This is a question which I see asked a lot either online or by customers of ours looking to put together a new computer system for trading.
As with most things in life, the answer is usually, ‘it depends’…
Not massively helpful I know, but it is the truth, here’s why.
The Two Most Important Factors When Picking the Right Size Monitor
Choosing the right sized monitor for your trading requirements comes down to two factors, the physical size and then the resolution of the screen.
Most people can easily comprehend the impact of a specific size of screen is going to have on them physically.
What I mean by this is that it’s fairly easy to imagine what having a 24” screen or a 32” on your desk is going to look like, and if you can’t picture it then a few minutes with a tape measure will help.
The thing which many people are unable to envisage is what a difference one resolution is going to make over another one.
To be honest, there are a lot of people I speak to who don’t even know what a screen resolution is, and why should they, I’m sure there’s a ton of stuff that they know which I have no knowledge of.
The resolution is just as important, if not more so, as the size of a screen, and both need to be taken into account together when selecting your next screen.
What is a Screen Resolution
When we are talking about screen resolution for monitors we are basically describing the number of pixels that the screen is able to show.
A pixel is essentially a tiny dot of light, screens use pixels to produce the image you see on your screen, so a screen resolution of 1920 x 1080 means that the screen can display 1,920 pixels horizontally and 1,080 pixels vertically, this gives you a total pixel count of 2,073,600 pixels.
We go into a lot more details on screen resolutions over on the Multiple Monitors Blog – Screen Resolutions Guide (https://www.multiplemonitors.co.uk/blog/monitor-screen-resolutions/) if you want a more deep dive into the subject.
For the purposes of this discussion, the important thing you need to know is that a screen resolution is simply a description of how many pixels the monitor can display.
The Real-World Impact of Higher Resolution Screens
Generally speaking the higher resolution a screen is then the more pixels it has available to display your information.
This can work in one of two ways.
1. Higher Definition / More Detail – If you have two screens of the same size and one has more pixels than the other (I.e. it is higher resolution) then the pixels on the higher resolution screen need to be smaller to fit them into the same physical size, this means that the images displayed on the higher res screen will look smoother or more detailed.
Why is this? Imagine trying to create a circle out of square lego blocks, you could do it but it would be impossible to create a smooth edge due to the blocky nature of the bricks you were using.
If I then gave you another set of blocks which were a lot smaller then the same size circle would look a lot smoother.
If you could then use blocks which were tiny then at some point you would not be able to tell that the ‘circle’ was made up of blocks at all, it would look like a smooth curved line.
The size of each circle would be the same but the larger number of smaller sized blocks (greater number of smaller pixels) works to make sure the last circle looked a lot smoother / more detailed.
2. More Space to Work With – If we go back to comparing two screens, one with a higher resolution than the other, then what we are saying is that the higher resolution screen has more pixels.
This means that if you are running a charting package with your trading software, and the chart takes up a space of 400 pixels wide by 300 pixels tall, then if your higher resolution screen has more pixels available then you would have more ‘room’ to fit in more charts.
As a trader the second benefit of a higher resolution screen is what you want, more space to lay out your charts, spreadsheets and Netflix (maybe?), this is far more beneficial to you than making your charts look a bit nicer.
Can you have both benefits? I.e. greater detail / definition and more space to work with? You can to a certain extent but you have to be careful and there are drawbacks.
Combining Screen Size & Resolution
As we have discussed, with two monitors the same size, the higher resolution one has a greater number of pixels, so these pixels on the higher resolution screen need to be reduced in size to be squeezed into the same physical space.
This reduction in pixel size has a major impact on your experience of using the screen.
Take a 4K screen for example. 4K is the shorthand name given to a resolution of 3840 x 2160 pixels, exactly four times the resolution of a standard 1920 x 1080 screen (technically these are referred to as Full HD or FHD screens).
If you have a 21.5” or 24” screen on a standard computer then it is more than likely that it is a FHD (1920 x 1080) resolution screen. These are very common and in widespread use and have been for many years now.
With an FHD screen at these sizes text and icons, unless you have fairly major vision issues, will appear perfectly readable / usable.
If we have a 4K screen of the same size, which has four times the number of pixels, then all your text, icons, charts, practically anything that you display on the screen will appear four times smaller.
