Gaming: 21:9 or 4K or 120Hz

Hello all. This is my first post on here! I have been lurking these forums for years however. I am in quite the dilemma trying to choose the monitor that will be best suited for me.

I do a lot of gaming in all different categories which include FPSs such as BF4. I also tend to watch lots of movies/TV shows on my computer so I am trying to find a monitor that will be great at both. I previously owned a 27" IPS 1440p 120Hz Overlord which was great but to be honest I never really ended up using 120Hz (mainly because I didn't have the GPU power at the time).

GPU power is less of a problem now (I plan on buying an R9 295X2 tomorrow) and I don't mind investing more into video cards if that's what it takes.

I have narrowed down my choice of monitors into 3 different categories that are appealing to me.

1. 4K Monitor @ 60Hz - I'm looking at the Samsung 28" 4K D590 monitor for this category but I am not sure I want to go this direction since it is a TN panel. I know that many have said that it is one of the best TNs that has entered the market in a while but still it can't be as good as the newer IPS panels.

2. 21:9 Monitor @ 60Hz - I'm looking at the LG/Dell 34" 21:9 UM95 monitor for this category. It is an IPS panel and most of the games that I play support 21:9. It would also be amazing for all the movies I watch (but TV shows might suck with the black bars on the sides).

3. 120Hz Monitor - Like I said, I used to own an Overlord IPS 120Hz panel and never used the 120Hz feature. I understand there are new technologies such as lighboost/gsync but it seems like many of those use TN panels. I don't really have a monitor that I am looking at in this area.

My question to all of you is what do you feel the pros/cons are of these different monitors and what would you suggest I do? Thanks in advance.

I'd say wait for a capable 4k IPS panel that would be around the same price as the 21:9 monitor(although it might be awhile) but if I have to choose, I would go with the 21:9 since I like some real estate. Give 120hz a try and maybe you'll like it.

I'm somewhat in the same boat. Having 3 screens is cool but I do have my share of problems with them and would want to go back to a large single monitor with high DPI.

I'm almost in the same position as you. I have a Samsung 120hz 27' monitor and plan to either buy a LG 34UM94 or a 4K Monitor like that Samsung on your post.

At the moment my plan is to get the LG 34UM94 for movie and stuff then buy the Asus 1440p 120hz with G-sync (when its out - rumor says Jun but I don't know).

I can't find any LG 34UM94 anywhere in Europe so I need to wait for that too. Hopefully people is right that it will get release on the 28 April.

You don't need gpu power for 120hz, I see an improvement in motion even at 60 fps. Gaming monitors will not only have higher refresh rate but also less blur and input lag. You could either get 2 monitors one for image quality and another for gaming (like the Asus VG248QE) that's what I do, or you can try the only monitor right now that has both, the Eizo Foris FG2421. But you can also get one of those huge monitors with huge resolutions it's up to you but I definately wouldn't be my choice for gaming. But getting that insane video card and running at 1080p would be pretty stupid. It's up to you but with that kind of money my choice would definately be get the Eizo with maybe a 780gtx, you don't really need more for 1080p. If you insist on getting more than 1080p, check the thread for the PG278Q, but personally I think 1080p VA beats 1440p TN any day.

120hz gsync : Playing games with motion that typically have screen tearing problems. (fps, racing, flight sim, fighting, action, etc.)

21:9: productivity, watching movies (how does letter boxing play into this?), playing games where extra peripheral vision would help.

4k: productivity, 4k TV shows & movies, games where seeing more of the map helps (rts type games)

If you are really into fps i would get the 120hz g sync monitor. All the screen tearing and stuttering will be gone and you will get no motion blur when you use light boost.

One of the things to keep in mind though is that all three monitors are going to be super seceded in the near future as the tech advances.

120 Hz

You don't need 120 fps to benefit from 120 Hz.

21:9 is just...stupid. Even 16:9 is a step down from 16:10 for computer screens. And many things will still get letterboxed, so what's the point?

4k requires massive GPU power, is a
slow 60 Hz and works terrible in Windows.

A replacement Overlord would be really hard to get right now, why did you get rid of it?

4K? Meh. Not yet. Not for me anyway.

My top choice would be a 1440p 120Hz IPS depending on the amount of glow and backlight bleed-
BUT so far in my travels w/ modern monitors it appears to me that 720p content looks better on my 1080p FG2421 than it does on a 1440p monitor. Then 1080p content looks fantastic on a 1440p monitor... wtf

The FG2421 is different. It's love it or hate it. They aren't all the same either, but if you got rid of the Overlord because of glow or bleed, just skip the Lightboost TNs, you will hate them. They have decent color but then they mess with it to make the backlight strobing visible. Eizo Turbo 240 just flat curb-stomps them for color and particularly DARK colors. Then the IPS monitors destroy both in brighter colors.

