What's the best 40"-43" Display (Monitor or TV)?

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
456
So, I know that there are a ton of high end TVs available when you look at 55" and above. This includes ink-black OLEDs, as well as searing bright LCDs with tons of lighting zones, and high refresh options all around. But you tend not to see the same quality on smaller TVs (or bigger monitors). For some reasons, companies tend to assume that if you want a small TV, you don't want to spend a lot of money on it and don't really care about the quality.

So today I wanted to ask, from an HDR and gaming perspective, what are the best 43" displays, regardless of price (within reason, of course).
 

jadders

n00b
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
13
Be warned that it's unconfirmed if the XG43UQ is an RGB monitor. It's current model XG43Q is not RGB with people reporting that text is blurry on the screen.
 

Commander Shepard

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
4,145
I use the Samsung 43" Q60 4K TV. It's about the best 43" TV on the market right now. Doesn't have all the higher end features of Samsung's bigger QLEDs, but it has good picture quality and a decent price. I paid $700 for mine. Amazon currently has it listed for $648 shipped.
 

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
368
It seems unclear why Asus went with BGR for the XG438Q, and if this something they will rectify or not for the XG43UQ... if they do, that's a plus, but given it's still using basically the same panel (albeit just a bit brighter), I imagine it will still have the same inherent VA flaws that the XG438Q has. Marginally better overall with DSC perhaps, but basically a $1500 43" 4K TV with crappy HDR and Display Port... whoop! :meh:
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
456
It seems unclear why Asus went with BGR for the XG438Q, and if this something they will rectify or not for the XG43UQ... if they do, that's a plus, but given it's still using basically the same panel (albeit just a bit brighter), I imagine it will still have the same inherent VA flaws that the XG438Q has. Marginally better overall with DSC perhaps, but basically a $1500 43" 4K TV with crappy HDR and Display Port... whoop! :meh:
So the Q60 above will be a better buy, especially for the money? It's missing 120Hz, of course, but seems to be better and cheaper otherwise.
 

Porter_

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
7,978
I use the Samsung 43" Q60 4K TV. It's about the best 43" TV on the market right now. Doesn't have all the higher end features of Samsung's bigger QLEDs, but it has good picture quality and a decent price. I paid $700 for mine. Amazon currently has it listed for $648 shipped.
I’m extremely happy with the same tv, but you have to be ok with 60hz. I’m ok with 60hz even though I thought I never would be after using the asus ROG PG278Q for a couple years. 60hz is a drawback for sure, but livable at the moment.
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
456
I’m extremely happy with the same tv, but you have to be ok with 60hz. I’m ok with 60hz even though I thought I never would be after using the asus ROG PG278Q for a couple years. 60hz is a drawback for sure, but livable at the moment.
How does a 43" compare to a 27" one? I currently use a 27" screen and know that it's way too small, but 43" may be pushing it. I wouldn't want to move to it unless I knew how it's significant.
 

Porter_

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
7,978
How does a 43" compare to a 27" one? I currently use a 27" screen and know that it's way too small, but 43" may be pushing it. I wouldn't want to move to it unless I knew how it's significant.
It’s jarring at first and it’s not for everyone. You need to sit further away from the screen obviously. Use a website like http://www.displaywars.com/ to get an idea of scale. Not sure I’d ever go back to smaller screens (~27”) now.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,462

It seems like if you subtract about 1/6th of the monitor's diagonal size you get a rough estimate of a reasonable "nearest" viewing distance to work from. (rough "nearest" estimate, not necessarily "best" distance).

Monitor size divided by 6 , times 5 = viewing distance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15" = 12.5" (around 1')
27" = 22.5" (a bit under 2')
32" = 26.6" (a few inch past 2')
43" = 35.8" (about 3')
55" = 45.8" (3.8' - 4')
65" = 54.16" (4.5')
70" = 58.33" (4.86' - 5')


I butted a kideny shaped height adjustable desk up against the slim desk I have my 43" r4k monitors mounted on so that I could view them comfortably at 3' or so from screen surface to my eyeballs. I'm waiting on the 1000nit 43" 4k 120hz models to see how they are reviewed. While I think the ug438q is ok overall, I don't think it excelled in every facet like it should have so to me it's not worth the inflated price they are asking currently.
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
456
It seems like if you subtract about 1/6th of the monitor's diagonal size you get a rough estimate of a reasonable "nearest" viewing distance to work from. (rough "nearest" estimate, not necessarily "best" distance).

