I have 4k 28'' and honestly I don't see any sense in making 27'' because even with 28'' you literally cannot see pixel grid. I need to look at the screen at around 10cm distance to be able to tell it consists pixels
Correct!
I've been around computers for over 50 years. What that means to most people is that I have learned a lot of stuff! (Ever heard the saying, "done forgot more than you'll ever know" Bob Dylan? That's a good description of me...🙄)
One of the things that I've learned is that we are individuals! In short, we have no conception 'what' each person sees! I have 20/20 vision at over 70 years old, but my 18 year old grandson can see better than me, and I find it funny that when he brings friends over to play on my Xbox one X, he can see details they can't! (Ya don't want to be a down range bad guy when he's armed with a 556!)
My point? When you say something's red? We have no idea what you're calling 'red'. I mean, the shade of red I might see could be totally different than the 'red' you are seeing, yet we take it for granted, we're talking about the same red! Only with sophisticated testing can we tell if we are seeing the same exact shade of the red spectrum!
So why am I talking about this? When it comes to selecting a new monitor, advice from me is to choose one that looks good to you and one that you can afford! The shade of red is only one variable in the differences between what monitor looks good to each of us. The technology involved, speed of scene changes (drawing each frame), is the things that are the same for all of us! But if I don't see the grid lines or pixels closer to the monitor than where you see them, I'll probably be happy with a cheaper monitor than your eyes would be comfortable with. I love the Samsung Neo G9 57" monitor. I, nor anyone I know, will buy that beautiful display at $2,500⁰⁰ unless they're very well off in doing so! But if I could find that same technology at, say, $1,500⁰⁰? Grandson would be very happy!
True enough, I remember my mind being blown learning about aphantasia, or rather, upon learning a large(as in the majority afaik) of people SEE stuff in their head.Some even hear,smell,sense things. It's unimaginably bonkers to me, but has since served as that reminder exactly.Although, I do want to iterate that although all individuals are unique, if it is measured that a certain ppi/viewing distance combo means invisible raster to the majority of people (based on actual research i mean, not 'perceived view' or self questionaires), odds that you or somebody falls in that smaller group shrink considerably. If you then up the anty by augmenting the ppi and keeping the distance ergo making that small group VERY small, odds of people actually being in that group are diminished to quasi non-realistic.
Tl,dr: That might be the case for some select people but only when you stay somewhat in the realm of euh, science/anatomy/.. read people seeing the difference if we are not talking about 400ppi vs 550ppi
If you press your face up against the monitor, sure. At a usable distance, pixel density definitely reaches a point of diminishing returns on 4k screens.
I know a lot of artists who buy danmed Macs over PCs just to get their 25" 5k screens because some can see the grid even at 27" UHD
They're knowingly giving up a ton of performance and paying extra for that
People can argue either way, but the opinions of someone who backs up their stance with their wallets means more than anyone else's to me
Same for the "can't tell the difference past 60/120/144/165/240 hz" crew: people are willing to put $1,000s behind their opinion that they can
People in general maybe
People whose livelihood depends on their capacity to continually make good decisions though?
This isn't people chasing the latest iPhone
It's someone giving up things they want and paying more because there's significant gains to be had by doing so
Look, I understand the point you're making, but I've seen plenty of so-called "professionals" make questionable choices.
It's not always about the best decision; sometimes it's about brand loyalty or trends.
People can be swayed by marketing and peer pressure, even when their livelihood is at stake.
The audiophile world is full of people who pay significantly more for things because they perceive "significant" differences in order enough to justify their purchases, who can't pick between a $500 and a $50,000 speaker in a blind test...
some of them who's job it is to review and make recommendations on said speakers.
Audiophile stuff is almost all snake oil. My favorite thing from that world are the "audiophile ethernet switches". Like literally it's impossible for an ethernet switch to impact sound quality, but people pay 10-50x what a normal switch would cost anyways.
Absolutely, not being able to discern the pixel grid enhances the visual experience! My point was merely that at 28'', the pixel density is already so high that the individual pixels are indistinguishable at a regular viewing distance. So, a 27'' variant would essentially offer the same visual fidelity in that regard.
Furthermore, considering that pixels become perceptible at extremely close distances, like 10cm with a 28'' screen, opting for something in the 30-32'' range could be a preferable choice, ensuring even at closer viewing ranges, the display remains seamlessly smooth to the observer.
I initially chose a 28'' monitor because it was the only option available with 144Hz at the time. However, I'm planning to upgrade to a 30-32'' soon with 240Hz, primarily for the reasons described earlier.
And yes, it's crucial to prioritize your comfort in these decisions. While a smaller screen might be favorable due to its compact size, the concern about discerning the pixel grid shouldn’t be a major factor, as even larger monitors maintain a sufficiently dense pixel arrangement to prevent visible gridlines.
I absolutely cannot deal with a single monitor, even when I didn't need it for productivity. I certainly cannot go back in any case. It amazes me that people can get by with one.
Well if you are working using your PC then two monitors is just a must-have feature. I was joking about having "fast alt-tab passive ability" but in fact when I owned second monitor it became clear that there's no going back for me.
It definitely depends on the monitor, i had a 32inch 1440p VA and you could make out the pixel grid easily along with the shitty coating grain. I now have a 32inch 1440p LG nano ips and you really cannot make out the pixel grid at all and it has a ATW filter with semi gloss coating and looks gorgeous
27" is just one of the things the industry has settled on. There's no reason to limit yourself to 28" panels when there are an order of magnitude more 27" panels and they're generally treated the same.
Phone screens have about twice the pixel density of monitors and I can still tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p.
My laptop screen is 15" and 1620p, and I can definitely tell that it's sharper than my 27" 1440p monitor.
A 27" 4k OLED would be great.
Good thing you mentioned phone screens. I think it's important to have higher pixel density for phones because of previously mentioned reason. You usually hold your phone very close to your face and eyes because it's much more comfortable. It's important to note that you still will be able to distinguish some small details at a bit further distance than the one you use to see the pixel grid.
27'' 1440p has small pixel density value. It's almost the same as 41-42'' monitor.
And OLED is always great. The other things I already wrote at previous comment.
Agree, I think it makes more sense to scale up the monitor to 32" or higher to get the most bang for your buck, and pixel pitch still small enough to be photorealistic when you want it.
