Best choice for a 27" monitor?
That refresh rate is so helpful. I wouldn't give it up right now for 4K, especially if you aren't getting a big enough screen.
Comment has been collapsed.
so you assume a high refresh rate is only useful in multiplayer games? i absolutely disagree. gaming feels better and more responsive in general with a higher refresh rate. not just in CS:GO & co. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
4K on 27" is just wasted pixels and 60hz sucks. 27" 1440P, 144kz, IPS.
I do not own a 4K or 1440P monitor, but have been doing a lot of research because I am looking to upgrade as well. I would love OLED, but it has been years with no progress and I doubt it will happen any time soon.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think the pixels would be wasted per se on a 27", perhaps if you went 4K on a screen below 24", but that is all kind of subjective. It does factor in a bit though, but mostly I worry about the scaling.
Yeah there's so much new technology, but I personally don't feel like waiting for it. Soon they'll probably also release 4K @ 144Hz. Another problem I have is either the design is good but the specs aren't that great or the other way around. I really dislike the "gamer" design where they have to incorporate crazy shapes, bright colors and ugly logo's everywhere. Do you have a monitor on your mind?
Comment has been collapsed.
4K 144hz was already shown and at CES last month and will probably be available this year, but modern hardware will not be able to push high end games at that resolution and frame rate.
27" 4K is 163 PPI. I personally think that would be wasted pixels. I sit about 2 feet from my monitor and don't think I could see a difference over about 112 PPI. Considering the amount of framerate you would lose trying to push 4K, I wouldn't want it unless the monitor was at least 32".
I will only upgrade if I can get a 1440P, high refresh (at least 100), IPS, but unfortunately those are really expensive, so quality and money is the only thing I care about, looks don't really matter to me. If it has ugly colors, I'll paint it black. I'll keep it long enough where it will have no resale value when I am done with it, so I don't mind modifying it.
I can't afford $600 to $800 for a monitor, but some cheaper ones were released recently. The big problem I have is that a single dead pixel will bother me and I really don't want to buy one of the cheap monitors and risk getting a bad one since so many of them have dead or stuck pixels and they won't take a return for that reason unless there is a lot of them. I think some places offer pixel perfect guarantees, but I doubt they sell or would offer it on the cheaper monitors.
The Pixio New PX277 (make sure it says "new") was on sale for $350 when it was released, but the quality may be an issue.
The Crossover 27 FAST 144 FreeSync Zero (I think that is the name, lol) was on sale originally for $299. Again, quality may be an issue. I think this is the same panel as the Pixio above.
The ASUS MG279Q seems like it may be good for a bit more money. Currently $546
Comment has been collapsed.
They were supposed to fix that with some kind of pixel shifting or something. Lots of smartphones use OLED, how do they get away with it?
Edit: Pixel Shifting
Comment has been collapsed.
Well they don't, as you can still find multiple smartphones with the issue being present. I don't really know what it is like compared to smartphones of the past, but I don't think there is a huge shift in that part.
It also happens on LG's TVs (in places where the channel logo is displayed etc.) so I see no reason why it wouldn't on the rest of OLED displays. At it's current state, I wouldn't prefer it even if they were mass produced, simply due to the static UI of a PC.
Comment has been collapsed.
i own a 27" 1440p but at only 60hz. i can see tearing/ghosting in most games. so i would avoid 4K @ 60hz. If i had the coin i would have bought a 1440 p @144hz, even a second hand one.
I'm not sure if they fixed it but can you run 4K at less resolution? on a 27" thats some damn small desktop icons and wasted space on webpages,
Comment has been collapsed.
I suppose you can, why wouldn't you? As far as browsers and UI on Windows go, you'll have to zoom in in the browser (I suppose) and set the icons on Windows to be of bigger size. You can also set your games to be rendered on a lower resolution.
If by decreasing the resolution you mean to turn off pixels of the panel, that's not possible. Even if you set the resolution to a lower setting, you'll still have a 4K display displaying a 1080p/720p or w/e else image which will be upscaled.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you're doing any sort of competitive multiplayer games like MOBAs, FPS, whatever, 144hz no contest. 4K is only for single player looks at best, and even then most games aren't optimized for 4K.
Highly recommend the Dell S2716DG if you do have a budget, it's 1440 144hz 27" Gsync for only $400 on sale. If money is unlimited sure go for a $600-$800 IPS Gsync/Freesync.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mostly play single player games, I dislike multiplayer games for the most part. I guess it's also a bit about future proofing. Thanks for the suggestion I find it hard to find G-Sync screens, most are Freesync which is meaningless to me since I intend to buy a Nvidia GPU.
Comment has been collapsed.
Another vote for the S2716DG, I have it and a 28" 4k sitting side by side and the S2716DG gets all my usage. G-sync is great, even better than high refresh rate IMHO but I love them both, can't go back to 60 Hz for gaming now, even single player stuff is so much more smooth.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd honestly recommend you a ultrawide 21:9 1440p 34'' monitor. It should be the height of a 16:9 27'' monitor, but you get more space on the sides. It feels like going from 4:3 to 16:9, except now you're going from 16:9 to 21:9. It's also great for movies, since most movies use 21:9 aspect ratio.
I'm using a 21:9 1080p 29'' monitor and upgraded from a 1080p 24'' monitor. It felt worth it to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
4K 60hz at 32 inch minimum and search for tftcentral photos of lower resolution to see if the monitor handles lower resolution than native for desktop usage, it can be found on "General and Office Applications" page.
