Which one?

Which one?
Normal 27" 1440p 165hz gsync IPS for 800$
Curve-meme 34" 1440p 100hz gsync IPS for 1200$

Other urls found in this thread:

lg.com/us/monitors/lg-43UD79-B-4k-uhd-led-monitor
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>IPS

Don't tell me you like TN.

I don't like ghosting.

You don't like spitting out, fag

Enjoy paying double for a worse monitor.

>ghosting on a 165hz monitor

You retarded son?

>>>>IPS

Don't ever get a curved TV or monitor

But it starts to make sense for monitors- your face is only 2-3 feet away, and you're using applications that can actually take advantage of the screenspace/fov.

Transition speed's 5ms

>goysync

>5ms
>ever using anything over 1ms
Just stop.

>he's going to use cheap TN panels for the rest of his life

>he's never owned a good TN panel

TN @ 144Hz or higher. IPS is for child porn collectors and lolicon subhumans.

it really depends how they test it... many good quality panels have 5ms and they look way better than 5x cheaper one that claims to be 2ms

There's an OLED monitor at 0.1ms. Too bad it's only 60Hz and costs $1.5k.

>>he's going to use cheap TN panels for the rest of his life
????????????

>mfw tn fags

once you go IPS you never go back

>Lost Planet 2
I forgot about that. Did they ever get rid of GFWL?

>what are mods

>Caring about GFWL
>when they literally got rid of the entire game for lost planet 3

How the fuck can they even legally call it lost planet 3 ree

IPS is just a superior panel, retard. Cheap fucking TN can't compare.

>but muh fps

go suck a dick 660ti fag

>Actually believing in the made up numbers Panel makers put on their spec sheets

I went back to TN. I probably won't buy either IPS or TN next, maybe QLED.

>800x2 = 1200
nice math

How exactly is response time relevant to how it looks?

Already have one.
Want another monitor for higher pic-quality.

You aren't following this conversation at all, are you?

Response time = ghosting artifacts (how it looks)

Input lag is something else & almost exclusive to TV fags

My mistake.

T H E R E I S N O T H I N G W R O N G W I T H C U R V ED M O N I T O R S Y O U D U M B F A G G O T

t. curvedmonitorgoyim

>tfw using 68dpi monitor
>tfw nobody will ever release a low dpi monitor larger than 32"

Low dpi monitors are the best. You don't have to scale anything and you can save your neck and your eyes while still having all your desk space.

I just want a 43" QHD monitor...

t. buyer's remorse

I have a 1440p 144hz monitor.

You can't go back to 60hz after getting used to 144hz. It's like looking at the difference between 30hz and 60hz when you're used to 60hz.

>he actually likes looking at soupy shit monitors
Damn dude you're like the guy witha fat fetish.

you are actually retarded

>soupy shit monitors
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The subtended arc length is the same if you have a low dpi monitor far away or a high dpi monitor close by. The only difference is you're ruining your eyes and neck. Hell, you can't even sit back in your chair. Enjoy losing your vision in 5 years.

Why not a $700 40" 2160p display with Freesync?

those 34" 21:9 1440p displays are stupidly expensive as is gsync.

Because I'm a 1080ti goy & 60fps+ 4k is too much even for that without sli/crossfire.

The curved just because it is ultrawide, you are better off just getting a normal ultrawide though.

One of the advantages of 2160p is that its 4x 1080p. If you want to run games at 1080p, or even 720p there's no penalty since its simple integer scaling.
Most 2160p displays even support higher refresh rates at lower resolutions since its a connection bandwidth issue and not a panel refresh rate issue.

>21:9

fewer pixels
less vertical resolution
more expensive
less support

why would anyone choose a 34" 21:9 display over a 40" 16:9 display?

Is there a 40 inch monitor with good specs or at least close to 40? I play my pc games on a 40 inch led tv, but its only 60hz and probably has high blur and lag.

Im just too used to the size and can't go to a 20 inch monitor

There's a been a fairly good number of them over the last few years.

