Help me decide which of these 2 is best...

I would say IPS. I cannot stand VA panels and their gamma shift and response time characteristics.

That said with just specs it is hard to say if these monitors are good or bad.
There are much bigger differences between VA panels than IPS panels and people are sensitive to different issues.

With IPS it is very simple: you use them with tons of ambient light and then they look adequate. Not perfect but adequate.
Issues with VA you cannot mitigate with ambient light. If VA panel looks better in pitch black room depends if it is good panel or bad. Unfortunately there are still these terrible VA monitors with absolutely horrible panels that have unworkable gamma shift and take multiple frames to change from black to dark grays - and this is because some of these panels have really good contrast ratio measurements.

That said I don't think this 280Hz VA panel should have one of these worst VA panels but there don't seem to be reviews of this monitor. You might want to look for reviews of similar monitors (same specs and released at similar time) or if you can test and return monitor you might give it a chance. I would not however buy it without ability to return it. I would also recommend to ignore glaring user reviews - in my experience what is totally terrible was often praised - people can at times really lack any sense of quality.

IPS - it might not be the best panel or anything but there is certain lowest quality and even worst IPS panels are at least adequate.
 
32" QHD is going to have giant pixels - what are you doing with this thing and what is your budget?

Hard no to both.

The VA is 280hz at least, but then again, it's VA - and curved.

The IPS is 175hz which is, IMO, too slow for serious gaming.

If you're doing work, get something with a better PPI, if you're gaming, get either an OLED or just a proper 27" 240hz QHD depending on budget

If you really need a 32", get a proper 4k panel
 
DoubleTap said:
32" QHD is going to have giant pixels - what are you doing with this thing and what is your budget?
Click to expand...
32 inch 2560x1440 has exactly identical PPI as 24 inch at 1920x1080 so the so called normal PPI.
If that is good or bad really depends on eyes acuity. Not all people can view e.g. smaller fonts comfortably.

DoubleTap said:
The IPS is 175hz which is, IMO, too slow for serious gaming.
Click to expand...
Serious maybe not. There is a definite improvement in motion blur and overall clarity (things like seeing clearly direction of movement and being able to aim without estimating positions) at 360Hz OLED versus 160Hz IPS so for competive gaming for as long as computer can handle higher frame rate it makes sense to get better monitor.

Otherwise threshold for "good enough" where input lag isn't felt and motion is smooth enough and motion blur looks like in-game effect and not something broken is IMHO 120fps.
175Hz is quite a bit more than 120Hz though so it should be good gaming monitor. Not great - but only not great because we now have 240/360/480Hz OLEDs.

DoubleTap said:
If you're doing work, get something with a better PPI, if you're gaming, get either an OLED or just a proper 27" 240hz QHD depending on budget
If you really need a 32", get a proper 4k panel
Click to expand...
Personally I would not want 32 inch 1440p monitor but I can use 27 inch monitor with 4K resolution from 4 feet easily.
At work I often see how far people sit from their monitors and it is quite scary view. 27" 1440p is generally apparently too high PPI for most to not lean toward monitor and actually a lot of people do it for 24" 1080p screens viewing them from 2 or even 1.5 feet and/or leaning toward them more to see smaller texts.

For person like that I would actually recommend 32" 1440p monitor.
Would still be better to use 32" 2160p monitor with scaling for desktop but I generally don't like scaling as it doesn't work all that well with all programs.
It is better to go overboard and use 200% scaling as then unsupported programs use integer scaling but then at 32 inch 2160p it would give 1080p-like desktop real-estate. Then again for someone with eyesight issues this might be the perfect solution even though it gives less desktop real-estate.
 
XoR_ said:
32 inch 2560x1440 has exactly identical PPI as 24 inch at 1920x1080 so the so called normal PPI.
If that is good or bad really depends on eyes acuity. Not all people can view e.g. smaller fonts comfortably.


Serious maybe not. There is a definite improvement in motion blur and overall clarity (things like seeing clearly direction of movement and being able to aim without estimating positions) at 360Hz OLED versus 160Hz IPS so for competive gaming for as long as computer can handle higher frame rate it makes sense to get better monitor.

Otherwise threshold for "good enough" where input lag isn't felt and motion is smooth enough and motion blur looks like in-game effect and not something broken is IMHO 120fps.
175Hz is quite a bit more than 120Hz though so it should be good gaming monitor. Not great - but only not great because we now have 240/360/480Hz OLEDs.


Personally I would not want 32 inch 1440p monitor but I can use 27 inch monitor with 4K resolution from 4 feet easily.
At work I often see how far people sit from their monitors and it is quite scary view. 27" 1440p is generally apparently too high PPI for most to not lean toward monitor and actually a lot of people do it for 24" 1080p screens viewing them from 2 or even 1.5 feet and/or leaning toward them more to see smaller texts.