Asus tends to have bad downscale and is recommended to use only at native, at 27 inch, 4k is unreadable. Well I can't even read at 1440p 27 inch so I keep it at 1080p and it looks way sharper than any 1080p 27 inch screen.
Some people think you lose pixels by choosing a lower resolution which is false.
Comment has been collapsed.
At one time I thought that 5K @ 27" would be the perfect size and resolution. 5K for productivity and 1440p for gaming (mostly single player, some local co-op). However multiple issues still exist. All non-Apple 5K monitors are MST and require 2 DP cables; OS support for MST is still poor (especially in Linux), native monitor scaling is not necessarily integer (so driving 1440p on 2880p/5K may be blurry - so crap for gaming), OS support for scaling is patchy.
I was also convinced that 4K @ 27" would be two small are require scaling. So I now have a 4K @ 32" monitor. I was also concerned 32" would be too big - but it really isn't. It's like having dual portrait monitors but without the bezel in the middle, and better resolution. I don't need to use scaling in any OS. So for productivity it's a big thumbs up. And for gaming a big screen is amazing. Some games struggle at 4K though (even with a 1080Ti), but Stellaris and Hitman are incredible. I went from 1080p to 4K so am probably easily pleased!
If you thing 32" is too big, the 1440p @ 27" is going to be pretty good, and far less taxing (i.e. cheaper!) on your hardware.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was wondering, what GPU should i get for 1440p 144hz? Is it really that different from having a 4K 60 hz display, performance-wise?
I'm currently using a Dell U2414h with a R9 Nano and it works great, so i don't have any intention into upgrading soon. But let's suppose the display breaks down.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm using several 49" 4K displays @ 60Hz in various locations for about two years without any issues. Perfect productivity + splendid gaming performance. The 4K resolution is not worth it unless you have a big enough display, otherwise it's rather pointless on smaller screens unless you have a really good eyesight and you sit really close to the display. For instance, even though 49" is big enough for a 4K resolution, If I were to buy 4K displays today I'd probably choose 55" models instead of 49" for the added improvement in the viewing distance for each of the four 1080p virtual screens subsections. When I built my system I chose resolution over refresh rate and I don't regret it one single bit.
My advice is to go to a store having various display sizes and resolutions on display and judge for yourself depending on your preferences while experimenting with the viewing distance.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have 4 displays in my room !
3 monitors : 17" HD , 19" HD+ and 25" 2k 75hz !
1 TV 41" Full HD !
So I can say this choose the 2k 144 Hz, for 60+ at 4k even with the 1080ti you need dual GPU so NOP :))!
Comment has been collapsed.
for 60+ at 4k even with the 1080ti you need dual GPU so NOP :))!
Well, it depends on the game. For instance, I just checked the Final Fantasy XV Windows Edition demo and on the Highest settings I got between 42 and 47 FPS on a single GTX 1080 at 4K resolution which is pretty damn good in my opinion. This test was performed on stock GPU settings. In OC mode I can expect way higher numbers than that. I think if one isn't that picky about advanced graphical options 60+ FPS is quite achievable at 4K resolution on FF XV on a single GTX 1080 on pretty high settings. And that is for a game that was released last week. Other games run at 4K 60+ FPS without any hassle at all. If one tweaks their settings a bit I'm sure they can achieve way better results than those I mentioned.
My point is you cannot generalize it like that. For future games, I don't know, but for most if not all the past and current games it's definitely achievable and even surpassable (even though in a few limited cases there are some trade-offs) without having multiple GPUs.
Comment has been collapsed.
That was my point ... not all games you can play at 60 FPS with a single 1080ti which is ridiculous :)) !
Also from now now you will need a 1180ti for 60+ FPs which is more ridiculous :)) !
So that is why a 2k 144hz would be better but I would not say NO for a 4k 60 hz so just buy both if you have the money :D !
I am also verry practical , until my external GPU arrives for my laptop and the 1060 ... my 2k is more then enough for me !
I could have choose a 1070 but the price was no right for me in EU!
And for a 4k I can just buy a new TV a 4k one and enjoy 4k at my TV for some games and 75 FPS on my 2k display for some games :D !
Comment has been collapsed.
From what I've read you can play 4K videogames with a single card on the highest end GPU's. Though the biggest problem for me was that 4K will make everything else like the user interface, desktop, internet browsing, ... super small on a 27" monitor, which requires you to mess with scaling. In the end I decided on a 27" inch with 144Hz and 2K graphics.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good choice !
even on my 2k 25" I use 150% for browsing so it is not a big deal for me !
As a said if you wank 4k you can choose a good TV :D !
Comment has been collapsed.
1080p, as big as you're comfortable with, taking viewing distance into consideration. Don't chase tech, enjoy it responsibly! ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
29 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by Aerctaure
282 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by eeev
837 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by PicoMan
552 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Bum8ara5h
166 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Fitz10024
2 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by Vincer
23 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by Spazfrag
137 Comments - Last post 28 seconds ago by LittleBibo1
3 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by okamiking
28 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by LittleBibo1
56 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by Sagnik
64 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by LeJuice
322 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by LeJuice
28,830 Comments - Last post 58 minutes ago by MyrXIII
I'm looking to replace my monitor and was originally looking at a 27" inch 4K monitor but after a lot of research, I noticed some people say 27" is too small for 4K and will require scaling which seems like a hassle. 32" Seems to be the sweet spot for 4k gaming, but that would be too big for the distance that I'm sitting from my screen. So I'm looking for people who have a 4K monitor to share their experiences with me. Let's assume that neither money or my GPU is an issue. I might add a GA later.
Comment has been collapsed.