True. And most systems, at least Windows and MacOS in my testing, will scale font area upward so that characters appear as the same size just much sharper since the character is rendered with more pixels.
I read it again, it still reads the way I saw it before. I’m running a 27“ 4K at looks like 1440p instead of the 27” 1440p monitor I already had. You mentioned not understanding people running at a lower resolution, as they should just get a lower resolution. That is what I am doing. I get everything the same size, but sharper. That is why I do it.
I have also read the relevant posts multiple times, and cannot interpret them any other way.
You said we are pretending, effectively saying that we are lying. You are wrong. You are bad for saying that.
On my dell s2817q running in native 4K becomes too small to read so I have to scale down. What monitor size would be needed to run in 4K fully with no scaling and stil be able to read?
Sarah, I would guess something like a 32" at a minimum to read comfortably. The poster above cited a 40" as looking good - and some are using 48" OLED TVs as monitors - but the problem with physically larger monitors is, depending on the distance you may be sitting from it, you may have to physically rotate your head to see different parts of the screen. That could be uncomfortable. This is not generally a problem with TVs because you sit at the appropriate distance for a given size and resolution for passive viewing. But we sit closer to computer monitors because we are actively interacting with it with mice, keyboards, track pads etc., and so you run up against practical size limitations for closer viewing. Maybe not an issue with gaming but other tasks probably ergonomically unsound.
Because if you're not scaling by an even number (e.g. doubling the number of pixels as in the example you gave) it can both put an extra load on the GPU (affecting UI performance) and make the display less readable at certain resolutions.
If you're going for about 110 ppi (same as a 27" "4K" scaled to 2560×1440), then 40" is a good size. However, it depends on your eyesight and viewing distance so there's no "one size fits all" answer. I can run "4K" on 23.8" (185 ppi) with no scaling and am still able to read everything, for instance.
We're talking 157 vs. 138 ppi. It does make a difference depending on eyesight and viewing distance but it's not "massive".
Did people not complain because they didn't care/mind/notice, or because they didn't know?
27" is the sweet spot for me. Anything larger and I feel like I'm moving my eyes or head around too much. So I end up pushing the monitor back. Then have to adjust the resolution with my poor eyesight which pretty much negates the advantages of having a larger monitor.
I agree with azentropy. I tried out a Dell 32" U3219Q and a Dell 27" U2720Q for a while and found that the 27" was better all around for me. The 32" required too much head movement and I always had that 'sitting in the movie theater front row' feeling when using it. The 27" has a slightly higher PPI, colors were clearer and brighter and the scaled resolution works great. I like the 'looks like 2560 x 1440' setting -- comfortable UI element sizes and plenty of real estate to utilize. The Dell U2720Q is a fabulous monitor in quality and features, USB-C, HDMI and DP connections and the size is ideal for a desktop setting. I run two of them through a CalDigit TS3+ dock at 4K, 60hZ with no issues.
The other thing to remember is that the graphics are also rendered with more pixels so everything graphical (icons, control elements, window margins) are sharper. This is so much easier on the eyes
