Thank you Tim. You covered all the bases in your usual smooth, verbal style. I am waiting to see what formats, at what prices, are going to be offered for 2022. GPU's are finally catching up to Monitor capabilities. Please keep us informed of any outstanding new offerings.
I went from a 32" 1080p to a 34" 1440p ultrawide. Overall I am happy with the change. It was a massive upgrade and actually leveraged my GPU. Now the only thing I don't like with the ultrawide format is the dodgy support for ultrawide in some titles and the unacceptable letterboxing that happens on some streaming services, looking at you Disney. Although watching 21:9 content on netflix or iTunes is really nice and drives home why I purchased the monitor. I will not be going back down to 1080p ever again. But I am still a few years away from getting hardware that could not get choked down on 4k gaming.
Been gaming at 4K since early 2017 and never looked back, originally used 4K TV early on as 4K TV's were extremely cheap compared to what 4K monitors were especially at larger sizes and 60hz was fine considering how hard 4K was to drive with games maxed out back then. Been using an Asus PG43UQ 4K 144hz for just over a year and it's been my favourite screen so far. If your going 32"+ 4K should be the absolute minimum for image quality, but 1440p should be the lowest resolution you should be aiming for in 2022 as 1440p is not hard to drive at all.
at what size would you recommend moving up from 1080 to 1440 (or higher)? I heard that 27" is more or less where you need to start switching over. Might get away with 27" 1080p, but that is where you start seeing the decrease in "quality" of the image
Just pulled the trigger on a odyssey g70a, thanks for all your advise :) (I got it for $546 (£479) on sale!). Currently have an acer 1440p but it's not the best quality, hoping this will be a future proof upgrade
Would get 4K monitor since I'm only gonna use it with macbook and playstation. Both of them come with huge support compromises in the case of using 1440p, meanwhile 1080 is simply not enough for either device.
Yeah, I'm not really all that pleased of my 1440p@144hz IPS Acer monitor and I think I'll switch back to 1080p@144hz TN Asus monitor because it has better color quality/contrast for competitive games. This IPS panel makes everything so dark I have to sacrifice my eyes by pumping up the contrast and brightness. The TN panel was perfectly fine in CS:GO with ~15/100 brightness and ~25/100 contrast whereas this IPS has to be at least 40/100 and 50/100 contrast with black boost over 5/10.
Answer: your monitor choice should come AFTER having assessed what gpu you will use. No point in buying a QHD monitor if you have a gtx 1060 that will force you to downscale the game resolution to 1080p. Long story short, the monitor choice should be gpu dependant
I went from 24" 1080p to 27" 1440p and I don't think I'll ever go bigger, personally I find 27" to be almost too big but also kinda perfect size, I feel 32" would just be too big for me, I think I'll be running 1440 for the foreseeable future, the only upgrade ill do in the future is going from 180hz to 360hz+ when the tech is there and graphics cards can actually make those numbers at 1440p
@@dry509 Frames per second is the refresh rate 1Hz = 1 FPS. In many games higher frame rates mean faster more accurate information and smoother graphics. Shooting games especially
Went from a 27' 1440p to the Gigabyte M32Q 32' 1440p. I definitely notice the pixels, while not bad, my 27 I replaced was much more beautiful in terms of picture quality. I'd probably go 4k 32' in a few years when the GPU's can actually run it super well.
I run 32" 1440p 16:9. Upgraded from 1440p 27". While the higher DPI on the 27" inch is nice, the extra size is totally worth it. Cant go down. Excellent feature of 32" 1440p is its the exact same DPI as 24" @ 1080p, so everything just works and is readable at default 100% size. Defacto standard for software & web. (There are STILL scaling problems with high DPI 4K screens). Video, games everything is better with the larger screen.
@Wizzzard are you really mentioning that garbage from 2010 as an alternative for video editing displays? you should be the one that needs to wake up. or are you what mentioning their imac 24'? which is also bad for price/quality ratio if you want to do anything apart from excel lol. at least their built in speakers are ok. i will stick with my Dell Ultrasharp U3219Q tho. which blows any imac out of the park.
When i bought my 1060 6GB three or four years ago, i remember thinking i'd buy a 1440P monitor with the next GPU i'd buy. Still running that 1060 for reason we all know. ..and: The way things are going now we'll likely be running 4K before i'm able to buy a GPU again, so i'll wait and see. Not the best of times for PC-gamers.. Do agree with your thoughts on the matter. For people with the GPU to run 1440P, it is the sweetspot atm.
