Definitely worth going 40" for 4K but not so sold on resolution being king - its awesome for some stuff but I keep coming back to 2560x1440 for all around use.
4K Or Ultrawide 1440p Gaming
- Thread starter enapace
- Start date
Definitely worth going 40" for 4K but not so sold on resolution being king - its awesome for some stuff but I keep coming back to 2560x1440 for all around use.
Haha well just brought a 4K 27 inch ROG Swift so will see what 4K is all about soon enough.
you 'brought' the wrong choice, but well enjoy your slightly higher fidelity and bad refresh rates i guess!
The problem is with 4K is that it's well overdue faster panels... until we see that 60Hz barrier broken, it's just a waste. Resolution trumping 144FPS buttery smoothness is really not an argument I buy for one second, but each to their own.
I have an X34 myself which I love, but I can't deny looking at my friends' 144Hz 1ms monitors in action that smoothness like that on my monitor is just not quite achievable, and I wish it was. 4K is going to be even worse in that regard, and I would no way ever swap higher res for even less smoothness than what I already have! Not to mention the immersion factor which 21:9 absolutely kills it on.
I have an X34 myself which I love, but I can't deny looking at my friends' 144Hz 1ms monitors in action that smoothness like that on my monitor is just not quite achievable, and I wish it was. 4K is going to be even worse in that regard, and I would no way ever swap higher res for even less smoothness than what I already have! Not to mention the immersion factor which 21:9 absolutely kills it on.
Last edited:
you 'brought' the wrong choice, but well enjoy your slightly higher fidelity and bad refresh rates i guess!
60hz should be fine with the amount of graphics power he has on tap. 4k at 60Hz certainly isn't going to be bad with the best part of £2500 worth of graphics cards. TBH I would have said take a pop at 5K with that setup. If we had 45-50" monitors of course.
Last edited:
You can't get much more immersion than sitting two feet away from a big 4k screen. A 40-42" screen would be the same width as the 34" 21:9 but with an extra 50% on top.
Of course 60Hz is "FINE"... I personally wouldn't want just "FINE" with £2500 worth of GPUs lol! It goes without saying that it would be better with more frames and smoothness. The difference between 60Hz and 100hz is very obvious when you see it. Honestly, no one can say until they've tried both... some people will fall either side of that line, but I can personally say that smoothness wins out for me, to a point... immersion seals the deal for me with 21:9 and 100Hz. I'd only swap it for a faster 21:9 now.
For immersion yes, but you can't get G-Sync at 40" 4K... not yet anyway. You'll see the tears and stutters sitting that close for sure!
Last edited:
Resolution is king.
Not it's not..
Not you too easy
Superwide 2k at 100hz blows chunks over 60hz 4K 16:9
Thanks for all the comments I do agree with some of them.
Maybe it will only be a stopgap monitor but at £485 it can afford to be I wanted to test out 4K and Gsync with the Asus Monitor I will be able to. It would have been a far more bitter pill to swallow if I had paid a thousand for a ultra wide and then next year brought a ultra wide 4K or something similar.
My current monitor is a old dell 24 inch 1080p IPS panel 60hz never seen 100hz so won't miss out. I will probably look forward to seeing 4K 144HZ monitors but I had to decide now and the price I got it for was a big swing vote for me.
I'm sorry I can't please you all but appreciate comments all the same.
Maybe it will only be a stopgap monitor but at £485 it can afford to be I wanted to test out 4K and Gsync with the Asus Monitor I will be able to. It would have been a far more bitter pill to swallow if I had paid a thousand for a ultra wide and then next year brought a ultra wide 4K or something similar.
My current monitor is a old dell 24 inch 1080p IPS panel 60hz never seen 100hz so won't miss out. I will probably look forward to seeing 4K 144HZ monitors but I had to decide now and the price I got it for was a big swing vote for me.
I'm sorry I can't please you all but appreciate comments all the same.
What does that mean exactly and how can you quantify such a statement? You're saying that more pixels is better than EVERYTHING else pertaining to the motion of those pixels. Which doesn't make a great deal of sense when you're talking about gaming.
Indeed. Having trouble getting my head around how someone can see both and disagree with that. I have and it's night and day to my eyes. Oh well.
You don't have to please anyone... as long as YOU'RE happy that's all that matters. As I've said though, this is not one of those things you can really know until you've seen both. I'm sure you would be happy with whatever, providing you don't get a monitor full of backlight bleed or some other horrible fault that ruins your gaming experience. Ultimately it comes down to what you consider more important that's all... but obviously budget dictates what's possible, and at £485 a top end 21:9 is out of your reach anyway, so it's a moot point.
Don't worry, 4K ultrawide isn't going to appear anytime soon (2-3 years at least I'd say), but 4K at 100Hz+ absolutely will be here soon... that will pretty much overnight make all 4K 60Hz monitors largely irrelevant. The likes of the X34 actually do have more longevity.
Budget wasn't an issue i've already spent thousands on my Graphics Cards it was more the fact that I could get a 4K ROG Swift for that price. would have paid basically £1000 for a ultrawide but in end I wanted to see what 4K was truly like and thought ultrawide would not be using my two Titan Pascal cards properly.
As you say 4K 100Hz are around the corner I might buy one of those when they come out but I might not depends on situation. Just like getting a 5930K for a good price was good sense for me I'm not truly on a budget for my system build but if I can get the same product for less I would be stupid not to.
Last edited:
Never played with a monitor above 60fps so for me it's not a loss but I understand what your saying.
Last edited:
What does that mean exactly and how can you quantify such a statement? You're saying that more pixels is better than EVERYTHING else pertaining to the motion of those pixels. Which doesn't make a great deal of sense when you're talking about gaming.
Indeed. Having trouble getting my head around how someone can see both and disagree with that. I have and it's night and day to my eyes. Oh well.
OK , you have to make a few assumptions like hitting your playable frame rate and being happy with the screens performance. Once at that point resolution is kind.
I've used monitors will all kinds of resolutions refresh rates and response times. 60Hz 50-60 FPS and I'm good. Sure 85Hz would be nice but not at the expense of of dropping resolution.