Miramonti
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2000
- 28,651
- 100
- 91
Knowing what you know now would you still have bought it or would you have chosen something else? This is actually the cheapest monitor that I consider it "only" costs 3000PLN in Poland while Acer predator X34(34'' curved 21:9 100Hz G-SYNC better for games but how much better? How about the future when I can actually maintain 60fps at 4K with only very occasional dips that are too rare to really impact the experience?) which is the monitor that I would like the most costs almost two times more at 5500PLN. Is is worth the price hike? It is smaller and has a lower resolution but for now I consider the lower resolution to be an advantage because a single card even a water cooled 980Ti can't handle 4K resolution I would really need two high-end graphics cards but that is for now in the future when 16nm gpus become available I expect them to double the performance of the current crop of 28nm gpus which should handle 4K just barely but I don't need to have every setting cranked up to the maximum if the difference in IQ is small enough to be barely noticeable I have no qualms turning such a setting down or off. I do this right now even if I the game is playable at the maximum details. I prefer to have some performance left to not noticeable IQ advantage in motion and only noticeable in still image when compared side by side. Many games have such graphics settings ever since I use only a single card I always try to seek those and disable them.
I'll have to figure out if an upgrade is worth it when better 40" options come out. I replaced 3 old 1600x1200 20" monitors, and this is a great size for 4k size/real estate. As for gaming, it's not something I really do, and if I get into something, I'll be happy to play it in a smaller window to get adequate performance. Ultimately, this just isn't a great time to buy a monitor like this for quality and performance, but iirc, when my 1600x1200 monitors came out, one of them costed more than this.