Would I regret a 1440 instead of 4k monitor

Sxotty

Legend
I really want a 4k hdr >=120hz monitor, but it doesn't seem like they're are many choices.

I have been looking at Samsung g7 odyssey.
I like 4k because I keep gpus a long time and could run at 4k when new then drop to 1080p.

If I did a 1440 it would have to be 720 which seems sad. I Thor I might just get a TV, maybe I still will but there are also not many choices for small screens. Like 43 inches for TV. A monitor I would aim for around 30.
 
Big TV nice for games. Probably harder on the eyes for everything else. Will need more setup time to look good on a PC too.

1440p will probably let you avoid Windows scaling. That's pretty nice. You'd probably want at least a 46" 4K TV to be comfortable without scaling.

High refresh rate monitors are nice but less exciting than I imagined. Contrast ratio and color are more important.
 
Last edited:
Yep, 120 Hz is overrated, you'd need a $1500 video card to consistently get 120 fps in recent games.

Get any 4K 60Hz monitor with decent sRGB gamut (low color error). HDR10 with Rec.2020 color would be nice to have, but there are only a few supporting monitor models, and OS/game support is still building up. I would recommend BenQ EW3270U which supports both sRGB and Rec.2020 and has very good contrast and color accuracy.

If you go for 4K TV setup instead, then about any OLED TV would be simply outstanding with high contrast and accurate color, and Samsung Q70R (2019) or Q80T (2020) QLED LCDs are outstanding as well but with no image retention issues and higher peak brightness. Note that these are premium TVs, and cheaper entry-level models are not nearly as exciting in regard to image quality.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I am more interested in hdr and good color than high refresh rate, but I would like vrr and it seems the free sync models at 60hz have an extremely limited range of refresh rates .

The reason I was looking at the odyssey was it had high quality image in terms of color and contrast ratio, but it is curved more than I would like and costs a lot and is 1440p.
 
At the sizes you mentioned, 1440 on 30" or 4k on43" should be okay.

4k starts to show its pixels at normal pc screen desk seating distance at 49 inch, and really visible at 55 inch.

At least to my eyes
 
I'm personally waiting for a reasonably priced 32" 4K/144 Hz monitor. I guess I'm one of the few that thinks 144Hz is worth it.

Currently, for my gaming PC I have a 27" 1440p/144Hz Acer Predator and for my work monitor I have a 32" 4K Acer 60Hz (some VA panel). I really want the 32" size with the benefits of the 144Hz panel. The high refresh rate isn't the only benefit. GSYNC to eliminate tearing sub 60 Hz or unloacked frame rate is a big benefit as well.
 
Yep, 120 Hz is overrated, you'd need a $1500 video card to consistently get 120 fps in recent games.

Get any 4K 60Hz monitor with decent sRGB gamut (low color error). HDR10 with Rec.2020 color would be nice to have, but there are only a few supporting monitor models, and OS/game support is still building up. I would recommend BenQ EW3270U which supports both sRGB and Rec.2020 and has very good contrast and color accuracy.

If you go for 4K TV setup instead, then about any OLED TV would be simply outstanding with high contrast and accurate color, and Samsung Q70R (2019) or Q80T (2020) QLED LCDs are outstanding as well but with no image retention issues and higher peak brightness. Note that these are premium TVs, and cheaper entry-level models are not nearly as exciting in regard to image quality.

The QLED TVs fall apart when in game mode due to the extra processing for low latency. I’m quite pleased with my cheap LG B9S 2020 model / rehash (55”).

The Samsung QLEDs are more expensive where I am, which is weird.
 
The last monitor I had that I really was pleased with was a trinitron 21 I think, maybe 24. It was 70 pounds though. It seems the best flats finally match the performance of that after two decades :LOL:
 
I used to lust over 21" trinitron monitors but they cost over £1,000
Many years later I saw one in a pawn shop for £12 I felt like crying...
 
The QLED TVs fall apart when in game mode due to the extra processing for low latency
Not sure what do you meant by 'fall apart in game mode', could you please elaborate?

To decrease input lag, you basically need to remove all but essential processing, not add more. In RTings testing, Q70R has low lag in both Game and PC modes.

The Samsung QLEDs are more expensive where I am, which is weird.
These are very nice TVs, with higher peak brightnes and no risk of permanent burn-in comparing to OLED.
 
I have a cheap Vizio Quantum M 43" TV for my desktop right now. Prior to that I had a Samsung MU7000 40" but its backlight started to flicker after 2 years. The Vizio turned out to be clearly superior anyway.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what do you meant by 'fall apart in game mode', could you please elaborate?

To decrease input lag, you basically need to remove all but essential processing, not add more. In RTings testing, Q70R has low lag in both Game and PC modes.

These are very nice TVs, with higher peak brightnes and no risk of permanent burn-in comparing to OLED.

I think they're referring to earlier this year or late last year when Vincent did a video on Cinematic vs Game Mode image quality comparisons on different sets. The quality dropped substantially for QLED while remaining pristine for OLED. The QLED based sets have a substantial portion of their IQ from post-processing, while OLED is natuve to the oanel.

Found it..
 
Those "Game" modes sometimes do irritating things in the name of maximum sharpness and response time. The LG OLED is the only TV that I've actually settled on using its "game" picture mode.

This Vizio Quantum has a "game low latency" option for every picture mode. It also has a "Game" picture mode but it switches the backlight into a flickering state in sync with the panel I guess for extreme pixel response time that I don't like.

PC modes can be good options too.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what do you meant by 'fall apart in game mode', could you please elaborate?

To decrease input lag, you basically need to remove all but essential processing, not add more. In RTings testing, Q70R has low lag in both Game and PC modes.

These are very nice TVs, with higher peak brightnes and no risk of permanent burn-in comparing to OLED.

I think they're referring to earlier this year or late last year when Vincent did a video on Cinematic vs Game Mode image quality comparisons on different sets. The quality dropped substantially for QLED while remaining pristine for OLED. The QLED based sets have a substantial portion of their IQ from post-processing, while OLED is natuve to the oanel.

Found it..

As @BRiT mentioned already the local dimming of the QLEDs can't keep up so black levels and HDR suffer from the lack of processing power. As such I don't know how QLEDs are even mentioned when it comes to gaming. The only obstacle left is max brightness and the risk of burn-in when it comes to OLED. I usually watch at night in a controlled environment (with regards to lighting) so max brightness is plenty.

I don't expect burn-in to be an issue in the life time of the OLED display. I have played a bunch of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Pokemon Shield (which has a permanent "social" icon at the lower left corner in the UI).
 
Back
Top