Monitor size divided by 6 , times 5 = viewing distance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15" = 12.5" (around 1')
27" = 22.5" (a bit under 2')
32" = 26.6" (a few inch past 2')
43" = 35.8" (about 3')
55" = 45.8" (3.8' - 4')
65" = 54.16" (4.5')
70" = 58.33" (4.86' - 5')


I butted a kideny shaped height adjustable desk up against the slim desk I have my 43" r4k monitors mounted on so that I could view them comfortably at 3' or so from screen surface to my eyeballs. I'm waiting on the 1000nit 43" 4k 120hz models to see how they are reviewed. While I think the ug438q is ok overall, I don't think it excelled in every facet like it should have so to me it's not worth the inflated price they are asking currently.
Just took a ruler to my 27" current display. My eyeballs are about 2 feet away from it. The furtherest back I could put a screen on this desk would be about 2.5 feet from my eyeballs. That's a bit too close according to your chart (which is supposed to be the closest, not necessarily ideal), and if I think about it critically instead of being triggered happy near that "place order" button, I think your chart is right. A 43" screen here would be too close. And my desk it built into the wall in a room I quite like. I wouldn't want to move setups for a huge screen.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,462
Well those are the near distances I've come to realize after having a lot of different screens and the formula seems pretty consistent with that. You'd probably be better off with a 32" 16:9 or 38" 21:10 at more normal desk distances in my opinion.

For reference, ordered by height.. (roughly, based on raw sizes):

----------------------------------------------------------------

22.5" diagonal 16:10 .. 19.1" w x 11.9" h (1920x1200 ~ 100.6 ppi) FW900 crt

27.0" diagonal 16:9 .... 23.5" w x 13.2" h (2560x1440 ~ 108.79 ppi)
34.0" diagonal 21:9 .... 31.4" w x 13.1" h (3440x1440 ~ 109.68 ppi)

37.5" diagonal 21:10 .. 34.6" w x 14.4" h (3840x1600 ~ 110.93 ppi)

31.5" diagonal 16:9 .... 27.5" w x 15.4" h (2560x1440 ~ 93.24 ppi) .. (3840x2160 ~ 137.68ppi)

40.0" diagonal 16:9 .... 34.9"w x 19.6" h (3840x2160 ~ 110.15ppi)

43.0" diagonal 16:9 .... 37.5" w x 21.1" h (3840x2160 ~ 102.46 ppi)

48.0" diagonal 16:9 .... 41.8"w x 23.5" h (3840x2160 ~ 91.79 ppi)

55.0" diagonal 16:9 .... 47.9"w x 27.0"h (3840x2160 ~ 80.11 ppi)

----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,455
Just took a ruler to my 27" current display. My eyeballs are about 2 feet away from it. The furtherest back I could put a screen on this desk would be about 2.5 feet from my eyeballs. That's a bit too close according to your chart (which is supposed to be the closest, not necessarily ideal), and if I think about it critically instead of being triggered happy near that "place order" button, I think your chart is right. A 43" screen here would be too close. And my desk it built into the wall in a room I quite like. I wouldn't want to move setups for a huge screen.
Ultrawides throw their own spanner in the works as in my experience a very wide but not so tall screen is perfectly fine but the taller it gets the more difficulties you have unless you push it away from you and use DPI scaling accordingly to keep it comfortable to view. For example my 49" super ultrawide is as wide as a 55" TV but due to its 5120x1440 resolution and height being no taller than a 27" 16:9 1440p display it's perfectly comfortable. Of course being curved helps too as the edges are brought towards you a bit. Personally I find working with several windows side by side better than working with windows in a grid.

43" 16:9 is about as big as I would go if the display can only be placed at about 2 feet distance and I would still want to push it back a bit. The larger TVs need the distance anyway due to their low PPI.
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
456
Personally I find working with several windows side by side better than working with windows in a grid.
Ultrawides probably aren’t for me because I don’t like working in a grid OR working side by side. I’d rather just have the application maximized.

