[Upgrade] AW3418DW vs LG 34GK950F vs Acer Nitro XV273K vs ???

Minato

Minato

Minato

Associate
Joined
29 Aug 2008
Posts
1,045
Location
London
Evening gents,

Just taken delivery of my Ryzen 3600, RTX 2080 system (Video, Pics - if interested). However to take advantage of this system, I need to disconnect it from the ~2010 42" 1080p Sony Bravia that i've been using for a number of years, and connect it to a proper monitor. With that in mind, I would be very grateful for any recommendations. I've been doing a fair bit of reading recently and the above monitors in the title stand out the most - although there are many more mentioned around here/reddit/youtube etc.

Some information about what it'll be used for:
  • General desktop/internet browsing: Sharpness and plenty of real estate is essential. For the last few years i've been using the above 42" 1080 Sony Bravia TV as a monitor, at 2560 x 1440 via AMD's virtual super resolution feature. Text is fairly ugly, but having multiple windows(e.g chrome + whatsapp desktop + itunes mini player) all at once is very much enjoyed.
  • Photo editing: Photography is a bit of a hobby and I do a fair amount of post-processing in Adobe Lightroom. I don't need to have a professional grade monitor, but something with good colours would be nice. I don't want a TN panel, and i'm leaning heavily toward IPS over VA for this reason.
  • Multimedia and Gaming: TV shows, movies, the occasional bit of gaming (single player RPGs mostly, with some multiplayer here and there). I'm not knowlegeable enough to get technical here, but I just want the picture to look good. I've never had a high refresh rate monitor before, and I would very much like to experience it this time around. Not particularly bothered if it's 120Hz or 144Hz.
Future Proofing: My previous system is still going strong after 10 years, and has only been moved on out of necessity and because it was starting to struggle with general desktop usage. I don't like upgrading often, i'd rather spend once and be content for a long while. I totally understand and appreciate the arguments against high refresh rate @4K monitors. Even a 2080TI can't drive 120+fps at 4K max settings, so it makes more sense to pair it with a 1440p monitor. But it can drive 60-80 fps in many games. So what about the 3080ti, or the 4080ti?

My point is, it seems more logical to buy a 4K 144Hz monitor and play on slightly lower settings/resolution for a couple of years, and upgrade the graphics card - which would happen anyway sooner or later when you can push 4K @ 144fps. The alternative is buying a 1440p monitor, and having to then get rid of it in just a few short years to upgrade to a 4K high refresh monitor and upgrade your graphics card. Considering just the above examples where the Acer Nitro XV273K is cheaper than both the Alienware and the LG ultrawides, it seems like a very good idea? But then it's only 27" rather than 34" and that'll be a big drop from my current 42".

Panel Lottery: All of the above have plenty of reports about horrible backlight bleed/IPS glow, with many returns and switches from one to the other. Is there any definitive knowledge of which panels have a higher percentage chance of being good out of the box?

Alternative Monitors:
  • Samsung CRG9: Tempting, but I think realistically is just a bit impractical, and it's a VA.
  • There's allegedly some Innolux 31.5" 4K 120/144Hz panels coming in Q2/3 of 2020 according to tftcentral, but i'm not interested in waiting a year for them.
  • LG 38GL950G: 38" rather than 34", 3840 x 1600 rather than 3440 x 1440, IPS, and native 144Hz. Unknown release date though.
  • Asus XG438Q ROG STRIX: 43", 4K, 120Hz. It's basically perfect (VA though not IPS). Unknown release date.
Customer Service & Warranty: Given the high likelihood of needing to return a panel due to either an out of the box issue, or something going wrong with it, the manufacturer having a good reputation is fairly essential. I've heard good things about Dell/Alienware, and not good things about LG.

Many thanks for your help in advance chaps.
 
Last edited:
Alienware for the superior build quality and best all-rounder price vs performance vs build quality ultrawide available atm.
CRG9 if you can put up with the poor samsung build quality and quality control. I've gone through 3 panels, and still not found a faultless one but it is AMAZING.

