Support NeoGAF

[winjer]

2:21 $150 - Asrock PG27QFT2A
4:05 $200 - Asus ROG Strix XG27ACS
5:23 $250 - AOC Q27G40XMN
7:17 $350 - Gigabyte M27UP
8:20 $400 - KTC M27P6
9:35 $500 - MSI MAG 271QP X24
10:33 $600 - Gigabyte MO27Q28G
11:46 $700 - Dell Alienware AW2725Q
12:50 $800 - MSI MAG 321UPX
14:14 $1000 - MSI MPG 341CQR X36
15:27 $1100 - Asus ROG Strix XG32UCWMG
16:40 $1500 - LG 45GX950A

 

[StereoVsn]

I bought Asus ROG XG32UCWMG last year but managed to snag it for under $1K when all was said and done.

The monitor is very good as it's a glossy WOLED and brightness is highest of all OLED monitors I have seen. Plus it's 240hz and 480hz dual mode (will never use 480hz option, lol).

Still not sure if that was a good idea and I had to exchange my first monitor (had issues with input switching). $1000 is just a lot for a monitor when you can get 80-90% there for like $600-700.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Oooof, gimme dat top end LG. Lots of nice monitors about.

 

[rodrigolfp]

"16:9"

Thank me latter.

 

[StereoVsn]

"16:9"

Thank me latter.

If you go 21x9 or 32x9 for a larger monitor (say same physical display height as a 32" one), you get either too pixelated image for the size with 1440p vertical res or too many pixels to drive on a 2160p one.

If you really want to, can always do custom resolution on a 4K monitor.

 

[Radical_3d]

"16:9"

Thank me latter.

Yeah. This is my issue with this list. In the end I had to compromise to have screen real state for work at my budget and balance that with a decent enough IQ.

If I gamed more in PC and had to buy one I'd search for a tandem OLED 21:9 34" 1440p monitor, I think.

 

[rodrigolfp]

you get either too pixelated image for the size with 1440p vertical res or too many pixels to drive on a 2160p one.

Pixelated image with 3440x1440p???

Sort of agree with the 2160p with custom resolution, but then should be a big enough monitor that can be like a 34+ in custom ultrawide.

 

[StereoVsn]

Pixelated image with 3440x1440p???

If monitor size is large enough, yes. Note I said same height as a 32" monitor. If you are running 34" sized monitor (same height as a 27"), that's fine.

So a 40-49" monitor with 3440x1440 resolution will give you a bit pixelated image. It's the same as using a 32" 16x9 1440p monitor. It is certainly usable but not ideal.

 

[Xyphie]

I've had the 45GX950A for a few months and I'm pretty happy with it, was my first curved monitor but you really get used to it after like 2 days.

A really great thing about it is that because it has so many pixels and is OLED you can basically just use black desktop background and hidden taskbar and run games in e.g. 3440x1440 or 2560x1440 Windowed and basically treat it as a virtual 34" UW or 27" since the PPI is fairly similar, and the game window basically "floats" in a sea of black. So you never have to really worry about not having the GPU to drive it because worst case you just can just use it as a smaller screen, or if you play competitive games and want a smaller screen.

 

[Autistic_Pancake]

If you go 21x9 or 32x9 for a larger monitor (say same physical display height as a 32" one), you get either too pixelated image for the size with 1440p vertical res or too many pixels to drive on a 2160p one.

If you really want to, can always do custom resolution on a 4K monitor.

I went from 34" 3440x1440 to 40" and didn't regret it, no "pixelated image" observed (though, if you sit so close that your nose sticks into the display - then I guess that would be an issue).

Sometimes there's this feeling of missing out on vertical space. Could be a PTSD thing after I spent about a year with 32:9 5120x1440 - that was quite a sausage, I still feel ashamed buying it.

It's weird there's no in-between variant, like 40" 3440x1680.

 

[StereoVsn]

I went from 34" 3440x1440 to 40" and didn't regret it, no "pixelated image" observed (though, if you sit so close that your nose sticks into the display - then I guess that would be an issue).

Sometimes there's this feeling of missing out on vertical space. Could be a PTSD thing after I spent about a year with 32:9 5120x1440 - that was quite a sausage, I still feel ashamed buying it.

It's weird there's no in-between variant, like 40" 3440x1680.

There used to be 38" monitors from LG and Dell at the in between resolution but they didn't take. They were a tad too expensive for the offering.