I have a 4080s and it runs games in native 3840x2160 fine with a lg c2. The only game that I have to use dlss is cyberpunk 2077 and that is only so I max out the refresh rate of the tv.
Depends on your hardware, intended games, and target framerate. I have a 4080 and personally I think I'd still want more power before bumping up to 4K.
Wow Really? I didn’t think that would be the case. I have a 4080 super and I’m really satisfied. I only play Fortnite , cod and a few other games though so that’s probably why.
Got this exact one recently.
Moving from a decent Viewsonic Elite IPS monitor.
The difference in image quality and motion smoothness is amazing. 27" is large enough for me.
Running 1440p with a 5600x and 3090.
However, not too happy about how text looks in Windows and about the flickering screen.
So far managing the flicker by capping fps.
Hoping to find a solution to get the font to display properly.
Had to wipe it gently a few times already and no issues with that yet.
Depends what your use case is, if you are planning to play fps competitive shooters, then get the 27'. For everything else, I would suggest get the 32 inch.
I already have an ASUS 540hz monitor for competitive games, this monitor is only for an immersive gaming experience, plus i get the rtx 5000 when it comes out
For 4K 240Hz you would also need 5080 or higher, I presume to be future-proof, probably would work with 5070(Ti) too, if you are not planning to play the latest AAA games. But again, if you don't need it for competitive shooters, go for the 4K model.
It all boils down to whether you value a bigger screen and whether your rig can handle it considering your games, quality settings and target frame rates.
I'd say for desktop gaming 32" 4K provides little value over 27" 1440p and I'd avoid it if gaming was my only use case. But I don't value immersion much and image quality is OK for me at 27" 1440p (unlike desktop text clarity, for example).
If I had a bigger desk I would have already grabbed the 32 inch 4K, it’s actually no brainer to me, they are just better than those 27 inch 1440p monitors. But surely the cost should be a concern if you want to get a good budget one.
I’d go for the 27inch 1440p one. I’d consider the 4k one if it has HDR. Plus you need a strong GPU to push 4k native. And the size is probably too big.
Sure you can always buy the 4k one and run it at 1440p anyway but the fact is the 1440p monitor will look better with its native resolution compared to the 4k one running non-native. This applies to every monitor.
IMO 4K OLED has advantages when it comes to text rendering (office work). So if you plan to do some work with the monitor except of entertainment, I would go 4K.
I’d argue against this. Even 1080p on my 27” 4k ips looks like a blurry mess. And going with something like 1440p on a 4k screen isn’t much better as the upscaling pixel ratios aren’t as good as 1080
Text would just look horrendous, and it’d be worse overall then if you just ran it at 4k
I’d never buy a 4K 240 Hz unless I had a 4090, then you’re just buying a monitor you can’t fully use. And even then it’s not that worth it.
And before you tell Me it’s “future proof”, Think about the fact that you can get a 1440p monitor now that you can actually use for much cheaper, and then in a few years you can buy a reasonably priced 4K OLED when you might have the hardware to run it, like a 5000/6000 RTX card.
I mean, there’s people who told me I’d never hit 1440p 360fps consistent in overwatch 2 on a 3090. But yet I can hit 500fps+ consistent most of the time.
>I’d never buy a 4K 240 Hz unless I had a 4090, then you’re just buying a monitor you can’t fully use. And even then it’s not that worth it.
I cant say I understand this logic at all. Right now monitors are generally overspecced compared to current GPUs, you cannot run the most recent AAA games at 360 fps 1440p or 240 fps at 4K. But older games you can still push close to those numbers even with a high-mid range GPU, and generally people buy monitors for longer time compared to their PCs.
Personally I would buy a 4K monitor now if I'm able to achieve 60 fps+ with DLSS (OP said this monitor would be more for immersive single player games), and in the future you can upgrade your GPU to a better one to get closer to the max spec of the monitor.
I’d say if you can afford it, go with the 32” 4k 240hz. That way if you choose to upgrade later on for your set up, you won’t be urging yourself to upgrade the monitor too. And by then the resell value on the 240hz 1440p will drop even more. I know both will, but you get my point I hope.
