HELP: 32" Display --> 1440p/144hz/Gsync vs 4K/60hz/Gsync -- Which one?!

[Piney]

Hey guys, I'm deciding between these two monitors, I have the budget for either so cost shouldn't be taken into consideration. I run a Titan X Pascal and i7 6700k.

Acer Predator XB321HK - 4K/60hz/Gsync
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01A3N60A2/ref=ox_sc_...

OR

LG 32GK850G-B - 1440p/144hz/Gsync
https://www.amazon.com/LG-32GK850G-B-Gaming-Monitor-Ref...

Both are 32" displays, which I think the 4K would look better at. I don't game as often as I used to, and when I do it's not really much FPS games anymore but more MMO/RPG/RTS games. Even if I do play FPS games I don't play competitively anymore.

What do you guys think is the best option?

Also, if you think a Titan X Pascal could push good frames at 4K without Gsync then I'm open to that too. I just figured Gsync with 4K is probably a worthwhile investment for when it dips below 60fps?

In any case, what do you guys think would be the best option? 

PS: I should note too that 32" is what I'm sticking with which does limit the options, but I definitely do not want to go 27" and I'm coming away from ultrawide so I don't want that anymore either!

[germgoatz]

Why would you want to leave ultrawide Besides that, I would go for 1440p 144hz, still a very good resolution, and high refresh rate.

[DVA]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

Hey guys, I'm deciding between these two monitors, I have the budget for either so cost shouldn't be taken into consideration. I run a Titan X Pascal and i7 6700k.

Acer Predator XB321HK - 4K/60hz/Gsync
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01A3N60A2/ref=ox_sc_...

OR

LG 32GK850G-B - 1440p/144hz/Gsync
https://www.amazon.com/LG-32GK850G-B-Gaming-Monitor-Ref...

Both are 32" displays, which I think the 4K would look better at. I don't game as often as I used to, and when I do it's not really much FPS games anymore but more MMO/RPG/RTS games. Even if I do play FPS games I don't play competitively anymore.

What do you guys think is the best option?

Also, if you think a Titan X Pascal could push good frames at 4K without Gsync then I'm open to that too. I just figured Gsync with 4K is probably a worthwhile investment for when it dips below 60fps?

In any case, what do you guys think would be the best option? 

PS: I should note too that 32" is what I'm sticking with which does limit the options, but I definitely do not want to go 27" and I'm coming away from ultrawide so I don't want that anymore either!

I'd go with the 4k. Here's why

 

1. You don't play games as often, may as well get beautiful display for movies, working, relaxing. 

2. You don't need fast Hz if you're not playing competitively. Assuming you don't care so much about having a one up on your opponent. 

3. It has G-Sync just like the other one, a bonus in my eyes. 

4. Even if your Titan falls a little short on the 4k res, your G-Sync will make it seem like nothing is wrong. 

 

Goodluck on your purchase!

[a99007]

would you sit near it or are you a couch gamer?

[MCBYT]

I'd go with 1440p 144hz, high refresh rate is almost always better than high resolution. The difference between the resolutions is minimal if playing at a normal distance away from the monitor.

[Piney]

1 minute ago, a99007 said:

would you sit near it or are you a couch gamer?

I'd be sitting near it, normal PC gaming, about 2-3ft I'd say.

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, germgoatz said:

Why would you want to leave ultrawide Besides that, I would go for 1440p 144hz, still a very good resolution, and high refresh rate.

Ultrawide just wasn't all that exciting to me as I thought it would be. Also the wide screen makes it feel more cramped vertically than a normal aspect ratio.

[a99007]

Just now, Piney said:

I'd be sitting near it, normal PC gaming, about 2-3ft I'd say.

the difference between the monitors in resolution isn't that major although the refresh rate is. The games would look a lot better on the 144hz display but media will probably better in the 4k one. Chose the one that's more important to you. Do remember to check the color accuracy and don't even think the bs they say "99% accuracy" is right. do check customer reviews for the colors

[Peskanova]

Buy a 1440p 144hz  , 4k 60hz are waay waaay worse experience than anything more than 100hz , 1440p 32 inch is not too bad, switching from 60 hz to 144hz (you will run almost anything at 144fps) is like upgrading your gpu (the same feeling) ,

switching from 1080p 60hz to 4k 60hz + gsync is an upgrade but not near noticiable as from 60hz to 144hz,

