Monitor SIZE vs Pixel Density

[Dalkamyr]

Question about how to pick a monitor:

I owned an Asus 24 inch 1920x1080 monitor in the past and now I have a catleap yamakasi 27 inch 2560x1440. I'm sitting at the same distance I was with the Asus monitor. Which is about 3 feet, possibly 3 feet and a half.

Now I can't really explain why but somehow my 27 inch monitor often feels too big of a screen size for me. I find that 24 inch was the sweet spot in terms of screen size. The 27 inch's saving grace us it's 1440p res.

I did a little bit it of reading about pixel density and here's what I've found:

Right now there are 24 to 34 inch monitors out there ranging from 1080p to 4k resolution.

I've found a Dell monitor which is 3840x2160 with a 24 inch size. As far as I know that's the best size/res I can get (until 8k monitors become the norm and gpus can provide decent frames for it)

I've also found 34 inch monitors that run 3840x1440 resolution... Am I right in assuming this might end up being a "lesser" experience for the eyes?

What do you think about my current monitor (27 inch 2560x1440) vs what I should have?

(I'm purchasing a gtx 980 ti tomorrow and intend to buy a second one somewhere down the road)

EDIT: is there such a thing as a 24 inch 120hz+ 1440p monitor?

 

[Aezay]

First off, you can use this site to calculate pixel density, pixels per inch:
https://www.sven.de/dpi/

1920x1080, 24" = 92 PPI
2560x1440, 27" = 109 PPI
I personally prefer around 95-100 PPI.
A higher PPI makes thing appear smaller, a lower PPI makes things appear larger.

Note: As I only have a 24" monitor at 1920 x 1200, I may lack some experience to talk about this.

For gaming, a higher pixel density is definitely better. It makes aliasing less noticeable, and you can in my opinion completely avoid using any AA. However, this high pixel density often means you have to increase your text size, change the OS DPI setting, and use zoom in your browser. Otherwise, text will be too small. It may also cause the UI/text in certain games to appear small. Because of this, a lower pixel density may be preferred for web browsing and general UI stuff.

There are pros and cons to pretty much any aspect of a monitor, and pixel density is one of them, although not talked about very much.

 

[Aquinus]

(I'm purchasing a gtx 980 ti tomorrow and intend to buy a second one somewhere down the road)

Is there any reason why you're not waiting for Fury to hit the market so prices might be lower on that 980 Ti? I'm curious because I'm looking at a new GPU and I'm waiting for the sake of my wallet and for the sake of reviews.

 

[Devon68]

Well if you say you find the 27" too big why not stick with your 24". Maybe get a 24" 120 or 144 Hz monitor since you will have all that horse power.

 

[Vayra86]

If you can make do with less pixels, do so, because it will have positive effect on the overall cost, power usage and future proofing of your system.

In my opinion pixel density is overrated to a certain degree. 'Enough is enough'. Especially if you aren't gaming to look at pretty pictures, but to actually play games, after a half hour of play you really won't notice whether you play on 1440p or 2160p.

 

[Aquinus]

If you can make do with less pixels, do so, because it will have positive effect on the overall cost, power usage and future proofing of your system.

In my opinion pixel density is overrated to a certain degree. 'Enough is enough'. Especially if you aren't gaming to look at pretty pictures, but to actually play games, after a half hour of play you really won't notice whether you play on 1440p or 2160p.

This. Usually you choose between "pwning n00bs", in which case it's more advantageous to have a higher refresh display, or you want to be mesmerized by the clarity of the image where the experience is more important than "having an edge and always wanting to win." Personally, I prefer IQ over refresh. An IPS display alone will go a long way in terms of color reproduction and viewing angles. I feel the color reproduction on my S2340Ms is better than everything I have except for maybe the MBP I have for work. Granted, I use my computer for other tasks more often than gaming but, when I game, I like it to look nice.

So question for the OP: What is it that you want out of your computer? To be in awe or to kick ass? Not to say you can't be in awe and kick ass at the same time, it's just that it's important to know which one you think is more important because the IQ versus refresh question really falls on that question. Beyond that, it comes down to just finding decent hardware.

 

[vgm]

Is this a good monitor BenQ XL2430T 144Hz 24.0" Monitor for $379?

