I've used 24 inch 1080p monitors for about a decade and it looks absolutely fine when you're used to it. I got to take a look at a 1440p monitor once and it kinda ruined 1080p for me for a while but luckily the mind forgets 😁 Thanks to technologies like DLSS and FSR getting high fps on 1440p and 4K monitors is quite achievable these days so it might be time to upgrade soon.

For everything monitors related, out of all the possible informational content out their regarding them, be it youtube reviewers, blogs or reddit posts, i trust this guy the most! Hands down the most inforative channel for monitors atleast.

Got a 27" 4k monitor 6 years ago, can't use anything with less resolution now. Insane text clarity for someone who spends the entire day looking at text, also had some impressive health side-effects for me, I almost don't need to take painkillers for migraine/headache after a long day working in front of my PC, before it was a daily thing.

Great job on the spreadsheet! With the distance calculation and the way you did your formulas, I was able to easily modify it for my question about smaller displays. Thanks!!!

I currently run a 27" 1080p display and from a normal viewing distance it looks absolutely fine.

Bought a 32 inch 1080p monitor by accident a few years ago. The 1080p and the 1440p looked identical on the website, with just a 50 euro price difference. Safe to say I could see each individual pixel at 1 meter even without my glasses. The 32 inch 1440p I have now is so much better to look at it's not even funny

Excellent explanation and proof of what is useful and how we should decide on the basis of what we really need. Not just "bigger numbers = better". But I see that most only decide on basis of highest refresh rate, not picture quality.

Really nice video! I already knew all these concepts, but you presented them in such a way that kept me captivated and interested, whilst confirming my own understanding.

I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, and probably not the last. But I just wanted to mention the incredible quality of your videos. You put so much effort into these videos, and the editing and time really pays off. Breaks my heart to see this channel at 30k subs but I've been with you since 10k and I'll be with you all the way to 1mill subs and more!! Keep up the grind, it's really going to pay off man. Have a good day!

I'm waiting for the arrival of 24" 1440p gaming monitors

Since this is focused on gaming, I want to point out that even ignoring the FPS drop, games are not actually the most demanding in terms of needing high PPI. Video games graphics consist of a lot of smooth gradients (think a wall with a texture on it) and blurred areas, without too many hard edges, and most objects will occupy more than a few pixels on the screen. Because of that, they are more tolerant to a lower resolution and will still look ok if there are good anti-aliasing applied. What actually will benefit the most from a high PPI display is ironically things like very text-heavy applications, like coding / web browsing / productivity tools, because the dense information conveyed by texts or complicated UI rely on the small fonts' edges being drawn correctly without being blurred or aliased. Speaking on the FPS drop though, I think with the advent on super-sampling techniques like DLSS, it may start to become a more moot point in near future. DLSS and friends cannot magically make an upsampled 4K (e.g. from 1080p) image looks like native 4K, but it will still definitely look much better than just the 1080p image itself. Given that the performance cost of DLSS is relatively low, we may start seeing a lot of bang for the buck in upgrading your monitor's resolution without losing too much frame rate. But it's definitely true that high refresh rate monitors will usually have lower resolution though.

This is great information as I was curious about this. I have been using 1440p monitors for years and was very happy with those. I did just buy an Alienware AW3821DW (IPS 38" 3840x1600) as I wanted vertical space along with horizontal space. it was a great deal on sale for $899.99 IMO and won't impact performance of my system as much as 4K would. The Alienware AW3423DWF is supposed to be the greatest thing currently, but there is no additionally vertical height and I cannot handle the screen "pixel refresh prompt every 4hrs" to prevent burn-in (ridiculous and kills usability). I might have waited for the ASUS PG38UQ (IPS 4K 38" but oh well) this probably is the REAL sweet spot for usability IMO (productivity and gaming).

