24 inch vs 27 inch gaming

[Torched]

Depends on the games, for Counter Strike 24 144hz is best.

[kail]

At 1080p? 24" is definitely the way to go. You should do some research on PPI (pixels per inch) before attempting to weigh in on a discussion you know very little about.

There is also distance from the monitor as well to consider. For most desks, I would agree with the statement.

[Elim Garak]

At 1080p? 24" is definitely the way to go. You should do some research on PPI (pixels per inch) before attempting to weigh in on a discussion you know very little about.

I own a 1080p 27'' display and 1440p 27'' display - so shut up yourself.

[Tehterokkar]

I own a 1080p 27'' display and 1440p 27'' display - so shut up yourself.

24'' is the sweetspot for 1080p, it still looks sharp, but doesn't look blurry. Anything above 24'' on 1080p screen and you star to see mild blurriness.

This is from a standard ~1.5-2 feet viewing distance perspective. The further you watch from, the bigger monitor you can have without noticing obvious blurriness.

[Djinni]

34" 3440 x 1440 is pretty good.
Some games make it look amazing.
Others... (basically any game other than WoW that has a remotely competitive side will have huge black bars down the sides....)

[Remilia]

Until you take size and pixel count together. And then it 100% is the measure of quality of picture.

Only part of it.
Pixel density is great to an extent, but poor gamut coverage, either by over/under saturation, bad gamma curve, color accuracy, color temperature, uniformity, etc are all part of image quality, not how well the panel is built.
Pixel density helps with jaggedness that you'd see, aka aliasing.

Great read for those interested.
http://www.eizo.com/library/basics/eizo_4k_monitors/

I own a 1080p 27'' display and 1440p 27'' display - so shut up yourself.

Read above, seriously.

[Dirdie]

I'm currently using a dell monitor and its 1920 x 1200, and it looks nice. i find that 24" is just a tad small for the distance i sit from the monitor. patiently waiting for the right deal to pop up to convince myself to go up to a 27.

[Elim Garak]

24'' is the sweetspot for 1080p, it still looks sharp, but doesn't look blurry. Anything above 24'' on 1080p screen and you star to see mild blurriness.

This is from a standard ~1.5-2 feet viewing distance perspective. The further you watch from, the bigger monitor you can have without noticing obvious blurriness.

Read above, seriously.

I own a fucking 1080p 27'' monitor. I don't need to read ANYTHING. You either never used one, have bad sight, looked at it from less than 1ft distance or it had a cheap ass display (TN). There's no fucking difference between 27'' 1080 and 27'' 1440p apart from the obvious resolution one that makes everything on 1440p monitor look smaller. And 24'' 1080p monitors (I use them at work) have much smaller screens making you sit closer to them so you can see small details (same problem with the 27'' 1440p but due to higher resolution).

[chazus]

There's no fucking difference between 27'' 1080 and 27'' 1440p apart from the obvious resolution one that makes everything on 1440p monitor look smaller.

There is a difference. Actually, very nearly double. 1080p runs around 6k PPI2. 11440p runs around 12k PPI2. This means (Mathmatically, visually, factually, whatever), that there is about twice as much visual/information density. Yes, some games have smaller UI because of it, but it also means that everything is sharper, and clearer. (I think the term 'blurry' might be used instead of 'being able to see individual pixels')

At 27" @ 1080p, I can pick out individual pixels. 1440p I can't, nor can I at 1080p on 24". I sit about 2.5' from my monitors.

The point being, no matter your experience or opinion, there is a factual (and significant) difference. People's experience may differ both due to different monitor's actual dot pitch, and their own eyesight, and another of other factors. But in general, people tend to notice pixels at 27" @ 1080p, and why it's 'generally' not recommended. It's still very much a YMMV case though, but also the reason.

Also, chill out. There's no reason to get so angry about this.

[MatadorMedia]

27 inch, 1440p monitor.

[chubbybunny]

32 inch tv.. connected via HDMI lead.. not really into serious epeen stuff

[bestellen]

I have a 27" screen, and have had for the last year and a half, see sig for details, Its nice, but make sure you have a deep desk, a normal desk with a 27" is hard work on the eyes, and if you play FSP's this is even more noticable, I would get a 24" LED 120Hz Screen if i had to choose again now.