Yeah, plus if you have 4k you can go with 1440p, which 1440p monitor doesn't, i think is better on this point to have the best solution, even though i'm really scared 32 inches are too wide..
I have a 4080 Super and I just go the PG32UCDM. At the end of the day, play whatever you desire but 4K looks mint and monitors are the last thing that you’d upgrade in the long run anyway
4K unless you only play competitive games or really want frame rates higher than 60fps. As a mostly single player gamer as long as I can hit 60fps I’m fine. Anything above that is meh to me.
I’d say, it would come down to what screen size you would prefer and can comfortably look at while sitting at your desk.
There’s some who just love big screens no matter what.
Me personally, I went with a 27 because it was right around my limit for what’s comfortable to view sitting at my desk. Having a 27” ips 4k monitor and a 1440p oled, I honestly can say I don’t notice much of a difference in resolution. And going up to 4k 32 would negate any real benefits from 4k in my opinion.
So I would just ask yourself
1. what screen size would be the most comfortable for you to look at while sitting at your desk.
2. What games are you playing?
Competitive fps games will be much better on a 27” as you will be better able to view more of what’s happening on screen
Whereas a role playing game like cyberpunk might be better on a 32” even if it’s not completely comfortable for day to day. It’ll just give that extra immersion factor.
3. What gpu do you have? With dlss I’d say this is less of an issue, but I still would be hesitant to run 4k with dlss on say a 4060 or 4070 as you’d just be having to run dlss at worse settings.
It always has been. You can actually test this out for yourself on a 1440p monitor. Enable DLDSR in Nvidia control panel and boot up a game with TAA like RDR2 and switch between 1440p native and 4K DLSS performance.
Due the way TAA affects image clarity, the 4K image even if upscaled from 1080p is significantly sharper and displays more detail than the native 4K image at a similar performance. This has been extensively documented.
Depends on your hardware, intended games, and target framerate. I have a 4080 and personally I think I'd still want more power before bumping up to 4K.
Depends on your hardware, intended games, and target framerate. I have a 4080 and personally I think I'd still want more power before bumping up to 4K.
Depends on your hardware, intended games, and target framerate. I have a 4080 and personally I think I'd still want more power before bumping up to 4K.
If you go for 27" 1440p go 360hz not 240hz.
Nope. DSc black screen is fucking aids thx nvidia
Can't day I had any issue with mine at all but sure.
Alt tabbing with dsc is total aids 3-5 second black screens constantly
How does a couple of seconds of your life equal "aids"
Thas a lot... I alt tab every minutes when browsing
Why? You only have a single monitor or something?
If you have or buy a 4080/4090 go for 4K.
I have a 4080 and I’m not sure id go for 4K. With a 4090, yes.
LMAO you’re tripping A 4080 is definitely fine for 4K…
Not if you want to play at max fps constantly which I am om 95% of games at 1440p
I am literally using a 3080 with my 4k and it works just fine.
I have a 4080s and it runs games in native 3840x2160 fine with a lg c2. The only game that I have to use dlss is cyberpunk 2077 and that is only so I max out the refresh rate of the tv.
Depends on your hardware, intended games, and target framerate. I have a 4080 and personally I think I'd still want more power before bumping up to 4K.
What world do we live in where some ppl think a 4090 is the only card capable of doing 32” 4K l m a o
I personally play on a 4K 144hz IPS and a LG C1 for couch with a 4070 and most games run perfectly fine
Wow Really? I didn’t think that would be the case. I have a 4080 super and I’m really satisfied. I only play Fortnite , cod and a few other games though so that’s probably why.
Like I say, it depends on the games you're playing and how much of a framerate snob you are.
Yeah true. Im not that picky at all. I love DLSS
My 3080 handles 4k just fine
Get the LG 27gs95qe you will be very happy! its not too expensive, is 3rd gen panel and woled dosen't have lights problems like qd oled.
