• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

4K 60Hz Vs 1440p 144hz vs Ultrawide 1440p 100hz

Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,322
Location
Essex innit!
You can point out all the facts you like Nexus. OP asked who was interested and a few said we was and a couple said they wasn't. If you are not interested, move along.

@smogsy For me it is about lag feel and do you notice it? I had a 4K 60Hz Samsung and really felt the input lag, I have also had a 1440P Dell 60Hz IPS, which seemed to have a fair bit of colour bleed as well as input lag. How is widescreen support in games? What are your impressions on the monitors for IQ?

Those are my questions :) Thanks
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
4,139
Location
Oxfordshire
Fair enough if you just are curious to hear what the OP thinks and what he "prefers" and want to get any questions answered directly.

Yep that all :) peoples views and opinions as well as reviews and first hand viewing all are taken into account when I purchase things so that is all really. Always good to hear feedback on how it works for the person. So out of interest for instance on your monitor if you don't mind answering, what was your reason for your choice other others personally?
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
30,926
You can point out all the facts you like Nexus. OP asked who was interested and a few said we was and a couple said they wasn't. If you are not interested, move along.

@smogsy For me it is about lag feel and do you notice it? I had a 4K 60Hz Samsung and really felt the input lag, I have also had a 1440P Dell 60Hz IPS, which seemed to have a fair bit of colour bleed as well as input lag. How is widescreen support in games? What are your impressions on the monitors for IQ?

Those are my questions :) Thanks
I'm interested in reading his opinions on what he likes and what he doesn't and the reasons for this.

What I am not interested in reading are the standard pros/cons about 4k/21.9/144hz, which has been done to death and anyone that calls themselves a PC gamer enthusiast should know such things already...

If people want to read such stuff then fair play, go ahead smogsy.

So I will stay in here, thank you very much :)

For example, your questions are pretty pointless for numerous reasons....

Input lag:

Is very subjective thing, some notice it more than others and unless smogsy has the proper hardware for measuring input lag (even if he does, you can already find this information) then you are better of looking at tftcentral for the report on input lag across more or less every monitor there is (at least the main ones). Not only that but every monitor varies on this even if the panel is the same because of the components used i.e. some versions of my LG 29" have crazy high input lag but the newer revisions have extremely low input lag, one of the best for a 60HZ IPS monitor

Taken from TFTcentral's latest review:

9v0Rn4x.png

For keeping the chart clean looking, a lot of the monitors are no longer there so if you were wanting to get more idea as to a specific unit then search for it specifically

Colour bleed (I believe you meant to say back light bleed?):

This can happen with any LCD monitor as it is largely down to the assembly of the panel i.e. the plastic chassis that houses the panel. IPS seems to suffer from backlight bleed issues more often as its panel type is more sensitive to pressure. This is where reading various forums/threads on the internet is useful because it gives you an idea on monitor QC. If you google you will see that the 34" IPS monitors are more prominent to back light bleed issues as well as IPS glow

21.9 support:

As I tell everyone that asks about 21.9, google this yourself because it might be great for you or it might not be, taken from my 21.9 thread:

AWPC has a good thread regarding what supports 21.9 and what doesn't along with workarounds.

There is also now a dedicated youtube review channel for 21.9 support in games!

On top of that, we also have a steam community group which lists all the games that have native 21.9 support.

A good thread covering 57 games and their 21.9 support.

Only you can decide if you happy with having to manually add 21.9 support to some games or/and dealing with cut scenes in 16.9 or/and the HUD/UI in 16.9 position. Aside from the HUD/UI, the rest doesn't bother me but it bothers the likes of TNA, which is why they don't buy 21.9.

IQ:

IPS VS TN
4k VS 1080/1440P

All been done to death.

Although for a "preference" side of things, I'm curious to read what smogsy prefers "overall" for IQ too. Do you prefer the sharpness/higher PPI of 4k over 1440 or/and IPS over TN or does the higher refresh rate do more for you during gaming since you should/can make out stuff more easily when running/moving around due to the better/clearer motion (assuming you are maintaining such FPS to get this benefit from a high refresh rate display)

Also, it is worth remembering that outside of refresh rate, TN is generally better for response times/motion clarity than IPS.

Yep that all :) peoples views and opinions as well as reviews and first hand viewing all are taken into account when I purchase things so that is all really. Always good to hear feedback on how it works for the person. So out of interest for instance on your monitor if you don't mind answering, what was your reason for your choice other others personally?
Well when I bought mine, it was back in June 2014 so some reasons might not apply as much now i.e. price:

After seeing mrk's review on 21.9/34", I knew I wanted 21.9 for the more immersive gaming experience that it would provide as well as films filling the entire screen up.

This pretty much sealed my choice down to a handful of monitors really :p But I'll go into a bit more detail about the specific specs and why I wanted these specs.

