Forced upgrade - need help choosing new monitor

[WalkingInTheVoid]

Hey all.

Long story short - make sure you have enough space when playing VR. Because a third of my screen is permanently out of order, i thought "hey, since i have to change it anyway, why not making it an upgrade".

Im looking for something between 31" and 40" with curved panel and resolution 2560 x 1440 and higher. Im not playing competitively that much, so i would prioritize image quality over highest refresh rates and response times (144Hz without ridiculous smears would be fine). So far im running amd cpu and GTX 1080 (might upgrade it in the future for something from team green, once the prices drop low enough). My budget is 1000$. What are your thougts on HDR in this price range?

[Biohazard777]

2 minutes ago, WalkingInTheVoid said:

My budget is 1000$. What are your thougts on HDR in this price range?

Your options are slim to none:

^22 minute mark

[IPD]

HDR is a pipe dream in 30"+.  They can't even figure out how to get 144hz, 2160p to mainstream adoption.  HDR gucci at a price that doesn't bend you over is like wishing in one hand and shitting in the other.

[Stahlmann]

14 hours ago, IPD said:

HDR is a pipe dream in 30"+.

It does exist, but it will cost significant amounts of money. Starting anywhere from $1300 for an LG OLED or $1700 if you want something LCD-based with the Asus PG35VQ. And if you also don't want ultrawide, then the Asus PG32UQX is the only option for around $3500.

 

14 hours ago, IPD said:

They can't even figure out how to get 144hz, 2160p to mainstream adoption.

I'd argue we're at a point now where multiple great 2160p 144Hz options are available. It's just not mainstream because a "mainstream" computer cannot drive such a display. For most people staying at 1440p just makes more sense.

[IPD]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

It does exist, but it will cost significant amounts of money. Starting anywhere from $1300 for an LG OLED or $1700 if you want something LCD-based with the Asus PG35VQ. And if you also don't want ultrawide, then the Asus PG32UQX is the only option for around $3500.

 

I'd argue we're at a point now where multiple great 2160p 144Hz options are available. It's just not mainstream because a "mainstream" computer cannot drive such a display. For most people staying at 1440p just makes more sense.

I will believe that when they start popping up in the 40-50" class--especially curved.  Until then, you're probably right, and people will keep buying lackluster monitors for current-gen, rather than trying to "future-ready" their build by having a 2160p ready to go.

[Stahlmann]

26 minutes ago, IPD said:

I will believe that when they start popping up in the 40-50" class--especially curved.  Until then, you're probably right, and people will keep buying lackluster monitors for current-gen, rather than trying to "future-ready" their build by having a 2160p ready to go.

Fact is that the majority of reviewers (and me too btw) are of the opinion that current 4K monitors such as the Gigabyte M32U are already excellent options. The fact they don't yet include HDR and stay affordable is not a sign that they're all incompetent, but that the technology simply is not there yet when it comes to mass availability in monitors. I bet if you could figure out how to make REAL HDR monitors affordable right now, you'd make a fortune. If any brand could manage it, they would do it, even if it's just for the money. But it's just not possible atm.

 

If you have another opinion that is fine by me, but you're clearly not the average user and have different taste or needs when it comes to displays than most people. Saying they're lackluster just because you don't personally see a use for yourself is just plain ignorant and disconnected imo.

[IPD]

No, I'm saying that if it were mainstream, that offerings would branch off from there.  It's like a standard-distribution bell-curve.  I expect to see such a massive amount of offerings at the most common size (Eg. 32") that other sizes keep branching off from there.  But that's clearly not the case, as the market has a notable dearth of 40"+ offerings in 2160p.  2 or 3 monitors does not "mainstream" make.  So yes, the offerings ARE lackluster because the CHOICES are not there.  And when those choices become available, you'll be seeing more and more offerings up and down the bell-curve.

 

We aren't even into 1 standard deviation above the norm, and already there's 0 offerings larger.  That's a pretty clear indication about the lack of marketshare / adoption.

[tikker]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

We aren't even into 1 standard deviation above the norm, and already there's 0 offerings larger.  That's a pretty clear indication about the lack of marketshare / adoption.

