I went from 24" 1080p to 27" 1440p and I don't think I'll ever go bigger, personally I find 27" to be almost too big but also kinda perfect size, I feel 32" would just be too big for me, I think I'll be running 1440 for the foreseeable future, the only upgrade ill do in the future is going from 180hz to 360hz+ when the tech is there and graphics cards can actually make those numbers at 1440p
@@dry509 Frames per second is the refresh rate 1Hz = 1 FPS. In many games higher frame rates mean faster more accurate information and smoother graphics. Shooting games especially
Ultra wide fills your entire view exactly. It's s great experience. I don't really need very high refresh rates as I mostly just play MMO's. I also do some programming and then the extra real estate is nice for the extra consoles, editors and tools, which often has people use a second monitor instead, but is not really needed with an UW.
Went from a 27' 1440p to the Gigabyte M32Q 32' 1440p. I definitely notice the pixels, while not bad, my 27 I replaced was much more beautiful in terms of picture quality. I'd probably go 4k 32' in a few years when the GPU's can actually run it super well.
I run 32" 1440p 16:9. Upgraded from 1440p 27". While the higher DPI on the 27" inch is nice, the extra size is totally worth it. Cant go down. Excellent feature of 32" 1440p is its the exact same DPI as 24" @ 1080p, so everything just works and is readable at default 100% size. Defacto standard for software & web. (There are STILL scaling problems with high DPI 4K screens). Video, games everything is better with the larger screen.
@Wizzzard are you really mentioning that garbage from 2010 as an alternative for video editing displays? you should be the one that needs to wake up. or are you what mentioning their imac 24'? which is also bad for price/quality ratio if you want to do anything apart from excel lol. at least their built in speakers are ok. i will stick with my Dell Ultrasharp U3219Q tho. which blows any imac out of the park.
When i bought my 1060 6GB three or four years ago, i remember thinking i'd buy a 1440P monitor with the next GPU i'd buy. Still running that 1060 for reason we all know. ..and: The way things are going now we'll likely be running 4K before i'm able to buy a GPU again, so i'll wait and see. Not the best of times for PC-gamers.. Do agree with your thoughts on the matter. For people with the GPU to run 1440P, it is the sweetspot atm.
I'm in the same boat, with the same card. I'm perfectly fine with 1080p on a desktop monitor. I prefer higher refresh rates, so I ended up with an LG 27GN750 (because of HUB's recommendation). 240Hz G-Sync compatible, which is my first experience with VRR. There is no going back from here. Everything always looks smooth as silk in motion, with or without vsync. Frankly, I can live with this setup for a couple of more years at least. There are plenty of games in my backlog that run just fine at this resolution with my current system, many of them at over 100 fps. Most new games run very well too. I'll just save Cyberpunk for later.
I run 1660ti and refuse to even upgeade off 1080p 60Hz. If I upgrade it will only hurt me as I am not willing to upgrade with price-performance improvement.
I've been very happy with my 1080p60Hz -> 1440p144Hz upgrade that I made a few years back. My next monitor upgrade will very likely be based on pixel tech rather than resolution. OLED looks really sweet, so I'm keeping an eye out for the day that such monitors - or with equivalent to better tech - become affordable
Alternatively, you could save up for a year or two and buy a monitor with that technology. Prices are likely to have lowered but with that saved up money you could possibly buy a higher end monitor as well
Im super excited for oled sad that we i will have to wait quite a bit before it can become a consideration for me because oled is quite expensive right now last i heard 1k and up
I went from a 32" 1080p to a 34" 1440p ultrawide. Overall I am happy with the change. It was a massive upgrade and actually leveraged my GPU. Now the only thing I don't like with the ultrawide format is the dodgy support for ultrawide in some titles and the unacceptable letterboxing that happens on some streaming services, looking at you Disney. Although watching 21:9 content on netflix or iTunes is really nice and drives home why I purchased the monitor. I will not be going back down to 1080p ever again. But I am still a few years away from getting hardware that could not get choked down on 4k gaming.
Thank you Tim. You covered all the bases in your usual smooth, verbal style. I am waiting to see what formats, at what prices, are going to be offered for 2022. GPU's are finally catching up to Monitor capabilities. Please keep us informed of any outstanding new offerings.
Awesome video Tim! Basically covers everything one might think of when getting a monitor. I personally really enjoy 27" 1440p. It offers a lot of desktop real estate. It is fairly performant in gaming, and the size doesn't feel overwhelming at a typical desk distance. I couldn't actually fit anything larger comfortably and the pixel density of 4K at 27"is unnecessary high and the options extremely expensive (2x) in comparison.
I hope with newer upscaling algorithms from AMD, nVidia and likely also Intel, we will finally reach a point where we can dynamically upscale any output resolution to native resolution, so that we'll be able run games at any custom resolution that gives sufficient performance for our hardware, while making use of 100% of the resolution.
Ultrawide all the way. Once I tried it, I could never go back. Love it for both gaming and productivity. And my Lenovo G34W-10 was very affordable, for what it is. Might not be the best display, but I love it.
I absolutely agree. The Acer Predator Z35P I got a few years ago was an awesome upgrade for me. I wouldn't go back to 16:9 unless it is 4K. But that would require a ton of GPU horsepower so there is quite some time left until then.
@@bm_wuratli6883 changing fov has similar effect especially when they fisheye it so things in the middle of the screen aren't any smaller but you have far wider fov.. it's actually easier to see what is at the corners since it isn't so far from center as it would be on ultrawide. Guess this is why 16x9 is the competitors go to.
Agree on this. I had switched to 34 Inch 1080p Ultrawide 6 years ago with an LG 34UM58-P 1080p IPS 75 HZ monitor and I couldn't look at 16:9 screens anymore as they seem so small. Recently upgraded to a 34 Inch 1440P 165hz VA Ultrawide and been loving the refresh rate fluidity and the more clarity. Once you go Ultrawide, there's no going back to 16:9.
@@christophermullins7163 The problem is a wider FoV setting on 16:9 also makes it harder to aim (more sensitive) and sometimes, harder to see distance detail. But with a 21:9 ultrawide monitor, you get a wider field of view, while retaining good distance detail and normal aiming sensitivity (assuming the game supports ultrawide resolutions).
The AOC CU34G2X, there 21:9 1440p @144hz, is what I went with as my first monitor getting back into PC gaming after playing on nothing but big flat screen TV's. I totally agree that playing games is super immersive in ultrawide but you have to have the hardware to run it
Just switch from the LG27GL850 to the New 4k Odyssey G7 and the amount of upgrade i see is unbelievable. The G7 is an amazing monitor from what i’ve used of it so far. You should make a video on it
Got it too. In some games it feels not as smooth 144hz as in other titles.... or maybe the response times are a bit lower then my old BenQ monitor..... But overall a great 4k monitor with 3080ti
I'm using a Xbox Series X on a Gigabyte 32" 1440p monitor and everything looks great, it's a shame my PS5 doesn't look as good, I wish Sony would update the PS5 to 1440
@nomasporfavor The more I look at the PS5 the more I think Sony just obsessed over building the best IO on a gaming console ever made... and then forgot to build a well rounded system around it.
The jump to 3440x1400 was probably the best monitor upgrade I have ever had. I simply can not go back to 16:9 no matter the resolution or refresh rate. When 4K 21:9 monitors start to come out I will be more than exited. 5120x2160 has me more than ecstatic, but when do we think this will even happen?!
In my opinion, you missed the distinction between ultrawide 21:9 and super-ultrawide 32:9. There is a big difference in terms of "usable desktop space" and graphics power required, the latter at a resolution of 5120x1440 requiring almost a "4k level" of GPU.
@@tank7474 Yes, it has its own drawbacks (most games that I play are fine but, I agree with you, for some I have to change back to the 16:9 resolution because of the hud in most cases); just like its own benefits (It's so immersive when you can use the whole screen for a game). It might be a niche, but for me, it was the perfect replacement for a 3 monitor setup. And these comments just highlight the initial point that it is a different category from the ultrawides. One is a wider than normal screen (~0.4x extra width) the other is a whole screen of added width.
The big problem with 4K is that not all games are in 4K and that the performance is competive online gaming is not the best. But if you at least have a 3d card in the range of a Geforce GTX 3070 or higher than you could enjoy 4 gaming. And you need a good monitor but the price is good if you don't buy a to big 4K monitor.
@@coops1992 Don't worry my friend you if you are spending your money on the things you whant you are doing the right thing. My pc is also from 2014 and i also need a new one. But be awere that there are 2 formats of screens with the name 4k in it that are not 4k! Real 4k has at least this resolution: 4096x2160 and there are almost no 4k games but they told me that final fantasy 15 is a 4k game. So beside that there almost no 4k games also keep in mind that your screen will be slower and that is not a problem in single player games but a big problem in games likes shooters and you need to spend a lot of money for something you will in this era almost never use. But like i said if you have a budget between 4000 and 6000 euro you can build a amazing pc. A card like a 3080 is good for 4k gaming but since money is no problem a 3090 is a better choice. Good luck with your new pc. 👍👌✔🙌 PS: Funny to see my pc is also 8 years old and i'm 38 so also almost the same age.
3080ti user here. I recently purchased a Asus XG349C as I wanted the best of all worlds. Stunning visuals, high framerates, massive screen real estate. Ultrawide has me hooked!
My main monitor is currently a 32' 1080p display. People complain about seeing the pixels even on 1440p, but that doesn't bother me at all. My vision isn't great, so having a physically larger display helps with eyestrain. That said, i just bought a 144hz 1440p display to replace it! It's my first time going above 1080p or 60hz, so i'm pretty excited to see the difference.
@@marcoslightspeed5517 It's great. For my main monitor, i can never go back. If anything i'd want a 4k display next. However, after adjusting to 144hz i do feel like 60hz is a bit choppy and laggy in games, so i'd also want something that's at least capable of higher than 60hz. Even just 90hz would still be fine, but 60 feels too low at this point.
Thanks Tim! Pretty much covers all the questions I had!! Got a Gigabyte M32QC 32" 1440p display for less than $300 last spring! I think it's great for my needs! Should be all I need for at least the next few years! 👍😎
I went from a 27" 1440p to a 38" 21:9 3840x1600. The pixel density here is basically the same, so you get the screen real estate with 0 compromise to image quality. (LG38GN950-B). It was very expensive, but for someone who plays older FPS games (BF4), and Paradox grand strategy games, my 2070 S can still hit that 144hz, and it's definitely worth it. For strategy games in particular, the extra screen size really helps alot 👍
I have a 22" 75Hz 1080p IPS monitor. Even 75Hz makes a difference compared to 60Hz but the problem in my case is that in a lot of games I can't reach stable 75fps but I also can't upgrade my PC at the moment because of the reasons all of us here are familiar with. The monitor was less than 150$ but everything here technology related is usually a bit more expensive so with everything considered it's not a bad price
I recently went from a 1920 x 1080p 60hz (32") to a 1920 x 1080p @ 165hz (and stepped down to 27"), and I have to be honest: I was wildly impressed by the difference in quality. I was a little unsure since I was reducing the size - but the price was right, so I pulled the trigger on the deal - and, just WOW. I'm very pleased with the video and gaming quality. I really underestimated what a difference it makes going from 60 to 165hz.
Great video! Nice breakdown. This info woulda been golden when I first started looking at monitors two years ago, but your videos back then still helped alot. This vid is next level helpful and really puts the current monitor offerings in a nice perspective even for those like me that follow the channel regularly. You’re a gem!
Chose that solution last year, too and I'm very happy with it. 1440p is crisp enough and I really don't want to miss the ultrawide ratio anymore. In combination with a second pivoted monitor for document reading, I'm super happy with my monitor setup.
I have a 1500R, and I have no idea why you would ever want a larger curve radius. What use is a 3800R curve on a computer monitor you're sitting slightly more than a meter from? I like mine, but 1000R would probably be even better. When looking, I was unwliling to go below 1200 vertical pixels and wanted to be able to have a document open beside an editor. My last monitor was 1920x1200, which was slightly too narrow, and I occasionally used the pivot function for some documents and pictures. I think I'd have preferred 3840x1600, for the extra vertical space mostly, but going up to that would also have required getting a higher-end GPU, putting the total at $2k or thereabouts, especially with the current market, so that was right out. I'm happy enough with my Xiao Mi Curved Gaming 34 monitor, and it was cheap enough ($400) that I won't feel bad if I upgrade it in ten years or so.
