1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

1440p @ 32" Wide Screen, too low a resolution?

Discussion in 'Monitors' started by Space Monkey, 30 Oct 2018.

  1. Space Monkey

    Don

    Joined: 8 Nov 2007

    Posts: 13,156

    Location: Outer Space

  2. Legend

    Soldato

    Joined: 31 Dec 2006

    Posts: 7,088

    I have used one and I wouldn't say too low, but the lower PPI is noticeable vs 1440p at 27". Everything just looks a little softer. Not bad by any means, and you would adapt to it, but it won't have that sharpness.
     
  3. Space Monkey

    Don

    Joined: 8 Nov 2007

    Posts: 13,156

    Location: Outer Space

    I'm guessing to get a higher resolution it'll cost me a lot more?
     
  4. Legend

    Soldato

    Joined: 31 Dec 2006

    Posts: 7,088

    Well it's really not bad. Besides, 1440p is always 1440p... it's just a question of sharpness. What about 34" ultrawide? That would be sharper, given same height as 27", just wider.
     
  5. wellibob

    Mobster

    Joined: 27 Mar 2006

    Posts: 3,922

    Close up a 4k 32" looks way sharper than a 1440p 32" monitor. As above the 1440 res on a 32" monitor kinda, looks soft in comparison..I recommend you see one in person to make an informed decision but I will say a 32" 16.9 display is a sweet spot size wise for a monitor and for ultrawide, a 35" 1440p monitor. Resolution is personal preference.
     
  6. Space Monkey

    Don

    Joined: 8 Nov 2007

    Posts: 13,156

    Location: Outer Space

    I would consider an Ultrawide but not sure if I can get one with a high refresh rate as well and be at a reasonable price? Any suggestions?
     
  7. Kered_Dub

    Gangster

    Joined: 4 Apr 2012

    Posts: 140

    I have an LG 32GK850G and sit a about 18" to 2' away most of the time and its absolutely fine IMHO.
     
  8. Legend

    Soldato

    Joined: 31 Dec 2006

    Posts: 7,088

    What is your max budget?
     
  9. Space Monkey

    Don

    Joined: 8 Nov 2007

    Posts: 13,156

    Location: Outer Space

    Max of approx £750, but only for the perfect monitor, otherwise I'd prefer to pay less :)
     
  10. tamzzy

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 May 2012

    Posts: 12,298

    32 inch 1440p has similar DPI as 24 inch 1080p.
    I had a 28 inch 4k monitor @ 125% scaling previously.
    Personally I prefer the 32 inch 1440p. Scaling doesn't always work perfectly with windows/older programs and can look blurry.
     
  11. Space Monkey

    Don

    Joined: 8 Nov 2007

    Posts: 13,156

    Location: Outer Space

    That's good to know, thanks :)
     
  12. Squid Vicious

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 15 Feb 2015

    Posts: 1,037

    32" 4K is very nice and is achievable within your budget.
    Downsides are refresh rate as you'll be limited to 60hz and the additional demand it puts on GPU.
    Though i will say that i found that many older games ran fine at 4k with just a 980ti so worth checking benchmarks for your games and setup to avoid any surprises if you do go the 4k route.
     
  13. Space Monkey

    Don

    Joined: 8 Nov 2007

    Posts: 13,156

    Location: Outer Space

    I'm running a Titan X Pascal GPU with an i7 8700K, could that give me 144hz at 4K? Or should I be looking at 2560x1440p for that refresh rate?
     
  14. kmetek

    Soldato

    Joined: 19 Jul 2008

    Posts: 5,313

    LG 32UD59 seems like good choice?
     
  15. Legend

    Soldato

    Joined: 31 Dec 2006

    Posts: 7,088

    You won't get a 4K 144Hz monitor unless you have £2K to spare lol! 1440p is the sweet spot, and several monitors offer 144Hz with Freesync, but Freesync is wasted with an Nvidia GPU. That said, adaptive sync isn't an absolute requirement, it's more just a nice bonus that some gaming experiences benefit from more than others, and the premium for a G-Sync monitor (which you'd need with an Nvidia GPU) is significant.

    For the games you play, with the exception of Track Mania (assuming it isn't locked at 60FPS), you also wouldn't NEED 144Hz. It depends what you value most. 4K would give you a super sharp image, and the aforementioned LG 32UD59 isn't a bad shout on that front. Unless someone is really in to competitive shooters, high refresh is certainly nice and a noticeable improvement over 60Hz though, but it's going to be far more noticeable in fast paced gaming.

    It ultimately comes down to what's most important to you... visuals, sharpness, smoothness, size, etc... and only you can answer that.
     
  16. Space Monkey

    Don

    Joined: 8 Nov 2007

    Posts: 13,156

    Location: Outer Space

    What's the general consensus on the Acer XF270HUA, can be had for approx £330, seems a relative bargain, 27"/1440p/144Hz/IPS/FreeSync

    Worth getting or something better for a similar price?

    My other option is the Dell Ultrasharp U3514W for £650 (likely less in a few weeks?) but locked at 60Hz.

    How much does 144Hz help in general use (non gaming or gaming but non 1st/3rd person shooters)? I do get migraines and sometimes motion sickness (exhaustion from current health issues) so thinking faster refresh rate would help but never used one so unsure?