• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Does my perfect monitor not exist?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.


Mar 11, 2003
What I am looking for and why:

32-34" : This is the size I feel like I can manage at my desk.
1440p: I measured where I sit from my display and calculated that I shouldn't be able to resolve better than this at this ppa (pixels per arc). Don't want/have the horse power to render unneeded 4k at the desired refresh rates. Want native resolution displayed.
144 hz or better: I haven't experienced high refresh rate gaming, want to give it a go for some smooth butter frames.
Freesync 60-144 or better: big enough range to kick in LFC if needed. Not paying more for gsync.
~Good response time: I kind of take this as a given for a 144hz display, but some makers try and squeeze in response times that aren't quite good enough.
matte : Don't want any glossy reflections.
Flat screen: curved is bad for gaming as it introduces distortion in the already pre-distorted images games and other basic renders provide. My understanding is curved is also bad for uniformity/back light bleed. reference: https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/221682-the-flawed-math-behind-curved-monitors/

This last one is probably the one that gets me the most. Why on earth are all the monitor makers curving their "gaming" displays to harm their customer's images? Honestly at the distances I've always used displays at, and at 90-110 degrees field of view that we play most games at, a monitor should actually have a negative curvature (curve away from the player) to get the distortion right. Sure, games could be made to render properly for seating position, fov, and monitor curvature. Nvidia showed this with SMP, but no one does this. Why? I don't know, it doesn't seem hard to change your spatial mapping of rendered pixel angle, but until they do gaming monitors should be at worst flat.

Anyway, where is this monitor?
Plenty of 1440p high hz freesync monitors out there. :)

That said...not sure I'd like 32-34" with WQHD res... I wouldn't go more than. 28" honestly. I'd really go look at it in the store... 28" wqhd and 34" wqhd.
Yes there are plenty 1440p high speed freesync monitors even plenty of 28" ones . . . but 32 is bigger and still perfect resolution. I have a 32 1440p and a 32 inch 4k at work. They are the same as far as I can perceive resolution wise at my viewing distances. There are even some 32 inches that meet all my ideals except for companies ruining them with curved displays. Why is it so hard to get one without a detrimental, costly feature.
It is important . . . but that is a quality in a monitor I've completely given up on along with the other specs. If you find one I'd be glad to hear about it. Just saying flat seems to cut out 95% of all "high end" monitors. (high end in quotations because I consider a curved monitor a bronze tier)
AMD created a website that lists all of the freesync monitors that can be sorted and filtered to suggest which monitors might be best for you.


I used the link & plugged in what I would like in a monitor & it came up with a Philips 328M6FJRMB. However IPS is on my wish list & the monitor is actually VA, even though the site says it's IPS. Doh!
~Good response time: I kind of take this as a given for a 144hz display, but some makers try and squeeze in response times that aren't quite good enough.

Anyway, where is this monitor?

By " Response time " do you mean Grey to Grey pixel transition or do you mean input latency?

I've been contemplating the significance of input Latency. Many sources state it's importance for high level play of FPS games, but I have a hard time imagining how a half of a frame difference @ 60 Hrz ( 1 frame @ 120hz and so on ) is going to be perceivable by anyone, let alone provide an advantage. Am I wrong ?

I can feel Vsync and I've been aware of the input delay it caused since even before ever hearing the term. But I've never actually used a fast monitor, so I haven't felt the 10 ms or so less Input lag provided by Gsync or fast processing monitors.

I've been looking at 2 monitors of the same model, one has Gsync 1.0, the other has Freesync 2.0 the Gsync version is slower refresh rate but has 10 ms less Input latency ( 0 processing time, due to the module. )

What would give the greater edge. 144hz 15 ms input latency, or 120hz 5ms input latency? ( should say 110hz since it's widely reported that the Gsync 1.0 module is not capable of reliable 120hz )