  • IPS over TN (not that I had the choice of this for 21.9 screens anyway), better colour reproduction/IQ and excellent viewing angles (I am very rarely sat directly in centre so couldn't deal with the contrast shift of TN [again, this is subjective, some notice it, others don't) + I had been using IPS for 8+ years before my current one so it would be very hard essentially downgrading back to TN. Also, these UW IPS screens use an extremely light anti-glare finish, which provides a clearer image i.e. no graininess/haze effect and as a result the screen pops out more. TN panels are better for this nowadays though
  • Price, I wasn't willing to spend the £900 for the 34" version
  • Resolution, whilst some view 2560x1080 as a "peasant" res (even though it suits 29" perfectly as the PPI is 95).... it is actually a nice res. for gaming as it is far easier to run than 3440x1440 and I had a 290 at that time (and still do) so needless to say if I went with 3440x1440, I would be needing at least a 1070 to achieve the settings and FPS that I would be satisfied with in games these days. Moving forward with future games I would def. need something of 1080/1080ti power and as I always say..... Give me higher graphic settings/lower res. over low graphic settings/high res. The only thing a higher res./PPI display will do is give a sharper/clearer and more detailed image, it can't add more particle effects, grass/foilage, shadows etc.

As for why I chose the LG 29" over the other 29" models:

AOC - stand looks really bad plus is sat too far forward (problem for me since my desk depth is already very small), build issues
Dell - would have been my choice due to their superb service and swap on door service (wouldn't have minded paying the extra £100 just for that), unfortunately the input lag is very high
ASUS - seems like the best screen all round for performance and image quality etc. but there are quite a few negative posts on their customer service/RMA, issues with build quality, no VESA mounting holes and a £100 more
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,322
Location
Essex innit!
Guess I will drop out of this thread and just read it then as "For example, your questions are pretty pointless for numerous reasons...." Being as far as I got on that last post.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
4,139
Location
Oxfordshire

Thank you for your input. That was good reading and has made me question why I went with 4K really other than to try it at the time. I do think as you say a balance between resolution, screen size and pixel density is important to what GPU you are paring it with.

I am likely to try and hold out till next year, however I am looking at monitors over the next few months. So my thought at moment is I would like to get a 3440x1440p for future GPU but wide screen interests me as well as the thought of 100+ Hz.

With that I think I would be happy to go with a 34" width screen rather than 29" then as the pixel density is similar. You said that the 29" is 95ppi with the 34" then coming in at 109ppi I believe.

This to me seems a good balance as they are also at 100Hz at moment I believe which means I would likely be able to achieve this on next years GPU options.

I know you can get a 38" 3840x1600 now with the same ppi of 109 but I am thinking at that res the GPU even next year will struggle. And you are limited again back to 60Hz I believe, well it's noted as 75Hz, is that an overclock mode or standard?

On a side note though I do a lot of rendering for architecture at home and so I do take that into consideration and the extra pixels for that side of things is excellent.

You have a great more detail of knowledge than myself on this subject. Only just started really looking into as time to think about what I want to and so this topic was right time, right place.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
30,926
Guess I will drop out of this thread and just read it then as "For example, your questions are pretty pointless for numerous reasons...." Being as far as I got on that last post.
Well if you would go onto read the rest of the post you will see why questions like that are "pointless".... It covers all of your questions more than well enough I would like to think.

The only thing smogsy's answers will provide is the same and with his "opinion" on each area which will likely be different to what you may find hence again, why it is better to do your own research for areas such as input lag...

Thank you for your input. That was good reading and has made me question why I went with 4K really other than to try it at the time. I do think as you say a balance between resolution, screen size and pixel density is important to what GPU you are paring it with.

I am likely to try and hold out till next year, however I am looking at monitors over the next few months. So my thought at moment is I would like to get a 3440x1440p for future GPU but wide screen interests me as well as the thought of 100+ Hz.

With that I think I would be happy to go with a 34" width screen rather than 29" then as the pixel density is similar. You said that the 29" is 95ppi with the 34" then coming in at 109ppi I believe.

This to me seems a good balance as they are also at 100Hz at moment I believe which means I would likely be able to achieve this on next years GPU options.

I know you can get a 38" 3840x1600 now with the same ppi of 109 but I am thinking at that res the GPU even next year will struggle. And you are limited again back to 60Hz I believe, well it's noted as 75Hz, is that an overclock mode or standard?

On a side note though I do a lot of rendering for architecture at home and so I do take that into consideration and the extra pixels for that side of things is excellent.

You have a great more detail of knowledge than myself on this subject. Only just started really looking into as time to think about what I want to and so this topic was right time, right place.

No problem :) Glad someone appreciates the post!

Taken from my 21.9 thread, PPI values for various displays to give you an idea:

  • 24" 1920x1080 = 91
  • 27" 2560x1440 = 108
  • 32" 3840x2160 = 137
  • 40" 3840x2160 = 110
  • 25" 2560x1080 = 111
  • 29" 2560x1080 = 95
  • 34" 2560x1080 = 81
  • 34" 3440x1440 = 109
  • 35" 2560x1080 = 79
  • 38" 3840x1600 = 109

The LG 38" monitor is 60HZ natively but as you said can be boosted to 75HZ. I believe most of the current 34" 21.9 screens are native 60HZ but being overclocked to achieve 75 and 100HZ (gsync module allows the panels to be pushed further, however, this introduces scanlines as well as coil whine [for some] and some can't reach 100HZ so have to settle for 80/95HZ). The only ones, which are native 100HZ are the latest/upcoming 100HZ 34" 1440 VA screens i.e. the samsung, aoc, hp, asus monitors.

