Monitor size

[Craig234]

After years of watching the ultra-wides, last night I ordered an Acer 34" IPS 1440p.

So of course, today I see there's a deal on a 24" IPS ultrawide 1440p.

About $700 versus $200 with taxes.

And of course there's an option in the middle I'm sure - and the 37.5" Acer for $1200...

What do you guys think is optimal for gaming? With or without considering value?

 

[Tweak155]

After years of watching the ultra-wides, last night I ordered an Acer 34" IPS 1440p.

So of course, today I see there's a deal on a 24" IPS ultrawide 1440p.

About $700 versus $200 with taxes.

And of course there's an option in the middle I'm sure - and the 37.5" Acer for $1200...

What do you guys think is optimal for gaming? With or without considering value?

24" IPS Ultrawide? Doubt it... probably regular 16:9 ratio.

That said, the best "value" is the $600ish range for the 34" 1440p ultrawide, but if you want to blow people away, the new Samsung 49" I bet is a beauty. Wish it had higher resolution (it's only 3840x1080 I believe), but it hits that nice massive screen button for me. It's $1499 and not released yet.

I think it depends more what GPU you're willing to buy. But as far as I know, the smallest ultrawide is 29" and is only 2560 x 1080.

 

[Craig234]

I assume you're right about the 24" not being ultra-wide.

 

[Malogeek]

34" is the smallest I'd go for ultra wide (and what I use). It's still a big monitor but anything smaller and you're losing to much physical verticality.

You will be very happy spending that extra. Monitors generally aren't something we upgrade as much as other parts.

 

[shortylickens]

At 37 inches I HIGHLY recommend 4K. Frankly, you may as well if you're pissing away that much cash.

 

[Craig234]

34" is the smallest I'd go for ultra wide (and what I use). It's still a big monitor but anything smaller and you're losing to much physical verticality.

You will be very happy spending that extra. Monitors generally aren't something we upgrade as much as other parts.

You mean getting the 34" over smaller? Ya, what it'd be good to hear is, "34" is just right, anything bigger is too big!"

I just hope in a year there aren't HDR 4k versions going for the same price or less.

 

[whm1974]

At 37 inches I HIGHLY recommend 4K. Frankly, you may as well if you're pissing away that much cash.

I agree and get the GPU to match as well. 4K displays are worth getting a 1080Ti for.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I agree with getting a 4K screen. Not sure that I care for Ultrawide screens yet.

 

[Craig234]

At 37 inches I HIGHLY recommend 4K. Frankly, you may as well if you're pissing away that much cash.

Well, this is 34" not 37". I think a 37" 4k would cost a lot more (more than double) this one. But there I go again, maybe I should wait for that...

In the meantime, for this 34" 1440p I'm hoping an R9 390 is a good match. I'm not sure it can do 4k well. It it worth waiting for 4k over 1440p...

 

[Tweak155]

Well, this is 34" not 37". I think a 37" 4k would cost a lot more (more than double) this one. But there I go again, maybe I should wait for that...

In the meantime, for this 34" 1440p I'm hoping an R9 390 is a good match. I'm not sure it can do 4k well. It it worth waiting for 4k over 1440p...

I wanted a 34" ultrawide when I got my 40" 4K for a killer price. This allowed me to do some testing...

Basically I created custom resolutions which matched ultrawide and still got the ultrawide look... the performance was noticeably better cutting off those top and bottom bars... my 970 ran most games that I played fine (Doom being the most demanding).

I tried 3840x1440, 3840x1200 and 3840x1080... so not exactly the 3440 you'd be using, I suspect it would be slightly better than my results... the difference was a good 15% in my case.

Overall I still want an ultrawide, the 40" at full 16:9 is actually a little big (mainly too tall). I am considering the 49" Ultrawide because it is supposed to be roughly 2x24" 1080p monitors side by side, except one big monitor... sounds pretty good to me!

 

[dud]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung...uj2ylymoCxQpJydTgQK5WCZy0Lrn6VBoaAstcEALw_wcB


Best purchase I've made in years. 40" of 4K for (at the time) less than $300. Just an amazing value for the money. 7 years ago I told myself "once you go 27" you never go back". Now I replace the 27 with 40 and I'm done.

 

[Craig234]

That's definitely an alternative. I have to hope there's a reason I'm spending $700 on a 34" curved IPS 1440p instead of $300 on a 40" 4K.

I've wondered whether there is. I don't really care about curved and suspect I don't need 'fast' and am paying for IPS basically.

 

[Tweak155]

That's definitely an alternative. I have to hope there's a reason I'm spending $700 on a 34" curved IPS 1440p instead of $300 on a 40" 4K.

I've wondered whether there is. I don't really care about curved and suspect I don't need 'fast' and am paying for IPS basically.

Personally, I don't think TV's make good monitors. Your biggest benefit is the size. I don't know what causes the quality difference, but when I saw my friend's 43" 4K TV compared to my 40" 4K monitor, I knew I made the right choice immediately.

 

[Aikouka]

Personally, I don't think TV's make good monitors. Your biggest benefit is the size. I don't know what causes the quality difference, but when I saw my friend's 43" 4K TV compared to my 40" 4K monitor, I knew I made the right choice immediately.

TVs are fine for consuming content, but are somewhat lackluster for gaming due to their generally high input lag. To give you an idea, I was looking up TVs as mine is on the fritz, and one was being praised as the best for only 15ms input lag in game mode. Others were between 20-30ms. This is fine for basic gaming, but for fast-paced gaming at 60Hz, you're nearing being two frames behind.