Lightboost is like, "Holy shit, neat.", then you get used to it and start noticing you are using a TN with gray blacks and flat colors.

Turbo 240 (only exists on the FG2421...) is like, "Wait. Is it working? Let me test. OH... It IS working." You don't even really FEEL it, it just works quietly. Then when you switch back to a 60Hz display you almost want to throw up til you get used to it again. Then going back to the Eizo it's like, ahhh I can breathe. Turbo 240 is almost unnecessary because the display is already so fast without it engaged. Then the negatives... oh... the negatives. It's like a Porsche that leaks water. I deal with it because it is the best all around display I have come across [so far].

IF they nail the polarizer on the ASUS ROG Swift, when they are finished tweaking it, and it doesn't light up the frame of the picture with backlight bleeding like all the 144Hz 27" Lightboost displays I tried, I'm all over it. I can get over the lack of contrast depth if I can get uniformity at 1440p 120Hz. I cannot stand glow or bleed. I also cannot stand dead or stuck pixels, so yeah the FG2421 works well for me because it is pretty much completely free of bleed. It CAN show up with dead pixels though.

I would rather have increased vertical resolution and two screens for such use cases.

yeongil said:

No, it's not stupid. For me, it's great for productivity, having two side-by-side windows. On a 16:9 or 16:10 monitor, the two side-by-side windows are not wide enough.

Click to expand...

Agree completely. I'm interested in the 21:9 monitors for productivity, where having side-by-side windows is a huge benefit.

i'm in the exact same boat, already upgraded the graphics card to a 290x (with closed loop water cooling on the way) and I'm currently looking at selling my 23" 1080p eyefinity setup for something more usable in a single screen.

Leaning towards the samsung 28" UHD because it can do 60hz, wish it were a larger panel though like the 39" seiki.

The ultra wide monitors don't interest me because I've already dealt with that in eyefinity and it's a huge hassle for some game.

I really wish the 39" seiki had a hack to get to 60hz because that in my mind would be the perfect sweet spot at this point.

srphoenix said:

i'm in the exact same boat, already upgraded the graphics card to a 290x (with closed loop water cooling on the way) and I'm currently looking at selling my 23" 1080p eyefinity setup for something more usable in a single screen.

Leaning towards the samsung 28" UHD because it can do 60hz, wish it were a larger panel though like the 39" seiki.

The ultra wide monitors don't interest me because I've already dealt with that in eyefinity and it's a huge hassle for some game.

I really wish the 39" seiki had a hack to get to 60hz because that in my mind would be the perfect sweet spot at this point.

Click to expand...

Obviously in a different price range than the Seiki but this guy over on AVSForums claims he's getting 60Hz on the new Samsung sets (they have HDMI 2.0) with a DVI-D to HDMI adapter.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1522081/official-samsung-4k-hu8550-and-hu9000-thread/450#post_24627521

Actually thinking of getting the 50" or 55" HU8550 for 4K gaming if this works...

The R9 295 X2 still isn't enough for 4K. A german HW site just posted theese benches today.







http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Grafi...Radeon-R9-295-X2-Quad-Crossfire-Test-1117949/

If you were getting an NVIDIA card I would definitely go with a 120hz+ GSYNC monitor, but if you're set on AMD I would go with a 120hz monitor over a 4k 60hz since you do a lot of gaming.
I would also consider looking into one of the newer monitors with low persistence modes. It makes an enormous difference in games.

It depends on what you play. I can tell you with a 780 SLI setup, more games run 60+ FPS at 4K than not.

So some compromises may have to be made, but generally you'll get a good experience at 4K.

Well I made the jump, went with the Samsung 28" 4k at 60hz and low latency, 28" may be a hair smaller than I would like but I can also sit closer to it than the 3 23"s

Sorry for not replying to this thread for a while. So I purchased the Samsung 28D590 4K (from amazon) display and received it yesterday. When I hooked it up, my initial impressions were "wow" this looks incredible for a TN panel. The clarity was amazing and the colors looked great. Now I will state ahead of time that I am not a display expert but I have owned many different screens (including AH-IPS) so I like to think I know what I'm looking for.