(I work with a lg 27 inch ips 1080p , and in my home game with a 24inch 1440p 165hz, ppi related well if you have 37 inch 1080p is bad but with 32 inch 1440p its on the nice range(from 27 to 32 its ok to go 1440p)

1440p  144hz gsync/freesync is nowadays the perfect ratio for gaming (price/performance) , 4k 60hz is just an middle step to 4k 144hz. If you want to experience 4k  just low your inches

[Peskanova]

PS : I would rather a 27 inch 1440p 165hz with gsync than a 32 one (you can allways buy a cheap 27 inch 60hz , even 4k, for secondary monitor) but that is on the single big display vs dual display paradigma ( im on the dual side ) 

[MCBYT]

1 minute ago, Peskanova said:

PS : I would rather a 27 inch 1440p 165hz with gsync than a 32 one (you can allways buy a cheap 27 inch 60hz , even 4k, for secondary monitor) but that is on the single big display vs dual display paradigma ( im on the dual side ) 

You're talking about 1440p 165hz gsync and I'm just over here with my 60hz 1080p Acer that I upgraded to about half a year ago from a 1280x960 85hz monitor

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, Peskanova said:

PS : I would rather a 27 inch 1440p 165hz with gsync than a 32 one (you can allways buy a cheap 27 inch 60hz , even 4k, for secondary monitor) but that is on the single big display vs dual display paradigma ( im on the dual side ) 

I definitely understand when people say 27" is the sweet spot for 1440p, however after using a 34" ultrawide I simply have no desire to go back to a screen that small haha.

 

This is where the dilemma is... 32" is definitely more of a sweet spot for 4K, but that's not to say 1440p will look terrible. 4K will provide a lot more screen real estate outside of gaming which is useful (because I used to be a dual monitor user as well), but 144hz will provide a smoother gaming experience and 1440p will still look good. However, I really don't game as intense as I used to, and really don't ever play CS:GO or Battfield or any of those hardcore FPS games anymore. I haven't even touched Overwatch or Fortnite in like 2 months lol.

[Piney]

I think at this rate I might just order both from Amazon and test them in person, and return the one I don't want. It's going to be so hard to not feel any buyer's remorse for the alternative monitor unless I see them both in person. 

[Peskanova]

well I just look for good deals for monitors but my 1440p 165hz gsync is TN , cant afford more, but man this question is cristal clear   for 60hz 4k better to buy a ps4 and a 400$ 4k freesync tv/monitor ( it can be less than any 4k 60hz gsync xDD , ps4 included) games will go smoother than any titan (because they are meant to be 4k60hz) , but my bro has xbox one x plus a 4k freesync monitor and man, there is nothing like playing on high refresh, fuck 1440p fuck 4k , I dont care , if my pc could do 240hz like 165 I would do 1080p all time without a doubt.

If you play casual gaming but u are pro , more hz will give you better score , I play csgo and since I bought that monitor I got more reports and sometimes even I dont believe my plays, more hz=better reflex playing (the time that you dont think and let reflex play, like shooting with an awp on csgo, or any flickshot).

[Peskanova]

Quick maths(boom! you dont know!)

1920x1080(1080p) on 24 inches = 91.79 PPI
2560x1440(1440p) on 32 inches = 91.79 PPI
3840x2160(4k) on 32 inches = 137.68 PPI

So its like a 1080p on 24 inches? well thats a good spot.
4k on 32 inches is a little better than 1440p at 24(closer 125 more or less to 137)

So both are perfect but if you game take high refresh rate (look if that 4k can do 144hz at 1080p )

 

[Piney]

Hey guys, so I thought I'd just respond to this post to wrap everything up. Long post here.

 

I bought both monitors so I could compare side-by-side and just return whichever I don't like. 

 

And the winner is...

 

The 4K monitor!

 

Coming from a 3440x1440p ultrawide monitor, the 32" 1440p monitor just felt like I was losing desktop space, despite how large a 32" monitor actually is. 

 

The 4K on the other hand felt like I was gaining a ton of desktop space over what I had before, allowing my grad school work productivity not to suffer.

 

Unfortunately the 1440p monitor looks slightly blurry on a 32" monitor. It's something I could for sure get used to, but when you just switch from the crispness of 4K it's hard to bare. I do think 1440p @ 27" is a much better size.

 

Lastly, 4K in games just look incredible. I am fortunate to have the system to max everything out and the Gsync keeps it running smooth just in case. The 1440p monitor maxed out still looks fantastic, but 4K gaming is definitely another level (to me!). I tested both in Witcher 3 and it just wasn't a contest.