Those are my two suggestions.


The LG38 is a good option if it was the same price as the CRG9. However I think given its more expensive, I just struggle to justify it given I have a CRG9 and it just about fills up my horizontal vision, and the 38incher realistically only gives you a tiny bit more vertical real estate compared to the CRG9 with a lot less horizontal.
The LG34-F has 24 more hz and a wider color gamut but simply put, isn't up to Alienware's build quality (no one's is).

Spending this much money, I'd personally not even consider 16:9 monitors.
 
Last edited:
I can highly recommend the Alienware AW3418DW because i purchased one recently and it,s fantastic IPS,G-Sync,120hz and built like a tank and backed by a dell warranty.

Also 3440 x 1440 is not that much more demanding GPU wise than 2560x1440p but you gain that extra desktop space with 21.9.
 
If you're interested in photo editing and colour accuracy, you need to focus on IPS and not VA. The XG438Q in-particular is pretty lousy in that regard, based on all reviews I've seen.

4K would be preferable for productivity, but obviously you take a hit there in games and FPS, but doesn't sound like that will be a massive deal for RPG etc. In fact, 4K is very nice for such games where you really have time to appreciate the extra fidelity. The XV273K is, IMO, a tad small at 27" for 4K... most people would agree 32" is the 4K sweet-spot, and I think you'd notice it coming from 42"... but then depends how far you sit from it. You won't really know until you try.

There are VERY few options when it comes to high refresh 4K. There's another 43" due from Acer (and another from Asus) in coming months, but both are VA and I suspect will suffer same flaws as the XG438Q. You'll be waiting well into next year for any other high refresh 4K options.

The LG 38GL950G is going to be expensive, rumoured at 2300 Euros, but should hopefully be available in next month or so. I think it will be a good monitor (glow and bleed issues aside), but that price is just nuts.

Ultrawide 34" is a good shout regards gaming, and certainly fine for productivity... but not a patch on 4K. All depends on your priorities at the end of the day.
 
Legend said:
If you're interested in photo editing and colour accuracy, you need to focus on IPS and not VA. The XG438Q in-particular is pretty lousy in that regard, based on all reviews I've seen.

4K would be preferable for productivity, but obviously you take a hit there in games and FPS, but doesn't sound like that will be a massive deal for RPG etc. In fact, 4K is very nice for such games where you really have time to appreciate the extra fidelity. The XV273K is, IMO, a tad small at 27" for 4K... most people would agree 32" is the 4K sweet-spot, and I think you'd notice it coming from 42"... but then depends how far you sit from it. You won't really know until you try.

There are VERY few options when it comes to high refresh 4K. There's another 43" due from Acer (and another from Asus) in coming months, but both are VA and I suspect will suffer same flaws as the XG438Q. You'll be waiting well into next year for any other high refresh 4K options.

The LG 38GL950G is going to be expensive, rumoured at 2300 Euros, but should hopefully be available in next month or so. I think it will be a good monitor (glow and bleed issues aside), but that price is just nuts.

Ultrawide 34" is a good shout regards gaming, and certainly fine for productivity... but not a patch on 4K. All depends on your priorities at the end of the day.
Click to expand...



Totally disagree. I have a 4k screen, had an AW 21:9 and a 32:9 CRG9.

The 4k gets old very fast. The ultrawides offer a vastly more immersive different next gen experience. You honestly feel like you're there. When I jumped through portals on my old alienware in portal 2, I actually felt the motion. It was awesome.

I think the main advantage of 4k is just if you want to do a big screen couch gaming experience because 1080p looks awful there.
 
Minato said:
Even a 2080TI can't drive 120+fps at 4K max settings,
Click to expand...

I think you're right in going for 4k in your use case.

<rant>
Yes a 2080 Ti can drive 4k at 120 Hz at max settings. Just not in the most modern games with GPU-killers like RTX and Hairworks cranked to the max. And you'll get well over 60 fps in many modern games. And when the 4080 Ti comes out there will be new GPU-killing technologies. So don't worry about maxxing your monitor's settings.
</rant>

Minato said:
My point is, it seems more logical to buy a 4K 144Hz monitor and play on slightly lower settings/resolution for a couple of years, and upgrade the graphics card
Click to expand...

