People using 40-43" displays on the desktop, any drawbacks?

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,661
So I'm waiting for the ASUS XG438Q to be released so I can buy one. I'm considering it because it's 4K, bigger than 27" and 120 Hz refresh rate - hopefully not priced over 2000 euros either. Freesync 2 should work fine with my 2080 Ti. Also like that it can do PiP and PbP so I can hook my work laptop to it when working from home.

In the mean time, I went to check out an Acer ET430K I knew was on display at a local store just to get a feel for how big it is. I currently have a 27" 1440p screen so compared to that it did feel huge initially. While I preferred a 32" 4K screen in terms of size and sharpness, I thought the 43" looked close enough, just a bit less sharp when viewing the same webpage.

I think my main concern is that it is a huge display that I will most likely have to push as far back as my table allows for it to be a comfortable viewing experience for desktop use. For games and movies it's most likely awesome.

Those who have used displays like these for a longer time, do you have any regrets, issues etc with them?
 

tisb0b

[H] Pirate
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
3,038
I have a LG43UD79 and I previously had a LG31MU97. I love the 43" and I find it much more usable on day to day than the 31" was. I have the DPI scaling set 150 and I haven't looked back. If anything I'll be upgrading to something bigger in the future.
 

DooLocsta

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,715
60Hz is the only issue I have so any fast games I play on a 27" 144Hz. It will be great when affordable 40-43” ”faster” options are available. If ever
 

eclypse

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
3,267
Sounds nice but what's it gona cost 3k? Cause the 27" is $1600. :/

Can grab a samsung 55" 4k screen that will do 1440 at 120hz. Smaller screens from the 8000 series wont do 1440 at 120hz so 55" is the minimum. That screen is on sale for $800 at bestbuy and prob Amazon currently.. normally $900.
 

illusio13

n00b
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
49
Have LG - 43UH650V...; been using as Desktop etc for years. After initial scaling issue; now is excellent; even @ 60Hz :)

Prefer 125% scaling; as i sit ~ 10-15feet away............; best visual upgrade ever :) Magnificent for Gaming + Media and anything else i do on desktop!
 

Keller1

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
65
Sounds nice but what's it gona cost 3k? Cause the 27" is $1600. :/

Can grab a samsung 55" 4k screen that will do 1440 at 120hz. Smaller screens from the 8000 series wont do 1440 at 120hz so 55" is the minimum. That screen is on sale for $800 at bestbuy and prob Amazon currently.. normally $900.

This year LG OLEDs will do 4k120 or samsung will do 4k120 + AI Upscaling to "8K" (not native, upscaled) for more money than the LG.

Honestly the burn-in might be worth it on my end since last year's LGs are now purchasable for 1150 euro and they were available for 1000 on black friday, samsung is targeting an insane 4500 euro for the 55inch 8K model. ( though to be frank that will likely become half that by end of year )


Overall, the potential 160 "upscaled" ppi seems alluring but unless samsung can also make a better offer than LG then it's probably a No-Go. And there is the small matter of QD-OLED coming out next year.
 

eclypse

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
3,267
This year LG OLEDs will do 4k120 or samsung will do 4k120 + AI Upscaling to "8K" (not native, upscaled) for more money than the LG.

Honestly the burn-in might be worth it on my end since last year's LGs are now purchasable for 1150 euro and they were available for 1000 on black friday, samsung is targeting an insane 4500 euro for the 55inch 8K model. ( though to be frank that will likely become half that by end of year )


Overall, the potential 160 "upscaled" ppi seems alluring but unless samsung can also make a better offer than LG then it's probably a No-Go. And there is the small matter of QD-OLED coming out next year.

Yeah sounds like a good time to hold off buying a new living room/home theater TV till the dust settles on the new tvs.
 

DrDoU

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
2,703
Gone from 27” to a 42 “ tv as a monitor and it’s in your face. Really got a back away. But,looks so good in hdr .
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,661
Sounds nice but what's it gona cost 3k? Cause the 27" is $1600. :/

Can grab a samsung 55" 4k screen that will do 1440 at 120hz. Smaller screens from the 8000 series wont do 1440 at 120hz so 55" is the minimum. That screen is on sale for $800 at bestbuy and prob Amazon currently.. normally $900.

Most likely not because it doesn't have a FALD backlight or G-Sync upping the cost. Still probably expensive.

I have no interest in TVs that can't do 4K high refresh rate and are way too large to fit my desktop plus have higher input lag. 43" is pretty much the max that is feasible for me without buying a much deeper desk.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,134
You are limiting what you can get at 43".
The Samsung UHD screens larger than 49" (ie not 49") can do 1440p @ 120Hz.

The only issue is having enough distance between you and the screen to be comfortable.
This gives a benefit, the further away the screen is, the easier on the eyes.
imo opinion: the larger the screen, the further away, the better.

