Recommended monitor

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

CMDRs

I have an RTX3080 and am interested in what would be your opinions for a monitor.

I currently have a 32" 4k Iiyama that has refresh rate of 60mhz. I'd ideally prefer another 32" screen.

Would love to hear from you.

Ta much.

 

[Dougie]

ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG32UCDM gaming monitor ― 32-inch 4K QD-OLED panel, 240Hz

Under a grand now - really great and well worth the bit extra I paid for it last November. MSFS looks amazing in it (what I bought it for) and of course Elite is great in it too.

 

[STRONTIUM DOG]

i recommend a 32" 4k Iiyama until it breaks

 

[Markov Chaney]

i recommend a 32" 4k Iiyama until it breaks

Yeah I must say I am quite interested in what might be happening to Tyres old monitor ...

 

[Pville_Piper]

OLED is awesome.

 

[DjVortex]

I have an Acer XB273K GP: 4k, IPS, 120 Hz (overclockable to 144 Hz), supports g-sync, 2x DisplayPort, 2x HDMI 2.0, supports VESA mount, built-in USB hub (handy for keyboard, headphones...)

Pixel response time (4 ms) might not be the best possible for pro gamers (and it's 27 inches, which is less than you want), but otherwise I'm really happy with it.

However, the display is old enough that it's likely not being sold new anymore. But if you can get it cheap somewhere, or something with very similar specs (perhaps in a 32-inch version)...

(I also highly recommend getting a g-sync display, even if it costs more. Once you have gone g-sync, you will never want to go back. It's genuinely wonderful.)

 

[the100thmonkey]

CMDRs

I have an RTX3080 and am interested in what would be your opinions for a monitor.

I currently have a 32" 4k Iiyama that has refresh rate of 60mhz. I'd ideally prefer another 32" screen.

Would love to hear from you.

Ta much.

Two questions:

1. What do you want from the monitor? High refresh? HDR? Ultrawide?
2. How much are you willing to spend?

 

[Aerodeon]

I'm always reluctant to recommend an OLED monitor, because I know what burn-in looks like on them. It doesn't take long either. With the ASUS, people are reporting burn in after 100 hours. That's terrible. Granted, it's probably not so bad if you constantly play Elite Dangerous. The screen is constantly moving and burn-in happens most quickly with static images.

Personally, I'd go for either a Dell G3223Q 32 Inch 4K UHD, or an LG UltraGear 32GR93U 32 Inch 4K HDR 10 gaming monitor.

Neither of them use OLED. I'd wait a little while for something better to emerge for gaming.

 

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

Two questions:

1. What do you want from the monitor? High refresh? HDR? Ultrawide?
2. How much are you willing to spend?

A higher refresh rate. I'm not keen on HDR - it makes stuff look a bit washed out. I prefer the 16:9 aspect ratio on a screen and I can't really go above £500 (if I can even scrape that much together )

 

[Morbad]

OLED has come a long way. QD-OLED is up to the fourth generation of panels and will last quite a while. Burn-in will be an issue, eventually, but newer panels handle even static content well.

I'm not keen on HDR - it makes stuff look a bit washed out.

It does the opposite when correctly implemented. When not using HDR a display certified for HDR generally just allows for higher peak brightness.

Anyway, at 500GBP you aren't looking for an OLED, nor an LCD that can get bright enough to do actual HDR anyway, at least if you're looking for something that's not downgrade in size and resolution.

At this price point you're probably looking at something like the Acer Predator XB3, unless you want major trade-offs somewhere. I wouldn't call this a great display, but relative to everything else in this budget ballpark, with these specs, it's has the least glaring flaws.

VA options have better contrast, but unless it's a Samsung or Samsung clone panel rated for 240Hz, it's not a real 'rapid' VA and will either smear or have serious overshoot artifacts. If you're willing to drop down to 1440p, there are 32" 240Hz VA panels that fit your budget which are all-round faster than ~160Hz IPS panels while having three times the contrast ratio, but you lose a lot of pixels.

 

[GroG79]

A higher refresh rate. I'm not keen on HDR - it makes stuff look a bit washed out. I prefer the 16:9 aspect ratio on a screen and I can't really go above £500 (if I can even scrape that much together )

It is clear you should not change monitor

 

[Ozric]

When I got a new monitor back in 2019 I went for a Benq 28" 4k monitor, I mainly chose that one because it has a reduced Blue Light function which is great for eye strain and headaches. It's a great monitor but personally I really regret going 4k. It makes a lot of normal navigation and interactions frustrating, and puts more strain on the GPU for almost no noticeable gain to me. I really wish I would have gone for a nice higher refresh rate 1440p.

 

[Aerodeon]

OLED has come a long way. QD-OLED is up to the fourth generation of panels and will last quite a while. Burn-in will be an issue, eventually, but newer panels handle even static content well.

That's quite reassuring.

I think a lot of people (including myself in my post above) confuse burn-in with retention. Retention is temporary and not a long-term problem. I have an LG OLED TV and I think it's fantastic, but I'm aware that if it's been on for four hours or more, it runs a little routine when it's turned off to avoid retention. It just resets all the pixels on the panel.

You're right that burn-in is more of a permanent problem that happens much later.

The Acer Predator XB3 is a really good recommendation.

 

[DjVortex]

personally I really regret going 4k.

I myself couldn't use anything less than that.

Having used a 1080p display for something like a decade, when I got my first 4k display, the difference was astonishing. Everything looked razor-sharp. The 1080p display looked like a blurry old-timey VGA CRT display in comparison.

At first I used Windows's default 150% scaling, but I soon changed it to 125%. Some time after, I just went 100%. At first having no scaling at all seemed like everything is ridiculously small (after all, a 4k display has literally four 1080p displays in it, so everything looks that much smaller), but you quite quickly get used to it, and it gives you so much desktop space that you definitely do not want to go back to anything else.

 

[Ozric]

I myself couldn't use anything less than that.

Having used a 1080p display for something like a decade, when I got my first 4k display, the difference was astonishing. Everything looked razor-sharp. The 1080p display looked like a blurry old-timey VGA CRT display in comparison.

At first I used Windows's default 150% scaling, but I soon changed it to 125%. Some time after, I just went 100%. At first having no scaling at all seemed like everything is ridiculously small (after all, a 4k display has literally four 1080p displays in it, so everything looks that much smaller), but you quite quickly get used to it, and it gives you so much desktop space that you definitely do not want to go back to anything else.

Well aside from all the issues I had with programs and games having no scaling options and not running correctly on 4k 6 years ago, there's still no way I'd work on 100%. I get headaches as it is without having to strain to focus on miniscule text

I ran through the benchmark on my slightly modded Cyberpunk 2077. Ultra high graphics across the board, minimal ray tracing, and to my eyes there was absolutely no appreciable difference between 1440p and 4k when the game is in motion. Other than 1440p gains me 15 fps.

For screenshots and images I can notice a slight difference.

 

[DjVortex]

I get headaches as it is without having to strain to focus on miniscule text

Have you gone to an optician by any chance? If you don't use glasses, perhaps you are actually in need of ones for this kind of use. Glasses are not only to see clearly, but they relieve eye strain and headaches that are caused by slightly bad vision (that requires your eyes to be constantly trying to focus.)

 

[Ozric]

Have you gone to an optician by any chance? If you don't use glasses, perhaps you are actually in need of ones for this kind of use. Glasses are not only to see clearly, but they relieve eye strain and headaches that are caused by slightly bad vision (that requires your eyes to be constantly trying to focus.)

Yep I wear glasses all the time for computer work. But I'd still be like this

 

[Markov Chaney]

Have you gone to an optician by any chance? If you don't use glasses, perhaps you are actually in need of ones for this kind of use. Glasses are not only to see clearly, but they relieve eye strain and headaches that are caused by slightly bad vision (that requires your eyes to be constantly trying to focus.)

Also worth noting most people have their display slightly farther away than a book or newspaper would be, so another reason a lot of people use 125% is because 10pt text @ 100% (ie true size) is slightly too small to be readable on that far-away display. It is readable in a book on your lap.

If you're happy with 11pt text on a 22" 1080p display then that's already a bit smaller in terms of apparent size than a newspaper designer would aim for.

Historically it was a nightmare to simply change the font size of everything and keep resolution and scaling native - which is what the properly "correct" answer would be - as of Windows 10 or so it all kinda works but there are still a lot of apps around which object to that so we tend to get stuck with the fudges and kluges, and of course the gap between 1080 and 4k is enormous so the problem just plain comes up a lot more than it used to.

Another issue with the discussion above that it isn't quite literally like having 4 x 1080p screens, because the pixel density is likely to be different between the 1080p display and the 4k display. To match the font size of 22" 1080p without using scaling (or simply redesigning your font sizes) you need a 44" 4k. So if you're trying to use even 12 pt text on 4k at 28" then yeah you're gonna need scaling and that's not a sign of tired vision, that's just normal human eyesight.

 

[AlSki]

Having used a 1080p display for something like a decade, when I got my first 4k display, the difference was astonishing

Let me second that.
I ran ED Horizons on 2 x 23" 1080p for a few years, which was great. I even got myself a Rift CV1 and could accept the downgrades... until Odyssey arrived. Finally when Covid hit in the middle of a house move, I need something a little better for work, so the ex-kitchen Samsung 42" 4K seemed like a reasonable way to get 4x 21" 1080p.

The detail change for ED was incredible, even on a non gaming panel.

Another issue with the discussion above that it isn't quite literally like having 4 x 1080p screens, because the pixel density is likely to be different between the 1080p display and the 4k display. To match the font size of 22" 1080p without using scaling (or simply redesigning your font sizes) you need a 44" 4k.

I'd say its actually slightly worse than that, because as your monitor size increases you need to push it further back. My desk is 72cm deep with the monitor against the wall and I regulalry finding myself pushing the chair back to get the whole thing into view, even though the plan was to treat it as multiple monitors and I still do split right and left as separate apps. I've ended up running at 125% and regularly split the left as 33% screen for email/chat/etc and 66% right for coding (which tends to run in editor at another 110% 10pt i.e. equivalent to 11pt at 125% screen.

This "pushing back" is what is putting me off getting a 49" Ultrawide.

Bizarrely none of that affects ED with it's giant nav panel fonts, so the biggest problem is not being able to see the HUD for the HOTAS on desk.

 

[DjVortex]

Another issue with the discussion above that it isn't quite literally like having 4 x 1080p screens, because the pixel density is likely to be different between the 1080p display and the 4k display.

What I was saying there is that a 4k literally has 4 times as many pixels as a 1080p, which means that it's effectively like a 2x2 grid of 1080p displays, which does indeed mean that if you use 100% scaling everything looks ridiculously small, particularly if you have been using a 1080p display for a decade. It's literally like you took four 1080p displays and shrunk them down, and put then in a 2x2 grid (without any seams, obviously.)

And what prompted me mentioning that is that, indeed, when I got my first 4k display, Windows used 150% scaling by default, but I did try the 100% scaling out of curiosity, and everything looked ridiculously small. It felt unusable.

However, I later found out that it's just a question of getting used to it, and in fact you get used to it really fast. I mean, you just need to use your display with 100% scaling on Windows for a day, and you'll likely have been used to it by that point, and you'll very unlikely will want to go back to any larger scalings.

Since then I have thought of going back to even 125% as unthinkable. The small text in everything is super-sharp and very readable, and it doesn't bother me in the least. But I have absolutely fallen in love by the enormous amount of desktop space that it gives me. You can't fully appreciate how much it is until you have used it for a while.

I have been using my old 1080p display as a secondary monitor (eg. to run EDDiscovery there while ED itself is on the main 4k display), and it feels super-cramped in comparison. I can't fit almost anything there. What takes literally like 20% of my 4k display almost fills up the entire 1080p display. I literally am able to run one app there without overlapping. How I ever lived so long with a 1080p display, I don't understand...

(It doesn't exactly help that the 1080p display is a really old and cheap TN panel, which not only makes the picture look blurry in comparison, but also really low-contrast and washed-out compared to my IPS 4k display. Yes, I have tried improving the contrast and saturation of the old display, but it doesn't help much. It's just horrible.)