For person like that I would actually recommend 32" 1440p monitor.
Would still be better to use 32" 2160p monitor with scaling for desktop but I generally don't like scaling as it doesn't work all that well with all programs.
It is better to go overboard and use 200% scaling as then unsupported programs use integer scaling but then at 32 inch 2160p it would give 1080p-like desktop real-estate. Then again for someone with eyesight issues this might be the perfect solution even though it gives less desktop real-estate.
Click to expand...
I'm almost 60 and my eyes ain't what they use to be, same can be said for my eye-hand coordination. I'm not playing competitive, but of course I give it the best I can and still have that competitive mentality.

Monitors are like my kryptonite. I have OCD and all the various aspects of monitors just overload my brain. Most of the other PC components are fairly straightforward in comparison.

For me, I'd like to stick with 32"... was looking at 2k thinking that with something like a 5090 or even a 5080 Super/Ti whenever a 24GB variant drops, I would be looking at easily 200FPS in most games even on max settings. I want to be able to have the best of both worlds... great visuals and great FPS, like no less than say... 150+. My thinking was that going with 4k would be a massive hit to FPS... thus I was avoiding them.

I don't really like curved monitors, they're not awful and can deal with one if need be, just not my go-to. I don't want OLED because with my OCD, I'd prefer not to have to worry about burn-in. Yea I get that a lot of OLED monitors come with warranties that cover it, but again... I'd just prefer not to even have to think about that problem. Not into non-standard sizes... like ultra-wide. I don't have a specific budget, but I'd like to keep it below say... $1000 if possible.
 
M0710NM4N said:
Monitors are like my kryptonite. I have OCD and all the various aspects of monitors just overload my brain. Most of the other PC components are fairly straightforward in comparison.
Click to expand...
Tons and tons of things to consider with displays - much more nuance than usually mentioned in reviews or by users.
In the end there is no perfect display - at most you choose compromise you can live with.

M0710NM4N said:
For me, I'd like to stick with 32"... was looking at 2k thinking that with something like a 5090 or even a 5080 Super/Ti whenever a 24GB variant drops, I would be looking at easily 200FPS in most games even on max settings. I want to be able to have the best of both worlds... great visuals and great FPS, like no less than say... 150+. My thinking was that going with 4k would be a massive hit to FPS... thus I was avoiding them.
Click to expand...
1440p is still an optimal resolution for games at high refresh rates but today we have DLSS2/FSR2/XESS and these do look very good so can be used to mitigate performance issues in most modern games.
I would not dismiss 32" 4K because of performance. At worst you just drop resolution - with modern AA it doesn't look as terrible as it was in the past. Higher PPI of 4K panels also makes it much less jarring than using e.g. 720p on 1080p screen in the past.

M0710NM4N said:
I don't really like curved monitors, they're not awful and can deal with one if need be, just not my go-to. I don't want OLED because with my OCD, I'd prefer not to have to worry about burn-in. Yea I get that a lot of OLED monitors come with warranties that cover it, but again... I'd just prefer not to even have to think about that problem. Not into non-standard sizes... like ultra-wide. I don't have a specific budget, but I'd like to keep it below say... $1000 if possible.
Click to expand...
I recommend avoiding curved monitors because of perspective errors. Videos are made for flat panels and so are games. There is no easy way to even render games for curved monitors except when doing full path/ray tracing where camera can be easily adjusted. And desktop looks strange with curved monitors.

As for OLED for desktop - if you can live with very low brightness and can find monitor that allows disabling auto-dimming features and have proper subpixel structure it might not be such a bad option. For now from 16:9 monitors there is 32 inch 240Hz WOLED with proper subpixel structure. Not sure how availability of such monitors without auto-dimming though. It is really irritating to have auto-dimming for desktop!

Low brightness because OLEDs burn-in much faster at higher brightness. And you still would need to perhaps care more about leaving monitor turned on displaying static things than on e.g. IPS so that sucks. I use my QD-OLED for gaming and videos and desktop is there as an option at most which I don't intend to use much except when I am already having it as only turned on monitor. Two monitor setup like this is fine if you watch tons of YT or other videos - if not then you have monitor which you might not use much or which you can use occsionally but then are compelled to keep it at low brightness and it then makes sense to have both monitors dim... yeah, it works for me but not sure if its such a good solution for everyone.

Otherwise I recommend IPS. You do need ambient light for actually convincing image and unless you get FALD monitor forget about HDR and with FALD you will see blooming but much less so with tons of ambient light!
VA is like I said uncertain without extensive testing and even then you still get gamma shift and this is still not OLED-like black levels. Heck, still not even CRT-like black level. And you cannot mitigate gamma shift with ambient light so it sucks.

ps. Some time ago LG announced gaming IPS Black panels and working on something like A-TW. With FALD it should make for an excellent burn-in-free alternative for OLEDs with good enough performance. Unfortunately they seem to focus mostly on OLEDs and it is unclear when we will see these improved IPS panels. Might be that manufacturing cost differences will cause LG to focus solely on OLEDs. They could probably sell OLEDs for 1/3 of the price and still make money - much cheaper to make OLED panel once you have production lines going so it is in LGs best interrest for people to buy OLEDs instead of LCD. Much higher markups on cheap to manufacture OLED panels than expensive FALD IPS's 🫣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top