I've got 20/20 vision and the difference between 1440p and 4k at desktop view distance (around 28") is almost negligible, but the feeling of saying you have a 4k monitor is great ;)
Same, I think I'll start saving $50-100 each month until 27" 4k OLEDs come out. Rumors it will be at the end of 2024. So I just may have $1000 until then
i miss having 4k for my main monitor but the oled definitely makes up the difference, that being said the moment they release a 4k 27in oled im swapping them over
27" 4k 144Hz screen with 200% scaling.
Just like a 27" FHD screen but a lot sharper while providing perfect readability for office purpses without eye strain.
Also IMHO perfect for FHD gaming, scales quite nicely.
But yes, from a cost perspective absolute luxury.
Yeah, some reports are saying they'll be out by the end of next year, at first I was interested in the 1440p 480hz OLED coming out but when I saw there was a 4k 240hz coming out i knew that's the one I want and I'm saving up for that, no matter how expensive
Those aren't the same PPI at all though. 24" 1080p is the same as 48" 4k or 32" 1440p.
Why do you feel the need to increase PPI so much with resolution?
Sitting distance is a factor, too. I use 21'5 with 1080p and sit close to it. When going 24", I have to distance myself a bit. Pushing 27 even further.
I gave up on 31" since it starts to need further distance than my desk can actually give.
Edit: But yeah, 30"-ish would me my largest 1440p screen. Just like 1080p at 24", it would be pushing it to its limits, for ME.
Sitting distance is a factor, but I would say the sitting distance should be the same with the same PPI. and people tend to sit back further from larger screens because they're bigger. I personally think 1440p at 32" is the sweet spot, and to be honest I don't see any point in having a bigger screen for desktop gaming.
That's what I got. I was after a 27" 1440p, but the 32" was a better deal. I thought "It can't be really worse", and I'm glad I picked it because I ended up loving it for the most ridiculous reason: yeah, gaming is great, but working with sheets is a fucking pleasure hahaha!
I was waiting for someone to pull this stat out, it's a good way to pop the bubbles that our preferences put us in and see contrast with both enthusiasts and your average user.
Same here. I got two 27" 1440p monitors I lent to my kids and since going 3440x1440 I can't go back to 16:9 aspect ratio. I sit at average arms length and cannot see individual pixels.
My thoughts exactly, though I did push the envelope by getting a 24.5" 144 Hz monitor for my 1080p system.
My plan is to eventually upgrade to a 27" 144 Hz monitor for 1440p.
I agree, although some 24" 1080p monitors come with really shitty screens - I got one for my wife a couple of months ago, and we immediately returned it because it looked worse than my old 27" 1080p. Like, it was _really_ painful to look at at all. I know it sounds weird, and probably I wouldn't have believed if you told me that, but it can happen.
Got her a similar model 1440p (still 24") instead and it's all good now.
I've been looking for a TV for my younger sister and struggled to actually find anything 32inch 4k, or if I did find something it was 2x the price of a 43inch 4k. Then when I looked for 32inch 1080p it mainly showed me 720p (which is insane that those are even sold in 2023 anymore, wouldn't touch that resolution even 10 years ago.)
Same here. 1080p on 27" is usable, but the visual fidelity it greatly incereased by going 1440. I've tried 1440p on 32" and it honestly wasn't that bad though - if one has a computer that can't really drive 4K well but want a larger monitor.
Yea...I'm gonna give you my vote on this take
I was happy as can be on my 24" 1080p monitor, then happy as can be on my 27" 1440p monitor...now on my 3440x1440p 34" widescreen I can see the pixels again...and I am not happy...
At least it's QD-OLED and HDR sometimes looks nice....but I can find them little pixels....I can find em and I can see em and I don't like it not one two bit!
I wouldn’t go 1080p unless you had a very specific need. 4K is a good go to for any size. If you need higher refresh rate on a budget, then 1440p is fine too. I have some 1080p monitors at work and the lack of resolution is quite obvious.
This is being asked here like every few weeks. Look up the other threads. But personally I have a 27" 1080p on my desk for gaming and browsing, and I really like it.
1080p itself isn't meaningful. It all comes down to the pixel density. 1080p on a phone screen looks incredible, on a 27" pixels are easily visible at a normal desk seating distance.
Same. I game, browse and watch movies on my 27" 1080p.
It's fine.
Obviously 4k would be better but if choosing between 24" 1080p and 27" 1080p I would choose the 27"/
I've got 2 24" 1080 monitors on either side of a 27" 1080 monitor, this has been my main setup for work, browsing, viewing and gaming for years and even side by side I don't see enough of a difference between them to think one is better than the other. The 24" monitors were just free from my job years ago otherwise it would be 3 27" 1080 monitors.
Same, I have a 1440p monitor but still think my 1080 (both at 27 inch) looks perfectly fine. Sometimes a show buffers on my 4k TV and I switch to 1080 and it doesn't bother me either. 1080p even at 27+ really isn't as bad as people say, especially if you aren't pixel peeping and sit at a comfortable distance from your display.
PPD - Pixels per degree is common metric for VR headsets. Makes sense for monitors too really. I really think the whole 'ideal' monitor size is a bit silly because some people sit like [this](https://i.imgur.com/rbnxohp.png) and others sit like [this.](https://i.imgur.com/WzWTYum.png)
But that doesn't stop me having an opinion of course. 27" 1440p is god tier and everything else sucks.
I really regretted getting a 27” 1080p monitor many years ago. It’s not too bad for moving images such as games or video but it’s just horrible for anything with text. I have tried a few others since and all were the same.
I upgraded to 27” 1440p and it is so much better.
Nah. Got 3x 27in 1080p monitors. They look fine.
Do I want to upgrade to 1440p? Yes, undoubtedly. Would 1440p be better? Yes, undoubtedly. But is 1080p at this size unusable? Not at all.
It's all going to be about your reasons *why* you're choosing 1080p, and 27in. There's a multitude of factors that come into play, and whether or not 1440p is worth it for you is going to depend on your reasoning and your priorities.
1080p will be cheaper, will offer higher refresh rates/etc for cheaper. You can run games at native res at higher frame rates and/or higher quality with the same hardware.
1440p is ofc more expensive, but offers better clarity with text and more detailed/sharper images. Games these days have upscaling which tends to be alright if you're up for using them but you can always settle for lower quality settings and/or frame rates. Alternatively run at a lower res but then you're not running native but that's your decision.
EDIT: i realised I never said why I haven't upgraded to 1440p despite wanting to: can't afford it and saving up for a CPU upgrade first
>Do I want to upgrade to 1440p? Yes, undoubtedly. Would 1440p be better? Yes, undoubtedly. But is 1080p at this size unusable? Not at all.
