Best Gaming moniter I am looking to invest in a curved moniter that is at least 1440p

[Hunter Flax]

I have 2 1920-1080 monitors but I am looking to invest in a 3rd curved gaming monitor. I have a 1080ti so 4k is an option. I would like just some good recomendations.

 

[ArchitSahu]

What size?
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/d9WfrH/asus-rog-swift-pg27vq-270-2560x1440-165hz-monitor-pg27vq

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/yRdFf7/samsung-lc32hg70qqnxza-490-3840x1080-144hz-monitor-lc32hg70qqnxza

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/z6YWGX/samsung-c27hg70-269-2560x1440-144hz-monitor-lc27hg70qqnxza

All are 27" roughly, 1 ms and atleast 144Hz.

 

[fredfinks]

32" 16:9 1440p. Largest 16:9 screen. Next size up is 40" and thats too big.

http://www.displaywars.com/32-inch-16x9-vs-32-inch-21x9


Dont recommend curved or 21:9. Curved distorts picture, its silly unless used on a MASSIVE screen.
16:9 much more practical for other use such as web, video & is more compatble with gaming. Look at screen size comparison in that link.
Way more screen area. only 1 inch less with 2.35:1 content. a 21:9 screen is only a 25" screen if you ever have to display 16:9 content on it.

theres only 1 32" 16:9 gsync monitor out there (acer or asus) but quality control isnt the best and its very pricey. ~$1K

recommend an s32d850t samsung. quality stuff. awesome paired with the 1080ti. 4K and 144hz , forget about it.

 

[diellur]

Are you trying to game on all three in a custom widescreen format or are you only planning on using the new monitor to game on?

If only the one, I would consider going ultrawide as a 1080Ti would be perfect for 34" 1440p gaming. There are several options, depending upon whether you want GSync or not, with price ranges from circa £500-600 to £1k. At the GSync end, Acer have a 34" Predator model and Asus have the PG348Q with both being generally seen as the best options currently available. It should be noted that the latter is due to be superseded at some point this year (IIRC) by a 35" ultrawide model which includes HDR, but is rumoured to be in the £1.5k region.

If you're wanting to use all three, in a non-Nvidia Surround arrangement, it is possible but tricky to set up. I'll not cause eyes to glaze over by going into it now, but can do if you like.

 

[fredfinks]

32 16:9 still has more screen area than a 34" 21:9 . the samsung is only $380 on amazon at moment.

21:9 lacks vertical height and sucks for normal content.

dont forget asus & acers p*ss poor backlight bleed and colour uniformity.

 

[diellur]

Dont recommend curved or 21:9. Curved distorts picture, its silly unless used on a MASSIVE screen.

I agree for something like a TV, but for a gaming monitor it works well. The curve helps fill peripheral vision, which is great for gaming immersion.

16:9 much more practical for other use such as web, video & is more compatble with gaming. Look at screen size comparison in that link. Way more screen area. only 1 inch less with 2.35:1 content.

Depends upon how you use it; an ultrawide is like having two smaller screens side-by-side which helps a lot with productivity. And also, screen area is a bad metric to use. For a gaming monitor, we should be looking at pixel density. On one hand, it requires more power, but on the other hand if it is high enough you can mostly disregard settings like anti-aliasing. Having a larger screen area with a lower resolution three feet from your nose means any jaggies will be more noticeable.

21:9 lacks vertical height and sucks for normal content.

A 34" monitor has the same vertical height as a 1440p 2560*1440 monitor. The only thing it lacks height in comparison to is 4K, but ultrawide is kinder on system specs. As for normal content, that's subjective and down to user preference.

dont forget asus & acers p*ss poor backlight bleed and colour uniformity.

There are plenty of pics out there showing backlight bleed on ultrawides, but these a) generally look worse on Imgur etc due to the exposure of the picture and b) don't impact normal usage at all. I see the bleed if my screen is on but blank. I've never noticed it during use, including space sims (i.e. when you'd most likely expect to see it, with a black background).

 

[fredfinks]

16:9 content on a 34" 21:9 is only 27". Wouldnt you say that 16:9 content is common?

Its over 2.5 inches more in height than the 34". 79.66cm × 33.35cm = 2656.48cm² vs 70.84cm × 39.85cm = 2822.93cm² for 16:9

Agree its got more DPI, thats what going for it but its also a downside regarding scaling. 16:9 32" has same DPI as a 24" 1080p monitor. everything works correctly at 100% scaling. I had to up the scaling because things too small, even windows and steam havent got their scaling sorted yet.
The next step will be 4k for dpi but we arent there yet for single GPUs to run it fluently.
With a fast card like the 1080ti it can run max AA fine.

When you see a nice monitor shortly after an ok one the difference becomes clear.

 

[fredfinks]

 

[diellur]

Ah, I was comparing a 27" 1440p to a 34" 1440p. Not the 32". The disadvantage of the 32" screen, assuming it is 2560x1440, is the pixel density is lower which may be noticeable at that screen size. Which means you need more GPU processing for things like AA; even a 1080Ti will notice that, and as time moves on it'll notice it more.

Whether you like ultrawide or not is subjective; some like it, some don't. I've not had any scaling issues on mine; I run it at 100% and it's fine. For me, it's the best screen I've used in terms of quality, immersion and productivity.

 

[fredfinks]

Regarding scaling, prob arises if you have to increase it as font, icons can be too small. I have to on higher DPI monitors.
The 'default' scaling the programmers have made for is 24" at 1080p. When increased scaling is used certain apps, microsoft windows texts, steam text etc is fuzzy and/or displayed incorrectly. This was big learning curve for people who moved to 4k a while ago becuase its was abysmal. Web browsing out of whack.
Things have improved but still not fixed. (you stay at 100% scaling because you cope with the decreased size at 109 dpi, many others cant)

This is what i mean about the benefit of 32" @ 1440p. its the same DPI as 24" @ 1080p. Perfect scaling, text/icon & application size at default.

* Pixel density is the same, if you didnt notice it on a 24", you wont notice it if it same DPI was 10ft across. The prob youre talking about only applies if you DONT increase the resolution as you increase size. (which would lower the DPI)

The main thing from all this though is that OP gets a large monitor!!! You know the best aspect ratio? 2:1. if only such displays existed. Its right in the middle of 21:9 and 16:9, and directors have tried to push it for many years. In movie land its called 'Universium'. Its the perfect compromise. Even the resolution numbers are aesthetic. 4k is not random number like 3840x2160. 4k should be 4000x2000.

 

[fredfinks]

 

[diellur]

The main thing from all this though is that OP gets a large monitor!!!

Agreed; in this scenario size does matter. The best advice is to read as many reviews as you can, and if possible get to a PC store and try out different monitor sizes.