This is because your software does not know what size screen you have connected, all it knows is that fonts, lines, buttons and images should take up a certain number of pixels. When your pixels are four times smaller then everything is basically unusable.
Hopefully you can see that simply going for a higher resolution screen is not the way to get more usable space for charts and software, you have to take the screen size, which in turn affects the pixel size, into account.
Windows Scaling
With the increase in recent years of higher resolution screens the makers of software have had to take them into account and adapt how they do things. Microsoft Windows now has a feature called scaling which it uses to stop your Windows interface and the programs you use becoming unusable due to this tiny pixel issue.
Scaling basically tells your software to increase the size of everything on your screen by a factor based on the size of your screen. You can control this easily through the Windows control panel for your display.
The problem with scaling is two fold:
Firstly, not all programs scale well. What I mean is that some software is not setup to simply scale its output to use a larger number of pixels, instead it stretches elements which leaves you with a really horrible looking interface, it is workable but looks terrible.
This scaling problem is becoming less of an issue though as program makers make changes to their software.
The second and by far biggest problem with scaling is that it uses up a lot more space on your screens.
The whole point for traders by going with a higher resolution screen is to gain more pixels to use, more pixels means more space for charts and programs.
If all your software is scaled by 150% or even 200% in some instances then the amount of free space becomes vastly reduced, how much so?
How Much Space Do You Lose by Scaling Windows?
Windows offers scaling in increments of 25% starting at 100%, so let’s work out how much usable space to lay out your programs and charts is lost by scaling the Windows interface:
| Scaling Percentage | Usable Space Decrease |
| 100% | 0% |
| 125% | 36% |
| 150% | 55% |
| 175% | 67% |
| 200% | 75% |
| 225% | 80% |
This means that if you need to scale a 4K screen by 200% then it will end up with the effective resolution the same as a standard FHD screen, despite costing you somewhere in the region of 4 – 6 times the price…
Sure, it would have more pixels, and yes, if your software doesn’t have scaling issues then everything will look ultra sharp and crisp, but you will not be able to fit any more ‘stuff’ on the screen than you could with a standard (and considerably cheaper) FHD screen.
Scaling is a massive consideration and it catches lots of people out.
Working Out Screen Sizes to Avoid Scaling
So, how do you get a high resolution screen without scaling reducing the amount of space you can use? The only ways is to go bigger on the screen.
But how big is big enough (the age old question).
If we assume that the vast majority of people would be able to use a standard FHD (1920 x 1080) screen at a 21.5” size with no problem then we can take this information and make an estimate of the size of each pixel (or technically the space that each pixel has available).
A 21.5” widescreen panel will measure roughly 476mm wide by 268mm tall, this is the dimension of the actual screen not the overall size including bezels / casing around the screen.
We know that an FHD screen has 1,920 pixels across its horizontal axis, so 478mm / 1,920 gives us a result of 0.248mm for each pixel.
So, we now know that if a pixel is 0.248mm in size then it will result in a screen that is perfectly usable for the vast majority of humans.
What we can now do is see how big does a 4K screen need to be to match this, i.e. how physically big does a screen need to be usable and have text / elements appear at the same size as on a 21.5” screen at a 4K resolution?
4K is 3840 x 2160, so if we multiply 3,840 x 0.248mm (our decent pixel size) then we end up with a horizontal measurement of 952mm, this leads to a screen size of 43” (remember that screens are measured across a diagonal and are always listed with inch dimensions).
So, any 4K screen below a 43” size will have smaller pixels than on a 21.5” FHD screen and will have smaller items displayed on it.
You could go for a slightly smaller 4K screen, which would end up with slightly smaller pixels, and still find this usable, it does depend on your eyesight and what you find comfortable working with.
The Size / Resolution Sweet Spots
I’ve mentioned FHD (1920 x 1080) and 4K (3840 x 2160) resolutions a lot so far as these are the two most common and talked about resolutions, but there is another option between them which is called Quad HD or QHD, this resolution is 2560 x 1440 and it is what I personally use.
As it is a lower resolution than 4K you don’t need the screens to be so big, but it is a higher resolution than FHD so you do get more space to play with.