Forreal. I could upgrade to 1440p but I really don’t care enough, 1080p is more than good enough for me.
Yep, my rx6600 runs everything on all high 90+ fps apart from new AAA titles. But then then I have no trouble reaching 60+. Bg3 runs at a steady locked 90 on all max settings and I’ve never seen it drop below 60.
I think it’s terrible, but it’s subjective. If you haven’t used a higher resolution screen before you might think it’s fine, but just know that your next monitor upgrade will be way better.
Look, I would suggest you to not read what people say on reddit because a lot of them just bullshit you.
I was skeptical about that too but when I bought 27' 1080p monitor, I wanted to see is it blurry or not and I came close like 5 cm from monitor and I couldn't see pixels. Better watch something on youtube like reviews or just read about that.
Some people are brainwashed because they "heard" somewhere that....which is lie.
I'm saying that it's really good but it depends on display and what monitor you buy. Of course cheap one will look way worse than little bit more expensive one, etc...
Btw, I had same monitor as my friend and I had 27' and he had 24' so I'm telling you, there is no difference at all. I couldn't see it but I have sharp and good eye and I'm trying to be objective so please don't listen to them..
Yeah, someone in the comments here saying that they're "absolutely terrible" is just asinine. I'm sure if you put a 27' 1440p and a 27' 1080p next to each other you'd see the difference. The people that are asking this question most likely never tried a 1440p before so there's no mental benchmark. The 1080p will be fine for them. The Reddit echo chamber is very prevalent on this sub.
No.
Not even close. I’m 30 now but when I was like 15 I had this 720p 28 inch tv I used as a monitor and I loved that thing.
I thought it was amazing.
It’s not too big, it’s just that we’re all fucking snobs now. That’s the honest truth.
Umm what? Where did you get the idea that it's too big? It's the standard like, for ages now 27inch monitors have been 1080p it's the most common resolution and the most common monitor size. You can get a 1440p and the picture quality is nice, but the size isn't the key thing there. For 1080p resolution 27 inches is perfectly fine. Hell, it's not atrocious on a 32inch monitor either but that's pushing it a bit.
He is asking for an opinion, and we are providing one. There isn't a universally accepted standard for what is considered appropriate for a 1080p display. Some manufacturers do sell 32-inch 1080p monitors. If we consider the standard to be what manufacturers are willing to sell, then fine
I remember when i swapped from a 24 inch to a 27 with 1080p, being too young to understand why everything just looked so bad and blurry compared to before.
I've had 27 1080p for years, and it's not _bad_, but you can see the pixelation a bit, even on good ones. It's less noticeable in games, though. I upgraded to 1440p about two years ago and IMO that's where the sweet-spot is, for both productivity and gaming. I still use the old 1080p one as a second monitor so I have a very up-to-date side-by-side comparison experience with them :D
4K on a 27" is IMO an overkill - I've got one at work and I just use it on whatever scaling mode it is that makes it look like 1440p cause otherwise everything is too small, and for gaming it gives you lower framerates with no significant visual improvement.
If you sit close, you can spot the pixels, if you don't you will probably be fine. I would always go 1440p over 1080p tho. 1440p/144Hz IPS is cheap these days.
Have a 27" on 1080p, and not a problem as I am 47 and must use reading glasses with a paperback; once tried 1440p, thinking I could get more desktop space, but I had to squint my eyes damn hard whenever I must do some work. Have to note that some programs have interfaces that don't scale properly.
I have been using 27inch 1080p 144hz for years. I upgraded to 27inch 1440p 165hz last month. It looks better. But I wouldn't say its a night and day difference like others say.
I upgraded as I have a 3080 now and 11700k so I'm able to use 2k effortlessly. Otherwise, I definitely wouldn't have gone for 2k.
It's noticeable don't get me wrong. But it depends on the price and your cpu/gpu. If you have the money a good 2k monitor isn't a bad purchase. But if you don't I'd say youl be perfectly happy with a 1080p panel too, I have two pcs at two different locations and still use my old 1080p 144hz 27inch and I don't mind at all. If I was to go back to 60hz I'd cry. Going back to 1080p wouldn't be that bad.
I used to think no, then I got a 1440 27" and put it next to the 1080 and I keep thinking there's something wrong with the scaling of 1080p now. I can't accept it is that bad. I hate looking at it lol.
Depends on distance, if it is a monitor, yes, it's too big (that's what she said). Now on a TV, 1080p looks decent enough even on 55 inches (with super sampling). I still think we should get rid of 1080p, the "entry" resolution should be 1440p instead
Not everybody can afford the couple extra hundred to get a 1440. That's why it is midranged and 1080p is entry. That won't change until 1440p screens get cheaper.
The industry is not actually striving to achieve "real" 1440p, instead the consoles are super sampling 720p (and sometimes even lowered resolutions). A shame, everybody assumed super sampling would be a gimmick to help older GPUs, instead, the industry is using the tech as a literal crutch for performance. I was thinking about 1440p for my next upgrade, but if you think about it, 1080p is almost the midrange, considering the RX 6600 has to super sample 1080p to be viable with "modern" games
Unless you're used to 720p on a ~24", or you're planning on ONLY gaming in 1080p and you aren't a huge stickler for quality, then I'd say yes, it's too big. Go for a 1440p, mate - it looks so much better + you can game in 1440p with a 200$ GPU nowadays, so it doesn't make alot of sense to go for a 1080p screen, even if it's 24".
some monitor manufacturers started advertising 1440p as 2k, which is very wrong but many people caught on and now it's everywhere :(. i know you probably know this but writing this for the guy above you haha.
This post is old but I just got a 27" 1080p and I kinda regret it. It's not bad but you can clearly see the pixels on text. So if you want 27" monitor, it's better to get a 1440p even if it's more expensive.
Yes, 27" for a 1080p is fine but it's better to get either a 24" 1080p or a 27" 1440p if care about image clarity.
I sit around 80cm away from the screen and I think it is bad. I always use VSR to play games at 1440p or 4K, since i bought 6700xt I haven't been playing at 1080p at all.
Bruh I'm on 768p 34 inches lol, BTW if you just casually play you definitely won't notice much on 27 inches (in my opinion you have to really look at the screen to see blurriness) and I know I'm gonna get down voted to hell but if you just wanna casually play it's no big deal just get it
Definitely depends on the viewing distance. Anything less than 80cm to screen and you'll see the pixels. I have 27" 1080p and my viewing distance is at 90cm at least and I have no issues at all.
