Trying To Decide Best Value 4K Monitor 30-34in - $1200.00 or Less - Your Expertise Appreciated

SlapShot

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
167
I am buying my first 4k monitor and need a good one. It will be used two thirds of the time for surfing the internet, researching, and an occasional youtube video, and one third of the time for 4k gaming, most notably Diablo 4 when it arrives on Jine 1. It will normally never be used to watch movies. My budget is a max of $1200.00, though lower is better, assuming the display is of high quality and performance. 30-34 inch is preferable, but if I cannot get a top display above 28-30 in, I could probably live with that if I had to.

Based on some extremely positive reviews, my leading choice was the Alienware AW3423DWF. However, that monitor hasn't made any recent best 4K monitors lists, even in its price range. All of which leaves me confused.

The monitor is for a new pc that I am building around an AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and an AMD 6950 XT GPU. High level 4k gaming is very important. But surfing, and research on the PC are more often the use.

I don't have a great deal of screen technology elements for pc monitors, so I need some guidance. Any clarifications, recommendations and assistance would be immensely appreciated.
 
That Alienware is not 4k, it's just 1440p ultrawide. The Acer X32FP is on sale now for $1100 down from $1500. 32" 4K 160Hz IPS with 576 local dimming zones, it's a bit of a mess to setup and get working properly with HDR but once you have it all working it looks great. I personally would not buy a monitor that does not have FALD.
 
That Alienware is not 4k, it's just 1440p ultrawide. The Acer X32FP is on sale now for $1100 down from $1500. 32" 4K 160Hz IPS with 576 local dimming zones, it's a bit of a mess to setup and get working properly with HDR but once you have it all working it looks great. I personally would not buy a monitor that does not have FALD.
Thanks for clarifying that the Alienware is not 4k. It was listed as 4k in a review, and I assumed that was correct. Clearly I can forget that review. As far as the Acer, I appreciate the suggestion, but, while they make good budget gear, they are not generally a company I want to spend $1000.00 or more with.
 
The Samsung Neo G832in seems to be very highly rated. It's $150.00 above my budget. Wondering if I should eat ramen noodles exclusively for a while and go in that direction?

Toms Hardware just rated this as their top pick, and it's only $799.99, seems too good to believe?

Dell G3223Q 32-inch 4K Gaming Monitor​

 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Yes, the likely lack of any warranty support in a product nearly costing $1000.00 would be an issue for me.

It's not that it lacks any warranty support, it's just that nobody knows what to expect when it comes to actually fullfilling a warranty, maybe it could be great or maybe it could be terrible. Anyways if you aren't interested in InnoCN or Acer then really your sole option left for any kind of decent 4K HDR experience is Samsung but their Neo G7/G8 has been plagued with a bunch of QC and firmware issues that I wouldn't touch their monitors with a 10ft pole. Being a big named brand really means nothing as Samsung has managed to let their monitors ship with baffling problems that should've been caught during the whole production phase.
 
The Samsung Neo G832in seems to be very highly rated. It's $150.00 above my budget. Wondering if I should eat ramen noodles exclusively for a while and go in that direction?

Toms Hardware just rated this as their top pick, and it's only $799.99, seems too good to believe?

Dell G3223Q 32-inch 4K Gaming Monitor​

I just got the Dell and am really liking it so far.
 
It's not that it lacks any warranty support, it's just that nobody knows what to expect when it comes to actually fullfilling a warranty, maybe it could be great or maybe it could be terrible. Anyways if you aren't interested in InnoCN or Acer then really your sole option left for any kind of decent 4K HDR experience is Samsung but their Neo G7/G8 has been plagued with a bunch of QC and firmware issues that I wouldn't touch their monitors with a 10ft pole. Being a big named brand really means nothing as Samsung has managed to let their monitors ship with baffling problems that should've been caught during the whole production phase.
I have heard about the Samsung G7-G8 firmware issues, but quite some time ago. You mean that they STILL havent gotten those addressed?
 
Last edited:
I have heard about the Samsung G7-G8 firmware issues, but quite some time ago. You mean that they STILL havent gotten those addressed?
Nope.

I think you should have swapped your gpu and monitor budgets though and gotten an RTX 4080 + gigabyte m32u ($650ish on sale) monitor instead of the last gen 6950xt, though. Would have been a much better 4k experience.
 
Nope.

I think you should have swapped your gpu and monitor budgets though and gotten an RTX 4080 + gigabyte m32u monitor instead of the last gen 6950xt, though. Would have been a much better 4k experience.
Despite the fact that I've probably purchased forty of their cards for my own, and other's builds, over the years, these days, I won't pay for nVidia's current and previous generation overpriced, underperforming cards. Okay, the 4090 doesn't underperform, but the pricing is insane. I've been building pc's for over twenty years and anyone who willingly pays $1k or more for a GPU has lost their mind, unless money is of no consequence. There have been many articles and reviews of late showing that AMD GPU's are the best choice in every price range at $1k and under. You are correct that the 4080 will significantly outperform the 6950 XT in 4k, but for a good card, it would literally cost me DOUBLE what a top of the line 6950 XT did. Ane the increase in performance doesn't come close to justifying that. There are good reasons why EVGA has now dropped making nVidia based products, and more companies to come. Overall, the current GPU situation is ridiculous in terms of cost to performance.
 
Not really, no. Not in light of your last post.
I'm sorry, with all due respect, there are not many people left who follow your blind recommendations for nVidia anymore. As PC Gamer noted, Entire companies have walked away from them. And, as PC Gamer recently noted, "

What has Nvidia ever truly done for PC gaming?" Niff said.​


And, after all, this discussion was about monitors.
 
I'm sorry, with all due respect, there are not many people left who follow your blind recommendations for nVidia anymore. As PC Gamer noted, Entire companies have walked away from them. And, as PC Gamer recently noted, "

What has Nvidia ever truly done for PC gaming?" Niff said.​


And, after all, this discussion was about monitors.
:ROFLMAO: to all of your post except to note once again you are prioritizing the wrong things for great 4k gaming.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I have heard about the Samsung G7-G8 firmware issues, but quite some time ago. You mean that they STILL havent gotten those addressed?
Doubt they ever will, and the other elefant in the room with those monitors is the aggressive curve, even worse it is curved in the middle and flat on the sides, not a natural curve at all.

Dell G3223Q 32-inch 4K Gaming Monitor - coworker had flickering issue with this in some games (I think with an nvidia card, might be worth a shot with Radeon), though I trust dell more to firmware fix it if it's possible.​

Gigabyte m32u is another good pick, uniformity issues seem more frequent though from reports than with other manufacturers, but you have this with any brand for some degree.
 
Back
Top