 

Also, weirdly enough, I actually didn't like 144hz in a game like Witcher. In FPS games it's great, but in RPG/MMORPG games it almost gave me a soap-opera effect and lost some immersion. And I don't play any FPS games anymore really, I'm more RPG/MMORPG/RTS stuff now.

 

Anyway, the 4K monitor is what I'm sticking with.

 

BUT, if anyone wants to know, the build quality and QC on this LG monitor is amazing. This thing is flawless right out of the box. The bezels are quite thin and the whole monitor is lightweight and very thin. It's a really fantastic piece of equipment. The 4K monitor, unfortunately, has a dead pixel in it, so I'll be doing the monitor relay until I get one that's satisfactory. I don't love how "gamer" the 4K monitor looks, but it is what it is. If I had my choice I would 1000% take the LG looks with the Acer hardware.

 

Anyway, thanks all for the suggestions and hopefully this post helps someone, somewhere.

 

 

[Zando_]

On 9/25/2018 at 9:55 AM, DVA said:

I'd go with the 4k. Here's why

 

1. You don't play games as often, may as well get beautiful display for movies, working, relaxing. 

2. You don't need fast Hz if you're not playing competitively. Assuming you don't care so much about having a one up on your opponent. 

3. It has G-Sync just like the other one, a bonus in my eyes. 

4. Even if your Titan falls a little short on the 4k res, your G-Sync will make it seem like nothing is wrong. 

 

Goodluck on your purchase!

Don't forget that on a 32" screen 4K will have a much nicer pixel density than 1440p. 

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Zando Bob said:

Don't forget that on a 32" screen 4K will have a much nicer pixel density than 1440p. 

Yeah, that's exactly what I found when I just tested the two side by side. Things were much sharper at that specific screen size on 4K versus 1440p. Also desktop real estate was much better on 4K @ 32". 1440p just felt cramped. Also at 32" I didn't have to scale anything at all which made full use of the 4K.

[Zando_]

16 minutes ago, Piney said:

Yeah, that's exactly what I found when I just tested the two side by side. Things were much sharper at that specific screen size on 4K versus 1440p. Also desktop real estate was much better on 4K @ 32". 1440p just felt cramped. Also at 32" I didn't have to scale anything at all which made full use of the 4K.

Pixel density is pretty boss. I'm lucky to get to use an iMac 5K (typing this on it rn) at work and the 27" 5K panel is a m a z i n g. 

[Piney]

3 hours ago, Zando Bob said:

Pixel density is pretty boss. I'm lucky to get to use an iMac 5K (typing this on it rn) at work and the 27" 5K panel is a m a z i n g. 

5K on 27"?? Do you have scaling at 100%? I feel like that would be hard to read stuff!

[Zando_]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

5K on 27"?? Do you have scaling at 100%? I feel like that would be hard to read stuff!

IDK what exactly the scaling is, MacOS doesn't do it in percentages. I have it on the default setting, gives me a good amount of space while still having everything nice and easy to read. Definitely awesome for spreadsheets, which I do a lot of, and graphics work, which I do none of but that's what it's designed for.

[agazoo]

4k is awesome

144hz is awesome

4k+144hz is super awesome, although quite expensive still, when compared to other 144hz or 4k products

 

I remember paying close to 3000$ for Apple Cinema 30" back in around 2005, with 200$ student discount. That actually gave me a competitive advantage back in a day. (and it still in service as a matter of fact, which is quite impressive)

 

This isn't a case with current breed of 4k 144hz though (even though I like it quite a lot)

 

If was made to chose, I would go 4k over 144hz. Difference between 1440p or 4k or alike is quite dramatic.

 

144hz is nice (really nice) in fast paced games, but 4k is better in most all other applications.

[Piney]

So pretty big update. I returned both monitors to Amazon - the 1440p one because I no longer wanted it, and the 4K one because it had a dead pixel (and was clearly a used return) and I needed a new monitor. 

 

What's even better is I just hopped on Amazon and noticed they are conveniently running a "Deal of the Day" on this exact Predator monitor that dropped the price from $1,099.99 to only $699.99!

 

 

[Piney]

Also, for anyone else reading this. 4K gaming with Gsync is incredible. I'm playing Witcher 3 on max and it never hitches once no matter how intense the scene is graphically. Really incredible experience.