I’m currently gaming on a 1440p ips monitor and I have the chance to get either the 1440p Msi oled or the msi 32” 4k oled. The 1440 I can get for £630 and the 32” 4k for around £960. I game in the Xbox series x so so Hz is really a factor as I’m maxed at 120hz. Thoughts?
@@ryanbrowning5586 true, who wants to see their ugly face staring right back at them right? And it was easy for the mirror to change from glossy into matte as I never ever clean it 🤓
Exactly but somehow most people ignore that. For example I do not need 240hz watching youtube videos, or creativity stuff. 4k might look nice but even a 4090 (i do own one) it does NOT run most games @ 144 fps. Average is around 70-80 fps. You might get around 100-120 with DLSS & Frame Generation but thats it. It might run E-Sport titles/FPS games well but when it comes to for example rpg/open world games - big No. I rather have consistent 144 - 200 fps in WQHD than having the feeling that the game is lagging.
Nonsense….most people that aren’t dumping thousands of dollars on video cards and monitors, should absolutely go with 1440 until 4k is the norm and you are able to find them in 27 in sizes too. I can’t sit at a desk staring at a TV size monitor inches away from my face while gaming.
forgot one HUGE diffrence and it drives me away from 4k being my main monitor. it's the size. 27" is the largest I could go with comp games so 32" would be a disadvantage at that point. I would have considered the LG "Dual-mode" if not for it's matte display
Why do you consider size to affect gameplay? I’ve heard some claim it takes up too much vision, but would you not push it back further? Perhaps your desk won’t allow this? Curious to know.
@@thedisplayguyits the same for me If the monitor is too big there is just to much space my eye has to cover and i cant go that much further back from my desk so i would love a 24 inch oled as crazy as it Sounds
@thedisplayguy too much information for the eyes fps shooters being close while still seeing the mini map without big eye twitchs is huge. Plus sitting further back surely won't help with eye tracking. Most of the very best players in the world want 24.5" as is but settle on 26.5 to gain 1440p.
thinking of 1k hz is just insane. No triple a title will run that much of fps. We have years of advancements to achieve. We need something like crt for that clarity
While QD OLEDS do have a better color saturation, will their color accuracy not be worse than WOLED because of the pink/magenta tint if there is some ambient light which mixes with the colors on the display? I also wonder if color accuracy test tools are trustworthy if the tools placed on the monitor blocking ambient light from mixing with the shown content. The tools can be consistent but it might not be a realistic representation for the user experience who ends up with tested & calibrated pure white being shown as pink for the eyes with ambient light. Im currently thinking about purchasing my first OLED monitor. But playing in a room with plenty of ambient natural light makes me believe that QD OLED would be a bad choice for me. While 4K resolution would require beefy GPU for gaming, it's a much better standardized resolution for watching content than 1440p. It also much better for productivity as it allows window snapping multiple windows into more than 4 and still be able to read text in each. I wonder if I should wait a bit more.
@@GreyDireWolf You are a complete moron if you buy an OLED to play in the daytime, this makes QD-OLED the clear winner, because anyone buying an OLED TV or Monitor should aim to use it in a dim or dark room for the best experience.
I have the Alienware 360hz 1440p oled with the glossy display. My brother has the KTC 240hz oled matte monitor and honestly bro it's fine to get the matte display too. shit still looks phenomenal compared to an LCD panel
i have both, WOLD and QD oled both 2K and honestly lg matte was wayt better in the black levels and great sharpness, i hate why we listen to those people, QD oled is still better from other aspects but my WOLED was just perfect as well, both are great
Ehh I don't have a 4090 so I went with the 1440p 360hZ option as that's actually easier to achieve than 4K 240 and my 4080 can hit 300fps in quite a few titles
A think the same as you. 4K 240, all the way. The only way i can possible think on 1440p monitor, 1) If your hardware cant do 4k 60 fps in "medium" presets of the games you play. 2) You ONLY play multiplayer games like fornite/apex/cs etc, fps games that have advantage of that 360hz and NEVER touching a AAA single player game. Rest of the cases, if your hardware can do more than 60 fps in "medium quality" in 4k, or you at least play 1 singleplayer AAA game a moth, thats it, you should go to 4k. Not only games are better in 4k, youtube videos in 4k look better, movies, overall operation system. Productivity work is better in 4k too. There are too much things better in 4k that 120hz of difference just cant match. Even p* videos are better in 4k and get no advantage of the 360 hz 🤣🤣 rofl
Seeing QD-Oleds in store was a massive turn off since the blacks truly looks like tn-panels with some ambient light. Rather wait some longer then have such a glaring issue.