What I have done is to put together a table detailing various screen sizes and the resulting pixel sizes at various resolutions, I’ve colour coded the results as follows:
Green = Usable by anyone without fairly major vision problems without needing any scaling.
Blue = Usable but is edging towards the limit of being too small for some.
Red = Definitely unusable without some amount of scaling.
Purple = Pixels are so big things may start looking a bit ‘blocky’.
| Diagonal | Screen Dimensions | FHD | QHD | 4K |
| 21.5″ (22″) | 476mm x 268mm | 0.248mm | 0.186mm | 0.124mm |
| 23.6″ (24″) | 522mm x 294mm | 0.272mm | 0.204mm | 0.136mm |
| 25″ | 553mm x 311mm | 0.288mm | 0.216mm | 0.144mm |
| 27″ | 598mm x 336mm | 0.311mm | 0.234mm | 0.156mm |
| 28″ | 620mm x 349mm | 0.323mm | 0.242mm | 0.161mm |
| 32″ | 708mm x 398mm | 0.369mm | 0.277mm | 0.184mm |
| 40″ | 886mm x 498mm | 0.461mm | 0.346mm | 0.231mm |
| 43″ | 952mm x 535mm | 0.496mm | 0.372mm | 0.248mm |
| 48.5″ | 1074mm x 604mm | 0.559mm | 0.420mm | 0.280mm |
| 55″ | 1218mm x 685mm | 0.634mm | 0.476mm | 0.317mm |
*I’ve tried to keep to screen sizes that are actually available to purchase, while a 38″ 4K set may be usable for some people, after 32″ the sizes tend to jump to 40″ or 43″.
What About Ultra Wides?
An UltraWide screen is a fairly new screen type that is really wide, far wider than a normal widescreen, these tend to have different screen resolutions as well to account for the wider display area.
The same rules apply here, we simply need to find out the actual dimensions of the screen, divide it by the resolution and then determine whether the pixels are big enough to avoid scaling issues.
To make things easy let’s look at the two most common resolutions for UltraWide screens, 2560 x 1080 and then 3440 x 1440.
For the 2560 x 1080 panels at 0.248mm per pixel then the screen would need to measure roughly 635mm wide by 268mm high, which in UltraWide dimensions means a diagonal size of 27” or above.
Looking at the higher resolution options of 3440 x 1440 you would need 853mm wide by 357mm tall, which is 36.5” across a diagonal, anything smaller than this is going to result in slightly smaller images on the screen.
Most of the higher resolution UltraWides tend to be at a 34” size which would still be fine for most people without any scaling required.
Personally though I’m not a fan of UltraWides, the only benefit I see is an aesthetic one.
In terms of resolution, 2560 x 1080 wouldn’t make a massive improvement over a standard FHD screen, in fact, two FHD screens side by side would give you an effective combined resolution of 3840 x 1080, resulting in 50% more pixels, whilst costing a lot less to set up.
Even the higher resolution 3440 x 1440 is not as big as two QHD screens which would give you 5120 x 1440 to play with, again almost 50% more usable space, and again would work out cheaper or at worst the same type of cost.
Post Update: We have a new article with a more in depth look at Ultrawide monitors
Further Considerations on Screen Sizes
As you can see from the screen sizes table above, a 40” or 43” 4K screen will not require scaling, it will also give you the same amount of space to lay out programs as four standard FHD screens, on the face of it this sounds like a good option and for some it really will be.
The thing to come back to is that it means sitting in front of a 40” or bigger screen for however long you sit at a computer all day, this is quite a lot of screen to take in.
Personally I find using screens bigger than 27” quite imposing, especially if I have more than a couple of them on my desk. The main problem with bigger screens though is the height of them. I once experimented with four 27” screens arranged in a 2 over 2 (square) configuration, I had neck ache looking at the top two screens within a few days
Using a greater number of smaller monitors allows you to position them where you want them, if you have a top row of screens then these can be angled down towards you, something impossible on a large 40”+ screen.
If you want more space for your charts and software but don’t want to sit in front of a massive screen all day long then you should definitely consider QHD screens.