I use TVs all the time for computing because I have some HTPCs, but I'd never use one for serious gaming. I have high-end monitors for that.

 

[Tweak155]

TVs are fine for consuming content, but are somewhat lackluster for gaming due to their generally high input lag. To give you an idea, I was looking up TVs as mine is on the fritz, and one was being praised as the best for only 15ms input lag in game mode. Others were between 20-30ms. This is fine for basic gaming, but for fast-paced gaming at 60Hz, you're nearing being two frames behind.

I use TVs all the time for computing because I have some HTPCs, but I'd never use one for serious gaming. I have high-end monitors for that.

I could tell a big difference even on a still image. The TV is just not nearly as crisp (It's a Samsung 7500 series I think, so a decent TV?).

 

[Aikouka]

I could tell a big difference even on a still image. The TV is just not nearly as crisp (It's a Samsung 7500 series I think, so a decent TV?).

I'm wondering if that's a dot pitch issue there. The dot pitch (distance between pixels) is usually larger on TVs because you aren't supposed to sit as close -- especially as you go up in size.

 

[dud]

TVs are fine for consuming content, but are somewhat lackluster for gaming due to their generally high input lag. To give you an idea, I was looking up TVs as mine is on the fritz, and one was being praised as the best for only 15ms input lag in game mode. Others were between 20-30ms. This is fine for basic gaming, but for fast-paced gaming at 60Hz, you're nearing being two frames behind.

I use TVs all the time for computing because I have some HTPCs, but I'd never use one for serious gaming. I have high-end monitors for that.

about 3/4 of what I do is gaming and this thing looks better than any "gaming" monitor that I have ever used. I'm REALLY trying to find a flaw with this setup to include light bleed, lagging, etc. but the only thing I can come up with is the fact that (unlike my gaming monitor) will not turn itself off (auto sleep/shutdown) as the monitor would. Other than that I have a TON more real estate to use/play with and the clarity is superior to any other gaming monitor used previously.

$Oh, and I forgot that I had to pay tax but got free shipping. So I am out about $320 for 40" of 4K goodness ...

 

[cmdrdredd]

TVs are fine for consuming content, but are somewhat lackluster for gaming due to their generally high input lag. To give you an idea, I was looking up TVs as mine is on the fritz, and one was being praised as the best for only 15ms input lag in game mode. Others were between 20-30ms. This is fine for basic gaming, but for fast-paced gaming at 60Hz, you're nearing being two frames behind.

I use TVs all the time for computing because I have some HTPCs, but I'd never use one for serious gaming. I have high-end monitors for that.

If you're not trying to be world champion or playing for cash, anything under 24ms is fine really IMO.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I could tell a big difference even on a still image. The TV is just not nearly as crisp (It's a Samsung 7500 series I think, so a decent TV?).

That model is about mid range. They have a 8000 and 9000 series which are higher end panels. Not a huge difference, but some.

Anyway I have used my 55" 4k HDR TV as a monitor and my main gaming tv for a couple years and I haven't even thought about going back to a monitor. I find no downside to it. Text is sharp, input lag is low enough that I don't worry about it, and it allows me to use HDR in games that support it.

 

[Craig234]

That model is about mid range. They have a 8000 and 9000 series which are higher end panels. Not a huge difference, but some.

Anyway I have used my 55" 4k HDR TV as a monitor and my main gaming tv for a couple years and I haven't even thought about going back to a monitor. I find no downside to it. Text is sharp, input lag is low enough that I don't worry about it, and it allows me to use HDR in games that support it.

I was close to just buying a big tv and using it for both.

 

[whm1974]

That model is about mid range. They have a 8000 and 9000 series which are higher end panels. Not a huge difference, but some.

Anyway I have used my 55" 4k HDR TV as a monitor and my main gaming tv for a couple years and I haven't even thought about going back to a monitor. I find no downside to it. Text is sharp, input lag is low enough that I don't worry about it, and it allows me to use HDR in games that support it.

What brand and model of the TV? Not that I would be buying a 55" TV since I don't I have the room for it, But I am looking at using TVs as cheap displays for people.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I was close to just buying a big tv and using it for both.

Like I said, unless you're playing for money or trying to win competitions the input lag on many tvs isn't bad at all. The main benefits of a monitor to me are that it can fit on your desk and it can have the benefits of higher refresh rates and gsync etc. the lower lag doesn't really interest me because I'm not going to be able to take advantage of that. Soon though there will be hdr monitors with high refresh rates too. One of the reasons I use a TV is for HDR.

It also helps that my home theater is connected to the TV and I use Atmos audio from my pc now.

 

[cmdrdredd]

What brand and model of the TV? Not that I would be buying a 55" TV since I don't I have the room for it, But I am looking at using TVs as cheap displays for people.

I am using a Samsung JS9000 which I bought in 2015. It has 23ms of input lag in both SDR and HDR at any resolution. Cheap display, no. When I purchased it, it was a $2k tv. I know people using OLED TVs as their main display as well.

 

[whm1974]

I am using a Samsung JS9000 which I bought in 2015. It has 23ms of input lag in both SDR and HDR at any resolution. Cheap display, no. When I purchased it, it was a $2k tv. I know people using OLED TVs as their main display as well.

Thanks. I play PC games and I was wondering about the higher input lag on TVs vs Computer Displays. I have a 30" Dell 1600p monitor I brought four years ago. While I love it, not everyone can afford something this pricey. So when helping other with getting computers, a lot of folks I know would be happy using a TV.

 

[Anubis]

ive been running a 34" ultriwide (3440*1440) since they hit the market

im never going back, they are awesome