We need to get a bunch of monitors for my company and decided to get 32" ones. Do we have to get 4K or is 2560x1440 sufficient for normal office work?
32" Monitor: 4K vs. 2560x1440
- Thread starter teleos
- Start date
Here's a dot pitch calculator.
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php
Personally I found running a 27 inch monitor at 1080 to be slightly grainy, but not distractingly so. If all I was doing was spreadsheets and word processing, it was fine. 1440 at the same diagonal got rid of it.
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php
Personally I found running a 27 inch monitor at 1080 to be slightly grainy, but not distractingly so. If all I was doing was spreadsheets and word processing, it was fine. 1440 at the same diagonal got rid of it.
Yah, there's some calculators/comparison tools on the web, try them?
As someone who's used to 4K, the most recent time I encountered a 27" 1920x1080 it was jarring and not in a good way lol.
As someone who's used to 4K, the most recent time I encountered a 27" 1920x1080 it was jarring and not in a good way lol.
"Sufficient" and "ideal or preferable" differ.
michael.stapelberg.ch
Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?
For the last 10 years, I have been interested in hi-DPI monitors, and recently I read about an interesting new monitor: Dell’s 32-inch 6K monitor (U3224KBA), a productivity monitor that offers plenty of modern connectivity options like DisplayPort 2, HDMI 2 and Thunderbolt 4.
I have my 32“ 4k monitor set to a 3k resolution due to being born somewhere around the Napoleonean wars.
2k doesn‘t look good and is a waste of screen estate imo.
2k doesn‘t look good and is a waste of screen estate imo.
I'm sitting on a 27" 4K and I really can't tell much of a difference with a 27" WQHD I have in a different location.
I suspect 32" WQHD would be fine, I guess? But like, 27" looks very big to me. 32" I would start considering an ultra wide or two smaller displays. A 50%-wide window on my 27" is nearly as wide as my 14" laptop...
I suspect 32" WQHD would be fine, I guess? But like, 27" looks very big to me. 32" I would start considering an ultra wide or two smaller displays. A 50%-wide window on my 27" is nearly as wide as my 14" laptop...
Thanks for everyone's response!
Actually we debated 32" and 27", now I think 27" is sufficient for most office users?
Actually we debated 32" and 27", now I think 27" is sufficient for most office users?
I'm happy on a 14" 1920x1080 laptop doing everything- including coding.
It depends on how much you want to "love" your users. But I'd consider ergonomics first. Putting the screens on an arm, providing webcams/headsets/etc., doing USB-C docking...
In my previous office we had huge screens, but I really enjoyed more the arm... and pulling the USB-C cable into my laptop and getting even ethernet. Also my favorite accessory for my 27" are small headphone jack extensors so I can plug in my headphones without fuss. And one of my 27" has a quite serviceable webcam. (It's a bit jarring when people are looking at their main screen when they are using their laptop's webcam.)
And again, you might consider ultrawides or multiple screens- I guess non-power-users find it easier to leverage those in multitasking than a huge screen.
It depends on how much you want to "love" your users. But I'd consider ergonomics first. Putting the screens on an arm, providing webcams/headsets/etc., doing USB-C docking...
In my previous office we had huge screens, but I really enjoyed more the arm... and pulling the USB-C cable into my laptop and getting even ethernet. Also my favorite accessory for my 27" are small headphone jack extensors so I can plug in my headphones without fuss. And one of my 27" has a quite serviceable webcam. (It's a bit jarring when people are looking at their main screen when they are using their laptop's webcam.)
And again, you might consider ultrawides or multiple screens- I guess non-power-users find it easier to leverage those in multitasking than a huge screen.
For most work I actually use a couple of 24" 1080p monitors (Dell, color-calibrated).
On my gaming rig I use a 32" 1440p monitor, and also do light video/photo work on it.
It all depends on what you need it for.. 32" is pretty big for office work. I personally like dual 24" monitors in general (especially being able to have one vertical).
On my gaming rig I use a 32" 1440p monitor, and also do light video/photo work on it.
It all depends on what you need it for.. 32" is pretty big for office work. I personally like dual 24" monitors in general (especially being able to have one vertical).