Text rendering for SURE benefits from an overkill on resolution beyond just "can i see the pixels". Because text layout engines for display purposes will align the glyphs either on pixel edges or on third-pixel edges horizontally, and on pixel edges vertically, and this can distort the kerning and the overall cadence of the text significantly. By getting more alignment resolution, you can get a more natural, easier to read flow of text, more similar to print. Though i would say text rendering needs to be rethought; we have resolutions high enough and gammas consistent enough to where we can just lay out text pixel grid independently and just take a little resulting blurriness as a penalty, for better text flow. Ultimately all people see things a little differently, we should be given more of a choice. But currently, not even text rendering method is consistent between different software running on the same operating system! Windows software could use DirectWrite, GDI+, or any number of frameworks with different text shaping opinions, and yes i actually find it scandalous that Microsoft isn't about to make their own frameworks of different eras behave the same, they apparently just seal the legacy behaviour in. There's also really several different copies of ClearType tuning value sets which work or don't depending on software, fun! I had used MacType in the past to similar effect, but found it flaky and burdensome back in the day. I might redeploy it again. 4k is definitely well outside the budget for me, as attractive as it is for text rendering. I would say that working with text also benefits a lot from high refresh rate (120Hz, not necessarily higher) and from consistent transitions where neither black-to-white nor white-to-black has more stickiness than the other, particularly when you scroll a lot, working with large amounts of text.

Great overview. Thank you. I will be segueing to a 27" 1440p screen from my current 24: 1080p thanks to this video.

Your demonstration/comparison was very concise and clear. I'm about to buy a new monitor...your video really helped me to prioritize value/price vs. specs. . Thanks!

One thing to note is that TAA - which is a common modern anti-aliasing solution these days makes lower resolutions look even worse as it affects the entire image quality not just aliasing and it is very reliant on pixels. At lower resolutions it will smear stuff together just to prevent jaggies from appearing. Make sure in your tests this option is disabled, if their is no anti-aliasing type option or off that means the game forces it and should be discounted from testing. Just a quick tip

Sponsor mention without going away from the main point of the whole video was just genious. I typically fast forward those but here it contained desired content, just genious!

I was still using a 24" monitor I've been using for over 11 years. I bought my first high def monitor last week and I LOVE it. I had no idea what a difference a monitor makes, I didn't have a lot to spend so got the cheaper monitor that people were saying was good. I bought the Gigabyte M32Q 2K

This is a truly well produced and informative video. I now have a thorough understanding of the give and take implications to be considered when selecting monitors. Very well done and highly recommended.

720p moniter users 🪦

An extra point to consider: Traditional upscaling (probably dlss and fsr too) look better the higher the monitor resolution is. For an extreme example; 800p looks not just lowres but also blurry on a 1080p monitor but looks much sharper on a 4k monitor (still lowres but not as blurry).

I've been dailying a 27" 144hz 1080p monitor for 3 years now. When I got it I thought the sharpness of it was amazing. Now... not so much. A few days ago I bought a 32" curved 1440p 144hz monitor for my sim racing rig, and even that isn't as sharp as I thought it would be. But, I still went for it because if I'd gone for a 4K monitor I'd have had to upgrade my PC as well and that would've completely blown my budget. So, in conclusion, I completely agree with your conclusion.

Good job! Thank you for providing detailed info and easy-to-understand infographics!

I must have bad eyes because I am looking at my 1080P monitor and I do not see individual pixels when sitting at a normal viewing distance. Good news on that is that I can pay less money than other people and still be happy with what I have.

My concern is that while vector graphics (like text) can scale freely, and many modern games are made for 4K, lots of legacy content was designed for 72dpi. When viewing those kinds of content, something's got to upscale the image in an elegant way.

I’m looking for a monitor and your channel is like a treasure trove of high quality monitor related videos. I love it!

Thanks so much for the PPD bit! Much appreciate the template sheet!

I've still got a 15 inch Viewsonic CRT monitor that is nearly 20 years old that can do 2456x1414i and it looks amazing! I found it for free on the side of someone's house. Best of all, because it's a CRT, it has its built-in anti-aliasing screen that gives everything a slight blur while still keeping all the detail! I plan on keeping and using it till the very end!

