Opinions on upgrading from 1080p

[Arzhur]

I am planning on upgrading my current monitor, a Samsung PX2370. I use the screen for both gaming and streaming, and will want to do the same with the new one. I play a lot of EUIV, but also RPGs such as The Witcher 3, Kingdom Come Deliverance and Assassin's Creed Origins. I would be grateful for any input that you have.

The two most important improvements that I want are screen size and resolution, with a minimum of 27" and 1440p. I also don't like buying new hardware very often, so would like to future proof this purchase (my old screen is about 7 years old now).

I currently have a 2500k and 6950 (yes, very old) in my 2011 desktop. However, I'm planning on buying one of the new nVIDIA GPUs when they are released (which I assume will be in the next few months). I have overclocked the 2500k to 4.2GHz, but should be able to do more as I have a Nocuta NH-D15 cooler (I know that it is chip dependant thoguh). In the meantime my laptop has a 7700HQ and GTX 1060 6GB.

I live in Ireland and prefer to use amazon.co.uk. Ireland doesn't have any great shops and Amazon have an excellent return policy (they refunded my two year old gaming laptop because some of the keys weren't working correctly anymore).

For now I am leaning a bit more towards 4K for several reasons.
i) I assume that 4K is more future proof than 1440p.
ii) Netflix doesn't support 1440p, which would mean downscaling a 1440p screen to 1080p, which isn't meant to be great.
iii) A 4K screen should downscale much better to 1080p, due to an integer factor.
iv) I'm not planning on not upgrading my CPU if possible. The main argument for 1440p is that you can get high refresh screens that are still somewhat affordable. However, this higher fps would require a better CPU. In 4K the relative load on the CPU should much lower as I won't be trying to get very high fps.

The two main displays that I have been looking at are the LG 27UD68P (£400) and the Acer XB271HK (£500). The LG is cheaper and supports HDCP 2.2 (a requirement for 4K Netflix), but doesn't have G-sync and some dark room issues. Apparently even though the Acer doesn't support HDCP 2.2, I could get a converter (£50). This would make it even more expensive and limit me to 30Hz though. The 30Hz while streaming should be a problem though.

Any opinions or suggestions are welcome. In my situation, am I making the best decision in picking 4K, or are my assumptions inaccurate? Would G-sync and possibly? the better display quality of the Acer be worth the increased price in your opinion? And yes, I do know that the UI in EUIV does not support 4K, so I would have to downscale the resolution to make it playable.

 

[King_V]

To throw another wrench in the works, for gaming, you might consider an ultra-wide screen.

I was one of those people who insisted that curved, ultra-wide aspect ratios of 21:9 were just a gimmick. Hype, marketing, etc. especially when people threw around the word "immersion."

At least, that's what I USED to say. Now, I swear by ultrawide. I would've probably opted for a large 2560x1080 screen, but, because I also use this monitor for work, and at work I have a pair of 1920x1080, I went looking for something that had a 3840 horizontal resolution.

So, I have a 3840x1600 Acer Ultrawide 38". The increased field of view, larger screen, etc, really did live up to the hype for me.

My son's got a 34" LG 2560x1080 - some would say that resolution is too low for that size of a screen, but both my son I agree with the review on that model here, you won't notice the low-for-screen-size resolution.

HOWEVER - the bigger monitors tend to be more expensive, and, for a given size, ultrawides are more expensive than their regular 16:9 counterparts. To wit, my 38" 3840x1600 costs notably more than a similarly sized 3840x2160 would.

Also, I had to later upgrade my video card, as my old R9 285, while handling my old 1920x1080 screen just fine, was brought to its knees at 3840x1600.


I would also strongly recommend that if there are any stores within a semi-reasonable distance to you that carry a wide variety monitors AND display them running, go there and check some out. See what your eyes like and are comfortable with.

 

[Arzhur]

To throw another wrench in the works, for gaming, you might consider an ultra-wide screen.

I was one of those people who insisted that curved, ultra-wide aspect ratios of 21:9 were just a gimmick. Hype, marketing, etc. especially when people threw around the word "immersion."