Yeah, I'm not really all that pleased of my 1440p@144hz IPS Acer monitor and I think I'll switch back to 1080p@144hz TN Asus monitor because it has better color quality/contrast for competitive games. This IPS panel makes everything so dark I have to sacrifice my eyes by pumping up the contrast and brightness. The TN panel was perfectly fine in CS:GO with ~15/100 brightness and ~25/100 contrast whereas this IPS has to be at least 40/100 and 50/100 contrast with black boost over 5/10.
Answer: your monitor choice should come AFTER having assessed what gpu you will use. No point in buying a QHD monitor if you have a gtx 1060 that will force you to downscale the game resolution to 1080p. Long story short, the monitor choice should be gpu dependant
During "lockdown" I wanted to replace my 25" 1440p glowey IPS with a 27" 144Hz flat VA, only there weren't many options available. Ended up with a 32" 4K 60Hz VA panel instead. It suits the kind of strategy games and software development type work that I do as it's like having four 1080p displays together. Next upgrade will be a 4K 144Hz OLED/MicroLED once they're under $1000.
I actually really enjoy 120Hz and higher desktop refresh rate for software development and text work since you can scan/skim the text scrolling by nicely. Glowy IPS is barely an issue, but VA and TN have a transition bias, so TN has sticky whites and VA has sticky blacks, which makes quickly scrolling text a large nuisance where it's pretty much blanked out or leaves streaks. IPS has roughly the same transition speed both ways, making it ideal for this.
Considering the current GPU prices, 1080p still makes a lot of sense. Besides, and this is something personal - I don't like changing graphics cards that often, so to me, even something like a 6700 XT is only adequate for 1080p, since I'd like at least 100 FPS before considering 1440p, and I want games released in 2024 also work fine, especially if I'd spend 1000$ on a graphics card. So even if 6700 XT can do 1440p well enough today, it might not be able to in a few years, and since it's so expensive, I'd like to keep it for several years before changing it.
Went with exactly a 6700xt for 1440p. I want a minimum of 85fps while gaming. I sold my radeon 7 and ended upp with a 6700xt after my old build went to hardware hell. Never buying asus mobo again.
A 6700XT will deliver more than 100fps at 1440p, its within a couple of percent of a 2080TI. im using a 6700XT on a 3440x1440 34" inch monitor and its doing a great job. In this video the 12 game average showed at 1440p the 6700XT was hitting 113fps on average.
@@andydbedford It may do so now, but since Cyberpunk 2077 barely runs at 60FPS at High in 1440p, I'm pretty sure most games will be like that 2 years later - this was the case for instance with AC: Unity or Watch_Dogs 2. So yes, it can push these resolutions now, but again, considering it costs an arm and a leg, I'd keep it at least for 3 years if I'd buy one for 1000$. For 500$, it might be somewhat better.
@@mirceastan94 Well of course, thats precisely why we get new gpu's every two years or so otherwise we would only get new hardware twice a decade. I got my 6700XT in october laster year for £635, and I will probably need to upgrade in 2-3 years.
Good video, I'd like to add a thing in favor of 1080p, 1080p monitors are not limited to rendering at 1080p, you can use supersampling with DSR/VSR to achieve 2160p on a 1080p monitor and it looks as good as you would expect. However, you can't supersample a refreshrate, you can overclock it but the experience is often very limited. So while a 1080p 240 Hz monitor can do 4K downsampling, a 4K 60 Hz monitor is ultimately limited to 60 Hz, maybe 75 with OC in the best instances. I am also sorry to report that, at least in my country, the M28U is not $650 but $1100.
According to Steam servy, 9 of 10 most currently used GPU's are, by order: Gtx1060, Gtx1650, Gtx1050Ti, Rtx2060, Gtx1050, Gtx1660Ti, Gtx1660 Super, Gtx1070, Gtx1660. ( These 9 take 38% of total GPUs.) When will be a GPU at 250$-300$ that be powerful to run games easly - (Maybe you want the GPU to hold for future games as well) - at 2K 144hz, more people will play at this res. Personally I'm using a Gtx 1070 with Viewsonic XG2405 (1080p 144hz IPS).
I got a 27GP950 for christmas, and 144hz is incredible. I already had a 4k60 monitor so I didn't want to drop down the resolution and I'm happy with my decision. It also lets my 6900xt actually push itself in more games
4K also has the less obvious advantage over 1440p of being a perfect upscale from 1080p, in cases when the content you are watching is available in no higher than 1080p. Something like 1080p movies looks 'fine' on 1440p, but if you look at gaming or any fine text, it's pretty clear that when upscaled to fullscreen, 1080p content looks inferior on 1440p displays.
@@zfacersane272 Here's a quick summary. I went from 1080p 60hz to 1440p 144hz. At this point I found out that I much prefer high refresh rate in my games than the added resolution. And as Max pointed out, 1080p doesn't scale well on 1440p monitor. So I got rid of it and bought a 1080p 144hz monitor. 4k 144hz monitor are more versatile in that regard.
Was fortunate enough to get a 3060ti from my local MC. With my simple 24 inch 144Hz 1080p, I'll be able to game at high settings on any title for years to come. By the time my card becomes "slow" like the 1060, I'm hoping the shortage will have ended and 1440p/4k monitors will be cheaper. Not to mention my monitor cost me $130, I'm in no rush to upgrade anytime soon.
Bought a S2721DGF during a sale recently. The GL850 was almost $200 more in my region so the S2721DGF was much more worth my buck. 1440p at 144Hz is good enough for me coming from a 1080p 60Hz monitor previously
This is a great overview of each monitor resolution and its benefits in terms of resolution vs frame rate along with price! Keep up the great work on awesome content 😎 I was debating on whether to get a 4k monitor or a 1440p monitor with a higher refresh rate for my 3070. I ended up going with the Dell 2721DGF after watching your review awhile back and I LOVE my monitor. It was a good choice to buy. Even comes with some basic HDR400 support, and when paired with Windows 11's Auto-HDR feature it makes games look even better. Even if it's not the best HDR experience overall, it's still nice to have. I love the high refresh rate of 165hz paired with the great resolution of 1440p at a 27" size. It's great for me
Outstanding overview! Even more so as you kept a keen focus on factual considerations in the context of a topic that is usually - and quite naturally- overloaded with highly subjective influences and decisions to be made.
I feel price is no longer that much of a variable between 1080p and 1440p, IF you can wait for sale events. I got my M27Q for $250 in November. That's $50 more than the usual 24G2 or EX2510, roughly 20% more!
1080p still the most popular resolution on Steam at 67.12%, 1440 at 9.85% and 4K at only 2.35%. Plus, lack of affordable GPUs to drive higher res' than 1080p are few and far between so I wouldn't be surprised if 1080p ownership increases. Personally I'm still using a 1440p Acer Predator GSYNC monitor from 2015 and it's still an excellent monitor, no plans to ever update to 4K.
@@silverwerewolf975 It's from "Steam Hardware & Software Survey: December 2021", so not sure what you mean by old stats? You have to realize most people running Steam aren't enthusiasts that follow tech channels and buy 4K monitors and RTX 3090s. Stop living in a bubble.
@@silverwerewolf975 No, those are current Steam stats. The GTX 1060 is still the most popular card as well. Welcome to the crushing wasteland that is the current GPU market.
using 34" WQHD right now, and i think 27" QHD are the sweet spot right now, it's crisp. Also, if you use PC for productivity and game but still think of budget, you can use dual monitor setup 1080p and 4K, that dont need high end GPU like 3080 or 6800 to play in 1080p.
Good video tim ! I would mention that with ultrawides you can run at 1440P 16:9 with no image quality penalty if you wanted to gain some framerate. iirc except for the samsung monitors the highest 3440x1440 refresh rate is 180hz OC'd on the Acer X34 GS
I'm halfway through the video and I just want to say how much I appreciate you putting Vega 56 as a reference in those charts! Really helpful, and perfect timing! I'm considering buying a new 2nd monitor (since I have a crappy 1080p for that), mainly for productivity, so I just wanted to do some research before looking for a 4k monitor. My main monitor is an XG401 that I'm happy with (for gaming), but I was thinking of turning that into my 2nd monitor (even though the viewing angles kinda suck) and going for 1440p 144hz as my main, even if my current set-up won't really utilize it . I'm thinking that if I just buy a 4k monitor as a secondary, I'll be "stuck" with 1080p and a 4k 60hz monitor if I upgrade down the line. Aaah decisions :p
Based on your reviews from last year, i bought a DELL 2721DGF at the end of December here in the USA at Best buy for only $300 Which is an IPS 165hz 400 nits both gsync compatible and free sync premium pro, I am super satisfied. Thank you so much. It was a true steal...LG nano IPS panel...
Same here. Miss some of the higher frames due to only having a 3070 but I'm not gonna lie and say I'm not considering buying a second one to have a matching dual monitor setup.
For me i also have a dell monitor although this channel hasn't reviewed it yet. It is a dell s3220dgf. It's 1440p 165hz va panel and i love every single bit of it!
27" at 1440p is still the sweet spot and offers the best pixel resolution vs cost vs framerate for most people. Still using my 2 x PG279Q's for the last 7 years and the only upgrade I would consider from this would be an ultra-wide at the same vertical resolution and same vertical size or greater.
@@deagle7776 I think 4K is wasted at 27". The PPI of 4K at 27" is 163 which is overkill at that size. 4K only becomes useful for 32" and larger screens. 2K at 27" PPI is still 108. Plus 2K has less than half of the total pixels to drive compared to 4K so you are able to get a much better framerate from a GPU and turn up the detail level in most games.
Outstanding job, Tim. I completely agree with all of your conclusions. I've been gaming on an LG 32GK650F-B 32" for a little over two years, based largely on your endorsement, and I still love it. At that time, I decided to stay away from 4K due to the higher cost and steeper graphics card requirements, and I plan to do so for an additional couple of years, until the price of 4K monitors and especially graphics cards falls substantially. I do wish the PS5 supported 1440p, but does not so I guess I'll be waiting on that as well. Cheers - enjoyed your interview with Tom at Moore's Law.
What was said in the video is good too. 2 points: 1080p monitors are the least expensive Cheaper GPUs can run games at 1080p at acceptable frame rates. This is a major issue right now, I guess HU wanted to make this video more perennial so didn't talk about it.
@@tbreeze79 It's not. But it is when you don't care about high graphics and only about performance. If you care about both good quality graphics and a fast performance and also have the money than a Samsung (Know as a Odyssey G7 but not the 4K version.) C32G75TQSU 81,3 cm (32") 2560 x 1440 Pixels Quad HD QLED is better. With'32 inch, 240 HZ and a reaciontime of only 1 ms it is a better choice.
I bought my first gaming monitor last year, 27” 1440p 165hz and it’s been awesome. I’ve also been pleasantly surprised at how nice it is to edit word docs on the monitor too. Noticeably more vertical space than my old 24”.
My use case is a little different but indeed it is amazing how quickly and nicely you can skim PDFs and documentation and text/code on a fast display with 120Hz desktop refresh rate or higher. I too have 165Hz capability but I only use it in some games, I enjoy that the desktop has 10bit colour in 120Hz mode. The pixel colour transitions get a little less even at 165Hz, and 165 also doesn't let my GPU idle as effectively, so whenever I don't need 10bit, I mostly just use 144Hz for now.
I went from 24" 1080p to 34" 3440x1440 some years ago. I'll definitely keep ultrawide, so I imagine my next upgrade will be when good 4k ultrawides exist, with hardware to run it for a reasonable price. So that seems to be quite far in the future ;)
I've been using 1080p monitors for over a decade now. No plans to switch to a higher resolution. It's good enough, and I'm not dropping tons of dough for a 1440p monitor and an (AMD) GPU that can comfortably play at that resolution.