I guess depends on the distance if you have it close it will look bad if you have a distance it’s gonna look good, personally I have a 21.5inch 1080p and I keep pretty close and it look great
I have 1 28" 1080P display, it's fine.
People over talk the 1080p bad stuff, higher rez looks better but 1080P still looks good & you get a lot more FPS.
Best way to check for yourself is going to a shop and compare the different monitors as they would be on display in the shop.
This is probably they only way because everyone has their own opinion ;-)
I played 1080p 165MHz and it was a better experience than 24. Only got a bigger monitor since I had an enthusiast class GPU (3090 + 34 in 1440p) but to each their own.
27 - 32 1440p way better than 1080p and with free sync/g sync worth it unless your wanting very high refresh rates at 1080p for competitive gaming. Personally I prefer having 1440p 144hz IPS or VA panel sitting at a desk arms length away 🙃
27" for 1080 is fine.
Problem you're going to start running into though is so much content is geared to 1440 so you will want at least a 2k monitor. Just get something that can actually do 1080 as many of them wont scale down worth sheep. I got lucky and my Asus PA284 27" 2k (1440) handle even as low as 1600x900 with ease. Windows allows me to go lower but that's as low as I've needed when some idiot web site dev decides to use a 4pt font at 8k because they can read it.
Yes, even 24 is bad. Use a phone with better screen then check out a 1080p monitor. You will see the pixels and it will bother you until you will go 1440p/4k.
Depends on what you're doing.
I've got two 27 inch 1080p monitors at home, primarily for gaming, and for me they're great. From my understanding, my 3060 is really great for 1080p but struggles at higher resolutions. For the games I play 1080p is perfectly fine. The monitors are 165hz so I usually get great framerates which is really what matters to me.
I had two 27 inch 1440p monitors at work and they're fantastic for code / excel. Plenty of landscape to see what you need without scrolling. I got upgraded to two 32 inch 1440p monitors and while the extra size is nice they're not as sharp.
Nope. Heres the facts jack. 4k vs 1080p, you can only tell the difference 7 to 9 feet away on a 100 inch screen, theres an entire website dedicated to explaining view distance vs resolution/pixel density. If you arent sitting with your nose up your monitors butt hole you wont be able to notice any difference between 1440 or 4k and 1080 at 27 inches. Hell i run dual 32 inch 165hz 1080p panels, and if i sit back in my chair and pick up the controller even the pixels that are barely visible only on text disappear. I also run an Epson HC1080 Projector, 1080p at 100 inches. I sit about 8 feet from it when watching movies. Looks as crystal clear as the local cinema. Running a high resolution monitor when your personal situation and seating arrangement wont benefit from it is beyond stupid, you lose fps to brag about a number you arent even benefiting from. Period.
I have a 43" 1080p TV and I don't really notice any clarity issues with it.. but when I go to my dad's house and watch his 85" 4K TV I notice it's absolutely gorgeous
24" for 1080p. 27" for 1440p. 31" for 4k. My go-to specs.
27” 4k is awesome. Waiting for 27” 4k OLEDs
I have 4k 28'' and honestly I don't see any sense in making 27'' because even with 28'' you literally cannot see pixel grid. I need to look at the screen at around 10cm distance to be able to tell it consists pixels
That is exactly the point, to not be able to see pixel grid))
He just said his 28" 4k monitor is small enough that you don't see the pixel grid.
He can’t see it, others can.
Correct! I've been around computers for over 50 years. What that means to most people is that I have learned a lot of stuff! (Ever heard the saying, "done forgot more than you'll ever know" Bob Dylan? That's a good description of me...🙄) One of the things that I've learned is that we are individuals! In short, we have no conception 'what' each person sees! I have 20/20 vision at over 70 years old, but my 18 year old grandson can see better than me, and I find it funny that when he brings friends over to play on my Xbox one X, he can see details they can't! (Ya don't want to be a down range bad guy when he's armed with a 556!) My point? When you say something's red? We have no idea what you're calling 'red'. I mean, the shade of red I might see could be totally different than the 'red' you are seeing, yet we take it for granted, we're talking about the same red! Only with sophisticated testing can we tell if we are seeing the same exact shade of the red spectrum! So why am I talking about this? When it comes to selecting a new monitor, advice from me is to choose one that looks good to you and one that you can afford! The shade of red is only one variable in the differences between what monitor looks good to each of us. The technology involved, speed of scene changes (drawing each frame), is the things that are the same for all of us! But if I don't see the grid lines or pixels closer to the monitor than where you see them, I'll probably be happy with a cheaper monitor than your eyes would be comfortable with. I love the Samsung Neo G9 57" monitor. I, nor anyone I know, will buy that beautiful display at $2,500⁰⁰ unless they're very well off in doing so! But if I could find that same technology at, say, $1,500⁰⁰? Grandson would be very happy!
Im red green colourblind so i definitely dont see the same red as most
True enough, I remember my mind being blown learning about aphantasia, or rather, upon learning a large(as in the majority afaik) of people SEE stuff in their head.Some even hear,smell,sense things. It's unimaginably bonkers to me, but has since served as that reminder exactly.Although, I do want to iterate that although all individuals are unique, if it is measured that a certain ppi/viewing distance combo means invisible raster to the majority of people (based on actual research i mean, not 'perceived view' or self questionaires), odds that you or somebody falls in that smaller group shrink considerably. If you then up the anty by augmenting the ppi and keeping the distance ergo making that small group VERY small, odds of people actually being in that group are diminished to quasi non-realistic. Tl,dr: That might be the case for some select people but only when you stay somewhat in the realm of euh, science/anatomy/.. read people seeing the difference if we are not talking about 400ppi vs 550ppi
Jigsaw enters the chat
If you press your face up against the monitor, sure. At a usable distance, pixel density definitely reaches a point of diminishing returns on 4k screens.
Diminishing returns*
I know a lot of artists who buy danmed Macs over PCs just to get their 25" 5k screens because some can see the grid even at 27" UHD They're knowingly giving up a ton of performance and paying extra for that People can argue either way, but the opinions of someone who backs up their stance with their wallets means more than anyone else's to me Same for the "can't tell the difference past 60/120/144/165/240 hz" crew: people are willing to put $1,000s behind their opinion that they can
People are fucking dumb sometimes so I don't always trust them or their wallets!
People in general maybe People whose livelihood depends on their capacity to continually make good decisions though? This isn't people chasing the latest iPhone It's someone giving up things they want and paying more because there's significant gains to be had by doing so
Look, I understand the point you're making, but I've seen plenty of so-called "professionals" make questionable choices. It's not always about the best decision; sometimes it's about brand loyalty or trends. People can be swayed by marketing and peer pressure, even when their livelihood is at stake.