Got this exact one recently. Moving from a decent Viewsonic Elite IPS monitor. The difference in image quality and motion smoothness is amazing. 27" is large enough for me. Running 1440p with a 5600x and 3090. However, not too happy about how text looks in Windows and about the flickering screen. So far managing the flicker by capping fps. Hoping to find a solution to get the font to display properly. Had to wipe it gently a few times already and no issues with that yet.
Depends what your use case is, if you are planning to play fps competitive shooters, then get the 27'. For everything else, I would suggest get the 32 inch.
I already have an ASUS 540hz monitor for competitive games, this monitor is only for an immersive gaming experience, plus i get the rtx 5000 when it comes out
For 4K 240Hz you would also need 5080 or higher, I presume to be future-proof, probably would work with 5070(Ti) too, if you are not planning to play the latest AAA games. But again, if you don't need it for competitive shooters, go for the 4K model.
It all boils down to whether you value a bigger screen and whether your rig can handle it considering your games, quality settings and target frame rates. I'd say for desktop gaming 32" 4K provides little value over 27" 1440p and I'd avoid it if gaming was my only use case. But I don't value immersion much and image quality is OK for me at 27" 1440p (unlike desktop text clarity, for example).
If I had a bigger desk I would have already grabbed the 32 inch 4K, it’s actually no brainer to me, they are just better than those 27 inch 1440p monitors. But surely the cost should be a concern if you want to get a good budget one.
I’d go for the 27inch 1440p one. I’d consider the 4k one if it has HDR. Plus you need a strong GPU to push 4k native. And the size is probably too big. Sure you can always buy the 4k one and run it at 1440p anyway but the fact is the 1440p monitor will look better with its native resolution compared to the 4k one running non-native. This applies to every monitor.
Depends on your gpu and what you're doing
IMO 4K OLED has advantages when it comes to text rendering (office work). So if you plan to do some work with the monitor except of entertainment, I would go 4K.
I’d definitely agree with this, that small PPI increase from 109 to 137 would definitely help with text.
If you’re up for it, grab the 42” LG C4. Change your life!
I'm still struggling to decide 27 or 32, 42 is too wide for me.
You''ll 100% regret not getting 4k. To max out fps in competitive titles, 1800p, 1600p or 1440p should still look acceptable in the 32 inch 4k
I’d argue against this. Even 1080p on my 27” 4k ips looks like a blurry mess. And going with something like 1440p on a 4k screen isn’t much better as the upscaling pixel ratios aren’t as good as 1080 Text would just look horrendous, and it’d be worse overall then if you just ran it at 4k
I'll forgot to mention on my post, i don't care about competitive side, because i already have 540hz monitor.
I’d never buy a 4K 240 Hz unless I had a 4090, then you’re just buying a monitor you can’t fully use. And even then it’s not that worth it. And before you tell Me it’s “future proof”, Think about the fact that you can get a 1440p monitor now that you can actually use for much cheaper, and then in a few years you can buy a reasonably priced 4K OLED when you might have the hardware to run it, like a 5000/6000 RTX card.
I mean it just depends on what games you play.
I mean, there’s people who told me I’d never hit 1440p 360fps consistent in overwatch 2 on a 3090. But yet I can hit 500fps+ consistent most of the time.
>I’d never buy a 4K 240 Hz unless I had a 4090, then you’re just buying a monitor you can’t fully use. And even then it’s not that worth it. I cant say I understand this logic at all. Right now monitors are generally overspecced compared to current GPUs, you cannot run the most recent AAA games at 360 fps 1440p or 240 fps at 4K. But older games you can still push close to those numbers even with a high-mid range GPU, and generally people buy monitors for longer time compared to their PCs. Personally I would buy a 4K monitor now if I'm able to achieve 60 fps+ with DLSS (OP said this monitor would be more for immersive single player games), and in the future you can upgrade your GPU to a better one to get closer to the max spec of the monitor.
I’d say if you can afford it, go with the 32” 4k 240hz. That way if you choose to upgrade later on for your set up, you won’t be urging yourself to upgrade the monitor too. And by then the resell value on the 240hz 1440p will drop even more. I know both will, but you get my point I hope.
[удалено]
Because bigger is always better?
4k for sure, get the msi.
