Question is 4K monitor really better for office works?

[faye]

Hi,
My wife uses a notebook for the office work. (Microsoft words, excel spread sheet and 3dmax)

I am thinking to get a 24" or a 27" monitor for her so she could have a similar office setup as i do. (i have a notebook connecting to a 24" Dell ultrasharp, it is a FHD)

I find thinking to get a LG 27" for her. Something like a 27UL650

Is a 4k really make a difference when using microsoft words, excel, 3dmax?

 

[Muadib]

Hi,
My wife uses a notebook for the office work. (Microsoft words, excel spread sheet and 3dmax)

I am thinking to get a 24" or a 27" monitor for her so she could have a similar office setup as i do. (i have a notebook connecting to a 24" Dell ultrasharp, it is a FHD)

I find thinking to get a LG 27" for her. Something like a 27UL650

Is a 4k really make a difference when using microsoft words, excel, 3dmax?

A 4k monitor would give your wife more screen to work with. However at 27", things will be small. IMO, you want at least a 32" screen for 4k. I have a 2k screen (2560x1440), and 27" is the perfect size for it. If you go with a 24", then don't go over 1600x1024.

 

[Staples]

If you are not gaming, then get a 4K 27". That LG you named it good.
Scale windows resolution to 150%. You will get similar screen real estate to 1440p but the text will be a lot more crisp. The reason I do not recomend 4K for gaming is because unless you pay over $1000, they are all limited to 60hz.

 

[mnewsham]

4k 27" pretty much only makes text look smoother, that generally isn't going to impact MOST people's workflow.


Larger 4k panels, however, can be very useful in certain workflow situations. Especially anything that benefits from viewing multiple windows on the same panel.

For example, a 43" 4k monitor is equivalent to 4x21" 1080p monitors, so i can open up 4 full size 1080p windows on a 43" 4k panel and have ZERO problem with text size and readability, so i can freely look between 4 different windows without having to change monitors, move my head around, or deal with virtual desktops.

 

[extide]

I hate using scaling -- so a 4K screen would need to be pretty big. I think a 27-32" at 2560x1440 is perfect for office/development work, especially if you have 2 or 3 of them.

 

[killster1]

I hate using scaling -- so a 4K screen would need to be pretty big. I think a 27-32" at 2560x1440 is perfect for office/development work, especially if you have 2 or 3 of them.

dont think they said anything about 2 or 3 monitor. i personally have not used less then a 37" for the past 10 years? or pretty close to it. My vote is a 55" 4k but i have no problem sitting 2' away or 5 feet away..

 

[Atari2600]

27" 4k is a waste of time.

I have 2 of these in work:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-U32R592-32Inch-Monitor-3840x2160/dp/B07JCF1TQ4

Simply couldn't recommend high enough (although if they were 34" it'd be better)

Have a 40" 4k at home, which is a bit too big for sitting on a desk 60-70cm away from you. At least, you'd need one with a substantial curve to it, flat one is not great.


But in general, an unscaled 4k monitor is worth its weight in gold for efficient working.

 

[mnewsham]

which is a bit too big for sitting on a desk 60-70cm away from you

40" 4k is 0.79m visual acuity distance, so you'll want it about 80cm back.

I use a 43" 4k at about 90cm, it's a flat panel, no curve at all. No issues with it. It's mounted on the wall behind my desk, and brought forward until it reaches about 90cm from my seated position.

 

[Atari2600]

40" 4k is 0.79m visual acuity distance, so you'll want it about 80cm back.

Still wouldn't recommend it. The problem I had was viewing angles to the edges of the screen, not acuity.

 

[mnewsham]

Still wouldn't recommend it. The problem I had was viewing angles to the edges of the screen, not acuity.

well at 60-70cm i'd expect that. The MINIMUM viewing distance of a 40" 4k panel is 63cm.
At 63cm assuming a 140 degree FOV (average human eye FOV is 140 degrees) you'll JUST barely be able to see both sides of the screen at the same time.

At 80cm you should CLEARLY be able to see both sides of the panel without ANY difficulty, unless you have particularly poor eyesight.