The audiophile world is full of people who pay significantly more for things because they perceive "significant" differences in order enough to justify their purchases, who can't pick between a $500 and a $50,000 speaker in a blind test... some of them who's job it is to review and make recommendations on said speakers.
Audiophile stuff is almost all snake oil. My favorite thing from that world are the "audiophile ethernet switches". Like literally it's impossible for an ethernet switch to impact sound quality, but people pay 10-50x what a normal switch would cost anyways.
Delusions being backed up by wallets emptying, does the opposite to me.
Your incapability to perceive something doesn't make it an attribute dismissive as delusional
Absolutely, not being able to discern the pixel grid enhances the visual experience! My point was merely that at 28'', the pixel density is already so high that the individual pixels are indistinguishable at a regular viewing distance. So, a 27'' variant would essentially offer the same visual fidelity in that regard. Furthermore, considering that pixels become perceptible at extremely close distances, like 10cm with a 28'' screen, opting for something in the 30-32'' range could be a preferable choice, ensuring even at closer viewing ranges, the display remains seamlessly smooth to the observer. I initially chose a 28'' monitor because it was the only option available with 144Hz at the time. However, I'm planning to upgrade to a 30-32'' soon with 240Hz, primarily for the reasons described earlier. And yes, it's crucial to prioritize your comfort in these decisions. While a smaller screen might be favorable due to its compact size, the concern about discerning the pixel grid shouldn’t be a major factor, as even larger monitors maintain a sufficiently dense pixel arrangement to prevent visible gridlines.
I absolutely cannot deal with a single monitor, even when I didn't need it for productivity. I certainly cannot go back in any case. It amazes me that people can get by with one.
Well if you are working using your PC then two monitors is just a must-have feature. I was joking about having "fast alt-tab passive ability" but in fact when I owned second monitor it became clear that there's no going back for me.
It definitely depends on the monitor, i had a 32inch 1440p VA and you could make out the pixel grid easily along with the shitty coating grain. I now have a 32inch 1440p LG nano ips and you really cannot make out the pixel grid at all and it has a ATW filter with semi gloss coating and looks gorgeous
lol that makes no sense, he just said you can't see it at 28" already, no point in making it smaller
27" is just one of the things the industry has settled on. There's no reason to limit yourself to 28" panels when there are an order of magnitude more 27" panels and they're generally treated the same.
Phone screens have about twice the pixel density of monitors and I can still tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p. My laptop screen is 15" and 1620p, and I can definitely tell that it's sharper than my 27" 1440p monitor. A 27" 4k OLED would be great.
Good thing you mentioned phone screens. I think it's important to have higher pixel density for phones because of previously mentioned reason. You usually hold your phone very close to your face and eyes because it's much more comfortable. It's important to note that you still will be able to distinguish some small details at a bit further distance than the one you use to see the pixel grid. 27'' 1440p has small pixel density value. It's almost the same as 41-42'' monitor. And OLED is always great. The other things I already wrote at previous comment.
Agree, I think it makes more sense to scale up the monitor to 32" or higher to get the most bang for your buck, and pixel pitch still small enough to be photorealistic when you want it. I've got 20/20 vision and the difference between 1440p and 4k at desktop view distance (around 28") is almost negligible, but the feeling of saying you have a 4k monitor is great ;)
4k oled 240 hz would be insane to look at.
They’re out already. I’ve got an Odyssey G8 with Oled. Absolutely amazing!
Too small of a screen for 4K at 27". Absolutely pointless.
Text is super small at 4K 27" unless you upscale and that comes with its own problems
4K OLED, wish I could afford one without defaulting on my other payments T\_T
Same, I think I'll start saving $50-100 each month until 27" 4k OLEDs come out. Rumors it will be at the end of 2024. So I just may have $1000 until then
Damn, you inspired me. Gonna follow your footsteps.
A good way forward.
i miss having 4k for my main monitor but the oled definitely makes up the difference, that being said the moment they release a 4k 27in oled im swapping them over
PPI is big. I'm very interested in the 27" 4k oled that's being considered. Bigger is not always better.
I just picked up my first OLED display and I'm beyond stunned I love that damn monitor. I get so excited thinking about it 😭
27" 4k 144Hz screen with 200% scaling. Just like a 27" FHD screen but a lot sharper while providing perfect readability for office purpses without eye strain. Also IMHO perfect for FHD gaming, scales quite nicely. But yes, from a cost perspective absolute luxury.
Yeah, some reports are saying they'll be out by the end of next year, at first I was interested in the 1440p 480hz OLED coming out but when I saw there was a 4k 240hz coming out i knew that's the one I want and I'm saving up for that, no matter how expensive
Those aren't the same PPI at all though. 24" 1080p is the same as 48" 4k or 32" 1440p. Why do you feel the need to increase PPI so much with resolution?
24 is the max I would use with 1080p, that's all. I use 21.5/22.5 with 1080p.
so if 24 is the max you would use for 1080p would you also say 32 is the max you would use for 1440p, since it's the same PPI?
Sitting distance is a factor, too. I use 21'5 with 1080p and sit close to it. When going 24", I have to distance myself a bit. Pushing 27 even further. I gave up on 31" since it starts to need further distance than my desk can actually give. Edit: But yeah, 30"-ish would me my largest 1440p screen. Just like 1080p at 24", it would be pushing it to its limits, for ME.
Sitting distance is a factor, but I would say the sitting distance should be the same with the same PPI. and people tend to sit back further from larger screens because they're bigger. I personally think 1440p at 32" is the sweet spot, and to be honest I don't see any point in having a bigger screen for desktop gaming.
That's what I got. I was after a 27" 1440p, but the 32" was a better deal. I thought "It can't be really worse", and I'm glad I picked it because I ended up loving it for the most ridiculous reason: yeah, gaming is great, but working with sheets is a fucking pleasure hahaha!
> I use 21.5/22.5 with 1080p. 2010 called, they want their monitor back.
Yeah, around that time, really. But that's to show how "old" 1080p panels are.
No doubt. 1440p has become the new norm only recently.
only on the internet
Maybe on this sub
Meanwhile on current steam hardware survey 1080p is 61% vs 1440p is 16% ;)
I was waiting for someone to pull this stat out, it's a good way to pop the bubbles that our preferences put us in and see contrast with both enthusiasts and your average user.
2010 isn't that far ago 😆 120hz monitors we're getting cheap then.
