That was for me the reason to pick (27")QHD and not 4K. I still have plenty of (older) 3D games with non-scalable UI to play. At native resolution, the UI is small but not too small. On a smaller-than-42" 4K, it would be impossible. (And I find a 42" desktop monitor a bit too unpractical.)

If no practical(/financial) reasons -> more dpi = better (for me)

I had a 27" 1080 monitor, decided not to keep it mainly because the small pixel density.
Long sessions of PDF's, web searching and documents (probably code as well) is annoying if you are used to higher pixel density, on the other hand games and media is fine. It kinda lacks sharpness even on stuff you can't actually see the idividual pixels.

As posted on other thread, I use a 12" 2160x1440 windows tablet and indeed, some stuff have weird scalling and changing the desktop resolution to a non native (many programs use the desktop resolution as base setting, including many games) may make things blurry. Same on web browsers, some content don't scale properly with the built in +- tool.

Of course, all this discussion is subjective and I don't care that much about visuals in games, after all I choose to play my first playthrough of Shadow Tactics at 720p low settings 30fps.
I also agree that the monitor feature set is more important than the pixel density, like free-sync, refresh rate, ports and stand. That said I woudn't buy a new monitor to keep a few years at 27" and 1080p, wich is a problem since high res, good quality, fast, big and sharp monitors can be quite costly!

Whatever you choose you'll get used to with time.

On a similar note I have a very old Dell 19" 5:4 1280 x1024 monitor on the mancave. Older games and movies at 4:3 are as big and sharp on this old monitor than they are in the much modern 24" 16:9 1080p with black side bars. Actually, browsing random websites is actually a better experience on the old monitor due the much wasted lateral space (I'm looking at you GOG but please, don't fill it with a lot of crap).

No. Sort of, but mostly no. Any 3D games which don't do anti-aliasing (or do it poorly), the pixels are pretty noticeable. The pixels would be too large for text, except sub-pixel AA fixes that well enough.

You...don't need to make your browser window the full width of the screen on a widescreen monitor. That's a really horrible use of screen real-estate.

yeah....when youre several feet away from the tv....

Windows used to have a "cleartype" calibration tool wich help a lot smoothing the fonts, not sure if is still available. Start menu search cleartype.
Thats very much true but I'm too lazy to properly aim the mouse to close the window if not maximized, I just like to throw the mouse at the top-right corner and click.

Interesting, it would never occur to me to consider UI scaling as a factor for what display I would get, as none of the high resolution displays could solve that problem entirely without me seeking fixes to this or that game, whereas with any older games where I can't set them to use the display's native resolution or any integer divided alternatives to that, the scaling issues will more or less noticeably affect the entire screen area which can be a lot more annoying than having to deal with a smaller UI on games that fall in between CRT era games and a lot more recent games where UI scaling support has finally started to become the norm.

i would suggest search for a monitor/UHTV that is native 1080P or 4K

don't use 1440P it's not any standard for decades it will make your older games looks absolute horrific.
1080P, 4K is already standard for over 20 years.

You're trolling or ignorant.

Personally, I wouldn't recommend 27" 1080p and it has to do with low pixel density: 81 to 91/93 or 109 is a different tale, especially when it comes to detail and distance.
For 1440p have a look at MSI Optix MAG274QRF-QD. Seems like a solid choice to me, even though it's more expensive.
Alternatively, for 1080p: the 24.5-inch version of the ASUS you mentioned.
Before buying though, make sure to see for yourself and gather as much info as possible. Yes, we can all share experiences/opinions, but at the end of day you will sit in front of the monitor.

Sorry but that really is complete nonsense and the most dumb trolling imaginable. Even today in 2022, 4k screens make up around 2.4% of the PC gaming market (that counts both TV & monitors) and not even 1-in-20 gamers owns one. Back in the real 2000's, consumer 4K monitors were unheard of and many games at the time were designed around fixed 92ppi displays ( see AB2012's above post that shows screenshots of Dragon Age Origins (2009) at 1080p, 1440p and 4k to see for yourself of how such games scale badly at native 4k displays precisely because they weren't designed for them). Likewise, it took until 2013-2015 for the standardisation of 4k / UHD TV broadcasts, for 4k consoles (PS4 Pro) to be invented, and for 4k Blu-Ray to be released on February 14, 2016 (and the HEVC codec it uses only existed since 2013).