Ur stupid if you are buying an OLED to use in a bright room to begin with. OLED shines in a dim or dark environment if you don't play like this, just buy a LCD.
Don't forget that 32 inch is too big for competitive games. And also, what's the PPI of the 4k 32 inch vs the 1440p of a 27 inch? Edit: 108 PPI vs 137.68 PPI on 4k. 27.4% more PPI
32 inches is not “too big” for competitive games. Move the monitor slightly further back and it will have the exact same appearance in your field of view as a 24 inch. This is very very basic
@@Deifiable First, if you move the monitor so far, you won't notice the 4k difference vs 1440p. Second, there are 1680 players on prosettings's website. Not a single one of them uses anything above 27. 97% use a 24-25 Inch. Explain why?
@@Vandelay666 so your first argument is not even trying to say its worse, you’re just saying it’s not better. That’s a very different argument. I was never trying to say it was better because it was 4k. I was saying it wasn’t worse because it’s larger. Separate claims. Second, because all of the best features comes to the smaller monitors. The 540 and 360hz IPS panels with Dyac2 and ULMB2 are all on 24” monitors. Pros want those features, so of course they buy those. Again, this is Because of this nonsensical idea that 24” is somehow better than 32” pushed further back. Which is inaccurate. And you’ve provided no argument otherwise, except saying “32” isn’t noticeably higher res”, which doesn’t factor in at all.
I sit in front of 32" and play Quake Champions perfectly fine with it 🤷♂ And Quake is very competitive game. I couldnt even imagine going smaller than 30". 27" or even 24" would be very tiny lol. You get used to a bigger monitor pretty fast
@@Deifiable IPS is so slow with pixel response that they need overdrive modes where they then have even more ghosting. I personally would prefer OLED 240hz with 0.1 response time and thus perfect motion clarity and true 240hz without any ghosting over an IPS any day
My only concerned about 4K is the latency problems like many other RU-vidrs have mentioned which means it's not really great for competitive play can I typically like to sit close to the monitor which I feel 4K is better suited for bigger monitor screens better positioned away from people but on the other hand going to 4K would mean less of a CPU bottleneck scenario with my 5800 ex 3D
the milisecond differences kinda stack with other latency reductions like polling and the like. alone it makes no dif, but enough small reductions leads to a big reduction. you probably wont notice though if you arent playing at the peak of skill of the game you play. theres an old game ive been playing for over 15 years and one of the top players of the mode i play, and can notice every tiny insignificant latency reduction... in just that game lol edit - also, at 2k res, i stop noticing the dif in resolution. 4k and 2k i cant tell the dif. ill always go with refresh rate. i can notice 2k to 4k on my 65 inch tv though
You can use Nvidia Control Panel on 1440p monitors to upscale to 4K. Save hundreds on a 2K monitor and use technology to make it look more expensive while also saving performance instead of wasting it. It also vibrantly changes that look of a native 2K monitor in my experience but again, my experience.
Just returned the 360hz 1440p Alienware AW2725DF, gaming was awesome but everything else looked worse than 1080p to me. Jagged, disorientating text etc. Probs an OLED thing but yeah guess I'll be going for a 4k 240 with 1080p 480hz hybrid.
@@Ratbane I can't speak for all monitors obviously but I have owned a zowie 360hz and 240hz and see 1080p corporate pc displays often that look better to my eyes. The zowies are tn and look really bad on desktop also
These new panels don't have DP 2.1 and some are lacking HDMI 2.1 for that matter as well. And with the rumors of the 5080 not even matching the 4090 for performance it seems silly to even buy a 4k 240hz monitor as a 4090 only averages around 144FPS at 4k at Ultra settings without DLSS and Frame Generation. I guess if money isn't an object and you'll be getting a 5090 it might be worth it but just hope DP 2.1 isn't required. Id personally wait on the tech to get better for the 4k OLEDS.
