What kind of screen is better?

Hi, i want to upgrade the screen of my rig soon... i currently have a 27 inch full hd screen. There's two things that i want, more resolution to be able to see more detail in the far distance, and a wider setup so i can see the side windows inside my cockpit. I noticed the only way of having both is having triple 4k screen, but because of space i can't have triple screen.. so i was thinking on these ultrawide curved monitors, but their pixel height is 1080 or 1440 max, not 2160 as i would love to have.. So my options are having an ultrawide curved screen that doesn't have the resolution i want, or a regular 4k screen that doesn't have the wideness i want. The frequency is a factor too, since not all screen support 144hz.
Since my current screen is the best i have used, i'm not sure what to choose... can you give me some advice on this? what should be more important? maybe 1440 is enough, or should i go regular full 4k?
Thanks!
 
1,343
1,088
I have a 40" 4k monitor that can do 34" 3440x1440 as a test and while it does look good having that bit extra width,losing that height kinda sucks .
If i had the money id definitely get the 49" super ultrawide 5120x1440 and get used to the lack in height as that massive extra width would make up for it ,but as i have it now id rather have the 40" 4k than a 34" ultrawide .
Also what GPU do you have ? Is it enough for 4k 144Hz (not sure a 2080Ti will do that in many games) where the 1440p screen can get up there fps wise even on my 1080Ti where at 4k im definitely stuck to 60 fps .
 
Since my current screen is the best i have used, i'm not sure what to choose... can you give me some advice on this? what should be more important? maybe 1440 is enough, or should i go regular full 4k?
1440p is enough for the ultrawide monitors.

Now, is size more important than refresh rate? I'd vote no, but here's a compelling argument in the other direction, with a 65" 4k TV:
 
I have a 40" 4k monitor that can do 34" 3440x1440 as a test and while it does look good having that bit extra width,losing that height kinda sucks .
If i had the money id definitely get the 49" super ultrawide 5120x1440 and get used to the lack in height as that massive extra width would make up for it ,but as i have it now id rather have the 40" 4k than a 34" ultrawide .
Also what GPU do you have ? Is it enough for 4k 144Hz (not sure a 2080Ti will do that in many games) where the 1440p screen can get up there fps wise even on my 1080Ti where at 4k im definitely stuck to 60 fps .
I have now a GTX 1060 and runs at 100fps at max settings, but i know i need to upgrade my GPU in order to run more pixels.
have you used a 4k 2160p monitor?? i'm curious about how much difference can one notice in vertical resolution compared to those with 1440 vertical pixels, and how important could that difference be for the experience.
 
1440p is enough for the ultrawide monitors.

Now, is size more important than refresh rate? I'd vote no, but here's a compelling argument in the other direction, with a 65" 4k TV:
I have only used a 60hz monitor, how much refresh rate you think is important to have as minimum? i ask that since i see not all monitors handle 144hz.. a lot of them handle just 100, or 120hz
 
i have to run ACC at 60hz, my monitor is a G-sync 120hz 3440 x 1440. i really do not miss 120hz
when in ACC. not at all, ok i have no other choice, much prefer a constant 60 hz
than a 60 hz then 90 hz then 40hz, i really notice that, frame time is important to my eyes to.
When it gets to AC, then i am in the 120hz range, G-sync and frame fluctuations matter less at
that frequency.
This is the question that always turns up and is always difficult to solve, it is always a compromise.
the ideal is probably triple 144hz G-sync 27” monitors at 1440p. but you will need a top budget PC
to drive them. And as you have found out, the room to put them in.
i have come from a single 42 tv to 32” tv to triple 21” monitors to curved triple 144hz 27” monitors to a
35” 3440 x 1440 g-sync. i am trying to refrain from a 49” monitor.
they all have there pluses and minuses, thats were you are alone it is your choice alone, there is
really no answer.

just my experience, probably flawed, but thats how my experience has panned out.:)
 
i have to run ACC at 60hz, my monitor is a G-sync 120hz 3440 x 1440. i really do not miss 120hz
when in ACC. not at all, ok i have no other choice, much prefer a constant 60 hz
than a 60 hz then 90 hz then 40hz, i really notice that, frame time is important to my eyes to.
When it gets to AC, then i am in the 120hz range, G-sync and frame fluctuations matter less at
that frequency.
This is the question that always turns up and is always difficult to solve, it is always a compromise.
the ideal is probably triple 144hz G-sync 27” monitors at 1440p. but you will need a top budget PC
to drive them. And as you have found out, the room to put them in.
i have come from a single 42 tv to 32” tv to triple 21” monitors to curved triple 144hz 27” monitors to a
35” 3440 x 1440 g-sync. i am trying to refrain from a 49” monitor.
they all have there pluses and minuses, thats were you are alone it is your choice alone, there is
really no answer.

just my experience, probably flawed, but thats how my experience has panned out.:)

What's your favorite setup of all you've tried?
How about TV response time? is it too much? becomes a problem?
 
1,343
1,088
2160p is really a nice resolution but hard to run at 60+ fps , having the height is great but if i could choose between that and super ultrawide id go the latter .
TVs generally have a 60Hz cap with high input lag and response time, unless you buy a new really expensive one .
I went from 55" 4k TV to 40" 4k monitor and it really is quite a massive change in overall gameplay thanks to the reduced input lag .
Ive heard people say going 144Hz is a real game changer but once you go high refresh rate gaming you can never go back and seeing im hooked on 4k and GPU performance cant do 4k 144Hz yet im staying at 60Hz .
The bigger the screen the importance of more pixels becomes more apparent , a 4k 55" TV has the same PPI as a 27" 1080p screen so AA is needed to make the picture look crisp anyway .
 
@WilliamTRiker .

i’m more interested in pixel size, needing the screens as close as possible, 20” to 24” or else
to me, it feels like i am watching TV.
Triple 21” are cheap, have very good pixel size, do not take up much room, easy to drive but
limited to 60Hz.

Maybe in driving sims you can tell the difference 144hz to 60hz , i think if you just sat down and unknowingly played at a “clean” 60 hz then next day repeated it at 144hz that was shifting its FPS around. Then you would prefer the 60 hz. Not even noticing the higher FPS, were all different,
so some it may be obvious. I do know the with some of the driver that i have first had knowledge
of, they compete very effectively at 60Hz. ( too effectively from my point of view. :confused::laugh::laugh: )

My pick would be 3440 x 1440 35”, would also accept 49” 1080p, easy to drive.

You cannot just pick a monitor without considering a PC, 49” at 1440p would require a seriously
expensive PC.

Don’t get over infatuated by high FPS, unless you are a top notch first person shooter player.!!

I went for a 120hz , 3440 x1440, G-sync because it solved the placebo effect of high FPS, g-sync to
always give me a clean image, easyish to drive, good pixel density, keeping the screen under 20”
eye distance without me seeing pixels, does not take up much room, is a great just PC monitor.

The smart buyer would go for triple 21” monitors, but they do not have the same kudos as some
fancy monitoring system.

No 144hz is not in my view a game changer in Sim racing, it is just a nice thing to have, perhaps a small
advantage, i do mean small.

Please Note.....

The problem with any of the above is if you actually stare at the monitor and “not” get engrossed in
driving the sim, all are full of flaws of many kinds. And all types of monitors will ultimately disappoint.
:):)
Buy sensibility, just drive the simulator and enjoy the experience.;)
 
Top