60Hz is the only issue I have so any fast games I play on a 27" 144Hz. It will be great when affordable 40-43” ”faster” options are available. If ever
120Hz can be had on a big screen.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,661
You are limiting what you can get at 43".
The Samsung UHD screens larger than 49" (ie not 49") can do 1440p @ 120Hz.

That's why I am waiting for the ASUS XG438Q. It's 4K @ 120 Hz. See the link in OP.
 

eclypse

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
3,267
Hopefully that's a decent value. If it's 1200 or more it just won't make sense due to competing with the oled

Yeah I'm afraid that thing will be $2000+. Be like waiting many months for it to go on sale while many big 4k 120hz tvs hit.. but also super premium 5k price haha.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,661
Hopefully that's a decent value. If it's 1200 or more it just won't make sense due to competing with the oled

There are no HDMI 2.1 devices out yet, for GPUs as well. Likewise there seem to be no slightly smaller OLED TVs on the horizon, let alone ones that can do 4K @ 120 Hz. For me the ASUS looks like a great combination of features and I won't mind if it's on the expensive side even though I wish it's nowhere near as expensive as the 27" 4K 144 Hz screens.

In any case, not the point of the thread.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
17,215
There are no HDMI 2.1 devices out yet, for GPUs as well. Likewise there seem to be no slightly smaller OLED TVs on the horizon, let alone ones that can do 4K @ 120 Hz.

I can't find the article ATM but supposedly LG said that they had plans to release an OLED between 40-49" inches late this year. I really, really hope they do because all of their new sets will support 4K/120 with VRR and have even lower input lag than the previous sets. I currently run the 55" and it's larger than my ideal size but I can't go back to LCD. I've run 40" and 49" TVs before this and any new OLED in that range would be an insta-buy for me.
 

bulbrook

n00b
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
32
I have a 2015 48" samsung 4k. The colors are great for games but the PWM flicker hurts my eyes over time on the desktop. Also it is 60Hz. As a desktop it is a little too big, I have to drag windows lower into my field of view. 43" is just about perfect for 4K with a good sharp PPI and plenty of real estate but not too much. Remember these large screens kick a lot of brightness into your eyeballs, definitely takes some adjusting from 3' away. All day long it can lead to eye fatigue.

I have been doing a lot more spreadsheet office work lately so I am going to try the
LG UltraGear 34GK950F-B 34" Class IPS UltraWide QHD Curved 144Hz LED Gaming Monitor with AMD Radeon FreeSync 2, 3440x1440

This has no PWM, (flickering backlight), a high refresh rate for smoother mouse and gamepad experience, and freesync2 for screen tearing on games. It also has HDR to play with on though the benefits are debatable. The con is the much lower vertical pixel count. Will be more of a squatty screen. And IPS the contrast will be less. I am hoping the smaller size and no PWM helps my eye fatigue, worth a shot!
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,411
43" 4k is great at 1:1 pixel , 100% scale as long as the monitor is set back enough that you aren't tilting your head and neck up a lot to see the corners and sides. I keep 43" 4k VA with ~ 4200:1 contrast ratio set back on a big desk so the perceived ppi is pretty much the same as that of a 27" 1440p screen's ppi. I wouldn't use one at the same distance I use a 27" or even 32" 16:9 monitor though, and since I'm using for desktop/apps, media playback windows and streaming windows, 60hz is good. My gaming monitor is a 32" 1440p, 120hz to 165hz VA 3000:1 contrast with g-sync for now. If I end up with something bigger that has 120hz 4k and VRR.. like a 55" dell gaming OLED or a future 120hz 4k samsung TV I'll have to move my desk facing out from a wall or corner as an island, command center style facing a farther away large monitor.

In my experience, breaking away from the traditional "tucked away like a bookshelf against a wall" desk and room design is much better if you have the room to accomodate it. Taking over a corner and facing out from it works great vs direct light source pollution hitting monitor faces too as long as you keep all ights and open window lighting behind the backs of the monitors.
 

eclypse

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
3,267
4k 120hz would be great but ya know you'll need prob 2 2080tis to max that frame rate out in gaming right? Or 1080ti sli. And that's just for games that support sli.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,661
Remember these large screens kick a lot of brightness into your eyeballs, definitely takes some adjusting from 3' away. All day long it can lead to eye fatigue.

This is a good point. I run my PG278Q at a pretty low brightness at the moment and I expect I will do the same when I get the 43". Hopefully it has enough adjustment range.

I will miss ULMB support but can't have everything, especially since it hasn't been available on the 27" G-Sync displays either.
 

dvsman

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
3,624
Late 2017 / early 2018 I ran my Crossover 404K (40" 4k) as my main screen and it worked fine. Great for my work when I had to type up a paper or run some numbers in an excel spreadsheet (loved all the room especially the vertical). At the time, the problem came when playing games. It simply took too much horsepower to drive fast / consistently Hz at native res and running non-native just plain sucked. I can't remember if I was on a Titan X Maxwell or regular EVGA 1080 at the time.