So at first all impressions were positive. I brought my monitor over to a friends house who has the Overlord 27" OC 120Hz AH-IPS panel and set them up side by side. This is when it became extremely obvious that it was a TN panel. The color reproduction on the Overlord was incredible compared to the Samsung 4K. There was so much missing from every picture on the Samsung (it looked very dull). We tried playing with the color profile to try and come close to the IPS panel, but no luck. We then fired up BF4 and played at 4K on the Samsung at 1440p on the Overlord. Again the color was terrible on the Samsung and it made the game look so dull and boring. The texture on the guns was washed out (I tried turning down the brightness all the way to 30% and it didn't help much). We tried to find between clarity between 1440p and 4K...but there was no noticeable difference between the 2.

Overall I am very disappointed with the Samsung 4K 60hz display. This Samsung not supporting VESA mounting is also a huge negative for me...and the stand is terrible. Overall, its like others said...its a great TN panel but crappy compared to IPS standards. I will be sending it back and purchasing an overclockable LPS or AH-IPS panel. I will never buy a TN panel again which rules out a good part of my selections.

My 1440p 120Hz capable screens are between the:

Overlord 27" OC AH-IPS
Qnix Q2710 Evolution II LPS
X-Star DP2710 LPS

If you guys have any suggestions between these let me know. My requirements are IPS technology and the ability to get close to 120Hz.

I will also be buying the 34" LG/Dell 21:9 1440p IPS as a secondary monitor for movies/etc. Does anyone know what kind of IPS panel these will be?

If you have any questions I can answer about the Samsung 4K monitor, let me know. I will have it for another 30 days or so before I send it back. Also any feedback would be great! Thanks again for all the feedback so far!

You didn't listen the first time... why should I bother

The overlord isn't really an option unless you want an A- panel as they are sold out.
The other 2 are exactly the same thing made by the exact same company. The only question is where you buy them from.

Your other option is generally a guaranteed 120OC because the PCBs I've read are actually for 135Hz. That's the Yamakasi Catleap 2B OC.

.....

brokenblade30 said:

I will also be buying the 34" LG/Dell 21:9 1440p IPS as a secondary monitor for movies/etc. Does anyone know what kind of IPS panel these will be?

Click to expand...

It was reported that it would use an AH-IPS panel according to TFT Central in February. I have an 29" AOC monitor and I was very hesitant try it given all the whining about that resolution and aspect ratio. I tried a 1440p monitor first then got the AOC 29" and never looked back. Curiously, my AOC which uses an LG AH-IPS panel, can be overclocked to 75Hz...so here's to hoping that the 34" models can maybe overclock a bit also!

SoulCreatr said:

My AOC wcan be overclocked to 75Hz...so here's to hoping that the 34" models can maybe overclock a bit also!

Click to expand...

Did you check to see if it drops frames with this test? If it drops frames, overclocking it will make fluent motion look worse and mouse/controller movement inconsistent...

Delete, misread OP.

NCX said:

Did you check to see if it drops frames with this test? If it drops frames, overclocking it will make fluent motion look worse and mouse/controller movement inconsistent...

Click to expand...

I did, and no black boxes between. I keep mine on 72hz just for no 3:2 pulldown (like at 60hz) since I watch movies a great deal.

4k with out question

I bit the bullet and got the Dell 4K 32 inch monitor for $2199 from Fry's. It was the last model they had in stock. They wanted to sell me the Asus 4k, but I just didn't like the lack of features in the Asus branded monitor that the dell has built in such as color control and calibration. You def need GPU/SLI muscle if you game on this much real estate. Battlefield 4 gets anywhere from mid 50's to upper 70's in FPS depending on how busy the scene is. I have all my settings on ultra and have AA turned off, as it is not needed with this much room from what I can see.

My main use for the 4k monitor is for productivity. I work as an IT director for a private school here in the Seattle metro area and teach media production, but my background has always been working in IT operations for a big media company in my former career in private industry. This is where I learned Maya3d and Adobe After Effects and turned that into a teaching career. So the 4K monitor provides massive amounts of room for these apps, and that is greatly appreciated. I would def say that 4K has some growing to do, as this is just the first gen.

My advice: stick with either a 21x9 monitor or wait for that sweet Asus 120 Mhz 1440p GSync monitor coming up here in June/July sometime. I plan on getting one of those when they are released and use that as my gaming monitor and keeping my 4k to do production work on.

Edit: Saw you are getting an R9-295x, so GSync is out of the question for ya.

cybz said:

You could either get 2 monitors one for image quality and another for gaming (like the Asus VG248QE) that's what I do, or you can try the only monitor right now that has both, the Eizo Foris FG2421.

