32" 4K FALD - ASUS ProArt PA32UC

[Vega]

-ASUS ProArt PA32UC Professional Monitor - 32 inch, 4K, HDR, direct-LED, Local Dimming, 85% of Rec.2020, 95% of DCI-P3, Hardware Calibration, Thunderbolt™ 3
-Optimized 384 zones direct-LED backlight matrix support and ASUS LED driving technology achieves 1 micro second operation for better HDR performance (1000 cd/m², peak)
-Powerful interface with Intel Thunderbolt™ 3, DP and HDMI I/O easily connecting to various devices
-Wide Color Gamut technlogy reproduces 85% of Rec.2020, 99.5% of Adobe RGB, 95% of DCI-P3 & 100% of sRGB color space
-Factory pre-calibrated, with ASUS ProArt™ Calibration Technology to ensure color accuracy during different using scenarios
-ASUS Eye Care monitors feature TÜV Rheinland-certified Flicker-free and Low Blue Light technologies to ensure a comfortable viewing experience

Panel Size: Wide Screen 32” (81.28cm) 16:9
Color Saturation : 85% Rec.2020, 99.5% Adobe RGB, over 95% DCI-P3 and 100% sRGB
Panel Type : IPS
True Resolution : 3840x2160
Display Surface Non-glare
Pixel Pitch : 0.1845/ mm
Brightness(Max) : 1000 cd/㎡
Contrast Ratio (Max) : 1000:1
Viewing Angle (CR≧10) : 178°(H)/178°(V)
Response Time : 5ms (Gray to Gray)
Display Colors : 1.07 Billion
Flicker free
LCD ZBD Warranty : Yes
HDR (High Dynamic Range) Support : Yes
Dynamically Local Dimming : Yes, 384 Zones

http://dlcdnet.asus.com/pub/ASUS/LCD Monitors/PA32U/PA32U_English.pdf

Reading the owners manual it appears to have some nice features:

1. Motion Sync: Simulates display as high refresh rate performance to
generate different backlight frequencies
2. Adaptive-Sync can only be activated within 40Hz ~ 60Hz.
3. Dynamic Dimming: Synchronizes with contents while contrast changing
to execute backlight dynamic dimming .
• To activate this function, you need to do the following: turn off PIP/PBP.
• Dynamic Dimming is automatically activated when HDR is on.
I would take that to read that it is the first monitor that can utilize the FALD back-light on non-HDR content.
4. HDR:
* “HDR 1” .
* “HDR 2” complies with ULTRA HD PREMIUM™
5. Brightness 400 cd/m2 (Typ.), 1000 cd/m2 (Max.)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=email&A=details&Q=&sku=1380030&is=REG

 

[l88bastard]

60hz. USELESS

 

[Sancus]

4 HDMI inputs and "PBP x 4"? Does that mean it can display 4 1920x1080 inputs in a 4x4 grid?

FALD operation outside of HDR mode would be great.

Motion Sync might be black frame insertion?

It comes with a color calibrator special for it that's otherwise undocumented in the manual???

 

[Vega]

I pre-ordered it, supposedly out ~Feb 20th. Definitely has some interesting features I want to check out in person. Normally I'd wait for the 27" 4K FALD G-Sync displays, but 27" 4K is a bit small for me. I don't like to be looking close to the display.

 

[DanNeely]

60hz. USELESS

It's not a gaming model. The 120/144/165/240hz gaming monitors (even the subset that are IPS) loved by many gamers here are utterly useless for artists/photographers/etc due to uneven colors and backlight levels.

 

[l88bastard]

It's not a gaming model. The 120/144/165/240hz gaming monitors (even the subset that are IPS) loved by many gamers here are utterly useless for artists/photographers/etc due to uneven colors and backlight levels.

I run an indy game studio and a real estate business. 90% of my display usage is for work productivity, and using 60hz for work productivity makes me want to chop my hands off after a few hours of use because it is so imprecise for all of the minute mouse movements I have to do during work....we cannot get 4k 120hz 32"+ displays soon enough..... heck I would rather sit ten feet back in a lazy boy and use the upcoming BFGD than use a 60hz color correct display

 

[Sancus]

It's not a gaming model. The 120/144/165/240hz gaming monitors (even the subset that are IPS) loved by many gamers here are utterly useless for artists/photographers/etc due to uneven colors and backlight levels.

