• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Which Monitor ? Poll

What monitor Specs would you purchase in todays time

  • 32" 2560x1440 144Hz ($131)

    Votes: 11 18.6%

  • 32" 2560x1440 165Hz ($161)

    Votes: 20 33.9%

  • 34" 3440x1440 100Hz ($189)

    Votes: 22 37.3%

  • 34” 3440x1440 144Hz ($200)

    Votes: 12 20.3%
  • Total voters
    59
Durvelle27

Durvelle27

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
6,823 (1.43/day)
Location
Memphis, TN
System Specs
System Name Black Prometheus
Processor Ryzen 7 3700X
Cooling Thermalright PA120 SE
Storage Sandisk X300 512GB + WD Black 6TB+WD Black 6TB
Display(s) ACER AOPEN 34" 3440x1440 144Hz
Case DeepCool Matrexx 55 V3 w/ 6x120mm Intake + 3x120mm Exhaust
Audio Device(s) LG Dolby Atmos 5.1
Power Supply EVGA 600W
Mouse Logitech Trackman
Keyboard Logitech K350
Software Windows 10 EDU x64
What monitor Specs would you purchase in todays time
 
Hi,
Guess if brand doesn't matter either does Hz so 144 hehe
2" sure isn't worth that much more $ but then again brand might.
 
ThrashZone said:
Hi,
Guess if brand doesn't matter either does Hz so 144 hehe
2" sure isn't worth that much more $ but then again brand might.
Click to expand...
Brand

LG
Acer
LG

2" is also Ultra wide vs wide
 
If the 2560x1440 was 24” I might consider it.
 
Hi,
Acer does have some decent panels but so does LG so I'd still do LG 144.
 
ThrashZone said:
Hi,
Acer does have some decent panels but so does LG so I'd still LG 144 still.
Click to expand...
I forgot the first LG is flat and the other 2 Curved
 
Hi,
That don't change my vote I'm not into curved
Sitting view is to finicky for me personally.
 
bought lg 32" 165hz and happy. i'm sure which ever one you buy will be just fine for you.
 
I'd get the 34" 3440x1440 100Hz.

I don't play much high framerate fps and started playing modern games on a 34" 3440x1440 60 Hz. I now have a 32" 2560x1440 144 Hz. I play most games at 100 Hz or below and even Rocket League at 100 Hz is fine as 60-100 Hz is a huge difference and I'll play at that from the 100Hz limited HDMI connections from my other PCs from time to time. 100-144 Hz is a much smaller difference to me while I'd like to have the Ultrawide aspect ratio back as IMO it offers more.
 
Toothless said:
That's not ultrawide. Would be 3440x1440 for 21:9
Click to expand...
I was stating the difference the 34” which is 2” bigger is ultra wide vs the other 2
 
Durvelle27 said:
That's number 2
Click to expand...
That hyperlink sure is #2 lol
click links energy crap included where he pull that shit from
1708918787546.png
 
I have a 32" 2560*1440 but I think 34" 3440*1440 matches the field of view of our eyes better
 
Durvelle27 said:
I forgot the first LG is flat and the other 2 Curved
Click to expand...

If the first one is IPS then that's a pretty clear winner, I'm guessing the latter 2 curved screens are probably VA that's why they must be curved

If the first one is flat VA then that's a huge nope

Can you just list all 3 models so that there's no confusion?
 
Last edited:
tabascosauz said:
If the first one is IPS then that's a pretty clear winner, I'm guessing the latter 2 curved screens are probably VA that's why they must be curved

If the first one is flat VA then that's a huge nope

Can you just list all 3 models so that there's no confusion?
Click to expand...
Should have posted in OP but to cut down guessing these are it

1. https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32gn63t-b-gaming-monitor
2. https://www.acer.com/us-en/monitors/essential/et2/pdp/UM.JE2AA.P05
3. https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34wr50qc-b-ultrawide-monitor?bvstate=pg:2/ct:r
 
Oops VA on #1 so guess if you have 200.us #3 it is.
 
At 30+ inches, I'd much rather hunt 2160p. I know, I know, it's not that affordable, yet it's totally worth it. Not like you're gonna replace your monitor sooner than in a decade if you love it.

Across the options you provided, the UW one it is. Gaming is so much better on UW monitors it even doesn't feel wrong to have two times worse response times and refresh rates.
 
Beginner Micro Device said:
At 30+ inches, I'd much rather hunt 2160p. I know, I know, it's not that affordable, yet it's totally worth it. Not like you're gonna replace your monitor sooner than in a decade if you love it.

Across the options you provided, the UW one it is. Gaming is so much better on UW monitors it even doesn't feel wrong to have two times worse response times and refresh rates.
Click to expand...
4K just isn’t viable
 
Durvelle27 said:
4K just isn’t viable
Click to expand...
Why? I use a 4K display as my daily driver and I never did regret this decision. Fonts are smooth, image quality in games is excellent.
 
Beginner Micro Device said:
Why? I use a 4K display as my daily driver and I never did regret this decision. Fonts are smooth, image quality in games is excellent.
Click to expand...

Cost.

Look at the prices on his list and try to find a 32" 4K monitor with 100+Hz for the same.
 
Without knowing the exact use case of the monitor it's a little harder to say, but I'd go with the UW if it's shooters or racing games or the cheaper flat 16:9 for anything else. The cost for 165hz isn't worth it. I'm running a 27" 170hz IPS 2560x1440 and a 34" 100hz VA 3440x1440. I notice the refresh rate way less than I notice the brightness (~250nit vs 400nit) and color accuracy the IPS screen has. Honestly, being spoiled to the IPS now I'm looking for a replacement for my VA ultrawide even though I love the screen real estate it gives me.

A note: the UW has a higher pixels per inch than the 16:9 monitors. A 34" UW is about equal to a 27" 16:9. Could make the UW worth it in your eyes then.
 
Durvelle27 said:
34" 3440x1440 100Hz ($189)
Click to expand...
This one, if you're on a budget. :) But I would rather save a bit more & go for a UltraWide 144+Hz display.

Totally enhances the experience in games that support UltraWide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top