monitor selection is getting more confusing every day

S

sparks

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
3,206
Right now I am on a 27" 2560x1440 monitor.
I want bigger.
So forgetting price for a minute.
Everyone says the alienware is the best, but maybe an AOC or ASUS, and at 3440x1440 you can run this on something like a 1070ti or a 1080.
I have a 1080 and thought ok but then when I looked at the monitor its SHORT. 11 in of vertical screen.
Damn thats small.

maybe a true 32" 16:9 would be better, but at 4k you need a 1080ti to run it.

Wait for the acer X35...demo last august, put off now until dec 2018....you wonder if at all.

I am sooooo damn confused, then I realized this is the same as when I had a 13" monitor, 9 months later you need a 15, 1 year later a 17, then a 19.......ETC

ittle steps get the most money

what is a good idea today?
 
A 34" ultrawide is about the same height as a 27" 16:9. If you want any bigger you need to start looking at televisions. Some perform great as gaming displays for PC. The only issue is they are 4K. Some newer ones support 1920x1080 at 120 Hz and/or 2560x1440 at 75-80 Hz.

Unfortunately for some reason there is a large gap in gaming displays right now that is even more confusing. The industry has settled on 27" being the best size, and now NVIDIA is going to offer something completely on the other side of the spectrum at 65". We're not getting anything in between in the slightest. All I personally want is something like the forthcoming PG27UQ to come in a 40-43". It seems a lot of people I see around the web agree, but someone in corporate believes there is no money to be made there.
 
if it's a 34" 3440x1440 then it's the same height as your 27", just 30-40% wider.
 
bigbluefe said:
Ultrawide sucks. Software support for it just isn't there. You want a 32" 16:9 monitor.

If you have to buy one today, this is the best one.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824025836&ignorebbr=1
Click to expand...

No monitor checks all my boxes right now, but I'd agree with bigbluefe - right now this LG checks the most without needing a second mortgage. All it's lacking is HDR and OLED/mLED... the VA panel is a compromise, but, nothing out there checks every box just yet.
 
I will just sit over here and keep gaming away on this 48" Samsung JS9000 for another couple of years.
 
Eradan said:
I don't know how you do it. I had the 40" Samsung back when they first became super-popular here at [H] and returned it. I could never get comfortable with it on the desk. I looked at 43" TVs last weekend at Micro Center but ended up gravitating towards the relatively smaller LCD displays. I'm in roughly the same boat as the OP...I had a 27" 1440p, high refresh, G-Sync display, sold it, and ended up with a 27" 1080p. Itching to "upgrade" but haven't been sure where to go. I think a 32" 16:9 might do the trick.
Click to expand...
I keep my head on a swivel.
 
it is not confusing if You don't know what You want really.
And You cannot really make any judgement without trying some panels for Yourself.
 
HiCZoK said:
it is not confusing if You don't know what You want really.
And You cannot really make any judgement without trying some panels for Yourself.
Click to expand...

It's all overwhelming on paper. But then a lot of us don't have the time or money to necessarily test drive all the options. Still fun to research though. :)
 
You can input the sizes and aspect ratios to http://www.displaywars.com/ calculator and get a visualization of how the different screens would look. So using your current 27" 16:9 as a baseline you can figure out roughly how big a larger display would be.

I'm not a fan of ultrawides for anything but desktop use and for 1440p would not want to go much higher than 27".
 
Eradan said:
I don't know how you do it. I had the 40" Samsung back when they first became super-popular here at [H] and returned it. I could never get comfortable with it on the desk. I looked at 43" TVs last weekend at Micro Center but ended up gravitating towards the relatively smaller LCD displays. I'm in roughly the same boat as the OP...I had a 27" 1440p, high refresh, G-Sync display, sold it, and ended up with a 27" 1080p. Itching to "upgrade" but haven't been sure where to go. I think a 32" 16:9 might do the trick.
Click to expand...

Same here. I recently went from 30" 2560x1600 to 32" 4k (half an inch shorter, 2 inches wider); and wouldn't want to go larger. "swivel your head" is ok I guess if you're only playing games that put peripheral vision data on the edges of the screen. It becomes a non-starter if you've got lots of edge hud data (fairly recent example could be about 2x as much stuff in the top left corner in busier cases though) like one of my ongoing addictions does. I need info from both left corners, the top center, and main screen center in sight at all times (mana in the lower right's not normally an issue in the endgame, and I normally have the minimap centered instead of in the top right); looking back and forth would be a good way to get killed.

Also I don't have separate gaming and everything else PCs; and I don't think I'd ever be happy back at only 100DPI again. I hate it every day at work. (I don't see a screendoor, but everything is just enough less sharp to be noticable.) Even if hud related issues aren't an issue with anything I'm playing a few years from now it'd take a 16:9 5k panel before I'd consider a 40" class screen.
 
Remove all non-G-Sync monitors out of equation and monitor selection become much easier and straightforward :coffee:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Otto
like this
bigbluefe said:
Ultrawide sucks. Software support for it just isn't there.
Click to expand...

What SW is not there for ultrawides? I use AOC 34 UltraWide for gaming on Windows and working on Linux and all SW works fine and supports ultrawides.
The only improvement I could think of is a better configurable windows managers for Linux to split screen to 1/3 instead of 1/2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top