2160p 32 inch monitor vs 27 inch 1440p

[KrzysiuM]

Is there a noticeable difference between these monitors in sharp? I'm still considering 32 inch 4k and wonder if it's worth it.

[potato]

i've been using 32 inch for years and i can't go back to anything smaller

[Monk]

Do you have the hardware for the step to 4k to be worth it is the real question.

[KrzysiuM]

Have rtx 3080 ti

[Monk]

K, well as a heads up I often still dropped my heavily overclocjed, Water-cooled 3090 down to 1440p plus made use of dlss in many games, but, that was to keep myself above 90fps, ideally pinned at 120.

So if you are happy at lower fps or dropping the res, go to 4k, but, I still think 1440p is the sweet spot.

My 4090 is the first card I feel is really 4k capable (having gone up through sli 980, sli 1080ti, a 2080ti, 3090 abd finally a 4090).

Screen size is also about how it fills your vision, move a 27 inch 1440p panel closer abd you'll have the same experience as 4k on a 32inch, only at higher fps.

While play at 4k now, I do not think it is worth sacrificing the added smoothness of higher fps at a lower res, so I'd go with the 1440p option.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Look at 32 inch, 1440p, 144Hz minimum refresh with both HDMI and DP

[Monk]

Messaggio originale di Bad 💀 Motha:

Look at 32 inch, 1440p, 144Hz minimum refresh with both HDMI and DP

I don't think there is one, could go uktraside I guess, but I got the impression they were looking at sticking to 16:9.

[potato]

Messaggio originale di Monk:

I don't think there is one

there's this one

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B088MKF848/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1

[pasa]

1440k is fine for 32" and close to overkill on 27", though the usual gap of res is big and 27 is borderline for 1080p. (1200 probably rare these days). 4k is for huge TVs.

[Monk]

Messaggio originale di potato:

Messaggio originale di Monk:

I don't think there is one

there's this one

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B088MKF848/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1

That is cool, though ifeelit would be a bit like 1080p at 27 inch, it's just a bit too big, 1440p at 27 at arms length looks incredible to me.

It's fairly similar to my 86 inch sitting 10-12ft away regarding how much of my field of vision is occupied.

[C1REX]

4K 32inch monitor - no doubt.

Don't worry about 4K performance. You can always use DLSS or just lower the resolution if your GPU can't handle native 4K.
4K monitors handle non- native resolutions way better than 1440p monitors due to 2x higher pixel density.

Thanks to DLSS 4K is the new sweet spot.

[r.linder]

32 inch 1440p 165+ Hz is more than enough for most people, you should really only be pursuing 2160p if you're going to be using a top end card like the 4090 that can make the most out of it at a high refresh rate.

The smaller the screen, the closer you'll have to sit to reasonably see clearly, both of those screen sizes are small enough that you're going to strain your eyes more unless tweak scaling to make the UI larger, which partly defeats the point of the higher resolution.

[r.linder]

Messaggio originale di C1REX-PL:

Thanks to DLSS 4K is the new sweet spot.

DLSS doesn't have enough support to make 2160p more of a sweet spot than 1440p, and most people don't even have the hardware for that regardless, a 4070 or 3080 at minimum for it to even be worth it. For most people, 1440p is still a better option, I wouldn't even bother with 2160p because it does require more frequent upgrades if you don't go all in and spend huge money on cards like the 4090.

AMD's equivalents like FSR are less restricted and ultimately better for gamers as a result because it's all software, they don't lock it behind hardware upgrades. DLSS performs and looks better, but it's being limited by NVIDIA itself because they want to maintain absolute control.

[C1REX]

Messaggio originale di 尺．し工几ᗪヨ尺:

Messaggio originale di C1REX-PL:

Thanks to DLSS 4K is the new sweet spot.

DLSS doesn't have enough support to make 2160p more of a sweet spot than 1440p, and most people don't even have the hardware for that regardless, a 4070 or 3080 at minimum for it to even be worth it. For most people, 1440p is still a better option, I wouldn't even bother with 2160p because it does require more frequent upgrades if you don't go all in and spend huge money on cards like the 4090.

