5 ms·
32” 4K is perfection, right in the sweet spot of size.
by keenmaster 6y ago
32” 4K is perfection, right in the sweet spot of size.
- mulmen 6y agoAgreed. My work monitor is a 32 or 34" ultrawide. It works well but I would really like more vertical real estate. I'm definitely shopping for 32-34" 4k displays right now.
- Legogris 6y ago3840x2880 34" would be so nice.
- edu 6y agoI've 32" @ 3840x2160, and it's a bless, I do coding and product design, my best tech acquisition in the last few years: https://www.benq.eu/en-eu/monitor/designer/pd3200u.html https://www.benq.eu/en-eu/monitor/designer/pd3200u.html
- mulmen 6y agoThat looks awesome. Pretty expensive from what I see after a quick search though. Does it have USB-C charging? My previous monitor iterations have been LGs and I really like the USB-C charging capability, KVM and the OSD/buttons. Got one of these in my cart right now: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B07NS7JKJH https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B07NS7JKJH I'm gonna sleep on it and double check the return policy on this 43".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Legogris 6y agoLooks nice also, but I already have a 4k 32" Eizo Flexscan that I'm happy with - I'm after the 4:3 aspect ratio, everything just seems to go wider and wider these days.
- silon42 6y agoVertical is the reason I haven't upgraded from dual 1920x1200 (but of the time single anyway). Although I'm looking at 1440p mainly for 120hz+. (1440p at 30+")
- craigkilgo 6y agoThis is the correct answer.
- lliamander 6y agoThis. After doing some research, as far as I can tell a 32" 4K maximizes the amount of content you can see at one time within a comfortable viewing angle and without needing scaling to make text readable. At typical desk monitor distances you shouldn't be able to see distinct pixels anyway.
- brokenmachine 6y ago43" 4k masterrace here - I beg to disagree.