Before all this, 4k wasn't even available to buy let alone a "commonly owned monitor" in the 2000's decade. There are sites that have tracked the evolution of monitor displays over the years using Statcounter (taken from web browser, etc), and it took until the 2010's for even 1080p 16:9 to become "mainstreamed" vs the previous 16:10 (1680x1050) and 4:3 aspect ratios (1280x1024). If you really want to remember what screens people owned in the mid 2000's, then simply pick up an archived PC magazine from that era and read the adverts to see what screens were sold at the time ( one example of many, last page = Viewsonic 20" VP201b, a 1600x1200 monitor that's "yours for under a grand"). It was as mentioned still the 4:3 -> 16:9 transition era. It's only really been post-2016 that 1440p / 4k have increased in popularity, but even today both combined add up to only 12% of the market share with 1080p absolutely dominating at +67% market share.

becase it's made at 1080P it's works quite normal at 4K

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2743958030

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2743956700

that's why i suggest a 1080P or 4K thats the industry standard (1440P) aint standard and it's crap.
also consoles are made for 1080P or 4K any game ported to PC is optimized for this resolution.
also steam 67% use 1080P or 4K
and yea 4K was very common in 2007 already

the PS3 was 720P upscaled to 1080P.
do you see anywhere 1440P?.

i see a lot of ps4 pro/xbox one x games being rendered anywhere between 1440p & 4k....with a lot of ps4 pro games output at 1800p of all resolutions...

talking abt "standards" when it comes to resolution...is pretty absurd...imo...the bigger, the better (till an extent)

if u cant afford that, a compromise wont kill ya... -_-

They are all standard PC resolutions with standardised names:-

1080p = FHD
1440p = QHD
2160p = UHD

Just because consoles lack the flexibility to use 1440p doesn't mean it isn't a "standard" PC resolution absolutely no different to the fact consoles also can't use VGA, SVGA, XGA, SXGA, etc, yet that doesn't mean they aren't "industry standard" PC resolutions either. 2560x1440 is simply to 1280x720 what 3840x2160 is to 1920x1080 (exact 2:2x multiple).

Incorrect. Consoles may operate at 1080p or 4k but that does not mean any console game ported to PC is automatically "optimized" for 4k. See earlier screenshots demonstrating bad UI scaling, speaking of which your own "Look here's Dragon Age at 4k" completely misses the point it's the UI / HUD that doesn't scale. The UI-less cutscene screenshot you posted is completely irrelevant to the issue discussed. As the PCGW article on the game states in the 4k section "UI does not scale with resolution and is extremely small in 4K" (ie, you can "run" it at 4k but it's not very enjoyable to play a game whose buttons, etc, are so tiny you can hardly see them to click on), a common problem with many older games forced to run at 4k especially on smaller 28" 4k monitors). And upscaling 1080p -> 2160p doesn't always work despite the theoretical perfect maths behind it.

- 15.4% use *lower* than 1080p (eg, 720p or laptop screens such as 1366x768)
- 67.12% use 1080p
- 9.19% use 1440p
- 2.37% use 4k
- 2.19% use Ultrawide (usually 2560x1080 or 3440x1440)

Trying to include the 4k figures in with the 1080p and pass them off as being the same is just silly.

So first it was 2002, then 2006, now 2007, and still none of those are true. Not even close. I get the impression you're a very young person who hasn't a clue what people owned in the 2000's, you bought yourself a shiny new 4k monitor recently and are so wrapped up in e-peen of "and now everyone must use what I own" you simply can't tell fact from fantasy...

Reality = It took until 2013-2014 before 4k TV's started to become affordable for most people (prior to this the only consumer 4k displays was projectors and plasma TV) and 4k PC monitors followed those. As Brian said, go and actually read a 2002, 2006, 2007-era PC magazine / web review to see what monitors were on sale back then and none were 4k at all. Nowhere is this more obvious than reading old GPU reviews from 2007 era and the complete lack of 4k benchmarking. Here's what 2007-era GPU's looked like. That's right, 2007-era GPU's had 256MB (0.25GB) to 512MB (0.5GB) VRAM, which are clearly not "4k" capable at all.

Likewise the typical tested resolutions of that era (1600x1200, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 tested), were that period we moved from 4:3 to 16:10 and then rapidly onto 16:9. 4k PC gaming was another several years out and even by 2015 when games were starting to be benchmarked at 4k, they crawled along at 30fps at 4k resolution on the top-end GPU of that year. 4k PC gaming in actual practise (ie, finally having GPU's powerful enough) has only been a thing over the past few years and it's still under 3% of gamers. "Everyone back in 2002-2007 had 4k" = you really haven't a clue about PC gaming in the 2000's...

Edit: One obvious thing your highly misleading "memory" overlooks - Back in 2007 most monitor connections were still DVI + Dsub. 4k @ 60Hz requires DisplayPort 1.2 (that was only introduced in 2010) or HDMI 2.0 (introduced in Sept 2013), with 60Hz DVI maxing out at 2560x1600. So in whatever parallel universe your "everyone was using 4k monitors in 2002-2007" fantasy came from, your monitors must have all been connected via Magic Beans...