I mean, that indicates that monitor sizes aren't a Gaussian random variable, but something determined by what people will buy en-masse and what brings in the most money.

[IPD]

18 hours ago, tikker said:

I mean, that indicates that monitor sizes aren't a Gaussian random variable, but something determined by what people will buy en-masse and what brings in the most money.

Or you could offer a 45" curved panel at 300% markup, and some would still buy it.....

 

...which isn't even an option currently.

[tikker]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

Or you could offer a 45" curved panel at 300% markup, and some would still buy it.....

 

...which isn't even an option currently.

But 1) "some" is not enough for the major companies to dedicate production lines to and 2) will they really? How many people are going to buy a $5000 monitor over a $500 one? From a business perspective it makes more sense to make multiple 27" screens that you know will sell at $500 vs one odd monitor that will sit for a while waiting for someone to be willing to drop $5000 on that display. I would bet even the existing 40+" monitors are operating on thin margins. You also seem to dismiss all the existing options on nothing more then "there isn't more choice". You are voting with your wallet, that's good, but that also signals manufacturers there's no point in those displays, because apparently you are not interested in them in the slightest unless they meet extremely specific specifications. I think curves are avoided because curved TVs flopped. Add to that that 40" is a pain to place without large desks, that in the Steam Hardware Survey still 67% of people is at 1920x1080 and that the top GPUs are Nvidia XX50 or XX60 (or equivalent) class GPUs there is currently very little incentive to make exotic huge 4k displays.

[IPD]

We know curved TV's ruined the market because brain-dead consumers can't differentiate between single-user and multiple user applications.

 

You and I are going to agree to disagree on it.  The option doesn't even exist at present--that's the issue.  There should ALWAYS be the option to go bigger, higher-resolution--than existing GPU's can support.

 

67% doesn't surprise me.  Mountains of cash were immolated to convince the masses that 1080p was "the thing to get", and people are dogmatically clinging to that resolution even though it's 20 year old pisswater.

 

p.s.

Really though, since 40" 2160p is like 4x20" 1080p monitors, WTH is it so hard to offer?

[BTGbullseye]

On 12/17/2021 at 1:46 PM, IPD said:

Really though, since 40" 2160p is like 4x20" 1080p monitors, WTH is it so hard to offer?

It's the same problem as putting more cores in a CPU on a single die... Lower yields that meet specs. It gets exponentially more difficult to manufacture the larger you go.

[IPD]

10 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

It's the same problem as putting more cores in a CPU on a single die... Lower yields that meet specs. It gets exponentially more difficult to manufacture the larger you go.

Well then, tell them to go back to 480p, since all they care about is yields, and not profit.

[e22big]

On 12/15/2021 at 10:43 PM, WalkingInTheVoid said:

Hey all.

Long story short - make sure you have enough space when playing VR. Because a third of my screen is permanently out of order, i thought "hey, since i have to change it anyway, why not making it an upgrade".

Im looking for something between 31" and 40" with curved panel and resolution 2560 x 1440 and higher. Im not playing competitively that much, so i would prioritize image quality over highest refresh rates and response times (144Hz without ridiculous smears would be fine). So far im running amd cpu and GTX 1080 (might upgrade it in the future for something from team green, once the prices drop low enough). My budget is 1000$. What are your thougts on HDR in this price range?

I have been using Aorus FV43U for a few months by now, I think for your price and size, it's without a doubt the best monitor with HDR capability. Nothing else get even remotely close to what Gigabyte had been offered (without going well beyond a grand or getting close to a 50 inch i.e. LG OLED)

 

It definitely great for single player performance. The larger than live 4k at 43 inch is absolutely a stunning, and it has so such a wide colour gamut that the display looks colour-accurate SDR even when leaving on HDR mode all the time. It's definitely not without compromise though, you're trading response time, and especially viewing angle for all of those performance. Black smearing is absolutely a thing with this panel but that was a lot less of an issue in game. The worst black spot by far is the viewing angle which is so bad that you can notice colours shift at the edge even when sitting right at its center. 