Great job with the video! I completely agree, the actual numbers that matter are the PPD (pixels per degree). Pixels per inch (PPI) is not a useful measure, but it is given by manufacturers as they don't care to tell us at what distance we should use the screens. PPI is a device-specific measure, but PPD is what gives you the visual acuity. So, I checked my devices. For my phone, I measured a viewing distance of about 13" . As it has a screen that is 2.7" by 5.75" at 411 PPI, I calculated that I'm using it with 90 PPD. Definitely "retina quality" as I don't see any pixelation. For my 13" laptop, viewing it at at an average distance of 22", I get 107 PPD since the laptop has a stupidly high quality, 3000x2000 screen. I had a Mac before with a 60 PPD and as expected, I didn't find any pixelation on that laptop either. For desktop monitors, I have one 32" 1440p at work and one 32" 1080p at home. For both, I sit at 32" away. This works great for me because I can have two letter sized documents one above the other on my desk w/o hitting the monitor, plus some room to spare so I don't have to sit glued to the desk. The 32" monitors were chosen so that I can have two Word documents side by side on the screen. So... with this geometry, the 1440p gives me 56 PPD (basically a borderline retina display quality) whereas the 1080p only 42 PPD. Yes, I definitely see some pixelation on the 1080p, but when I'm at home I usually recline further back from the 1080p so the PPD increases (at the expense of the reduction of the field of vision). I have 20/20 vision at short distance and I cannot see any pixelation on a 1440p, 32" monitor if I sit at 32" away (as expected). If you're a teen with eagle eyes, you might, if you have better than 20/20 vision. So for me, a 1440p monitor with a 32" diagonal viewed at 32" away is enough as it provides a good enough field of vison of about 46 degrees with 56 PPD. Instead of spending a lot more on a 4K monitor, I would rather get a 1440p with a high refresh rate. Now, if you play racing games and first person shooters and want a more immersive experience by increasing the field of vision to something like 60 degrees, a wider screen monitor that keeps the same PPD is better (not necessarily a 4K, but an ultrawide 3440x1440). You do not need 4K for peripheral vision, as human vision acuity is not good enough past 20 deg to see any difference between 2K and 4K or even 1080p. I play Civilization 6 and rarely some chill city building games and for those, the field of vision is not important at all (I don't have to react quickly to fast changing details in the peripheral vision).

Perfect, very explanatory... Only thing missing is including an ultrawide display, well done 💪👍

Habe deinen Kanal vorhin erst gefunden, bis jetzt schon ein paar Videos zu Monitoren angeschaut und muss sagen dass ich absolut beeindruckt bin 💯 Weiter so :)

Really informative spreadsheet to help me decide whether to get a 4k 27" or a 4k 32" inch. Knowing that the 4K 32" is comparable to Apple Retina resolution pretty much decided for me.

The main drawback I see with a big screen is having to sit further back to see everything, and lying in the hope that your old programs have options to greatly increase text size. For resolutions of 1440p of roughly the same standard 16-9 ratio, A 24 inch monitor translates roughly to 122ppi, A 27 inch monitor to 108ppi, a 32inch to 91ppi. I can see the pixels on this old 16 inch 1366x768p capable laptop, which translates to just 97ppi. The gain in switching to a desktop with a 27 inch monitor at 1440p would surely be fairly minimal sitting at the same distance as before, and a 32 not worth it (although sitting as close to s 32 as you would a laptop isn't going to be ideal anyway). 24 inch monitors with a 1440p resolution seem very hard to come by, but would surely be best for close up media editing (assuming all monitors compared had a similar pixel type,text clarity and colour accuracy). In the end it's not going to matter that much as long as you sit at an appropriate distance

I see the Optimum Tech inspiration in both your editing style, lighting choice, script and content. Love it! We need more youtubers like you guys:)

If you plan on playing games where reaction speed is a factor you also need to consider the monitors input delay in addition to the refresh rate. 1080p monitors not only have the fastest refresh rates they also have the least input delay, so i think it's safe to say that 1080p monitors will stick around for awhile yet. 1440p monitors are getting there but if you want a 1440p monitor with low input delay and a high refresh rate it's going to cost you as you will be buying from the higher end. I don't think there's any 4k or any ultra wide monitor on the market that a serious esports professional would consider using since the input delay will be higher and the refresh rates lower. They are obviously great when you want to create an immersive experience but they will disadvantage you on the leaderboards. People are not playing games seriously on 4k TVs for a reason.

