What's your ideal monitor size

My PC died few days ago. I am getting a new PC next week. I was using pic related 19 inch monitor. Since GPUs don't have a VGA port so I am probably going to get a 22 inch monitor. Is that size okay? Or should I put few more bucks and get a 24 inch monitor?

Attached: Dell-TFT-19-Inch-LCD-1109655-1-607c4.jpg (620x726, 19K)

38-45" 3840x2160, or 4096x2160.

Multiple smaller monitors

Based Windows XP boomer

About 27-32"

Multiplied 8x.

Got a 27" in front of me now, I would def try a 32.

Was 19 inch enough for you? Because if so, i think a 22 inch one would be okay. It's up to your personal preference.

i shit you not, i am this old man in several ways. im old, losing my sight and my monitor is slightly smaller, just under a meter wide and i sit around a 1/2 meter in front of it. it's awesome.

I have both, both 4k, 43 does 4 screen 1080p too. imo the sweetspot would be a 37 inch 4k that does 4x1080p

43 is a little too big unless you have a deep desk, an 8k 43 that did 4x4k would be ideal though.

since you asked, it is a one as much 1:1 ratio as possible, most comfortable to view everything without rotating head or moving eyes, then pixel density to viewing distance should not be too high, trust me issues reading text and having to use nignog dpi features is something you would want to avoid
right now i use 1280x1024 19" early nec colour sensitive work monitor, but it has backlight strobing (pwm) when brightness dimmed, i use full
and that monitor is about full hand away from me, desu could have same pixel density, but be it let's say 24", but no more
i also have benq 144 hz with lowest input lag for gaming, but colours are not very satisfiable, although no better input lag than that of xl2720z (it is full hd)
if games with not fps always above 144, get a good one with freesync, giving that you care about games, otherwise go for lower hz panel with freesync anyway, but with better colours, freesync will reduce framerate timing stutters in movies and make it very nice
for multimonitor setup do not miss out portrait mode for browser in case browser monitor is a weenie-shaped

>imo the sweetspot would be a 37 inch 4k
Why? That's 120 ppi. Too dense for me without GUI scaling.

27" 1440p is 109 ppi
40" 2160p is 110 ppi

43" 2160p is 103 ppi
22" 1080p is 100 ppi
24" 1080p is 92 ppi

My sweet spot is between 100 and 110 ppi

More than that needs to be GUI scaled for me.

About 40"
maybe a couple smaller accessory montiors flanking it in portrait, one on each side.

ASUS VG248QE

144hz, 1ms response time, 1920x1080

The patrician's monitor choice. I am better than you at video games because of this investment

xl2720z better input lag and yet still better colours

Not me, I've got a 27" 1440p 144hz.

That means I'm just as fast as you, and can see more at once giving me a further advantage from having more pixels

Why not go for a multiclient 4k, some of the dell, lg and other brand monitors around 43 inches can display as 4 seperate 1080p 21 inch screens.

Personally i think they are a little low res and would be better if they did 1440p per quadrant, but i guess eventually 8k ones will hit the market.

Attached: multiclient.jpg (1280x720, 111K)

I would like to get a 24 inch or 32 inch monitor but I can't afford it. I don't want to buy some cheap off brand big monitor whose quality is shit.
I have used that 19 inch monitor for almost 8 years. It was sufficient but everything looked small.

Attached: 1526919402193049638.jpg (529x604, 54K)

I just feel personally like the 32 4k has the ideal pixel density right for how big the screen is and how close you sit.

When i use my 43inch 4k in multiclient the 4x 1080p images dont feel high resolution enough, i could sit further away, but i think a 37 might be ideal for the average kind of setup.

Im super curious what a 43 inch 8k would feel like, probably overkill like a 24 inch 4k, but i think 4x 1440p screens on a 37-43 monitor would be fantastic.

Before i had my 32 and 43 i used a 24 1920x1200 display that i had for years and i doubt i could go back to it now.

I appreciate not everybody has a 2500mm wide 800mm deep desk setup though to accommodate the ridiculous montiors i have going on.

I'm using a 43" 4k currently, but I have it wall mounted giving me a good 2.5 feet between the panel and my seated position.

If it were closer, I'd agree, but at my current viewing distance, it works great.

rip

you have a standard 4k or you using one of the 43s that do the splitscreen like the lg or the dell or the iiyama, phillips etc?

LG 43UD79-B

~27-30 inch is good size at an arm's length.

Oh lawed he comin

Same. Do you not think if it did 4x 1440p and the bezel edge fuzz issue were mostly gone it would be better?

Curious if you use the split screen modes too, i have a usb mouse/keyboard switch so i can switch between upto 4 computers if needed. Its not the best solution but im happy with it, i just think most setups have issues/flaws.

