Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 107
Hello, brave ladies and beautiful gentlemen. I've been thinking about a monitor upgrade, largely in connection with the fact that my RPG backlog has grown so large and so old that I can go much beyond the 1440p 75Hz that my monitor is capable of.
What I now have is AOC Q3279VWFD8, which is a 32'' 1440p 75Hz IPS monitor with 1:1300 contrast, uncertain sRGB gamut but good accuracy, good blacks for an IPS nice blue filters, nice menu, etc., and is probably a golden sample in terms of backlight quality. It also tends to make 4K DLDSR look better than normal 1440p, which is exactly what has made me think about 4K. I am stupefied by the amount of value they managed to pack for the price (in 2018 at that), but my 9600KF @ 420mm + TUF 3070 OC can go way beyond the monitor's specs in older games, so I'm worried about missing out, just like I'm worried about potentially overpaying for a dubious upgrade.
My second monitor is Eizo EV2736, obviously 27'' 1440p, 60Hz, decent but not spectacular contrast.
Between the two monitors, I really like the higher PPI on the Eizo 27'', which is also better for work, but for gaming and social media and general usage, I really prefer the 32''. Like everybody else, I also have previous gaming experience with <27'' sizes, and for me subjectively 32'' is simply more immersive than anything less, unless perhaps for RTS games and certain other genres. The Eizo isn't bad for gaming per se, it's just that (1) it's more tiring on the eyes and (2) the AOC 32'' is better anyway.
I have some experience with VA, namely iiyama ProLite XB2483HSU, which is a 1080p 75Hz 4ms VA monitor. I loved it for gaming, due to the film-like image in RPGs, but between the angles and the lighting single-colour backgrounds looked like gradients, and it was impossible even to design a website without looking directly at colour codes. I didn't appreciate other VA problems such as smearing, ghosting, silvery-glimmering blacks, etc. I'm apprehensive about getting a VA monitor due to the weaknesses, and yet I miss the strengths.
I don't have previous 4K experience (other than really liking 'fake 4K' via DSR) or previous 144Hz or 1ms experience. A lot of people, perhaps the majority of gamers, claim that 144/1 is more noticeable than a resolution upgrade. I have no way of knowing, alas. No one to borrow a fast monitor from, no service to rent from, no hope of a demonstration by a salesperson, nothing.
Of course, one way out is to buy 4K 144Hz, but if I buy that, then as soon as I'm done with the old games, I'm going to need an expensive hardware upgrade to keep up with the refresh rate… or just to be content with 60Hz, which, however, could be purchased for half the money or a third (e.g. Philips 288). So I'm worried about biting more than I can chew. Luckily, 4K 144Hz monitors at least typically have good motion handling at 60Hz, which is my primary consideration when it comes to responsiveness and speed.
I could also resign myself to 1440p (and perhaps continued use of DSR for older games), and realistically speaking, as soon as I'm done with the backlog, my hardware is going to struggle even to sustain 1440p 60fps with all settings on ultra in recent AAA titles, with little hope of hitting 144. And looking at 90-ish fps in 1440p, I probably prefer 60-ish in 4K.
I think 4K60 is less demanding than 1440p at 144Hz in terms of hardware, and this is also a consideration. Perhaps choosing 4K60 but specifically with good motion handling at 60Hz (Rtings has a separate category where you can compare different monitors' performance at exactly 60 fps), and perhaps, just perhaps, overclocking the monitor to 70 or 75 could be the answer to my multiple conundrum?
Then again, there's DLSS and FSR, so perhaps 4K/144 makes sense even for recent titles?
Depending on how much difference things would make, I catch myself thinking that sticking with my existing setup could be the better solution. The AOC happens to have better contrast than almost every single expensive IPS monitor in the market. It works at 80Hz, which is more than I could get from 9600KF and 3070 in 1440p with ultra settings in last year's AAA titles. Looking at something like Kingdom Come: Deliverance, at 1440p 80Hz/fps, I think I'd be missing a higher resolution (4K) more than a higher framerate (120, 144).
So I think I'm leaning either 4K or no upgrade (keep the AOC, spend the money on CPU). But, there is also G7 Odyssey, which I've heard good things about. It could be a wonderful fast-VA experience, though I worry the colours could appear washed out going from an IPS.
If I do stay at 1440p, there are some nice 32'' options such as M32Q. However, that's a low PPI for work (fine for gaming), though it allegedly has good text clarity (according to Rtings), and (more worryingly?) Gigabyte QA/QC.
Bottom line, I'm a bit lost between 27'' vs 32'', 1440p vs 4K (at each respective size), VA vs IPS, and 60Hz vs 144/165, upgrading vs sticking with what I have.