1440 monitors have been really well priced, good amount of $200-$300 1440 high refresh and if you have the funds then there’s even a 1440/300hz for $379 which is not bad at all when most 1440/240 is $400+
Looking forward to you guys getting your hands on the New LG 42C2. 4K 120 at 42 inch is pretty close to 1440p at 27 inch ppi. Only drawback would be that it is an old panel, but i hope that the LG Evo tech mitigates it somewhat
I'm so impressed from AMD FSR that my next monitor will be 4k. I always thought I will never go above 1440p because of native resolution, but upscaling isn't that demanding but gives a lot of quality. And for text sharpness and a bigger workspace or anything work related, 4k is always nice to have too.
AMD software based FSR is a tad mediocre, so not sure why you are so excited about. AMD will likely stop supporting it in RDNA3 and introduce their hardware based DLSS competitor "likely" called FSR2.0, at least that's how it is looking at this stage.
@@Battleneter FSR upscaling from 1440p to 4K still looks a lot better than the monitors internal upscaler, so if you have a 1440p class GPU but want a 4K monitor it's absolutely a viable option. Especially now where it's getting driver inclusion.
@@Battleneter I'm so excited about it because I run Linux and can use FSR for every unsupported game, I'm not exaggerating, Linux has a fullscreen hack for that (don't know about the status for Windows with that). I tested native 1440p vs upscaled 1080p to 1440p, the difference in quality was nearly non-existent especially if you actively play, but I got a big FPS boost for free. I guess I'm a special case with that, but it showed me that 4k gaming is indeed possible even without the highest tier of GPU. Before that I thought 1440p is the highest I want, because in games you mostly want higher FPS not higher resolution and native 4k is of course really demanding.
@@FunFreakeyy But wouldnt upscaled 4k require less performance from the card than native 4K? I think the woes of running a game in Linux at native 4k would present themselves.
@@BombBoy96 Yeah that's what I mean, if you upscale you get more FPS than with a native render. And if you look at different benchmarks over the web, between 1440p and 4k you can expect the difference. Of course it's not 100% the same, but the brain can get tricked really easy, especially in fast paced games.
If you value FPS as much as resolution 1440p is the way to go. Keep in mind you'd want to use the native resolution 99% of the times since monitors tend to have bad downscaling unlike TVs so choose wisely.
@@dark-lord- depends on your specs, high end GPUs can play 1440p 144fps but obviously not every game, 1080p is completely fine if you always want the highest fps possible
I have dual 27'' 1440p 165hz, the ASUS TUF VG27AQ. My dream monitor, and now I have two of them. Came from a single 1366x768 monitor. I can easily say this is the sweet spot for me and I see no point in 4K for what I do.
I'm fine with most display as long as it's not a TN panel! My main display is CX 48" OLED on my desk. My laptop is 1080p 144hz IPS, my living room TV is 55" 1080p.
The Dell 2721DGF (of course a recommendation from Tim) was the best choice for me. 27" 1440p IPS 165hz. It nailed all the specs I wanted. It looks fantastic and my 5700xt can handle it easily. It regularly goes in sale for $329. I refuse to buy any monitor that is not "Tim Approved." Same with Steve with his GPU reviews.
I bought a 27" 1440p monitor with 165hz refresh rate and 10-bit 120Hz capability, which is great for graphics work. It's also good for working with a large amount of quickly scrolling text thanks to IPS which lacks a predominant transition bias and good response times. You also don't need any UI scaling, the pixel size is about the same as on a 22" 1080p display. I have a gtx970 which I suppose I'll need to keep for another year or two and then upgrade. I can't reach beyond 60fps in most games? I don't care. Sometimes I can and it's great fun. I can't reach near native rendering resolution? Fine, I'll play at 1080p or 900p. But the monitor is probably going to be the primary one for the next 8 years.
I realize it's beating a dead horse at this point, but mentioning the current GPU prices should've been pointed out, it plays a big role in choosing a resolution. Much of the focus was on the monitor price itself.
I went for 27' 1440p 144Hz and I love it. It's the sweet spot for me. The only thing I would consider as an upgrade right now is going ultrawide. Also as a competitive fps player I still prefer 1440p 144Hz to 1080p at a higher fps. The higher pixel density helps me make out details at a distance and I don't think 240Hz is that big of an upgrade from 144Hz.
I went from a 27 inch 1440p165hz hp omen ips display, to a 24.5 inch 1080p240hz tn Benq Zowie Xl2546k, and the difference is absolutely night and day. So much less motion blur, and I am hitting way crazier shots, a lot more consistently. Also for most games, 1080p gives you plenty of detail, assuming the panel is small and you are sitting quite close.
I switched from Alienware AW2518HF 240Hz 1080P to the Gigabyte M32U 4K 144Hz and it did not disappoint. Yeah I lost a 100 frames but man the 4K is good, must my 2080 Super is finally getting used to its potential
I can really recommend gaming with an ultrawide monitor. I got myself an Alienware AW3420DW with IPS-Panel, 120hz refresh rate, and 3440px1440p resolution. It's a day and night comparison with my previous Acer 16:9 1440p Monitor with a crappy TN Panel. Everyone who has the money and the opportunity to buy an ultrawide monitor: Try it! It's really worth it :D
What size monitor did you have last time? You need to compare 32" 16:9 to 34" ultra. Prefer 16:9 as its much larger screen area. Ultrawide is missing too much vertical height. Though i wish there were 2:1 monitors. Thats the perfect ratio. Its sits right in middle of 21:9 and 16:9. Studio film cameras actually shoot in 2:1 and then they crop to these other silly ratios. Its the best as its versatile with panorams and close up shots. Its the middle way, and 2:1 is just so aesthetic
Same, basically. The IPS panel, besides being higher res, just POPS more with the whites & colors, and the contrast is sharp, though a tad brighter overall. Just wish more games would support ultrawides...
Yo bruv, no. They are a number of reasons why its not the best option right now. 1- Less than optimal performance. 2- Videos will look like crap with big black bars on both sides.3- Anything none gaming is less effective than a 16:9 ratio. You lose a lot of height for information. Right now I would stay away from them and purchase either a 1440p 144hz ips panel or 4k 60hz panel. First would be king for performance/price ratio, second would be best for productivity.
@@fredfinks I had a 27 inch monitor. I understand your point but for my use cases it's optimal: gaming, writing an exam for University, multi-tasking, even DJing is more comfortable in my eyes. Maybe i will buy a 32 inch display as my second monitor in the next months if something interesting appears on the market.
@@TheAmanor123 Well, it depends... I'm not into competitive games, so 120Hz is enough for me, I don't see the difference between 120 and 144 neither... and the black bars are a problem, yes, but that's something i can deal with, no big issue for me... again, it highly depends on your specific preferences and use cases
Played on a 4k tv for a year then I got a 1080p144 24" and I am very happy. I have a 2060s which is perfect for 1080p. I don't like to go below High settins in SP games and don't think I will upgrade soon. The perfect setup for me would be to add a 1440p monitor in the future but keep my 1080p one. In the end don't go with what people say, consider your hardware and taste in games and preference (res vs fps). I like the motion clarity with 144hz and 1080p is perfect for my system.
Already using a 27" 1440p 60hz monitor, I'm most probably going to get a second monitor of the same size and resolution but higher refresh rate. It's easier to drive than a 4k and also better at productivity than using a single ultrawide, screensharing a whole monitor while having a spare second one is a whole new level.
at what size would you recommend moving up from 1080 to 1440 (or higher)? I heard that 27" is more or less where you need to start switching over. Might get away with 27" 1080p, but that is where you start seeing the decrease in "quality" of the image
my 5600X 3070Ti system is still having difficulties running latest AAA games at 1080p 120hz (like FC6). That is a real good gaming system in this day and age, considering the GPU shortage and all that. And we're still not talking about ray tracing and what that did to your FPS. So yeah, why would you want to go higher than 1080p, when a damn 3070Ti can't even run RT games at 120hz EVEN at 1080p? I would choose to use more eye candy like RT than go higher resolution 10/10. And yes, I've seen and used a 1440p gaming monitor myself briefly, and aren't that impressed by it.
I'd definitely agree with this except for the fact that dlss is a thing. As long as you have a strong enough nvidia card (like yours) you can use rtx at 1440p with dlss quality, and that should look better than rtx at 1080p with no dlss (shouldn't use dlss at this res due to not getting info for the algorithm)
Sounds weird. If your system cant handle that on 1080. I run a 5120x1440 screen with i7 11700 + Rtx 3070ti. And I get 80-120 fps on high settings in most games
Great video! You hit all the points on why I went 4K 160hz, multi use. 4K 160hz for competitive gaming, 4K at highest settings at over 80fps for demanding single players and 4K resolution for creative work. You do need a very beefy computer though!.
I'm of a similar train of thought although I mainly use my PC for creative work so "only" have 2x60hz 4k 27" monitors . Higher refresh rate would be nice but for later on!
Picked up a 1500R curved ultrawide 1440p monitor last year when I upgraded to a 3070. It's been a much more immersive gaming experience personally compared to a flat standard 16:9 screen
I can not recommend 2160p enough. You might want to game at 1080p since your hardware can't handle higher resolutions, but then you can losslessly scale the image to your 4k-screen. For tasks outside gaming (I personally like to read and code quite a lot) the resolution improves legibility drastically. 150% scaling in Windows makes fonts and UI sharp and the vast majority of programs natively support higher DPIs nowadays. That said, high-refresh-rate monitors in 4k are rare and expensive, so this would be the only downside. But if 60 Hz is enough for you (For me it is), the question of this video is not even a debate.
second that :D 4k is king...or actualy i like the 5k althow there are only 3 monitors out there(that i am aware of on the top of my head) and they all cost alot :D PS341WU 34WK95U U4021QW i realy love the format. the normal 16:9 is to "quadratic" for nice side by side workloads
An amazing sweet spot IMHO would be a 5120x2880 high refresh rate monitor (fingers crossed those become a thing at some point). I find 1080P too low after having played at 1440P for many years but of course 1440P on a 4K monitor wouldn't be optimal at all and 4K 144hz+ just isn't doable on good looking games right now so that would be a nice compromise for me. One can dream. High refresh rate monitors are both a blessing and a curse
Eh... it's becoming fairly budget now, it a minimum not a middle ground. Tbh this or 1080p 240hz(for super comp gamers) are the lowest end formats I would recommend to anymore buying a monitor now. I've had that format for about 6 years. Got myself a 4k 120hz oled for cinematic games and will be looking to upgrade my 1440p 144hz to a 1440p 360hz or something like that later in the year, maybe next year.
It always seemed to me to be the sweet spot. I got my first 1440p 144hz monitor in 2015 and now I'm using a 1440p 165hz IPS monitor and the performance with my 3080 is right where I want it. One day 4K high refresh will be doable in all games but until that day, 1440p high refresh is what I go for. I tend to play nice looking games and those just aren't even touching 200fps most of the time despite my endless graphics settings tweaking so 240hz for my use case seems pointless
@@AVerySillySausage "it's becoming fairly budget now, it a minimum not a middle ground" guys, he had this format for 6 yrs, this means it's old! Don't buy! News flash, just because YOU had it for 6 yrs, doesn't mean it's outdated. If anything, it was a high-cost option a few years ago and the fact that it's cheap now just makes it a better buy, not a bad buy. "Got myself a 4k 120hz oled" good for you, those are not cheap, and in some countries they will never really be cheap.
Sad to see you didn't mention how finnicky ultrawide monitors can be for livestreaming; I've heard weird things happening like black bars appearing when trying to stream in a 16:9 format using an ultrawide, or some games just not displaying in the stream feed, and the uncertainty has put me off buying one. I've yet to see a deep-dive into this issue.
I’d say future proofing for gaming 1080p is the way to go. You can ensure higher refresh rates. Unless they have a graphics card that can constantly push 144+ every game I’d rather stick to 1080p gaming with high end cards.
@@BombBoy96 Yeah, this was when it was pretty new, it was officially 144hz but was advertised as able to "overclock" to 165hz. My exact model is the Acer XB271HU.
Since many of the budget 24" 1080p IPS panels like the AOC 24G2 are only 6bit panels, is there a noticeable difference between 6bit+FRC and native 8bit panels?
