Need Monitor Advice (1440p vs 4k)

D

DarkStar_WNY

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
2,363
I have long planned to step up to a 1440p ultrawide with my next PC build, preferably 32-36". Well, I've started planning my next build, although the build will be delayed until I can get an RTX 3080 at it's retail price.

1440p ultrawide always seemed like the sweet spot, it's not only a higher resolution that 1080p, but is much easier to drive than a 4k panel is. This would allow me to run games with the detail settings cranked up for much longer than I would at 4k.

But my question is, as newer GPUs, such as the 3080, are so much better running 4k than previous cards, should I reconsider my previous plan, and opt for 4k instead?

Other then some general web browing and such the rig won't be used for anything but gaming.

I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts on this topic as although I'm a computer junkie, done person issues have resulted in my nut being able to keep up on PC/monitor advancements over the last couple years
 
You can look at a lot of my posts in video cards and displays... I opine quite a bit about this.

My opinion is that these cards are aimed directly at fast refresh 1440p. They can do 4k - but at what I would argue is at mid-grade to entry level performance. 60fps is not yet routine. Some titles are above 100, sure, but many are struggling or below 60. Add RT and...

Let's just say that 1440 is doing alright
 
If your budget supports it, the best gaming monitors right now are the 144-175Hz 38" IPS panels.

Same horizontal resolution as 4k, but 1600P instead of 2160 so it's easier to drive and a much more practical size and resolution (it functions like two 1920x1600 panels side by side)
 
I am not a gamer but more into content creation, I went with 27in 2k monitors (two of them) I wish I had gone bigger now and with 4K -
the sweet spot is
>32in >4K
32in @ 4K
27in @ 2k
24in @ HD 1920x1080

then at your desired refresh rate

you can always drop the resolution down, but you can go up without sacrifice quality

merry Christmas 🎄
 
DoubleTap said:
If your budget supports it, the best gaming monitors right now are the 144-175Hz 38" IPS panels.

Same horizontal resolution as 4k, but 1600P instead of 2160 so it's easier to drive and a much more practical size and resolution (it functions like two 1920x1600 panels side by side)
Click to expand...
Huh, interesting. I'll have to look into those as I am not familiar with them.

As for my budget, I'd like to stay below $1000 USD, but would probably go up to $1500 or so if there was a good reason to do so.
 
tived said:
I am not a gamer but more into content creation, I went with 27in 2k monitors (two of them) I wish I had gone bigger now and with 4K -
the sweet spot is
>32in >4K
32in @ 4K
27in @ 2k
24in @ HD 1920x1080

then at your desired refresh rate

you can always drop the resolution down, but you can go up without sacrifice quality

merry Christmas 🎄
Click to expand...
What is the actual res for 2k?
 
The question here is, is it better to ultra wide or not to ultra wide? or is it better to have high fps or acceptable fps with the 3080.
I'd say yes to Ultra wide and higher fps. To each his own.
I hit 90+ avg fps in BFV with a 2080Ti and can't wait to see what a 3080Ti can do with my new LG 34GP83A-B Nano IPS Ultragear monitor.
 
Why not both?

I have two 4k60hz and one 1440p165hz (All 27inch). I just change the monitor depending on the demands of the game or the show/movie i'm watching. For my more simulation or non fast games where I care about visuals, i play on my 4k monitor - for my more twitch games (or something ridicously intensive like cyberpunk) I play on my 1440P monitor. I have that second 4k monitor for 4k video and typical internet browsing.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
Huh, interesting. I'll have to look into those as I am not familiar with them.

As for my budget, I'd like to stay below $1000 USD, but would probably go up to $1500 or so if there was a good reason to do so.
Click to expand...
The 38 in ultrawides are very interesting. They are also curved monitors - which some like (I don't b/c I do design work and it is maddening to look at lines that are parallel, but think they're not for some reason - only to realize they are... And now, where was I again? Rinse. Repeat.). But if you are a gamer /movie watcher and sit at the exact right distance for the curve - you should enjoy the size. The 38s are better than the 34s b/c of the improved vertical space.