This one has been getting tossed around, if I was in the market for a replacement for my 40" phillips its probably what I'd buy. Honestly the remote and freesync capabilities make it tempting but I'm holding out for large format 8k.
lg.com/us/monitors/lg-43UD79-B-4k-uhd-led-monitor

>fewer pixels

Do you play from the couch or something?
You don't need a big screen if it's only 2 or 3 feet away.

I like ultrawide because after using it normal monitors felt like squares. The panoramic view feels better especially in video games because I am looking side to side often and have more horizontal fov than vertical when looking at screens on a desk.

It's personal preference but my ultrawide feels better than normal monitors. I've had a few friends around and they also really like them, I had a mate buy the first one I got off my when I upgraded and he loves it.

Couch 2 meters away

>IPS is for child porn collectors and lolicon subhumans.

So they are patrician?

more horizontal fov

Ultrawide is a meme go with the 27" or a 32"

Does a curved monitor have any effect on backlight bleed, relative to flat monitors?

I have the curve meme montior, honestly go for the 27" the UW fucks with a fair amount of games and you need to do tweaks or just deal with fucked up ui. You also need to move your head if a game has a minimap a lot. The UW is great for web surfing and shit. If you got questions i'll answer.

> The panoramic view feels better especially in video games because I am looking side to side often and have more horizontal fov than vertical when looking at screens on a desk

You don't get it, a large format 16:9 display will be just as wide or wider than a 'widescreen' display, but has extra vertical resolution.
Its like looking through a real panoramic window instead of through a narrow slit.

If it helps you understand what I'm on about, think of it as a 21:12 display instead of 16:9.
A 40"+ 2160p display is wider than a 34" 1440p display, taller, higher resolution in both dimensions and at a similar PPI (40" is sharper, 43" has about the same ppi)

>IPS

Lmao, enjoy the glow faggot.

>IPS 4K 60HZ w/ Freesync
>IPS 1440p 144HZ w/ Freesync

I'm looking at two models and they're both roughly the same price. Which one?

Good to know with the minimap.
Does dropping to a lower res/aspect ratio with vertical bars work at all?

Also

It does work but it looks weird because it isn't native.

Yeah but i'm explaining to you that the extra vertical resolution is often wasted when i look at it because there is so much more horizontal fov than vertical.

>4k monitors are sub $300 on Newegg
...huh
I might get one, but I only have a 1060. I probably can't run most modern games at 4k native resolution, but there shouldn't be any unforeseen problems playing games at 1080p or 1440p, right?

Unrelated, but since there's computer talk(I'm a massive newbie to this shit), I'll ask: Is getting two graphics cards a waste of cash? I've heard it's not really worth it.

If anyone gets one like this you can return it, pic related is my glow it's not bad.

Those might be 4k but everything else about them will be shit. You should budget at least $500 if you're looking to upgrade to 4k.

My large format 4k 16:9 display has a bunch of 1:1 modes with letter boxing. They're sharp and crisp because there's no scaling involved, but I rarely use them since there's really no need.

Alright, I'll probably end up waiting until black friday for a sale anyway

If you have to ask, yes.

144hz > 4k, but the ips monitor is probably too anemic in the response time department to support it & you'll wind up with ghosting.

Double-check it. You need confirmed

Stick with a single GPU.

You're asking 'I am just about to pass my driving test, is it worth getting a supercar to do a grocery run?'

>IPStards
enjoy your latency

It's a headache & only necessary if you're trying to get bleeding-edge performance. Which is even more headache.
Question is how much headache you're willing to deal with for performance.

If I want I can run a game with letter boxing, to get any perceived 'benefit' of restricting my view to just 16:7

t. Order 1886 dev.

>implying its 2005

Then do that, I am happy with my ultrawide.

i don't like my ultrawide for gaming

modern games are lazy about ultrawide support (FOV, UI elements, even basic support for 21:9 resolutions at all), and pretty much fucking forget about it with any old games. people have made those games run at 16:9, certainly not anything else. i run most shit 4:3 in a window.

wouldn't trade it for anything for productivity / web browsing

The former.
Curved is not worth the tradeoff and added cost.