Two QHD screens at 25” or 27” will still give you over 3.5 times more pixels than an FHD monitor and will be a much easier set of screens to live with on a day to day basis than one giant 4K unit. You could also do this cheaper than the cost of a 43” 4K screen and on the computer side of things QHD is quite a bit less taxing on your graphics setup than a 4K screen.
For traders looking for the absolute maximum amount of space to lay out charts, spreadsheets and data then you could go for multiple 4K screens, it’s certainly possible but you’re probably going to need a bigger desk.
The alternative is to use four QHD screens, at 25” or even 27” you could fit four on a stand, position them wherever you wanted and gain over 7 times the amount of screen real-estate as a standard FHD monitor.
Remember, if you are intending to go for a new 4K screen then make sure it is at least 40”, even a 32” 4K screen will require scaling which at a minimum of 125% will result in a 36% decrease in usable space.
Any scaling at 150% or over and you may as well go for a QHD screen as it would be cheaper and easier to support.
Well that wraps that up, hopefully you have learnt something? If you still need help just let me know below.
That’s a great piece of information! Very helpful, thank you
Thanks for the kind feedback!
Awesome info Thank You I have an Lg34uc98 34inch Ultrawide I was thinking of doing three of them but after reading this I might just do 3 27’s
Hi Miles, thanks for the comment.
Your LG screen looks very smart indeed, the resolution is 3440 x 1440, a QHD screen comes in at 2560 x 1440 but they are far more cost effective, you could get three 27″ QHD panels for the same cost as one of the LG units, so it is worth considering.
If you went with 4 of 27 QHD’s you’d end up with pretty much the same usable space as you’d get on three of the LG Ultrawides (it’s actually just 0.78% less space) and obviously the price difference would be relatively big.
Thanks again, Darren.
Awesome , thanks for the info
Excellent advice, thanks for posting!
Great article man,
I have read you find using screens bigger than 27” quite imposing..
But what exact setup do YOU personally find ”ideal” (and not too costy)? How many monitors and in what sizes (and resolutions), and put in what configuration (I have also read the part about neck ache with square configuration).
Thanks.
Thanks for the comment Ivan!
The main problem I personally have with 27″ screens is when you want to create a second row of screens, for me the 27″ size makes the top row sit too high off the desk and I find it difficult to work with the top screens.
I find 24″ / 25″ fine though, and obviously 21.5″ also works well if you want to have a top row of screens.
Resolution wise, if we are going for the most usable space possible, then at 21.5″ I think standard FHD (1920 x 1080) is the right choice. I personally use some 25″ screens at QHD (2560 x 1440) resolution and I find these really nice, you get a lot more space to display your ‘stuff’ and I can handle two rows of these without any problem. Using this resolution at smaller screen sizes will likely require scaling which I prefer to avoid.
If I was going for the absolute maximum screen space then I’d be tempted to run two 40″ 4K screens side by side, this would offer tons of workspace to use, but it is something I’d probably want to use for a couple of weeks as a test before committing to it as I’d want to make sure the physical size of the screens wasn’t too imposing and also test to see how my workflow on the screens was affected.
I hope this helps? Thanks, Darren
Excellent advice.
I love using a 40″ 4K TV as a main monitor; but my 28″ 4K monitor is too small to be useful at 4K. I tried two 40″ 4K side by side, but this was too much (mainly due to the width), so maybe the ideal would be the 40″ with a couple of QHDs
Hi Hugh,
Again, thanks for the input. One thing I’m potentially looking at trying myself is two 40″ 4K screens side by side so it is interesting to hear that you didn’t like this setup.
I currently use a couple of QHD’s at 25″ along with a couple of 24″ FHD panels and I love the QHD resolution at this size, for me it is perfect, I’m going to have an office redesign shortly and can’t decide whether to go with 4 (or even 5) 25″ QHD’s or two 40″ 4K units.
I’d have 4 x 25″ QHD’s setup in a square (2 above 2) and then potentially a 5th in portrait mode to the side just for Outlook (I have to spend a lot of time using Outlook throughout my day).
I wouldn’t want to drop to just one 4K as I wouldn’t fit everything on I needed, but 2 might be overkill… (I also like having separate physical screens to segregate my different programs / activities).
Thanks for the comment!