[Deleted]

Just depends how far you sit from screen i use my 32 inch TV to play the games but sit around 2 meters away from on my desk my Screen is 21.5 inches but i sit around 50-60 santimeters from it tryed 24 one but was too big

[mauserr]

I am no expert so take what I said with a grain of salt, but I think the bigger the monitor, the "better" quality you need in order to keep the same level of standard as a smaller screen?

I am using a Samsung S27B550 27" monitor, while it is nice and big, the quality just isn't the same compared to when I was at a friend's (watching film and such I somehow can just tell the level of detail is different and better than mine), not sure if it is just the monitor not good enough or what?

Considered getting a smaller screen next time (and 4k).

I'm willing to bet that the movie he watched had better bitrate and resolution. If a 720p movie is displayed on a 1080, it'll look blurry and often pixelated depending on the bitrate it was encoded with. A 1080p movie on a 1080p screen will look great if the bitrate is appropriate for the movie size.

[Gaidax]

25 inch 1440p

[Cows For Life]

TN is the fastest, higher refresh rates and such. IPS is good at off angle viewing since the colors won't shift nor you'll have color inverting or contrast loss.

Problem is, they're both horribly shit in displaying blacks which makes everything look ridiculously washed out.

I'm looking at a command prompt right now on my IPS screens and your constant statements to this effect are vastly overstated.

[Artorius]

I'm looking at a command prompt right now on my IPS screens and your constant statements to this effect are vastly overstated.

I can do the same and it'll look greyish. If you're used to see blacks as grey then that's your problem, but the meters don't lie. IPSs are generally around 0.2 cd/m2 for blacks which isn't exactly that dark. You might not notice it with light facing your monitor during the day, but try at night with lights off and it'll look like a torch.

[Frozenbeef]

bought a 27" 1440 165hz and it is the one of the most beautiful experiences i have ever experienced in my life :S

[Hellfury]

Discarding other variables, the smaller the monitor at the same resulotion the more quality it has, because pixels are more close together less "screen door" effect.

Too bad all 144hz 1440p monitors are 27+ or plus, Dell has a awesome 25" 1440p monitor but its only 60hz with "horrible" input lag

[Artorius]

Discarding other variables, the smaller the monitor at the same resulotion the more quality it has, because pixels are more close together less "screen door" effect.

More pixels per area just gives you denser pixel density (cap obvious!).

More pixels gives you more details per area but this is only useful until a certain point and depends on how far you are from the display. After you hit this ceiling, adding more pixels isn't going to help with image quality.

Instead of more pixels, you'd want better pixels.

"better pixels?" Yes. Color accuracy, black levels, gamma tracking, white balance, color range, luminance range, motion resolution and peak brightness are all aspects of a picture that can differ dramatically from two displays with the same size and same pixel count.

With LCD for example we have some characteristic problems, mainly bad motion resolution, bad black levels when you have something that isn't black at the screen and limited color range with LED backlights. You can solve the motion resolution problem with BFI/backlight strobing and you can solve the color range problem with a different backlight (GB-r or CCFL) or adding quantum dots.

But how can you solve the bad blacks problem when LCD works using a single powerful source of light at the back, then filtering this light in order to "block" it or allow it to pass? You can never completely block it, and it's never going to be totally black like you have at emissive displays (OLED and Plasma) in which light up the pixels separately (each pixel emit it's own light). Well, the answer is, you can add smaller sources of light at the backlight and control the areas in order to make parts of the display darker, but it's never going to feel perfect. This feature is called local dimming, full array local dimming to be precise, and isn't really available for monitors, only premium LCD TVs.

Thing is, even if you go with the technologies that can give you better picture quality like OLED and Plasma, they have their own problems too. Both can burn-in, OLED deteriorates with time and gets more washed out after a while, OLED also has some weird color tints off-axis and you can't really do much about it. Plasmas on another hand can't get as bright as HDR LCD TVs, nowhere close to it, and they also consume twice as much power, generating heat. A lot of heat.

That's a phone post so pardon if there are any typing errors.