At least, that's what I USED to say. Now, I swear by ultrawide. I would've probably opted for a large 2560x1080 screen, but, because I also use this monitor for work, and at work I have a pair of 1920x1080, I went looking for something that had a 3840 horizontal resolution.

So, I have a 3840x1600 Acer Ultrawide 38". The increased field of view, larger screen, etc, really did live up to the hype for me.

My son's got a 34" LG 2560x1080 - some would say that resolution is too low for that size of a screen, but both my son I agree with the review on that model here, you won't notice the low-for-screen-size resolution.

HOWEVER - the bigger monitors tend to be more expensive, and, for a given size, ultrawides are more expensive than their regular 16:9 counterparts. To wit, my 38" 3840x1600 costs notably more than a similarly sized 3840x2160 would.

Also, I had to later upgrade my video card, as my old R9 285, while handling my old 1920x1080 screen just fine, was brought to its knees at 3840x1600.


I would also strongly recommend that if there are any stores within a semi-reasonable distance to you that carry a wide variety monitors AND display them running, go there and check some out. See what your eyes like and are comfortable with.

Thank you for your reply. Widescreen isn't an option that I had considered so far.

In my current setup the only place that I can put my monitor is only ~75 cm (~29.5") wide. From what I understand the benefit of ultra-wide is to fill as much horizontal space as possible. In my case this is limited, so would it make more sense to just get a large normal monitor. Here is a picture to give you an idea of my current constraints (it's a bit blurry, but should still give you an idea).

Also how does ultra-wide work when streaming? Do you get black bars on the side?

As for going to a store, I already tried that a few days ago. I went to the largest one in my area and they had very limited options on display. I don't remember seeing any screens beyond 1080p.

 

[King_V]

Hmm, yeah, I did a VERY brief search (NewEgg in the US) and it seems that the ONE 29-29.5 inch ultrawide I found is high end (Acer Predator with Gsync) and FAR more expensive than some of the 32-34 inch ones, alarmingly enough.

I would have to check when I get home regarding streaming - I believe it scales, and has the black bars on the side to maintain aspect ratio. However, I use Netflix or play discs on my TV, and the only video playback I do on my PC is YouTube... strangely, I can't remember off the top of my head how YouTube handles fullscreen.

 

[Arzhur]

Would getting a larger screen have a similar effect to an ultra-wide one? An example would be this AOC U3277PWQU (£460). It's high input lag shouldn't be a problem as I normally don't play fps games. It lacks G-sync, but does support HDCP 2.2.

 

[King_V]

It turns out YouTube will stretch things on my screen.

You don't play fps games much, but the GTX 1060 will still struggle, depending on the game - you'd probably have to run the games at 1920 x 1060 on that monitor - shouldn't be a big deal, though, due to the integer factor of scaling.

If the larger screen has the same aspect ratio as the existing one, then it should display things in the same way: ie: If you don't have black bars currently, you won't have them with the new screen.

I believe there are settings in the graphics driver that handle this, though - and you can set them to "original size" vs stretch vs scale, etc., though it has been years since I've done this (I think I set mine at the very beginning then forget about it). Admittedly, that was when I had the AMD card.

 

[Arzhur]

It turns out YouTube will stretch things on my screen.

You don't play fps games much, but the GTX 1060 will still struggle, depending on the game - you'd probably have to run the games at 1920 x 1060 on that monitor - shouldn't be a big deal, though, due to the integer factor of scaling.

If the larger screen has the same aspect ratio as the existing one, then it should display things in the same way: ie: If you don't have black bars currently, you won't have them with the new screen.

I believe there are settings in the graphics driver that handle this, though - and you can set them to "original size" vs stretch vs scale, etc., though it has been years since I've done this (I think I set mine at the very beginning then forget about it). Admittedly, that was when I had the AMD card.

By effect I meant if it would feel similar to an ultra-wide screen. Apparently others say that the top corners of large 16:9 screens are a bit too far for comfort.