That's true, but there's no particular reason that most professional displays couldn't be 120hz at least. There's no demand for it so they don't bother, but it's not like 120hz makes the backlight/uniformity worse in any way. It is frustrating that high refresh is relegated to the gaming market, because IMO once you've used a high refresh rate display, even normal desktop tasks and mouse movements feel laggy and irritating at 60hz.

It's just that most users of pro displays haven't been exposed to high refresh rates(unless they're gamers) so they don't know what they're missing. There is a reason that, for example, the ipad's 120hz display gets so much praise. The display industry should really be looking towards making 120hz the default minimum for ALL DISPLAYS.

But as usual, they do the absolute least innovation they can possibly get away with, in comparison to mobile and TV manufacturers. Hell this is the first decent looking HDR desktop monitor and it's years late. Embarrassing.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Sign me up for 120Hz everywhere.

Minimum.

 

[elvn]

even the apple ipad pros are 120 now, touting use for artists and overall interface smoothness

also, gsync > freesync, especially for nvidia gpus of course, and cuda as a graphics suite dev priority

 

[Vega]

Ya I don't buy the 60 Hz argument anymore. 120 Hz at the very minimum for professional works means a snappier mouse and easier precision. Why they didn't put DP 1.4 on this monitor is crazy.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

It’s a $2000 monitor anyway. All you people bitching about 60hz probably wouldn’t buy it if it did 120hz. It’s out of the reasonable price range for most consumers, and it isn’t remotely designed for gaming. $2k is more than most people spend on their entire computer.

Will higher refresh rates hit everything eventually? Sure. But that day isn’t today. As #1, Asus knows their target market for this monitor. And #2 some combination of cost, and panel technology prevents them from doing so.

If this monitor was $3000 and 120hz, even less people would buy it.

 

[Sancus]

It’s a $2000 monitor anyway. All you people bitching about 60hz probably wouldn’t buy it if it did 120hz. It’s out of the reasonable price range for most consumers, and it isn’t remotely designed for gaming. $2k is more than most people spend on their entire computer.

If this monitor was $3000 and 120hz, even less people would buy it.

If this was 120hz I would have already preordered it and I wouldn't care if the price was $2000 or $3000, I've spent more than that on a monitor before.

I'm still pretty tempted tbh, but I'm waiting to see what the Asus high refresh rate HDR displays look like. If they can use their FALD outside of HDR mode, I'd prefer the 35" Ultrawide 3440x1440 200hz VA probably, even if it's $2500 or $3000.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

If this was 120hz I would have already preordered it and I wouldn't care if the price was $2000 or $3000, I've spent more than that on a monitor before.

You're in the extreme minority. Even for this forum. As baller as it is to think that everyone here is rocking Titan V's and $20k+ builds, the reality is that isn't the case. So saying that you would do it doesn't justify a company that is designing a monitor to sell thousands of these things just for you.
If you want to do that, then I'd go ahead and create the market research data and send that to all of these companies product development departments. But I'm going to guess that they've done much more of this type of research, regarding placement, than you have.
This isn't to say that they don't make mistakes, or never leave money on the table, but they are way more interested in continuing to sell product and have jobs rather than take unnecessary risks on an incredibly small niche market. Especially when creating a run of these displays probably has minimums in the 10,000s and all require specialized designs and tooling.

On the upside though you can look at it this way: once the market trend changes, it will change quickly. And so you know, I'm not arguing against having a color accurate 120hz display. I'm just explaining why the market forces are pushing against it currently.

 

[Sancus]

Well here's the thing, I don't think Asus/Acer are driving innovation in the display industry anymore(if they ever did). What it's taking is for Nvidia to step up and say hey we are going to make the panel manufacturers and AIBs work with us to produce things that push the market forward. You see this with the Gsync 120hz 4K HDR panels(PG27UQ) and now with the BFGD too.

Other companies like Apple are picking up 120hz and putting it on things that nobody ever demanded 'hey I want 120hz on my tablet' or 'hey I want 120hz on my phone'. But the mobile industry is way more competitive, and manufacturers are scrabbling for any little improvement they can make that will turn into a marketing point.

Meanwhile, the desktop monitor makers are just coasting on tiny incremental panel improvements and not giving any fucks about driving innovation. Is that more profitable? It's hard to say honestly. You can say 'well they did the market research' but market research only tells you so much, because people don't know what they want. Apple doesn't do a bunch of market research to determine what features to add to the iphone, they decide what to add and then tell people it's revolutionary. Whether it is or not.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Well here's the thing, I don't think Asus/Acer are driving innovation in the display industry anymore(if they ever did). What it's taking is for Nvidia to step up and say hey we are going to make the panel manufacturers and AIBs work with us to produce things that push the market forward. You see this with the Gsync 120hz 4K HDR panels(PG27UQ) and now with the BFGD too.