TV Monitor Viewing Distance Calculator

Viewing Distance Calculation Screen Size Resolution (W) Resolution (H) Update Data Display details: Screen Diagonal: inches Screen Resolution: Screen Width: Screen Height: Aspect Ratio: Dot Pitch: PPI: Minimum distance Maximum distance Visual Acuity distance

stari.co

 

[bluechris]

well at 60-70cm i'd expect that. The MINIMUM viewing distance of a 40" 4k panel is 63cm.
At 63cm assuming a 140 degree FOV (average human eye FOV is 140 degrees) you'll JUST barely be able to see both sides of the screen at the same time.

At 80cm you should CLEARLY be able to see both sides of the panel without ANY difficulty, unless you have particularly poor eyesight.

TV Monitor Viewing Distance Calculator

Viewing Distance Calculation Screen Size Resolution (W) Resolution (H) Update Data Display details: Screen Diagonal: inches Screen Resolution: Screen Width: Screen Height: Aspect Ratio: Dot Pitch: PPI: Minimum distance Maximum distance Visual Acuity distance

stari.co

That's correct but in work i have a flat 40" 4k at 50to60cm distance with no problem. Offcourse i don't focus on the edges but i work and don't kill enemies lol, also i have something below my head that called neck so i turn a bit if is needed

 

[Atari2600]

At 80cm you should CLEARLY be able to see both sides of the panel without ANY difficulty, unless you have particularly poor eyesight.

Ah, no, its not being able to see the stuff - its being able to see it comfortably.

Even after turning my head and directly looking at it (say, excel cells along the boundary of the monitor), I found the viewing angle (on 40" 4k) poor and would frequently end up translating my head as opposed to just panning it.

The 32" curved are much better in this regard.


Perhaps it's a poor quality panel (iiyama X4071 I think it is) that is causing the problem.

 

[jdkick]

Better? Depends. For a 27", I don't think I'd go 4k either and would probably stay 1440. Or an ultrawide, perhaps. I certainly wouldn't want to work from a laptop display all day so I think you're on the right track with an external display.

I personally use a triple monitor arrangement for my workflow during the day. At home, a 4k 40" panel. I have no issues and enjoy the real estate it offers having RDP and other windows open. Curved may be helpful, but I don't find the flat panel objectionable.

 

[guachi]

I have a 27" 4k LG and a 27" 1440 LG side by side on my desk.

I definitely prefer using the 4k for Office type stuff. Scaling is at 150%. Looks noticeably better.

Game on the 1440, Excel and web browsing on the 4k.

 

[reqq]

no reason not go for 4k considering you can get that philips for 250.. 4k ips 27 inch.
4k at 27 is incredible read text and view images on due to the ppi.

 

[mindless1]

4K is a substantial upgrade, with the main downside being that once you have 4K it's hard to go back to anything lower res.

Why limit it to 27"? At a bare minimum I'd get a 32", even if it's just a 4K TV rather than "computer monitor". As far as upper limit, unless you have a really deep desk so it sits at a distance, I wouldn't go larger than 43".

 

[Alex_Stevens]

Hi,
My wife uses a notebook for the office work. (Microsoft words, excel spread sheet and 3dmax)

I am thinking to get a 24" or a 27" monitor for her so she could have a similar office setup as i do. (i have a notebook connecting to a 24" Dell ultrasharp, it is a FHD)

I find thinking to get a LG 27" for her. Something like a 27UL650

Is a 4k really make a difference when using microsoft words, excel, 3dmax?

i've done some work for car dealerships re-doing their desk pc's they prefer the nicer monitors for text and images. You can totally get away with a lower quality monitor but even the average person can appreciate a nice monitor if they're spending a ton of time in front of it.

 

[dlerious]

4K is a substantial upgrade, with the main downside being that once you have 4K it's hard to go back to anything lower res.

Why limit it to 27"? At a bare minimum I'd get a 32", even if it's just a 4K TV rather than "computer monitor". As far as upper limit, unless you have a really deep desk so it sits at a distance, I wouldn't go larger than 43".

I've got 4K60 and 1440p165 monitors. I prefer the 4K for movies/photos and 1440 for gaming. I prefer refresh over resolution for gaming. I'd buy a TV if I could find one that wasn't a 'smart' TV. 32" is the smallest 4K I'd get now.

