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

Next monitor? (34" min, g-sync, 2K-4K, ultrawide, $1500 max)

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

funsoul

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Location
NJ, USA
Hi folks!

As nvidia gutted 3dvision (surround) support, decided to move on rather than spend any more time trying to cluge it into working (didn't help losing dvi-d ports with the gtx1080s). So...sadly, time to retire the 3x 27" asus 120Hz 3dvision-ready monitors and upgrade to the modern era.

Am looking for recommendations for a new monitor. Running a 7940x and 2x 1080TI's in sli (not that it helps in all games anymore) so 4K seems a real stretch. Thinking 3440x1440 may be the sweet spot for me atm? My usage will be normal stuff plus gaming (primarily RPGs like Skyrim and Elder Scrolls Online and a few run and guns). Seems like 34-35" is the way to go? Don't want to go smaller as I'm already giving up those nice 3x 27" ones) but would certainly consider going up to a 43". I like the curved ultra-wide monitors.

Here are the 34"/35" ones I'm currently checking:
Acer Predator Z35
Acer Predator X34
Alienware AW3418DW
Alienware AW3420DW
ViewSonic ELITE Gaming XG350R-C

If my setup will support it (am not sure it will), would certainly be interested in going 4K and up to a 43". The Asus XG438Q (which is freesync) seems like it'd be the one for that size. Read that some freesync monitors actually support g-sync real well...is this one of them? If my setup didn't have enough horsepower, would I still be able to drop the res to 3440x1440 (or whatever it takes to get decent fps) without the games looking like doodoo?

HDR would be great but it seems like 600 is the first level that'll actually do anything visible?

Thoughts? Recommendations? Other options? Want to keep this under $1,200 all in but could go a little higher if it's worth the price difference.
Thank you!
 

Zerileous

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2002
It's really a matter of personal preference, but a lot of people will feel like pixel density suffers if taking 1440p over 27 inches. I think 4k depends on your expectations of frame rate and settings.
 
OP
funsoul

funsoul

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Location
NJ, USA
Thanks Zerileous!
Thought that over 27" thing applied to 1080p, also 1440p?


Would like a consistent framerate around 50-60fps with good to best settings.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Well, in the titles that scale for SLI, those cards will be fine for 4K/60 ultra in many titles. When it doesn't scale, very few titles will run 4k/60 ultra. Medium helps...

I run 2x 2560x1440 27" monitors and the DPI is perfectly fine. A 29" 2560x1440 display is equal to a 22" 1080p display in pixel density. Not sure I would go over that either. 34" is way less. At that size, you would want 4K.
https://www.sven.de/dpi/
 
OP
funsoul

funsoul

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Location
NJ, USA
Thanks ED!
Thought in 1080p, just had to stay under 30"? My 27's have .31mm dpi and still look very good. 34" 2K are .29 so not much better so not sure which direction to go now.

Since I'm looking at moving away from 5760x1080 goodness and almost 90" of real estate, it feels weak going to 2K and under 30". That said, the 1080ti's at 4K seems like it'd be a less than entirely satisfying experience.

Open to thoughts and suggestions.
Thank you!!

UPDATE: Been thinking about it....really leaning to just taking the 4k plunge and riding with the 1080ti's. Will assuredly need to turn down some settings to keep decent fps but think that's the only upgrade really worth making at this point? Thinking 43" should be good (.25mm dpi so an improvement over my current .31mm). What do ya'll think? I've never played with a 4k monitor so I'm shooting a bit blind.

Here are the 43" 4K monitors which seem to fit the bill:
- ROG Swift PG43UQ HDR1000, native g-sync support
- ROG Strix XG438Q HDR600, g-sync compatible
- Acer Predator CG437K HDR1000, g-sync compatible

Thoughts? Anyone familiar with these monitors?
 
Last edited:

Janus67

Benching Team Leader
Joined
May 29, 2005
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-rog-swift-pg43uq-review,1.html

It seems really good, but man, that is gigantic to sit closely in front of. I don't think I'd want to sit co close to much over a 34'' screen, the verticality of it could be quite awkward I imagine.

This one sounds amazing, but holy crap over $2k for a monitor - PG35VQ

The PG349Q sounds good, 120hz gsync IPS 3440x1440 and less than $1000 it appears, the trouble is finding one.
 
Last edited:
OP
funsoul

funsoul

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Location
NJ, USA
Hmmm...ok...noted on the 43" potentially being awkward for up close, desktop gaming.