I actually do most of my work on a 14" 1920x1080 laptop as well, although not much programming these days.
I'd agree that ergonomics is more important than sheer screen size, now I'm leaning toward 27" and using the saved budget to get accessories.
For the programmers, we can always add a second monitor for them.
I'd agree that ergonomics is more important than sheer screen size, now I'm leaning toward 27" and using the saved budget to get accessories.
For the programmers, we can always add a second monitor for them.
27"/1080p and 32"/1440p are both acceptable in a general office setting. They're not great, but I wouldn't complain too much.
If you really want to impress your users, a 34 or 35 inch ultra wide (3440x1440) is really useful for Excel and some other use cases. I'd take that over 2x 27" 1400p screens.
If you really want to impress your users, a 34 or 35 inch ultra wide (3440x1440) is really useful for Excel and some other use cases. I'd take that over 2x 27" 1400p screens.
I'm actually using a 34" ultrawide in the office, but it seems too wide for my usage habits....
We've basically decided to use 27" 1440p as the standard setup for now.
We've basically decided to use 27" 1440p as the standard setup for now.
Here's how I look at it: my phone is retina, my tablet is retina, my laptop is retina. Do I want my biggest screen and the one I spend the most time in front of to look worse than all my other ones?
Please do your employees' eyes a favor and ask yourself that on their behalf.
Please do your employees' eyes a favor and ask yourself that on their behalf.
27" is a real good match for 1440p.
I used a 30" 1600p monitor for many years, and it looked great. But at 32" and 1440p, I think that might look a little pixelated.
It's not about sheer size but – for me at least – but about improved usability, focus and posture.
I ditched multiple screen setups after 20y of using them and couldn't be happier or more productive as I'm much more focused. OP's context might be different and 27" the better solution, yours too. But to me, multiple screens have always been a work-around for singular big screens not being affordable and high density enough.
- No refocussing between different screen PPI
- A workspace fine-tuned with different snap and sizing zones for very effective multitasking without any kind of bezels in between
- Clean desktop, notebook in clamshell mode, no second keyboard visible.
- Effectively a narrower FOV when comparing to two screens side by side
- A integrated KVM let's me switch between my multiple notebooks which are neatly hidden behind the screen
- I have a much better posture due to added height
I ditched multiple screen setups after 20y of using them and couldn't be happier or more productive as I'm much more focused. OP's context might be different and 27" the better solution, yours too. But to me, multiple screens have always been a work-around for singular big screens not being affordable and high density enough.
For productivity I like separate monitors - it helps to physically separate points of attention. For general entertainment I'd definitely look at ultrawide and I'm regretting swapping all my general purpose setups to 3x 4K28" a couple of years ago, which I'm gradually changing as my setup changes.
27" WQHD is totally usable, but after being used to 4K&+ 27-28" for a decade I would balk at them for productivity, which is where I'd actually want the highest PPI.
27" WQHD is totally usable, but after being used to 4K&+ 27-28" for a decade I would balk at them for productivity, which is where I'd actually want the highest PPI.
What I think this thread is saying is that maybe there are subjective criteria at work, and perhaps you should provide a few options to users and let them choose 
The math for "retina" (by Apple's definition) is on Wikipedia:
Retina display - Wikipedia
If you're too lazy to do the math, what it comes to is that for a display viewing distance of 20", a 27" 4K is retina (just barely). IME you do need to zoom in a bit on Windows to get a decent size of the UI, but that is up to each user (and anyway I think Windows default is 125% in those conditions). I would not go below 4K for a 32" display.
yeah I used Apple's term as most people get the jist of what it means. Technically it should be around 300dpi for normal viewing distance but I find around half of that is plenty. 32" 4k is about 140dpi which is good, at least for my old eyes. Anything less is too low in 2024 imo.The math for "retina" (by Apple's definition) is on Wikipedia:
Retina display - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
If you're too lazy to do the math, what it comes to is that for a display viewing distance of 20", a 27" 4K is retina (just barely). IME you do need to zoom in a bit on Windows to get a decent size of the UI, but that is up to each user (and anyway I think Windows default is 125% in those conditions). I would not go below 4K for a 32" display.
