Monitor size/aspect ratio

lostforever

SasqWatch
Joined
October 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
I have been using 34 inch ultra wide for the last couple of years and I have been "loving" it so far. However we recently bought a 32 inc 4k for the wife and I am not sure so that I "love" 34 ultra wide anymore!

The monitor was mainly used for gaming and I thought it gave the best immersion factor however 32 is also seems to give me the same immersion.

Now that I am working from home mainly, I prefer the extra height 32 gives over 34. I am looking at code most of the day and prefer to see more of the code all at once and extra height helps with that.

So I am kind of torn, sell my 34 UW and get 32 4k... The other issue is my GPU is 1080TI, so not really a 4K card. Maybe I should go for 32 inch but 2k?

What do people think? What monitor size and aspect ration are you using and why please?

For those who wants to compare 34 UW to 32 4K
http://www.displaywars.com/32-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
I use a 32" 4K. I find it's a really nice size for doing any kind of development, and the 4k gives really sharp, clear text. Once you get used to that, it's hard to go back.

A second vertical monitor is great for coding. You could maybe use the ultrawide for that, which lets you view a really big chunk of code. This sort of thing.

best-vertical-monitors.jpg
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Another monitor is out of the question due to desk size, its only 100 cm wide!

Whats your take on 32 inch 4k monitor for gaming? I take it you have one of the newer gfx cards to drive 4k games?

My 1080 ti struggle with 3440x1440 if I put all max setting.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
No, I've been holding off on a newer GPU until AMD's "Big Navi" arrives. I want RTX support, but AMD are much better for Linux these days, and much better for doing passthrough in VMs. So I don't run games at 4k, but I spend more time working on games than playing them these days.

The extra size is certainly nice for gaming, though I don't think I'd say it makes a transformative difference to immersion.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
32" running at 2K (1440p) for my main, 24" vertical @ 1080p on the side. I considered ultrawide initially but dislike the wide but narrow view, 32" at 16:9 is my preference. Running at 2K doesn't overly tax the GPU letting me run everything at max settings.
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Messages
879
No, I've been holding off on a newer GPU until AMD's "Big Navi" arrives. I want RTX support, but AMD are much better for Linux these days, and much better for doing passthrough in VMs. So I don't run games at 4k, but I spend more time working on games than playing them these days.

The extra size is certainly nice for gaming, though I don't think I'd say it makes a transformative difference to immersion.

So when you play games on that monitor do you reduce the resolution down or reduce setting to get manageable FPS please?

I tried some games at 1440p on the 4K monitor and I could tell the difference but I am not sure if thats down to the fact that 1440p is not the monitors native resolution or not.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
32" running at 2K (1440p) for my main, 24" vertical @ 1080p on the side. I considered ultrawide initially but dislike the wide but narrow view, 32" at 16:9 is my preference. Running at 2K doesn't overly tax the GPU letting me run everything at max settings.

I am leaning towards 32 inch at 2K as well. What monitor do you use please?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
So when you play games on that monitor do you reduce the resolution down or reduce setting to get manageable FPS please?

I tried some games at 1440p on the 4K monitor and I could tell the difference but I am not sure if thats down to the fact that 1440p is not the monitors native resolution or not.

I reduce the resolution to 1440p. Running games at below the native resolution is not ideal, but I don't really notice it for the most part.

The thing is, I'm not all that bothered about gaming at 4k, and I went with a 4k monitor mainly because I like the clarity of the display for non-gaming purposes, where I do notice the difference. Perhaps when I upgrade to a new GPU I'll game at 4K, but generally I don't think it's worth the performance trade off.

EDIT: Also, if you have a GPU that can do DLSS or the equivalent, that's essentially doing AI upscaling from lower resolution to get higher performance. I think that's going to be extremely handy, going forward.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
I have a 4K screen and I just love the space it gives. When I am coding for RPGWatch, I need severally applications open and visible, such as VSCode for editing and debugging, a browser window and when testing it on the server, an SFTP application and a terminal window. I often end up with multiple terminal windows even.
I also have a separate Full HD screen that either has some documentation of one or the other new feature I am implementing at that moment or these days a browser window showing the Giro, or before that the Tour The France :)

I almost never play games where a high frame rate is essential and I don’t care about getting it to look as awesome as possible, so a game using a 1080TI on a 4K screen is good enough for me.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,223
I'm treating myself with a new monitor this Christmas and can spend around 1k but less if there's a good monitor that doesn't cost that much. I have a GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER video card.

Any suggestions on what monitor I should get for gaming? Looks like that card can run 4k gaming but I play mostly turn based games that aren't as graphic intensive. I do play some newer games and like to mod up Skyrim and Fallout 4. Will try Cyberpunk also since everyone here is so excited about it and the AC Valhalla game.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
2,836
Location
Wolf Light Woods
I'm using a BenQ EW3270U, which is good value, IMO. It's 4K, 60fps, Freesync, HDR, and is flicker-free, with a low blue-light mode. Does the job nicely, for me. The HDR is not in the league of OLEDs, but they're not really practical as monitors because of burn-in.