I had the 24G2 for over a year and can say that it was not lacking in terms of image quality (for gaming that is). Only got rid of it, because I got its bigger 27" 1440p brother. The friend I sold it to is amazed with the pictures it produces as well. Amazing monitor for the price. If you want to work with editing fotos or digital pictures you should go for true 8 bit though I think, at least for professional purposes.
Above 60hz, if FRC is done at a full refresh cycles or in between them, it's visually indistinguishable from full 8 bit. You are only going to lose in immediately noticeable visual quality if the monitor implements FRC at full refresh cycles and refreshes at only 60hz or if all you do all day is stare at dark primary color gradients.
I would go with a 1440p 240hz over a 4k 120hz any day of the week, given that Gsync/Freesync are a thing. Both will consume about the same number of pixels over time but if the game starts churning, the drop in hz is going to be a lot less noticeable on the 1440p display.
Excellent opinion piece! i ended up "settling" with the dell S2721DGF and am very pleased. I'm waiting to see what the future has in store before I go to higher refresh or 4K.
I've had a pair of those for a yr. To make matching calibration simple, I downloaded 'S2721DGF #1 2020-09-06 20:54 2.2 F-S XYZLUT+MTX.icc' Other settings: Dell Display Manager - brightness 95%, contrast 100%. Dell Onscreen - Gain R 100%, G 100%, B 100% - Offset: R 45%, G 40%, B 50% Best settings depend on ambient lighting, of course, but the above is perfect for me. I briefly considered 4K, but the additional cost inc. GPU outweighed potential benefits. These S2721DGF are among an elite few 16:9 1440p. Well pleased.
When I got my 3090 I moved from a 1440 to an LG 27GN950-B 27in 4K 144Hz monitor and it is incredibly good. There's no going back from good 4K once you experience it.
Honestly, I totally disagree. Whenever I'm having trouble maintaining the framerate I want on any game with my 3080, the very *FIRST* thing I do is turn down the resolution from 4k to 1440p because it's the one thing I struggle to notice at all (as opposed to turning down graphics settings). Granted, my specific situation might be _slightly_ uncommon in the PC gaming community (although becoming less so these days I think) given that I sit about 10 feet from my "PC monitor" (an LGC1). But even so, being a 65" display, you'd think that 4K -- considering that it more than doubles the pixels of 1440p -- would be immediately stark and noticeable, but it's often not (to _my_ eyes anyway). Only when I get up, walk over, stand within two feet of my 65" monitor, and specifically flip back and forth between 2160 and 1440 can I _really_ notice the difference. Obviously, there _is_ a noticeable difference-- saying otherwise would be lying. It's just not a difference that I've ever found to be "worth" lowering my shadow quality, draw distance, texture resolution, etc. to achieve.
@@davecarsley8773 That's weird. Especially on a 4 k monitor, going to down to 1440 p is extremely noticeable for me (without DLSS). It's not a deal breaker though, I too was forced to play many games on 1440p because I was still running my 1080 ti when I got my first 4k screen. Hell, even now with a 3080 I have to tune down some unoptimized games that struggle with 4k and have no DLSS.
Your best bet would be the LG C2 42". But you'll need either Ampere/RDNA2 in order to take advantage of it, because current DP 1.4 -> HDMI 2.1 adapters don't support VRR which is a dealbreaker for 4K gaming
I've watched the majority of your monitor reviews and I've always wondered how a 1080p 60hz monitor as my own BenQ GL2460 would fair in your test suite. Do you have any knowledge of this, compared to a 1440p 144hz+ monitor for example?
The difference is insane. Once you go 144hz+ you will never go back. It's well worth it. I just sold my 1080p 144hz monitor to get a 1440p 180hz monitor and I'm stuck with my old 60hz monitor. Well, I honestly feel like my pc is lagging even when I'm just browsing the web or writing code, but it's just the refresh rate that is slow compared to what I'm used to.
@@acidhug2620 YES!! I had a blown out discussion with someone saying high refresh rate is a fad or gimmick.. I mean.. every new iPhone has 120hz display.. are these well to do ppl that can afford $1k phones walking around playing competitive games? Lmao the high refresh rate is so lovely when scrolling through pages and pages of data. In a large pdf or something of the sort, the experience is great and 60hz feels like a slide show even browsing Facebook. Anyone that disagrees is just justifying not upgrading and don't want to face facts. Misinformation is annoying AF especially when it's your own inability to have an open mind. Clearly I was triggered about it the subject.
Agreed on all your points. 1080p works very well for a lot of eSport games and high resolution is incredibly useful for pixel-peeping games like Escape from Tarkov.
27 inch 1440 is currently the sweet spot in terms of cost and performance. Look for last year's models to save money. I own a LG 27GL83A-B for $280 on Amazon
To me, anything over 24" is way too large. For competitive gaming, the more you have to move your eyes to look around the screen / the less you see of the whole picture by looking at the middle of the monitor, the worse it is. I'd love a 1080p monitor between 18" and 24", but sadly the smallest high-quality, high refresh rate 1080p monitors I can find are always 24"
I'm with 1080p 24' because this combination allows me not to use Windows display scaling. I don't like how it performs. Without it 1440p even on 27' would have too small fonts for my eyes comfort.
@@Steve-ph7qn That's true seems like I dropped the not in his sentence while reading. Though I don't understand the context of bigger font and bad performance of Windows UI scaling since at 1440p if big or not, the clearity is so much better for texts, especially for reading more than a few paragraphs especially for every character that has an arch or a cruve: e,h,j,p,m,n,b,d,q etc
I have an ultrawide and I absolutely love it for productivity and singleplayer gaming. It's honestly one of the best gaming purchases I've made. Its only downside is when new AAA games don't come with ultrawide support (hint: Fromsoft, come on, how can you release Sekiro and Elden Ring without ultrawide support?!) but usually the modding community comes through. They've even added ultrawide support to Rdr2 cinematics!
Also it is not that hard to program a option for Ultrawide users, which is why I think Fromsoft intentionally did not not implement ultrawide support. It could probably be the fact that most of their games have some sort of ambush or something hiding in a corner, maybe ultrawide will let you see all that stuff that was meant to be taken by surprise
![Best 1440p Gaming Monitors of 2024 [November Update]](/img/n.gif)
720p because you only have integrated graphics
You can buy a 19” 1280x1024 Monitor will display 720p (with letterboxing.) natively.
Sounds like 1440p is perfect for you.
768p
@@slickdurdeni have that at 32 inches lol
Even then sheesh
I went from 24" 1080p to 27" 1440p and I don't think I'll ever go bigger, personally I find 27" to be almost too big but also kinda perfect size, I feel 32" would just be too big for me, I think I'll be running 1440 for the foreseeable future, the only upgrade ill do in the future is going from 180hz to 360hz+ when the tech is there and graphics cards can actually make those numbers at 1440p
so... 2 years after this, are you still on 27" 1440p? or you did go bigger?
@@jokur7 He went 1440p 360hz. and still 27 inch, I also guess it's a mini-led
Yeah I agree
1080p 24" 120-144hz can happily be recommended for budget! If you plan on upgrading later, you're basically shopping for your second monitor first. :D
I like that analogy! 😄👍
Lol that's true
Got MSI Optix G241 for 180€ :)
Did exactly that with 27 1080. Now I have both 1080 144 an 1440 144 :)
@@Spido68_the_spectator I've got the same one for the same price. it's great for adding a extra display to my gaming laptop!
Going from a 1080p 17" laptop to a 27" 1440p desktop it is absolutely amazing in terms of experience. I have no desire to go to 4K for a long time.
Yup 24inch to 27inch va curved great experience if ur playing singe player nice looking games rdr2 looks so good i had tn 24inch 😂😂
I felt the same way when I made that jump. I just want more frames now, 144Hz feels like a limitation with RTX off.
i have a curved 4k monitor and would never downgrade from this ..its just so much superior in my opinion
@@NeonXXP Please explain what you mean by more frames and why this helps?
@@dry509 Frames per second is the refresh rate 1Hz = 1 FPS. In many games higher frame rates mean faster more accurate information and smoother graphics. Shooting games especially
Ultra wide fills your entire view exactly. It's s great experience. I don't really need very high refresh rates as I mostly just play MMO's. I also do some programming and then the extra real estate is nice for the extra consoles, editors and tools, which often has people use a second monitor instead, but is not really needed with an UW.
You only have a limited FoV, unless you're a lizard and can focus your eyes to each side of your head.
Went from a 27' 1440p to the Gigabyte M32Q 32' 1440p. I definitely notice the pixels, while not bad, my 27 I replaced was much more beautiful in terms of picture quality. I'd probably go 4k 32' in a few years when the GPU's can actually run it super well.
it's mostly due to the anti glare film. i have a glossy 4k 60hz monitor and it looks amazing. / gpu rx 6900xt
I run 32" 1440p 16:9. Upgraded from 1440p 27". While the higher DPI on the 27" inch is nice, the extra size is totally worth it. Cant go down. Excellent feature of 32" 1440p is its the exact same DPI as 24" @ 1080p, so everything just works and is readable at default 100% size. Defacto standard for software & web. (There are STILL scaling problems with high DPI 4K screens). Video, games everything is better with the larger screen.
@Wizzzard how about price, performance, fps,...????
@Wizzzard are you really mentioning that garbage from 2010 as an alternative for video editing displays? you should be the one that needs to wake up. or are you what mentioning their imac 24'? which is also bad for price/quality ratio if you want to do anything apart from excel lol. at least their built in speakers are ok.
i will stick with my Dell Ultrasharp U3219Q tho. which blows any imac out of the park.
1440p at 32 has the same sharpness as 1080p at 24
When i bought my 1060 6GB three or four years ago, i remember thinking i'd buy a 1440P monitor with the next GPU i'd buy. Still running that 1060 for reason we all know. ..and: The way things are going now we'll likely be running 4K before i'm able to buy a GPU again, so i'll wait and see. Not the best of times for PC-gamers.. Do agree with your thoughts on the matter. For people with the GPU to run 1440P, it is the sweetspot atm.
I'm in the same boat, with the same card. I'm perfectly fine with 1080p on a desktop monitor. I prefer higher refresh rates, so I ended up with an LG 27GN750 (because of HUB's recommendation). 240Hz G-Sync compatible, which is my first experience with VRR. There is no going back from here. Everything always looks smooth as silk in motion, with or without vsync. Frankly, I can live with this setup for a couple of more years at least. There are plenty of games in my backlog that run just fine at this resolution with my current system, many of them at over 100 fps. Most new games run very well too. I'll just save Cyberpunk for later.
I run 1660ti and refuse to even upgeade off 1080p 60Hz. If I upgrade it will only hurt me as I am not willing to upgrade with price-performance improvement.
I have LG 1440p 144hz(could be 165hz, but I don't remember), and 1060 6gb runs absolutely fine with most games.
@@rinrin4711 My main issue is better hz = more readable drop in frames by just playing. Personally I am waiting for a bigger leap like oled or such.
Did you ever end up getting a new GPU?
I've been very happy with my 1080p60Hz -> 1440p144Hz upgrade that I made a few years back.
My next monitor upgrade will very likely be based on pixel tech rather than resolution. OLED looks really sweet, so I'm keeping an eye out for the day that such monitors - or with equivalent to better tech - become affordable
Alternatively, you could save up for a year or two and buy a monitor with that technology. Prices are likely to have lowered but with that saved up money you could possibly buy a higher end monitor as well
Im super excited for oled sad that we i will have to wait quite a bit before it can become a consideration for me because oled is quite expensive right now last i heard 1k and up
I went from a 32" 1080p to a 34" 1440p ultrawide. Overall I am happy with the change. It was a massive upgrade and actually leveraged my GPU. Now the only thing I don't like with the ultrawide format is the dodgy support for ultrawide in some titles and the unacceptable letterboxing that happens on some streaming services, looking at you Disney. Although watching 21:9 content on netflix or iTunes is really nice and drives home why I purchased the monitor. I will not be going back down to 1080p ever again. But I am still a few years away from getting hardware that could not get choked down on 4k gaming.