Darren
Hi Darren,
A further update after some experimentation with QHD. My preference is one 40″ 4K monitor (actually a Samsung TV) next to two 27″ monitors vertically stacked. I found that it was better to have a 27″ 4K monitor scaled at 125% than a 27″ 2K monitor; this is likely because the programmes I use scale well. The price differential between 2K and 4K is small now, and the AOC 2790 monitors I use are excellent value with superb performance for my needs (as well as good aethetics and a blue light filter).
Hugh
Hi Darren,
I’m building a desktop for trading and I’m now deciding whether or not it’s a good idea to invest in a 21:9 screen or stick with the two “16:9 1920x1080p” screen. I’m looking at two models on the 21:9, and I noted both has a screen resolution of “2560×1080”.
Will the “2560×1080” get me the extra workspace as a “2560×1440” or will it be similar to a “1920×1080”? Very puzzled at the moment.
Here they are:
https://www.amazon.com/LG-34UM68-P-34-Inch-21-UltraWide/dp/B01BMES072/ref=sr_1_15?keywords=21%3A9+monitor&qid=1569024471&s=gateway&sr=8-15
https://www.amazon.com/LG-29WK600-W-29-UltraWide-21/dp/B078GL93KG/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=21%3A9+monitor&qid=1569024471&s=gateway&sr=8-4#customerReviews
Thanks,
Jad
Hi Jad,
The resolution of the 21:9 screens at 2560 x 1080 means that it can display 2560 pixels horizontally and 1080 down the vertical axis.
A QHD 2560 x 1440 screen also has 2560 horizontally but has 1440 vertically, which is an extra 360 pixels (or 33% taller). So one QHD screen will give you more ‘space’ to display your programs than either of these 21:9 screens. Essentially you will have an extra strip of screen, 360 pixels tall, running across the bottom of your QHD screen to use.
If you went with two standard FHD screens (1920 x 1080) then these would give you a combined usable workspace (resolution) of 3840 x 1080, so the same vertical as the 21:9 screens but an extra 50% more width to use (1280 pixels).
This is why I’m not a fan of ultra-wide screens, they do look good on your desk however you can generally get a lot more usable space, often at a lower cost, by using 2 or more separate screens instead.
I hope that helps?
Darren
Hi Darren,
Thanks for your insight and comments. I would love to own a QHD, but I find them very expensive. So found the 21:9 a cheaper option given they would provide a little extra screen real-estate, so thought it could be a potential set-up for the price. However, I’ve not been able to see it in person to comment how practical it is on a double mount, side by side.
For me, TWO (1920×1080) is not enough. I should mention the set-up I’m looking to build right now will be either one of the following:
a) TWO LG 29″ 21:9 (2560×1080) =$244/each
https://www.amazon.com/LG-29WK600-W-29-UltraWide-21/dp/B078GL93KG/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=21%3A9+monitor&qid=1569024471&s=gateway&sr=8-4#customerReviews
b) TWO Dell 32″ (2560×1440) =$293/each
https://www.amazon.com/Dell-LED-Lit-Monitor-Black-S3219D/dp/B07JVQ8M3Q/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3C628LLLYGQBK&keywords=2560×1440+monitor&qid=1569314220&s=gateway&sprefix=2560×1%2Caps%2C467&sr=8-1
c) TWO Dell 24″ (1920×1080) =$200/each; I’m gonna start with two first, then decide if I’ll add ONE (2560×1080) in the centre or a (2560×1440)
https://www.amazon.com/Dell-S2415H-24-Inch-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B00M9B3XZW/ref=sr_1_50?keywords=dell+monitor&qid=1569236704&s=electronics&sr=1-50
*I’m not sure how practical are these options for the eyes; especially option b since they’re 32″ side by side. I recall you saying 27″ is the sweet-spot. That’s the cheapest option I could find for a QHD option.
What’s your thoughts on option C?
Thanks Darren,
Jad
Hi Jad,
My thoughts overall are that the screens in option C seem expensive, the reason why FHD (1920 x 1080) screens are still popular is in part due to their relative low cost, here in the UK they can be bought for around $100 (equivalent), so you could buy two for less than the cost of one 2560 x 1080 screen which obviously gives you a combined res of 3840 x 1080, so more screen space at a lower cost. Therefore 4 of them would be cheaper than two of the bigger screens, and give you a lot more space to use, the issue then becomes can your PC run the four screens??
