Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

24" vs 27" monitor

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 25, 2013 6:31:41 AM

I'm planning on replacing my old monitor (Viewsonic vx2025wm, 20.1" 1680x1050). I use my computer for a mix of gaming, dev work and watching media. I can't decide whether to get a 24" 1920x1080 (or 1920x1200) panel or a 27" 2560x1440 panel (so that PPI is similar to current monitor). The pro's seem to equal the cons; the larger screen gives more real estate but its likely I won't be able to run at native, and vice versa for the smaller screen.

Is 27" too large for comfortable use? How would most games look not running at native on a high resolution screen like that?

More about : monitor

a b C Monitor
April 25, 2013 6:40:34 AM

27" is the sweetspot, any higher and it can get uncomfortable in my opinion, don't worry about native resolution, most modern GPUs can run it that high with ease. Just note that you will need a much more powerful graphics card at 2560*1440.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
April 25, 2013 6:45:36 AM

I have a 27" monitor on a ~30" deep desk and it is perfect. As far as difficulty to run it is about the same to run 2560x1440 at 0xaa as 1920x1080 at 4xaa. I just keep aa off and my 7870 works great in all the games I play (mostly csgo and killing floor).
m
0
l
Related resources
April 25, 2013 6:47:19 AM

Novuake said:
27" is the sweetspot, any higher and it can get uncomfortable in my opinion, don't worry about native resolution, most modern GPUs can run it that high with ease. Just note that you will need a much more powerful graphics card at 2560*1440.


I have a Gigabyte Windforce 3x 670 gtx, which I can't afford to replace or go SLI with. This should cope with some games at that resolution but the very newest games etc. I think it might struggle - which is what concerns me about the 27" form factor. I dont really want to drop the resolution at that screen size either as the DPI gets bad.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
April 25, 2013 7:00:45 AM

It says max resolution for your card is 2560 x 1600 (DL-DVI) your good, I would strongly go with 27" with no regrets.
m
0
l
April 25, 2013 7:04:01 AM

ur6beersaway said:
It says max resolution for your card is 2560 x 1600 (DL-DVI) your good, I would strongly go with 27" with no regrets.


Its not max output of my card the worries me, its if it can do it at a reasonable fps at that resolution.
m
0
l
April 25, 2013 7:12:21 AM

If you avoid ultra settings and higher than 4xAA it should probably give you 30fps min, I put games on mix of ultra and high settings and get comfortably over 40fps minimum in stuff like Tomb Raider(I use TressFX in this one) with a 7970Ghz so if you do high and medium mix should work fine on a 670, you could probably squeeze in 2x maybe 4x AA on some titles.

Idk if it will still suffice when stuff like Star Citizen and the true next gen games come out though.
m
0
l
April 25, 2013 7:39:00 AM

tolk said:
old monitor (Viewsonic vx2025wm, 20.1" 1680x1050).

24" 1920x1080 (or 1920x1200) panel or a 27" 2560x1440 panel

(so that PPI is similar to current monitor).


The PPI of your old monitor is 98.6. The PPI of the 27" would be 108.8 while the 24"ers would be 91.8 (1920x1080) and 94.3 (1920x1200). The higher resolution 24" will be closer to what you're used to as well as having the same 16:10 aspect ration.

A 27" at (2560x1440) requires scaling in Windows in order to make text readable. Not all programs heed Windows' calls to scale their dialogues and text, so some will be really small. That resolution will have pixels, any unscaled text, dialogues and icons that are about 91% of what they would be on the 20.1", that is, noticeably smaller than what you're used to.

In contrast, both resolutions of 24" will have bigger pixels, dialogues, icons, etc (104.5% and 107.4% respectively).

I had a similar decision last year (upgrading from a 20" @1600x1200) and I'm really glad that I didn't go for the 27". I was attracted to the greater pixel count but, while good for some graphics, hindsight shows that it would have made development much more challenging.

I'm not a gamer so I have no comment on that aspect. The greater pixel count may be good for games, if your graphics card and the game can cope with the higher pixel count but scaling of video 2560x1440 may even degrade the quality. I say "may" because I didn't get the 27" to try it out, so maybe someone can say from experience. I only bring it up as a possibility that needs to be checked out.

I think it might be handy if someone could do you a screenshot that matches your typical work environment, so you can see how the use of screen space is affected by the change in pixel size on 24" and 27". (In fact that might be a very useful article for Tom's to do for everyone's benefit)

As for which 24"ers to get. I got myself a pair of Dell 2412Ms, liked them, gave one to a friend and bought two more. However, as I say, I'm not a gamer, so I'm only recommending them for development, browsing, and watching the BBC iPlayer. A 24" in portrait mode is definitely recommended for browsing or having an Explorer in the one half and an editor or program window in the other.
m
0
l
April 25, 2013 7:57:36 AM

devBunny said:

...
I got myself a pair of Dell 2412Ms, liked them, gave one to a friend and bought two more.


I wish you were my friend lol. Cheers for the advice, very informative. I'm planning on switching to windows 8 where they have supposedly fixed DPI scaling issue but, as you mentioned, this still won't cover 3rd party software. I'll have to do a bit of research into that. I don't really struggle with text/icon size on my current system but if my eye sight goes down hill this could become an issue.
m
0
l
!