Thank you Tim. You covered all the bases in your usual smooth, verbal style. I am waiting to see what formats, at what prices, are going to be offered for 2022. GPU's are finally catching up to Monitor capabilities. Please keep us informed of any outstanding new offerings.
Bring bac k 1600 on the Y axis. Cheap skate China going down to 1440 to get more panels.
It's wank if you have to do any documents etc.
Awesome video Tim! Basically covers everything one might think of when getting a monitor. I personally really enjoy 27" 1440p. It offers a lot of desktop real estate. It is fairly performant in gaming, and the size doesn't feel overwhelming at a typical desk distance. I couldn't actually fit anything larger comfortably and the pixel density of 4K at 27"is unnecessary high and the options extremely expensive (2x) in comparison.
I hope with newer upscaling algorithms from AMD, nVidia and likely also Intel, we will finally reach a point where we can dynamically upscale any output resolution to native resolution, so that we'll be able run games at any custom resolution that gives sufficient performance for our hardware, while making use of 100% of the resolution.
Please elaborate on that.
@@hern7213 he probably means to dynamically scale resolution at a target FPS if there is more GPU headroom, I.E supersampling
Ultrawide all the way. Once I tried it, I could never go back. Love it for both gaming and productivity. And my Lenovo G34W-10 was very affordable, for what it is. Might not be the best display, but I love it.
@Daniel Rae black bars? Ur so weird lol
I absolutely agree. The Acer Predator Z35P I got a few years ago was an awesome upgrade for me. I wouldn't go back to 16:9 unless it is 4K. But that would require a ton of GPU horsepower so there is quite some time left until then.
@@bm_wuratli6883 changing fov has similar effect especially when they fisheye it so things in the middle of the screen aren't any smaller but you have far wider fov.. it's actually easier to see what is at the corners since it isn't so far from center as it would be on ultrawide. Guess this is why 16x9 is the competitors go to.
Agree on this. I had switched to 34 Inch 1080p Ultrawide 6 years ago with an LG 34UM58-P 1080p IPS 75 HZ monitor and I couldn't look at 16:9 screens anymore as they seem so small. Recently upgraded to a 34 Inch 1440P 165hz VA Ultrawide and been loving the refresh rate fluidity and the more clarity. Once you go Ultrawide, there's no going back to 16:9.
@@christophermullins7163 The problem is a wider FoV setting on 16:9 also makes it harder to aim (more sensitive) and sometimes, harder to see distance detail.
But with a 21:9 ultrawide monitor, you get a wider field of view, while retaining good distance detail and normal aiming sensitivity (assuming the game supports ultrawide resolutions).
The AOC CU34G2X, there 21:9 1440p @144hz, is what I went with as my first monitor getting back into PC gaming after playing on nothing but big flat screen TV's. I totally agree that playing games is super immersive in ultrawide but you have to have the hardware to run it
Just switch from the LG27GL850 to the New 4k Odyssey G7 and the amount of upgrade i see is unbelievable. The G7 is an amazing monitor from what i’ve used of it so far. You should make a video on it
Got it too. In some games it feels not as smooth 144hz as in other titles.... or maybe the response times are a bit lower then my old BenQ monitor..... But overall a great 4k monitor with 3080ti
It's a mediocre 4k 144hz monitor and multiple brands use it.
@@juicy9592It's literally not and the big benefit of that monitor is the 1,200 FALD zones. Stop your yapping.
I'm using a Xbox Series X on a Gigabyte 32" 1440p monitor and everything looks great, it's a shame my PS5 doesn't look as good, I wish Sony would update the PS5 to 1440
They won't their rendering software works towards 4K or can downsize to 1080p where it needs to.
They are actually releasing an update this month to support 1440p.
@@tsunamipapi173 are they though? We'll see I guess and hope.
PS5 has been an absolute DISASTER on the display side of things. No FreeSync, VRR, 1440p, the HDMI port being 32 GBps... the list goes on.
@nomasporfavor The more I look at the PS5 the more I think Sony just obsessed over building the best IO on a gaming console ever made... and then forgot to build a well rounded system around it.
The jump to 3440x1400 was probably the best monitor upgrade I have ever had. I simply can not go back to 16:9 no matter the resolution or refresh rate. When 4K 21:9 monitors start to come out I will be more than exited. 5120x2160 has me more than ecstatic, but when do we think this will even happen?!
You can use custom/virtual resolutions to play in 21:9 on a 16:9 screen, might be worth looking into.
Spoken like a true casual gamer lmaoo
@@orangecat1596 ???
In my opinion, you missed the distinction between ultrawide 21:9 and super-ultrawide 32:9. There is a big difference in terms of "usable desktop space" and graphics power required, the latter at a resolution of 5120x1440 requiring almost a "4k level" of GPU.
Super ultra wide is just niche at this point. Some games don't even support cropping the UI making looking at the minimal or hud very annoying
@@tank7474 Yes, it has its own drawbacks (most games that I play are fine but, I agree with you, for some I have to change back to the 16:9 resolution because of the hud in most cases); just like its own benefits (It's so immersive when you can use the whole screen for a game). It might be a niche, but for me, it was the perfect replacement for a 3 monitor setup. And these comments just highlight the initial point that it is a different category from the ultrawides. One is a wider than normal screen (~0.4x extra width) the other is a whole screen of added width.
The big problem with 4K is that not all games are in 4K and that the performance is competive online gaming is not the best. But if you at least have a 3d card in the range of a Geforce GTX 3070 or higher than you could enjoy 4 gaming. And you need a good monitor but the price is good if you don't buy a to big 4K monitor.
@@giovannigio3764 Blow me but I am getting a full 4k ready setup before my 40th birthday! And that is gonna be after 8 years xD
@@coops1992 Don't worry my friend you if you are spending your money on the things you whant you are doing the right thing. My pc is also from 2014 and i also need a new one. But be awere that there are 2 formats of screens with the name 4k in it that are not 4k! Real 4k has at least this resolution: 4096x2160 and there are almost no 4k games but they told me that final fantasy 15 is a 4k game. So beside that there almost no 4k games also keep in mind that your screen will be slower and that is not a problem in single player games but a big problem in games likes shooters and you need to spend a lot of money for something you will in this era almost never use. But like i said if you have a budget between 4000 and 6000 euro you can build a amazing pc. A card like a 3080 is good for 4k gaming but since money is no problem a 3090 is a better choice. Good luck with your new pc. 👍👌✔🙌
PS: Funny to see my pc is also 8 years old and i'm 38 so also almost the same age.
3080ti user here. I recently purchased a Asus XG349C as I wanted the best of all worlds. Stunning visuals, high framerates, massive screen real estate. Ultrawide has me hooked!
My main monitor is currently a 32' 1080p display. People complain about seeing the pixels even on 1440p, but that doesn't bother me at all.
My vision isn't great, so having a physically larger display helps with eyestrain.
That said, i just bought a 144hz 1440p display to replace it! It's my first time going above 1080p or 60hz, so i'm pretty excited to see the difference.
How do you like your 1440p ?
@@marcoslightspeed5517
It's great. For my main monitor, i can never go back.
If anything i'd want a 4k display next.
However, after adjusting to 144hz i do feel like 60hz is a bit choppy and laggy in games, so i'd also want something that's at least capable of higher than 60hz. Even just 90hz would still be fine, but 60 feels too low at this point.
Thanks Tim! Pretty much covers all the questions I had!! Got a Gigabyte M32QC 32" 1440p display for less than $300 last spring! I think it's great for my needs! Should be all I need for at least the next few years! 👍😎
I did exactly the same, upgraded from a 27" 1080 144Hz display. It's a brilliant monitor. Don't see me upgrading for a long time 😁
That's the most straight forward clearest video on monitors I have seen, it answered lots of questions I had been thinking about, thanks
I went from a 27" 1440p to a 38" 21:9 3840x1600. The pixel density here is basically the same, so you get the screen real estate with 0 compromise to image quality. (LG38GN950-B). It was very expensive, but for someone who plays older FPS games (BF4), and Paradox grand strategy games, my 2070 S can still hit that 144hz, and it's definitely worth it. For strategy games in particular, the extra screen size really helps alot 👍
I have a 22" 75Hz 1080p IPS monitor. Even 75Hz makes a difference compared to 60Hz but the problem in my case is that in a lot of games I can't reach stable 75fps but I also can't upgrade my PC at the moment because of the reasons all of us here are familiar with. The monitor was less than 150$ but everything here technology related is usually a bit more expensive so with everything considered it's not a bad price
I recently went from a 1920 x 1080p 60hz (32") to a 1920 x 1080p @ 165hz (and stepped down to 27"), and I have to be honest: I was wildly impressed by the difference in quality. I was a little unsure since I was reducing the size - but the price was right, so I pulled the trigger on the deal - and, just WOW. I'm very pleased with the video and gaming quality. I really underestimated what a difference it makes going from 60 to 165hz.
Great video! Nice breakdown. This info woulda been golden when I first started looking at monitors two years ago, but your videos back then still helped alot. This vid is next level helpful and really puts the current monitor offerings in a nice perspective even for those like me that follow the channel regularly. You’re a gem!
1440p Ultrawide is perfect for my needs... I love the 1000R offered by Samsung too. I'd struggle to go back to 16:9 or a less aggressive curve.
Chose that solution last year, too and I'm very happy with it. 1440p is crisp enough and I really don't want to miss the ultrawide ratio anymore. In combination with a second pivoted monitor for document reading, I'm super happy with my monitor setup.
@@FzNd Oh yes, my office supplied me with a rotating monitor to work from home… the bonus being I love playing vertical shmups in TATE mode!
I have a 1500R, and I have no idea why you would ever want a larger curve radius. What use is a 3800R curve on a computer monitor you're sitting slightly more than a meter from? I like mine, but 1000R would probably be even better.
When looking, I was unwliling to go below 1200 vertical pixels and wanted to be able to have a document open beside an editor. My last monitor was 1920x1200, which was slightly too narrow, and I occasionally used the pivot function for some documents and pictures.
I think I'd have preferred 3840x1600, for the extra vertical space mostly, but going up to that would also have required getting a higher-end GPU, putting the total at $2k or thereabouts, especially with the current market, so that was right out. I'm happy enough with my Xiao Mi Curved Gaming 34 monitor, and it was cheap enough ($400) that I won't feel bad if I upgrade it in ten years or so.
I love my curved lg.. and the colors are so much better than most options out there at 165hz.
Same, HP X34...trying out 16:9 after it makes it look like 4:3
Answer: All for them, one for each kind of game you play.
Hahah true! At least one 1080p for esports and 1440p for single player games
Nyo, 1080p with high regresh rate is the way to go 👍🏻
Yeah, I'm not really all that pleased of my 1440p@144hz IPS Acer monitor and I think I'll switch back to 1080p@144hz TN Asus monitor because it has better color quality/contrast for competitive games. This IPS panel makes everything so dark I have to sacrifice my eyes by pumping up the contrast and brightness.
The TN panel was perfectly fine in CS:GO with ~15/100 brightness and ~25/100 contrast whereas this IPS has to be at least 40/100 and 50/100 contrast with black boost over 5/10.
Answer: your monitor choice should come AFTER having assessed what gpu you will use. No point in buying a QHD monitor if you have a gtx 1060 that will force you to downscale the game resolution to 1080p.
Long story short, the monitor choice should be gpu dependant
@@Happiness-lp9fw lmao I read 1080p high regret rate
During "lockdown" I wanted to replace my 25" 1440p glowey IPS with a 27" 144Hz flat VA, only there weren't many options available. Ended up with a 32" 4K 60Hz VA panel instead. It suits the kind of strategy games and software development type work that I do as it's like having four 1080p displays together. Next upgrade will be a 4K 144Hz OLED/MicroLED once they're under $1000.
Thats what I did when I was able to find an LG CX 48 for 999$ I upgraded to it from my 1440p 165hz monitor. It has pretty amazing image quality
I actually really enjoy 120Hz and higher desktop refresh rate for software development and text work since you can scan/skim the text scrolling by nicely.
Glowy IPS is barely an issue, but VA and TN have a transition bias, so TN has sticky whites and VA has sticky blacks, which makes quickly scrolling text a large nuisance where it's pretty much blanked out or leaves streaks. IPS has roughly the same transition speed both ways, making it ideal for this.