As for performance, this should give you an idea:

Decent video showing some performance figures for the 970:


And to give you an idea of what you would ideally need to drive 3440x1440:


And yeah 3840x1600 will be even tougher to drive! Personally 38" is too big imo (mainly the width), 34" 1440 100HZ is "technically" the sweetspot "overall".

I'm not 100% sure what your work entails but know that a significant curve will be a nightmare if you need to work with straight lines :p

As for next year, I think we will see more 144HZ 34" 1440 screens, not to mention, it looks to be the year for HDR monitors and hopefully as a result have full array local dimming zones (this alone will have a massive impact on IQ especially for dark content but will add a substantial price to the monitors) but you will need to be wary about HDR as there will be a lot of "fake" HDR monitors coming out i.e. like the upcoming LG and dell ones. TFTcentral have a good guide explaining everything you need to know about HDR:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/hdr.htm
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
19 Sep 2009
Posts
2,717
Location
Riedquat system
There is additional input lag caused by vsync which is particularly bad at 60Hz regardless of any extra latency introduced by the screen itself. I have gamed for years with vsync off for this very reason and put up with tearing instead. Now I have 144Hz Gsync I can finally enjoy low latency with no tearing. :)
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
4,139
Location
Oxfordshire

Cheers for the input and info. Will have a good read through to confirm my statement below, I know the basis of HDR from TV side of things etc just not looked at monitors etc.

The curve surprisingly isn't noticed all that much even with straightline AutoCAD work in honestly. Not sure how it happened but I think it's just understanding what you are looking at as we have a few curved monitors although honestly I still feel I would be better with 21:9 34" 1440p 100Hz with HDR & G-Sync/Freesync2 and flat panel then.

Might have to hold off though then based on all that if really looking to be a year away to get to that.

On note I have always run with Vsync off because of the issue you have described stooeh and things like RS:Siege for instance is what I generally play.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
30,926
There are some ways to reduce and to an extent completely eliminate the input lag associated with in game vsync i.e. generally just capping the FPS to your monitors refresh rate or 1/2 FPS below it works very well I find but for some games you will need to experiment with different things i.e. borderless mode (no need for in game vsync as the game should be using windows built in vsync method) VS full screen (with in game vsync turned on).

Division's in game vsync "auto" setting is the best implementation I have seen/experienced.

Don't forget to factor in what you are using to play games with as well, as this can have an impact on how you "perceive" input lag i.e. controller or mouse + keyboard? M + K makes input lag as well as stuttering etc. far more noticeable than using a 360 controller I find.

Nvidia have their adaptive vsync and fastsync features, which apparently are very good, shame AMD don't have any features like this....

But yes, g/free sync are lovely in this way, no faff required!



Also, whilst we are on the topic of input lag, for nvidia users, you might be adding to your input lag:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1622182/you-might-have-input-lag-without-even-knowing-it

This is disabled automatically by AMD but upon enabling it, I personally noticed a difference with it on and off.

Cheers for the input and info. Will have a good read through to confirm my statement below, I know the basis of HDR from TV side of things etc just not looked at monitors etc.

The curve surprisingly isn't noticed all that much even with straightline AutoCAD work in honestly. Not sure how it happened but I think it's just understanding what you are looking at as we have a few curved monitors although honestly I still feel I would be better with 21:9 34" 1440p 100Hz with HDR & G-Sync/Freesync2 and flat panel then.

Might have to hold off though then based on all that if really looking to be a year away to get to that.

On note I have always run with Vsync off because of the issue you have described stooeh and things like RS:Siege for instance is what I generally play.

HDR will be the same for monitors as it is for TVs.

Yeah it depends on the curve, the subtle curve of the likes of the acer x34 doesn't seem to bother people but the ones with a significant curve on the likes of the samsung 34" really mess straight lines etc. up. All these 34+" 21.9 screens seem to have a curve now, I can't see there being many more flat versions (especially for VA since it's more problematic to contrast/gamma shifts than IPS) as it does help with things like reducing the appearance of IPS glow on the outer edges as well as being better for your eyes in the sense that it fills your FOV/line of sight better.

I fully expect to see something like that next year, however, it won't be cheap (more so if it a "proper" HDR display) especially with it being 21.9.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
30,926
I can't see OLED/QLED happening any time soon:

1. Monitor manufacturers want to milk LCD for longer :p ;)
2. Whilst burn in has pretty much been sorted out for the TV, it could still prove to be problematic for monitor usage
3. Too expensive for the vastly smaller monitor market

I suspect we will see some prototypes next year but for consumer products, don't expect anything till at least 2019/2020 imo.
 
Back
Top Bottom