I can't say I agree with you 100%, but I do accept your opinion as valid. For years (since 2015)I was using 40 inch TV as a computer monitor, resolution 1080p. The only times the resolution felt too low was when dealing with lots of windows text, not even games' text. At least as long as the game resolution was natively 1080p. At the same time I had and using (less) a 40 inch monitor, resolution 2160p. Unfortunately because my computer lacked the power to deal with playing at 4K, I was only using it with my Mac Mini late 2012 model, for FCPX editing. The specific mini did not support 4K/60 so I was between using it at 4K/30 or 1600p at 60. Using it at 30Hz was just torture so I wasn't using the monitor even at 4K at all. While I still have both the TV and the monitor in the apartment (packaged), for the last 3 years I am using a 27 inch 1440p monitor. I find both the size and the resolution, almost perfect. Again I am using this one as a computer monitor, so it is at a relatively short distance, same as with the previous two. The main reason I switched to this was because I developed a heavy distaste for anything too big in my fov. I literally felt even more depressed with them in front of me (and to the side) to the point I just wanted something smaller. Thus the jump to the 27 inch 1440p monitor. Having said that, I admit that there are times when I miss the 40 inch screens in front of me. Especially for racing and flying games, in cockpit view. So yes, my point is for me at least the 1080p is fine for 27 or even 40 inch screen used as a computer monitor. But, OBVIOUSLY the higher the resolution, the better the image quality will be.

I have dual 4k 32" monitors at work (Windows 10). There are issues with certain apps that are designed for 1080p (ie, they don't scale relative to the 4k screen). I've had blackouts playing videos. You would think 4k is fully supported, but it's not. It's still in the early adopter phase.

My favourite is 1440p 27" currently. The problem I have with 4k right now is that you will have to use windows scaling to read and use stuff. This feature is still nowhere near a perfect state. Especially as many websites for example and even windows itself can't handle scaling and will either not scale everything or will scale it and make it blurry. Until this is fixed I will stick to native resolutions in windows and for 27", 1440p is perfect.

Another outstanding review from techless! Thanks for all the valuable info.

I had many unanswered questions on monitors and you just covered everything.Thank you

I like high resolutions just like everybody but the problem is that I find 27'' monitors too big for competitive shooters. That's why I'll stay on 24'' monitors forever. A 24'' 1440p 240Hz OLED would be the endgame monitor for me.

I'm running a 49 inch ultrawide (Sansung CGH90), but it's essentially 2 1080P monitors glued together. Very few resolution issues at all, only every now and then I noticed a definition issue. I value performance over quality. There is no perceivable sort of perceptible lag using this rather than trying to drive a 4k

Excellent breakdown, with practical examples. Well done!

Great information, thank you! I‘ll be buying a new one in the next few months because mine is just outdated. If I had to guess, I‘d say it’s at least close to 10 years old. It still runs fine, but my old eyes get tired quickly. I have found that a lightbar is amazing. I recently go a Yeelight Pro, it’s really useful. Don’t know if you‘ve done any reviews on those. Thanks again, I just subscribed to your channel. We could use more quality UKpostsrs like you. No bullshit and high quality information!

Thanks for this video, it informative. More people need to understand the differences between resolution and display size. Pixel density is the metric you should consider when choosing a display. Your video does a good job explaining this for people who haven't considered the relationship between screen size and viewing distance. I think 1440P is the sweet spot resolution wise on a 27 inch display. I'm sure a 4K 27 inch monitor looks super sharp but, you will be paying the price in performance to drive all those pixels. Display scaling for 4K displays comes into play as well. I don't think Windows or MacOS really do a great job with display scaling. MacOS only really works well at 110'ish PPI or at 220 PPI. If your pixel density is somewhere in between, say 150 PPI, your experience is going to be less than ideal.

The Excel Calculator is super useful. Thanks for taking the time to make that.

