Scaling percent on 27 inch?

[fec32a4de]

Hello

I tried Googling but couldn't find a definitive answer - what is Windows' scaling percentage for a 27inch monitor at 2560x1440?

At 17-24inch its 100% for 1920x1080, but I want to upgrade my monitor and I'd rather not use scaling if I can avoid it.

I know I can manually set it, but is 100% at 2560x1440 comfortable at 27inch? Icons not too small, etc?

Thanks in advance!

 

[s3thra]

You can use something like PX CALC to figure out how small things will be. For example, 1920x1080 at 24" has a dot pitch of 0.2767 mm, whereas 2560x1440 at 27" has a dot pitch of 0.2335 mm, i.e. a fair amount smaller than the 24" 1080p panel.

You can then base your math on this to figure out comparable scaling sizes.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Hello

I tried Googling but couldn't find a definitive answer - what is Windows' scaling percentage for a 27inch monitor at 2560x1440?

At 17-24inch its 100% for 1920x1080, but I want to upgrade my monitor and I'd rather not use scaling if I can avoid it.

I know I can manually set it, but is 100% at 2560x1440 comfortable at 27inch? Icons not too small, etc?

Thanks in advance!

Just try it for yourself and set it how you like it.

 

[INSTG8R]

I personally use 125% scaling so it basically looks like "1080p" I definitely find 100% far to "small" Windows 7 did have some issues with scaling but Windows 10 I have never had any issues with 125%

 

[phanbuey]

If you sit very close to it, it can be fine... I like 125% scaling at 24-27" 1440P just because the fonts look better on top of being bigger, also lets you sit a bit further away from monitor which is always a plus.

 

[Kanan]

I dont use any magnification on 1440p 27", but it's a edge case. 32" would make the text a bit easier to read.

 

[BSim500]

I tried Googling but couldn't find a definitive answer - what is Windows' scaling percentage for a 27inch monitor at 2560x1440?

There's no definitive answer because it's one of those things that's highly subjective. Someone with perfect eyesight / who sits very close will say 100%, others who sit further back / have less than perfect eyesight / have simply become very used to 92ppi of 24" monitors for many years and want more of the same will find it a bit small and use 125% scaling. If you haven't already bought one, then two other options if you want 92ppi sized text of 1080p @ 24" is either 1440p @ 32", or a 29" 2560x1080 Ultrawide, both of which maintain roughly the same 92ppi as 1080p @ 24" so everything remains the same size. I bought a 32"/1440p and have zero regrets. Aside from a larger screen being more immersive in games, keeping at 92ppi is also a lot friendlier to many older games with non-scaling UI's that were hard-coded to that "industry standard" for years.

 

[Wirko]

I have used 125% scaling since I can remember, which means on Windows XP and probably before. Had very few or no issues in Windows UI itself; but the behaviour of applications was somewhere between bad (no scaling at all) and horrible (only certain parts of dialog windows magnified, or all parts magnified but not the window).

The pixel density, in my case, has been 94 ppi on LCDs and ~90 ppi on CRT screens.

 

[TheLostSwede]

I use 125% on 4K, no scaling on 1440p.

 

[Vayra86]

At 110-120 DPI and normal view distance you can get away with 100% scaling, but YMMV, everyone is different. Also: give it a week or two, most people adjust to it fine.

Compared to 1080p/24in you get about 25% extra pixel density so things will go a bit smaller. Thats 90 ish DPI.

But you also have extra screen real estate; bumping to 125% is going to get you a similar situation to 1080p/24inch.

 

[OliverQueen]

I use 150% at 2160p on my 28" panels. I did try 125% but I found myself leaning in to read things a lot of the time. 150% is a lot more comfortable size to read without having to lean forward. 150% is about the same as 100% at 1080p on my old 24" panels was.