Need 32" monitor suggestions

[doveman]

I'm currently running a 24" Dell U2412M and I'm finding myself squinting at it quite a lot these days, so I need to upgrade. Comparing to a 28" diagonal doesn't seem that much bigger, so I think I need a 32".

I'm not expecting to find a 16:10 monitor like my Dell. I like to play flight sims and when my Dad swapped his old IPS monitor for a BenQ VA I was impressed how much clearer the stars stood out in the night sky because of the better black levels/contrast, so I think I want a VA panel. I don't do colour critical work like photography so hopefully I won't mind the less accurate colours compared to an IPS, although I've read some comments about severe ghosting with a VA which concern me.

I'm thinking 4k will be useful for productivity even if I can't run games at that resolution with my 1070ti. Presumably it will upscale anything I run at 1080 or 1440?

I don't do twitch gaming as I suffer from quite bad motion sickness so can't even play Assassin's Creed for more than a couple of hours on my 60hz TV and some games are much worse. So I'm not sure I have any need for a 120/144hz monitor and I know 4k at above 60hz monitors are out of my budget but if I get a 2k with a high refresh rate I'll try it of course.

I guess something with Freesync that works with the 1070ti might be nice but I've never experienced Freesync so can't really say if I'll benefit.

I know some monitors like my Dad's BenQ feature low blue light for reduced eye strain, so that might be nice to have.

Budget I'm thinking £300-500.

I want to mount it on a monitor arm, so a central VESA mount point is important. What I want to do is be able to move the 32" to a higher position for flight simming and position my touchscreen below it. If I had a dual monitor arm like this (I know this one only supports up to 27") mounted off to the side of the desk, would that allow me to move the main monitor up and down vertically without it moving in any other direction and then bring the second monitor in from the side to underneath the main one, or would I need two separate arms to do that?

Competitor link removed, if OCUK don't sell that item either link to the manufacturers website or just list the make and model. Thanks.

 

[doveman]

Thanks for the suggestions guys and congrats to you SilverCider on finally popping your forum cherry

I'll definitely consider both of those, they sound pretty decent but I'm still not sure about getting a 1440p rather than a 4k 32". Partly because I'm concerned that the lower pixel density/PPI might be a problem with a 1440p 32" and partly because the 4k might be more useful from a productivity point of view, by allowing me to have more windows open and usable at the same time. Whilst I'm not sure my 1070ti could handle 4k@60hz gaming, flight sims are generally OK at 30fps so it might be nice to have a 4k monitor for those and for future-proofing if I upgrade my GPU.

Sorry about the competitor link. The dual-arm I was looking at is this Invision one which is gas-powered and I definitely want something like that, rather than something you have to loosen and tighten nuts on to adjust. I think I'll probably need two separate arms clamped either end of the desk though, as with a centrally mounted dual arm I don't think I'd be able to position the lower monitor all the way down so it's touching the desk.
https://www.invisiontvbrackets.com/invisionr-pc-monitor-arm-mx300

 

[doveman]

The pixel density of a 32 inch 1440p monitor is the same as a 24 inch 1080p monitor.
I would consider 4k, even at 32 inches, a bit too small.
Having owned a 28inch 4k monitor...I didn't find it too user friendly. And having had to use scaling meant the increased pixel density was a bit of a moot point.
IMO 4k is good for screens 43 inches and above.

Ah I see. In that case I might be better off with a 1440p monitor then, as I think a 43" would be too a bit overwhelming.

Would it not be possible to run a 4k at 1440p for desktop work and 4k for (some) games though to have the best of both worlds?

 

[doveman]

Also, having a low refresh va panel is likely to make your motion sickness worse.
You should stick with a good TN panel imo.
IPS if you want to try. But I think you're making a mistake going with a va screen if your motion sickness is as bad as you say it is. Even the best va panels still have some element of ghosting. Just the nature of the panel.
(Yes I've owned TN, va, and IPS panels)

You might be right that a high-refresh rate TN would be better for my motion sickness but it could just be something I'll experience whatever panel I get, so it would be a shame to sacrifice the better contrast for flight sims for no benefit. I've probably spent no more than 30 minutes at a time flying X-Plane 11 on my Dad's BenQ 60hz 27" VA when configuring it for him but that didn't trigger any problems for me.