Sure, but where I can make my 3840x2160 into a 3360x1440 21:9 display if I really want to the only downside is that the on screen letter boxed image will be slightly smaller than on the real thing since my display is sharper.

There is literally no benefit to spending more for 'wide screen' when a standard 16:9 display can get you more horizontal resolution and size for less money without sacrificing vertical resolution.

that's a crapshoot. i feel like many games utilize that extra space on the side with some kind of warped FOV thing. the stuff in the far corners in Dota 2 for example are like super zoomed in.

i've even had some games essentially fit the width and cutoff vertical resolution. meaning it 'zooms in' 16:9 to the edges horizontally and you lose whatever % vertically

There is if you like the monitor style. I can readjust all my games on a larger monitor but there is still the rest of the monitor in the way. With my widescreen it is just the monitor i am looking at without the black bars and shit. I genuinely feel more immersed when looking at a ultrawide monitor instead of a normal one.

It's personal preference but I like the style and the extra cost isn't an issue to me. I've gotten to the stage where I am more worried about desk depth than monitor size.

not enough people design ultrawide settings into their game

oh and movies are sick as fuck since 21:9 is nearly theatrical widescreen

if you buy a curve meme at a lower hz for $400 more you are literally retarded

Would a 23" 4k screen look noticeably better than a 27"?

It sounds like you're trying to rationalize spending more for less.

>I genuinely feel more immersed when looking at a ultrawide monitor instead of a normal one.
My display is ultra-wide, its just also ultra-tall.

Even top-tier cards have trouble powering 1440p+ at 120hz+ without turning down settings

Sounds like you are trying to psychoanalyse to win an arguement in which it is clear personal preference makes a difference. With a larger square monitor I don't change my games to 21:9 but I'm also assuming there will be a fuck off black bar at the bottom, where as my current desk setup I can't really have that much free space hanging.

Yes. The significantly-higher DPI would make that shit look intense AF.
But you'll hurt your eyes trying to see the detail.
And if it's a crappy panel (more likely with smaller panels) it won't look very good in other ways.

2 qnix 1440p 96hz for $300 each

A 27" what?

A 23" 2160p display will be about 190ppi that's ultra-sharp, but your display will be tiny and you'll have to use scaling for most things.

A 27" 1440p display will have a ppi of around 110, or about the same ppi as a 40" 2160p display. So if you're thinking about multiple monitors you should consider just getting a single large format 40" 2160p display.

Bring back 16:10.

SED monitor masterrace.

Owner of a PG279Q here

All ASUS monitors have a high chance of dead pixels so you'll be playing a dead pixel lottery to get a perfect monitor. I have 2, 1 is perfect and the other one has dead pixels everywhere which only appeared after warranty expired.

All ASUS PSU have shitty shielding and insulation which causes a black screen flicker if the cables are near static sources

Be very careful which screwing backplates, one the bottom corner screw holes is right near a HDMI component, you may damage it if you use long screws.

If you are looking to get a 144hz-165hz monitor, don't get this one, since its 2K which is pretty much being phased out of the market when 4K 144hz monitors come out this year or early next year. I highly suggest you don't buy ASUS, they have very shitty QA if you want to send back 7 monitors till you get one with no dead pixels that's up to you.

All the current gen of IPS 1440p monitors have a high chance of low QC. Last I heard though ASUS was 'visually inspecting all new monitors before they are sold' as of a few months ago.

playing games at anything but 4:3 on a 144hz (or more if you arent poorfag) 1080p TN monitor makes you a memeing piece of fucking garbage

Not really a point anymore, as with 21:9 you'll always be able to get a larger+higher resolution 16:9 display for less.

Plus when you start looking at modern display sizes like 38" and above with 2160p resolution you're not going to get the same kind of effect you got back in the day with 16:9 1366x768 vs 16:10 1280x800 where it was the difference between usable vertical resolution and an unusable piece of shit.

>high refresh rate means you can't possibly get ghosting

Google up overdrive. You can definitely have ghosting even on a 240hz monitor if you have overshoot.

Enjoy inferior colors on a backlight that will die in a few years.