Click to expand...

same here. for example, i play mainly fps, using 120 hz lightboost (benq xl2411t), so framerate is king for me. i prefer blur-free motion to high res. i also have an overlord which does 120 hz, but it's still too blurry for shooters. it's funny seeing the new gaming pc (i5 4670k) with a 1080p screen and the old one (amd 1090t) with that beautiful 1440p ips on my desk, but it just didn't work the other way for me.i'd sell my benq for a foris though if the foris is not worse blur-wise.

This is such a stupid topic to argue about on a forums as it's totally down to preferences/priorities and usage scenarios so it's not very helpful what others tell, it's only yourself that can tell what matters to you and how you will use it.

It depends how important is performance? Some will take performance over IQ (me), some people want a balance between the two etc. For some high resolution is an important thing, for others not so (me again). Some people like having multiple displays for different usages, some people prefer to just use one (me).

There is no way for others to tell what matters to YOU. All I know I personally very heavily prioritize performance and color balance (contrast ratios or black levels etc doesn't matter as much as long as the colors have a neutral tone (RGB = balance as even as possible so that greys look like grey so to speak). Apart from that which matter to me is absence of the common LCD issues like dead pixels, clouding and backlight bleed (I can accept lower brightness levels if that fixes the backlight bleeding as I'm used to fairly low brightness setting so if it has very noticeable bleed at 100% brightness but perfectly acceptable at say 35% brightness then that wouldn't be any issue for me). I could even live with a 1440x900 as my only display if the performance was spot-on and good color balance and there would be no clouding issues etc. So to me a TN panel is still ideal as the things TN panels lack in comes 2nd hand to me and they do good job at the things that matter (a TN panel can still have good color balance too besides the performance).

You then again can have totally different priorities. At work I use a 27" 1080p HP IPS monitor but at home I use a 22" 1680x1050 120Hz TN Panel (ViewSonic VX2268wm) and I don't feel I'm missing out compared to the monitor at my work. I'm not feeling that I'd need either higher res or IPS panel over TN but that's again down to user preferences.

Maybe its me but it seems like most people are fine with 27in or smaller screen size. All this talk about resolution and refresh rate. But at least for me having a large wide screen monitor with at least 2560x1440 resolution immersing you in the game I think is huge. There are just so little options above 27in that aren't either very expensive or have a low resolution/refresh rate. The 34in LG/Dell seems to be the only compromise between PQ,Res and refresh, at least for now. Now imagine that 34in or even wider that is curved. Anyone remember those crazy expensive curved monitors a couple years back. Unfortunately they never saw the light of day or were very expensive.

Although I prefer IPS, I would be happy with a 30-34in TN monitor that does 120Hz with at least 2560x1440 resolution, but I doubt even that will be produced.

I think of it from other point of view. Game-wise it's bigger size which gives more feel of immersion with covering wider POV, higher resolution simply is what makes those bigger sizes usable & looking good without pixels growing ugly big if sitting right beside as to normal PC displays. UHD simply enables good pic on displays of 39"-55" size. As for 27"-32", even previous 1440p/1600p resolutions imho are more then sufficient and there are more drawbacks then gains to even higher res for displays of that size.

Meeho said:

120 Hz

You don't need 120 fps to benefit from 120 Hz.

21:9 is just...stupid. Even 16:9 is a step down from 16:10 for computer screens. And many things will still get letterboxed, so what's the point?

4k requires massive GPU power, is a
slow 60 Hz and works terrible in Windows.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, you shouldn't steer him wrong. 120hz is just stupid, 21:9 is absolutely awesome and this aspect ratio is the future. Obviously 3440 x 1440 @ 120hz and OLED would be the bestest beyond bestest but we're not even remotely there yet and that would take godly vid power.

Meeho, clearly is biased to 120hz so he can't give a proper opinion. I, however, can, as I've used all there is to use out there. 30" at 60hz, triple screen, single screen (low rez) 120hz, 27" high rez, and even 21:9's. I will do what Meeho didn't, and that's give an objective unbiased opinion. In summary though, 21:9 is the best though for most of your reasons. (Just get a 34UM95 with no backlight bleed, they're still working on this).

120 = not that big a deal. 120hz nuts act like 60 is just unlivable. Like they forgot where they came from. 60hz (with vsync on) is plenty playable and great, sure, 120hz is just smoother. Ask any 120hz person though and he'll swear up and down about it and say 60hz is unplayable. That let's you know right there that you can't take him seriously. It's like 60hz is an Acura NSX, and 120hz is a Bugati/Ferrari. Does that make that Acura crap? No, so it's just not quite as fast, so what. Let's say that Bugati has a smaller 16:9 windshield though and that Acura has a wide 21:9 aspect windshield? Which one is overall going to more FUN to race in?

