4K Monitor Upgrade- Help with the specs

[CpnBill 2]

Hey guys...

Another question I have for the experts...

I have been doing some reading in the forums, and many of the answers I've seen date back to 2017/18, so hoping for some fresh info on this one.  I currently have 3 24" monitors, 1080 resolution.  I upgraded to a 1080Ti card, and would like to get a bigger monitor for Prepar3d and run 4k.  I also work from home a lot, and really enjoy having three externals, so I plan to keep two of the 24s to the side of the main 4k monitor to use when not running Prepar3d.  After doing some looking, it seems that many are going with 43+ 4k TVs.....I was tempted to go that route, but I just don't have the space for that big of a screen, especially at less than 36" from eyesight.

So from what I can come up with, a 27-32" 4k monitor would be the best fit for me.  What has me confused is many posts in here mention 30hz @4k.  Originally I thought 4k @60 hz was the way to go, so why am I wanting to look for something with even less than 60hz.  After reading, it appears that you want 30hz to match up with 30fps in Prepar3d.  With all of that said, I'm not looking for a $500+ gaming monitor with 1ms refresh and such, I'm wanting to spend $300-400 for a decent 4k monitor that will perform better than my 24" for Prepar3d, and also be able to hook it up to my Ps4, and use it to watch YouTube TV.  I don't want to mess with a 43+ TV on my desk, as I am used to the 3 externals.

I've been reading the rtings site which is awesome, and just wondering if something like a U32J590 from Samsung would fit the bill for me.  Currently getting about 60 FPS without Orbx and other Scenery installed, and I'm perfectly happy with the 30 or so if I lock in 4k.  Again, I want the 4k for more than just Prepar3d, I have a drone that uses 4k, go pro etc, so just looking for a well rounded 4k monitor, and confused about the locking of 30hz for 4k.

 

Thanks for any thoughts!

[mpw8679 428]

1 hour ago, CpnBill said:

Hey guys...

Another question I have for the experts...

I have been doing some reading in the forums, and many of the answers I've seen date back to 2017/18, so hoping for some fresh info on this one.  I currently have 3 24" monitors, 1080 resolution.  I upgraded to a 1080Ti card, and would like to get a bigger monitor for Prepar3d and run 4k.  I also work from home a lot, and really enjoy having three externals, so I plan to keep two of the 24s to the side of the main 4k monitor to use when not running Prepar3d.  After doing some looking, it seems that many are going with 43+ 4k TVs.....I was tempted to go that route, but I just don't have the space for that big of a screen, especially at less than 36" from eyesight.

So from what I can come up with, a 27-32" 4k monitor would be the best fit for me.  What has me confused is many posts in here mention 30hz @4k.  Originally I thought 4k @60 hz was the way to go, so why am I wanting to look for something with even less than 60hz.  After reading, it appears that you want 30hz to match up with 30fps in Prepar3d.  With all of that said, I'm not looking for a $500+ gaming monitor with 1ms refresh and such, I'm wanting to spend $300-400 for a decent 4k monitor that will perform better than my 24" for Prepar3d, and also be able to hook it up to my Ps4, and use it to watch YouTube TV.  I don't want to mess with a 43+ TV on my desk, as I am used to the 3 externals.

I've been reading the rtings site which is awesome, and just wondering if something like a U32J590 from Samsung would fit the bill for me.  Currently getting about 60 FPS without Orbx and other Scenery installed, and I'm perfectly happy with the 30 or so if I lock in 4k.  Again, I want the 4k for more than just Prepar3d, I have a drone that uses 4k, go pro etc, so just looking for a well rounded 4k monitor, and confused about the locking of 30hz for 4k.

 

Thanks for any thoughts!

Yes you want a monitor capable of 30hz to match 30 FPS when using P3D.  This will give you the smoothest experience.  Most 4k monitors are 60hz.  You just want to make sure they are 30hz stable.   I have not came across a 4K display yet that is not 30hz capable.  I know you have limited space but Samsung has a great 40 inch 4K tv if you could squeeze it in.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

@CpnBill, Not all UHD/4K monitors can run at 30Hz. The best way to find out is to visit the manufacturers website and view the technical data for the monitor you're interested in. That is usually available as a PDF.