Other companies like Apple are picking up 120hz and putting it on things that nobody ever demanded 'hey I want 120hz on my tablet' or 'hey I want 120hz on my phone'. But the mobile industry is way more competitive, and manufacturers are scrabbling for any little improvement they can make that will turn into a marketing point.

Meanwhile, the desktop monitor makers are just coasting on tiny incremental panel improvements and not giving any fucks about driving innovation. Is that more profitable? It's hard to say honestly. You can say 'well they did the market research' but market research only tells you so much, because people don't know what they want. Apple doesn't do a bunch of market research to determine what features to add to the iphone, they decide what to add and then tell people it's revolutionary. Whether it is or not.

I agree for the most part. And that's why companies that can pay attention to the future and future trends eat everyone else's lunch. If and when a display manufacturer figures out the critical set of techs that everyone 'has to have' they'll become the predominant manufacturer. At least in the market of non-OEM sellers.
But also Apple can do what they do because they can leverage the fact that if you want to live in their ecosystem, you more or less don't have a choice. For better or for worse. But that does allow them to push technology in ways that other manufacturers can not. I think they often get it right far more than people in this forum would give them credit for (because their product really focuses in on user experience, something most other companies completely miss). And the technology and software supports that.
The problem is most tech companies do it the other way around. Which is to say they create a technology and then have no idea how that really integrates into the user experience. Or have an idea or understanding of how to take new technologies and have them mesh with other ones to create a better user experience. Most of the time it feels like it's dumb luck rather than careful thought. The PC user side is mostly just spec sheets. Which is great to a point, but only tells part of the story of what something is like to use. Anyway, that's its own rant.

 

[DanNeely]

Ya I don't buy the 60 Hz argument anymore. 120 Hz at the very minimum for professional works means a snappier mouse and easier precision. Why they didn't put DP 1.4 on this monitor is crazy.

Right now there are no 4k 120hz panels available for use; until that changes its 4k or 120hz but both is impossible. AUO is planning to get a few out this year; but they're not known for making panels with consistent colors and even back lighting; so unless their new panels turn out to be significantly higher quality I don't anticipate them getting many wins outside of gaming market segments. If Samsung and LG (whose panels do end up in pro grade monitors) are working on 4k 120; they haven't admitted it publicly. Which probably means they're working on it but aren't sure when they'll have it good enough to sell; not that they're ignoring the segment.

 

[Vega]

It's usually not the "panel" per say. This Asus supposedly has 5ms GtG, which would work just fine at 120 Hz. It is the electronics they attach to the panel that is the limiting factor. Then again, this monitor was first revealed at CES 2017 I believe, so DP 1.4 hardware may have come after they were quite along in the design process.
A lot of gaming monitors just use overclocked 60 Hz panels.

 

[Sancus]

Who even makes this panel anyway? It must be a brand new one if it's got an HDR backlight and is 4k 32 inch. I would be very surprised if the panel isn't capable of 120hz, I'm almost 100% sure didn't bother with DP 1.4/120hz just because it would add development cost and they think professionals don't care about 120hz.

 

[Ors]

Does FALD help in any way with backlight uniformity/backlight bleed? I really don't care much for this HDR thing, however I'm getting really frustrated cause I had to return a lot of monitors due to backlight problems. I can live with IPS glow and VA contrast shift when at least straight on it's uniform, but many monitors don't even pass an eye exam for uniformity which is just sad. My home monitor is slowly dying (7+ years old already), really hoped we would have OLED at this time but it seems we are still stuck with yesterdays tech and sketchy QA.

 

[Necere]

Who even makes this panel anyway?

Looks like an AUO panel, according to TFTcentral's parts database.

 

[Dan_D]

32" Ugh.....I wish these companies would give us more 40+" displays.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

32" Ugh.....I wish these companies would give us more 40+" displays.

4k at 32" is still too tight for my newly-lasered 20/15 eyes. I'd agree on 40" for unscaled usage.

 

[Ors]

Well we don't have that many 32 inch 4k panels that are without problems, even less that are also affordable. So any new entry is welcome. Personally I find 32 inch to be the largest size I would want to go in a monitor.

 

[thelead]

32" Ugh.....I wish these companies would give us more 40+" displays.