I gonna upgrade from 24" 1080p IPS to 4K 42" OLED. I can't wait, have dreamed years and years for this.
Wish me luck guys 😉
I'm concerned that buying a 4k oled under 46" this year going to be like buying a gpu.
@@velcromastergaming2464 Yes, you are feeling the waters what is coming. But i will be in hunting mode. And dedicate a lot time to snag one.
I really like 4k
An update to this would be great!
Thank you
I'm using 1080p 144hz nice cheap g sync compatible and better than my laptop screen when at home :)
I'm using the AOC24G2U
Considering the current GPU prices, 1080p still makes a lot of sense.
Besides, and this is something personal - I don't like changing graphics cards that often, so to me, even something like a 6700 XT is only adequate for 1080p, since I'd like at least 100 FPS before considering 1440p, and I want games released in 2024 also work fine, especially if I'd spend 1000$ on a graphics card.
So even if 6700 XT can do 1440p well enough today, it might not be able to in a few years, and since it's so expensive, I'd like to keep it for several years before changing it.
Went with exactly a 6700xt for 1440p. I want a minimum of 85fps while gaming. I sold my radeon 7 and ended upp with a 6700xt after my old build went to hardware hell. Never buying asus mobo again.
A 6700XT will deliver more than 100fps at 1440p, its within a couple of percent of a 2080TI. im using a 6700XT on a 3440x1440 34" inch monitor and its doing a great job.
In this video the 12 game average showed at 1440p the 6700XT was hitting 113fps on average.
in some countries even outside of current market 1080p is the only making sense. Pay more for H/W than western countries, while earning 1/4th or less.
@@andydbedford It may do so now, but since Cyberpunk 2077 barely runs at 60FPS at High in 1440p, I'm pretty sure most games will be like that 2 years later - this was the case for instance with AC: Unity or Watch_Dogs 2.
So yes, it can push these resolutions now, but again, considering it costs an arm and a leg, I'd keep it at least for 3 years if I'd buy one for 1000$.
For 500$, it might be somewhat better.
@@mirceastan94 Well of course, thats precisely why we get new gpu's every two years or so otherwise we would only get new hardware twice a decade. I got my 6700XT in october laster year for £635, and I will probably need to upgrade in 2-3 years.
Good video, I'd like to add a thing in favor of 1080p, 1080p monitors are not limited to rendering at 1080p, you can use supersampling with DSR/VSR to achieve 2160p on a 1080p monitor and it looks as good as you would expect. However, you can't supersample a refreshrate, you can overclock it but the experience is often very limited. So while a 1080p 240 Hz monitor can do 4K downsampling, a 4K 60 Hz monitor is ultimately limited to 60 Hz, maybe 75 with OC in the best instances.
I am also sorry to report that, at least in my country, the M28U is not $650 but $1100.
According to Steam servy, 9 of 10 most currently used GPU's are, by order: Gtx1060, Gtx1650, Gtx1050Ti, Rtx2060, Gtx1050, Gtx1660Ti, Gtx1660 Super, Gtx1070, Gtx1660. ( These 9 take 38% of total GPUs.)
When will be a GPU at 250$-300$ that be powerful to run games easly - (Maybe you want the GPU to hold for future games as well) - at 2K 144hz, more people will play at this res.
Personally I'm using a Gtx 1070 with Viewsonic XG2405 (1080p 144hz IPS).
I got a 27GP950 for christmas, and 144hz is incredible. I already had a 4k60 monitor so I didn't want to drop down the resolution and I'm happy with my decision. It also lets my 6900xt actually push itself in more games
nice man i also got one this summer its so good for my ps5
4K also has the less obvious advantage over 1440p of being a perfect upscale from 1080p, in cases when the content you are watching is available in no higher than 1080p. Something like 1080p movies looks 'fine' on 1440p, but if you look at gaming or any fine text, it's pretty clear that when upscaled to fullscreen, 1080p content looks inferior on 1440p displays.
Yep, exactly why I went back from 1440p to 1080p.
@@ifrit35 what? Don’t make any sense
@@zfacersane272 Here's a quick summary. I went from 1080p 60hz to 1440p 144hz. At this point I found out that I much prefer high refresh rate in my games than the added resolution. And as Max pointed out, 1080p doesn't scale well on 1440p monitor. So I got rid of it and bought a 1080p 144hz monitor. 4k 144hz monitor are more versatile in that regard.
@@ifrit35 ahhh now I understand
Was fortunate enough to get a 3060ti from my local MC. With my simple 24 inch 144Hz 1080p, I'll be able to game at high settings on any title for years to come.
By the time my card becomes "slow" like the 1060, I'm hoping the shortage will have ended and 1440p/4k monitors will be cheaper.
Not to mention my monitor cost me $130, I'm in no rush to upgrade anytime soon.
Great luck enjoy!!
This is what we all deserved but this whole shortage fiasco has only disappointed pcmr fans.
@@gamesntech4827 And Nvidia is pushing us off the cliff...
@@whisky_cat Ty!
Tbh even the 1060 can still hit 1080p 60fps in almost all games
Bought a S2721DGF during a sale recently. The GL850 was almost $200 more in my region so the S2721DGF was much more worth my buck. 1440p at 144Hz is good enough for me coming from a 1080p 60Hz monitor previously
This is a great overview of each monitor resolution and its benefits in terms of resolution vs frame rate along with price! Keep up the great work on awesome content 😎 I was debating on whether to get a 4k monitor or a 1440p monitor with a higher refresh rate for my 3070. I ended up going with the Dell 2721DGF after watching your review awhile back and I LOVE my monitor. It was a good choice to buy. Even comes with some basic HDR400 support, and when paired with Windows 11's Auto-HDR feature it makes games look even better. Even if it's not the best HDR experience overall, it's still nice to have. I love the high refresh rate of 165hz paired with the great resolution of 1440p at a 27" size. It's great for me
This video was very useful! I would say it deserves a refresh seeing how things have changed quite a bit!
I really want to go 1440p but the lack of a graphics card is making me delay the upgrade
i have a gtx 1080 card and it handles 1440p very well
same its worth the wait cuz the monitors may get cheaper while we waiting for gpu crisis to resolve
Consider 2560x1080 Ultrawide. my GTX 1080 handles it relatively well with FPS from 60-90 in most games
GTX 970 forever.
@@unsignedmelodeys the problems arise when you try to play anything released after 2017 at higher settings..
1080p 144Hz
Relatively cheap, easy to drive, no need for Windows resolution scaling
Outstanding overview! Even more so as you kept a keen focus on factual considerations in the context of a topic that is usually - and quite naturally- overloaded with highly subjective influences and decisions to be made.
Opinions and subjectivity are good, actually. That's the point of reviews.
Upgraded from 27" 1080p 144hz to 27" 1440p 165hz last year and absolutely love it. Will get a 32"+ 4k in a few years when GPUs are more powerful.
I feel price is no longer that much of a variable between 1080p and 1440p, IF you can wait for sale events. I got my M27Q for $250 in November. That's $50 more than the usual 24G2 or EX2510, roughly 20% more!
1080p still the most popular resolution on Steam at 67.12%, 1440 at 9.85% and 4K at only 2.35%. Plus, lack of affordable GPUs to drive higher res' than 1080p are few and far between so I wouldn't be surprised if 1080p ownership increases.
Personally I'm still using a 1440p Acer Predator GSYNC monitor from 2015 and it's still an excellent monitor, no plans to ever update to 4K.
Exactly
@@silverwerewolf975 It's from "Steam Hardware & Software Survey: December 2021", so not sure what you mean by old stats? You have to realize most people running Steam aren't enthusiasts that follow tech channels and buy 4K monitors and RTX 3090s. Stop living in a bubble.
@@rand0mtv660 no one should by a 3090 for gaming only anyway.
@@silverwerewolf975 No, those are current Steam stats. The GTX 1060 is still the most popular card as well. Welcome to the crushing wasteland that is the current GPU market.
@@kingplunger1 I agree, but that's beside the point at the moment here.
using 34" WQHD right now, and i think 27" QHD are the sweet spot right now, it's crisp. Also, if you use PC for productivity and game but still think of budget, you can use dual monitor setup 1080p and 4K, that dont need high end GPU like 3080 or 6800 to play in 1080p.
Good video tim ! I would mention that with ultrawides you can run at 1440P 16:9 with no image quality penalty if you wanted to gain some framerate. iirc except for the samsung monitors the highest 3440x1440 refresh rate is 180hz OC'd on the Acer X34 GS
What graphically intensive AAA games at high settings can even reach 180fps at that native resolution (21:9 1440p)??
Would love to see a follow up video soon with the newer pricing and GPUs
I'm halfway through the video and I just want to say how much I appreciate you putting Vega 56 as a reference in those charts! Really helpful, and perfect timing!
I'm considering buying a new 2nd monitor (since I have a crappy 1080p for that), mainly for productivity, so I just wanted to do some research before looking for a 4k monitor.
My main monitor is an XG401 that I'm happy with (for gaming), but I was thinking of turning that into my 2nd monitor (even though the viewing angles kinda suck) and going for 1440p 144hz as my main, even if my current set-up won't really utilize it .
I'm thinking that if I just buy a 4k monitor as a secondary, I'll be "stuck" with 1080p and a 4k 60hz monitor if I upgrade down the line.
Aaah decisions :p
3440x1440 is my favorite gaming resolution so far. I'm considering to go wider even.
Based on your reviews from last year, i bought a DELL 2721DGF at the end of December here in the USA at Best buy for only $300 Which is an IPS 165hz 400 nits both gsync compatible and free sync premium pro, I am super satisfied. Thank you so much. It was a true steal...LG nano IPS panel...
Same here. Miss some of the higher frames due to only having a 3070 but I'm not gonna lie and say I'm not considering buying a second one to have a matching dual monitor setup.
For me i also have a dell monitor although this channel hasn't reviewed it yet. It is a dell s3220dgf. It's 1440p 165hz va panel and i love every single bit of it!
@@BearerOfDreams Nice. I was scared to go 1440p at 32".
I have this monitor, is a true beast and i have no issues at all with after 1 year of use!
27" at 1440p is still the sweet spot and offers the best pixel resolution vs cost vs framerate for most people. Still using my 2 x PG279Q's for the last 7 years and the only upgrade I would consider from this would be an ultra-wide at the same vertical resolution and same vertical size or greater.
Is 1440p vs 4k even a big difference at 27”? I’d definitely consider 32” if were to get 4k.
@@deagle7776 I think 4K is wasted at 27". The PPI of 4K at 27" is 163 which is overkill at that size. 4K only becomes useful for 32" and larger screens. 2K at 27" PPI is still 108. Plus 2K has less than half of the total pixels to drive compared to 4K so you are able to get a much better framerate from a GPU and turn up the detail level in most games.
@@deagle7776 most games no, but some games like rdr2 make 1440p look bad
Outstanding job, Tim. I completely agree with all of your conclusions. I've been gaming on an LG 32GK650F-B 32" for a little over two years, based largely on your endorsement, and I still love it. At that time, I decided to stay away from 4K due to the higher cost and steeper graphics card requirements, and I plan to do so for an additional couple of years, until the price of 4K monitors and especially graphics cards falls substantially. I do wish the PS5 supported 1440p, but does not so I guess I'll be waiting on that as well. Cheers - enjoyed your interview with Tom at Moore's Law.
Sadly everything will rise next generation :x
Thanks for making it so clear man. I was absolute beginner at this stuff.
Only thing missing from this video would have been a size, resolution, dpi scale table and a few words about it :)
Good work as always
1080p is still the most used resolution, anyway. Looks great, performs the best. Only reason to go 1440p would be cuz of larger monitors.
this the best answer
32 inch 1440p is so much more enjoyable to play on than a 24 inch 1080p and 27 inch 1440p.
What was said in the video is good too. 2 points:
1080p monitors are the least expensive
Cheaper GPUs can run games at 1080p at acceptable frame rates. This is a major issue right now, I guess HU wanted to make this video more perennial so didn't talk about it.