If I'm going to upgrade, would only be interested in 4K in the 32"-35" range. Not ready to take the 43's out of consideration yet as even though dpi at that size is still decent. A curved 43 should be great for the immersiveness. Gysnc support is a must whether native or gsync-compatible. HDR 1000 would be a nice to have but 600 level would be minimum. Budget is around $1,200ish max.

Ideas or recommendations?

On the 43" issues....am currently using those 3x 27" monitors so the viewing area on a single 43" should be ok (not sure verticality would be a concern as the 43" screens are not that much taller than my current ones I think). Regarding dpi....the 27" (1920x1080) have a dpi of .31mm vs .25 for a 43" 4K so definitely an improvement.
 
Last edited:

Voodoo Rufus

Powder Junkie Moderator
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
I have the Alienware AW3418DW, and it's a lot cheaper now than when I bought it. I like it, highly recommend.
 
OP
funsoul

funsoul

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Location
NJ, USA
Thanks for the rec Voodoo Rufus! Leaning toward a 4K monitor but having trouble finding any in the 34-37" range. They seem to be 31" then 43". Been looking at the Asus 43"s but ideally, would like a curved ultrawide. The vertical height on the flat 43" seems a bit much for up-close desktop gaming.
 

motherboard1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Thanks for the rec Voodoo Rufus! Leaning toward a 4K monitor but having trouble finding any in the 34-37" range. They seem to be 31" then 43". Been looking at the Asus 43"s but ideally, would like a curved ultrawide. The vertical height on the flat 43" seems a bit much for up-close desktop gaming.

I vote Go Ultrawide with high refresh rate.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
The only reason I stay away from ultra-wides are due to some games not scaling to the resolution well (stretches to fit). I don't know how common that is, but I've seen many complain about it..
 

motherboard1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
The only reason I stay away from ultra-wides are due to some games not scaling to the resolution well (stretches to fit). I don't know how common that is, but I've seen many complain about it..

I think I might have had the first, if not close to it Ultrawide on the market, the LG34UC97 so I've been using one for years. I know there was one game that only gives regular 1440p But I can't remember what it was. There are also some games that don't support it by default but FlawlessWideScreen fixes most, and the couple I've discovered that aren't on that program are fixed with a simple Hex edit, btw I know nothing about such editing so a quick google search and the fact that I was able to do it will tell you it's simple. ( A couple of old Indie titles )

I remember the game now it's overwatch, I don't own it but they lock it out for ( competitive reasons ) They are like the last holdouts.

If I start writing down the contents of my STEAM and ORIGIN Library, this is going to be a long thread and I play them all Ultrawide.

In short, don't avoid Ultrawide for fear of lack of support.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
I'm sure a majority work fine. Some people just want total plug and play though and not to mess with 3rd party apps and hex editing to get things to work. ;)
 

motherboard1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
I'm sure a majority work fine. Some people just want total plug and play though and not to mess with 3rd party apps and hex editing to get things to work. ;)

Has your PC experience been total plug and play overall ? heh!

DOOM
DOOM Eternal
Rocket League
Captain Spirit ( free don't judge me )
Bastion ( Hex Edit )
BioShock
BioShock Infinite
Borderlands 2
Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel
Castle Crashers ( No Go on the Ultrawide )
Darkest Dungeon
Destiny 2
Dirt Rally
Dirty Bomb
Dust
Dying Light
Frostpunk
Gears 5
Gris
Half Life 2
Half Life 2 Ep 2
Half Life 2 Lost coast
Hellblade
Inside (Hex Edit)
Killing Floor 2
Left 4 Dead 2
Life is Strange
Limbo ( Hex Edit )
Metro 2033
Metro 2033 Redux
Metro Last Light
Metro Exodus
Shadow of Mordor
Shadow of War
Nier Automata
Ori and the Blind Forest
Payday 2
A Plague Tale ( not sure If I remember, this one might have been Hex idit )
Portal 2
Project Cars
Quake 2
Rage
Remnant
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Rocksmith
Ryse: Son of Rome
Sonic All Star Racing ( Hex or Flawlesswidescreen tool )
South Park
SquaD
Steel Division 2
Steel Division Normandy
Tales from the Borderlands
Tomb Raider
Total War Rome 2
Trine
Trine 2
Trine 3
Trine 4
Valkyria Chronicles
The Walking Dead ( FlawelessWideScreen or Hex )
The Walking Dead Season 2 ( FlawlessWideScreen or Hex )
The Witcher 3
Wolfenstein TNO
Wolfenstein TOB
Xcom EU
Xcom 2
------------

Apex Legends
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 4
Battlefield V
Crysis 3
Anthem

-------

Whew... Well, some of those are not mine ( Family Sharing ) and in my Defense, I buy way more games than I play, STEAM sales are a curse.
 