Apart from that, I’m aware that the scale posted above doesn’t work for anything other than 16:9 screen. There is not a single ultrawide out there that is quite as tall as I’d want it to be. The height that I really like is around that of a 30” 16:10 display of times long past.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,455
Ultrawides probably aren’t for me because I don’t like working in a grid OR working side by side. I’d rather just have the application maximized.

Apart from that, I’m aware that the scale posted above doesn’t work for anything other than 16:9 screen. There is not a single ultrawide out there that is quite as tall as I’d want it to be. The height that I really like is around that of a 30” 16:10 display of times long past.
Then you want a 32" 16:9. http://www.displaywars.com/30-inch-16x10-vs-32-inch-16x9 or a 40" 21:9 which doesn't exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this

XcPNehVYlE4A3C

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
285
They may have been getting confused with 48", which is happening. There are not doing a 43"... not yet anyway. If the 48" sells really well, who knows, they might consider it.
ahhh must have been me that was confused :-P thx for the info

bummer. well one step at a time... its looking like going the tv route will be the only way to really upgrade monitors for the foreseeable future
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
456
They may have been getting confused with 48", which is happening. There are not doing a 43"... not yet anyway. If the 48" sells really well, who knows, they might consider it.
Maybe this is just to appease my hopes but, I have to ask: are we absolutely sure that LG doesn’t have a 43” version in the pipes for 2020? I know the roadmap didn’t have it present, but wasn’t that roadmap from several years ago? And 2020 was its end? If that’s the source of our info, isn’t it reasonable that things have changed since then? I really want to believe that we have no idea what we’re talking about and that anything could happen at CES next year, but I’m willing to bet that’s not true.
 

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
368
Maybe this is just to appease my hopes but, I have to ask: are we absolutely sure that LG doesn’t have a 43” version in the pipes for 2020? I know the roadmap didn’t have it present, but wasn’t that roadmap from several years ago? And 2020 was its end? If that’s the source of our info, isn’t it reasonable that things have changed since then? I really want to believe that we have no idea what we’re talking about and that anything could happen at CES next year, but I’m willing to bet that’s not true.
They have publication spoken about the 48", and it's been well covered by the technical press. It's very much real. No talk whatsoever of 43", so no, it won't be happening. Maybe one day, but not next year. They could announce something later this year, who knows, but we all know how slow these things move, so any announcement of a product won't see it on shelves for 2 years. If LG were manufacturing a 43" already, we'd know about it... they might be testing or doing R&D (that's a pure guess), but there is nothing in production.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this

Porter_

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
7,978
I use the Samsung 43" Q60 4K TV. It's about the best 43" TV on the market right now. Doesn't have all the higher end features of Samsung's bigger QLEDs, but it has good picture quality and a decent price. I paid $700 for mine. Amazon currently has it listed for $648 shipped.
I’m extremely happy with the same tv, but you have to be ok with 60hz. I’m ok with 60hz even though I thought I never would be after using the asus ROG PG278Q for a couple years. 60hz is a drawback for sure, but livable at the moment.
this is on sale right now for $599 at Amazon and Best Buy. pretty good deal in my book. i'm still really happy with this as a gaming display.
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
456
That 43" Acer needs to hurry up and come out already. It's not that amazing that they're taking months upon months to work on it. I just want to see if they manage to make it significantly better than the lower end Asus that's already out. If not, then the TV discussed above really IS the best screen of this size.
 

delita

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
1,582
That 43" Acer needs to hurry up and come out already. It's not that amazing that they're taking months upon months to work on it. I just want to see if they manage to make it significantly better than the lower end Asus that's already out. If not, then the TV discussed above really IS the best screen of this size.
Yeah. I tire of my Samsung 60hz. It's been a good TV, curved is nice, I just want them FRAMEZ. Especially with new cards around the corner in Q1 or so, can finally drive 60+ so I want the display capable. I can't go back from 43" now.
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
456
this is on sale right now for $599 at Amazon and Best Buy. pretty good deal in my book. i'm still really happy with this as a gaming display.
So, I’ve been taking a closer look at that Q60, and while it does look like an excellent display, I’ve noticed that it’s not curved. Seeing how close I’d be sitting to this thing, I feel like I’d really like a curve, especially if I’m giving up 120Hz (all the 120Hz ones are flat, afaik).