What I now have is AOC Q3279VWFD8, which is a 32'' 1440p 75Hz IPS monitor with 1:1300 contrast, uncertain sRGB gamut but good accuracy, good blacks for an IPS nice blue filters, nice menu, etc., and is probably a golden sample in terms of backlight quality. It also tends to make 4K DLDSR look better than normal 1440p, which is exactly what has made me think about 4K. I am stupefied by the amount of value they managed to pack for the price (in 2018 at that), but my 9600KF @ 420mm + TUF 3070 OC can go way beyond the monitor's specs in older games, so I'm worried about missing out, just like I'm worried about potentially overpaying for a dubious upgrade.
My second monitor is Eizo EV2736, obviously 27'' 1440p, 60Hz, decent but not spectacular contrast.
Between the two monitors, I really like the higher PPI on the Eizo 27'', which is also better for work, but for gaming and social media and general usage, I really prefer the 32''. Like everybody else, I also have previous gaming experience with <27'' sizes, and for me subjectively 32'' is simply more immersive than anything less, unless perhaps for RTS games and certain other genres. The Eizo isn't bad for gaming per se, it's just that (1) it's more tiring on the eyes and (2) the AOC 32'' is better anyway.
I have some experience with VA, namely iiyama ProLite XB2483HSU, which is a 1080p 75Hz 4ms VA monitor. I loved it for gaming, due to the film-like image in RPGs, but between the angles and the lighting single-colour backgrounds looked like gradients, and it was impossible even to design a website without looking directly at colour codes. I didn't appreciate other VA problems such as smearing, ghosting, silvery-glimmering blacks, etc. I'm apprehensive about getting a VA monitor due to the weaknesses, and yet I miss the strengths.
I don't have previous 4K experience (other than really liking 'fake 4K' via DSR) or previous 144Hz or 1ms experience. A lot of people, perhaps the majority of gamers, claim that 144/1 is more noticeable than a resolution upgrade. I have no way of knowing, alas. No one to borrow a fast monitor from, no service to rent from, no hope of a demonstration by a salesperson, nothing.
Of course, one way out is to buy 4K 144Hz, but if I buy that, then as soon as I'm done with the old games, I'm going to need an expensive hardware upgrade to keep up with the refresh rate… or just to be content with 60Hz, which, however, could be purchased for half the money or a third (e.g. Philips 288). So I'm worried about biting more than I can chew. Luckily, 4K 144Hz monitors at least typically have good motion handling at 60Hz, which is my primary consideration when it comes to responsiveness and speed.
I could also resign myself to 1440p (and perhaps continued use of DSR for older games), and realistically speaking, as soon as I'm done with the backlog, my hardware is going to struggle even to sustain 1440p 60fps with all settings on ultra in recent AAA titles, with little hope of hitting 144. And looking at 90-ish fps in 1440p, I probably prefer 60-ish in 4K.
I think 4K60 is less demanding than 1440p at 144Hz in terms of hardware, and this is also a consideration. Perhaps choosing 4K60 but specifically with good motion handling at 60Hz (Rtings has a separate category where you can compare different monitors' performance at exactly 60 fps), and perhaps, just perhaps, overclocking the monitor to 70 or 75 could be the answer to my multiple conundrum?
Then again, there's DLSS and FSR, so perhaps 4K/144 makes sense even for recent titles?
Depending on how much difference things would make, I catch myself thinking that sticking with my existing setup could be the better solution. The AOC happens to have better contrast than almost every single expensive IPS monitor in the market. It works at 80Hz, which is more than I could get from 9600KF and 3070 in 1440p with ultra settings in last year's AAA titles. Looking at something like Kingdom Come: Deliverance, at 1440p 80Hz/fps, I think I'd be missing a higher resolution (4K) more than a higher framerate (120, 144).
So I think I'm leaning either 4K or no upgrade (keep the AOC, spend the money on CPU). But, there is also G7 Odyssey, which I've heard good things about. It could be a wonderful fast-VA experience, though I worry the colours could appear washed out going from an IPS.
If I do stay at 1440p, there are some nice 32'' options such as M32Q. However, that's a low PPI for work (fine for gaming), though it allegedly has good text clarity (according to Rtings), and (more worryingly?) Gigabyte QA/QC.
Bottom line, I'm a bit lost between 27'' vs 32'', 1440p vs 4K (at each respective size), VA vs IPS, and 60Hz vs 144/165, upgrading vs sticking with what I have.
I could ask mother to find me a girl, but with a monitor I'm afraid that's not going to work.