 

[IPD]

3 hours ago, e22big said:

I have been using Aorus FV43U for a few months by now, I think for your price and size, it's without a doubt the best monitor with HDR capability. Nothing else get even remotely close to what Gigabyte had been offered (without going well beyond a grand or getting close to a 50 inch i.e. LG OLED)

 

It definitely great for single player performance. The larger than live 4k at 43 inch is absolutely a stunning, and it has so such a wide colour gamut that the display looks colour-accurate SDR even when leaving on HDR mode all the time. It's definitely not without compromise though, you're trading response time, and especially viewing angle for all of those performance. Black smearing is absolutely a thing with this panel but that was a lot less of an issue in game. The worst black spot by far is the viewing angle which is so bad that you can notice colours shift at the edge even when sitting right at its center. 

 

The only tick against it for me, is the lack of curvature.  I would have already bought one if it came with ~3000r.

[SolarNova]

On 12/15/2021 at 3:43 PM, WalkingInTheVoid said:

Hey all.

Long story short - make sure you have enough space when playing VR. Because a third of my screen is permanently out of order, i thought "hey, since i have to change it anyway, why not making it an upgrade".

Im looking for something between 31" and 40" with curved panel and resolution 2560 x 1440 and higher. Im not playing competitively that much, so i would prioritize image quality over highest refresh rates and response times (144Hz without ridiculous smears would be fine). So far im running amd cpu and GTX 1080 (might upgrade it in the future for something from team green, once the prices drop low enough). My budget is 1000$. What are your thougts on HDR in this price range?

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/gigabyte/aorus-fv43u

VA TV panel 'gamerized' by Gigabyte. its good but may be to big, also has some issues with text due to its BGR layout.

it is however the only option that has good HDR.

 

Anything else in ur price range will hover around the HDR 400 spec , which isnt great tbh.

 

You dont get other good HDR options at large sizes till you come to the likes of the LG OLED at 48" ( 42" model next year), and the likes of the LG 38GN950-B which from what i can see is like $2000+ in the US, at which point ur better of getting the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9.

 

So realistically, if ur after a large display within ur size range, a 32" 16:9 monitor or 34" 21:9 monitor would probably be best.

like:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/s3422dwg

and

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/samsung/odyssey-g7-lc32g75t

 

[WalkingInTheVoid]

Most important for me would be that curved screen. Won't compromise on that. As for HDR, i just saw it poping up under some of the screens i was looking at, which got me curious. Kept more attention to new things in hardware rather than in peripherals, so my knowledge in this field is limited. As far as i know, there is a minimal peak brightness required in order for HDR to look good. More questions arised when i saw some screens certified for HDR400, while barely reaching 350cd/m^2 (according to the seller. Maybe it was some sort of an average or even a typo. Dunno, probably should have checked manufacturers site for that ). 

2 hours ago, SolarNova said:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/samsung/odyssey-g7-lc32g75t

 

That was actually one of the screens i was considering

Problem being, that even after i would upgrade my ol' 1080, i doubt i would benefit from that high refresh rate, since im not playing competitively. 

 

Tried to do some more research over past few days, and i came across MSI MPG ARTYMIS 343CQR. Seems to be ticking most of my checkboxes, but im not sure how it would perform in comparison to other screens that were already mentioned (image quality, smearing, that kind of stuff).

 

Resolution, size and HDR aside, what are the things i should watch out for? 

[IPD]

3 hours ago, SolarNova said:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/gigabyte/aorus-fv43u

VA TV panel 'gamerized' by Gigabyte. its good but may be to big, also has some issues with text due to its BGR layout.

it is however the only option that has good HDR.

 

Anything else in ur price range will hover around the HDR 400 spec , which isnt great tbh.

 

You dont get other good HDR options at large sizes till you come to the likes of the LG OLED at 48" ( 42" model next year), and the likes of the LG 38GN950-B which from what i can see is like $2000+ in the US, at which point ur better of getting the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9.

 

So realistically, if ur after a large display within ur size range, a 32" 16:9 monitor or 34" 21:9 monitor would probably be best.

like:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/s3422dwg

and

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/samsung/odyssey-g7-lc32g75t

 

-Things you will never hear a woman say to you in bed

-Things that will never be true of monitors unless your viewing distance is half the diagonal of the panel

-Things you will never hear automotive designers of USA trucks say

[e22big]

12 hours ago, IPD said:

The only tick against it for me, is the lack of curvature.  I would have already bought one if it came with ~3000r.