21:9 is immersive, like triple screen, but without the bezels and vid card requirements. I've been on 120hz, 1920x1080 screen on SLI GTX580's so I was more than capable of pushing near 120fps......I saw a decent difference in BF3 at the time, but playing on low rez 1920x1080 SUCKED. High rez is where it's at, and 21:9 is where it's at. But to break it down further, it's like this:

Here's the 3 monitor roads you can travel down:

1) 120hz road, you deal with crap TN color issues, off axis issues, and low rez, just to have 120hz

2) Triple screen road, you deal with insane on-going vid card requirements to push this rez, tweaking in some games to get it to work, not all games support this. Minor issue with bezels, but it's insanely immersive. Still low rez though. 5760 sure, but only 1080 vertically. (Unless of course you want even worse vid card requirements going triple 2560x1440)

3) Single high rez screen road, awesome rez, only 16:9, best rez and .232 dot pitch for max fidelity.

LG 34UM95 takes some out of world 2 and 3 and puts it into one. It's highest rez, low dot pitch, 21:9 immersion, most games support it. It's great.

120hz is overrated. If you wanna spend $800 to get a 2560x1440 that'll do 120-144hz then the ASUS ROG is great, built in Gsync too, but you need Nvidia cards for that, and that will also take massive vid card power to put that rez at close to 120fps to see that difference. So that's a ton of vid card money spent on that. You'll need ATLEAST SLI 780 TI's (unless you run your games on low eye candy, which again, further degrades your visual experience).

Point is, people praise 120hz, but you have to give up too much to get smoothness that you only notice in shooters. I don't play ONLY shooters. So why pay for 120hz just to play fps games? Wide immersion 21:9 is the future. TV's will start being only this ratio more and more, just watch and see.

21:9 gives you the most fun for your buck. If you disagree, you're entitled to, but you're wrong

Really? Other peoples' opinion and preference is bias, but yours is objective? Heh...

I come from CRT PC use and gaming and I'm biased towards sharp and fluid picture and vertical screen estate, as that is what 99% of PC use benefits from. You are biased towards ultra-wide screen.

60 Hz screens suffer not only from slow refresh, but from long pixel transition times, making everything look smeared. Maybe you don't notice it, but many do, and going from a 60 Hz LCD to a 24" CRT beside it is like a holiday for the eyes. You really aren't aware just how much better and more natural it looks. >120 Hz LCDs are a step in that direction and that is a good thing, even if you're not feeding them >120 FPS. Even G-sync is less of an issue compared to 60 Hz screens.

21:9 is a gimmick to me. I would much rather have a 34" 16:9 3840×2160 screen than a 21:9 3440x1440 one. I don't think it would lack any immersion.

brokenblade30 said:

2. 21:9 Monitor @ 60Hz - I'm looking at the LG/Dell 34" 21:9 UM95 monitor for this category. It is an IPS panel and most of the games that I play support 21:9. It would also be amazing for all the movies I watch (but TV shows might suck with the black bars on the sides).

Click to expand...

you answered your own question. asus swift is best for games because of the smoothness. LG 34UM94 is best for movies and games because of the field of view immersiveness. so if you mostly watch movies, the tie is well and truly broken in favor of the LG 34UM94

Ultranifty said:

21:9 is absolutely awesome and this aspect ratio is the future. Obviously 3440 x 1440 @ 120hz and OLED would be the bestest beyond bestest but we're not even remotely there yet and that would take godly vid power.
..
21:9 gives you the most fun for your buck. If you disagree, you're entitled to, but you're wrong

Click to expand...

Then i am from those wrong ones. I hated dealing with issues with widescreen already with screen aspect ratio change from 4:3 -> 16:10. Going further down the road with even wider screens just rise the issue. (and point that most new games have no issues with wide screens is moot, in light of me often loving to play some good old game for nostalgic reasons and due most of new ones with rare exceptions being uninteresting). There is reason why www.wsgf.org site was created. And above that - in normal work at desktop many will appreciate extra vertical pixels in height in many common apps. My guess is that much bigger share of people will prefer more common 16:10/16:9 aspect displays then those wishing these .. stretched horizontally 27" screens. About the only slight gain - less black area for newest movie media. I don't watch movies that much, yet i don't like turning head to see HUD in games, workaround issues in old ones, having imited height in many apps of many types.