@@hhhfdsfs I def agree just bout a dell 32 inch curved moniter with 1440 and 165hz for my series x and I'm loving it
@@tbreeze79 It's not. But it is when you don't care about high graphics and only about performance. If you care about both good quality graphics and a fast performance and also have the money than a Samsung (Know as a Odyssey G7 but not the 4K version.) C32G75TQSU 81,3 cm (32") 2560 x 1440 Pixels Quad HD QLED is better. With'32 inch, 240 HZ and a reaciontime of only 1 ms it is a better choice.
I bought my first gaming monitor last year, 27” 1440p 165hz and it’s been awesome. I’ve also been pleasantly surprised at how nice it is to edit word docs on the monitor too. Noticeably more vertical space than my old 24”.
You know, I'm actually really happy with the standard 16:9. For the cost of an ultrawide I could have bought 2 of the Dell 27whatever I picked up.
@@drunkhusband6257 ultrawide is just a waste of vertical real estate that you have in front of you. Especially stupid for text work.
My use case is a little different but indeed it is amazing how quickly and nicely you can skim PDFs and documentation and text/code on a fast display with 120Hz desktop refresh rate or higher.
I too have 165Hz capability but I only use it in some games, I enjoy that the desktop has 10bit colour in 120Hz mode. The pixel colour transitions get a little less even at 165Hz, and 165 also doesn't let my GPU idle as effectively, so whenever I don't need 10bit, I mostly just use 144Hz for now.
I went from 24" 1080p to 34" 3440x1440 some years ago. I'll definitely keep ultrawide, so I imagine my next upgrade will be when good 4k ultrawides exist, with hardware to run it for a reasonable price. So that seems to be quite far in the future ;)
I've been using 1080p monitors for over a decade now. No plans to switch to a higher resolution. It's good enough, and I'm not dropping tons of dough for a 1440p monitor and an (AMD) GPU that can comfortably play at that resolution.
1440 monitors have been really well priced, good amount of $200-$300 1440 high refresh and if you have the funds then there’s even a 1440/300hz for $379 which is not bad at all when most 1440/240 is $400+
Looking forward to you guys getting your hands on the New LG 42C2. 4K 120 at 42 inch is pretty close to 1440p at 27 inch ppi. Only drawback would be that it is an old panel, but i hope that the LG Evo tech mitigates it somewhat
That "old" panel is still 3 times better than any other PC monitor on the market.
@@JackJohnson-br4qr I know man!
I'm so impressed from AMD FSR that my next monitor will be 4k. I always thought I will never go above 1440p because of native resolution, but upscaling isn't that demanding but gives a lot of quality. And for text sharpness and a bigger workspace or anything work related, 4k is always nice to have too.
AMD software based FSR is a tad mediocre, so not sure why you are so excited about. AMD will likely stop supporting it in RDNA3 and introduce their hardware based DLSS competitor "likely" called FSR2.0, at least that's how it is looking at this stage.
@@Battleneter FSR upscaling from 1440p to 4K still looks a lot better than the monitors internal upscaler, so if you have a 1440p class GPU but want a 4K monitor it's absolutely a viable option. Especially now where it's getting driver inclusion.
@@Battleneter I'm so excited about it because I run Linux and can use FSR for every unsupported game, I'm not exaggerating, Linux has a fullscreen hack for that (don't know about the status for Windows with that). I tested native 1440p vs upscaled 1080p to 1440p, the difference in quality was nearly non-existent especially if you actively play, but I got a big FPS boost for free. I guess I'm a special case with that, but it showed me that 4k gaming is indeed possible even without the highest tier of GPU. Before that I thought 1440p is the highest I want, because in games you mostly want higher FPS not higher resolution and native 4k is of course really demanding.
@@FunFreakeyy But wouldnt upscaled 4k require less performance from the card than native 4K? I think the woes of running a game in Linux at native 4k would present themselves.
@@BombBoy96 Yeah that's what I mean, if you upscale you get more FPS than with a native render. And if you look at different benchmarks over the web, between 1440p and 4k you can expect the difference. Of course it's not 100% the same, but the brain can get tricked really easy, especially in fast paced games.
If you value FPS as much as resolution 1440p is the way to go.
Keep in mind you'd want to use the native resolution 99% of the times since monitors tend to have bad downscaling unlike TVs so choose wisely.
Yes, such a good point. I discovered that downscaling did not work well on my monitor.
Why not 1080p? You'd get more FPS!
@@dark-lord- depends on your specs, high end GPUs can play 1440p 144fps but obviously not every game, 1080p is completely fine if you always want the highest fps possible
I have dual 27'' 1440p 165hz, the ASUS TUF VG27AQ. My dream monitor, and now I have two of them. Came from a single 1366x768 monitor. I can easily say this is the sweet spot for me and I see no point in 4K for what I do.
Am thinking to buy this one, it costs 390$ in my country..
Do u think there's better options?
I'm fine with most display as long as it's not a TN panel! My main display is CX 48" OLED on my desk. My laptop is 1080p 144hz IPS, my living room TV is 55" 1080p.
27" @ 1440p definitely is the sweet spot. Anything higher and you need to start looking at 4k panels if oyu dont want to loose that sharpness.
yeah, can testify with a 32" odyssey g7
Anything 1440p is the sweet spot, given the different distance you will sit away with different monitor sizes, regarding FOV.
32 1440p is fine for me I have to sit a bit further back
The Dell 2721DGF (of course a recommendation from Tim) was the best choice for me.
27" 1440p IPS 165hz. It nailed all the specs I wanted. It looks fantastic and my 5700xt can handle it easily.
It regularly goes in sale for $329.
I refuse to buy any monitor that is not "Tim Approved."
Same with Steve with his GPU reviews.
Im really tempted to get this monitor but I already have a 27 inch 1440p one (pixio prime 27)
I have this monitor, is a true beast and i have no issues at all with after 1 year of use!
I bought a 27" 1440p monitor with 165hz refresh rate and 10-bit 120Hz capability, which is great for graphics work. It's also good for working with a large amount of quickly scrolling text thanks to IPS which lacks a predominant transition bias and good response times. You also don't need any UI scaling, the pixel size is about the same as on a 22" 1080p display.
I have a gtx970 which I suppose I'll need to keep for another year or two and then upgrade. I can't reach beyond 60fps in most games? I don't care. Sometimes I can and it's great fun. I can't reach near native rendering resolution? Fine, I'll play at 1080p or 900p. But the monitor is probably going to be the primary one for the next 8 years.
i had 970 and after 8 years switched to 4090. And..i enjoyed games more with my old gpu. Now i can play everything maxed out but i just don't want to.
I realize it's beating a dead horse at this point, but mentioning the current GPU prices should've been pointed out, it plays a big role in choosing a resolution. Much of the focus was on the monitor price itself.
I got the 48" LG CX 4k 120hz OLED to use with my PC and the PS5. It's been fantastic so far.
It truly is the absolute best
I went for 27' 1440p 144Hz and I love it. It's the sweet spot for me. The only thing I would consider as an upgrade right now is going ultrawide. Also as a competitive fps player I still prefer 1440p 144Hz to 1080p at a higher fps. The higher pixel density helps me make out details at a distance and I don't think 240Hz is that big of an upgrade from 144Hz.
240hz and 144hz definitely feel different lol
@@chrisjr6214 barely. 60 to 120 or 144 is te real good stuff
I went from a 27 inch 1440p165hz hp omen ips display, to a 24.5 inch 1080p240hz tn Benq Zowie Xl2546k, and the difference is absolutely night and day. So much less motion blur, and I am hitting way crazier shots, a lot more consistently. Also for most games, 1080p gives you plenty of detail, assuming the panel is small and you are sitting quite close.
@@haydn6462 Placebo.
@@C3lloman Not at all, the difference is stark between my 4k144hz monitor and Zowie
I switched from Alienware AW2518HF 240Hz 1080P to the Gigabyte M32U 4K 144Hz and it did not disappoint. Yeah I lost a 100 frames but man the 4K is good, must my 2080 Super is finally getting used to its potential
You think my 3070 ti can run on the M32U? And what are your frames now
@@JoeMama-ly1kc yes for sure your 3070Ti will run on the M32 and you’ll get decent frames depending
I can really recommend gaming with an ultrawide monitor. I got myself an Alienware AW3420DW with IPS-Panel, 120hz refresh rate, and 3440px1440p resolution. It's a day and night comparison with my previous Acer 16:9 1440p Monitor with a crappy TN Panel. Everyone who has the money and the opportunity to buy an ultrawide monitor: Try it! It's really worth it :D
What size monitor did you have last time? You need to compare 32" 16:9 to 34" ultra. Prefer 16:9 as its much larger screen area. Ultrawide is missing too much vertical height. Though i wish there were 2:1 monitors. Thats the perfect ratio. Its sits right in middle of 21:9 and 16:9. Studio film cameras actually shoot in 2:1 and then they crop to these other silly ratios. Its the best as its versatile with panorams and close up shots. Its the middle way, and 2:1 is just so aesthetic
Same, basically. The IPS panel, besides being higher res, just POPS more with the whites & colors, and the contrast is sharp, though a tad brighter overall. Just wish more games would support ultrawides...
Yo bruv, no. They are a number of reasons why its not the best option right now. 1- Less than optimal performance. 2- Videos will look like crap with big black bars on both sides.3- Anything none gaming is less effective than a 16:9 ratio. You lose a lot of height for information. Right now I would stay away from them and purchase either a 1440p 144hz ips panel or 4k 60hz panel. First would be king for performance/price ratio, second would be best for productivity.
@@fredfinks I had a 27 inch monitor. I understand your point but for my use cases it's optimal: gaming, writing an exam for University, multi-tasking, even DJing is more comfortable in my eyes. Maybe i will buy a 32 inch display as my second monitor in the next months if something interesting appears on the market.
@@TheAmanor123 Well, it depends... I'm not into competitive games, so 120Hz is enough for me, I don't see the difference between 120 and 144 neither... and the black bars are a problem, yes, but that's something i can deal with, no big issue for me... again, it highly depends on your specific preferences and use cases
Played on a 4k tv for a year then I got a 1080p144 24" and I am very happy. I have a 2060s which is perfect for 1080p. I don't like to go below High settins in SP games and don't think I will upgrade soon. The perfect setup for me would be to add a 1440p monitor in the future but keep my 1080p one. In the end don't go with what people say, consider your hardware and taste in games and preference (res vs fps). I like the motion clarity with 144hz and 1080p is perfect for my system.
Already using a 27" 1440p 60hz monitor, I'm most probably going to get a second monitor of the same size and resolution but higher refresh rate. It's easier to drive than a 4k and also better at productivity than using a single ultrawide, screensharing a whole monitor while having a spare second one is a whole new level.
Hoping for some 21:9 reviews this year :) Gigabyte's M34WQ seems very interesting, as does HP's X34 based on the same panel :)
at what size would you recommend moving up from 1080 to 1440 (or higher)?
I heard that 27" is more or less where you need to start switching over.
Might get away with 27" 1080p, but that is where you start seeing the decrease in "quality" of the image
25 for 1080p
27 for 1440p
Don't go above that or the images will look bad because of ppi
my 5600X 3070Ti system is still having difficulties running latest AAA games at 1080p 120hz (like FC6). That is a real good gaming system in this day and age, considering the GPU shortage and all that. And we're still not talking about ray tracing and what that did to your FPS. So yeah, why would you want to go higher than 1080p, when a damn 3070Ti can't even run RT games at 120hz EVEN at 1080p? I would choose to use more eye candy like RT than go higher resolution 10/10. And yes, I've seen and used a 1440p gaming monitor myself briefly, and aren't that impressed by it.
I'd definitely agree with this except for the fact that dlss is a thing. As long as you have a strong enough nvidia card (like yours) you can use rtx at 1440p with dlss quality, and that should look better than rtx at 1080p with no dlss (shouldn't use dlss at this res due to not getting info for the algorithm)
Sounds weird. If your system cant handle that on 1080.
I run a 5120x1440 screen with i7 11700 + Rtx 3070ti.
And I get 80-120 fps on high settings in most games
Great video! You hit all the points on why I went 4K 160hz, multi use. 4K 160hz for competitive gaming, 4K at highest settings at over 80fps for demanding single players and 4K resolution for creative work. You do need a very beefy computer though!.