And you would be right on that. I normally hate a curved display with a passion but for something this big with such a bad viewing angle, some curvature would be a very useful.

 

Honestly, had I saw rting review before I would probably not have bought it but now that I did, I don't regret my decision. The compromises are huge but so is the advantage. 

[e22big]

6 hours ago, WalkingInTheVoid said:

Most important for me would be that curved screen. Won't compromise on that. As for HDR, i just saw it poping up under some of the screens i was looking at, which got me curious. Kept more attention to new things in hardware rather than in peripherals, so my knowledge in this field is limited. As far as i know, there is a minimal peak brightness required in order for HDR to look good. More questions arised when i saw some screens certified for HDR400, while barely reaching 350cd/m^2 (according to the seller. Maybe it was some sort of an average or even a typo. Dunno, probably should have checked manufacturers site for that ). 

That was actually one of the screens i was considering

Problem being, that even after i would upgrade my ol' 1080, i doubt i would benefit from that high refresh rate, since im not playing competitively. 

 

Tried to do some more research over past few days, and i came across MSI MPG ARTYMIS 343CQR. Seems to be ticking most of my checkboxes, but im not sure how it would perform in comparison to other screens that were already mentioned (image quality, smearing, that kind of stuff).

 

Resolution, size and HDR aside, what are the things i should watch out for? 

Oh you actually will. I don't think I'll benefit from high refresh rate either when I first bought it but 144hz will just make everything more responsive even when you don't game. More importantly, it is really good in a turn-based, or geo-metric RPG or RTS title as move your camera around the map feel so much better than at 60 hz. I especially love it in game like Wasteland 3, Total War, or Xcom (although I also don't care about it too much in games like Horizon Zero Dawn and probably Shadow of the Tomb Rider, but you are unlikely to hit 144hz in such titles anyway)

[SolarNova]

13 hours ago, WalkingInTheVoid said:

Resolution, size and HDR aside, what are the things i should watch out for? 

See the the pinned thread below.

 

[WalkingInTheVoid]

6 hours ago, e22big said:

Oh you actually will. I don't think I'll benefit from high refresh rate either when I first bought it but 144hz will just make everything more responsive even when you don't game.

Yeah, not going to drop below that. The screen that i broke is 144 as well. Odyssey g7 is running at 240Hz, so that is a bit overkill for me

[Cavalry Canuck]

On 12/20/2021 at 4:48 PM, WalkingInTheVoid said:

Tried to do some more research over past few days, and i came across MSI MPG ARTYMIS 343CQR. Seems to be ticking most of my checkboxes, but im not sure how it would perform in comparison to other screens that were already mentioned (image quality, smearing, that kind of stuff).

Bit late to the discussion. I just bought this monitor a month ago.
 

The curve is a bit steep, but I’ve gotten used to it. I had a bunch of screen tearing off the hop, but once I dumped the MSI Gaming OSD software, and altered some settings in Windows, that problem went away. Most of the options in the OSD app are available in windows display settings anyway. I suppose if you wanted to set up different settings profiles the OSD software could be useful, but I found for me it’s just bloatware. 

 

I am think I am having driver issues/conflicts with it outside that. The HDR transitions when switching from games to the desktop & vice versa, can be annoying. Honestly, I don’t notice the difference in most games and just want to turn HDR enhancements off. When transitioning back to the desktop specifically, the mouse will grey out like it’s gamma was set to 0 (and sometimes disappears entirely), and move at a stupidly slow speed. It’s a Corsair mouse, so I set my mouse DPI through iCUE. I think that’s where the conflict is, but I have to look into it more.

 

Overall I like it, and I anticipate I’ll be able to resolve my problems with it. No dead pixels, the stand is solid, I/O ports are easy to get at, nice cable routing options, comes with both HDMI & DP cables of a decent length, and fully adjustable tilt/height/swivel. The screen does feel fragile compared to my last panel, but I also may just be paranoid because I don’t want to break an $800 monitor.