I respectfully but strongly disagree.
4K + DLSS performance is easy to run and gives better image than 1440p with DLSS quality due to higher input resolutions: 1080p vs 960p.
You can also lower resolution on a 4K monitor to 1800p/1440p/1080p as such screens with such high pixel density can handle non native resolutions very well. Consoles and TV almost always scale resolution and nobody complains - only Digital Foundry can tell the difference between native 4K and 1800p (not 1080p).
1440p monitors are stuck at native because they can’t do more and don’t scale 1080p well.

I have a big 4K screen and soon get another. 4K is viable even with low end GPUs. Until recently I was using it with a 5700XT.

[Reaper]

Messaggio originale di pasa:

1440k is fine for 32" and close to overkill on 27", though the usual gap of res is big and 27 is borderline for 1080p. (1200 probably rare these days). 4k is for huge TVs.

This is not true I have a 1440p @ 27" and I can tell a huge difference between 1080p and 1440p.

[Schrute_Farms_B&B]

Dont go for 4K, thats all I can say from a personal standpoint.
Here are my two cents: (and this comes from someone, who changes his GPU every new generation and CPU every second).

I went trough several PC gaming-catergories.

-10/11 years ago, when I started this costly hobby, I was your regular 32inch, 1080p gamer, getting massive FPS in all AAA games but muddy and pixilated textures. Changing to 24inch didnt do much.
You can easily maintain at least 60 FPS for a couple of years with the same GPU on 1080p. I mean look at the GTX1080. A legend when its about 1080p gaming. It lasted and still lasts.

- Stepped up to 1080p, 21:9. Same pixel-ratio on height, but more in width. 30% more GPU-utilization. Wasnt worth the hassle but still an option for folks with a GPU which is too weak for 1440p but "almost" too strong for 1080p. A 6600XT would fit this aspects nowaydays and the extra view in games like F04 and The Witcher 3, made me fall a little bit in love with the 21:9 aspect-ratio.

- Next step was 1440p, 16:9, 27inch. Almost as impressive as experiencing a 144hz monitor for the first time. Crisp and clear textures, even if you put your nose right into it. So here is the place where most people would be satisfied but since were talking about a hobby, and there are a ton of hobbies which will cost you a lot more,....

- ....I had decided to go for 1440p, 21:9, 32inch since the extra view of the 2560x1080 made a huge impression on me. What can I say, The sweetspot and the place I feel home nowadays. ;)
Crispy textures and an extra view on an curved display (I prefer 1000R-1800R).
I dont see much sense on a curved 16:9 display, had a couple of them, but maybe just a personal preference.

- Nevertheless, went for 3840x2160,16:9, 32inch for around 3 years and it was horrible. Not the quality though, no sir, the quality is choice and the textures are even more clear and crisp but it cant be compared to the overwhelming experience of switching from 60hz to 144hz or 1080p to 1440p.
But whats horrible, is the GPU-utilization, which was always at max, even in Indi games without DLSS or FSR but coming to AAA games, my main target area, you just cant maintain 60 ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ FPS on the highest settings (not talking about ultra) even if I had the best GPU available on the market, so youve to make a compromise, quality-settings wise. And even then, Ive struggled big time to maintain the holy 55/60FPS limit.
Another downside, 2560X1440p or 1920x1080p downscaled on a 4K monitors looks like sh*t on most models.

Now to DLSS and FSR. First of all, it must be supported by the game, which certainly applies to many games these days ,especially AAA games.
Secondly, DLSS looks way better than FSR, but it still isnt the real deal. Dont get me wrong, Nvdia is still king when its about their upscaling techs, but it began to look like 1440p on a 3840x2160 screen , when DLSS was enabled. (I can talk for the 3080TI, 3090, not DLSS3 and the RTX4000-generation).
FSR (6800XT, 6900XT, 7900XTX/current card) is much worse. Again, I can only talk about my personal feeling and the comments of my friends whove actually played on same/similar setups.

-----------------------------------------------
edit:
Short answer: A 4K monitor is cheap, but maintaining the hardware to run it at min. 60FPS is everything but!!!DLSS on 4K looks like 1440p in my eyes, so using DLSS wouldnt make much sense in that case. Looks different if you prefer 30FPS. If thats the case, go for it. Even without DLSS, a reasonable target for a 3080TI.

1440p,16:9, 27inch seems to be the sweet spot for a solid GPU like your 3080TI. You could also go for 1440p, 21:9 and 32inch if you want the extra view but 4K on long term, is not going to get you very far if youre into the same settings/experience like my humble self.

But if you have the money, I mean why not?