I get where you're coming from but I hope that we actually see companies start pushing even higher resolutions in 32" screens. I'm not sure why there is such a small crowd that wants to look at print level dpi (ppi) on displays.

 

[Sancus]

To me there is no real difference between a 27" 1440p screen and a 40" 4K screen. Their ppi is almost identical. I will set them at an appropriate distance so that both screens are the exact same size in my field of view. The only difference is I need to make more space for the 40" because it has to be further away from me. But the size of the display in my field of view remains the same.

4K at 32" otoh offers a substantial clarity improvement and windows 10 scaling is pretty much solved. Yes some legacy apps have blurry font rendering and stuff like that, but it's not a big deal. I have absolutely no trouble with my 15" 4K laptop display. More pixel density please.

 

[capt_cope]

I get where you're coming from but I hope that we actually see companies start pushing even higher resolutions in 32" screens. I'm not sure why there is such a small crowd that wants to look at print level dpi (ppi) on displays.

Because lots of people are running windows, and windows scaling sucks big fat donkey balls. Having used a 28" 4k monitor (awesome for gaming and video) before moving to a 40" 4k "monitor", I'd have to see a 32" 4k in person before I'd be willing to spend any money on it. UI text is practically unreadable at 28", (4k with 100% scaling) and by the time you scale it up to a readable size using windows scaling, you may as well be on a 1080p monitor. I went from a 28" 1440p to a 28" 4k to a 40" 4k, and you couldn't pay me to use a 28" 4k monitor at this point. If I were stuck at 28" I'd just get another 1440p monitor. 32" @ 4k *might* be the smallest "usable" screensize for that resolution, or it might be too small, like I said, I'd have to see one in person first.

 

[Sancus]

Not really the thread for this, but I don't really buy the complaints about scaling. Browsers all scale just fine and that's 99% of where font clarity matters. Some apps like Steam and cpu-z aren't high dpi compliant and so fonts will be blurry, but who cares? It's still perfectly readable and I look at those apps for a few seconds once in a while. Not all games have UI scale, but many if not most modern ones do. It's also not something that Microsoft can just magically fix, except by pulling an Apple and saying 'yeah either your apps get updated properly or we will break them on newer OS versions.'

4K @ 32" is low enough ppi that even for the edge case games you can go full screen and it's usually playable. I have a 32" 4K monitor and I used to enjoy Civ5 on it a lot with no scaling at all, and my vision isn't even good(20/30 left + 20/400 right).

 

[thelead]

Because lots of people are running windows, and windows scaling sucks big fat donkey balls. Having used a 28" 4k monitor (awesome for gaming and video) before moving to a 40" 4k "monitor", I'd have to see a 32" 4k in person before I'd be willing to spend any money on it. UI text is practically unreadable at 28", (4k with 100% scaling) and by the time you scale it up to a readable size using windows scaling, you may as well be on a 1080p monitor. I went from a 28" 1440p to a 28" 4k to a 40" 4k, and you couldn't pay me to use a 28" 4k monitor at this point. If I were stuck at 28" I'd just get another 1440p monitor. 32" @ 4k *might* be the smallest "usable" screensize for that resolution, or it might be too small, like I said, I'd have to see one in person first.

I don't agree about windows scaling unless you're talking about legacy programs that aren't updated or windows 7/8. I personally think the 5k 27" screens are the best we have right now because with 200% scaling, you get good real estate (esentially 2560x1440) with great ppi for text sharpness. Really, an 8k 32" screen would be near perfection while running at 200 or even 300%. Throw in oled (without burn-in), 120hz, and VRR and we would be set for about a decade.

 

[Sancus]

I wonder if the panel in this thing is capable of 120hz with some ZisWorks magic.

 

[kasakka]

Because lots of people are running windows, and windows scaling sucks big fat donkey balls. Having used a 28" 4k monitor (awesome for gaming and video) before moving to a 40" 4k "monitor", I'd have to see a 32" 4k in person before I'd be willing to spend any money on it. UI text is practically unreadable at 28", (4k with 100% scaling) and by the time you scale it up to a readable size using windows scaling, you may as well be on a 1080p monitor. I went from a 28" 1440p to a 28" 4k to a 40" 4k, and you couldn't pay me to use a 28" 4k monitor at this point. If I were stuck at 28" I'd just get another 1440p monitor. 32" @ 4k *might* be the smallest "usable" screensize for that resolution, or it might be too small, like I said, I'd have to see one in person first.

I don't see the need for absolutely massive amounts of desktop space and I program all day. I'll take better text rendering over more space. I recently even started using 1440p at 125% scaling. It's not ideal as it's a tad large but it is more comfortable to read.