>Same. Do you not think if it did 4x 1440p and the bezel edge fuzz issue were mostly gone it would be better?

For scaling purposes, i'd want 5120x2880 @ 53.5"

that would give you 4x 1440p at 109 PPI, identical to a 1440p 27" panel.

I think you sit back more than i do.

I really like the pixel density on 32 4k monitors though, but i do sit close to screens, i dont personally need scaling i think 5k on that lg monitor would be ideal for me.

I sit a full arms length + several more inches away from my panels.

I don't like to sit all that close, especially with a 43" panel size.

I can't stand 32" 4k and actually returned mine because it pissed me off so much, it was unusable at native scale.

At least 50", in portrait of course.

Attached: 20190612_231249-1960x4032.jpg (1960x4032, 1.09M)

>patricians monitor
I bought this monitor years ago.
>Burn in
>Dead pixels
>light bleed
>other stuff
It was a great monitor but when that monitor starts to die it dies hard. I've got about six dead pixels now.

I feel like I can't comfortably assess the entire screen with anything beyond 24"

But I really want 4k and 32" sounds ridiculous

I have 2x 39" TVs (way cheaper than the monitor equivalent at the time) and 2x 32" monitors in a 2x2 config. After using the setup wallmounted I find the optimal size probably about 34".
Screen area is the obvious resource to take into account but vertical screen edges are the other when dealing with lots of windows which is sacrificed with ultra large monitors. Also the upper monitors get too high with my TVs being so big

lmao what the fuck?

Thanks for the laugh friend.

40" 4k.. Looking to add a second 40" 4K in portrait orientation sometime in the future...

8k 200 degree fov vr headset that lets me place as many virtual monitors of any size and orientation wherever I want.

Lmao what the fuck at you.

You're a broken individual if your brain can't handle anything beyond 24".

Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

Still made me laugh though.

Did you know gullible got removed from the oxford dictionary

24" 1080p monitor in portrait for reading this shitty site and old manga
27" 1440p 144hz monitor in landscape for everything else
This is the ideal setup and you cannot refute this

Attached: [UCCUSS] Stop!! Hibari-kun! ストップ!! ひばりくん! 第01話 「彼女!？はアイドル!� (720x528, 922K)

My gaming monitor is 24" 16:9. I prefer a smaller monitor for gaming because on bigger monitors I feel like I can't fit the entire screen in my field of vision and I have to constantly move my eyes/head around to see everything, especially UI elements like hp that are often in the corner. I don't really get the appeal of massive 30"+ monitors and ultrawide

>i pretend to be retarded, i'm not ACTUALLY a retard

lol, retard

Honestly I just got a 27 inch 16:9 monitor and it's about as big as I'd want it.
I'd only get bigger in terms of a wider aspect ratio.

It depends on your eye size I supposed. If you have an slit(asian) eye, you can probably see wide screens better. If you have a long eye, your probably better off with (24 inch 4:3 monitors)

you want a monitor solely for Jow Forums and chink cartoons?
how cringe-inducing.

Do asians' slit eyes actually affect how they see? I thought that was just a meme. Also, they still make 4:3 monitors? I've looked but I can't find any that aren't hillariously outdated in some way

Why would you watch gooktoons on a portrait monitor you smelly faggot, I specifically said manga
Anyway reading longer bodies of text is more pleasing in portrait orientation, there's a reason books are printed that way.

Probably a meme, but we probably won't know due to irrelevance of the research.

37" 8K sounds nice.
Otherwise 32" 5K would be good.

Currently have 32" 1440p

t. retard

get owned dingbat

cope

23-27 inches
I don't want some gargantuan monitor as that means I need a higher resolution to achieve the same pixel density. On top of this, I don't want to look way the fuck over just to view my secondary display.

>being this retarded

32" 1440p on a monitor arm seems like the sweet spot for me. Just enough to put two windows side by side while keeping the text readable without scaling. Any bigger would make me have to start looking up to see the top

>No it wasn't!
>They even had my picture next to it!

>you don't share my opinion
>by my opinionated definition, this makes you a retard

Wow, you can go fuck yourself.

Who are you and when did you take this photo of me

27" is too big for me so probably 1440p 24". Even better would be a similarly-sized 16:10 monitor.

imagine the smell

I'm nearsighted and I don't like to wear glasses when using my computer (partly because they make headphones less comfortable). That puts a limit on the distance I can sit of approx. 2 feet. I use a 32" 4K at that distance and it feels pretty much perfect at 125% scale. Would be open to trying something even larger (40").

I feel like that guy's setup requires too much head movement to be comfortable, so at 65"+ I would need to sit far enough back to need my glasses.