I have both an Acer Nitro 4k and an Asus 3440x1440 and let me tell you something: different games play better on different monitors. I mainly game on the Acer Nitro 4k, but some games - like driving sims - play better on the UW. Hell, with Command & Conquer 3, different maps play better on different monitors!

But I think you need to look beyond gaming when choosing your monitor and look at the text quality. A high dpi 4k monitor is lovely to use. Text looks much nicer.

So go for the 4k.
 
aoaaron said:
Totally disagree. I have a 4k screen, had an AW 21:9 and a 32:9 CRG9.

The 4k gets old very fast. The ultrawides offer a vastly more immersive different next gen experience. You honestly feel like you're there. When I jumped through portals on my old alienware in portal 2, I actually felt the motion. It was awesome.

I think the main advantage of 4k is just if you want to do a big screen couch gaming experience because 1080p looks awful there.
Click to expand...


I didn't say 4K wasn't immersive, but it IS better for productivity... you simply have more screen real estate, and there's no competition from ultrawide there.

Couch gaming is something else and is where 55"+ TV's come in to play, not a 32" 4K monitor.

Based on OP's use case, 4K makes the most sense. He isn't gaming primarily.
 
Thanks for all the advice so far guys. I can't lie i'm still a bit unsure due to the contrasting opinions. Interesting that nobody is favouring the LG 34GK950F over the AW3418DW, it's usually the opposite on reddit etc - although perhaps that's USA availability vs UK?

I agree with @Quartz on the importance of text quality, and @Legend on the productivity benefits of higher resolution. That said, I can't help but feel 27" will be too big of a drop from my current 42" which i've been used to for years. The ultrawides are a couple of hundred pounds more expensive, but I agree with @aoaaron on the immersion factor that the ultrawides give being better than the smaller 16:9 4K screens.

Apparently there's also an update for the AW3418DW coming soon - the AW3420DW which from what I understand is the same panel as the LG 950F but underclocked to 120Hz, as opposed to the 3418DW which is 100Hz and overclockable to 120. Speaking of that overclocking, i've heard about flickering issues and the manufacturer not really supporting the overclock. I know Dell give the 3 year warranty which is good, but it'll be a bit less than ideal if 4-5 years later it dies and it's £1000 down the drain.
 
Minato said:
Thanks for all the advice so far guys. I can't lie i'm still a bit unsure due to the contrasting opinions. Interesting that nobody is favouring the LG 34GK950F over the AW3418DW, it's usually the opposite on reddit etc - although perhaps that's USA availability vs UK?

I agree with @Quartz on the importance of text quality, and @Legend on the productivity benefits of higher resolution. That said, I can't help but feel 27" will be too big of a drop from my current 42" which i've been used to for years. The ultrawides are a couple of hundred pounds more expensive, but I agree with @aoaaron on the immersion factor that the ultrawides give being better than the smaller 16:9 4K screens.

Apparently there's also an update for the AW3418DW coming soon - the AW3420DW which from what I understand is the same panel as the LG 950F but underclocked to 120Hz, as opposed to the 3418DW which is 100Hz and overclockable to 120. Speaking of that overclocking, i've heard about flickering issues and the manufacturer not really supporting the overclock. I know Dell give the 3 year warranty which is good, but it'll be a bit less than ideal if 4-5 years later it dies and it's £1000 down the drain.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you would like high refresh, but your needs far from call from it... on the contrary, it would be a mere bonus, and I am not sure your use case justifies the drop in real estate to 1440p. An ultrawide really doesn't offer THAT much over a regular 27" 1440p panel in that regard, as you still have the same height. This is something you REALLY appreciate when moving to 4K, which has an added 720 pixels up top, which is 50% the height of a 1440p monitor!! That makes a massive difference.