I'm in the same boat, with the same card. I'm perfectly fine with 1080p on a desktop monitor. I prefer higher refresh rates, so I ended up with an LG 27GN750 (because of HUB's recommendation). 240Hz G-Sync compatible, which is my first experience with VRR. There is no going back from here. Everything always looks smooth as silk in motion, with or without vsync. Frankly, I can live with this setup for a couple of more years at least. There are plenty of games in my backlog that run just fine at this resolution with my current system, many of them at over 100 fps. Most new games run very well too. I'll just save Cyberpunk for later.
I run 1660ti and refuse to even upgeade off 1080p 60Hz. If I upgrade it will only hurt me as I am not willing to upgrade with price-performance improvement.
I'm using a Xbox Series X on a Gigabyte 32" 1440p monitor and everything looks great, it's a shame my PS5 doesn't look as good, I wish Sony would update the PS5 to 1440
@nomasporfavor The more I look at the PS5 the more I think Sony just obsessed over building the best IO on a gaming console ever made... and then forgot to build a well rounded system around it.
In my opinion, you missed the distinction between ultrawide 21:9 and super-ultrawide 32:9. There is a big difference in terms of "usable desktop space" and graphics power required, the latter at a resolution of 5120x1440 requiring almost a "4k level" of GPU.
@@tank7474 Yes, it has its own drawbacks (most games that I play are fine but, I agree with you, for some I have to change back to the 16:9 resolution because of the hud in most cases); just like its own benefits (It's so immersive when you can use the whole screen for a game). It might be a niche, but for me, it was the perfect replacement for a 3 monitor setup. And these comments just highlight the initial point that it is a different category from the ultrawides. One is a wider than normal screen (~0.4x extra width) the other is a whole screen of added width.
The big problem with 4K is that not all games are in 4K and that the performance is competive online gaming is not the best. But if you at least have a 3d card in the range of a Geforce GTX 3070 or higher than you could enjoy 4 gaming. And you need a good monitor but the price is good if you don't buy a to big 4K monitor.
@@coops1992 Don't worry my friend you if you are spending your money on the things you whant you are doing the right thing. My pc is also from 2014 and i also need a new one. But be awere that there are 2 formats of screens with the name 4k in it that are not 4k! Real 4k has at least this resolution: 4096x2160 and there are almost no 4k games but they told me that final fantasy 15 is a 4k game. So beside that there almost no 4k games also keep in mind that your screen will be slower and that is not a problem in single player games but a big problem in games likes shooters and you need to spend a lot of money for something you will in this era almost never use. But like i said if you have a budget between 4000 and 6000 euro you can build a amazing pc. A card like a 3080 is good for 4k gaming but since money is no problem a 3090 is a better choice. Good luck with your new pc. 👍👌✔🙌 PS: Funny to see my pc is also 8 years old and i'm 38 so also almost the same age.
Considering the current GPU prices, 1080p still makes a lot of sense. Besides, and this is something personal - I don't like changing graphics cards that often, so to me, even something like a 6700 XT is only adequate for 1080p, since I'd like at least 100 FPS before considering 1440p, and I want games released in 2024 also work fine, especially if I'd spend 1000$ on a graphics card. So even if 6700 XT can do 1440p well enough today, it might not be able to in a few years, and since it's so expensive, I'd like to keep it for several years before changing it.
Went with exactly a 6700xt for 1440p. I want a minimum of 85fps while gaming. I sold my radeon 7 and ended upp with a 6700xt after my old build went to hardware hell. Never buying asus mobo again.
A 6700XT will deliver more than 100fps at 1440p, its within a couple of percent of a 2080TI. im using a 6700XT on a 3440x1440 34" inch monitor and its doing a great job. In this video the 12 game average showed at 1440p the 6700XT was hitting 113fps on average.
@@andydbedford It may do so now, but since Cyberpunk 2077 barely runs at 60FPS at High in 1440p, I'm pretty sure most games will be like that 2 years later - this was the case for instance with AC: Unity or Watch_Dogs 2. So yes, it can push these resolutions now, but again, considering it costs an arm and a leg, I'd keep it at least for 3 years if I'd buy one for 1000$. For 500$, it might be somewhat better.