The biggest issue with Windows DPI scaling to me is that it doesn't work properly for anything but the preset 125/150/175/200% settings it offers. Custom scaling options are multi-monitor incompatible and often don't properly scale UI elements. For 1440p I would like to have the option for incrementing the scaling more gradually between 100 and 125%, e.g. 110-115% would be an ideal size but the OS just doesn't let me do it properly.

I would love to see a 120 Hz 32" 4K panel but the first ones seem to be coming next year and since the 27" models were delayed I expect we might see a 32" model closer to 2020 at this rate.

 

[bigbluefe]

It's true. There's no going back to 60hz once you've become accustomed to 90hz+. It's like going back to 30 after getting used to 60. Terrible.

 

[Ors]

The biggest issue with Windows DPI scaling to me is that it doesn't work properly for anything but the preset 125/150/175/200% settings it offers.

True, that's why 4k make that much sense at 24 (1440p also good) and 32 inch (5k would also be nice here). And after seeing 4k on those sizes you really can't go back to any less, fonts just look horrid. That's why I don't get why anybody would want a 43 or bigger panel for 4k. Real estate wise 32 inch is already more than enough, anything more and you wont be looking at the whole monitor anyway (unless you sit 3 meters from it), not to mention you will have to move your head up and down all the time. But there seem to be folks that like that since monitors do come out in those sizes as well.
27 inch is an oddball, I find 1440p to not fit it well, it's too small for comfortable reading but not high PPI enough so that fonts look really nice. In 4k I would use 175% scaling for it, but than as you said fonts are on the larger size. Maybe people using it at 1440p sit closer, not an option for me really, I have long hands and need at least 1m from the monitor to have enough room to place my mouse and keyboard at a proper distance.

 

[elvn]

40.3" 4k would be the same ppi as a 1440p ~ 108.8ppi which is high enough pixel density for a lot of people yet giving a lot more desktop real estate at native resolution. A case where the physical screen size is adding the actual screen real-estate in proportion to the size differences from 27" 2560x1440 , 34" 3440x1440. It would also allow for a larger physical game world screen and is even large enough to allow you to run a 21:9 resolution letterboxed at considerable size.

As for 40", a 40" 16:9 is the same width as a 38" 21:9 ultrawide. so that would be good for a desk if they made a 40" 4k 120hz FALD HDR g-sync since it would allow you to run a non-standard 38" ultrawide resolution like 3840x1440 or x 1600 1:1 pixel letter-boxed with bars top/bottom. This would allow you to view the monitor closer when gaming and you'd get higher frame rates to fill the higher hz, so you'd get more of the higher hz benefits. You could also run 3440 x 1440 with a letterbox "frame" border/windowed. The ultrawide resolutions would allow you to sit closer,using the ends of the wide aspect more for immersion and added game world real-estate. You could also run a smaller 16:9 rez letter-boxed/windowed 1:1, like 2560 x 1600.

So an option on larger, high resolution monitors could be to sort of downsize the game window more depending on how demanding the game is vs your chosen balance of graphics settings and gpu power. In any case, you would switch back to 4k for easy to render games and for desktop/app use of course.

Modern consoles claiming 4k gaming go the other route in relation to usage scenarios mentioned in the above quote .. they down-size the resolution dynamically but keep the game full screen in a non-native rez (muddy), and obviously at a low motion definition and smearing sample-and-hold blur of 60fps max.

edit: about long arms/hands... I recommend getting an ergotron arm so the monitor is floating above the desk, and get a deeper desk like a 3-panel "bat-a-rang" style which have a huge middle tabletop section flanked by two rectangular sides. Some other corner desks are similarly deep like the middle section without the side "wings"

*credit: Lawrence can draw (youtube)

 

[Ors]

I recommend getting an ergotron arm so the monitor is floating above the desk

With a 32 inch monitor I don't have to. And don't really want to sit any closer anyway, was more a comment of maybe this being the reason why others seem to like 1440p on 27 and not me...