My BenQ PD3200U can support 3840*2160 @ 30Hz but I prefer to run at 60Hz. The downside of 30Hz is the mouse reacts quite sluggishly - only 30 times a second compared to 60 and that does make a difference. I don't have any problems running at 60Hz. There is the occasional stutter but that doesn't bother me.

You may struggle to find a 32" at your budget. These are the top of the line monitors so aren't cheap. This LG may suite you if you can stretch your budget. The equivalent US site may have it at a cheaper price. https://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-32UD59

[CpnBill 2]

Thanks to both of you!  This is helpful.

 

Any thought on IPS/TN/VA?

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

11 minutes ago, CpnBill said:

Thanks to both of you!  This is helpful

Any thought on IPS/TN/VA?

This article can explain it better than me. Mine is an IPS panel. VA are the cheapest to produce but have drawbacks. So do the others but less so.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1890-panel-comparison-tn-ips-pls-va-crt

[Jetset408 108]

Don't do it! 4k at 28"-32" is a Total waste of your PCs resources. At that size screen, get a 2K and enjoy the superior performance without any discernable different in quality. Also 4k at small screen sizes makes windows and certain programmes too small to read on the screen. Not all programmes scale up and those that do often look ugly.

This comes from experience. I had a Samsung 4K/UHD 28". Hated it despite amazing picture quality. Performance was quite poor even with my 1080Ti. So, i binned it for a 32" 1080p Samsung TV. Much preferred that even though was very jaggy.  And i have recently replaced that with a 32" Samsung 2K curved gaming monitor.

BINGO!

My lesson learnt.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

47 minutes ago, Jetset408 said:

Don't do it! 4k at 28"-32" is a Total waste of your PCs resources. At that size screen, get a 2K and enjoy the superior performance without any discernable different in quality. Also 4k at small screen sizes makes windows and certain programmes too small to read on the screen. Not all programmes scale up and those that do often look ugly.

This comes from experience. I had a Samsung 4K/UHD 28". Hated it despite amazing picture quality. Performance was quite poor even with my 1080Ti. So, i binned it for a 32" 1080p Samsung TV. Much preferred that even though was very jaggy.  And i have recently replaced that with a 32" Samsung 2K curved gaming monitor.

BINGO!

My lesson learnt.

I disagree totally. If you had poor performance then that’s down to your CPU. The 1080Ti is capable of running P3D at 4K at 60fps and would be higher if I hadn’t enabled VSync.

Windows 10 upscale very well and yes, a few programs don’t scale well but are still useable. No problems with P3D.

You’re one of very few who have reverted from 4K to FullHD with a 1080Ti. Bit of a waste of that card really.

You appear to swap your displays quite frequently. The result of not doing your homework perhaps.

[CpnBill 2]

Appreciate both of your commments above.  Not wanting to start a fight!  This is good info on each side so I can do some more research.

[Bob Scott 7,714]

Given that you've already got the 1080Ti, I would never consider resorting to a downgrade back to an HD (1920x1080) display...that would not leverage the capability of that powerful new video card.

A 32" 4K display with a 1080Ti would allow you to run with very little AA, e.g. basic 4xMSAA without need for the more GPU-intensive SSAA, which makes up quite a bit for any performance loss due to the larger pixel matrix.  Plus, the 1080Ti is absolutely up to the job of pushing a 4K display, and wouldn't be challenged except with aggressive AA and very heavy graphics loads, like 4096 cloud textures, night with dynamic lights+SSAA etc.  A larger display will still need SSAA...I've explained this a number of times here in the forums, and with a little searching you will find those old discussions.  Look for the term "visual acuity threshold".

If you have room for 3x 23" monitors side-by-side, you more than likely have room for a single large (e.g. 55") TV.  Mine is on the desk at a fairly close 39" viewing distance, and it is very easy to read, and because it is so close, it has a stunningly wide angle of view.  You could put anything that was on those three independent displays on the one big one in separate windows if you needed to.  Not having bezels to contend with, or multi-display driver issues etc makes things so much easier!  Sounds like you may limiting your options to keep those old monitors around, as if they're members of the family or a pair of old comfortable shoes.  😉  Your call, of course, but it may be a self-limiting choice.