OP
funsoul

funsoul

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Location
NJ, USA
Decided to go with the samsung crg49 as the setup will be for gaming only. Now to figure out the best way to feed them. As a number of games are cpu-bound, now have to figure out which platform/cpu to run.

- x299/7940x- 14/28 cores so most are wasted. Cpu maxes out (h2o) around 4.3GHz. 1080ti's run x16/x16
- x299/7820x- 8/16 so some wasted. Cpu maxes out 5.1-5.2. Can only run 1x 1080ti (maybe a problem with the cpu), at least it's x16
- z170/7700k- 4/8, good core count. Cpu maxes out 5.0-5.1. Runs both 1080ti's at x8/x8

x299/7940x is already in the case so swapping it out would be a pita but thinking z170/7700k would be the best route. Whatcha think?
 

Zerileous

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2002
Unless your games in particular can take advantage of SLI, I think the 7820x is the best blend of clocks and threads. I'm not sure SLI makes a large difference in most games. Likewise if you're playing games that are not heavily multi-threaded but do utilize SLI then the 7700k makes more sense. However with PS5 having 8c/16t, I believe a lot of upcoming games will utilize that many cores/threads.
 
OP
funsoul

funsoul

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Location
NJ, USA
Thanks Z!

Yeah....still debating...finally tested the 7700K. Quick test, it does 5.3 super easy with 1.375v, 73C max temp so 5.4 is very likely do-able, 5.5 might be a stretch but won't know until I play with it some more.

So....
x299/7820x, single 1080ti, 5.1-5.2GHz, x16
x299/7940x, 2x 1080ti, 4.3GHz, x16/x16 (big core speed disadvantage so Skyrim/ESO won't be happy)
z270 (z170 giving me grief)/7700k, 2x 1080ti, 5.3-5.4GHz, x8/x8

Thinking the bottleneck will be the cpu rather than the pci-e lanes? x8 is still pretty massive. Even though SLI isn't supported in a lot of games, it's partially supported in many (read poor efficiency) but the second card still adds some fps.

Monitor should get here by next weekend so I've still got time to figure this out. Also...the 7820x/1x 1080ti is in the case and running great so I'll be able to use it Day 1 so happy to keep googling and getting ya'll opinions on the best platform/cpu/vga configuration.

Thanks in advance for info, opinions, etc!
 

Zerileous

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2002
Granted this is a 1080 not Ti, but I don't think x16 vs x8 is a big factor: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2488-pci-e-3-x8-vs-x16-performance-impact-on-gpus

What happens when you have too few threads available is dropped frames, not average FPS, so the 7700k will probably have a higher average FPS for sure but I'm guess at least for newer games you'll see lower 1% low FPS numbers, in other words unpleasant stutters.

What framerate / resolution are you trying to reach? If your monitor is only 60Hz the difference won't matter much. On the other hand trying to push 4k maybe SLI helps in some specific titles, you'd need to research that on a case by case basis. If you're trying to reach 240fps, then the extra 200MHz of the 7700k might make a difference. Bottom line is they both look like great systems and which is better is going to be somewhat dependent on use case. But for future games I definitely think more cores and no SLI is the answer. For older titles it gets more complicated.
 
OP
funsoul

funsoul

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Location
NJ, USA
Thanks again Zerileous!

Great point on losing frames on low core count cpus! Definitely read about that issue elsewhere. Also agreed....don't think there's a substantial difference between x8 and x16.

The monitor is 5120x1440, 120Hz so not quite as heavy as real 4K but certainly don't want to leave any fps on the table. As there are still a decent number of titles which support sli (with varying efficiencies) and, in those, sli 1080ti's do on average better than a single 2080ti...want to keep sli happening.

Going to retest the 7940x with HT off but don't think it'll get over 4.5-ish. A buddy has offered to let me "steal" one of his 9900k's (runs 5.1-5.3 under water) so since I've got a board and all the other parts, might go that route.

UPDATE: Stole the 9900k...day 1 I'll use the 7820x, 1x 1080ti so I'll check that before pulling the board and swapping in the new one.
 
Last edited: