I want to get a 4k monitor that’s 27", but I have had people tell me I won’t be able to tell a difference from the 1440p monitors that I have unless I get a big enough 4k monitor.
Is this true? I have 2 1440p monitors and want to replace one with a 4k monitor.
https://appsync.biz/abcya/ https://appsync.biz/adam4adam/ https://appsync.biz/pof/
Get one >40 inch.
I have Dell 27" and I think it’s great. Icons and text can seem pretty small initially, but anyone with normal or correctable to normal vision will probably get used to it pretty quickly. I did.
The advantage, of course, is that you see the same span of modeling “real estate” as you do with your 2 monitor setup without the separation of the frames and the level of detail is the same even though smaller. You will get more model within a narrower field of view, which I think has some subtle advantages.
If you have the desk space for 40" as suggested that might be even better, though you will do more head rotation as you look from one side of your modeling space to the other.
I have no clue what is the resolution of your monitors because 1440p is a family of many resolutions. details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1440p
Anyway, buying another 1440p monitor is a waste of money. Buying higher resolution than 4K (a.k.a. UHD = 3840x2160 pixels) is also a waste of money. You should buy 4K monitor. The only question is optimum size. The optimum size depends on a distance between the monitor and your nose. The closer, the better. If you use a laptop, you should put it on a stand (to save your neck), and measure horizontal distance from your nose to far end of the stand. This distance is roughly the distance to your monitor. If you use desktop computer, measure the width of your keyboard - this is roughly minimum distance to your monitor.
The figure of merit is angular size of the pixels that are seen by your eyes. The angular size should be at least as big as it is for a laptop. For example, my laptop has 15,6 inch LCD and 1920x1080 resolution, so its pixel density is 1080 pixels / 195 mm = 5.5 pixels/mm. My nose is about 350 mm from my laptop’s LCD, so the angular size of one pixel is 1/(5.5*350) = 0.0005 radian. My monitor has 27 inch LCD and 3840x2160 resolution, so its pixel density is 2160 pixels / 336 mm = 6.4 pixels/mm.
My monitor has higher pixel density (more dots per inch, if you are not metric person), than my laptop, which means that it should be closer to my nose than my laptop. This is not feasible, so my monitor is too small. If you use a laptop, the minimum diagonal size of a 4K monitor is about 40 inches. If you use a desktop computer, the minimum diagonal size of a 4K monitor is about 27 inches.
best laptop stands: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-laptop-stands/
best 4K monitors: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-4k-monitors/
They are lying. Or they are half blind. Get it. Never look back.
I just bought an Acer ED347CKR 34" and I love it. 3440 x 1440, 4ms response time, 100 Hz .23175 pitch for $500. It set too high for my liking so I got an adjustable arm to mount it to.
Brian
You are injuring your neck without a warning. When neck pain appears, you will have to wear Glisson loop.
I using 4k per a Samsung 32" UD970 and I’m very happy. For me it’s the perfect relation between display size and resolution. I never would like to go back to a small resolution. Also I don’t miss a bigger monitor at this resolution.
somebody has done their homework. that made my brain hurt 
Do you use scaling on that monitor?
I am considering a 4K monitor, but the UI (Rhino, AutoCAD etc.) at 100% scaling seems too tiny.
At the office I have two 25" QHD (2560x1440), and those are fine without scaling.
At home I have two 23" FHD, and that’s getting cramped compared to my office screens.
I use the Windows 7 display scale option at medium (125%) and also there was a registry tool or something like this for Rhino to get it optimized for high res displays.
Also you could think about the final real world resolution of the displays, maybe 2560x1440 at 25" is not so much different as 4k at 32" (key word pixel density).
Ah thanks.
I looked it up it’s 140 ppi (4K at 32") vs 117 ppi (QHD at 25"), so the difference is not very huge.
I’ve been using a 4K monitor from Dell for several years. It seemed like things were small when I first changed from a lower res, but after I got used to it it was very workable. I like how much more model I can get on the screen at a zoom level that still shows details clearly enough to work on. Still on Win7, but now Rhino6.