiler

There are channels with a lot of resources that only make teasers rather than in-depth videos, like Linus and his LMG corporation.
Even though he admitted in one of the videos I posted that testing rigs are not the same as regular user PCs because they don't have other stuff/junk running in the background, and he also mentioned gamers that stream and have a chat app open, also listen to music etc. he and his staff seem unable/unwilling to replicate that scenario, even though they have all of the necessary resources: hardware, staff and financial ones (by the look of it they're almost shoveling money).
The best video we probably got from him is this:

What should've followed is a gaming/streaming session video, with chatting, listening to music, having a lot of stuff open at the same time (but realistic not overboard just for the sake of it) and show people (serious gamers) what kind of resources that scenario requires.
Also for productivity, he has editors, how hard can it be for them to record their editing session and show what kind of resources does a xyz size file with xyz resolution and xyz effects and such require?
But going back to the LMG revenue video, maybe I have too high demands from basically screwdriver salesmen and actors. That's how they make the most of their revenue, why should I expect high quality, in-depth, professional hardware/software videos from them?

regarding RAM, though, I'm more "home" rather than "server" user, I SUGGEST that for "media editing" these days (especially considering 1080p if I'm not mistaken??) 32 GB will be "start point", then 48 GB (thanks to DDR5 "odd" kits) like "mid-grade" and 64 GB as "absolute maximum" (remark, for 1080p content editing only!).
I would recommend using Nvidia GPU too, choose RTX geforce/maybe "good used" Quadro RTX if available.

"fine tuning" RAM are for "youtubers show-off" mostly. I won't believe any PROFESSIONAL grade "tech company" will GUARANTEE you STABLE work involving "RAM tweak", lol.
random "hey, i'm a PC repair guy!" will tweak you cheapo crap green sticks and tell you "look, you rather pay me more $$$ than buying HIGHER SPEED RAM".