Thanks. Even though I'll buy my new PC only in 5-6 months it's really useful to have at least some basic knowledge (although I am a bit more torn between wide 1440 and faster refresh 1440, as I don't care about competitive games)

I have used a 23" 1080p TN monitor for over 10 years now. I've been looking for an upgrade for a while, but monitors are quite expensive. While building PCs/setups for others I've had the chance to try different screens and found out how much my eyesight affects things. 27" 1440p is the sweetspot for most people, but it requires me to strain my eyes or sit closer than I would like. I thought about going for a 27" 1080p IPS panel for a while until I saw one in person. Even I could tell how bad it looked. Needless to say, I am glad that 31.5" 1440p monitors seem quite popular. A 55" 4K screen would be nice, but very expensive and probably the end for my RX480.

Personally I prefer refresh rate more than resolution in gaming, and I am very happy with my 1440p display. Also work runs pretty smooth on it, and I never felt the urge to swap to 4k sharper text. At last costs for energy are rising, and driving everything to the max seems not to be a clever idea these days.

I have extended your calculator with UHD-II. That was easy thanks to your formulas. Based on your data in the excel sheet, 150 PPD is the theoretical upper limit of visual acuity. You can reach that with UHD-II with up to 34 inches (85cm distance). Even with 42 inches, the PPD is 123. We need UHD-II monitors! 😄

This channel never disappoint. Just what i need in comparisons

Amazing comparison. Exactly what I was looking for☺️

Since the 1080Ti came out 5 years ago I play in 4k with a 40 inch monitor. Great resolution but usually way below 60Hz and about around 30Hz.

4k is great for productivity tasks though. For gaming, you can just use the scaling option almost all modern games provide or even just use 1080p, as it's exactly 4 pixels of the monitor for every pixel of the image. However, in my experience, upscaling gives a big quality improvement with almost no performance hit.

I got 2 24" 1080p monitors. One is 144hz, the orher is 75hz. They both serve my needs and look amazing. Id say theyre probably half a metre away from me when I'm sitting at my desk. The jump to 1440p is quite big in Canada, but if i ever have to update one of my monitors, id obviously get rid of my 75hz monitor and buy a 1440p to use as my gaming monitor 😅

I upgraded recently from a MSI 24 inch 1080p 144hz screen to a Dell 27 Inch 1440p 165hz screen, and I cant go back to Full HD anymore, while the difference in number from 1080 lines to 1440 lines is somewhat small, the pixel count is 77% larger, and the image quality is miles better.

You're content is by far the best on UKposts for monitors! I love how raw and honest you are as well as the detail and explanations!

I actually prefer the pixel density of 1080p on 27' panels. It has a lot to do with UI scaling. A lot of small text in programs cannot be scaled and even on a 23 inch 1080p display its difficult to comfortably read without pulling your head closer to the display. The 27 inch display at 1080p makes it a lot easier to read, having a 4K 27inch display is absolutely horrendous when you are trying to read 10 point font in programs that have no scaling options for higher resolutions.

PPI as you mention is the real crucial number, but whilst 60cm distance to screen is probably more normal for typing/editing, don't forgot about input device. Not every PC gamer uses KBM, I often play games using a controller and tend to kick back around 1m from my screen so a 24 1080p looks fine, especially in reasonably fast moving games where absolute details doesn't matter as much. The other issue with 1440p is they don't scale with anything else, at least with 4k it's a direct factor of 1080p and you can just scale accordingly, so if you're playing a single player game, watching a movie or doing editing you can use native 4k but if you need frames you can adjust settings to 1080p.

1080 on a 24 inch is optimal for a simple table setup, and action games. 1080 on a 27 inch is for some other use case that I have no clue of, but probably involves a longer distance from the screen. If your games use a lot of small text, like strategy games, the higher resolutions can reduce eye fatigue. Just remember that to use the monitor to the fullest you have to also spend on hardware 🤷‍♂

I personally like the Asus VG27AQ, mostly because it is an 1440p resoulution with 165 hz, and IPS panel. It also supports G-Sync and amd freesync with 0.4 ms latency. And it doesnt have an anoying monitor stand that fills half the table, its a simple square that takes about 30x30 centimeters. It is also available with TN panel(VG27BQ) instead of IPS panel(VG27BQ). Sure 4k would look even better but the price difference is just ridiculous. Just for reference I can buy 4 asus VG27AQ for the price of 1 4k 165hz monitor. It is just insane... The only minus I would say about the VG27AQ and VG27BQ is that the power supply is not built-in the monitor and therefore the cable is a bit anoying on that part, mostly because of the power supply being on the cable and not in the screen. Hope this helps anyone, I did a lot of research before choosing my ideal monitor, and for the price this is just the best monitor on the market as of 2021-2022.