Personally I am waiting for the 32 inch flat panel 144hz 4k ips - which come out sometime in 2021 (fingers crossed)
 
DarkSideA8 said:
The 38 in ultrawides are very interesting. They are also curved monitors - which some like (I don't b/c I do design work and it is maddening to look at lines that are parallel, but think they're not for some reason - only to realize they are... And now, where was I again? Rinse. Repeat.). But if you are a gamer /movie watcher and sit at the exact right distance for the curve - you should enjoy the size. The 38s are better than the 34s b/c of the improved vertical space.

Personally I am waiting for the 32 inch flat panel 144hz 4k ips - which come out sometime in 2021 (fingers crossed)
Click to expand...

This is something that I worry about deciding for an ultra wide, I have no idea if I´ll get used to the curve, been using standard flat panels for many years now.
 
leonemesisbra said:
This is something that I worry about deciding for an ultra wide, I have no idea if I´ll get used to the curve, been using standard flat panels for many years now.
Click to expand...

As we all did. I've had a 34" ultrawide for ~3 years now, you don't notice the curve sitting in front of it.
 
I just switched from an Alienware AW1834DW (34" Ultrawide, 3440x1440) to an Acer Predator CG437K (43", 3840x2160) display. I couldn't be happier. The 34" is a bit nicer for games in that you can achieve higher frame rates, However, I've gotten acceptable 4K performance out of everything I've tried running an RTX 3090 FE. On the productivity side of things, 34" ultrawide displays blow goats. There just isn't enough vertical real-estate for doing a lot of things in my opinion. I ran 3x 30" 2560x1600 Dell monitors back in the day and got used to the vertical height. I've been completely disappointed in both 3x27" 2560x1440 displays and the 34" ultra-wide for getting work done.
 
criccio said:
That's what people call it but "2k" isn't a correct designation for a resolution.
Click to expand...
tell me more, i am curious as I am not myself 100% sure either but that is what I am let to believe when they refer to a 2K display, i have read elsewhere that it is 2048 × 1080 which seems more true but that is also very close to HD
 
tived said:
tell me more, i am curious as I am not myself 100% sure either but that is what I am let to believe when they refer to a 2K display, i have read elsewhere that it is 2048 × 1080 which seems more true but that is also very close to HD
Click to expand...

Its used commonly in tech circles to refer to 2560x1440 but that's incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution

Closest thing it matches in PC monitor resolutions is 1920x1080.. however we already have a designation for that and its 1080p.

I would say that people who know what they're talking about will call 1920x1080 "1080p" and 2560x1440 "1440p".

"2K" as a term to describe anything at all in the PC monitor space doesn't make any sense.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
What is the actual res for 2k?
Click to expand...

You are probably referring to either 2560x1440 (16:9) or 2560x1600 (16:10).

criccio said:
Its used commonly in tech circles to refer to 2560x1440 but that's incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution

Closest thing it matches in PC monitor resolutions is 1920x1080.. however we already have a designation for that and its 1080p.

I would say that people who know what they're talking about will call 1920x1080 "1080p" and 2560x1440 "1440p".

"2K" as a term to describe anything at all in the PC monitor space doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

I dislike all of those terms. 1080P is nonsense from the early HDTV days. While its not a terrible way to describe 1920x1080, it's awful for anything else. The width matters more than the height does in terms of monitor descriptions. 1440P can easily refer to 2560x1440 or 3440x1440 which are very different. I don't think it's any worse than calling it "2K". At least there isn't a big difference between 2560x1440 and 2560x1600. Unlike 3440x1440 vs. 2560x1440. The latter of which is quite a bit easier on your hardware than the former. All of these resolutions have varying heights but its the width that really tells you what's going on and what you are getting into.
 
Last edited:
went 3440x1440 3x gsync 34" monitors from 4K displays, and I absolutely love it far more than 4k.
 
I have been waiting for a good 32" 4k ~144hz screen, 27" is to small for 4k imo. I have a 34" Predator 3440x1440p on the pc I am on now and it is nice but want more vertical resolution for non gaming applications. I just bought an LG CX 48" oled 4k 120hz TV for my other system and the picture is amazing on it, if they had a 40" version I would be using that on this system and the 48" on my flight sim rig.
 
4K is my thought. A gaming PC should be at least on par with the new consoles. Resolution wise that is doable. For picture quality, it gets a lot harder as monitors simply don't seem to have improved at the rate that televisions have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top