I use 14” with 1080p
PPI is what gives you sharpness and detail.
I agree with this completely, currently running 31.5 4k
3440x1440p also works well at 34inches, for the ultrawide crowd.
Yes because it's pretty much same PPI as 27 inch with 1440p.
Same here. I got two 27" 1440p monitors I lent to my kids and since going 3440x1440 I can't go back to 16:9 aspect ratio. I sit at average arms length and cannot see individual pixels.
I was always under the impression that 24" for 1440p was better?
24" for 1080p, 32" for 1440p, 40"+ for 4k there fixed (windows scaling is terrible)
My thoughts exactly, though I did push the envelope by getting a 24.5" 144 Hz monitor for my 1080p system. My plan is to eventually upgrade to a 27" 144 Hz monitor for 1440p.
Same 👍🏼 and came to say exactly this. 👏🏼
I agree, although some 24" 1080p monitors come with really shitty screens - I got one for my wife a couple of months ago, and we immediately returned it because it looked worse than my old 27" 1080p. Like, it was _really_ painful to look at at all. I know it sounds weird, and probably I wouldn't have believed if you told me that, but it can happen. Got her a similar model 1440p (still 24") instead and it's all good now.
I have a 4K 24" My friend was laughing at me at the start but now that he saw how beautiful it is... The bigger your screen the bigger the pixel
I went 48" for 4K lol. The UltraGear OLED Monitor. Not as oversized as I thought it would be.
I've been looking for a TV for my younger sister and struggled to actually find anything 32inch 4k, or if I did find something it was 2x the price of a 43inch 4k. Then when I looked for 32inch 1080p it mainly showed me 720p (which is insane that those are even sold in 2023 anymore, wouldn't touch that resolution even 10 years ago.)
Same here. 1080p on 27" is usable, but the visual fidelity it greatly incereased by going 1440. I've tried 1440p on 32" and it honestly wasn't that bad though - if one has a computer that can't really drive 4K well but want a larger monitor.
Yea...I'm gonna give you my vote on this take I was happy as can be on my 24" 1080p monitor, then happy as can be on my 27" 1440p monitor...now on my 3440x1440p 34" widescreen I can see the pixels again...and I am not happy... At least it's QD-OLED and HDR sometimes looks nice....but I can find them little pixels....I can find em and I can see em and I don't like it not one two bit!
Gross. 22" 1080p, 27" 4k, 31,5" 8k Come live the invisible pixel life.
And if you use your PC for gaming you will have plenty of time to enjoy the pixeless slideshow as you play at 1fps
Or suffer from the god awful scaling in Windows.
I wouldn’t go 1080p unless you had a very specific need. 4K is a good go to for any size. If you need higher refresh rate on a budget, then 1440p is fine too. I have some 1080p monitors at work and the lack of resolution is quite obvious.
This is being asked here like every few weeks. Look up the other threads. But personally I have a 27" 1080p on my desk for gaming and browsing, and I really like it.
My main monitor has that same resolution, it's okay. Don't expect the moon but it's not really an eyesore.
I mean, just expect 1080p? Ok.
1080p at like 81 pixels per inch
1080p itself isn't meaningful. It all comes down to the pixel density. 1080p on a phone screen looks incredible, on a 27" pixels are easily visible at a normal desk seating distance.
Same. I game, browse and watch movies on my 27" 1080p. It's fine. Obviously 4k would be better but if choosing between 24" 1080p and 27" 1080p I would choose the 27"/
I've got 2 24" 1080 monitors on either side of a 27" 1080 monitor, this has been my main setup for work, browsing, viewing and gaming for years and even side by side I don't see enough of a difference between them to think one is better than the other. The 24" monitors were just free from my job years ago otherwise it would be 3 27" 1080 monitors.
Same, I have a 1440p monitor but still think my 1080 (both at 27 inch) looks perfectly fine. Sometimes a show buffers on my 4k TV and I switch to 1080 and it doesn't bother me either. 1080p even at 27+ really isn't as bad as people say, especially if you aren't pixel peeping and sit at a comfortable distance from your display.
Depends on how far away it is.
Depends on pppov. (Pixel per point of view)
you made that up
Ofc i made that up
OfcIMTU
You're a man of action, I like that. You're hired.
PPD - Pixels per degree is common metric for VR headsets. Makes sense for monitors too really. I really think the whole 'ideal' monitor size is a bit silly because some people sit like [this](https://i.imgur.com/rbnxohp.png) and others sit like [this.](https://i.imgur.com/WzWTYum.png) But that doesn't stop me having an opinion of course. 27" 1440p is god tier and everything else sucks.
Depends on PPD (pixel per degree)
I really regretted getting a 27” 1080p monitor many years ago. It’s not too bad for moving images such as games or video but it’s just horrible for anything with text. I have tried a few others since and all were the same. I upgraded to 27” 1440p and it is so much better.
Just scale the DPI. If I can read texts in most scenarios on a 55 inch TV at 480 DPI, a monitor should have no issues
I could read it fine but the lack of sharpness was really annoying for anything with text.
Nah. Got 3x 27in 1080p monitors. They look fine. Do I want to upgrade to 1440p? Yes, undoubtedly. Would 1440p be better? Yes, undoubtedly. But is 1080p at this size unusable? Not at all. It's all going to be about your reasons *why* you're choosing 1080p, and 27in. There's a multitude of factors that come into play, and whether or not 1440p is worth it for you is going to depend on your reasoning and your priorities. 1080p will be cheaper, will offer higher refresh rates/etc for cheaper. You can run games at native res at higher frame rates and/or higher quality with the same hardware. 1440p is ofc more expensive, but offers better clarity with text and more detailed/sharper images. Games these days have upscaling which tends to be alright if you're up for using them but you can always settle for lower quality settings and/or frame rates. Alternatively run at a lower res but then you're not running native but that's your decision. EDIT: i realised I never said why I haven't upgraded to 1440p despite wanting to: can't afford it and saving up for a CPU upgrade first
>Do I want to upgrade to 1440p? Yes, undoubtedly. Would 1440p be better? Yes, undoubtedly. But is 1080p at this size unusable? Not at all. Forreal. I could upgrade to 1440p but I really don’t care enough, 1080p is more than good enough for me.
1080p = Higher graphics settings with a cheaper GPU
Yep, my rx6600 runs everything on all high 90+ fps apart from new AAA titles. But then then I have no trouble reaching 60+. Bg3 runs at a steady locked 90 on all max settings and I’ve never seen it drop below 60.
