Question Game Immersiveness for non competetive gaming : UWQHD vs 1080p 144Hz Screens

[Mezoxin]

I currently own a system based on an i7 9700K and an RTX 2070 , and playing games that are mostly RPG and casual FPS on my old 27 inch Samsung S27B970D , I would like to hear your thoughts on which is more immersive and adds to your gaming experience , an ultra wide QHD screen offering a maximum of 60FPS , or the fluidity of 100 FPS and more on a high refresh rate screen , as my system couldnt handle both options at the same time. and where i live there is no where to demo these two options

 

[cryoburner]

Why does the option have be a standard refresh rate ultra-wide QHD vs high-refresh rate 1080p? What about a 2560x1440 high refresh rate display? If you have had a 1440p screen for a long time, I can't imagine you are going to want to down-grade to 1080p, even if its at a high refresh rate, especially if you play a lot of slower-paced games. Your existing screen appears to have been a pretty high-end model, albeit from a number of years ago. If price isn't a major concern, you might as well go with a screen that has the same or higher resolution as what you have, along with a high refresh rate.

And of course, your system doesn't need to push 100+fps in all games. Using adaptive sync found on most recent high refresh-rate screens, the monitor should match its refresh rate to whatever your frame rate is, to make motion smoother and avoid screen tearing. An RTX 2070 will not only support adaptive sync on screens with a G-Sync module, but also most FreeSync panels now, some of which have been certified as "G-Sync Compatible", but most others should support the feature without issue as well, provide it's manually enabled in the settings.

I would say that a 2070 should definitely offer a decent amount of performance for a 1440p high-refresh rate screen with adaptive sync. What kind of frame rates are you seeing in your games now? If you are getting substantially more than 60fps in any titles at 1440p, which I suspect you are, then a high-refresh rate screen at that resolution would provide smoother motion in those games. You shouldn't need to drop down to 1080p for that. And you would probably see benefit in some games even at 1440 ultrawide, though you won't be pushing 100+fps in as many titles.

 

[King_V]

I will say this, wholly my own opinion:

I was a curmudgeon about this. I thought ultra-wide was a gimmick, that "immersiveness" was just a buzz-word used to sell it, and that curved screens even more of a gimmick.

I will still stand by the thought that curved screens, in standard 16:9 widescreen, are a gimmick.

Ultra-wide, though, I've gone from a skeptic to a true believer. And, once you get to the 34-inch level of ultra-wide, a curve helps.

The extra field-of-view, even in non-first-person games, is something you don't think you want or need until you have it. Then you wonder how you lived without it. For me, this enhances the enjoyment of games.

My own monitor is 3840x1600, FreeSync 48-75 Hz, 38-inch. I really wanted that much horizontal space for work purposes, to emulate the dual 1920x1080 monitors that I have in the office. That said, I probably could've lived quite easily with 3440x1440, which would've been akin to dual 1720 width, and then gaming would be a bit easier on the video card. For work, in hindsight, I could've easily lived with a 10% loss of horizontal resolution.

My son's is a 2560x1080, and it has a FreeSync range of 50-144, 34-inch, though LFC effectively makes it 25-144. His video card can't really manage high refresh rates, and my son likes the details turned up. The adaptive refresh that FreeSync gives, though, keeps things smooth.

Some would suggest that 2560x1080 is too low of a resolution for a 34-inch screen. I'd disagree, but my eyesight's not the best. My son, however, having very sharp vision and being young, concurs with me. Plus, if you ever decide to go for a faster refresh rate, it will take a less expensive video card to do that at 2560x1080 than it would on the standard 16:9 resolution of 2560x1440, not to mention any higher resolutions.


That all said, everyone's eyes are different. What I might think looks great, you might agree with, or you might disagree with. Both of the monitors I mentioned were reviewed at Tom's Hardware, and that was part of the motivation to get the particular models that I did. Despite that, before getting the first one (the 38" Acer), I did go to a local MicroCenter to see what ultra-wide felt like, having two windows on the desktop side-by side, etc. though I did not get to game. They didn't have the specific monitor I wanted on display, but seeing other large (34-35 inch) monitors and trying them out convinced me. They did have my monitor in stock, though, so I drove home with it that day.

If it is at all possible, see it in person, whether at a store, or a friend who owns one, etc. Your eyes are the best judge, though reviews are certainly helpful.

 

[cryoburner]

Plus, if you ever decide to go for a faster refresh rate, it will take a less expensive video card to do that at 2560x1080 than it would on the standard 16:9 resolution of 2560x1440, not to mention any higher resolutions.

Another thing to consider though, is that running games letterboxed at 2560x1080 on a 1440p screen is possible, with black bars at the top and bottom, if one is concerned about getting higher frame rates. As long as the screen is large enough, the viewable area should still be of reasonable size. Even letterboxed, a 31.5" to 32" 1440p screen will offer approximately the same area as a 30" ultrawide, while having notably more vertical space for desktop use.

And as was mentioned, they already apparently have a 1440p screen, and an RTX 2070, a card that should handle 1440p in current games quite well. I just can't see moving to a lower resolution than what they have as being a worthwhile option, especially if they are not focused on getting the highest-possible frame rates for competitive gaming.

Out of the two options inquired about, a 3440x1440 standard refresh display would likely be a better fit than a 1080p high-refresh display for those kinds of games, but aside from potentially increased cost, there's little reason not to go for high-refresh on a 3440x1440 ultrawide or 2560x1440 display. Certainly, some games are not going to see high enough frame rates to take full advantage of that, but others will, and it's very possible that the same screen will be in use following a graphics card upgrade some years down the line.

 

[Mezoxin]

I am more intrigued by UWQHD as for some reason i dont think i will notice the increased fluidity of higher refresh rate screen , failed to notice that on my ipad pro 3rd gen or the one plus 7 pro , and if i do it will be a short lived experience for gaming puposes requiring me to frequentley update my graphics card
My card could sustain an average of 70-80 FPS for new games such as outer worlds with ultra settings and 2560x1440p res , so the reason i opted out for an 1080p is if i ever wanted to notice the fluidity of 100fps or more on a 144Hz screen withought comprising graphics quality , i should switch for 1080p

Where I live i have two options for UWQHD either the Samsung CF791 for 900 USD or the ASUS ROG Strix XG35VQ for 1100 USD , Which would you reccomend ?

 

[cryoburner]

Both of those are actually high refresh-rate screens, or I guess you could say "above-average" refresh rate at 100Hz, though you probably won't be pushing 100 fps in most newer games at that resolution. It's good to have the option there for less demanding games though. They both have FreeSync too, which you should be able to enable manually in the settings and as "G-Sync" in the Nvidia control panel, even if they are not certified by Nvidia as "G-Sync Compatible". Both are curved VA panels, with the Samsung having a slightly sharper curve. The Asus has more stand adjustments, whereas the Samsung only allows tilt to be adjusted. At least in the US, the Asus appears to offer a better warranty (3-years vs 1-year) though you might want to check if that differs in your region. The Asus should also be slightly larger (35" vs 34" diagonal, assuming rounding isn't involved). Beyond that, one would need to check professional reviews for more details comparing the two.