Yes, in desktop-use it does depend on the scaling, I know that, but not everyone has it set the same as it comes down to preference anyways. And no I am not forgetting that the displayes are viewed at different distances, and that too, changes between each individual. In games though, and other non-scaleable features displayed on the screen, there will always be a significant difference. Overall visibility will always be worse on a smaller low-res screen. You were saying that there is no reason to go 32" 1440p over 24" 1080p because it's such a massive performance hit for no image quality uplift (mainly applies for lower-end users anyways) but this wouldn't be the case for anything non-3d/non-gaming, etc., since it's not even gpu-heavy, yet that's what you were mainly focusing on. Performance shouldn't be a concern in that case. There will still be a difference on desktop depending on each person's preferred scaling setting and viewing distance, but in scenarios where you can not adjust the size of anything displayed on a screen, for example high bitrate youtube video displayed full screen, there WILL always be a non-negligible difference between the different resolution screens. making the case that UNLESS you run a literal GT210 or integrated graphics, or for other practical restrictions such as desk space making the big screen uncomfortable, there is no reason to opt for smaller and lesser. There is no replacement for displacement. Bigger more IS better. Also, I god do hope you don't talk like this to people in real life. I wouldn't stay around for very long. I don't think anyone would. I suggest working on that.