I'm of a similar train of thought although I mainly use my PC for creative work so "only" have 2x60hz 4k 27" monitors . Higher refresh rate would be nice but for later on!
@nomasporfavor Most games as long as you have the hardware to push those frames. I play WZ and Destiny 2 mostly on a 5950X 6900XT water cooled PC,
@@tourmaline07 Even when you are not playing games, the UI feels great at 160hz. Everything just runs smoother.
Picked up a 1500R curved ultrawide 1440p monitor last year when I upgraded to a 3070. It's been a much more immersive gaming experience personally compared to a flat standard 16:9 screen
I can not recommend 2160p enough.
You might want to game at 1080p since your hardware can't handle higher resolutions, but then you can losslessly scale the image to your 4k-screen.
For tasks outside gaming (I personally like to read and code quite a lot) the resolution improves legibility drastically. 150% scaling in Windows makes fonts and UI sharp and the vast majority of programs natively support higher DPIs nowadays.
That said, high-refresh-rate monitors in 4k are rare and expensive, so this would be the only downside. But if 60 Hz is enough for you (For me it is), the question of this video is not even a debate.
second that :D 4k is king...or actualy i like the 5k althow there are only 3 monitors out there(that i am aware of on the top of my head) and they all cost alot :D PS341WU 34WK95U U4021QW i realy love the format. the normal 16:9 is to "quadratic" for nice side by side workloads
An amazing sweet spot IMHO would be a 5120x2880 high refresh rate monitor (fingers crossed those become a thing at some point). I find 1080P too low after having played at 1440P for many years but of course 1440P on a 4K monitor wouldn't be optimal at all and 4K 144hz+ just isn't doable on good looking games right now so that would be a nice compromise for me. One can dream. High refresh rate monitors are both a blessing and a curse
A 27" 1440p 144fps screen is a fantastic balanced middle ground.
144Hz* but yeah
Eh... it's becoming fairly budget now, it a minimum not a middle ground. Tbh this or 1080p 240hz(for super comp gamers) are the lowest end formats I would recommend to anymore buying a monitor now. I've had that format for about 6 years. Got myself a 4k 120hz oled for cinematic games and will be looking to upgrade my 1440p 144hz to a 1440p 360hz or something like that later in the year, maybe next year.
It always seemed to me to be the sweet spot. I got my first 1440p 144hz monitor in 2015 and now I'm using a 1440p 165hz IPS monitor and the performance with my 3080 is right where I want it. One day 4K high refresh will be doable in all games but until that day, 1440p high refresh is what I go for. I tend to play nice looking games and those just aren't even touching 200fps most of the time despite my endless graphics settings tweaking so 240hz for my use case seems pointless
@@AVerySillySausage "it's becoming fairly budget now, it a minimum not a middle ground" guys, he had this format for 6 yrs, this means it's old! Don't buy!
News flash, just because YOU had it for 6 yrs, doesn't mean it's outdated.
If anything, it was a high-cost option a few years ago and the fact that it's cheap now just makes it a better buy, not a bad buy.
"Got myself a 4k 120hz oled" good for you, those are not cheap, and in some countries they will never really be cheap.
I have that combo as well as a Curved, I don't play high FPS games, so it is perfect for my needs.
Sad to see you didn't mention how finnicky ultrawide monitors can be for livestreaming; I've heard weird things happening like black bars appearing when trying to stream in a 16:9 format using an ultrawide, or some games just not displaying in the stream feed, and the uncertainty has put me off buying one. I've yet to see a deep-dive into this issue.
I’d say future proofing for gaming 1080p is the way to go. You can ensure higher refresh rates. Unless they have a graphics card that can constantly push 144+ every game I’d rather stick to 1080p gaming with high end cards.
Strange for this to be posted 4 hours after I've been looking for this exact video.
I remember paying $650 4 years ago for my 1440p165hz monitor, it's nice to see how much cheaper they have gotten over the years.
im surprised that refresh rate was even available 4 years ago
@@BombBoy96 Yeah, this was when it was pretty new, it was officially 144hz but was advertised as able to "overclock" to 165hz. My exact model is the Acer XB271HU.
@@BombBoy96 high refresh rates have been a thing for like 2 decades.
@@hhhfdsfs NGL it wasnt until earlier last year that I became familiar with refresh rates and Frames Per Second lol
Since many of the budget 24" 1080p IPS panels like the AOC 24G2 are only 6bit panels, is there a noticeable difference between 6bit+FRC and native 8bit panels?
I had the 24G2 for over a year and can say that it was not lacking in terms of image quality (for gaming that is). Only got rid of it, because I got its bigger 27" 1440p brother. The friend I sold it to is amazed with the pictures it produces as well.
Amazing monitor for the price. If you want to work with editing fotos or digital pictures you should go for true 8 bit though I think, at least for professional purposes.
i got the 24g2u aswell and it's amazing in terms of picture quality. not only that, but it supports 120hz on the new consoles aswell
Above 60hz, if FRC is done at a full refresh cycles or in between them, it's visually indistinguishable from full 8 bit. You are only going to lose in immediately noticeable visual quality if the monitor implements FRC at full refresh cycles and refreshes at only 60hz or if all you do all day is stare at dark primary color gradients.
no the colours are great on the monitor, check out rting (if you trust them) and compare the colour performance with other monitors.
Get the vio tech monitor 140 bucks for 1080 144 hz 8 bit
I would go with a 1440p 240hz over a 4k 120hz any day of the week, given that Gsync/Freesync are a thing. Both will consume about the same number of pixels over time but if the game starts churning, the drop in hz is going to be a lot less noticeable on the 1440p display.
4K 120hz OLED is the best gaming experience to be felt right now
Only nerds would do that
I would go with a 4k 60hz over 1440p 100000hz anyday
@@CoolAsianGuy only for single player games
Excellent opinion piece! i ended up "settling" with the dell S2721DGF and am very pleased. I'm waiting to see what the future has in store before I go to higher refresh or 4K.
I've had a pair of those for a yr. To make matching calibration simple, I downloaded 'S2721DGF #1 2020-09-06 20:54 2.2 F-S XYZLUT+MTX.icc'
Other settings:
Dell Display Manager - brightness 95%, contrast 100%.
Dell Onscreen - Gain R 100%, G 100%, B 100% - Offset: R 45%, G 40%, B 50%
Best settings depend on ambient lighting, of course, but the above is perfect for me.
I briefly considered 4K, but the additional cost inc. GPU outweighed potential benefits. These S2721DGF are among an elite few 16:9 1440p. Well pleased.
When I got my 3090 I moved from a 1440 to an LG 27GN950-B 27in 4K 144Hz monitor and it is incredibly good. There's no going back from good 4K once you experience it.
Honestly, I totally disagree. Whenever I'm having trouble maintaining the framerate I want on any game with my 3080, the very *FIRST* thing I do is turn down the resolution from 4k to 1440p because it's the one thing I struggle to notice at all (as opposed to turning down graphics settings).
Granted, my specific situation might be _slightly_ uncommon in the PC gaming community (although becoming less so these days I think) given that I sit about 10 feet from my "PC monitor" (an LGC1). But even so, being a 65" display, you'd think that 4K -- considering that it more than doubles the pixels of 1440p -- would be immediately stark and noticeable, but it's often not (to _my_ eyes anyway).
Only when I get up, walk over, stand within two feet of my 65" monitor, and specifically flip back and forth between 2160 and 1440 can I _really_ notice the difference.
Obviously, there _is_ a noticeable difference-- saying otherwise would be lying. It's just not a difference that I've ever found to be "worth" lowering my shadow quality, draw distance, texture resolution, etc. to achieve.
@@davecarsley8773 That's weird. Especially on a 4 k monitor, going to down to 1440 p is extremely noticeable for me (without DLSS). It's not a deal breaker though, I too was forced to play many games on 1440p because I was still running my 1080 ti when I got my first 4k screen. Hell, even now with a 3080 I have to tune down some unoptimized games that struggle with 4k and have no DLSS.
With the new releases at CES, do you think there will be good 4K 120Hz+ HDR ones be available at good prices (max 800 €)
Your best bet would be the LG C2 42". But you'll need either Ampere/RDNA2 in order to take advantage of it, because current DP 1.4 -> HDMI 2.1 adapters don't support VRR which is a dealbreaker for 4K gaming
@@kirby0louise That's basically a small TV, not a monitor. 32 would already be huge for a monitor.
27" - 32", 1440P, 144hz - 165hz is the sweet spot for my setup and the games I play.
32" is too large for 1440p.
I've watched the majority of your monitor reviews and I've always wondered how a 1080p 60hz monitor as my own BenQ GL2460 would fair in your test suite. Do you have any knowledge of this, compared to a 1440p 144hz+ monitor for example?
The difference is insane. Once you go 144hz+ you will never go back. It's well worth it. I just sold my 1080p 144hz monitor to get a 1440p 180hz monitor and I'm stuck with my old 60hz monitor. Well, I honestly feel like my pc is lagging even when I'm just browsing the web or writing code, but it's just the refresh rate that is slow compared to what I'm used to.
Night and day.
@@acidhug2620 I can imagine
@@Marltiod I know that too, but my question was more how different it is, not if it is different
@@acidhug2620 YES!! I had a blown out discussion with someone saying high refresh rate is a fad or gimmick.. I mean.. every new iPhone has 120hz display.. are these well to do ppl that can afford $1k phones walking around playing competitive games? Lmao the high refresh rate is so lovely when scrolling through pages and pages of data. In a large pdf or something of the sort, the experience is great and 60hz feels like a slide show even browsing Facebook. Anyone that disagrees is just justifying not upgrading and don't want to face facts. Misinformation is annoying AF especially when it's your own inability to have an open mind. Clearly I was triggered about it the subject.
Agreed on all your points. 1080p works very well for a lot of eSport games and high resolution is incredibly useful for pixel-peeping games like Escape from Tarkov.
27 inch 1440 is currently the sweet spot in terms of cost and performance. Look for last year's models to save money. I own a LG 27GL83A-B for $280 on Amazon
To me, anything over 24" is way too large. For competitive gaming, the more you have to move your eyes to look around the screen / the less you see of the whole picture by looking at the middle of the monitor, the worse it is.
I'd love a 1080p monitor between 18" and 24", but sadly the smallest high-quality, high refresh rate 1080p monitors I can find are always 24"
Good thoughts, can you sit further to help you?
I'm with 1080p 24' because this combination allows me not to use Windows display scaling. I don't like how it performs. Without it 1440p even on 27' would have too small fonts for my eyes comfort.
But the readability is so much better than even at 21° 1080p with a 27" 1440p
@@Quast I don't think you understand what he's saying. The text is simply bigger with no windows scaling, it's not about text clarity/pixel density.
@@Steve-ph7qn That's true seems like I dropped the not in his sentence while reading. Though I don't understand the context of bigger font and bad performance of Windows UI scaling since at 1440p if big or not, the clearity is so much better for texts, especially for reading more than a few paragraphs
especially for every character that has an arch or a cruve: e,h,j,p,m,n,b,d,q etc
I'm broke. 1080p all the way.
1080p monitord are Perfect for xbox 360 xbox one ps3 ps4 wii wii u original switch
u cant be broke of having 1080p
@@Judyhopps-1iq i have many other things to pay using that money
I have an ultrawide and I absolutely love it for productivity and singleplayer gaming. It's honestly one of the best gaming purchases I've made. Its only downside is when new AAA games don't come with ultrawide support (hint: Fromsoft, come on, how can you release Sekiro and Elden Ring without ultrawide support?!) but usually the modding community comes through. They've even added ultrawide support to Rdr2 cinematics!
Also it is not that hard to program a option for Ultrawide users, which is why I think Fromsoft intentionally did not not implement ultrawide support. It could probably be the fact that most of their games have some sort of ambush or something hiding in a corner, maybe ultrawide will let you see all that stuff that was meant to be taken by surprise
Me old 1070 wouldnt push 100 in multiplayer shooters in 1440p. Definitely cant afford a gpu upgrade. So i moved back to 1080