I really appreciate the knowledge and practicalities of monitors in your videos. Thanks for the PPI calculator, too. I'm looking at buying either a 24" or 27" 1080p monitor (ASUS VA24EHF or VA27EHF), and wonder what you think of this reasoning: Optometrists say they focusing on objects less than 1 meter away causes our eye muscles and lens to contract an unnatural amount that leads to long-term vision impairment. The nearer the focal point, the worse. Focusing further away helps. For a 23.8" monitor, I can push it about 75 cm away from my eyes and still work with text OK. So, instead of buying a new 24" monitor I consider buying a 27" monitor and place it even further from by eyes, preferably about 1m. At 90 cm, the field of view would be the almost the same as a 24" monitor at 75 cm. The benefits would be that the pixel density is close to the optimal in your PPI calculator and less strain on my eyes. What do you think? I'd also appreciate anyone's option of the ASUS VA27EHF or VA24EHF.

You are the one and only guide anyone needs to buy a monitor bro! On point and detailed. Kudos.=)

From my experience, you see a difference, but only a slight difference on homogenous, gradient pictures, like in games, photos or movies. You see a significant difference on high contrast, sharp edged stuff. And that is best represented by black text on white background. Yes, hidpi monitors are the most beneficial for simple, plain old text editing, pretty regular office stuff. And it actually matters. Me, I have a significantly higher reading speed and a significantly increased throughput of text with less fatigue with my 4k monitor.

I am really hoping for the so called "5k2k" monitors to come with better refresh rates, preferably at 40-43 inch size. Those would be great for work, but I also don't want to downgrade. After using 144Hz, moving even mouse or windows on 60Hz looks bad. In the meantime if I can't wait it's nice to see that a 32 inch 4k should be pretty good. My current 32 inch 1440p was a great upgrade when I changed from 24 inch 1080p, but it doesn't look very sharp. Thanks for the calculator, that was useful.

The sweet spots are: 24" with 1080p (90~ ppi) 32" with 1440p (90~ ppi) 27" with 1440p (110~ ppi) I'd like to add that ppi for monitor and smart phones aren't the same since we watch smartphone close to our face, while monitors stays a far distance away. The minimum recomended ppi for monitors to have a good experience and image sharpness is 90ppi. I currently use a 80ppi monitor and it is a bit blocky but I am used to it. If you dont know whats ppi is just know that the higher it is the more the screen will look sharp/premium. Side Note: Ever wondered why 32" with 4k is so expensive? Its because it has ppi of 140~, thats a lot for a Tv which you'll watch from a far distance away.

nice video, thanks. after i upgraded from a 20" FHD to an 24" FHD i wondered that the pixels were so much more visible. i underestimated that completly and it does not look good or feels right.. I now want to buy an 27" WQHD Monitor.

If you're using this advice, don't forget to account for your distance from the monitor! At my desk, I sit about 80cm from my monitors, which lets me see both of them without having to move my head. At this distance, 1440p is pretty much perfect for me.

Well its no surprise that QHD took the crown from FHD, as most semi-modern mediocre/mainstream setups can drive them and the much sharper image and more screenspace as QHD usually comes in 27" and up, makes a big difference, but doesnt cost to much performance and even upper class QHD Monitors are quite affordable for most. I'm driving a RTX3080 Aorus Master 12GB btw and this one powers a Dell S2721DGFA@165Hz, perfect combo for pretty much everything. :)

I have a 28 inch 4k and after adjusting a few settings it was perfect. Tor me its the best allrounder I have ever had. I even ordered a second one for a dual setup.

Thank you for these tips its very informative👍

Great video, I learned a lot! I wanted to bring up what "the human eye can actually see", as it seems to change every couple of years. I remember when around the 2010s, the general rule was that the human eye "could no notice" anything above 80-90 fps, while nowadays, 120fps is a minimum to aim at when going "serious" while gaming. This is not a critique to your video, just that it surprised me how this numbers drift up with every new generation of products. Same thing with ms/response, but that would be the same story.