Mixing screen sizes and resolutions is fine however it works best trying to get them roughly the same size in terms of pixel dimensions.
I hope that helps?
Darren
Hi Darren,
Firstly, fantastic article and really appreciate your help.
I am trading and happy with just one screen, but currently on a 24″ monitor and looking to get a 27″ monitor, although it seems you are not a fan of this, but maybe OK if only using one? The one I am looking at is the Dell SE2719H (https://deals.dell.com/en-uk/compare/2z7a).
I would love to know what you think of this, any other recommendations, or opinions on to go for a 27″ for one screen or another size?
Thanks again,
LB
Hi LB,
Thanks for the feedback!
The question first should be what are you wanting to achieve by switching monitor? If you simply want to make everything your currently have on your 24″ look a little bit bigger then going for a 27″ at the same resolution will do that.
If you want to see ‘more’ stuff on your screen, i.e. have extra space to display things then you need to increase the resolution as well as the screen size.
A single 27″ screen is not a problem in terms of size, the thing I don’t particularly like is using multiple 27″ screens, especially if you want two rows, the top mounted screens are just too high for my liking. One or two (side by side) is fine.
I hope that is useful?
Thanks, Darren
Hi Darren,
Thanks so much for the speedy reply!!
I am a swing trader, and would like to have my cake and eat-it I guess, i.e. I would like to see more of the day chart better, plus on my platform it has further info linked to the chart, so a larger display will show this information much better than on a smaller one. The cake and eat-it comment, is about the possible thought of having both the daily and weekly graph shown at both times, at present I just hit the option of switching time frames, so no biggey either way I guess.
Hope that helps you help me more 🙂
Thanks again,
LB
Hi LB,
Thanks for the update.
To make your existing data physically bigger then go for a 27″ FHD (1920 x 1080) monitor, similar to the Dell you have seen already.
To be able to view the extra chart then you either need to add a second screen or go for a higher-resolution screen. If you moved up to QHD resolution (2560 x 1440) and wanted fonts / charts to look roughly the same size as they currently do on your 24″ screen then a 32″ QHD screen would achieve this, to get extra space to show extra charts and also increase the size of the fonts / charts over what you currently have then you’d need a 40″ QHD monitor really. There aren’t really too many of them around so you’d likely need to get a 40″ 4K screen then run it at the QHD resolution to achieve this. You would need to check if your current computer / graphics card setup can run the QHD or 4K resolutions.
Also, large QHD / 4K screens are a lot more expensive than FHD screens, you could easily pick up two 27″ FHD screens a lot cheap than a 40″ QHD / 4K screen, and they would give you more usable space, again you would need to check if your current computer could run two monitors before going any further.
Hope that helps.
Darren
Hi Darren,
Just wanted to say thank you so much for taking the time to reply and with detailed information too.
Very much appreciated and best wishes to you,
LB
Thanks for the detailed article
Can a starter trade on just dual 21 inch screen?
Thanks
Thanks Mike.
Sure, many traders use just one screen, it really depends on your trading style.
Hi Darren
What a brilliant article.Thanks so much for taking the time to make it available.
I have 3 x 1080 Samsung 24” screens and i’m struggling with getting all the data bits onto them. x1 is a video feed from a sat dish not through my PC – the other x 2 have charts etc.
I was thinking of replacing my middle (main) screen with a 34” QHD ultra wide Samsung which is currently on a deal price.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-LS34J550WQUXEN-34-Inch-LED-Monitor/dp/B07J4CZYND/ref=sr_1_11?keywords=SAMSUNG+QHD&qid=1577754791&sr=8-11
Do you think that would work?
I Think if i understand your comments correctly,that this should be good to give me more available space than i currently have without scaling and only sits 4cm higher than my existing top line.
I currently use the two screens set up with x 1 pc so will extending the displays cause any issues do you think?
Many thanks
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the comment.
That screen has a resolution of 3440 x 1440, two of your 1080 screens would be 3840 x 1080, so the new one would offer just under 20% more usable space than 2 of your existing ones.
There shouldn’t be any issues really as long as your current graphics card setup can support that resolution on the new screen. You’d need to check this first.