The only affordable 3440x1440 is this Acer (£450). I'm not sure how it would preform in gaming (the main reason to get an ultra-wide screen) and it would be too wide for my current setup. The next one £550 and still doesn't have G-sync.

For now I think that I will for the LG. The AOC seems a bit too large for practicality. I also can't really justify spending an extra £150 on the Acer just for G-sync, especially that I have no idea what will happen to G-sync with Intel joining the GPU market in about two years.

 

[King_V]

Hmm, I haven't really had experience in terms of the feel of the corners being too far off. Then again, a lot of the ultra-wides are curved, so that probably mitigates that issue.

My brother's 34" LG 2560x1080 is flat, if I recall correctly, but he hasn't had any complaints. If I were to guess, I would think that a 21:9 might have less of an issue with it, even if not curved, because you're only dealing with extra width, rather than both extra width and extra height.

That's only speculation on my part.


In full disclosure, while my monitor is a FreeSync, which was helpful when I was still using my AMD R9 285, I now have a GTX 1080. I simply set the refresh rate to 60Hz, and I Vsync everything. This works for me.

That Nvidia won't allow their cards to work with FreeSync*, and that there's the appropriately termed "G-sync tax", are particular sore points with me, and others, from what I've read.

*someone had once tweaked Nvidia's drivers to work with FreeSync, and posted it on a website. Nvidia responded in a very "Don't do this" sort of way.

 

[Arzhur]

Hmm, I haven't really had experience in terms of the feel of the corners being too far off. Then again, a lot of the ultra-wides are curved, so that probably mitigates that issue.

My brother's 34" LG 2560x1080 is flat, if I recall correctly, but he hasn't had any complaints. If I were to guess, I would think that a 21:9 might have less of an issue with it, even if not curved, because you're only dealing with extra width, rather than both extra width and extra height.

That's only speculation on my part.


In full disclosure, while my monitor is a FreeSync, which was helpful when I was still using my AMD R9 285, I now have a GTX 1080. I simply set the refresh rate to 60Hz, and I Vsync everything. This works for me.

That Nvidia won't allow their cards to work with FreeSync*, and that there's the appropriately termed "G-sync tax", are particular sore points with me, and others, from what I've read.

*someone had once tweaked Nvidia's drivers to work with FreeSync, and posted it on a website. Nvidia responded in a very "Don't do this" sort of way.

For the corners corners, thats what read, i.e. it only effects large 16:9, and not ultra-wide 21:9 monitors.

In my case the G-sync tax would be over 1/3 of the LG's price, so I don't think that I'll be paying it either.

Edit: And would there be any use in waiting for Computex (it's on next week) to see if there are any new releases, or would it take too long for any tech displayed there to be available for purchase?

 

[King_V]

It couldn't hurt to wait - But I'm biased, as I tend to be the sort to put off a major expense upgrade if I can.

Originally I was waiting to see what the 49-inch 3840x1080 (32:9 aspect ratio) monitors were going to be like, as I thought I didn't want the extra vertical space. However, the 3840x1600 Acer went on sale somewhere before the 3840x1080 (Sony, I think?) came out.

In hindsight, I definitely appreciate the extra vertical space when working from home.

In any case, if there's something compelling presented at Computex, and its release date isn't too inconveniently far into the future, it's worth checking to see. A monitor is something that typically has a longer useful life than a PC.

 

[Arzhur]

I finally ordered a monitor and got it this week. I ended by getting an LG 27UK650. It's the newer model of the LG 27UD68P. It was £50 more, but has HDR10 support (only 8-bit + A-FRC, but full 10-bit is too expensive). So far it's been great. The extra size is great for immersion and colour accuracy is really impressive (my old monitor looks terrible beside it). Thank you for your suggestions. Even though I didn't get an ultra-wide screen, it was great to consider it, as now I'm more confident about my decision.

 

[King_V]

Glad to hear that you've got one you love.

And, I went through the same thing - looking at my old monitor side-by-side, the old one looked terrible by comparison.