I'm now running an Alienware 3418DW (3440x1440) main display (with a Dell 3415 60hz as a 2nd side monitor).

This is being driven by 2 Titan Xp (in SLI) or a Vega VII (swapping back and fourth just to test out).

If the new high VRR 4K monitors are as good as people say, I may have to revisit the issue when I put together my next rig.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
17,215
4k 120hz would be great but ya know you'll need prob 2 2080tis to max that frame rate out in gaming right? Or 1080ti sli. And that's just for games that support sli.

Yep, that's cool though, it's always been that way. You needed a top-tier setup to max out 120Hz monitors when they first came out, too. Fortunately I guess for me, my gaming time is a bit more limited these days so I hardly ever play games upon release because I'm constantly playing catch-up. :) Right now I'm trying to finish up Arkham Knight on my 1080 Ti...according to the Steam FPS counter I'm getting around 90FPS. I'm skipping the 2080 Ti so hopefully whatever comes after that will be enough for 4K/120 in the games that I'm playing.

Even for those who stay on top of the newest graphically intense games, the hardware on the GPU side will catch up within a couple of generations I'd imagine (talking one card being able to do it in most/every game).
 

eclypse

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
3,267
That's why it's another good reason to stick with a ultra wide 1440 120hz screen currently with a 1080ti. ;)

I'm also trying to skip.a.gpu gen first time in many years. Though I got another 1080ti "hybrid" card in another system just encase i need sli.

Hopefully the next gen cards have a good reason to fork out prob 2k for them when they release lol.

Feels a bit dumb to sell off 2x 1080ti cards just to cover the 2080ti I'd want.. prob still have to toss in cash on top. All for that little extra speed and no sense extra graphic crap I dont even care about.
 

skates15

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
112
I've had a 43" 4K monitor for the past 3 years running 60Hz and 444. It was $550 new with guaranteed no dead pixels off ebay. It was one of the Korean ones.

I have a small desk, so the monitor (not a TV) is placed just a little further back from what a smaller monitor would, but not much.

Since this is a monitor and not a TV, its slim and you wouldn't know it's 43" if you weren't aware of the specs.

I'll never go back to a smaller monitor, this one seems the right size.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,411
yeah there could be a die shrink by the time nvidia has hdmi 2.1 output but the graphics ceilings are really arbitrary to begin with and could easily be cranked up further. the challenge of devs is to whittle games down to "real time", they could increase complexity a lot very easily.
Even now some games have texture and lighting mods, higher built in settings that most people turn down/off (high animated shadows, hairworks, physx) and you can supersample or downsample 8k or 16k resolution, increase draw distance and animated objects viewable in distance, ground objects, fx, etc. RTX now too. Easy to run your frame rate into the ground.

Imo you don't get appreciable gains out of high hz monitors for sample and hold blur reductions and motion definition increases until around 100fps average (usually something like a 70 - 100 - 130 fps graph). That said, there are a lot of easier to render games that can get 100fps average at 4k now on a high end gpu, and there are older games that are a little easier to run too. 1440p is definitely the sweet spot for 100fpsHz + average gameplay on the most demanding games at near highest settings with a single high end gpu for now though. I'd recommend buying a resolution that matches your gpu budget if you want high hz gaming benefits on demanding games. Even then, you can get a ~ $250 TCL 43" 4k 60hz VA for desktop/apps and media playback on the side if you have the funds and keep a high hz 1440p or 1080p monitor dedicated more or less to gaming.at the same desk. Some games might allow you to run a 16:9 or 21:9 resolution letterboxed 1:1 on a very large monitor (like a 55")for more demanding games however, which could still result in a fairly large monitor space with a much higher framerate+hz range for those extremely demanding at 4k games.
 

eclypse

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
3,267
Yeah I was hoping I could run 21:9 on BF V on my new samsung 55" but didn't see the option in the game or elsewhere. :/ am running it at 1440 120hz.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,411
did you try windowed mode's resolutions? if it doesn't make it clunky that is. I read a post somwhere where it actually ran faster windowed for someone but I don't own that game.
 

eclypse

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
3,267
did you try windowed mode's resolutions? if it doesn't make it clunky that is. I read a post somwhere where it actually ran faster windowed for someone but I don't own that game.

I believe I did try windowed.. will mess around with it again later tonight.
 

eclypse

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
3,267
I'll try it later tonight but pretty much my wife just talked me out of the 55" and just stick with the aw ultra wide 34" for now.

Hate returning tvs.
 

Keller1

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
65
Remember these large screens kick a lot of brightness into your eyeballs, definitely takes some adjusting from 3' away. All day long it can lead to eye fatigue.

true. This is the other reason to go for oled or FALD.

The amount of brightness can get uncomfortable but having a dark theme work flow works wonders on extreme contrast displays. It will cut the bright spots down.
 

Kdawg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 12, 2017
Messages
1,116
you don't have to push it back. It's like having 21" monitors side by side.

portrait mode for browser is awesome.
 
Top