27" - Negligible for 4K?

[jayark1]

Is 27 Inches negligible for 4K gaming?  Compared to an UltraWide 3449 x 1440 at 34 inches? (Considering both have same refresh rates)

 

My two considerations:

 

1. UltraWide: LG 34GN850 (3440x1440 - 144hz)
2. Standard: LG 27GN950 (4K - 144hz)

If that's the case, then wouldn't the UW at 34 inches be a better experience? 

 

The GPU would be 3080.

 

[Chris Pratt]

There's a lot of factors here. Generally speaking, 4K on a 27" monitor is extremely pixel dense. Far beyond what your eyes will be able to discern. However, unless you're driving with a 3080, you're not going to be able to push 4K at 144fps. As such, for gaming, a more likely scenario is running this display at 1080p at that refresh rate, making the 27in better for hiding the pixelation.

 

A 34in, in you *need* at least 1440p, as it will look like hot garbage at 1080p. Given that's ultrawide as well, that's even more pixels that have to be pushed per frame. Even though it's technically 2K, at ultrawide it approximates the pixel count of 3K, if such a thing existed. That's again, going to take a beefy graphics card to push at 144fps+, so you're going to need to either drop it down so WFHD, or do 60fps instead, neither great options.

 

Again, this becomes less of an issue the better graphics card you have, and the new 30-series cards, once they're widely available will be able to fairly easily drive either display at max resolution and hertz. As such, it just depends, if you've got a more mid range graphics card, and don't plan on upgrading, I'd go with the 27in. Otherwise, it doesn't matter, really.

[jaslion]

17 minutes ago, jayark1 said:

Is 27 Inches negligible for 4K gaming?  Compared to an UltraWide 3449 x 1440 at 34 inches? (Considering both have same refresh rates)

 

My two considerations:

 

1. UltraWide: LG 34GN850 (3440x1440 - 144hz)
2. Standard: LG 27GN950 (4K - 144hz)

If that's the case, then wouldn't the UW at 34 inches be a better experience? 

 

The GPU would be 3080.

 

I would get a 27 inch NON 4k monitor. There is very little noticeable difference to none depending how close you sit to your monitor between a 4k and 1440p display at 27inches. All the 4k display will do is need you to get a top of the line gpu to run it at 4k 144hz. Sure you can run it at lower resolutions but running a lcd at non native resolutions causes blurriness.

[jayark1]

4 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

There's a lot of factors here. Generally speaking, 4K on a 27" monitor is extremely pixel dense. Far beyond what your eyes will be able to discern. However, unless you're driving with a 3080, you're not going to be able to push 4K at 144fps. As such, for gaming, a more likely scenario is running this display at 1080p at that refresh rate, making the 27in better for hiding the pixelation.

 

A 34in, in you *need* at least 1440p, as it will look like hot garbage at 1080p. Given that's ultrawide as well, that's even more pixels that have to be pushed per frame. Even though it's technically 2K, at ultrawide it approximates the pixel count of 3K, if such a thing existed. That's again, going to take a beefy graphics card to push at 144fps+, so you're going to need to either drop it down so WFHD, or do 60fps instead, neither great options.

 

Again, this becomes less of an issue the better graphics card you have, and the new 30-series cards, once they're widely available will be able to fairly easily drive either display at max resolution and hertz. As such, it just depends, if you've got a more mid range graphics card, and don't plan on upgrading, I'd go with the 27in. Otherwise, it doesn't matter, really.

 

1 minute ago, jaslion said:

I would get a 27 inch NON 4k monitor. There is very little noticeable difference to none depending how close you sit to your monitor between a 4k and 1440p display at 27inches. All the 4k display will do is need you to get a top of the line gpu to run it at 4k 144hz. Sure you can run it at lower resolutions but running a lcd at non native resolutions causes blurriness.

I will be building from scratch as I've been away from PC gaming since 2006.  I'm waiting on Ampere cards and particularly eye-balling the 3080.  I want an experience that sets a standard away from consoles, which is why I've considered UW as consoles don't support that (as of now anyway).  BUT, a 3080 supposed to play 4K at 120fps, however, if a 27 inch monitor is negligible at 4K, I'd rather have a better experience with UW.

 

I suppose the main question is this:  Will 27inch 4K/144hz be a better experience?  Or will 34inch UW 3440 x 1440 (21:9) at 144hz be a better experience?  Considering the GPU can easily handle both?

[jaslion]

1 minute ago, jayark1 said:

 

I will be building from scratch as I've been away from PC gaming since 2006.  I'm waiting on Ampere cards and particularly eye-balling the 3080.  I want an experience that sets a standard away from consoles, which is why I've considered UW as consoles don't support that (as of now anyway).  BUT, a 3080 supposed to play 4K at 120fps, however, if a 27 inch monitor is negligible at 4K, I'd rather have a better experience with UW.

 

I suppose the main question is this:  Will 27inch 4K/144hz be a better experience?  Or will 34inch UW 3440 x 1440 (21:9) at 144hz be a better experience?  Considering the GPU can easily handle both?

I do not like ultrawides for gaming simply because it's just either too much on screen, the game doesn't support the aspect ratio or the game stretches to fit the aspect ratio. Up to you tho. I would personally just get a nice 1440p ultrawide.