I also have to consider whether my GPU would even be able to run a lot of games at a minimum of 144fps or if I'd end up having to lock it at 60fps anyway. Someone told me that motion sickness is more to do with varying fps than the actual fps, so a fixed 30fps would be better than 60fps which dips occasionally but for me I think it's just the actual movement on the screen. Varies depending on the game for me. First-person games are generally worse than third-person. Sometimes just the color palette can cause problems. My friend doesn't generally suffer motion sickness but I recall he had a problem with one particular game, Quake I think, which he attributed to the colours).

I don't think I've ever experienced motion sickness with flight sims. I also seem to be able to play ArmA 3 for hours without getting sick but when I tried The Division 2 beta I felt dizzy as soon as I started playing. I pushed through it and managed to play for an hour or two but felt quite sick after.

 

[doveman]

Ghosting, tearing and, jittering and lag can make motion sickness worse.
Also some people are sensitive to pwm back light dimming, so whichever monitor you do intend on getting do check if it uses pwm dimming.

OK thanks, I'll bear that in mind.

 

[doveman]

You can, but not all programs are scaling-aware. Even windows 10 isn't that great (getting better though). Also non-native resolutions on lcd panels tend to look slightly blurry, due to pixel extrapolation. (4k is 1080p ^2. 1440p doesn't have a round number of pixels to upscale to 4k)

I just assumed the monitor would do the upscaling. Is that not the case or do programs still have to be scaling-aware regardless?

If upscaled resolutions are going to look blurry though that's probably going to be a problem, so maybe I will have to go for a 1440p monitor.

 

[doveman]

4K @ 32" is rather nice... assuming you have 20/20 vision and a GPU to drive it. Scaling can help if you struggle a bit in desktop, but with games everything looks amazing with a pin sharp 137 PPI. The problem is there is a dearth of monitors available at this size with adaptive-sync tech (and none greater than 60hz other than the 4-figure Acer/Asus model)... and that's a necessity really, no matter what GPU you have. After more than 3 years there is still only one single 32" 4K monitor with G-Sync (the XB321HK) which I cannot get my head around given how saturated the market is with 27" 1440p options now. Obviously now that Nvidia support G-Sync, I think there are couple 4K 32" Freesync monitors which should be near your budget.

4K is brilliant for productivity. I'd find it hard to move away from it now. You will certainly take a hit with gaming on a 1070Ti though, so you have to consider your priorities. 27" 1440p might be more then adequate, and it would certailny run games smoother and faster.

It does seem that it will rather limit my options to go for a 32" 4k freesync monitor. Why do you say adaptive-sync is a necessity though? I mean, if my 1070ti can run games at a fixed 60fps isn't that better than it varying between say 60-100fps with freesync? Do you think at 1440p my GPU will be able to run most games at a minimum of 120 or 144fps, as if it's going to vary and run lower a lot of the time then I'm obviously not getting the benefit of a higher framerate/refresh rate much of the time.

I'm unsure about 4k for productivity now. Some people, like you, says it's great and I know someone who's happily using a 28" 4k (not in this country unfortunately, so I can't go and view it) whilst others says anything below 43" is impractical without scaling. This review https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/aoc-ag322qcx-qhd-curved-gaming-monitor,review-34416.html says a QHD 27" has 109ppi (which they consider ideal) and a QHD 32" only 93ppi (which is just enough to avoid jaggies), so if a 32" 4k has 137 ppi I guess I can see how that might make things too small without scaling. Wouldn't that apply to text in games as well though? On my 50" TV I found I had to play games with a lot of text like The Witcher 3 and other RPGs at 720p to make it clearly readable from my sofa about 6ft away.

It seems 4k is actually a hindrance in DCS and possibly other flight sims, as it makes spotting enemy aircraft harder and if scaling up from 1080p is going to be blurry, it's probably best to get a 1440p monitor for that (which will still make spotting harder than at 1080p but it's a compromise I'll have to make, or find a way to keep using my 1080p monitor or TV for DCS). However other games will look better at 4k and if I can get a decent 4k for not much more than a 1440p it will avoid me having to spend the same again to upgrade to a 4k monitor if I upgrade my GPU for 4k in the near future. So many dilemmas!