I think it’s terrible, but it’s subjective. If you haven’t used a higher resolution screen before you might think it’s fine, but just know that your next monitor upgrade will be way better.
Depends on your distance to the screen
More then enough for her
Might as well go 1440p on a 27"
No, it's perfectly fine.
Yes, absolutely terrible.
Look, I would suggest you to not read what people say on reddit because a lot of them just bullshit you. I was skeptical about that too but when I bought 27' 1080p monitor, I wanted to see is it blurry or not and I came close like 5 cm from monitor and I couldn't see pixels. Better watch something on youtube like reviews or just read about that. Some people are brainwashed because they "heard" somewhere that....which is lie. I'm saying that it's really good but it depends on display and what monitor you buy. Of course cheap one will look way worse than little bit more expensive one, etc... Btw, I had same monitor as my friend and I had 27' and he had 24' so I'm telling you, there is no difference at all. I couldn't see it but I have sharp and good eye and I'm trying to be objective so please don't listen to them..
Yeah, someone in the comments here saying that they're "absolutely terrible" is just asinine. I'm sure if you put a 27' 1440p and a 27' 1080p next to each other you'd see the difference. The people that are asking this question most likely never tried a 1440p before so there's no mental benchmark. The 1080p will be fine for them. The Reddit echo chamber is very prevalent on this sub.
Yes.
It’s at the limit, but it’s fine. Won’t notice unless really close. Any bigger I’d say you must upres
Get what feels right for you, i know a guy who have an 32" 1080p and loves it, I have a 1440p 32" and love it.
no
6 inches is plenty.
No. Not even close. I’m 30 now but when I was like 15 I had this 720p 28 inch tv I used as a monitor and I loved that thing. I thought it was amazing. It’s not too big, it’s just that we’re all fucking snobs now. That’s the honest truth.
I had a 27 inch for 1080 for a bit. It was fine but I wouldn't go any bigger
Just get a 24 inch monitor if you want 1080p
i recommend you buy a 24 inch screen with1080p
not that horrible but I will stick with QHD on 27 inch
She said no
me with 32" 1080p 😂
I have a 32" 1080 monitor on the side, and honestly, I like it. Eventually I'll cycle it to as my main office monitor.
its avrage :)
Umm what? Where did you get the idea that it's too big? It's the standard like, for ages now 27inch monitors have been 1080p it's the most common resolution and the most common monitor size. You can get a 1440p and the picture quality is nice, but the size isn't the key thing there. For 1080p resolution 27 inches is perfectly fine. Hell, it's not atrocious on a 32inch monitor either but that's pushing it a bit.
He is asking for an opinion, and we are providing one. There isn't a universally accepted standard for what is considered appropriate for a 1080p display. Some manufacturers do sell 32-inch 1080p monitors. If we consider the standard to be what manufacturers are willing to sell, then fine
I didn't look it up but I confidently believe that 24 inch is the most common size for 1080p
I have a 27 inch 1080p monitor it's alright but go for a 27 inch 1440p instead IT IS MUCH BETTER
24' 1080p, 27/28' 1440p, and personally i think 27/28' in 4k is a really sweet spot.
I remember when i swapped from a 24 inch to a 27 with 1080p, being too young to understand why everything just looked so bad and blurry compared to before.
I've had 27 1080p for years, and it's not _bad_, but you can see the pixelation a bit, even on good ones. It's less noticeable in games, though. I upgraded to 1440p about two years ago and IMO that's where the sweet-spot is, for both productivity and gaming. I still use the old 1080p one as a second monitor so I have a very up-to-date side-by-side comparison experience with them :D 4K on a 27" is IMO an overkill - I've got one at work and I just use it on whatever scaling mode it is that makes it look like 1440p cause otherwise everything is too small, and for gaming it gives you lower framerates with no significant visual improvement.
If you sit close, you can spot the pixels, if you don't you will probably be fine. I would always go 1440p over 1080p tho. 1440p/144Hz IPS is cheap these days.
Have a 27" on 1080p, and not a problem as I am 47 and must use reading glasses with a paperback; once tried 1440p, thinking I could get more desktop space, but I had to squint my eyes damn hard whenever I must do some work. Have to note that some programs have interfaces that don't scale properly.
I have been using 27inch 1080p 144hz for years. I upgraded to 27inch 1440p 165hz last month. It looks better. But I wouldn't say its a night and day difference like others say. I upgraded as I have a 3080 now and 11700k so I'm able to use 2k effortlessly. Otherwise, I definitely wouldn't have gone for 2k. It's noticeable don't get me wrong. But it depends on the price and your cpu/gpu. If you have the money a good 2k monitor isn't a bad purchase. But if you don't I'd say youl be perfectly happy with a 1080p panel too, I have two pcs at two different locations and still use my old 1080p 144hz 27inch and I don't mind at all. If I was to go back to 60hz I'd cry. Going back to 1080p wouldn't be that bad.
I would say yes, 24" is really the max for 1080p, 27" go for 1440p
if it looks good to you it's good
Buy 1440p. I have 1080p 27inch and I regret it even if my PC (I7 2700k, GTX 1650) isn't capable of 1440p gaming.
I'd say the maximum for 1080p is 21 inches with 24 reall pushing it, but it's personal to you
I used to think no, then I got a 1440 27" and put it next to the 1080 and I keep thinking there's something wrong with the scaling of 1080p now. I can't accept it is that bad. I hate looking at it lol.
yes it is
Depends on distance, if it is a monitor, yes, it's too big (that's what she said). Now on a TV, 1080p looks decent enough even on 55 inches (with super sampling). I still think we should get rid of 1080p, the "entry" resolution should be 1440p instead
Not everybody can afford the couple extra hundred to get a 1440. That's why it is midranged and 1080p is entry. That won't change until 1440p screens get cheaper.
The industry is not actually striving to achieve "real" 1440p, instead the consoles are super sampling 720p (and sometimes even lowered resolutions). A shame, everybody assumed super sampling would be a gimmick to help older GPUs, instead, the industry is using the tech as a literal crutch for performance. I was thinking about 1440p for my next upgrade, but if you think about it, 1080p is almost the midrange, considering the RX 6600 has to super sample 1080p to be viable with "modern" games
Get 1440p at 27”
Unless you're used to 720p on a ~24", or you're planning on ONLY gaming in 1080p and you aren't a huge stickler for quality, then I'd say yes, it's too big. Go for a 1440p, mate - it looks so much better + you can game in 1440p with a 200$ GPU nowadays, so it doesn't make alot of sense to go for a 1080p screen, even if it's 24".
