Single-player RGPs for immersion — 27'' vs 32'', VA vs IPS, 4K vs 1440p?

[NewbieOneKenobi]

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.

 

[NewbieOneKenobi]

I mostly struggle to decide between the immersion factor of 32'' and the greater manageability and PPI of 27'', though I suppose in the case of 4K the PPI wouldn't matter that much, as it would still be far greater on 32'' 4K than 27'' 1440p anyway. And then there are the vibrant colours and often perfect angles of IPS vs the nice atmospheric contrast of VA. And of course the basic dilemma of upgrading either the resolution or the framerate if you can't have both.

A while ago I realized that something like Philips 288 is cheap enough that it really makes no sense not to buy it now and sell it on in a year or two, or three, at 50% of the value. But then the same is occasionally true for certain high-refresh 1440p monitors. Could buy both and compare, of course, but can't really buy each of them if we also throw IPS vs VA in the mix. Plus, if you're buying several budget monitors, you might as well skip all of them and just buy one thing that's going to be really good. Kind of like escaping the 'mid-fi hell' with headphones.

OLED isn't my league yet (unless perhaps I could justify it on some grounds relating to work, which is reading and writing in my case), but then a really good IPS or VA monitor with comparable parameters other than panel type isn't actually going to be much cheaper anyway.

Not sure about UW. Not my type of thing for work, because for work I've found that as small (within reason) and as close to square as it gets is best for my particular applications (as the main driver, with something larger and wider for research and comparisons). For gaming, however, I can't deny it has a certain appeal. At work, I generally want my peripheral vision to be off-screen. For gaming, that's a completely different matter, and having lots of peripheral vision probably spares you quite a lot of head movement and camera movement or rotation.

Choices, choices, sigh. It doesn't suprise anyone that I'm a bachelor at 40, now does it? I could ask mother to find me a girl, but with a monitor I'm afraid that's not going to work.

 

[NewbieOneKenobi]

Yes, well, I miss the additional height of 4:3 or 5:4 or even 16:10 at work, if not for gaming, though that may depend on the game. For gaming, it really depends on the game, but it also kinda feels like either 16:10/5:4/4:3 or 21:9 is better than 16:9 — an excluded-middle sort of situation. (It's also possible I forgot to wear a hat in sunlight.)

The more I look for a new monitor, the more I appreciate the two I already have. What I don't have, however, is either 144Hz or 4K, and it's kind of a waste not having that on your monitor when your PC can power it.

 

[NewbieOneKenobi]

Went back to the AOC 32'' after a month and a half using the Eizo 27'', and it's… mixed. It feels a bit like going back to TN (with better angles). I think I like the larger size more but also like the higher PPI and resulting clarity more (93 isn't bad, but it isn't good either), so perhaps 4K is the way for me after all, as you can have both 32'' and high PPI.

In a curious way, after going from 27'' to 32'' less than an hour before this writing, I can also see what people like in UW, when playing an isometric RPG. Extra vertical space is nice to have, but extra horizontal space feels more relevant. Or perhaps my head prefers horizontal to vertical movement. It also seems easier to look left and right without moving my head, just eye movement, than up and down. Actually, it's not easier per se, it just feels more natural.

In any case, there is something special (luxurious but perhaps there's more to it) about 32'' on a standard desk. 27'' may be the golden middle, but it kind of feels like just that, a compromise. All milk, no cream. It's neither as easily controlled as 24'' nor as immersively encompassing as 32''. And… well, I've toyed with the idea of grabbing a 24'' 4K monitor for office work and maybe giving it a shot with gaming too. I would just keep it really close.

The whole left-and-right batting of eyes and experimenting with pulling a large screen close has also made me think a curved monitor might be a good idea for gaming. I've never used a curved monitor, perhaps a minute of looking at one at a store is all, but I really wish I could push the centre back a bit and bring the ends closer. Perhaps it's a pity the Odyssey G7 bargain I've been pining for for a while is no longer available. Then again, that was 27'', and perhaps it might be worth forking out a hundred extra for 32'' and another hundred for 4K instead of 1440p, so possibly it's a good thing I hadn't pulled the trigger.

VA vs IPS is my next dilemma. The AOC feels like it has better contrast (1200 typical, 1300 in a review) than the Eizo (not bad but probably not above 1000, though who knows), but this has the effect of making me want to try a real contrast monitor, i.e. VA. But the average 60/75Hz VA on a budget 4K monitor would probably be slower than the reasonably fast 75Hz IPS (8ms measured) that I already have.

 

[NewbieOneKenobi]

I've narrowed things somewhat but still can't arrive at a decision. I'm torn between the competing concepts of 4K and 144Hz, with perhaps 4K144 as an expensive third with the harsh drawback of not being able to fall back on 1440p for all the money, ergo pushing me to spend more money on future GPU upgrades.

Currently, the favourite is the M32Q, a 32'' 1440p 170Hz IPS, because it offers the best motion handling at low framerates in addition to high, and has some of the best out-of-the-box colour accuracies, saving me some money and hassle with regard to calibration. And the contrast is good, for an IPS. It might be a simple linear upgrade from my AOC, giving up nothing but the money spent and perhaps 10% of the contrast ratio, in return for the benefits.

Still, if I go that route, I'm going to miss both 4K per se and the benefits of >100 PPI. Granted, I prefer 32'' to 27'' even in 1440p, but the higher PPI of the 27'' 1440p makes me want to use 4K with the 32''.

So my options are like:

1. M32Q.
2. Accepting the 60Hz limiter of most cheaper 4Ks and going for something budget or for something a bit more expensive but having goodies such as good HDR. A 43'' TV could fall in this bracket.
3. Splurging on 4K144 and preparing to splurge on the next GPU upgrade.
4. Sticking with what I have and waiting for OLED (including TVs) or mini-LED to become cheaper.

And then there's the IPS vs VA problem that I haven't resolved, though I lean towards colour-accurate VA with good motion handling first, IPS with good contrast second. Obviously the second is cheaper than the first, though one can find deals on various G7 family members.

 

[NewbieOneKenobi]

I probably won't surprise anyone by saying I haven't decided yet.

But I've managed to narrow this down a bit, sorta. There are two top contenders (Rtings side-by-side):

• Samsung Odyssey G7 32'' 1440p VA
• Gigabyte M32Q (1440p IPS)

They seem to have similar motion-handling properties, with the Gigabyte very marginally better @ 120Hz and the Samsung @ 60Hz. So it comes down to top-class nano-IPS flat vs Samsung's magic VA curved, for image quality and immersion factor. And perhaps QA issues. And I can get the Gigabyte about 25% cheaper.

Another expensive contender could be Corsair Xeneon (1440p), which is an even faster IPS than the M32Q, especially at 60Hz, which is of top interest to me due to ultra settings.

On the 4K front, I'm looking at the M32U, but I feel I can't justify the expense. Any high-refresh 4K monitor I can justify splurging on will be 27–28'', and I prefer 32''. Otherwise, out of 4K60 monitors, BenQ EW3270U is actually on par with or better than most 4K144 monitors when measured specifically at 60Hz, according to Rtings. And it has a full 10bit panel, apparently. Philips 328E1CA has a similar cost and perhaps similar panel.

I've been warming up to the idea of grabbing a 43'' monitor or even TV, as TVs seem to be cheaper than monitors for comparable picture quality for gaming. But I'll probably pass unless I find something with a much better image quality than a 32'' monitor for the same price.