Which 32/34 inch monitor, under 600 pounds?

Ian13 · 24 Jun 2019 at 20:02

Hi all,

This will be to replace my current 27" 2ms 1920 X 1080 & used mainly for a not very demanding shooter & eventually for a heavily modded skyrim.

PC has a 4ghz processor, i7 4790, am currently using an old r9 290, soon to be replaced with a Vega 64 Nitro (unless something cheaper/better appears in the next month or so).

Budget is 500-600 pounds.

I've seen a number of 32"/34" within budget, with 100/144hz refresh, 2 or 4 ms response times, 2560 X 1440, by Acer, LG, AOC, pretty much everyone in fact.

Any recommendations?

aoaaron · 24 Jun 2019 at 20:49

I'd go ultrawide at that budget and a Vega 64. If you're willing to commit too freesync, there are plenty of class monitors sub 600 which are freesync 1440p ultrawide last time i checked.

Ian13 · 25 Jun 2019 at 22:48

Thanks.

I've actually found & ordered a cheaper (!) RTX 2080 & understand Nvidia cards now can use freesync so am looking at a few 32/34 inch 144hz 4ms 1440p monitors.

I don't want to go ultrawide, just looking at 2560 X 1440, which I expect will still be a big jump up from my current monitor.

Ian13 · 26 Jun 2019 at 20:32

Reconsidering that now, do ultrawides have scalability problems with games though?

EsaT · 26 Jun 2019 at 20:56

Ian13 said:
Reconsidering that now, do ultrawides have scalability problems with games though?

If game doesn't support aspect ratio, then you only got notably smaller image for bigger use of desk space.

Here's what 16:9 content will look on them.
As you can see "wide" screen is actually only lower screen:
http://tvcalculator.com/?{"a":1.78,"tvs":[[32,16,9,2560,1440,0],[34,21,9,1920,1080,0]]}

In fact 32" 16:9 has bigger screen area even without that letterboxing.
http://www.displaywars.com/32-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9

And with Nvidia having finally removed that completely artificial disable Adaptive-Sync bit from drivers you better get FreeSync monitor to not shackle yourself as Nvidia's slave.