For two monitors (for gaming), would you suggest: Primary and Secondary 1440p 27'' @ 144Hz/165Hz or Primary - 1440p 27'' @ 144hz/165hz. And secondary 1080p 27'' @ 144/165Hz

My 6 year old Lenovo T440s features 14" 1600x900. And in the video there are 27" (twice the size) so for that only 4k is acceptable for desktop use (600 mm distance). However, if you plan to use it at 1200 mm distance like from a sofa then you may drop resolution by half.

I looked up videos and websites for days to find an answer and your video nailed it! Now I know that I‘ll go for 27 inch 4k and not 1440p 😅 (Lightroom, web, writing) I now have a 24 inch 1080p and I absolutely hate it that I can see all the pixels from >60cm away (which is perfect distance for me personally for this size)

"Don’t Buy the Wrong Resolution" This is so very true. Your decision on resolution will dictate so many things. I feel the first thing one should consider is their desk size and how far the display will be positioned from the viewer. From there I feel one can decide what's appropriate for them with regard to resolution vs desired frame rate. For example, in my personal situation, I couldn't have a 32" monitor due to the deepness of my desk. My monitor would be sitting closer to me. The 27" was ideal for my desk size and distance. And for that monitor size/distance, I felt 1440p the ideal resolution. From there, I decided I had the budget for extras, such as HDR, 240 Hz, G-Sync, etc.

315 views, not in the market for a monitor, and a channel ive never heard of before. wonder why i clicked, but i dont regret it lol Edit: big surprise, its great

I just bought a 22" (really 21.5") 75hz 1080p monitor to replace a 20" 60hz 900p monitor from 2010. The difference between 103 ppi and 92 ppi is very noticeable at the distance I sit at, so I'm pretty happy with the upgrade, especially at a price of $110 (apparently discounted from $140). I could run basically *everything* at well above 60fps on that old small monitor, so had a lot of unused performance space, so the new 1080p is a *much* better fit for my other hardware - an R5 5600 and an actual (not the later misleadingly named abomination) rtx3060. It was finally bothering to upgrade to a smart phone (stupid 3g network shutdown) which finally got me thinking about replacing that old dinosaur monitor. When I realized it was 720x1600 on a 6.5" display it actually made me think about how cheap higher quality displays have gotten since I bought that old 1600x900 monitor lol. At 270 ppi it actually *hurts* to get close enough to see the pixels on the thing.

Hi I checked your full video and want your suggestion I am looking for the monitor for office work only and main concern is eye strain. Currently eye strain feels because of not so sharp and clear text and less smoothness on scrolling the page/ browser. So, whether higher refresh rate and resolution will help ?

I recently went for a 1080p ultra widescreen 30 inch display. It basically has the same pixel density and height of a 24 inch monitor but with extra real estate on the sides. I'm running this out of my laptop and decided I would rather have widescreen 1080p than a 27 inch 1440p monitor which would require a noticeable hit to my FPS while gaming. Now that I've seen games in widescreen it would be hard going back lol

I own all 3 resolution monitors (at their highest refresh rate). 1080 390hz, 1440p 270hz, 4k 144hz There is no best monitor. It comes down to the game/ task itself. Some games clearly benefit from a super high resolution that for example feature very high resolution textures and detail. It can makes some games feel like a brand new game. You can notice things in game that you never noticed before playing at a lower resolution. But some games don't really look much different at 1440p vs 4k - old game and old game engine with mediocre graphics. Some games play best at 1080p at a high refresh rate. 1080p monitors have the lowest input lag by far - so still the best for serious competitive gaming. These games tend to also have very basic graphic assets

Instructive video, pretty sure that most people do not realize that a bigger size is not better if you keep the same resolution. Since 2 years now when the backlight of my MacBook Pro screen went off I am using a 24 inch 1080p 75Hz cheap Philips monitor and I am quite happy with it as I am not a gamer.

You can buy a 1080p monitor and enable dldsr or dsr. My laptop has 16" screen and sometimes i can see jagged edges in-game at 1080 so i enable dldsr to 1440p and the image looks noticeably better and it doesnt affect performance as much as running on native higher resolutions.