@@inteldruid Well of course, thats precisely why we get new gpu's every two years or so otherwise we would only get new hardware twice a decade. I got my 6700XT in october laster year for £635, and I will probably need to upgrade in 2-3 years.
4K also has the less obvious advantage over 1440p of being a perfect upscale from 1080p, in cases when the content you are watching is available in no higher than 1080p. Something like 1080p movies looks 'fine' on 1440p, but if you look at gaming or any fine text, it's pretty clear that when upscaled to fullscreen, 1080p content looks inferior on 1440p displays.
@@zfacersane272 Here's a quick summary. I went from 1080p 60hz to 1440p 144hz. At this point I found out that I much prefer high refresh rate in my games than the added resolution. And as Max pointed out, 1080p doesn't scale well on 1440p monitor. So I got rid of it and bought a 1080p 144hz monitor. 4k 144hz monitor are more versatile in that regard.
Ultra wide fills your entire view exactly. It's s great experience. I don't really need very high refresh rates as I mostly just play MMO's. I also do some programming and then the extra real estate is nice for the extra consoles, editors and tools, which often has people use a second monitor instead, but is not really needed with an UW.
I've been very happy with my 1080p60Hz -> 1440p144Hz upgrade that I made a few years back. My next monitor upgrade will very likely be based on pixel tech rather than resolution. OLED looks really sweet, so I'm keeping an eye out for the day that such monitors - or with equivalent to better tech - become affordable
Alternatively, you could save up for a year or two and buy a monitor with that technology. Prices are likely to have lowered but with that saved up money you could possibly buy a higher end monitor as well
Im super excited for oled sad that we i will have to wait quite a bit before it can become a consideration for me because oled is quite expensive right now last i heard 1k and up
I've been using 1080p monitors for over a decade now. No plans to switch to a higher resolution. It's good enough, and I'm not dropping tons of dough for a 1440p monitor and an (AMD) GPU that can comfortably play at that resolution.
1440 monitors have been really well priced, good amount of $200-$300 1440 high refresh and if you have the funds then there’s even a 1440/300hz for $379 which is not bad at all when most 1440/240 is $400+
Awesome video Tim! Basically covers everything one might think of when getting a monitor. I personally really enjoy 27" 1440p. It offers a lot of desktop real estate. It is fairly performant in gaming, and the size doesn't feel overwhelming at a typical desk distance. I couldn't actually fit anything larger comfortably and the pixel density of 4K at 27"is unnecessary high and the options extremely expensive (2x) in comparison.
Eh... it's becoming fairly budget now, it a minimum not a middle ground. Tbh this or 1080p 240hz(for super comp gamers) are the lowest end formats I would recommend to anymore buying a monitor now. I've had that format for about 6 years. Got myself a 4k 120hz oled for cinematic games and will be looking to upgrade my 1440p 144hz to a 1440p 360hz or something like that later in the year, maybe next year.
It always seemed to me to be the sweet spot. I got my first 1440p 144hz monitor in 2015 and now I'm using a 1440p 165hz IPS monitor and the performance with my 3080 is right where I want it. One day 4K high refresh will be doable in all games but until that day, 1440p high refresh is what I go for. I tend to play nice looking games and those just aren't even touching 200fps most of the time despite my endless graphics settings tweaking so 240hz for my use case seems pointless
@@AVerySillySausage "it's becoming fairly budget now, it a minimum not a middle ground" guys, he had this format for 6 yrs, this means it's old! Don't buy! News flash, just because YOU had it for 6 yrs, doesn't mean it's outdated. If anything, it was a high-cost option a few years ago and the fact that it's cheap now just makes it a better buy, not a bad buy. "Got myself a 4k 120hz oled" good for you, those are not cheap, and in some countries they will never really be cheap.
my 5600X 3070Ti system is still having difficulties running latest AAA games at 1080p 120hz (like FC6). That is a real good gaming system in this day and age, considering the GPU shortage and all that. And we're still not talking about ray tracing and what that did to your FPS. So yeah, why would you want to go higher than 1080p, when a damn 3070Ti can't even run RT games at 120hz EVEN at 1080p? I would choose to use more eye candy like RT than go higher resolution 10/10. And yes, I've seen and used a 1440p gaming monitor myself briefly, and aren't that impressed by it.
