Remember: "Full HD" is a euphemism for "too low of a resolution for this screen size".
24" should be 1200 vertical lines MINIMUM, but these days you should probably go 4K. At 1080, 24" is going to look like **** at normal monitor viewing distances. Grainy and fuzzy.
^ Disagree. To me it makes little sense to go higher in resolution at only 24" in an HD aspect ratio, unless you have a very cramped desk and/or multi-monitor setup. 4K would be pushing it, somewhat of a waste at only 24" unless one sits uncomfortably close to the monitor. IMO 32" is about where 4K starts to benefit over 1440p.
To put it in perspective, many people are now using 4K TVs that are 42" or larger size which puts them at about the same pixel pitch as a 24" 1080p and they are happy, not suggesting their pixels are too big.
The point of a monitor like this is to reach a low price point, and it's great to be able to get an IPS this size for little more than $100. Arguing for something better that costs a fair % more, misses the .
Comments & Reviews (2)
24" should be 1200 vertical lines MINIMUM, but these days you should probably go 4K. At 1080, 24" is going to look like **** at normal monitor viewing distances. Grainy and fuzzy.
^ Disagree. To me it makes little sense to go higher in resolution at only 24" in an HD aspect ratio, unless you have a very cramped desk and/or multi-monitor setup. 4K would be pushing it, somewhat of a waste at only 24" unless one sits uncomfortably close to the monitor. IMO 32" is about where 4K starts to benefit over 1440p.
To put it in perspective, many people are now using 4K TVs that are 42" or larger size which puts them at about the same pixel pitch as a 24" 1080p and they are happy, not suggesting their pixels are too big.
The point of a monitor like this is to reach a low price point, and it's great to be able to get an IPS this size for little more than $100. Arguing for something better that costs a fair % more, misses the .
Thank you!