Guide · Monitors
One big monitor or two smaller ones?
The answer depends on whether your work is one thing at a time or several — and on where your neck ends up.
Read this →
What decides the choice
Monitor spec sheets are unusually good at hiding the things that decide whether a screen is pleasant to work at. The headline numbers — resolution, refresh rate, response time — are real, but they are rarely what makes the difference over an eight-hour day.
Start with panel type, because it constrains everything else. IPS gives you accurate colour and wide viewing angles with mediocre contrast. VA gives you deep blacks and worse motion handling. OLED gives you both and carries a burn-in risk that matters specifically for static interfaces like a spreadsheet or an IDE. A monitor that will show the same toolbar for eight hours a day is a different purchase from one that shows games.
Pixel density is the number nobody quotes and everybody notices. Divide the horizontal resolution by the screen width in inches: below roughly 95 pixels per inch text looks coarse, and above about 140 you will want display scaling. A 27-inch 1440p screen and a 32-inch 4K screen land in similar territory; a 32-inch 1440p screen does not.
Response time figures are close to meaningless as published, because manufacturers quote the fastest grey-to-grey transition with overdrive at a setting most people never use. Refresh rate is honest; response time usually is not.
Finally, connectivity. A single USB-C connection carrying video, data and ninety watts of power to a laptop changes how a desk works far more than a jump from 144 Hz to 165 Hz. Check the wattage figure specifically — many monitors advertise USB-C power delivery and supply too little to charge a laptop under load.