I'd definitely agree with this except for the fact that dlss is a thing. As long as you have a strong enough nvidia card (like yours) you can use rtx at 1440p with dlss quality, and that should look better than rtx at 1080p with no dlss (shouldn't use dlss at this res due to not getting info for the algorithm)
Sounds weird. If your system cant handle that on 1080. I run a 5120x1440 screen with i7 11700 + Rtx 3070ti. And I get 80-120 fps on high settings in most games
The jump to 3440x1400 was probably the best monitor upgrade I have ever had. I simply can not go back to 16:9 no matter the resolution or refresh rate. When 4K 21:9 monitors start to come out I will be more than exited. 5120x2160 has me more than ecstatic, but when do we think this will even happen?!
Ultrawide all the way. Once I tried it, I could never go back. Love it for both gaming and productivity. And my Lenovo G34W-10 was very affordable, for what it is. Might not be the best display, but I love it.
I absolutely agree. The Acer Predator Z35P I got a few years ago was an awesome upgrade for me. I wouldn't go back to 16:9 unless it is 4K. But that would require a ton of GPU horsepower so there is quite some time left until then.
@@bm_wuratli6883 changing fov has similar effect especially when they fisheye it so things in the middle of the screen aren't any smaller but you have far wider fov.. it's actually easier to see what is at the corners since it isn't so far from center as it would be on ultrawide. Guess this is why 16x9 is the competitors go to.
Agree on this. I had switched to 34 Inch 1080p Ultrawide 6 years ago with an LG 34UM58-P 1080p IPS 75 HZ monitor and I couldn't look at 16:9 screens anymore as they seem so small. Recently upgraded to a 34 Inch 1440P 165hz VA Ultrawide and been loving the refresh rate fluidity and the more clarity. Once you go Ultrawide, there's no going back to 16:9.
@@christophermullins7163 The problem is a wider FoV setting on 16:9 also makes it harder to aim (more sensitive) and sometimes, harder to see distance detail. But with a 21:9 ultrawide monitor, you get a wider field of view, while retaining good distance detail and normal aiming sensitivity (assuming the game supports ultrawide resolutions).
1440p for me is the best resolution at least for normal sizes today of 27" up to 32". The best widescreen res currently is 3840x1600 and I hope it becomes more accessible and widespread in the future, the return of the 1600 vertical is a godsend. 4K is terribly overrated unless it's on a TV or 42"+ screen.
The AOC CU34G2X, there 21:9 1440p @144hz, is what I went with as my first monitor getting back into PC gaming after playing on nothing but big flat screen TV's. I totally agree that playing games is super immersive in ultrawide but you have to have the hardware to run it
If you want 1440p on a budget get the pixio pxc277 it’s currently on sale so it’s only 289 vs it’s normal price of 350 (US dollars) and it supports HDR and 165 hertz. Also 27 inch curved
I have a 22" 75Hz 1080p IPS monitor. Even 75Hz makes a difference compared to 60Hz but the problem in my case is that in a lot of games I can't reach stable 75fps but I also can't upgrade my PC at the moment because of the reasons all of us here are familiar with. The monitor was less than 150$ but everything here technology related is usually a bit more expensive so with everything considered it's not a bad price
I recently went from a 1920 x 1080p 60hz (32") to a 1920 x 1080p @ 165hz (and stepped down to 27"), and I have to be honest: I was wildly impressed by the difference in quality. I was a little unsure since I was reducing the size - but the price was right, so I pulled the trigger on the deal - and, just WOW. I'm very pleased with the video and gaming quality. I really underestimated what a difference it makes going from 60 to 165hz.
I hope with newer upscaling algorithms from AMD, nVidia and likely also Intel, we will finally reach a point where we can dynamically upscale any output resolution to native resolution, so that we'll be able run games at any custom resolution that gives sufficient performance for our hardware, while making use of 100% of the resolution.
According to Steam servy, 9 of 10 most currently used GPU's are, by order: Gtx1060, Gtx1650, Gtx1050Ti, Rtx2060, Gtx1050, Gtx1660Ti, Gtx1660 Super, Gtx1070, Gtx1660. ( These 9 take 38% of total GPUs.) When will be a GPU at 250$-300$ that be powerful to run games easly - (Maybe you want the GPU to hold for future games as well) - at 2K 144hz, more people will play at this res. Personally I'm using a Gtx 1070 with Viewsonic XG2405 (1080p 144hz IPS).
