32" 2560x1440@144hz or 34" 3440x1440 @ 100hz.

Which monitor

  • 34" 3440x1440@100hz

    Votes: 15 51.7%

  • 32" 2560x1440@144hz

    Votes: 11 37.9%

  • Other, See what I said down below.

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Total voters
    29
Dan

Dan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
8,020
I need a new monitor. Its really just used for gaming for the most part. Ive given myself a budget of around $550-600 bucks. I really enjoy my 34" 2560x1080@75hz right now. I do like the 21:9 aspect ratio. but going from 100 to 144hz could be a big deal. I mostly play Pubg, D2 crucible, R6 siege, Star wars galaxies and Black desert. I like to think im "competitive" but im really a filthy casual who likes to think i'm better then I am.

monitor choices:
32" Viotek 2560x1440@144hz
34" Crossover curved 3440x1440@100hz *picture shows 144hz. you can do 144hz @ 2560x1080*

My rig:
Phanteks shift ITX
ryzen [email protected]
gtx 1080 hybrid @ 2100mhz
SSD
16gb ram.

Im mostly looking for input from people who have used 144hz. I haven't. I also feel going from 75 to 100 is better then 60 to 75.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
You start to get diminishing returns the higher you go in frame rate. Everyone can agree on that. What they will argue forever, is where that line is.
 
What make and model are the 32" and 34" monitors that you're thinking about?
 
When I finally decided to upgrade my 30" 2560x1600 60Hz Dell last year I had two main criteria. Higher resolution and higher refresh rate. Going with the common 2650x1440 144Hz+ monitors was out of the question and the 4K screens were all still 60Hz max.

The only displays that met this were the 3440x1440 100Hz panels so I went with the Asus PG348Q and could not be happier.

Now, after spending significant time with it then also using a buddies 144Hz panel to compare, I honestl cannot tell the difference. The jump from 60Hz to 100Hz was HUGE but 100Hz to 144Hz wasn't that big of a deal. I'm happy with my decision, confirmation bias be damned.
 
That's a tempting price for the second one you posted.

Drat- why does ips and gsync cost so much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan
like this
I've used 144hz but only in comparison to 60hz. It was a significant step up in smoothness. Leagues beyond. However I also feel like 75-100 will be a nice increase, but you'll probably notice the pixel density and clarity more than you will the increase in frames. If you enjoy your ultra wide now, I highly doubt you'll be able to go back to 16:9. I personally believe a 27" 1440p 144hz+ monitor is the best for me personally, and also remember that 3440x1440 requires more power to drive. A single 1080, hybrid or not, may struggle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan
like this
neither. Unless constrained by very tight budgets, save your money and get ULMB. 100hz with ULMB is better than 200hz without it. Samsung has some of the best ULMB solutions below $700.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan
like this
It hurts my soul that Gsync monitors start at like 800 for anything 34" and thats @ 2560x1080 resolution...

geok1ng said:
neither. Unless constrained by very tight budgets, save your money and get ULMB. 100hz with ULMB is better than 200hz without it. Samsung has some of the best ULMB solutions below $700.
Click to expand...
Can you link me one? Im dropping tons of money in other areas in my life right now so im being budget aware. But im not against dropping another 100-250 more. Past few months were a nightmare but thankfully it was only temporary..
ReaperX22 said:
*snip* A single 1080, hybrid or not, may struggle.
Click to expand...
I agree with your entire post but highlighted on the end point you made. I agree that the 1080 may struggle under a 250 core and 490 mem OC. My theroy is right now I can reduce settings (fuck you shadows). My monitors usually stay with me for YEARS. Im sure by the time i get rid of this ill be in my GTX 5xxx or AMD what ever naming scheme they come up with. The 1080 may struggle ATM but my upgrade path is getting the best every other gen. I may "struggle" *funny what first world issues we all have*. Ill probably be buying this monitor at the end of this month or early-mid feb. Ill be home more. Im traveling a lot right now due to work
 
Dan said:
Can you link me one?
Click to expand...
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-C32H...e=UTF8&qid=1515516958&sr=1-1&keywords=C32HG70

32", 144Hz, 25x14 ULMB

I believe 25x14 is a better resolution for a 1080ti under ULMB and will partially compensate the loss of *sync.
As long as you are ready to (rarely) lower image quality to keep 100+ fps.

34x14 + ULMB is currently missing in action, as the only review i saw showed a few flaws (and 34x14 is a tough nut to crack at 100+fps).

Budget is a funny thing: Vega + Freesync is about as good as 1080ti + Gsync in double blind tests at 34x14, but the 1080ti is a better value proposition if one goes ULMB at 25x14.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I've used both of those but prefer what I run now: 3840x1600 24:10 - 37.5" at 76 Hz.
 
geok1ng said:
neither. Unless constrained by very tight budgets, save your money and get ULMB. 100hz with ULMB is better than 200hz without it. Samsung has some of the best ULMB solutions below $700.
Click to expand...

I don't understand all the love for ULMB, it looks like trash on every monitor I've tried it on and is so distracting that I actually play worse than the silky smooth Gsync experience.
 
LigTasm said:
I don't understand all the love for ULMB, it looks like trash on every monitor I've tried it on and is so distracting that I actually play worse than the silky smooth Gsync experience.
Click to expand...

Strobing backlight is good, scanning backlight is great. Then again, ULMB without proper fps limit and Vsync settings is much worst than *sync. They try to improve different aspects of gaming.
 
geok1ng said:
Strobing backlight is good, scanning backlight is great. Then again, ULMB without proper fps limit and Vsync settings is much worst than *sync. They try to improve different aspects of gaming.
Click to expand...

This.

A scanning/strobing monitor requires extra work to get the right experience. Ideally, Vsync with FPS capped to an identical value to reduce input lag. If the game engine is just laggy, then you still need to cap your FPS to match your Hz and deal with the tearying.
 
Vega said:
I've used both of those but prefer what I run now: 3840x1600 24:10 - 37.5" at 76 Hz.
Click to expand...

I think that is what I might prefer as well. I have owned a 34" UW and I vastly prefer my 144hz 32" 1440p. I do like ultrawide, but the screen height feels so short in comparison to the 32" 16:9 that the 32" feels more immersive than the added width due to the superior screen height. A 38" is closer in terms of height to the 32" but with the extra screen width so it might be just about perfect, at least for my preferences at least until a higher refresh and better response time 40" 4K monitor comes along.
 
Ya the Acer 38" is quite pleasing. It has super clear text for the IPS, thankfully in part to the terrific AR film on it. Probably the best AR film I've seen. 38" 24:10 3840x1600 is super immersive too. Granted 76 Hz isn't the smoothest thing in the world but noticeably better than 60 Hz. Plus low input lag.
 
Mokkat said:
technically more screen real estate
Click to expand...

34x14 has more REAL desktop real state because one can fit more desktop icons on a higher resolution display.

Math facts do not need disclaimer. Again, pick the 32".
 
21:9 any day of the week, I own both equivalent displays. Also you don't lose screen real estate with 21:9, you gain it because you have more pixels. Number of pixels is your screen real estate, unless you are using DPI scaling to make the screen more readable.
 
That model of 3440x1440 you can switch it to 2560x1080 (what i have now) but run it at 144hz... its like the best of both worlds... Think im going to go with the 34" 100hz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top