 

Just a heads up but from the leaked benchmarks it looks like the 3080 is around 25% faster than a 2080ti. Which for 4k 120fps is just barely enough if you wish to play at high settings at those framerates in all games. It will of course need to have settings lowered over the years to keep up. Which is why I recommend a 1440p display as there will be no problem to push that resolution and high framerates.

[Chris Pratt]

2 hours ago, jaslion said:

I do not like ultrawides for gaming simply because it's just either too much on screen, the game doesn't support the aspect ratio or the game stretches to fit the aspect ratio. Up to you tho. I would personally just get a nice 1440p ultrawide.

 

Just a heads up but from the leaked benchmarks it looks like the 3080 is around 25% faster than a 2080ti. Which for 4k 120fps is just barely enough if you wish to play at high settings at those framerates in all games. It will of course need to have settings lowered over the years to keep up. Which is why I recommend a 1440p display as there will be no problem to push that resolution and high framerates.

Don't discount DLSS, though. With that, you can push 4K visuals with 1440p performance levels.

[jaslion]

1 minute ago, Chris Pratt said:

Don't discount DLSS, though. With that, you can push 4K visuals with 1440p performance levels.

The catch is it has to be implemented and not every game will do that.

[Chris Pratt]

Just now, jaslion said:

The catch is it has to be implemented and not every game will do that.

Eh, over time, most will. It's still relatively new, and wasn't even really that great until just recently. It's an easy win for devs for the most part, so with the 30-series popularizing 4K gaming, in general, I expect more developers to jump on the DLSS bandwagon.

[jayark1]

3 hours ago, jaslion said:

Just a heads up but from the leaked benchmarks it looks like the 3080 is around 25% faster than a 2080ti. Which for 4k 120fps is just barely enough if you wish to play at high settings at those framerates in all games. It will of course need to have settings lowered over the years to keep up. Which is why I recommend a 1440p display as there will be no problem to push that resolution and high framerates.

 

3 hours ago, Chris Pratt said:

Generally speaking, 4K on a 27" monitor is extremely pixel dense. Far beyond what your eyes will be able to discern.

 

Thank you guys for the insight.    Based on your advice that 27 inches is negligible if comparing the same size with a 1440p, I feel UW (21:9) at 1440 hz using the new Ampere is going to be the better experience.  I would hate to invest in a 4K 27 inch, 144hz monitor and not really see the difference and it tax my GPU harder... seems a waste of resources.... and especially if games will inevitably become more taxing... and by lowering the resolution, causing potential ghosting/blurring.  I understand some games don't support the 21:9 natively, but it seems that most do.  Most Microsoft games as well as the new Cyberpunk is going to support that format.  If they don't, people tell me you can play it at 1440p at 16:9 (letterboxed) and not have any issues... no different than viewing it at a normal sized screen, but just some black margin Left and Right.

 

At this point, the only other option that would possibly be better would be a 16:9 1440p 240hz monitor for the 3080 at 27" - 30" inches

[e22big]

10 hours ago, jayark1 said:

 

 

Thank you guys for the insight.    Based on your advice that 27 inches is negligible if comparing the same size with a 1440p, I feel UW (21:9) at 1440 hz using the new Ampere is going to be the better experience.  I would hate to invest in a 4K 27 inch, 144hz monitor and not really see the difference and it tax my GPU harder... seems a waste of resources.... and especially if games will inevitably become more taxing... and by lowering the resolution, causing potential ghosting/blurring.  I understand some games don't support the 21:9 natively, but it seems that most do.  Most Microsoft games as well as the new Cyberpunk is going to support that format.  If they don't, people tell me you can play it at 1440p at 16:9 (letterboxed) and not have any issues... no different than viewing it at a normal sized screen, but just some black margin Left and Right.

 

At this point, the only other option that would possibly be better would be a 16:9 1440p 240hz monitor for the 3080 at 27" - 30" inches

You will actually see the different. Anyone who said otherwise just never daily drive a 27inch 4k monitor. And the differences are especially noticable in game, just not in fast pace esport or FPS game. Yes, you won't see the pixel in either 4k or 1440p (actually even 1080p) at 27inch but you will see a very noticeable increased in sharpness. Not as much as jumping from 1080p to 1440p but it's there. Just to give  you a perspective, when you expand a video from default mode to full screen on Youtube, with 1440p the image will still look sharp at a normal viewing angle, but at 4k you will see more detail of everything on top of the image still retaning on all the clarity.

 

That said not every game look good in 4k. Some actually looks way worse especially when they use lower quality model texture (Subnautica for example, their model textures are actually pixelated but not that noticeable at 1440p when everything looks kind of blur out but at 4k, you can actually see everysingle flaws they made in that modelling)

 

[chiller15]

To somewhat hijack this thread, I have a 24" Dell 1440p 144Hz G-Sync TN monitor. As someone on mainly plays RPGs and solo FPS (I don't do online gaming), for me the looks are more important than responsiveness. Would I perceivably notice a difference between the 1440p monitor I have and a 27" 4K model, sat at the usual ~2 feet from the screen?

[Totalimus]

Why are you creating multiple topics discussing the same thing?

You even give replies to people who ask the same question, which means you're already informed about the answer...