I feel price is no longer that much of a variable between 1080p and 1440p, IF you can wait for sale events. I got my M27Q for $250 in November. That's $50 more than the usual 24G2 or EX2510, roughly 20% more!
Was fortunate enough to get a 3060ti from my local MC. With my simple 24 inch 144Hz 1080p, I'll be able to game at high settings on any title for years to come. By the time my card becomes "slow" like the 1060, I'm hoping the shortage will have ended and 1440p/4k monitors will be cheaper. Not to mention my monitor cost me $130, I'm in no rush to upgrade anytime soon.
If you value FPS as much as resolution 1440p is the way to go. Keep in mind you'd want to use the native resolution 99% of the times since monitors tend to have bad downscaling unlike TVs so choose wisely.
@@dark-lord- depends on your specs, high end GPUs can play 1440p 144fps but obviously not every game, 1080p is completely fine if you always want the highest fps possible
What was said in the video is good too. 2 points: 1080p monitors are the least expensive Cheaper GPUs can run games at 1080p at acceptable frame rates. This is a major issue right now, I guess HU wanted to make this video more perennial so didn't talk about it.
@@tbreeze79 It's not. But it is when you don't care about high graphics and only about performance. If you care about both good quality graphics and a fast performance and also have the money than a Samsung (Know as a Odyssey G7 but not the 4K version.) C32G75TQSU 81,3 cm (32") 2560 x 1440 Pixels Quad HD QLED is better. With'32 inch, 240 HZ and a reaciontime of only 1 ms it is a better choice.
Chose that solution last year, too and I'm very happy with it. 1440p is crisp enough and I really don't want to miss the ultrawide ratio anymore. In combination with a second pivoted monitor for document reading, I'm super happy with my monitor setup.
I have a 1500R, and I have no idea why you would ever want a larger curve radius. What use is a 3800R curve on a computer monitor you're sitting slightly more than a meter from? I like mine, but 1000R would probably be even better. When looking, I was unwliling to go below 1200 vertical pixels and wanted to be able to have a document open beside an editor. My last monitor was 1920x1200, which was slightly too narrow, and I occasionally used the pivot function for some documents and pictures. I think I'd have preferred 3840x1600, for the extra vertical space mostly, but going up to that would also have required getting a higher-end GPU, putting the total at $2k or thereabouts, especially with the current market, so that was right out. I'm happy enough with my Xiao Mi Curved Gaming 34 monitor, and it was cheap enough ($400) that I won't feel bad if I upgrade it in ten years or so.
Just switch from the LG27GL850 to the New 4k Odyssey G7 and the amount of upgrade i see is unbelievable. The G7 is an amazing monitor from what i’ve used of it so far. You should make a video on it
Got it too. In some games it feels not as smooth 144hz as in other titles.... or maybe the response times are a bit lower then my old BenQ monitor..... But overall a great 4k monitor with 3080ti
13:06 Nope. PS5 and XSX won't deliver native 4K on demanding games. Take a look at Cyberpunk 2077 or Matrix UE5 demo. Non-native content looks awful on 2160p monitors, not having AI upscaling and close range usage kill them. Summary: 24 " 1080p - budget PC or XSS/PS4/XO; 27 " 1440p - general recommendation, XSX (1440p 120 Hz support); 32 " 2160p - high-end gamers (RTX 3080 Ti and above). 4K HDMI 2.1 TV for PS5 or multimedia consuming.
My main monitor is currently a 32' 1080p display. People complain about seeing the pixels even on 1440p, but that doesn't bother me at all. My vision isn't great, so having a physically larger display helps with eyestrain. That said, i just bought a 144hz 1440p display to replace it! It's my first time going above 1080p or 60hz, so i'm pretty excited to see the difference.
@@marcoslightspeed5517 It's great. For my main monitor, i can never go back. If anything i'd want a 4k display next. However, after adjusting to 144hz i do feel like 60hz is a bit choppy and laggy in games, so i'd also want something that's at least capable of higher than 60hz. Even just 90hz would still be fine, but 60 feels too low at this point.
Bought a S2721DGF during a sale recently. The GL850 was almost $200 more in my region so the S2721DGF was much more worth my buck. 1440p at 144Hz is good enough for me coming from a 1080p 60Hz monitor previously
Since many of the budget 24" 1080p IPS panels like the AOC 24G2 are only 6bit panels, is there a noticeable difference between 6bit+FRC and native 8bit panels?
I had the 24G2 for over a year and can say that it was not lacking in terms of image quality (for gaming that is). Only got rid of it, because I got its bigger 27" 1440p brother. The friend I sold it to is amazed with the pictures it produces as well. Amazing monitor for the price. If you want to work with editing fotos or digital pictures you should go for true 8 bit though I think, at least for professional purposes.
Above 60hz, if FRC is done at a full refresh cycles or in between them, it's visually indistinguishable from full 8 bit. You are only going to lose in immediately noticeable visual quality if the monitor implements FRC at full refresh cycles and refreshes at only 60hz or if all you do all day is stare at dark primary color gradients.
1080p still the most popular resolution on Steam at 67.12%, 1440 at 9.85% and 4K at only 2.35%. Plus, lack of affordable GPUs to drive higher res' than 1080p are few and far between so I wouldn't be surprised if 1080p ownership increases. Personally I'm still using a 1440p Acer Predator GSYNC monitor from 2015 and it's still an excellent monitor, no plans to ever update to 4K.
@@silverwerewolf975 It's from "Steam Hardware & Software Survey: December 2021", so not sure what you mean by old stats? You have to realize most people running Steam aren't enthusiasts that follow tech channels and buy 4K monitors and RTX 3090s. Stop living in a bubble.
@@silverwerewolf975 No, those are current Steam stats. The GTX 1060 is still the most popular card as well. Welcome to the crushing wasteland that is the current GPU market.
Looking forward to you guys getting your hands on the New LG 42C2. 4K 120 at 42 inch is pretty close to 1440p at 27 inch ppi. Only drawback would be that it is an old panel, but i hope that the LG Evo tech mitigates it somewhat
*ME* "Man, 4K, high-refresh gaming monitors are expensive! But... I want the best so I'll buy one... or should I?" *ME also* "Oh, I need a much better GRAPHICS CARD to drive 4K? Can't I just upscale from 1440p? Oh, can be blurry? Hmm... how MUCH do graphics card cost? Well... NEVER MIND then!"
Consoles cannot even USE 4k 120 Hz - not at the same time anyway! I mean we are talking the CPU + GPU combo equal to, if I am being GENEROUS, an R7 4700G and if I had to place it, and for GPU somewhere between an RTX 2070 and an RX 6600XT depending on game - usually less performance than either from what it seems though, and definitely less for the PS5. Also those CPU cores are somewhat hamstrung on top of already only having 1 MB L3 per core, in power, memory latency, and seemingly missing Vector Registers. When Gamers Nexus tried PS5 Unlocked FPS games, they never needed more than an i7-7700k and at most a GTX 1070 Ti to equal or exceed the PS5's performance when unlocked.
I went from a 27" 1440p to a 38" 21:9 3840x1600. The pixel density here is basically the same, so you get the screen real estate with 0 compromise to image quality. (LG38GN950-B). It was very expensive, but for someone who plays older FPS games (BF4), and Paradox grand strategy games, my 2070 S can still hit that 144hz, and it's definitely worth it. For strategy games in particular, the extra screen size really helps alot 👍
Good video, I'd like to add a thing in favor of 1080p, 1080p monitors are not limited to rendering at 1080p, you can use supersampling with DSR/VSR to achieve 2160p on a 1080p monitor and it looks as good as you would expect. However, you can't supersample a refreshrate, you can overclock it but the experience is often very limited. So while a 1080p 240 Hz monitor can do 4K downsampling, a 4K 60 Hz monitor is ultimately limited to 60 Hz, maybe 75 with OC in the best instances. I am also sorry to report that, at least in my country, the M28U is not $650 but $1100.
I bought a 27" 1440p monitor with 165hz refresh rate and 10-bit 120Hz capability, which is great for graphics work. It's also good for working with a large amount of quickly scrolling text thanks to IPS which lacks a predominant transition bias and good response times. You also don't need any UI scaling, the pixel size is about the same as on a 22" 1080p display. I have a gtx970 which I suppose I'll need to keep for another year or two and then upgrade. I can't reach beyond 60fps in most games? I don't care. Sometimes I can and it's great fun. I can't reach near native rendering resolution? Fine, I'll play at 1080p or 900p. But the monitor is probably going to be the primary one for the next 8 years.
I'm playing BF2042 at 80 fps ultra settings, no dlss, no rtx. I'm using a LG 4K 27" 950-b monitor at 160 hz. AMD 5900X cpu, 3090 FE vid card, Asus Dark Hero mobo, Gskill 3600 cas 14 mem, Sabrent Rocket Q4 4 TB nvme ssd. I experience smooth gameplay and the extra detail makes it easier to see objects and players in the far distance. I sit about 2.5 feet away from the front of the monitor so it fills my field of view quite well.
I got a 27GP950 for christmas, and 144hz is incredible. I already had a 4k60 monitor so I didn't want to drop down the resolution and I'm happy with my decision. It also lets my 6900xt actually push itself in more games
The Ultrawide community is prominent on claiming that an Ultrawide is the best of the bunch: I disagree. An Ultrawide was my first choice for gaming. Many said how good it was for games and media consumption, and respectfully they are generally right. However, there are many use cases where a standard aspect ratio will in fact be better than an Ultrawide. These mainly include films and games that do not support the 21:9 ratio. For this matter, I have recently downsized from a 2560x1080 34" Ultrawide to a 1440P 27" 16:9. As far as I can tell, it is a much better experience for everyday use.
still on 25' 1080p 144hz I'm waiting for Scaling technology to be mature and optimize, then upgrade to 1440p I'm prefer Higher Framerate, than Higher Resolution.
Good video tim ! I would mention that with ultrawides you can run at 1440P 16:9 with no image quality penalty if you wanted to gain some framerate. iirc except for the samsung monitors the highest 3440x1440 refresh rate is 180hz OC'd on the Acer X34 GS
Your best bet would be the LG C2 42". But you'll need either Ampere/RDNA2 in order to take advantage of it, because current DP 1.4 -> HDMI 2.1 adapters don't support VRR which is a dealbreaker for 4K gaming
Thanks Tim! Pretty much covers all the questions I had!! Got a Gigabyte M32QC 32" 1440p display for less than $300 last spring! I think it's great for my needs! Should be all I need for at least the next few years! 👍😎
4K is not the highest available resolution for gaming: if you are rich you can go with 8K 60 Hz gaming and yes, there are good players using 60 Hz/60 fps only. A high Hz monitor is just necessary for going pro or to not have a disadvantage vs another high skilled player. Td;dr: if you are rich af and not a competitive player: 8K 60 Hz for best visual quality. Or maybe it's pointless with best gaming textures being at 4K, i think.
Great video! Nice breakdown. This info woulda been golden when I first started looking at monitors two years ago, but your videos back then still helped alot. This vid is next level helpful and really puts the current monitor offerings in a nice perspective even for those like me that follow the channel regularly. You’re a gem!
I'm with 1080p 24' because this combination allows me not to use Windows display scaling. I don't like how it performs. Without it 1440p even on 27' would have too small fonts for my eyes comfort.
@@Steve-ph7qn That's true seems like I dropped the not in his sentence while reading. Though I don't understand the context of bigger font and bad performance of Windows UI scaling since at 1440p if big or not, the clearity is so much better for texts, especially for reading more than a few paragraphs especially for every character that has an arch or a cruve: e,h,j,p,m,n,b,d,q etc
During "lockdown" I wanted to replace my 25" 1440p glowey IPS with a 27" 144Hz flat VA, only there weren't many options available. Ended up with a 32" 4K 60Hz VA panel instead. It suits the kind of strategy games and software development type work that I do as it's like having four 1080p displays together. Next upgrade will be a 4K 144Hz OLED/MicroLED once they're under $1000.
I actually really enjoy 120Hz and higher desktop refresh rate for software development and text work since you can scan/skim the text scrolling by nicely. Glowy IPS is barely an issue, but VA and TN have a transition bias, so TN has sticky whites and VA has sticky blacks, which makes quickly scrolling text a large nuisance where it's pretty much blanked out or leaves streaks. IPS has roughly the same transition speed both ways, making it ideal for this.
also, 24inch and below you really dont need more than 1080p. Sure you will get better image on higher resolution, but you will be less likely to REALLY see the difference. Sure YOU might see the difference, 99% of people will not Note:this ignores refresh rate
I would go with a 1440p 240hz over a 4k 120hz any day of the week, given that Gsync/Freesync are a thing. Both will consume about the same number of pixels over time but if the game starts churning, the drop in hz is going to be a lot less noticeable on the 1440p display.
This is a great overview of each monitor resolution and its benefits in terms of resolution vs frame rate along with price! Keep up the great work on awesome content 😎 I was debating on whether to get a 4k monitor or a 1440p monitor with a higher refresh rate for my 3070. I ended up going with the Dell 2721DGF after watching your review awhile back and I LOVE my monitor. It was a good choice to buy. Even comes with some basic HDR400 support, and when paired with Windows 11's Auto-HDR feature it makes games look even better. Even if it's not the best HDR experience overall, it's still nice to have. I love the high refresh rate of 165hz paired with the great resolution of 1440p at a 27" size. It's great for me
25" 1080P @ 240 Hz for me (alienware). I would have to question the quality of life when **only running at 60 fps** (without image scaling, at least) for 4K.
I am looking to buy a monitor for my ps4 racing rig. I know that ps4 can only do 1080p and found that 32 inch is the ideal size for a sim racing rig. My brother has a PC that can run 1440p racing games but i rarely use it. Would it be worth getting a 3x as expensive 1440p screen instead of an 1080p TV?
My friend got a 4K 60hz display years ago after he bought a GTX 970. I don't think he quite knew how bad his performance would be. He almost always ended up playing games at 1080P lmao
The Dell 2721DGF (of course a recommendation from Tim) was the best choice for me. 27" 1440p IPS 165hz. It nailed all the specs I wanted. It looks fantastic and my 5700xt can handle it easily. It regularly goes in sale for $329. I refuse to buy any monitor that is not "Tim Approved." Same with Steve with his GPU reviews.
i have bought a msi mag251rx a 240hz 1080p monitor and now I'm waiting for the unicorn of monitor world, a 4k 144hz 12bit or higher, oled like tech with no burn in and hdr10+ certified in 27-30 inch.(no anti-glare coating)
How many folks out there use their TV as their monitor (Samsung 4k 55")? its native is 3800*2100 (ish), should I be gaming at 1080, 1440 or at 4k? I have a 1070?
I'm so impressed from AMD FSR that my next monitor will be 4k. I always thought I will never go above 1440p because of native resolution, but upscaling isn't that demanding but gives a lot of quality. And for text sharpness and a bigger workspace or anything work related, 4k is always nice to have too.
AMD software based FSR is a tad mediocre, so not sure why you are so excited about. AMD will likely stop supporting it in RDNA3 and introduce their hardware based DLSS competitor "likely" called FSR2.0, at least that's how it is looking at this stage.
@@Battleneter FSR upscaling from 1440p to 4K still looks a lot better than the monitors internal upscaler, so if you have a 1440p class GPU but want a 4K monitor it's absolutely a viable option. Especially now where it's getting driver inclusion.
@@Battleneter I'm so excited about it because I run Linux and can use FSR for every unsupported game, I'm not exaggerating, Linux has a fullscreen hack for that (don't know about the status for Windows with that). I tested native 1440p vs upscaled 1080p to 1440p, the difference in quality was nearly non-existent especially if you actively play, but I got a big FPS boost for free. I guess I'm a special case with that, but it showed me that 4k gaming is indeed possible even without the highest tier of GPU. Before that I thought 1440p is the highest I want, because in games you mostly want higher FPS not higher resolution and native 4k is of course really demanding.
@@FunFreakeyy But wouldnt upscaled 4k require less performance from the card than native 4K? I think the woes of running a game in Linux at native 4k would present themselves.
@@BombBoy96 Yeah that's what I mean, if you upscale you get more FPS than with a native render. And if you look at different benchmarks over the web, between 1440p and 4k you can expect the difference. Of course it's not 100% the same, but the brain can get tricked really easy, especially in fast paced games.
using 34" WQHD right now, and i think 27" QHD are the sweet spot right now, it's crisp. Also, if you use PC for productivity and game but still think of budget, you can use dual monitor setup 1080p and 4K, that dont need high end GPU like 3080 or 6800 to play in 1080p.
