Gaming monitor.
- Thread starter andicole0
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 18,163
- Location
- West Side
What fps do you expect from the games you play this would make decide if 4k 144hz is achievable for example.
I like 60+. Not sure about ultrawide, somehow they don't seam tall enough but that's the point I suspect
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 18,163
- Location
- West Side
Maybe a trip to a pc world to take a look ar difftent monirors may give you a better perspective. Plus 27 " 4k is gonna look diffrent to 40" 4k so size mattersI like 60+. Not sure about ultrawide, somehow they don't seam tall enough but that's the point I suspect
Depends on what size of monitor you’re referring to. A 34 inch UW is the same height as a 27 inch 16:9 which is plenty tall for most people. I think it’s just the impression it gives because of the spect ratio.I like 60+. Not sure about ultrawide, somehow they don't seam tall enough but that's the point I suspect
If a 34 UW still isn’t tall enough then you need to look at 32inch+ in a 4K monitor.
Above 60 fps 4K is very achievable for top cards in anything but the heaviest games.I like 60+. Not sure about ultrawide, somehow they don't seam tall enough but that's the point I suspect
In those it would require tweaking of settings.
Though high resolution/pixel density would allow some of that without much any visible impact.
Average game would propably run at good amount higher fps with some tweaking of settings.
And marketing is mixing low to wide.
For their big desk space consumption ultralow screens have little image height.
Actually that 34" ultralow has even little smaller screen surface area than 32" 16:9.
There also the 38" UW which are taller due to being 3840 x 1600 vs the 34" 3440 x 1440I like 60+. Not sure about ultrawide, somehow they don't seam tall enough but that's the point I suspect