 

[citan x]

I have been spoiled by Apple displays. Although it doesn’t improve productivity much, I much prefer a Retina display.

I have an LG 5k 27 and an LG 4K 27 inch monitor. Both look way better than a 1080p monitor when working with text. Side by side, the 5k looks better than the 4K.

I also used to hate scaling, but it has gotten a lot better than before. The 5k is used at 200% scaling and the 4K at 150% scaling.

I used the LG 27 inch 4K without scaling and it is doable depending on your eyesight. However, it is hard to see fine detail since it is so small. I have also used 40 inch 4K displays unscaled and the amount of space available is huge. I do agree that looking at the edges can sometimes be a stretch, but again is very doable. At one point, I had 2 40 inch 4K monitors, and it was workable. I have not tried 4K at 32 inches, but it might be a good compromise.

I have found one of the reasons I prefer the LG Ultrafines is the glossy glass display. The LG 4K is matte and white backgrounds look dirty compared to the 5k. If you can stomach the glare, I do prefer it.

I hardly game anymore so I don’t really use gaming performance as a criteria. I do wonder how I would like a fast refresh monitor, however I don’t think I can give up my retina displays.

For office work, none of this is really needed. A basic 1080p monitor will do and a nice upgrade would be a 27 inch 1440p display.

The 4K displays and higher do look better, but don’t really improve productivity much.

 

[mindless1]

^ My productivity, office work included, is vastly improved using a 4K monitor over a 1080p, and a bit less so over a 16:9 1440p. It makes quite a bit of difference to have the pixels (and size, if comparing same DPI) to look at diagrams, schematics, have two or more windows open in high res. side by side for many different tasks.

However for office work it would be better to stick closer to 32" than 42", depending on the tasks. I couldn't go back to 1080p for any use besides gaming or videos... had to do that for a few days when I had a monitor failure and it was a miserable experience.

#firstworldproblems

 

[Red Squirrel]

4k is basically like having 4 HD monitors in a 2x2 config but without the need for 4 outputs or the physical space that 4 monitors would take so it gives you tons more screen area to work on for stuff likes spreadsheets, code, etc. I upgraded to two 28" 4k last year and it's been awesome. I had it in back of my mind to do it for a while but originally wanted 1x 32" and was waiting for prices to drop which they were not. Then when they announced that we'd be working from home but still also need to work in office sometimes I went for it so I don't need to move my work monitors back and forth. For price of 1 32" I could get 2 28" so I did just that. Works out as this way I am able to leave my work setup (3x 4k 1x HD) untouched and only need to move the PC back and forth. I can switch between work/personal using KVM.

It's also incredible for coding, can see more of the code, and I also find myself not needing to shuffle stuff around so much as I can keep it all up since there's room for it. Consoles, file system viewer, code editor, the actual thing I'm working on etc... it can all stay open and in place. Spend less time minimizing and shuffling through different windows.

If we were doing the work from home thing on a permanent basis, I would probably split my personal/work setup a bit more and put the work stuff on 3x 4K TVs that are vertical on the wall then have my personal setup in front of me, but setup so I can see the TVs. I'd have a HD monitor off the side for work email, tickets etc and separate keyboard/mouse.

 

[biostud]

Get a 34" 3440x1440. It is great for productivity.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Isn’t a 30” or larger sized monitor sort of big to be looking at on a desk like an arms length away?

 

[mindless1]

^ I feel exactly the opposite, why would you look at a tiny monitor unless every inch of space is valuable for something else? I suppose someone living off-grid, also wants lower power consumption from a smaller monitor, or could have a small office space where only a shallow desk will fit.

My standard is, at whatever distance your monitor is, can you comfortably move your eyes for your use period, to see everything instead of having to move your head. I may move my head anyway but not much, don't have to.

Granted, my monitor is a bit more than arm's length away, at least a foot further. The extra space on my desk is very useful!

 

[biostud]

Isn’t a 30” or larger sized monitor sort of big to be looking at on a desk like an arms length away?

34” ultrawide is perfect for office work imho, it is a 27” with some extra width, so you can effectively have two windows side by side.