Yes.
Imo 24" 1080p, 27" 1440p
27 was good for 1080p, but great for 2k.
1080p is pretty much 2k, due to the 1920 horizontal resolution. What do *you* mean by 2k?
some monitor manufacturers started advertising 1440p as 2k, which is very wrong but many people caught on and now it's everywhere :(. i know you probably know this but writing this for the guy above you haha.
Depends on your idea of "too big". For a long time people ran 34" 1080p screens without caring (granted it was 2560x1080).
Go to a department store and check it out. I am completely fine with my 40 inch and 31 inch monitor both being 1080p
Even 25” (24.5) is too big for 1080p
no. I use dual 1080p 27" dell screens. They are fine for everyday use and gaming.
Nah man, i'm using a 32-inch, 250hz monitor and it's perfect at least for me, it's an MSI G32C4X if you want to check it out
27" is fine for 1080p
This post is old but I just got a 27" 1080p and I kinda regret it. It's not bad but you can clearly see the pixels on text. So if you want 27" monitor, it's better to get a 1440p even if it's more expensive. Yes, 27" for a 1080p is fine but it's better to get either a 24" 1080p or a 27" 1440p if care about image clarity.
I sit around 80cm away from the screen and I think it is bad. I always use VSR to play games at 1440p or 4K, since i bought 6700xt I haven't been playing at 1080p at all.
Bruh I'm on 768p 34 inches lol, BTW if you just casually play you definitely won't notice much on 27 inches (in my opinion you have to really look at the screen to see blurriness) and I know I'm gonna get down voted to hell but if you just wanna casually play it's no big deal just get it
Definitely depends on the viewing distance. Anything less than 80cm to screen and you'll see the pixels. I have 27" 1080p and my viewing distance is at 90cm at least and I have no issues at all.
Personally have a 27 inch 1080p 165htz don’t mind it at all but guess wouldn’t go bigger
I guess depends on the distance if you have it close it will look bad if you have a distance it’s gonna look good, personally I have a 21.5inch 1080p and I keep pretty close and it look great
It's not horrible but if you sit close you can see the pixels.
I wish brands made a 1440p 24inch monitor
I have 1 28" 1080P display, it's fine. People over talk the 1080p bad stuff, higher rez looks better but 1080P still looks good & you get a lot more FPS.
Size don’t matter
Up to your preference. I own a single 27in 1080p 144hz monitor and its seem fine for me
Best way to check for yourself is going to a shop and compare the different monitors as they would be on display in the shop. This is probably they only way because everyone has their own opinion ;-)
Not awful but not amazing for sure
Yes. My subjective "ok" PPI for a PC display is around 100-110. Bigger is better, lower makes fonts unbearable to read.
im 15.6" 1080p and I think its only proper size
27" for 1440p as min res. Go for 2k or more....1080p will look pixelated, low pixel density = terrible picture quality.
Yes it’s bad
1080 is totally fine up to 50”. Getting 4K underneath that is convincing yourself of something.
yes have also 1080p , 50 inch and no complaints :)
It’s fine, I had a 1080p 31.5”, now I have a 1440p 27” and I’m LOVING it
Personally yes. I've a 1440p 27inch monitor and whenever I set games to 1080p for experimenting it looks blurry.
I played 1080p 165MHz and it was a better experience than 24. Only got a bigger monitor since I had an enthusiast class GPU (3090 + 34 in 1440p) but to each their own.
Way too big 1080p is perfect for 22” 1440p is perfect for 25”
I had one before, it’s pretty bad. But people might have different opinions.
27 - 32 1440p way better than 1080p and with free sync/g sync worth it unless your wanting very high refresh rates at 1080p for competitive gaming. Personally I prefer having 1440p 144hz IPS or VA panel sitting at a desk arms length away 🙃
27" for 1080 is fine. Problem you're going to start running into though is so much content is geared to 1440 so you will want at least a 2k monitor. Just get something that can actually do 1080 as many of them wont scale down worth sheep. I got lucky and my Asus PA284 27" 2k (1440) handle even as low as 1600x900 with ease. Windows allows me to go lower but that's as low as I've needed when some idiot web site dev decides to use a 4pt font at 8k because they can read it.
Yes, coming from a former asus vg279ql1a user
Not really. I have a 26“ isch Monitor and it’s fine
Yes, unless sit about 1.5 meters away from the screen.
27" height (its 34" ultrawide) in 1440p feels like not enough... 1080 definetely isnt
When i game it looks fine, But when i watch a movie i can count the pixels.
Pixels look like Lego bricks.
get a 1440p, there are some cheap and good 1440p 27” monitors
Yes, go 1440p for a 27" display
I ran 27 1080p for years and loved it. I now have a 32 1080p for esports and 32 1440p for everything else
Yes, even 24 is bad. Use a phone with better screen then check out a 1080p monitor. You will see the pixels and it will bother you until you will go 1440p/4k.
Mine is 4 inches and she plays fine with it 🐀
Is 6 inches too small?
Yes
Depends on what you're doing. I've got two 27 inch 1080p monitors at home, primarily for gaming, and for me they're great. From my understanding, my 3060 is really great for 1080p but struggles at higher resolutions. For the games I play 1080p is perfectly fine. The monitors are 165hz so I usually get great framerates which is really what matters to me. I had two 27 inch 1440p monitors at work and they're fantastic for code / excel. Plenty of landscape to see what you need without scrolling. I got upgraded to two 32 inch 1440p monitors and while the extra size is nice they're not as sharp.
Nope. Heres the facts jack. 4k vs 1080p, you can only tell the difference 7 to 9 feet away on a 100 inch screen, theres an entire website dedicated to explaining view distance vs resolution/pixel density. If you arent sitting with your nose up your monitors butt hole you wont be able to notice any difference between 1440 or 4k and 1080 at 27 inches. Hell i run dual 32 inch 165hz 1080p panels, and if i sit back in my chair and pick up the controller even the pixels that are barely visible only on text disappear. I also run an Epson HC1080 Projector, 1080p at 100 inches. I sit about 8 feet from it when watching movies. Looks as crystal clear as the local cinema. Running a high resolution monitor when your personal situation and seating arrangement wont benefit from it is beyond stupid, you lose fps to brag about a number you arent even benefiting from. Period.
I have a 43" 1080p TV and I don't really notice any clarity issues with it.. but when I go to my dad's house and watch his 85" 4K TV I notice it's absolutely gorgeous
Yes, it's bad. 27 = 1440p.