Monitors: FHD vs QHD and 24" vs 27" ??

Forums › Desktop computing › Monitors: FHD vs QHD and 24" vs 27" ??

kiwifidget

"Cookie"
3426 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#315633 1-Aug-2024 11:31

I currently run 2 24" FHD/1080p monitors.

Lately I've been thinking about going up a step resolution wise, to 2560x1440 (QHD).

4K/UHD seems overkill, especially pricewise.

I do a lot of charting and diagramming and find that 1080p means a lot of zooming in and out and scrolling up down left right.

It would be great to get more on screen.

I would be interested in your views as to whether QHD is waste of time on 24", or if 27" is better.

Presuming of course that my graphics card supports QHD.

Its an ASUS GeForce GTX 1650 Super TUF Gaming Graphics Card. That is all that is on the invoice, purchased August 2020.

How about that, my pc turns 4 this month. Time flies.

EDIT ADD: Specs for graphics card say Digital Max Resolution 7680x4320. Is that the combined resolution of all attached monitors? So 2 QHD would be 5120x2880?

Delete cookies?! Are you insane?!

Batman

Mad Scientist
29773 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3266940 1-Aug-2024 11:48

depending on how good your eyesight is, you can benefit from qhd on 24"

however i prefer 27" as i find 24" too small

i have a 27" QHD and if i look very carefully i can see pixels, and i have poor eyesight. but i do think 4K on 27" is overkill.

QHD on 27" is less noticable than 1080p on a FHD (i didn't check the ppi, hopefully that would be consistent with my observation!)

prior to this i had a 32" 4K and the screen was so big it gave me terrible headache, eye pain, but i can see the benefit if someone wanted a lot of real estate. i sold the screen coz and no more eye pain and headaches.

kiwifidget

"Cookie"
3426 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3266948 1-Aug-2024 12:01

Thanks for the feedback @batman.

I think I can answer one of my questions by myself now after engaging brain after keyboard.

My card can have 3 monitors, 1 each of HDMI, DVI, DP ports on it.

2560*3 is 7680.

1440*3 is 4320.

Technically my card can support 3x QHD monitors. TADA!

Delete cookies?! Are you insane?!

ANglEAUT

2329 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3266977 1-Aug-2024 12:50

kiwifidget: ... I would be interested in your views as to whether QHD is waste of time on 24", or if 27" is better. ...

QHD on 24" at 100% scale works great for me. A lot of info to show, good quality resolution & detail. For me, even a 27" causes eye strain, similar to batman.

Please keep this GZ community vibrant by contributing in a constructive & respectful manner.

SpartanVXL

1323 posts

Uber Geek

#3267109 1-Aug-2024 13:59

It really depends on your eyesight, distance to screen and peripheral vision. 24” 1440p is perfectly fine and will give you a boost in screen real estate as long as you don’t use scaling. 27” is also good and lets you have the screen a little further back if you want. I have one 24” 1440p, but also use a 42” 4k as well

You’ve got a bit of a miscalculation for gpu support, it’s a 2d plane so you want to add on one axis not both axis.

E.g. two qhd monitors is actually 5120x1440, three is 7680x1440, six arranged in 3x2 is 7680x2880 and nine screens in 3x3 would be 7680x4320.

Four 1080p screens in 2x2 arrangement equals one 4k screen. Four 4k screens in 2x2 is one 8k screen at 7680x4320 and so on.

Senecio

2719 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3267140 1-Aug-2024 14:54

I use a single 27" 1440p display for WFH. In the office we have dual 24" 1080p monitors. I much prefer the 27" 1440p monitor at home. If I had the desk space I would have gone for dual 24" 1440p monitors but I don't so a single 27" was the best solution for me.

toejam316

1466 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3267203 1-Aug-2024 15:28

My vote is a 34" ultrawide for productivity, a 27" 1440p screen just isn't quite enough for my uses. I've gone to 4K 32" OLED now and I do miss the width.

Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.

pdh

345 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3267249 1-Aug-2024 17:06

I prefer twin 30" at a total of 5120 x 1600, my wife likes twin 32's at 5120 x 1440.
If I was still doing any amount of coding, I'd add a third screen for 7680 wide.
I really hate 4K on anything less than a 48" screen.

Neither of us has any issues with eyestrain or headaches - I suspect they have more to do with screen quality, lighting and perhaps fuzziness from scaling... The natural world has a really wide "display" and we manage that just fine.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

shrub

775 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#3267547 2-Aug-2024 14:34

I had 4k on 2x 24" screens which was dumb for eyes, great for excel. Now have a 32" 1440p 165hz at 100% scale is really good for my eyes. I'd like to get a side screen for emails and non essentials but desk space is a bit limited.

Use mine for Excel + Games, opening a blank sheet is AM-55

kiwifidget

"Cookie"
3426 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3267579 2-Aug-2024 16:25

My eyesight, hmmm, I have reading glasses and without them on, this screen is a bit fuzzy.

Delete cookies?! Are you insane?!

pdh

345 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3267589 2-Aug-2024 16:56

>Desk space is limited

>Screen is fuzzy

For sure - space constraints and vision issues can get in the way of perfection ;-(

I now buy my spectacles for screen reading at arms length - single focal length. Wife prefers progressive lenses. I've been able to create a workspace (well two, actually - one for the wife's work zone) that allows dual big screens. It was worth it. Dual-monitor arms help - one's wall-mounted & one is desk-mounted.

The need / benefit is going to be very different for each person.

If you solely consume text, pictures or video - I don't see what you'd gain with a second screen. So one big &/or wide screen may be best. But if you create stuff - CAD, spreadsheets, code, video, documents... I don't think you can foresee how much you benefit from extra real-estate. Gaming's not my bag - so I don't know.

In 2024, the cost of big screens is so low as to be almost trivial.
Big CRT screens used to be scary expensive.

kiwifidget

"Cookie"
3426 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3267760 2-Aug-2024 22:55

pdh:

Big CRT screens used to be scary expensive.

And very heavy. Once upon a time ago I was given a written warning for swearing after I dropped a 21 incher on my foot.

Delete cookies?! Are you insane?!