For monitor I just look for screens with 87-94 PPI, for to avoid to scaling. Therefore the size of the monitor for me is determined by the combination of inches and resolution, what gives me centimeters of the screen.
5:4 1280x1024 19" ( 37.68cm × 30.15cm ) 86.27 PPI
16:9 1920x1080 25" ( 55.35cm × 31.13cm ) 88.12 PPI
16:10 1920x1200 24" ( 51.69cm × 32.31cm ) 94.34 PPI
16:9 2560x1440 30" ( 66.41cm × 37.36cm ) 97.91 PPI
16:9 2560x1440 32" ( 70.84cm × 39.85cm ) 91.79 PPI
16:10 2560x1600 30" ( 64.62cm × 40.39cm ) 100.63 PPI
16:9 3840x2160 46" (101.83cm × 57.28cm ) 95.78 PPI
People that are used to higher PPI may think those PPI have screen-door (to see the pixel), but for me this only uncomfortable if I see a 81 PPI monitor (16:9 1920x1080 27" [59.77cm × 33.62cm] ) at 45cm of distance. Anyway, I just want the sharpness and uniformity that only comes from not scaling either by the monitor or the operating system.
My ideal may be a 16:10, and better a 5:4, with 40cm of height and around 87-89 PPI, nevertheless the monitors with 16:10 aspect ratio use old generations panels what make me to discard them, IPS and VA ghosting. And TN doesn't exist there (at that size the angles limitation of TN would be an issue anyway, nevertheless for 1280x1024 19" is perfect). The modern panels are only under 16:9 aspect ratio.
Unfortunately for me I do not like the 16:9 aspect ratio for monitors due if it is small I'm losing visual space top and down like if it were a letter box, and if the monitor is big it forces to move the head much.
The matter is, I think the marketing of 2K, 4K, 8K is secondary, without knowing the panel size and the distance from what will be viewed firstly. So I usually recommend to do a table with the PPI predilection and width-height preferences. The one I use for to search monitors have the lines of text that gives the panel height with the font size I use more.
> The 4k43 is glorious for games and for fusion360
That gives a reference, 16:9 3840x2160 43" ( 95.19cm × 53.55cm ) 102.46 PPI
Maybe you see this from 65-90cm of distance, at least, due the width, case contrary you would have to move the head and even the body, what makes the fonts look tinny.
I guess the panel manufacturers introduced 16:9 as monitors -stopped developing panels with aspect ratios for computer monitors better said- for to avoid to have two lines of panels, computer monitors and TVs. Mere guessing.
My ideal may be a 16:10, and better a 5:4, with 40cm of height and around 87-89 PPI, nevertheless the monitors with 16:10 aspect ratio use old generations panels what make me to discard them, IPS and VA ghosting. And TN doesn't exist there (at that size the angles limitation of TN would be an issue anyway, nevertheless for 1280x1024 19" is perfect). The modern panels are only under 16:9 aspect ratio.
Unfortunately for me I do not like the 16:9 aspect ratio for monitors due if it is small I'm losing visual space top and down like if it were a letter box, and if the monitor is big it forces to move the head much.
The matter is, I think the marketing of 2K, 4K, 8K is secondary, without knowing the panel size and the distance from what will be viewed firstly. So I usually recommend to do a table with the PPI predilection and width-height preferences. The one I use for to search monitors have the lines of text that gives the panel height with the font size I use more.
> The 4k43 is glorious for games and for fusion360
That gives a reference, 16:9 3840x2160 43" ( 95.19cm × 53.55cm ) 102.46 PPI
Maybe you see this from 65-90cm of distance, at least, due the width, case contrary you would have to move the head and even the body, what makes the fonts look tinny.
I guess the panel manufacturers introduced 16:9 as monitors -stopped developing panels with aspect ratios for computer monitors better said- for to avoid to have two lines of panels, computer monitors and TVs. Mere guessing.
PS: https://www.sven.de/dpi/