Is there a curved version of this same display? If not, is there perhaps a previous model from the not-too-distant past that’s curved?
 

Commander Shepard

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
4,145
So, I’ve been taking a closer look at that Q60, and while it does look like an excellent display, I’ve noticed that it’s not curved. Seeing how close I’d be sitting to this thing, I feel like I’d really like a curve, especially if I’m giving up 120Hz (all the 120Hz ones are flat, afaik).

Is there a curved version of this same display? If not, is there perhaps a previous model from the not-too-distant past that’s curved?
Curved TVs were popular a few years ago, but they've kinda fallen out of favor. The remaining curved TVs are 48" and bigger. You could find a late model Samsung curved on Amazon or Best Buy.
 

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
456
Curved TVs were popular a few years ago, but they've kinda fallen out of favor. The remaining curved TVs are 48" and bigger. You could find a late model Samsung curved on Amazon or Best Buy.
Man… that’s depressing to say the least. With a size that huge, a curve really makes a difference. I’ve said in the past that it shouldn’t be a deal-breaker, but for someone who’s going to sit as close to it as me, it may very well be.

Does anyone here know the most recent curved models at a 43” (or even better: 40”) size?
 

delita

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
1,582
Man… that’s depressing to say the least. With a size that huge, a curve really makes a difference. I’ve said in the past that it shouldn’t be a deal-breaker, but for someone who’s going to sit as close to it as me, it may very well be.

Does anyone here know the most recent curved models at a 43” (or even better: 40”) size?
Prolly the one I have which is the 7000 series samsung. After that the Q series 43 went back to non-curved.

They really are awesome as monitors. As TV's they were a flop, it really doesn't do it justice unless you are close to it.

That being said, I haven't had a clear upgrade path since. It's a shame that 2 years later they can't make a 4K G Sync capable monitor thats bigger than 27" and worth a shit.
 

chimera991

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
1,109
I think the 43" king right now is the Acer CG437K. 4k, 144hz, hdr1000, 1ms, freesync.
Only problem is it doesnt have gsync.
 

delita

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
1,582
Yeah tbh it seems like HDMI 2.1 on next gen cards + Nvidia certified TV's are going to be the way to go for 4K 120hz+. Monitors have been a crapshoot FOREVER through ASUS/Acer and the like and from the looks of the 43's coming out they continue to suffer from all kinds of issues. My only hope is the TV manufacturers bring back more 43" panels so we aren't all limited to playing on 55" TV's because it's wayyyy too big for me.
 

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
270
Yeah tbh it seems like HDMI 2.1 on next gen cards + Nvidia certified TV's are going to be the way to go for 4K 120hz+. Monitors have been a crapshoot FOREVER through ASUS/Acer and the like and from the looks of the 43's coming out they continue to suffer from all kinds of issues. My only hope is the TV manufacturers bring back more 43" panels so we aren't all limited to playing on 55" TV's because it's wayyyy too big for me.
I'm interested to see how the 48" OLEDs will look. Works out to around 92 PPI. Certainly better than 55" in terms of PQ, and requires less distance for optimal viewing.

If the goal is 4K 120Hz, then the clear winner is HDMI, and it's largely due to LG's aggressive pricing in the TV market. With the way the TV and monitor markets are converging, I have a hard time seeing PC users paying >$1500 just for the privilege of using DisplayPort once HDMI 2.1 arrives on GPU cards. Asus, Acer, Dell, etc are in for a rude awakening if they think consumers are going to tolerate exorbitant prices (like right now) when people can just pick up an OLED TV with HDMI 2.1 for much less.

At that point, all it will really come down to are people's personal preferences as to whether or not prices beyond $1500 are justified:

"Can my office/desk accommodate a 40" range 4K TV, or am I better off with a 32" range 4K monitor?"
"Do I need 1000 peak nit HDR from an LCD monitor, or is 400-600 peak nit HDR enough with an OLED TV?"
"Am I worried about burn-in with OLED, or can I do a few menial things on the desktop to negate the concern?"
 
Top