I hope this helps!
Darren
Hi Darren, what a brilliant article. I searched a lot on various web sites and I found your article the most useful one. I get what you are saying about the 27″ monitors with 2 row setup and the your neck problem. That is the reason I am thinking about using them in a portrait mode. I am thinking about 3×27″ or 2×32″ in a portrait mode. I know 27′ portrait wont give any neck problems but how about the 32″, any opinion on this ?
Also I am happy with the font size on my current 1920×1080 resolution 24″ monitor. I would like to maintain at least that font size when I upgrade the monitors but any bigger font size won’t be an issue. So should I go with 27″ on 1080 or 1440 & 32″ on 1440 or 2160 resolution ? I will be using this for the day trading where I need to open many programs. Any input will be highly appreciated
Thanks
Nick
Hi Nick, thanks for the comment!
It does come down to personal preference with sizes and heights, we have plenty of customers running two rows of 27″ screens without any problems at all. For me, I think I could probably just about handle a 32″ in portrait mode however I’m not sure that is the route I’d go down, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. QHD (2560 x 1440) resolution at 27″ would reduce the size of items on screen by around 11% from your existing 24″, QHD on 32″ would actually increase things marginally by around 2% so this might be a better fit for you?
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Darren
Thanks Darren, I think I had some typo in my previous email. I meant FHD on 27″ OR QHD on 32″. My goal is to increase the real estate but without decreasing the current 1080p/FHD font size. Thanks
Hi Nick,
Going with FHD on 27″ screens would not increase your usable space unless you were adding in more screens, it would increase font sizes by around 14%. The only way to get more usable space is to increase to a higher resolution. QHD at 27″ would do this but would reduce items in size by 14%. QHD on the 32″ size would increase items by around 2% and give the extra space to use, so this is probably your best option.
Hope that helps, Darren
Hello Darren, thx lot for this brilliant article.
I’m a beginner in trading and currently working on my laptop screen 14″, small screen puts too much strain on eyes,
Should I need to add one/ two more screens which size more preferred on FHD, 24/27inch..?
My requirements are physically bigger size of charting, without loss of details and easy on eyes.
Always prefer one chart per screen. I’m a swing trader/ investor.
Thx. Atul
Hi Atul, without knowing your laptop resolution and any scaling settings on it, it is hard to know what combination of sizes and resolutions will improve things for you. Check your screen resolution and look for what scaling percentage you are on and let me know, I can then help you with some options. Darren
Darren,
I need to see few technical indicators really clearly and am finding widescreen narrows them too much for the clarity. I am juggling between a change from 16:9 24″ to either 16:10 24″ or even 5:4 19″. What would you recommend?
Hi Ian,
Switching monitors is not going to make a difference I’m afraid. Pixels are always square (when a monitor is set at the correct resolution), changing to a different aspect ratio screen type will not affect this, it will simply add more (or remove) the amount of pixels you have to work with. It may also make pixels bigger which will result in items looking bigger on your screen, it all depends on the physical screen size and the resolution you go for. Is there any way to adjust the size of the chart in your software to make it taller?
Darren
Great article Darren..thank you ! I was wondering if you can comment ( or maybe do a blog ) on the subject of the other tech. specs of monitors ( eg response times) and if you feel any of these have any relevance to a trading setup…or is it just a case of any basic monitor will handle the streaming data/charts we use in trading and any bottle necks will be in the computer itself?
Hi Martyn,
Thanks for the comment. Response times on screens is something we might look into at some point. When we have been asked this question before we have done some very brief research and it seems to indicate that monitor response times don’t matter too much for traders. Higher refresh rates and lower response times can impact how fast moving graphics appear onscreen (I’m talking gaming here) however when you take into account a standard human reaction time is 250ms, with top performers only achieving 100ms at best, then the difference between a 5ms and 1ms screen response time becomes less important. I personally think most traders could better spend money on their computer which does the data processing rather than spending extra on screens to lower an already extremely low response time.
I hope that helps?
Darren
I’ve been searching far and wide for this. Great stuff!
excellent info, very useful
You rock! Great useful information that I’ve been looking for everywhere. Thank you so much!
this is very useful information. thank you ever so much!