 

Just in case your wondering, my GPU is an MSI Gaming X 1080ti.

[Stahlmann]

On 12/20/2021 at 10:19 PM, SolarNova said:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/gigabyte/aorus-fv43u

VA TV panel 'gamerized' by Gigabyte. its good but may be to big, also has some issues with text due to its BGR layout.

it is however the only option that has good HDR.

 

Anything else in ur price range will hover around the HDR 400 spec , which isnt great tbh.

 

You dont get other good HDR options at large sizes till you come to the likes of the LG OLED at 48" ( 42" model next year), and the likes of the LG 38GN950-B which from what i can see is like $2000+ in the US, at which point ur better of getting the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9.

 

So realistically, if ur after a large display within ur size range, a 32" 16:9 monitor or 34" 21:9 monitor would probably be best.

like:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/s3422dwg

and

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/samsung/odyssey-g7-lc32g75t

RTINGS is a great resource, but not perfect. Their HDR score and rank distributions are a good example of that. How is it that the Neo G9 with it's extremely impressive HDR experience (on the latest firmware) is scoring just slightly higher (0.2 points from a total of 10 possible points) than a non-HDR monitor like the FV43U in the "HDR gaming" section. Do not blindly adopt a review conclusion as your own, but make your own conclusion based on multiple different reviews. Especially for products such as monitors, where you as an end-user cannot test most of the marketing claims.

 

The FV43U has a very limited number of local dimming zones and this will result in lost detail, as one small bright object on the left side of the screen will essentially keep half of the display's backlight on, raising black levels. HDR isn't just about raising the brightness headroom, but also preserving the low-brightness details while doing so. And for that you will need many more dimming zones and a decently tuned dimming algorythm. Both of these are missing on this monitor, so pretty much all the HDR mode does is increase the overall scene brighness, which is again, NOT what HDR is supposed to be.

 

Not just because of it's HDR performance, but for other reasons such as slow mid-range-TV-like response times and text issues (even stranger ones than just BGR layout on this one) i'd stay away from this monitor.

 

In a few months or so we will have the 42" LG C2 OLED, which will wipe the floor with the FV43U while very likely not even being more expensive. Not to mention Samsung recently also announced their brand new QD-OLED technology to come to the market, which will fix pretty much all of OLED's issues if the claims are at least somewhat true.

[SolarNova]

6 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

RTINGS is a great resource, but not perfect. Their HDR score and rank distributions are a good example of that. How is it that the Neo G9 with it's extremely impressive HDR experience (on the latest firmware) is scoring just slightly higher (0.2 points from a total of 10 possible points) than a non-HDR monitor like the FV43U in the "HDR gaming" section. Do not blindly adopt a review conclusion as your own, but make your own conclusion based on multiple different reviews. Especially for products such as monitors, where you as an end-user cannot test most of the marketing claims.

 

~SNIP~~

 

In a few months or so we will have the 42" LG C2 OLED, which will wipe the floor with the FV43U while very likely not even being more expensive. Not to mention Samsung recently also announced their brand new QD-OLED technology to come to the market, which will fix pretty much all of OLED's issues if the claims are at least somewhat true.

Indeed, the 'Score' is one point of criticism i have with rtings as it can be somewhat confusing at 1st glance, BUT i ignore them personally and just look at the individual results

 

That said, if u hover over the little ? next to the 'score' it shows a breakdown of weighting of individual results. This explains why the Neo scores so close to something like the FV43U,  some stand outs within that rating that bring the FV43U up against the Neo are the superb uniformity that accounts for 8% of the score, the better contrast attributing 13%. etc

The somewhat subjective observations of the backlight control and how it looks can only be noted in writing, and not in the score, as the scores are made from numeric test results.

 

The 42" OLED is going to be sweet, as for the QD-OLEDs , they can potential be even better as they will have proper RBG subpixel layouts thanks to the QD filter.

However the QD-OLED has low yield atm (~50% last i heard) so will be prohibitively expensive, and while the 42" would 'normally' be expected to cost $1000 or lower, the current state of tech prices means it likely wont be much cheaper than the when the 48" launched.