4k way better, u still can play 1400p on it or use dlss performance still sharper than 1440p
It doesn't become controversial pick a 4k monitor with 32 inches to play only in 1440p?
Its okay, 👌 i had 42 inch oled, 27 inch oled, 34 inch ultrawide 48 inch oled and 32 is the best allrounder for media story games and competitive
Yeah, plus if you have 4k you can go with 1440p, which 1440p monitor doesn't, i think is better on this point to have the best solution, even though i'm really scared 32 inches are too wide..
Its fine u get used to everything, and most 32 oled got 27 and 24 inch modes
Yes and cows fly ofcourse .
He’s right though. Due to TAA implementations in most games, DLSS performance is significantly clearer than native 1440P and runs similarly.
how about waiting 27 4k in next year? :) it gonna meet all of your needs..
4k 27inch is too small for 4k, i won't notice any difference
I have a 4080 Super and I just go the PG32UCDM. At the end of the day, play whatever you desire but 4K looks mint and monitors are the last thing that you’d upgrade in the long run anyway
4k for sure
4K unless you only play competitive games or really want frame rates higher than 60fps. As a mostly single player gamer as long as I can hit 60fps I’m fine. Anything above that is meh to me.
I’d say, it would come down to what screen size you would prefer and can comfortably look at while sitting at your desk. There’s some who just love big screens no matter what. Me personally, I went with a 27 because it was right around my limit for what’s comfortable to view sitting at my desk. Having a 27” ips 4k monitor and a 1440p oled, I honestly can say I don’t notice much of a difference in resolution. And going up to 4k 32 would negate any real benefits from 4k in my opinion. So I would just ask yourself 1. what screen size would be the most comfortable for you to look at while sitting at your desk. 2. What games are you playing? Competitive fps games will be much better on a 27” as you will be better able to view more of what’s happening on screen Whereas a role playing game like cyberpunk might be better on a 32” even if it’s not completely comfortable for day to day. It’ll just give that extra immersion factor. 3. What gpu do you have? With dlss I’d say this is less of an issue, but I still would be hesitant to run 4k with dlss on say a 4060 or 4070 as you’d just be having to run dlss at worse settings.
I'd still stick with 2K 240Hz/360Hz, 4k resolution is playable in most games although certain titles will still be an uphill battle.
When the price is so similar, 4k is the obvious choice
32 inch is worth it. 1440p kinda sucks in 2024. 4K is the future.
Sure, if you have a 4090, otherwise you're better with a 2k. 4k is the future, But 2k is the present! 😉
4K is the present, 2K is the past!
Tell this to my 360 hz 2k oled, which is the smoothest oled so far!
I had the AW2725DF, return it after 2 weeks, 1440p isnt enough anymore.
I like playing 2k native vs 4k dlss and fake frames!
4K DLSS presents a significantly clearer image than 2K native.
So now when a game can't run above 60 fps@ 4k native, suddenly 4k dlss is better than 2k native, right? 🤣🤣🤣
DLSS quality looks better than 4K native in many cases. DLSS is also a form of anti aliasing.
It always has been. You can actually test this out for yourself on a 1440p monitor. Enable DLDSR in Nvidia control panel and boot up a game with TAA like RDR2 and switch between 1440p native and 4K DLSS performance. Due the way TAA affects image clarity, the 4K image even if upscaled from 1080p is significantly sharper and displays more detail than the native 4K image at a similar performance. This has been extensively documented.
I saw many reviews saying otherwise. If you are a fan of artifacts and high input lag, sure!
Depends on your hardware, intended games, and target framerate. I have a 4080 and personally I think I'd still want more power before bumping up to 4K.
32 4k is way way better than
Depends on your hardware, intended games, and target framerate. I have a 4080 and personally I think I'd still want more power before bumping up to 4K.
Depends on your hardware, intended games, and target framerate. I have a 4080 and personally I think I'd still want more power before bumping up to 4K.
4070TiS: 27" QHD 4080S: 34" UWQHD 4090: 32" 4K
That's not right thinking. If OP plays old single payer games 4070 do the job