 

[kasakka]

True, that's why 4k make that much sense at 24 (1440p also good) and 32 inch (5k would also be nice here). And after seeing 4k on those sizes you really can't go back to any less, fonts just look horrid. That's why I don't get why anybody would want a 43 or bigger panel for 4k. Real estate wise 32 inch is already more than enough, anything more and you wont be looking at the whole monitor anyway (unless you sit 3 meters from it), not to mention you will have to move your head up and down all the time. But there seem to be folks that like that since monitors do come out in those sizes as well.
27 inch is an oddball, I find 1440p to not fit it well, it's too small for comfortable reading but not high PPI enough so that fonts look really nice. In 4k I would use 175% scaling for it, but than as you said fonts are on the larger size. Maybe people using it at 1440p sit closer, not an option for me really, I have long hands and need at least 1m from the monitor to have enough room to place my mouse and keyboard at a proper distance.

I always seem to put displays much closer than most people and I've had laser surgery so my eye sight is good. I just find bigger text more pleasant to read. At the moment my 27" 1440p display is at about arms length from me and I use the 125% scaling. Which is frankly just slightly too big for my tastes but it's the compromise I have to make due to the shittiness of Win 10 DPI scaling options.

 

[kasakka]

40.3" 4k would be the same ppi as a 1440p ~ 108.8ppi which is high enough pixel density for a lot of people yet giving a lot more desktop real estate at native resolution. A case where the physical screen size is adding the actual screen real-estate in proportion to the size differences from 27" 2560x1440 , 34" 3440x1440. It would also allow for a larger physical game world screen and is even large enough to allow you to run a 21:9 resolution letterboxed at considerable size.

I always wonder what people do with all that desktop space when I typically have two big windows on a screen and am pretty happy with that setup. I don't need a freaking control center where I can see everything at once.

Modern consoles claiming 4k gaming go the other route in relation to usage scenarios mentioned in the above quote .. they down-size the resolution dynamically but keep the game full screen in a non-native rez (muddy), and obviously at a low motion definition and smearing sample-and-hold blur of 60fps max.

I think checkerboard rendering and dynamic resolution are very good compromises for limited console hardware. I would love to see those in PC games as well as an option. I think it gets harder to see resolution differences at above 1440p especially in motion so dynamic scaling or checkerboard rendering between 1440p and 4K would be most welcome so you wouldn't need to throw as much money at the GPUs to run those resolutions properly. That said I don't expect this anytime soon when Nvidia refuses to even implement integer scaling (non-blurry 1080p to 4K upscaling for example) into their drivers.

 

[DanNeely]

I always wonder what people do with all that desktop space when I typically have two big windows on a screen and am pretty happy with that setup. I don't need a freaking control center where I can see everything at once.




I think checkerboard rendering and dynamic resolution are very good compromises for limited console hardware. I would love to see those in PC games as well as an option. I think it gets harder to see resolution differences at above 1440p especially in motion so dynamic scaling or checkerboard rendering between 1440p and 4K would be most welcome so you wouldn't need to throw as much money at the GPUs to run those resolutions properly. That said I don't expect this anytime soon when Nvidia refuses to even implement integer scaling (non-blurry 1080p to 4K upscaling for example) into their drivers.

The only PC game I've seen do dynamic resolution is Path of Exile - an F2P action RPG - it definitely can help when the screen gets too overloaded. It can help, but can also shoot your experience in the foot if you try messing with the setting without understanding what it does. eg setting the FPS floor at 60hz probably isn't what you want even on a high end box because the games GPU load can be really spikey with lots of stuff on screen. If you're trying to game on a potato it never is unless you want to play at sub Diablo 1 resolution with buttery smooth FPS. IMO 15-30 is the best target range. Keeps the game from going slideshow if you end up partied with several people playing lag builds; but even with as much as the game play's gotten faster paced having enough resolution to see what's happening on screen is still at least as important as the framerate since you're locked in place for however long your attack/cast takes anyway.

 

[elvn]

Dishonored 2 does some sort of dynamic resolution if you enable it. You set the target frame rate and it will do dynamic rez if you choose that option. Titanfall 2 does as well. I haven't used it in dishonored 2 which is one of the games I'm playing right now (and I don't have or want titanfall 2).

Not that I agree with this approach but it's interesting as an option for some people I suppose. He talks about the aforementioned games in the video as example of dynamic resolution on pc. Personally I think you'd be better off doing high hz fed higher fps with a monitor who's resolution is within reach of your gpu. As in don't put the cart before the horse.
Don't put the cart (native rez display, e.g. upcoming 4k 120hz+) before the horse (your gpu power's ability to feed high hz more fps).

A single 1080ti can get over 100fps on some demanding modern games to feed high hz displays at 1440p though now. Even moreso if you dial the over the top graphics settings in (DOWN) to gain (UP) motion clarity and motion definition benefits out of high hz .

 

[Sancus]

https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/asus-pa32uc/