Can't decide, 32" 2560x1440 or 34" 2560x1080

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
O

Ollie147

Honorable
May 2, 2013
86
0
10,640
Hi everyone,

I'm looking to upgrade my monitor from a 24" Samsung T24C300 to something a bit bigger. Recently got into driving games and most of the other games I play would benefit from a larger FOV (Elite etc).

I have a budget of no more than £350 and currently run a 4690k and GTX970. I use a wireless gaming chair and sit about 2-3ft away from the screen. Monitors I've cast my eye over are the HP Envy 32 (2560x1440) and a LG 34um67 (2560x1080), both top of my budget. Reading reviews I worry about the input lag/response time on the HP and the poor resolution on the LG for its size. I looked at the 29" super wide-screen monitors but although wider than my 24", they seem to lose a bit vertically. Plus they are only a touch cheaper.

I looked at a triple monitor set up but limited space would mean even 3x23" screens would be a tight fit and I don't want to lose anything vertically. Also the bezels would bug me.

Can anyone advise me on which would suit me better? Or other monitor options? Never owned a 1440 monitor so I've got no comparisons to make and I've not got anywhere local to physically look at monitors to see what's best. Also if I went for the LG or any other 34" 2560x1080, would nvidias DSR help improve things on screen?

Any advice would be great.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
The 2560x1440 is in the 16:9 aspect ratio, which a lot of games still work with as their standard. The 2560x1080 on the other hand is in the 21:9 aspect ratio. This is the format moviemakers shoot their films in. Which means no black bars anywhere. So the question you have to ask youtself: Am I going to be watching more movies than games. And will I be happy during cutscenes in games (regular game play supports 21:9) having black bara on the sides?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I hardly watch any movies on my PC. Most, if not all the games I currently play have a 2560x1080 preset or at least can be made to display 2560x1080 by changing .ini files, which I don't mind doing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A Lot of cut scenes are rendered in 16:9 only. Obviously future game developers are going to include 21:9 as well. But super wide or also known as cinescope is not yet fully supported during cut scenes, which mat break immersion. Regarding pixel density... Well at 3 feet you Will definetely notice the difference between a 1440 and 1080 display, no doubt abot that. Worst case scenario you wont exactly notice the pixels, which a lot of people get wrong. Its the pixel structure you see when youre tio close to the screen. Sharpness is directly related to viewing distance... But resolution is not as important as color sand contrast. If you want an ultra wide, then get that. You wont be disspointed!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks. Really torn now though lol. I've found I can get the Envy 32 for £314 delivered from HP as they have a deal on and the LG 34um67 is £351 delivered but ex-display. Obviously the less I pay the better. Would the LG 34" 2560x1080 be worth ~£40 more than the HP 32" 2560x1440? The HP has 7ms GTG and the reviews I have found have been pretty good.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree with Suzuki, definitely get the 34UM67 over the envy. Last years VA panels aren't the best performers, and the envy has a measured input lag of 29ms (approaching visible lag). That said, pixel density of the 34UM67 is going to be very low, and pixels will be very visible.

Here the price of the 34UM95 has come down to $800 USD (513 GBP?) with a resolution of 3440x1440. It's a pretty stunning panel. The upcoming 3440x1440 75Hz panels are sure to drive down the price of these older 60Hz models. Maybe consider saving up the extra cash for something similar.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Would I not need another gtx970 or something like a gtx980ti to run 3440x1440 at decent FPS? I've not even looked beyond 2560x1440 as I think my card would struggle. Maybe I'll skip the Envy then, guess that explains the price. I'm just concerned that the 34um67 I found is ex display, seeing that the 34um57 can be had for £10 more new. Out of interest, would a 27" 2560x1440 be much of an improvement in size? Or a 29" 2560x1080?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You may find the GTX 970 lacking in some of the most demanding games (GTA V, Crysis 3, Metro), but all others will run fine and at pretty high FPS. Yes 3" does make a difference but the biggest advantage you will have at that res/size would be the options for 144Hz and G-Sync. If you haven't had a chance to see games at 1440p 144Hz G-Sync, you will be blown away by how smooth and responsive games are.

I'd say if you really want a large screen, then obviously something smaller won't cut it. But if you are looking at larger format displays in hopes of transforming your gameplay experience, I would seriously look at 144Hz G-SYNC as it has really made me in the value of synchronized high refresh rates.

If you have an PC store nearby or even a modest drive/train ride away, I'd advise you to go take a look at any monitor you are interested in. Sometimes it is best to see the panel in person. Look at the Acer XB270HU and Asus ROG Swift as potential 144Hz G-Sync panels. Acer XG270HU is 144Hz Freesync, but fits perfectly into your price range at $500 USD (320 GBP).

Hope this helps! Check out some reviews on TFTCentral of panels you are interested in too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks for the advice. At the moment g-sync monitors seem well out of my price range. I'm not a big FPS player so immersion I guess is top of my requirements, hence the 34". My only PC stores within any distance are ones that only have bottom-end monitors on display and the better ones you have to pay for upfront and get them delivered to the store the next day. I've seen a LG 34um57 for £330 new and delivered and wondered if anyone knew what the difference is between this and the 34um67? I can see it has a slightly reduced brightness and 60hz instead of 75hz refresh but there are no reviews I can find anywhere.

Also does anyone know if nvidias DSR tech would improve things a great deal on a 21:9 2560x1080? I've tried it on my 24" 1080p and struggled to see a difference.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You only want to buy an expensive monitor if your system can take full advantage of it. It's not against the law to ignore that, but you will lose money. If that's how you want to look at it.

The GTX 970 is a fantastic card, when people are talking about performance of a high performance GPU. They also include the eye candy effects such as anti-aliasing, and even DSR. This gets reflected onto benchmarks. The result is inaccurate performance charts, and blurs the line between a strong and weak GPU. This is bad for everyone, especially those buying the cards.

Regarding your experiences with DSR. Viewing distance is key. Pixels work the same way as our eyes, but simplified. You can't see detail on your skin unless you move closer. For pixels, tho also means that a 4k can show the same amount of detail as soon as you reach the retina viewing distance. The same even when compared to a 1080.

My best advice -- if you think a monitor looks great aesthetically, then buy it. In the long run you will enjoy it alot more even if it's lacking PC elitist features.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Not sure why people complaining about cut sceans.. Who cares.. But I own 2x Fury's. I own 2x4k a 2560x1440 and just bought the 34um67. I put 2 x 1080 27's on the side and run all together. All other monitors are kicking in corner collecting dust with a oculus dk2 if answeres your question. even games at 7680x1440 with three 16:9 displays. But the 21:9 in center is awesome. Only thing is if play Iracing. The bezel correction no longer works cuz adjusts it at the 16:9 ratio. Other then that. Fucking love it.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom