Greetings!
I wonder if any of Sonar users use monitors with reolution higher than a FullHD (1920x1080). Is it worth upgrading to a higher resolution, like QuadHD (2560x1440), or the DAW GUI will appear too small to be usable? Please, share your full-size screen-shots.

I use an IIyama 2560x1440 as primary display and a Dell 1920x1200 as secondary display.
(IIyama ProLite XB2779QS-S1 27")
When you're working with Sonar round the clock, you should allow yourself that.
It is really worth to upgrade to a higher resolution.

THambrecht
I use an IIyama 2560x1440 as primary display and a Dell 1920x1200 as secondary display.
(IIyama ProLite XB2779QS-S1 27")
When you're working with Sonar round the clock, you should allow yourself that.
It is really worth to upgrade to a higher resolution.

I am considering a 24" 2560x1440 monitor but not sure wether GUI elements nad text will look fine or too small. Could you please post full-size screen-shots of Sonar interface on both monitors? That'll help me a lot.

Screenshots won't really help you as the size is determined by how big the monitor is vs its pixels, which translates to the pixels per inch. So if you have a 24" 1920x1080 monitor, that has a PPI of 94. That is about "normal" as the standard from way back in the day is 96 PPI. If you moved up to a 2560x1600 30" monitor, you'd then have a 101 PPI, meaning everything is a little bit smaller. However if you moved to a 2560x1440 27" monitor, you'd have a PPI of 109, so things are a little smaller.
 
Basically the lower the resolution and the larger the monitor, the bigger everything looks. That's why a 65" TV and a 24" monitor can both be 1920x1080 because the TV is made for watching for a lot farther away, so everything needs to be bigger. Each pixel is larger, making the whole image larger.
 
Now what a higher resolution buys you is the ability to cram more stuff on to the screen. 2.5k resolutions are twice the total pixels and so you get to have more things you can work on. In Sonar that means more tracks displayed at once, more mixer channels, etc.
 
Personally, I find that a 30" 2560x1600 monitor looks very nice, that's what I use. The pixels are small enough that they aren't very evident, but things are large enough I don't strain my eyes. At that resolution, I get to have a lot on the screen too.

I'm working with the IIyama 2560x1440 10 to 12 hours per day since 18 months.
My eyes are really not the best.
But I had the wow-Effekt, as I upgraded from 1920x1200.
The GUI is a little bit smaller but sharper and clearer.
 
A screenshot won't help you, because you need the same resolution on your display.
 

Consider a 27" display if you can afford it, or better still, two 27" displays.  I went from a 24" to two 27" monitors and have been very satisfied ever since.  They run at 1920 x 1080 and you can see a lot of real estate.   I also have an ASUS NVIDA GTX 660 display card with 2gb's to power the monitors.

I have a 27" 2560x1440 and would never go back to 1920x1080. But I can see the higher resolution on a 24" monitor could be an issue if its not a good sharp monitor.

Thanks for your replies, guys. Wasn't sure, that extra real estate for Sonar GUI can be useful, but after reading comments it looks like a very welcome upgrade to my PC. I've found all the screen-shots I need, so I won't ask for it again.