 

[qubit]

For gaming, a higher pixel density is definitely better. It makes aliasing less noticeable, and you can in my opinion completely avoid using any AA. However, this high pixel density often means you have to increase your text size, change the OS DPI setting, and use zoom in your browser. Otherwise, text will be too small. It may also cause the UI/text in certain games to appear small. Because of this, a lower pixel density may be preferred for web browsing and general UI stuff.

I don't have the best eyesight, so what would work for me is to have a 27" 4K monitor for gaming, but use it at 2K on the desktop. It's critical that the scaler doesn't anti-alias the image in 2K mode of course, yet still fill the screen, which would give a perfect 2K image. I think that BenQ monitors are good for this, but don't quote me.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

The larger/smaller thing is only an issue with desktop use at native res, or in the few high res games that aren't HUD adjusted. Most 4k games are now.

I use this site and go by the actual mm size of the pixels themselves.

http://thirdculture.com/joel/shumi/computer/hardware/ppicalc.html

Monitors first started getting tight pixel pitch when 2560x1600 30" displays came out, which were around .25 pixel pitch. You can easily compensate size of text and objects in desktop use by just setting desktop res lower. Latter Windows versions also have font and icon scaling, but it doesn't really work holistically. Files and folders are still fine print.

If you sit as close as 3' away, a higher res will be easier on the eyes, with the added plus of less or no AA required to smooth edges. A res of 3840x2160 on a 24" display is insanely tight, just under .14 mm. You probably wouldn't need any AA. Just make sure you have the GPU power to drive it. 4K is typically a thing you run with SLI/Crossfire.

 

[Sebastien]

For gaming, a higher pixel density is definitely better.

I have a 19" (1440x900, 89.37 PPI) pc monitor and a 32" (1920x1080, 68.84 PPI) hdtv. Which one would you suggest I use if I am gaming at a desk? I like the 19" monitor as the image is sharper despite the resolution being lower. I like to use keyboard and mouse for gaming, and I also program a lot. Is pixel density more important than resolution when it comes to image quality? I know that the lower the pixel density due to screen size the more you have to increase the sitting distance.

 

[qubit]

I have a 19" (1440x900, 89.37 PPI) pc monitor and a 32" (1920x1080, 68.84 PPI) hdtv. Which one would you suggest I use if I am gaming at a desk? I like the 19" monitor as the image is sharper despite the resolution being lower. I like to use keyboard and mouse for gaming, and I also program a lot. Is pixel density more important than resolution when it comes to image quality? I know that the lower the pixel density due to screen size the more you have to increase the sitting distance.

There's a certain amount of preference here, so no absolute right answer, but I reckong the higher resolution is always better and a 32" TV gives a nice panoramic view (I had one for a short time). The only thing with a TV, is that the motion blur is likely going to be much more significant than with a monitor, especially a TN one which will make any kind of motion look horribly smeared out, especially panning shots.

Basically, try them both out and see which one you're more comfortable with.

 

[Sebastien]

There's a certain amount of preference here, so no absolute right answer, but I reckong the higher resolution is always better and a 32" TV gives a nice panoramic view (I had one for a short time). The only thing with a TV, is that the motion blur is likely going to be much more significant than with a monitor, especially a TN one which will make any kind of motion look horribly smeared out, especially panning shots.

Basically, try them both out and see which one you're more comfortable with.

Thanks for the reply. The 32" 1080p HDTV is a Toshiba and the specs say it has 8 ms of response time (the 19" pc monitor has 5 ms). I see no ghosting or lag (I turned off all the processing and have it on cinema mode with backlight on lowest). The thing is the 32" HDTV on my desk is too close to me (about 1 meter from my eyes). Besides I don't like to have everything look bigger. I have a 23" 1920x1080 pc monitor at work and that I find is the perfect size for pc gaming at a desk. I may look into getting a 27" 1440p pc monitor one day but I think my next upgrade will be a 23" 1080p pc monitor, then a new GPU with 8GB VRAM (I currently have a GTX 780 3GB).

When I sit farther away from the HDTV (about 1.40 meters) the picture looks perfect. But then I have to use a controller for gaming and I don't like switching from using a controller or keyboard depending on the game. I prefer to stick with a keyboard and mouse, and get used to that once and for all, for all games but that means sitting at a desk with a proper size pc monitor It is a matter of preference as you said.

 

[chuck216]

I recently bought a 25" 2560x1440 monitor. 117.49 PPI. Nice sharp clear picture without being too big.

 

[Sebastien]

I recently bought a 25" 2560x1440 monitor. 117.49 PPI. Nice sharp clear picture without being too big.

Nice