40" vs 43" 4k screen

Hi,

I am moving from a 32" 4k screen to something larger, as I find scaling at 150% causes me too many issues.

At 40" I am getting back to 110dpi.

What do people think about the difference between the two sizes. Is 43" too big. I have no interest in gaming.

I am looking at either Philips BDM4350UC/00 or iiyama X4071UHSU-B1 as both seem to get good reviews relative to price.

Thanks
Dan

 

First off you need to know those monitor resolution before getting them. If they provide the same resolution as your old monitor at bigger screen you gained nothing. 40" or 43" alot depends are they on mounts or wall mounts or dual monitor mounts.
Also you should provide the links for those monitors that would be faster for others to see what they offer. If you have no interest in Gaming why are you getting bigger size? I have a 27" and that puts a squeeze on my desk as it is slot right into it. I would get a 32" but that wouldn't my Desk. But I am looking for one if it works though.

 

Philips BDM4350UC/00: 43" Class Monitor (42.51" Viewable) IPS Panel, Quad 3840 x 2160 Resolution
iiyama X4071UHSU-B1: 40" Native resolution 3840 x 2160 (8.3 megapixel 4K UHD)

He mentioned already that they are both 4k, he also mentioned that he is getting a larger screen because trying to see 4k resolution on a 32" screen is hard for him so he has things scaled up to 150% but the scaling is causing other issues with applications. The main reason he wants larger monitors at the same resolution is so that he can spare his eyes the struggle of having to squint and see what is on the screen without scaling enabled.

Personally I would go with the Philips because they are a more trusted brand here in the states. I've never heard of iiyama ever and some of these reviews came from ebuyer.com which I'm not sure how legit that site is, Amazon and Newegg have no ratings for it.

 

Idek/Iiyama has been around for quite some time. I got an Iiyama VisionMaster 17 monitor for my first computer (built in 1994) and it was one of the best at the time. It could do 1280x1024@85Hz, which was unusual then, particulary for a reasonably priced monitor. But I don't know anything about their current displays.

 

Hmm, interesting! Seems like they were a stand up company back then, I wonder if they were just overshadowed on the market today because they don't spend millions on marketing and instead invest that into their product and R&D.

 

Where I work we use about maybe 20 or more iiyama LCD screens (old school 4:3 ratio) and they nearly never fail. They are all probably at least 10 years old or more as they have pretty bad scratches and often get knocked to the side by metal stuff hitting it pretty hard. I only saw one go funky with colors in the 3 years I have worked there and it ended up being replaced by newer 16:9 screen, not sure which model. No actual experience with newer ones. As for Philips we have 3 philips screens in the house, the oldest one is probably like 3 or 4 years old now and they are all very good - even the two 24 inch 60Hz 1080p Philips screens we have are actually pretty good and only cost us 100 euro each (very good with the dutch prices). I can imagine if you go bigger, fancier and more expensive it can only get better.

 

I'm currently running this: http://us.aoc.com/en/products/c4008vu8. No issues with peripherals on it. I'm thinking about potentially upgrading to a Samsung 55NU85 00: https://www.samsung.com/sg/tvs/puhd-nu8500/UA55NU8500KXXS/

For the viewing distance of a standard depth computer desk (read: about 2-3 feet) I find the 40" to be a surprisingly good fit. My desk dimensions are ~48" (l) x 24" (w) x 30" (h). I run a monitor stand, so the 40" sits at the very back of the desk, probably slightly further aft than if I were using the factory stand. I've linked a pic of an early mock-up below.

To me, I have adapted to this setup and I would now consider this to be a minimum acceptable size for any desktop application. I'm very glad I went with a single vs. multiple monitors. 4k is quite noticeable at this viewing distance. If I go a tad larger (55" may be overkill, even curved), I'll have to relocate my speakers. I could easily swap to a 45" curved without any concerns though--sight unseen.



The biggest "untested" area of future displays is cementing what is the ideal monitor curvature for a given viewing distance and monitor size. Both of the monitors I linked have a rather slight curvature them. I suspect that curvature will have to become more pronounced as the size increases--if the viewing distance stays the same. I wear fairly small glasses. At present, I find that my current monitor allows me to view the entire display within the FOV of my glasses without turning my head at all, hence why I consider this size to be "my new minimum".

If you are intending to play windowed games, use multiple browsers/programs, etc--and you want real-estate, something larger might be up your alley. Some people may prefer to have their monitor extend just beyond their peripheral FOV in order to increase immersion. I find that the curved screen does help with that facet a bit.

Hope that helps.

p.s.
Because I'm a videophile, 4k @ 240hz is a great sweet-spot...although I can see a clear difference in pixel density between my 15.6" 4k laptop screen, and the 40" 4k screen. I'm confident that an 8k 50" curved @ 240hz would be pretty damn perfect for me--but even if such a monitor presently exists, it undoubtedly costs about as much as a used car.