IMO, PC monitors are in a bit of a transitional stage at the moment, with none of them quite ticking all the boxes. So I went for a good value option that does what I need. The next generation of display tech will probably be QD-OLED, and I think that's when I might spend more. That uses quantum dot filters over a white OLED backpanel, and should deliver all the benefits without the drawbacks. But that's a couple of years out.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
On my work computer, I use the 43" Lenovo P44w, 32:10 ratio, 3840x1200. It's similar to having two 1920x1200 24" monitors pasted together, but with no break in the middle which is critical IMO. I think having all the extra space be horizontal is far superior to it being vertical. Stock image:

Recensione-Lenovo-ThinkView-P44w-monitor-display-6-1200x900.jpg


For gaming, I prefer sticking with 16:9, and my gaming computer has a standard 24" 4K. For gaming I think it's important to keep eye movement to a minimum. I think 27" would be acceptable but wouldn't want any larger than that.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,429
Thanks all for the info. I have been trying out my wife 32 inch 4K monitor for few days now and here are some interesting finding!

Where you sit and how you sit actually matter! My desk is against a window and my old ultra wide has been blocking some sunlight which the 32 doesn't. So the sunlight now comes into my eye and that been annoying the hell out of me!

The 32 inch is VA panel and my ultra wide is IPS. Its also 60 FPS v 120 FPS on the UW. I find that the colours are bit washed out on the VA panel. They are not vivid like the IPS and this is putting me off. I am not sure if its issue due to VA v IPS or the 32 inch monitor is not top end one. We paid about £300 for the 32 inch.

Images are more sharp and clear on the 32 inch due to 4K. I was kind of surprised by this since I thought 3440 x 1440 is pretty close to 4K in terms of number of pixels but its actually 4K 40% more!

The graphics card (1080 ti) actually struggles to get 50FPS at max setting but can get 60FPS if i reduce setting without affecting image quality.

The thing is there are not many IPS 32 inch 4k monitors out there. Most of them are VA. Do others feel colours are bit washed out with VA compared to IPS? Or my VA panel is cheap hence poor quality?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
Mine's a VA panel, and I find the colour and contrast good, compared to the IPS panels I've had before. The downside is the viewing angles, but that's pretty much irrelevant for my use case.

That's kind of what I was going on about before, where we haven't quite got the monitor tech yet that covers everything - 4k, 32", 10-bit colour, high variable refresh rate with low latency, and high-quality HDR. With TVs they use OLED, but burn-in is a big problem when you have a consistent PC GUI rather than a constantly changing picture. They also use QLEDs, which don't suffer burn-in, but the multiple backlights give poorer HDR, with bad latency and ghosting. So monitors are a bit of a compromise at the moment, trying to push the older tech as far as possible.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Mine's a VA panel, and I find the colour and contrast good, compared to the IPS panels I've had before. The downside is the viewing angles, but that's pretty much irrelevant for my use case.

ITs good to know there are VA panels which have better image quality than IPS. I have tried 2 VA panels and and been disappointed with them compared to the IPS I have used.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
ITs good to know there are VA panels which have better image quality than IPS. I have tried 2 VA panels and and been disappointed with them compared to the IPS I have used.

Yeah, the good ones have similar colour performance to IPS, and much better contrast. If viewing angles aren't a concern, they can be a good option.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
The thing is there are not many IPS 32 inch 4k monitors out there.
They're out there, but not as common as they were in the past. I think ultrawides are becoming more popular than the big 16:9 / 16:10 monitors. Anyway, Dell U3219Q and LG 32UL950-W are probably the best choices. Can probably still find the older LG 32UD99-W model too. If you want something cheaper, BenQ EW3270U.

I would always go IPS over VA, if given a choice. Didn't have a choice with the 43" that I mentioned earlier in the thread, that particular size / aspect ratio is VA only. It's been acceptable for sure, but I'd rather have IPS.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,429
They're out there, but not as common as they were in the past. I think ultrawides are becoming more popular than the big 16:9 / 16:10 monitors. Anyway, Dell U3219Q and LG 32UL950-W are probably the best choices. Can probably still find the older LG 32UD99-W model too. If you want something cheaper, BenQ EW3270U.

I would always go IPS over VA, if given a choice. Didn't have a choice with the 43" that I mentioned earlier in the thread, that particular size / aspect ratio is VA only. It's been acceptable for sure, but I'd rather have IPS.

Thanks for the models. Those IPS monitors seems very expensive here in UK, nearly £800+. Ouch!
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
Thanks for the models. Those IPS monitors seems very expensive here in UK, nearly £800+. Ouch!

Yeah, I wouldn't personally pay the premium for those. The Dell has no variable refresh, which in my view is a dealbreaker at this point. Neither are flicker-free, and the HDR is mediocre. I wouldn't want to pay a premium until we see monitors that hit all the marks.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Back
Top Bottom