Upgrading FHD to 1440p / 4k monitor

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

So after purchasing a new gpu (1080Ti) and enjoying it for a while I've started wondering whether should I buy a new monitor to match that thing. My current 1080p Acer is not bad, but certainly would like to have something better than this especially since I'm using 4k DSR, primarily to take advantage of G-sync. So I've started browsing webz seeking advice whether should I pick standard 1440p, ultrawide 1440p or 4k monitor, whether standard 60hz would suffice or going for 75-120hz would be worth. IPS or TN or VA ...

Either way I cant really decide and since I cant test them either the only solution left is to ask other people of their experiences with higher resolutions and refresh rates and ask for an advice. I'm seeking monitor of at least 27" panel, but no greater than 32". Size might be an issues since monitor stands on my desk and there is no wall behind it so hanging it is not an option here. I usually sit about 1m (or slightly less) from it. Also, price might be another limiting factor - I know that those monitors are damn expensive, even more than they should be by now,  and I'd like to limit myself to around 850 Euro (or 3500 PLN).

 

So far I was primarily considering AOC AGON AG271UG but I know that there is a lot of reputation in Eizo and Acer monitors, so I'm open for propositions. 

Edited July 10, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I'm very happy to own Acer Predator IPS UW 21:9 ,100hz@3440x1440 it's very good peace of hardware for sims. Price would be dropping because new models are in lines.

[Ribbon]

Two month ago i bought asus mg278 1440p 27" monitor and it died few days ago,bad luck!

2k or more is way to go, huge difference after 1080p. And go for monitor with adjustable axis ( height), very important part after you try it.

[ZachariasX]

So after purchasing a new gpu (1080Ti) and enjoying it for a while I've started wondering whether should I buy a new monitor to match that thing. My current 1080p Acer is not bad, but certainly would like to have something better than this especially since I'm using 4k DSR, primarily to take advantage of G-sync. So I've started browsing webz seeking advice whether should I pick standard 1440p, ultrawide 1440p or 4k monitor, whether standard 60hz would suffice or going for 75-120hz would be worth. IPS or TN or VA ...

Either way I cant really decide and since I cant test them either the only solution left is to ask other people of their experiences with higher resolutions and refresh rates and ask for an advice. I'm seeking monitor of at least 27" panel, but no greater than 32". Size might be an issues since monitor stands on my desk and there is no wall behind it so hanging it is not an option here. I usually sit about 1m (or slightly less) from it. Also, price might be another limiting factor - I know that those monitors are damn expensive, even more than they should be by now,  and I'd like to limit myself to around 850 Euro (or 3500 PLN).

 

So far I was primarily considering AOC AGON AG271UG but I know that there is a lot of reputation in Eizo and Acer monitors, so I'm open for propositions.

 

I am extremely fond of EIZOs, they are excellent to do graphics and office work. Most of them can be calibrated very well with a colorimeter if you care for such. They are pricey, but really you get beautiful panels. For games they are limited in the way that you only find AMD free-sync monitors and no NVidia G-sync models. but with your GPU you can maintain 60 fps and there is no tearing anyway.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, in DCS at 4k or so there is. Frame rate drops even at my 1080Ti. Eizo is nice but expensive and I mentioned spending limit, I can buy as much as I can afford, no more. Still, there is a lot more to that. What type of panel, flat or curved ... 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

High refresh rate 4k panels with new HDR will be available in following months but thats well beyond average consumer price point. 

 

I am considering ultrawide 100hz IPS indeed, wonder how it works with Il-2/DCS and if any stretching of the view exists or you actually get added area on left and right. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

High refresh rate 4k panels with new HDR will be available in following months but thats well beyond average consumer price point. 

 

I am considering ultrawide 100hz IPS indeed, wonder how it works with Il-2/DCS and if any stretching of the view exists or you actually get added area on left and right. 

There is some stretching on sides  but it not from curved panel - just how games draw you inside sphere, there is more image visible if it is 21:9 vs 16:9. 

 

https://goo.gl/images/ZUQME6

[ZachariasX]

High refresh rate 4k panels with new HDR will be available in following months but thats well beyond average consumer price point.

 

I doubt that even a 1080ti can do 4k reliably at 30+ fps.  The problem with G-Synch is that is does only work down to 30 Hz. Then you have all the tearing issues and micro stutters again. Or enter the 15 fps world when you have adaptive v-synch on. As you know, as soon as you have any kind of sync on (like V-sync), the system adjusts at first to screen refresh rate (60 fps or so, or g-sync) and below that it is either 30 Hz (half of 60 for a 60 Hz panel) or worse 15.

 

Now it depends on your optimism how high your expect FPS to go. You need in the real world almost twice the average fps to not let minimum fps cut below your minimum tolerated fps. Another thing one has to keep in mind, twice the pixels on the screen are about 1.4 x the working load for the GPU, so as a rule of the thumb, a system with a 2k monitor yielding 90 fps will produce about 60 fps on 4k.

 

In Prepar3D, with medium settings and ORBX sceneries frames drop to about 40 fps or so in areas of dense geometry (4.4 GHz i7 plus 1080). 4K texture resolutions for clouds can cap a 1080 GPU around 40 fps as well.

 

My advice is, 4k is only good for games that really don't stress high end CPUs (like BoX) or traditional shooters. There you have a safe margin to (today!) display 60+ fps. Else you might opt for 1440p resolution that leaves the GPU a bit more headroom.

 

For pure gaming I think the 27 inch size (1440p) is a good compromise. The ASUS ROG Swift PG278QR seems to be a popular solution. Not cheap, but definitely a good solution. There seem to be reports on quality issues, but all in all, for gaming a good solution.

 

The problem I have with 4K minitors is that they are either too small for the resolution, creating all these scaling "effects" of the menu interfaces, or then they are made more like TV sets. They give you a lot of space, but (color) display quality is not all there. Plus you have issues if you go above 30 Hz refresh, and eben much more so if you want to go above 60 Hz refresh.

 

About the panel technology, you really have little choice. For gaming you're stuck mostly with TN. They are not as bad as they used to be today, but if you want your colors to be "true", they are not first chioce. As for IPS or PLS (like EIZOs), they make your monitor display colors siimilar when seen from more different angles. So, if you're just stuck in one place, holding your controllers and staring a the screen, then it doesn't matter. If you actually do some work on your computer and move around, they look much better. for that they usually come calibrated more precisely. Not just for making a "crisp" image, but a somewhat correct sRGB image. In BoX, it does not matter if the colors and luminosity is not exactly the same in the corners versus the center. (The larger the screen, the larger those differences are!)

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Thanks Zacharias for detailed explanation. Much appreciated. For me its a hard choice since I know little about this technology, yet variety of models, panels and sizes is overwhelming.

At this point I'm questioning the need of G-sync since it adds to costs yet benefit might not be there. Plus it limits drastically the range of products since despite Nvidia policy the number of G-sync monitors seems to be much smaller than ones with Free-sync. 

75-100hz V-sync should be just fine and if not can play with fast sync either. That would leave me for example with:

- AOC AGON AG352UCG

- LG 34UC88-B

- Acer B346CKbmijphzx

- Asus MX34VQ

Edited July 11, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[ZachariasX]

The Asus and the LG are really a world apart from the Acer. Those two are expensive and if you like odd screen sizes, they are probably a way to go.

 

Since you however spent a lot of money on a GPU, I'd go for a G-sync solution, as this is the fitting partner of your GPU. It is really nice to have these stutter free high FPS and I way prefer that over more a more peripheral view. 27 inces are already spacious. Unfortunately, the dear leader at NVidia makes sure that his GPUs don't wort with freesync etc. This makes you stuck with v-sync.

 

V-sync means that the screen only takes as many FPS as his native refresh rate is. 60 Hz usually. This is fine for most purposes. BUT as we know, FPS is not constant but varies a lot all the time. If you crank up your resolution such that this variation occasionally undercuts your desired minimal 60 Hz, and be it just by 1 to 59 FPS, with v-sync on, you will not just drop a frame, but instead the monitor / GPU driver switches to accept ony 30 FPS to send to the monitor, of wich he will display each frame twice. So in principle for going one frame short of 60, you actually lost 30 frames. Now this switch happens fast and it will switch back fast, but still, you suddenly lose several frames instead of just one. These small fps drops thus result in a sort if microstuttering that I find most annoying. And while 30 fps are fine for a sim to just look ahead, it is not sufficient while horizontal paning of your view. Looking to the left and right will resullt in a very flickering movement of your cockpit. I find this annoying (even on regular 1440p and a 1080 GPU) to the point of not using trackIR often. But since I use my monitor for other things than gaming as well, it is a compromise that I've made.

 

This flicker would not be there as such if I had G-Sync.

[Max_Damage]

What is the most important thing for good sight in sims (detecting planes and ground units at large distances quickly and reliably)?

 

Dots per inch, resolution or the sheer size of a panel?

Also, can i test my performance on 4k using my 1080p monitor(just set 4k resolution in graphics and check FPS)?

Edited July 11, 2017 by Max_Damage

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yeah, I've added up there  AOC AGON AG352UCG which comes at exact price point in Poland as I was willing to play with, its a 35" VA panel with 100hz refresh rate and G-sync.

[ZachariasX]

What is the most important thing for good sight in sims (detecting planes and ground units at large distances quickly and reliably)?

 

Dots per inch, resolution or the sheer size of a panel?

The larger the screen is spotting becomes easier. High resolution helps, as long as the screen is sufficiently large. On a MS Surface Book with its 13 inch screen an 2k x 3k resolution, dots would be extremely tiny.

 

Plus, increased screen size does not increase your field of vision. A wide monitor does that. But a wide monitor will make you turn your head more. So if you have a large screen and still normal dpi, the minimum size of your most distant object will be larger. you can see that better.

[Max_Damage]

The larger the screen is spotting becomes easier. High resolution helps, as long as the screen is sufficiently large. On a MS Surface Book with its 13 inch screen an 2k x 3k resolution, dots would be extremely tiny.

 

Plus, increased screen size does not increase your field of vision. A wide monitor does that. But a wide monitor will make you turn your head more. So if you have a large screen and still normal dpi, the minimum size of your most distant object will be larger. you can see that better.

Can i test my rig performance in 4k just by setting said resolution using a 1080p monitor?

 

And btw i had thought that with an increased display size i can just zoom out comfortably and still have the same size of image when compared to a small screen. netting me a better field of view

Edited July 11, 2017 by Max_Damage

[BeastyBaiter]

I've been happy with my move from 22 inche 1080p to a 27 inche Acer 1440p (2560x1440) TN screen. The nice thing about true 1440p (what I'm using, the ultra-wide stuff is not 1440p) is that it's basically the same aspect ratio as standard 1080p, thus blank space and/or stretching is never a concern. My monitor also supports higher refresh rates, but I've noticed keeping things at multiples of 30 is best if you are also concerned about video playback. We live in a 30 and 60 fps world, running at 85Hz is just asking for tons of micro-stutter in my experience (in videos and even some games). Can't comment on 4k, don't think I've ever seen a 4k monitor in person.

[ZachariasX]

Yeah, I've added up there  AOC AGON AG352UCG which comes at exact price point in Poland as I was willing to play with, its a 35" VA panel with 100hz refresh rate and G-sync.

VA panels historically were problematic, as they switch very slow from black to white, causing a "smearing" mouse pointer on the screen. Now that AOC uses such a panel for a 100 Hz monitor can mean 2 things: it is a very cheap to make panel (this is not really bad for the consumer) plus there is a way to make the panel pixels switch faster. This has been done using this "overdrive" by applying overvoltage to switch the pixels. To do so, the panel must know the next frame. This results in the whole panel having a slight input lag. Overvoltage also means that the pixel swings farther than it should and has to "wobble" (just one wobble thogh) back in the correct position. This is noticeable by giving a slight artefact around edges of moving patterns on the screen.

 

I have no idea how that monitor works in real life now, as some improvements must have been made. As the monitor is something you're seeing ALL THE TIME when sitting on the computer, I'd consider a careful choice important. If there is an electronic mart wher you can have a look at the panel types I really recommend you doing so. It is really a matter of taste where you make the compromise. I made my choice by weighting display quality above all else, but this leaves me in the dump of V-sync. I could mend that by using a GPU that keeps most of the games >60 FPS, but the flaw is there. You make your chioce.

 

You check best with screen calibration images, see here. They expose panel shortcomings in very clear manner. These often being things that are not directly apparent to your eyes. Panels are made to produce impressive clear and crisp images when put on display in a mall next to each other. This creates all kind of distortions to the picture as well as making it very tiring to look at it over extended time.

 

 

We live in a 30 and 60 fps world, running at 85Hz is just asking for tons of micro-stutter in my experience (in videos and even some games).

+1

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, based on this review that AOC turns out to be a very capable monitor for such a price: https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/aoc-ag352ucg/

 

Plus speaking with friends who switched to IPS pannels, those are not issue free either, poor quality control caused bad experiences with even straight from factory monitors, like finding dust in the pannel or some pixels or subpixels clearly broken. Plus, there is that IPS Glow.

 

At this point I feel like that whatever I choose it may have issues as VA and IPS monitors, despite being expensive, are still a very problematic technologies.

[ZachariasX]

 

 

Plus speaking with friends who switched to IPS pannels, those are not issue free either,

You always get what you pay for, regardless of panel type. That's life.

 

Your selection seems reasonable. Once you have it, test it with the calibration images. Then you know what you bought.

[Ribbon]

Well, based on this review that AOC turns out to be a very capable monitor for such a price: https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/aoc-ag352ucg/

 

Plus speaking with friends who switched to IPS pannels, those are not issue free either, poor quality control caused bad experiences with even straight from factory monitors, like finding dust in the pannel or some pixels or subpixels clearly broken. Plus, there is that IPS Glow.

 

At this point I feel like that whatever I choose it may have issues as VA and IPS monitors, despite being expensive, are still a very problematic technologies.

Those TN and IPS panels struggle on it's limitations regarding high refresh rate.

When i was buying mine i compared asus mg278q and pg278q (TN vs. IPS) and colors were pretty similar while biggest difference was view angle so i decided for TN since it was cheaper and better response time.

It died after 2 months but i'll get new one.

Now until new one arrive i play on 1080p 60hz and it is huge downgrade, those 144hz were making big difference not to mention resolution.

One thing i didn't care about was adjustable tray in all directions, now i wouldn't buy monitor without that. It is very important to be able to set monitor higher, very important when using trackir!

Good luck!

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I don't know how 4 k would perform but I have 80-200 fps on ultra at 3440x1440 which is enough to enjoy game without stutters when fps are dropping bellow refresh rate or tearing when fps are exceeding refresh rate - magic of gsync with vsync off on windowed mode.

[unreasonable]

I doubt that even a 1080ti can do 4k reliably at 30+ fps.  

 

 

My 4K TV and GTX 1080 (edit not 180 !) combination is giving me a reliable 60 fps on ULTRA settings, even near the ground.  (Edit - and was not a waste of money )

Edited July 11, 2017 by unreasonable

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I dont know how exactly that translates but I'm running on day to day flights Il-2 on 1080Ti with 4k DSR and I can get over 100 FPS if I turn off V-sync. Heck, even DCS Normandy with AA and AF lowered works on 60 FPS with 1080Ti.

 

Question is if its simply worth it to buy 4k monitor or difference would be noticeable. At this point I'm more inclined to get that AOC UW 1440p 100hz. It has large panel, G-sync and all other features to like.

[unreasonable]

Really your best bet would be to find someone who has one and have a look at it when it is running something, or maybe get a shop to let you take a look at what something looks like on screen running from a lap-top.  Did that here in a department store with the help of my tech-wallah, all the sales lads clustered round asking "what game is that?"

 

My own view is that, as you say, performance wise there is not much of an issue. If you can get a stable 60 fps additional fps make little difference. So the question then is just how it looks, and you can really only say if the additional detail that you get with 4K is worth the extra cost by taking a gander.

[ZachariasX]

If you can get a stable 60 fps additional fps make little difference.

If you plot FPS, youwill see that they often vary a lot, like in the 30% range, all the time, this however depending on the game. See here, for example:

 

 

 

 

 

Even on this anciant game, where you can have 300 FPS, there are spikes downward to like 120 FPS.This is still a lot too, but what matters here is that in modern games, where you had, say, 75 FPS, these spikes can go down to 25 FPS causing a sync stutterfest. G-sync helps a lot there as long as you stay above 30 FPS (wit the the 1080 that should be so).

 

Less demanding ones such as BoX (wich is thankfully very conservative in ressources used) will give you that. Try DCS in ultra and you see what was 150 FPS up there tak to 45 PFS aveage "down there". FSX and its dervatives with heavy add ons will keep you at around 60 FPS if you're conservative on the settings. This means, you fall ino the 60-30-15 FPS sync trap all the time causing microstutters when you least want them, namely neat the ground in the pattern.

 

It really depends what you are doing. And most important, you should be happy eventually with your system. I just show some pitfalls here that might be of anoyance. If you're happy, super!

[unreasonable]

The point about my 4k TV is that it is limited to 60. Anything above that is irrelevant - frankly it would also be quite hard to detect. Seeing the difference between 30 and 60 is very easy, but there is a diminishing return, and I find a stable 60 completely smooth and immersive. For all I know the PC is capable of rendering BoX at much higher fps than 60 much of the time, but I would rather have 60 all the time than a detectable variation.

 

As for stutter - so far I have not noticed any playing BoX with my new rig - I suspect RoF might be a worse actually due to the exhaust effects which are a huge fps hog. There may be some combination of particle effects that will give me a stutter at some point, (I have seen that with another magic heavy game ) but so far no issues except once or twice a little tearing when making using the free camera to films using a track file. 

 

Plus I have 78 inches.....

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

So after few weeks of fishing I've found nothing. This monitor I was going to purchase is not available and wont be available for quite a while (contacted local shops as well as main distributor around), so I've asked around of other choices. It basically comes down now to a 27" 1440p or 27" 4k or 32" 4k panel, mostly acer, asus and aoc constructions. Only with G-sync. Now choice of monitor is a very personal one since we all have different eyes and we differently responsd to various subtle differences, so keeping in mind above discussion I'm left with this monitors to consider ? Also, would it be worth going from 27" to 32" ? 

 

Things I was looking at:

Acer Predator XB271HU

AOC AGON AG271QG

Acer Predator XB271HK

and big one

Acer Predator XB321HK

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I don't know how 4 k would perform but I have 80-200 fps on ultra at 3440x1440 which is enough to enjoy game without stutters when fps are dropping bellow refresh rate or tearing when fps are exceeding refresh rate - magic of gsync with vsync off on windowed mode.

Yesterday afternoon I got mu 35" UW delivered and put it against 4k 27" I had for two weeks now, after few hours of flying I was totally sold to that big UW screen and will be returning my 4k panel today. Could you be so kind Tomcat and post your ingame/nvidia control panel settings ? I dont seem to be getting that much FPS so I'd like to know what to adjust.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Np ,when I got back from work (late).

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

No worries, I'm stuck at work as well.

[Bombzey]

No worries, I'm stuck at work as well.

 

Work here as well ! but happy to let you have my settings as well,

 

You should be getting 90+fps all the time, just make sure your Gsync is on and Vsync in game is off. I do fly in fullscreen mode though unlike Tomcat.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I turned Gsync on and Vsync changed to Fast sync. Also set ingame fps limit to 144 fps. Currently I'm fluctuating between 60 and 94 FPS even though I have overclocked 1080Ti, thing I've noticed is GPU usage staying below 40 %. My cpu is not all that great, its 4670 i5 which I plan to change (it will be next step of pc upgrade) but even at this point my cpu is not loaded for more than 45-55 % on each of four cores. Seems far from being a bottleneck.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Have a read through some of the VR benchmark threads. CPU is definitely a bottleneck due to most of the processing requirements being in one thread. Your low CPU utilisation is due to that thread being switched across your cores.

Edited August 31, 2017 by =TBAS=Tripwire

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Well I think you can gain some fps by reducing computation precision/amount of some cpu intense effects. But from my personal experience I gain lots of fps by changing my old i5 @4,5 GHz to the new i7 at the same clock speed.

Edited August 31, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Bombzey]

Even with Gsync on, since the new patch I have noticed some very minor tearing across the dials in the cockpit, has anyone else had this issue and resolved it?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Even with Gsync on, since the new patch I have noticed some very minor tearing across the dials in the cockpit, has anyone else had this issue and resolved it?

That's why I'm using windowed mode with gsync ebabled.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well I think you can gain some fps by reducing computation precision/amount of some cpu intense effects. But from my personal experience I gain lots of fps by changing my old i5 @4,5 GHz to the new i7 at the same clock speed.

Well, I plan to switch cpu but it wont happen in next few weeks so right now I got to work on what I have.

[guskline]

Just got an Acer ET430k. 43" 4k monitor at a GREAT price. Almost overwhelms you!  

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

I upgraded to 34" 4k, then 4 weeks later upgraded to oculus rift. I recommend the rift.