You have to think about your applications when choosing a monitor resolution. 4K may be great for youtube and gaming, but a ton of other apps will be unreasonably small and often you can’t adjust them either at all, or enough to make them readable. 1440p can have the same problem. It is better to use a 1080p monitor for the best possible compatibility for the vast majority of people.

A very good explanation for us, thank you for making this excellent video!☺

Very very very informative video. Every second is information. Great video my man

I just upgraded my PC and wanted to allow my GPU to work at its intended resolution, so I went for the MSI mag264qrf-qd as gaming monitor and a Philips 276e8vjsb for media , both 27" . Really happy with the result , the media one is 4K and is amazing for videos and movies and the 60Hz refresh is enough, while the gaming one is 2k and 165Hz with amazing colors and responsiveness . Took me like a week to compare brands on various websites .

This was a very useful video, I really appreciate the thought and effort put into it. I really think I need a 4K monitor for my eventual return to video editing, but right now I pretty much just game so I think 1440p is a far better fit for my RTX 3060 GPU.

As someone who plays exclusively at 4k 60fps since may 2013 and 4k 144fps since 2017, I cant go back to 1440p and 1080p. The visual difference is very extreme to the trained eye. I would personally go 21,5 1080p, 24 1440p and 27 4k. The PPI is extremely important with AA and shimmering.

Thank you so much! The Apple retina comparison was super interesting.

Very helpful video. Much thanks ♥

I have two 27 inch monitors - one for games 1440p 165Hz and the second one for work 4K 60Hz. Since I use the 4K one without scaling, in 1440p things started looking a little on the big side, although I think that's a good combination :D

Really, really good explanation. Thanks!i On a sidenote: you should try the difference between 1080p and 4K on a >= 32" screen. I got a 43" and for screens that big, 4K is a must (1080p just gives you blocky image). In fact, on a screen that big, 4K seems like 1080p on

Probably the most helpful video in the world. If I’m ever stranded on a desert island with nothing but my phone and Amazon same day delivery I know what I’m getting thanks to you.

I liked the comparison of the 50 meters practice bot. It really is harder to distinguish it in the 1080p monitor.

Thank you for this video. Could you please suggest a decent 24" 1440p at least 144 Hz, IPS gaming monitor? As it would be the best screen size and resolution for me without over spending.

Basically 4k is a significant upgrade over 1440p, and is the point of diminishing returns. However, being able to build a reasonably priced pc that can actually put out that many frames at 4k is a whole other ballgame. That's why I have one 1440p monitor that will be moved to as a secondary, when I can get a gpu that can get me 120 fps at 4k for a reasonable price (no, anything above 1k for a a whole pc build is not reasonable to me), then I will invest in a high refresh rate 4k monitor. Long way to go before an affordable gpu like that appears, but I'm perfectly fine with 1440p until that time comes (2-3 gpu generations in the future perhaps)

I had a 2K 21:9 ASUS ROG ultrawide 100Hz, then bought a INNOCN 40" 4K Ultrawide at 120Hz and finally a Samusng 55" 4K TV at 60Hz. I fully expected to prefer the higher refresh rate monitor for gaming and browsing but without a doubt, the 55" monitor set on it's own pedestal to get the appropriate distance has been lightyears better than the other 2. I thought I would run both or all 3 but just one 55" 4K panel about 2 1/2 ft from me has been the best choice so far. I am running a 4070 Ti for now so it does 4K at 60FPS but not much more so for now, the card and the monitor are well matched.

You are the greatest review guy here on YT. Thanks for all the contents you make. I just learned so much about monitors from your videos. Help me to buy the right monitor for me.

Just a few days ago I bought a new monitor and my train of thought was exactly the same - 4k hits performance like a truck and 1080p is no good for big monitors so 2k looked like a reasonable compromise. As for the size, initially I wanted to buy 27" but the model I chose had a really good discount on 32" version so it was even cheaper than 27" so I bought it and didn't regret it - it looks great. However, my table is 80cm deep so I sit approximately 80-85cm away from monitor, for 50-60cm tables 32" is definetely not an option I would say even 27" probably is to big for them.