Skip to content

MSI MPG 321URX QD-OLED 32" vs Samsung Space 27"

Side-by-side comparison of viewing distance, PPI, and specifications

MSI MPG 321URX QD-OLED 32"

31.5" · 3840×2160 · QD-OLED
Optimal Viewing Distance 62cm
Open in calculator →

Samsung Space 27"

27" · 2560×1440 · VA
Optimal Viewing Distance 80cm
Open in calculator →
Specification MSI MPG 321URX QD-OLED 32" 2024 Samsung Space 27" 2019
Screen Size 31.5" (Better) 27"
Resolution 3840×2160 (Better) 2560×1440
Pixel Density (PPI) 140 (Better) 109
Optimal Viewing Distance 62cm (Better) 80cm
Panel Type QD-OLED VA
Viewing Angle 178° 178°
Aspect Ratio 16:9 16:9
Refresh Rate 240 Hz (Better) 144 Hz
Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) FreeSync Premium Pro FreeSync
Response Time 0.0 ms GTG (Better) 4 ms GTG
HDR Certification DisplayHDR True Black 400 None
SDR Brightness 250 nits 250 nits
HDR Peak Brightness 1000 nits (Better) 250 nits
Contrast Ratio 1:1,500,000 (Better) 1:3,000
Ports 2x HDMI · 1x DP · USB-C · USB Hub 1x HDMI · 1x DP
USB-C Power Delivery 90 W
Color Gamut sRGB 100% · DCI-P3 99% · Adobe RGB 96% (Better) sRGB 97%
Year 2024 (Better) 2019

Summary

The MSI MPG 321URX QD-OLED 32" has higher pixel density (140 PPI), making it sharper at close range.

The MSI MPG 321URX QD-OLED 32" allows sitting closer (62cm) while maintaining retina quality.

The MSI MPG 321URX QD-OLED 32" offers a larger 31.5" display for more immersive viewing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which has better PPI: MSI MPG 321URX QD-OLED 32" or Samsung Space 27"?
The MSI MPG 321URX QD-OLED 32" has 140 PPI compared to 109 PPI for the Samsung Space 27".
Which has a closer optimal viewing distance?
The MSI MPG 321URX QD-OLED 32" requires 62cm vs 80cm for the Samsung Space 27" to reach retina quality.

Methodology & Sources

Formula: Retina distance (cm) = 3438 / PPI. Displayed values are rounded for readability.

Sources: Official manufacturer spec sheets and product pages. Specs are normalized before comparisons.

Comparison winners are calculated metric by metric (higher is better for most specs; lower is better for distance/response time).

Last updated:

Related Comparisons