I would agree 4K @ 27" is small... it is for many... so I would suggest you look at 32". The Acer XB321HK could be worth a look at just over £500. 60Hz of course, and no HDR, but G-Sync and 10-bit IPS panel. There's also the cheaper Benq EW3270U, which is VA but pretty solid overall and a lot of monitor for the money.
 
Minato said:
Evening gents,

Just taken delivery of my Ryzen 3600, RTX 2080 system (Video, Pics - if interested). However to take advantage of this system, I need to disconnect it from the ~2010 42" 1080p Sony Bravia that i've been using for a number of years, and connect it to a proper monitor. With that in mind, I would be very grateful for any recommendations. I've been doing a fair bit of reading recently and the above monitors in the title stand out the most - although there are many more mentioned around here/reddit/youtube etc.

Some information about what it'll be used for:
  • General desktop/internet browsing: Sharpness and plenty of real estate is essential. For the last few years i've been using the above 42" 1080 Sony Bravia TV as a monitor, at 2560 x 1440 via AMD's virtual super resolution feature. Text is fairly ugly, but having multiple windows(e.g chrome + whatsapp desktop + itunes mini player) all at once is very much enjoyed.
  • Photo editing: Photography is a bit of a hobby and I do a fair amount of post-processing in Adobe Lightroom. I don't need to have a professional grade monitor, but something with good colours would be nice. I don't want a TN panel, and i'm leaning heavily toward IPS over VA for this reason.
  • Multimedia and Gaming: TV shows, movies, the occasional bit of gaming (single player RPGs mostly, with some multiplayer here and there). I'm not knowlegeable enough to get technical here, but I just want the picture to look good. I've never had a high refresh rate monitor before, and I would very much like to experience it this time around. Not particularly bothered if it's 120Hz or 144Hz.
Future Proofing: My previous system is still going strong after 10 years, and has only been moved on out of necessity and because it was starting to struggle with general desktop usage. I don't like upgrading often, i'd rather spend once and be content for a long while. I totally understand and appreciate the arguments against high refresh rate @4K monitors. Even a 2080TI can't drive 120+fps at 4K max settings, so it makes more sense to pair it with a 1440p monitor. But it can drive 60-80 fps in many games. So what about the 3080ti, or the 4080ti?

My point is, it seems more logical to buy a 4K 144Hz monitor and play on slightly lower settings/resolution for a couple of years, and upgrade the graphics card - which would happen anyway sooner or later when you can push 4K @ 144fps. The alternative is buying a 1440p monitor, and having to then get rid of it in just a few short years to upgrade to a 4K high refresh monitor and upgrade your graphics card. Considering just the above examples where the Acer Nitro XV273K is cheaper than both the Alienware and the LG ultrawides, it seems like a very good idea? But then it's only 27" rather than 34" and that'll be a big drop from my current 42".

Panel Lottery: All of the above have plenty of reports about horrible backlight bleed/IPS glow, with many returns and switches from one to the other. Is there any definitive knowledge of which panels have a higher percentage chance of being good out of the box?

Alternative Monitors:
  • Samsung CRG9: Tempting, but I think realistically is just a bit impractical, and it's a VA.
  • There's allegedly some Innolux 31.5" 4K 120/144Hz panels coming in Q2/3 of 2020 according to tftcentral, but i'm not interested in waiting a year for them.
  • LG 38GL950G: 38" rather than 34", 3840 x 1600 rather than 3440 x 1440, IPS, and native 144Hz. Unknown release date though.
  • Asus XG438Q ROG STRIX: 43", 4K, 120Hz. It's basically perfect (VA though not IPS). Unknown release date.
Customer Service & Warranty: Given the high likelihood of needing to return a panel due to either an out of the box issue, or something going wrong with it, the manufacturer having a good reputation is fairly essential. I've heard good things about Dell/Alienware, and not good things about LG.

