When you ask yourself "Do I need a 4K monitor"

Yes you do - 27" 4K

Playing Forza in a window… Whilst watching the Masters Golf on Sky… Whilst watching @Scottyboy stream COD ColdWar… And still room for a browser window.

All on a GTX970 too… Which I’m sure breaks the universe.


Meanwhile i’m getting neckstrain doing it with a 43" TV :sweat_smile:

Whelp, it was a good run, Jester is trying to divide by zero to get this done.

1 Like

Cost and vendor, kplxthx :smiley:

1 Like

BenQ PD2700U - Currently £449.

To be clear, it’s not got the stats of a gaming monitor… It’s 90hz and 5ms response (so not terrible, but you can get 200hz 1ms monitors… but generally not in 4K). – But it’s IPS - so bright as fook and factory-calibrated 100 percent sRGB and Rec.709 colour space. Because when I make something that goes to print or video etc, I have to know that what I am seeing on the screen is close as it can be to printed media*

Highly recommended though. I went from multiple screens - including a decent 32" 1440P… and when I first went single monitor 27" 4K I wondered if it was a bad move. Now I am used to it, it was the best move. So sharp. Tremendously sharp. Biggly.

*I am aware there are huge caveats to this, depending on stock etc etc… But for the level of work I do, it is good enough.


Gonna throw this in here instead of a new thread, as it’s all kind related anyway.

Nice options there for widescreen monitors and games that utilise them well.

That AOC screen looks gorgeous… but 1,800 price-tag… dayum!


Right, I’m struggling here.

Noesying on tinterweb, 4k is 3840 x 2160. But! Many 4K screensadvertised are showing as 1440…

I’m after a 4k 32" - don’t care if slightly bigger (curved?) as I use it as a tv in my front room too.

Obviously, refresh rate and response time goodness would be nice. Don’t need sound.

Another thing - do I need g-sync too?

I’m properly struggling for reviews and recommendations to find a 32" 4k. I don’t want to go smaller as then it’s too small to use as a TV and I’ve no real estate to put a different TV in…

Although - interesting article regarding 4k or no for gaming etc - https://www.techspot.com/bestof/gaming-monitors/#218415

32" 4K models are all crap sub £800. The extra 5 inches over 27’s seem to equal hyper inflation of prices for no noticeable reason.

I’ve just gone through this dilemma myself for a pretty much identical usecase, and ended up going for a dell 31.5" Curved 2560x1440. That got me a 165hz G-Sync compatible, Freesync 2 Pro VA panel with a smart HDR thing for watching TV on.

This is the model I got - https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/gaming/pc-gaming/gaming-monitors/dell-s3220dgf-quad-hd-32-curved-gaming-monitor-grey-10200387-pdt.html

My decision was based on this Rtings review - https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/s3220dgf

I’m of the opinion, that in all cases apart from being 3ft away from the screen you cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 4k unless you’re viewing it on something larger than 65".

4K for gaming is pointless unless you’re running a bleeding edge top of the range PC.


Thanks Kiwi - helpful!

For gaming I’m about 20 inches away. For TV, not so much!!! I use Sjy HD mostly, but am looking at nowTV HD thingy so can use opn bedroom tv as well.

TBH, mostly for gaming. Gfx card will push 4k with the right cable.

Frankly, do I need it for gaming?

I don’t think your going to find something that is the ultimate gaming monitor, and ultimate TV - on the basis that a TN panel is better for gaming because of the response rate, but IPS would be better as a TV because of viewing angles and brightness.

I mean, spec wise - this is pretty epic:


But with a curved screen - I question suitability if its being used as a TV with more than one person viewing it.

1 Like

Thanks Jes - I agree.

Curved = close.

Ultimate I don’t think exists - different requirements. Compromise towards gaming reflects my actual requirements.

I’m watching TV on mine from 30 degrees off centre, 3m away. No discernible difference between 1800R and a flat panel. 1000R is probably a bit too curved for combined use case however.

1 Like

Looking like DisplayPort 2.0 will allow crazy resolutions!

DisplayPort 2.0 will enable higher resolutions, with faster refresh rates balanced against greater colour depths. Examples of what will be possible with and without data compression are:

Single-display resolutions:

  • One 16K (15360 x 8460) display @ 60Hz and 30 bpp 4:4:4 HDR (with DSC)
  • One 10K (10240 x 4320) display @ 60Hz and 24 bpp 4:4:4 (no compression)

Dual-display resolutions:

  • Two 8K (7680 x 4320) displays @ 120Hz and 30 bpp 4:4:4 HDR (with DSC)
  • Two 4K (3840 x 2160) displays @ 144Hz and 24 bpp 4:4:4 (no compression)

Triple-display resolutions:

  • Three 10K (10240 x 4320) displays @ 60Hz and 30 bpp 4:4:4 HDR (with DSC)
  • Three 4K (3840 x 2160) displays @ 90Hz and 30 bpp 4:4:4 HDR (no compression)

As we await DisplayPort 2.0 monitors it is useful to know that the standard will be supported via USB Type-C using DisplayPort Alt Mode 2.0. Meanwhile, major rival display connection standard HDMI is now starting its advance to version 2.1 with similar gains in resolution, refresh rates and colour depths made possible.


HDMI 2.1 is distinctly shit compared to that, at a maximum of 48Gbps bandwidth, whereas DP2.0 is 80Gbps.

DP2.0 over USB C Alt mode I just cannot believe, as USB C, even in USB4 is still capped at 40Gbps.