I have a 32" 4K monitor at home. Running it a 4K with 125% scaling in Windows works well for me. 100% scaling makes things too small and 150% scaling is too big.
Thanks again for everyone's opinions! We're going to test with 27" 1440p first, it can also be pivoted to portrait mode.
The company is still fairly small, so we'd like to standardize on one model of monitor as the basis at this point, so unfortunately no user choices.
The company is still fairly small, so we'd like to standardize on one model of monitor as the basis at this point, so unfortunately no user choices.
At my previous employer, we settled on 27" 1920x1080 and 32" 2560x1440 for general office use (frequently dual, and usually at 125% scale). Everyone was comfortable, and the occasional app that simply does not scale wasn't a hassle.
Yeah it's hard to argue against that for general office usage that the majority of users will be happy with.
Having a nicer option for creatives or power users is fairly standard.
I've used two 32" monitors from the same manufacturer/ model line (one 2560x1440, and one "4K"), and personally I find the 2560 monitor to be visually grating to work on after the higher density of the 4K variant.
I have a 27" HP ZR2740w 1440p monitor I bought in 2012 for working at home and IMO it is ideal for text display including large Excel spreadsheets I still use for financial planning. Large enough with very crisp and clear text. Since I retired in 2015, it is still used daily for my general-purpose computer and still looks great.
I also have a 32" Philips 1440p I've used with my gaming computers since 2019. While great for gaming, text display is not ideal so I would recommend a 4K monitor at 32" size or larger.
I also have a 32" Philips 1440p I've used with my gaming computers since 2019. While great for gaming, text display is not ideal so I would recommend a 4K monitor at 32" size or larger.
We got one of the monitors today, and to my uncritical eyes it looks pretty good. 27" should be big enough for normal office work and it's fairly adjustable as well.
Good choice.
27" 1440p is the standard for 100% scale. Going higher doesn't always work well in all programs and you rarely buy something that allows you to run it at 200% like Apple prefers, so ~5k.
Going lower, well, it's a bit of waste of space, you're getting a stretched out 24" 1080p screen. Not a huge issue but the DPI is lower than normal.
27" 1440p is the standard for 100% scale. Going higher doesn't always work well in all programs and you rarely buy something that allows you to run it at 200% like Apple prefers, so ~5k.
Going lower, well, it's a bit of waste of space, you're getting a stretched out 24" 1080p screen. Not a huge issue but the DPI is lower than normal.
Yeah, 1440p is a good match for that size. I have a little cheapie LG that was like $250 that's surprisingly good at that size, res, and price point.
Because I believe in good monitors for staff, I'd probably have gone for a 32" 4K model instead. If someone is even a little bit more productive, the extra cost for a better/bigger monitor will pay for itself very quickly. Salaries are the super expensive part of staffing, so spending $500 more on capital goods, for even a 1% improvement, will pay off within a year or two, possibly months if your staff is well paid.
Also, providing good hardware can help with retention. When people have quality equipment, and know they can get what they need, that improves morale.
Hardware: cheap. People: expensive. Buy good stuff.
Last edited:
Definitely agree with you here. We'll get better equipment after our next round of funding
Last edited:
I'm not sure about that. I think 140 dpi is hitting that nasty valley where it's high enough to cause problems for people that don't have sharp vision, but too low to really be high DPI so scaled images look like trash.
For Windows use, either get a screen that hangs at 100-125 dpi, or is high enough resolution to be >200 dpi so scaled bitmaps still look good.
For my own work use, I run a pair of 32" 4K monitors at 100%. Having a ton of screen real estate to use is absolutely invaluable.
Yep, all valid. Note I said "good" not "great" hehe... Unfortunately the pseudo-standardization of 4k hasn't been kind to monitors above 27". The ideal for 32" (which was op's spec) would be 5k or higher but since there are next to no options for that 4k is... if not great, the best you can really get.
Looks like Op decided on low DPI anyway so I guess it's moot
This is Ars in a nutshell. "Hey Hive Mind, I need your opinion." 'You want opinions? We've got Opinions
!'I think 27 is way too small, but seem to be in the minority. I run 3 32" 1440p monitors, and that's just about right for me. I have good eyesight FWIW.