Holy shit he has a preference but qualified it with “this won’t always be the best choice for everyone”. A little bit of nuance. I love to see it. If only he would learn to do that with the Matte vs. Glossy sticking point he’s been completely incapable of getting past.
Personally went with dual monitor setup, 48" 4K/120 LG Oled for single player titles/content consumption + 27" 1440p/360 QD-OLED for kbm and faster paced titles + general workstation stuff. Total cost is only slightly higher than a single 32" 4K 240Hz monitor currently, if you can find a deal on 48" Oled. Best of both worlds
Do you draw a paycheck from competitive gaming on a weekly basis? No? Then just get the 4K monitor. I built my first computer in 2013. 1440p was the standard back then. It's crazy that over a decade later and we're still at 1440p as the standard.
4k just makes the most sense. Fringing is less obvious when doing anything productive, DLSS that can satisfactorily fake higher resolution from less powerful cards and even then, with a modern gpu, you can play a huge library of older games comfortably in 4k. 240hz is plenty fast for the average person, and realistically the only reason to want 360hz is if winning at esports is your job. So a 27" 4k 240hz glossy OLED (with HDMI 2.1) would be an 'end game' monitor for a large majority of people.
I might be on hard drugs or something but ive heard the difference after 240 hz is minimal, I have been using a 540 hz monitor to see if its any different and boy does 240 hz after switching back look bad it looks like how 60 hz did after I used 240. Now im wondering if a higher resolution than my normal would be better than higher hz to get better image clarity.
240 to 360hz isn't that much of a difference, still a difference but not big. 240 to 540hz is actually a big difference. Ofcourse not comparable to the 60-144 jump but it probably is just as big as the 144-360 jump lol😅
Now do a qdoled tv at 120hz vs a monitor at 360hz. Obviously the monitor will be better for competition but I'm talking about outside of that. Monitors are just to dim imo
1440p i can max setttings 4k i need to use max performance FSR or DLLS to reach desire fps and some low settings to use or med settings..4k is good if u play old games For new games 1440p. That is why pro gamers go for 1440p monitors with a reason and 1080p.... if you want to have fun and to be fast don't go 4k system latency is huge.
That is assuming you wont need DP 2.1 to reap those new GPUs benefits. These new panels don't have DP 2.1 and some are lacking HDMI 2.1 for that matter as well. And with the rumors of the 5080 not even matching the 4090 for performance it seems silly to even buy a 4k 240hz monitor as a 4090 only averages around 144FPS at 4k at Ultra settings without DLSS and Frame Generation. I guess if money isn't an object and you'll be getting a 5090 it might be worth it but just hope DP 2.1 isn't required. Id personally wait on the tech to get better for the 4k oleds.
@@BillyMOV It's not an assumption. You won't need DP 2.1 for any Blackwell GPUs. They will likely support DP2.1, but it won't be necessary. That would be a terrible business decision and make no sense for any of the parties involved. Any basic research into the whole DP 2.1 thing would have told you that. You don't think that Nvidia's biggest GPU AIB (ASUS) knows whether DP2.1 would be necessary for Blackwell? And if it was, that they would have put it in their flagship gaming monitors that are launching shortly before Blackwell and are targeted at the same people who are buying those top end Blackwell GPUs? If it was every new monitor would already have it. But they don't because that would be stupid and the DP standard is backwards compatible. Oh and every single new 32in OLED 4k240hz monitor does have HDMI 2.1 (although that only caps out at 4K 120Hz/144Hz anyways). There is a 32in 4K 240hz panel with DP2.1 as well, but it was only put in there to attempt to differentiate it from other monitors using the same panel, and capitalize on those who don't understand why DP2.1 isn't really necessary yet. In the monitor that does have it, It also provides zero noticeable benefit and comes with additional problems due to how new the DP2.1 standard is and the lack of clarity around its various sub-standards. You incorrectly assume you understand the purchasing behavior of the people who are actually buying these products. If you think people only buy monitors like this, or even monitors in general to try and cap out every single game at the maximum refresh rate of the monitor, and expect to do so from the moment they get it. You are very very wrong. Your comment reads like someone who doesn't actually have any of the hardware you are referring to and therefore can only attempt to analyze hardware based on the numbers on the spec sheet, without actually knowing what the real world experience of using them is like, or how people who have them, actually use them. And even then, you haven't even done enough research to actually know the things that you can actually know without owning the hardware. You are completely wrong about DP2.1. You don't understand the first thing about OLED panels or their benefits. Which is wild considering the video you are commenting on. You don't understand DLSS or more specifically, what it's actually looks like when using it IRL at 4K and different quality levels. Or what the experience is like playing different games with or without frame gen at various framerates. You don't even seem to really understand framerate in the first place. The advantages that comes from switching to one of these new 32in 4K 240Hz OLED monitors go far so far beyond simply the increased refresh rate. That's not even the primary reason the vast majority of purchasers are buying them. There's also a huge difference between "money being no object" and being able to afford buying a few thousand dollars of PC hardware every couple years. There was absolutely a point in time where I couldn't afford to either, but was still really into PC hardware and researched things constantly to think up hypothetical builds, what I would get if I could, and follow the evolution of the various industries. But come on, if your gonna make comments like the one you just did, at least be certain you actually have a clue what you are talking about before commenting. You're doing others a disservice by spreading incorrect information.