Many thanks for your help in advance chaps.
Click to expand...

if willing to pay big bucks for build quality and no panel lottery, no compromises, i can recommend Eizo.

if wanting cheaper option with some compromises then a dell ultra sharp

for something in the middle the alienwares are worth a look but you do pay a premium tax for not much more features over an ultrasharp.

i wouldn’t personally touch anything from any other manufacturer as i don’t trust them on the panel QA front, that includes Asus.

all in all, based on your requirements, you are looking for reasons *not* to buy a dell ultrasharp, refresh rate will probably the reason, if it’s a deal breaker to have 60hz. I would not compromise too much on getting to 144hz, even 75hz is a nice jump.
 
the best thing to do if torn between an ultrawide and a normal monitor is to go to a store and check it out. its what sold me on 32:9 personally.
 
Ok so clearly I need to go back to the drawing board for this one. After everything i've heard about high refresh rate I thought that was the top of the list for requirements in a monitor. If that's off the table then it's time to start reading about everything else that's available on the market :D. Although all this said, I will feel a bit silly if I spent the extra money on the RTX 2080 and don't ever take advantage of more than 60fps. The next big game on my horizon is Cyberpunk 2077 - while I don't game that much, it's not totally 0 either.
 
Minato said:
Ok so clearly I need to go back to the drawing board for this one. After everything i've heard about high refresh rate I thought that was the top of the list for requirements in a monitor. If that's off the table then it's time to start reading about everything else that's available on the market :D. Although all this said, I will feel a bit silly if I spent the extra money on the RTX 2080 and don't ever take advantage of more than 60fps. The next big game on my horizon is Cyberpunk 2077 - while I don't game that much, it's not totally 0 either.
Click to expand...


hi refresh rate ultrawide monitors are available so not really. if you go for 4k, you're not going to be 144fpsing much.

just go to a store and decide what you like.

look at:

1440p 144-240hz screen
21:9 ultrawide 120-144hz
32:9 ultrawide 120hz (CRG9)
4k screens

and decide which one you like more. then people can advise on models etc.
 
Minato said:
Ok so clearly I need to go back to the drawing board for this one. After everything i've heard about high refresh rate I thought that was the top of the list for requirements in a monitor. If that's off the table then it's time to start reading about everything else that's available on the market :D. Although all this said, I will feel a bit silly if I spent the extra money on the RTX 2080 and don't ever take advantage of more than 60fps. The next big game on my horizon is Cyberpunk 2077 - while I don't game that much, it's not totally 0 either.
Click to expand...

High refresh matters if you game a lot... but even then it's only important if you play fast twitch stuff. For RPGs etc. not so much. Is it NICER than 60Hz? 100%, but it's never essential unless you literally cannot abide 60Hz, or you need it for competitive gaming. Seems like neither scenario applies in your situation. You're not coming from a high refresh display, so 60Hz will be fine for you.

4K is king for productivity, and that is where your primary use case seems to reside, so from where I'm standing, that is the obvious choice. 32" or bigger would be best though, 27" really is on the small side, but depends how far you sit from the screen.

As has been previously mentioned though, you could easily get yourself a 1440p 144Hz monitor for gaming, which would go great with your RTX 2080, and a 32" 4K for your productivity needs.

Something like the LG 32GK850G for gaming, side by side with the 32" 4K Acer XB321HK or Benq EW3270U for work. You may even prefer 4K for some games, but with a 1440p monitor as well, you'll at least have the option to push much higher frame rates in others should you wish. There are some good 27" 1440p monitors as well, but that may look odd next to a 32"... depends how OCD you are lol! :)

Ultrawide is great if you do casual work but primarily game, but the other way round, I think you're really going to miss out on that extra screen real estate. Another option could be the upcoming LG 38GL950G, as that does give you more work-space, but it's going to be expensive at a rumoured 2300 Euros.

:)
 
Last edited:
You'll need quite a lot of deskspace to fit both a 32" 4k and 35" UW comfortably.
I run an older, but still delightful benq 4k 32" alongside a Dell 35" UW and love the combo - but have switched the 4k to portrait as it works well for my needs and use the Dell as my primary screen.

You really can't beat a decent 4k 32' for productivity though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom