4k or Ultrawide Freesync/Gsync?

[harmattan]

I'm currently looking at swapping out my Acer Predator XB281HK (4k Gsync) for a monitor that will do both Freesync and Gsync. I've narrowed my choices to the following models:

• LG 27UK850 - 4k IPS HDR 60hz (although may be possible to OC to 75hz)
• BenQ EX3501R - Ultrawide WQHD HDR 100hz

Both have been confirmed to work with Gsync without issue.

My main dithering points are, with the 27UK850 you have a higher-resolution IPS screen, but with the EX3501R you're getting an ultrawide display with higher refresh rate. The difference in price between models is close to negligible for me.

I'm not a huge twitch FPS player (and never play competitively). I generally play adventure and RTS games like AC: Odyssey, Stellaris, Kingdom Come, Far Cry 3/4/5, Skyrim, Xcom 2, Total War games. Apart from that, it's general internet browsing, some spreadsheets, inVision, CS wireframing, and RDP-ing into my office machine.

What would you get?

 

[Auer]

I have a 32" LG 4k monitor and love the real estate. 27" is too small for me in 4k.

I would not want to go back to a lesser resolution.
Productivity work is great and many of the games I play do fine in 4k with a RX 580 8gb.

And the ones that don't do well scale nicely from 4k down to 1080p.

 

[harmattan]

I'm really looking only for a 27/28" 16:9 or 35" 21:9 display. My home office space is rather limited, my desk not very deep i.e. I sit close to the screen, and feel 32" is overkill for my setup. In fact, I had a 32" display 8-9 years back and swapped it out

 

[Auer]

I'm really looking only for a 27/28" 16:9 or 35" 21:9 display. My home office space is rather limited, my desk not very deep i.e. I sit close to the screen, and feel 32" is overkill for my setup.

Understood.

I'm an old fuck and lost some vision so it's just my preference.

Most LG monitors I've seen lately look to be good quality.

 

[cybereality]

I'd go ultra-wide. The aspect ratio is more immersive, and the lower resolution will have higher performance to reach the better refresh rate.

 

[euskalzabe]

I've used 40" 4k and I can tell you that while crisp, the extra definition won't help you much when your frames aren't a perfectly smooth 60fps. I switched to a freesync ultrawide and my overall experience has improved a lot, despite the lower resolution.

 

[bigbluefe]

If you go ultrawide you might as well wait for the higher resolution ones coming out soon.

 

[gan7114]

Based on your other uses outside of gaming, I'd go wide / ultrawide. Wide aspect is nice for spreadsheets and browsers windows.

Also, be wary of monitors which claim "HDR" but really aren't. I looked at both those models and I'm not sure if you'd get the HDR experience you're looking for -- or which is advertised. Dead giveaways for *not* being real HDR are stats like: sRGB 99%, 16m colors, and 8 bit (or less).

For any good entry you're probably talking at least $1000. Have you checked out the LG 34GK950F? Sells for around $1100. Might be higher than what you're looking for, but it's a 34" 21:9, Free Sync (primarily), DCI 98% / 1.07b colors, and has DP 1.4 / HMDI 2.0.

 

[Aluminum]

Whats your budget?

Acer xv273k available soon for ~$900: 4k, wide gamut, 144hz (120hz at typical settings for PC gaming: 8bit 4:4:4), freesync and FWIW it is one of the few models that nvidia validated as gsync "compatible".

FYI: "HDR" for anything but high end TVs and a very small set of media is basically all total bullshit right now. PC "HDR" is a giant mess and will remain so for years.

 

[sethk]

Another option - I use my 49" x900f at 2880x1560 @120hz for most games but run some stuff at 4k60. Desktop use is at 4k60. No freesync but I'm OK with that - just tweak my games and resolutions.