Upgrade from U2312HM, too much choice!

[FoxEye]

This is something of a thinking out loud thread, so don't be surprised if it makes no sense.

Current screen is a Dell eIPS 23" 1080p. It's been a good servant.

First and foremost, I want to ditch 60Hz and head to 144 (ish) Hz instead. That I think is a must-have.

What I'm not so clear about is... everything else

Q1: 27" or 32"

27" I think will be a bit too small, maybe. I'm not quite sure why I think this, but if I'm spending £500+ on a new screen, I really do think I want to be in awe of the damn thing I keep getting the tape measure out, and 27" seems to not really offer a massive increase in width or height.

But then I'm worried 32"/34" might be too big. Not sure I can know for certain without putting one on the desk and seeing it in action.

Q1-2 DPI. Do I care?

1440p at 27" is smaller pixels than I currently have. I can't say I've ever really been bothered by the pixel size at 23"/1080p. But then I don't know what I'm missing, as I've never used a 1440p or 4K screen with better DPI than this. Screens at work are 22"/1050p or 27"/1080p.

Now having said that, I'm obsessively looking at the backslashes and noticing the zig-zag, staircase effect. Well, if I lean in a bit, anyhow Is smaller pixels going to light my world on fire?

Q2: TV or monitor?

People keep telling me TVs in many ways have monitors beat, esp for value. The trouble with that is we'd be heading to 4k resolutions, as 1080p at 27" or 32" is going to be nasty up close. 4K is where GPU costs really start ramping up. I am not Prince Charles and my butler does not drive a Bentley.

So.. does 1080p/1440p displayed on a modern 4K TV look decent? Or is anything but native res going to look awful.. suspect maybe the latter.

Q2-2: Input lag.. always worse on a TV?

Q3: 1440p or 4K?

1440p is a monitor-only res AFAIK. No issues driving at >60Hz with DisplayPort.

4K on a 32" does sound nice tho. But then (if TV) don't we start having all sorts of issues with needing HDMI 2.1 (don't have it on the Vega 56) or DisplayPort (TVs mostly don't have it?)

Could get a 4K monitor presumably but super expensive compared to TVs?

QQ: Choices

27" 1440p monitor
32" 1440p monitor
32" 4K TV
32" 4K monitor

Such choice. Much indecision. Very stuck.

 

[Poneros]

Q1 - no such thing as too big. you get used to it very quickly. it's funny when u see this phenomenon happen with TVs, ppl scared they got the 75" and it's too big and then a month later they're kicking themselves for not getting the 85", etc. DPI-wise, meh, for gaming it's gonna be hard to notice the difference. Very subjective tho.
Q2 - If not 48" & up, TVs are garbage. It's starting to be that even 55" get the shaft sometimes. Otherwise, TVs can be great.
Q3 - 4K only makes sense for huge displays. So if you want 27" or 32" then 1440p all day err day.

What you're not looking at and might be a mistake, is HDR. It's still hit or miss in terms of support atm but when you get it it usually works great and for next-gen the workflows will almost universally support it. That's when TVs really kick ass today, because monitors with proper HDR are few and far between and also stupidly expensive. HDR is a more jaw dropping experience than even full RTX and so long as you have the display it's basically huge IQ boost for no performance cost. Another thing that would be a tremendous boost to perceptual IQ would be going ultrawide.

So, if you want to get a new monitor and keep it for years & years, I'd seriously think about HDR. If you can't get HDR, then I'd think of ultrawide, as the aspect ratio is fantastic & a 34" UW isn't that much different in size to a 32" 16:9.

I'd say when the shops open up put some HDR files on a usb stick and tell the sales assistant to plug it in in an OLED and watch that for a few minutes. You will understand. And if you can get some HDR footage of Doom Eternal and watch that? No chance you're not buying it.

 

[FoxEye]

Thanks for that. I have yet to see HDR in action, tbh. The last screen I looked at (LG 27GL850) didn't have it and it was often listed as "the one thing that stops this monitor being perfect" by reviewers It does appear tho that HDR makes a whole bunch of demands of the screen (bitness, contrast ratio, local dimming, etc) which, as you say, add dramatically to the cost in monitors.

Before I go any further I should say this isn't just for gaming. It'll be productivity too. As well as unproductively posting crap on OcUK All purpose, then

Now, ultrawide. I'm still lamenting the move from 16:10 to 16:9, all these years later Obviously I lost that fight 16:10 screens are now barely/poorly supported in games, and their niche use makes them expensive also.

Utlrawide is going to be a hard sell to someone like me, mourning 16:10 as I am But again I've not actually seen one in the flesh. I guess it's something else to consider anyhow.

Ta. I'll start seriously looking at 32" 1440p monitors, I guess, to start with.

P.S. You have any thoughts on that LG 27GL850? I know it doesn't have HDR

 

[EsaT]

It does appear tho that HDR makes a whole bunch of demands of the screen (bitness, contrast ratio, local dimming, etc) which, as you say, add dramatically to the cost in monitors.

HDR doesn't do anything to real problems of LCDs...
Meaning that LCD itself, which limits contrast, causes all these viewing angle/colour stability problems and also response time issues.
That LCD should be on its way to trashcan to make room for true mature flat screen which could at least match CRT in those.
"Needs welder mask to avoid face burn" brightness doesn't fix those.

Active per pixel light control and real OLED like contrast would be only real improvement.
But that OLED whose hype also killed hopes of continuing development of "flattened CRT" SED has been DOA for monitors because of weaknesses of that fancy organic part and hence flat screens haven't advanced any in 15 years.

Now, ultrawide. I'm still lamenting the move from 16:10 to 16:9, all these years later

Be happy that your starting level is such tiny medieval resolution low screen.

I'm approaching 6½ years on 30" Dell U3014 2560x1600 and only thing which wouldn't be downgrade in something is 32" 3840x2160...
And even that would be few millimeters lower in image height.
Of course I would also demand 100+ Hz from new monitor to be actually upgrade.
Meaning fingers in hand of Chinese fireworks factory worker would be enough for counting options.
Heck, also most screens have smaller gamut...

 

[FoxEye]

HDR doesn't do anything to real problems of LCDs...
Meaning that LCD itself, which limits contrast, causes all these viewing angle/colour stability problems and also response time issues.
That LCD should be on its way to trashcan to make room for true mature flat screen which could at least match CRT in those.
"Needs welder mask to avoid face burn" brightness doesn't fix those.

That is interesting.

My monitor is currently set to 0% brightness and it's still really damn bright. Sufficient already to give eye strain at night.

So the HDR monitors only work on very bright settings - makes sense (I guess) since one of the requirements for HDR is a 1000 nit backlight or similar.

Maybe I wouldn't get on with them anyhow in that case.

 

[EsaT]

So the HDR monitors only work on very bright settings - makes sense (I guess) since one of the requirements for HDR is a 1000 nit backlight or similar.

We don't even have much of FALD backlights in monitors.
And even that is lipstick on a big:
Unless number of indivudually controllable backlight segments is at four number level, all it does is give brighter "halo" around bright objects on dark background.

With actually good display tech giving proper contrast there wouln't even be need for those lunatic level brightnesses.
But I guess ti will be still couple years until actual active matrix quantum dot LED monitors start appearing.