4k doesnt matter in regard performance because majority of modern games have "render scale" or even better DLSS and boom the game renders at 1440p without having to reduce the monitor resolution. So if you have a game which you want 1440p performance at: Just set render scale in the game to 75% and boom you have it. With DLSS even with almost same quality as native 4k.
Of course everythong in this video depends on your rig. But yes I agree 4k is just way too gorgeous to go with 1440p espe ially if you can get 120 fps from your gpu the frames after that unless you have insane eyes won't matter as much (I can notice the difference between 120 and 240 but not nearly as gross as 60 and 120 fps)
Anyone commenting on the matte screen. You obviously havent seen them all side by side in perosn. Its not even close. The matte coating takes away from the sharpness and details. Enjoy having your 4k oled screen being held back.
You’re right. It’s not even close. I’ve had both, and my glossy QD Oled loses its deep blacks and has crazy reflections the second I turn lights on in my room or open the window. The W-Oled has a grain that is really only noticeable on bright white backgrounds, and it only looks worse than QD-oled when my room is pitch black. So yeah, glossy is better if you game like a cave troll. Which is terrible for your eyes with gigantic amounts of constant strain on your focusing muscles. Enjoy having your 4k oled screen being held back by you slowly losing the ability to see in the first place.
@Deifiable for one glossy screens have been around for how many years now??? They are on a thing called a TELEVISJON. People have been gaming on them for how many years and never had complaints. The matte screen looks like a cheap 4k monitor with the way it blurs the detail of the pixels. 4k is meant to have a 3d look to it while gaming and the matte screen prevents that. I posted pics on reddit just to prove it. Enjoy your blurred screen and grayish blacks. Less detail and less sharpness. There's a reason glossy oleds are sold out everywhere and you can find Samsungs and LGs at anytime of the day.
Quantum Dot (QD) and White OLED (W-OLED) are two distinct display technologies used in modern TVs and monitors, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Here are the key differences between them: ### Quantum Dot (QD) Technology: 1. **Color Reproduction**: - QD displays use a layer of quantum dots that emit pure colors (red, green, blue) when stimulated by a light source (usually a blue LED). - This results in very vibrant and accurate colors with a wide color gamut. 2. **Brightness**: - QD displays can achieve higher brightness levels compared to W-OLEDs. This makes them well-suited for HDR content. 3. **Efficiency**: - QD technology is generally more energy-efficient than OLED because it uses LEDs as the light source. 4. **Lifespan**: - QD displays tend to have a longer lifespan as they do not suffer from burn-in issues as OLEDs do. ### White OLED (W-OLED) Technology: 1. **Color Reproduction**: - W-OLEDs use white OLEDs combined with color filters to produce red, green, and blue subpixels. - While they offer excellent color reproduction, they may not achieve the same level of color accuracy and vibrancy as QD displays. 2. **Contrast and Black Levels**: - W-OLEDs have perfect black levels because each pixel can be turned off completely, providing infinite contrast ratios. - This results in deeper blacks and a more immersive viewing experience, especially in dark scenes. 3. **Viewing Angles**: - OLED displays generally offer better viewing angles compared to QD displays, maintaining color accuracy and contrast even when viewed from the side. 4. **Response Time**: - OLEDs have faster response times, making them ideal for fast-moving content like sports and gaming. ### Text Clarity: - **Text Clarity**: - W-OLED displays are often considered better for text clarity due to their ability to control individual pixels precisely, reducing issues like color fringing and providing smoother edges on text. ### Summary: - **QD Technology**: Better for vibrant colors, higher brightness, energy efficiency, and longer lifespan. - **W-OLED Technology**: Superior in contrast, black levels, viewing angles, response time, and text clarity. Your choice between QD and W-OLED should depend on your specific needs, such as the type of content you watch, the environment you watch in (bright vs. dark room), and your sensitivity to issues like burn-in and text clarity.
@@drunkhusband6257 Not true at all. Doom Eternal looks dramatically better on HDR if its HDR settings calibrated correctly to your monitor. God of War Ragnarök on the PS5 looks insanely better on HDR too. And so will the PC version
I have a 4090 / 7800x3d build. You will spend more money on your pc and your monitor, it will heat up your room pretty bad causing you to turn down the temp in the ac, the house will be at a crisp 67 Fahrenheit and your room at 74 f. If you live in an area with high electricity cost you will notice it on your power bill if you game 4+ hrs a day. All that for a few extra pixels. Luckily I have solar panels though. If I had to do it all over again, I’d get a 4070ti super 7800x3d and 1440p panel. Or a 7900xt but the game I play likes NVIDIA more.
@@disco4553 The only reason to get the 27 over 32 inch one is if you are a very competitive gamer. If you mainly play SP games, MMORPGS or racing games def go for 32 inch 4k. The experience on those types of games and text clarity is that much better on the 4K oled displays. I mainly play FPS games so I actually traded my 32 inch 4k in for the 27 inch 1440p one.
I sit about 2.5 three feet from my screen, should I get a 32 or 28 inch 4K monitor. I mainly play world of warcraft and was wondering if it would be too big or might be better to fit more UI inside. Also wondering which one would be ideal don't want to spend that much but could be persuaded if it meant more. Thanks
32 would probably be perfect if you’re sitting up to 3 feet away. I would say in your case it’s just a preference thing, you’d be satisfied with a 28 or 32. I would go 32 if I was you.
@@bibblebabl I realize the video was about oled monitors, but the question was in general; not really worried about getting oled but I could understand why someone without critical thinking might assume that :)
I would love for somebody to objectively quantify how many more kills or wins they get on a 27" monitor compared to a 32". I bet it's negligible at best. Same thing with 360 Hz compared to 240 Hz.
Imho, in gaming, DLDSR of 1440p to 4K on these 27" monitors adequately bridges the gap to the picture clarity of native 4K on the 32" monitors. Fight me.
Sort of. It’s never quite going to be 1:1, as you can’t really match the amount of pixels on the screen. There’s also the issue of the distinctly AI processed look DLDSR tends to add, especially when you apply higher sharpening. It also tends to have a higher performance hit than native 4K (varies from totally negligible to pretty significant), tends to be finicky with some games, doesn’t support RTX HDR, and isn’t supported in some of these OLEDs. DLDSR is great, but only if you already have a 1440p monitor. If you’re in the market for a new monitor, and you’re debating between 1440p and rendering at 4K with DLDSR and 4K native, it just makes more sense to go with the 4K one. If you’re going to be rendering games in both at 4K, just get the 4K native one. The only case I can see for 1440p OLEDs is competitive gaming.
@@thedisplayguy I’ve got a 1440p 27” oled and a 4k 27” mini led sitting side by side and when using dldsr on the 1440p display, they look eerily similar when gaming (most games… FFVII and Forza: no. Every other game, yes; I also have 4k 55”, 65” and 77” oleds which I also game on fwiw). Give it a try (gaming, not desktop use). 2.25x dldsr and 100% smoothing.
@@noidsuper I agree with you almost 100%. I use no sharpening (100% smoothing) which completely gets rid of the ai processed look to my eye. And on a 4090 I’ve never found the performance hit significant, even in aaa games (I also have a 4k panel sitting next to my 1440p one). Problem with going 4k native is price and size. There are no 4k 27” oled’s for those of us who prefer that size. Also, I’d argue that the asus xg27aqdm is the best 27” oled out right now and it gets brighter than the 32” oled’s with less abl while being quite a bit cheaper. It supports dldsr but not having rtx hdr with dldsr (for the time being) is a bummer.