Last, the 30Hz display is desirable because it allows hardware Vsync to limit the CPU's frame rate in a way that feeds the display very efficiently without making the CPU do extra unnecessary work building frames that are eventually thrown away.  Use of hardware VSync will throttle the CPU back to preserve some processing headroom for the times when workload needs to surge a bit...loading airport scenery, AI, autogen, etc.  I typically see 60-80% load on core 0 where the main thread runs, which means it can swallow a fairly big gulp of additional work without slowing down to the point where it misses a frame.  It keeps things exceptionally smooth that way.

Regards

[CpnBill 2]

Thanks for your thoughts...

Maybe I am "keeping them around per say", I just am not sure I would like a single monitor setup when I'm working from home etc.  Perhaps I'm just a creature of habit, but I really like having three separate screens .  Perhaps in time I'd get used to having it all on one big display, but I'm not sure, and not sure I really want to take the risk of spending $450 on a 43" only to find out it's just too much and I'd rather have the separate screens.  Then again you're probably thinking what's the difference between 43" and 3 23" screens with the bezels in there separating.  Ugh....I don't know!

[Bob Scott 7,714]

Everyone's needs, wants, and desires are different.

Might be worth a grand experiment, with Best Buy's return policy as a backup plan.  Sometimes you just have to see it to believe it.  And I really can't understate how much of a difference the large-format display makes (I was using two 30" 16x10 IPS displays before).

Good luck!

 

[Jetset408 108]

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I disagree totally. If you had poor performance then that’s down to your CPU. The 1080Ti is capable of running P3D at 4K at 60fps and would be higher if I hadn’t enabled VSync.

Windows 10 upscale very well and yes, a few programs don’t scale well but are still useable. No problems with P3D.

You’re one of very few who have reverted from 4K to FullHD with a 1080Ti. Bit of a waste of that card really.

You appear to swap your displays quite frequently. The result of not doing your homework perhaps.

Nothing to do my CPU - its an 8700K. Settings are modest. But I like Dynamic Lighting and FSL A320 so the GPU was quite understandably maxing out at 4K. Now using 2K, im left with plenty of headroom which allows me to fly into places like FlyTampa KBOS using the FSL A320 with DL and heavy ActiveSky weather. That is WELL worth the downgrade from 4K to 2K when viewing with a 32" screen, in my opinion of course - others' experiences may vary.

Also I haven't gone to FullHD. I have gone to 2K as my post says.

And swapping screens regularly and not doing homework? Yes indeed, hence why I wrote "lesson learnt" in my post. When I went to 4K, my homework was viewing these such forums and reading how wonderful 4K is etc... etc... I'm trying to give an alternative opinion here, and that is that 4K is only worth the performance hit if going to screen sizes greater than 32". I took the time to share my experience here with others.

I respect your opinion, mine happens to vary. Thanks so much for passive aggressively trashing mine.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Jetset408

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

29 minutes ago, Jetset408 said:

Nothing to do my CPU - its an 8700K. Settings are modest. But I like Dynamic Lighting and FSL A320 so the GPU was quite understandably maxing out at 4K. Now using 2K, im left with plenty of headroom which allows me to fly into places like FlyTampa KBOS using the FSL A320 with DL and heavy ActiveSky weather. That is WELL worth the downgrade from 4K to 2K when viewing with a 32" screen, in my opinion of course - others' experiences may vary.

Also I haven't gone to FullHD. I have gone to 2K as my post says.

And swapping screens regularly and not doing homework? Yes indeed, hence why I wrote "lesson learnt" in my post. When I went to 4K, my homework was viewing these such forums and reading how wonderful 4K is etc... etc... I'm trying to give an alternative opinion here, and that is that 4K is only worth the performance hit if going to screen sizes greater than 32". I took the time to share my experience here with others.

I respect your opinion, mine happens to vary. Thanks so much for passive aggressively trashing mine.

Sounds like you’re flying at night if dynamic lighting is killing performance. What was performance like in daytime? The fps hit with DL will surely be fixed in future versions.

2K is 2048*1080. That is not a standard resolution used in monitors or TVs. And it’s virtually the same as FullHD. Just 128 more pixels. What is the model number of your display?

32” and UHD to give it its proper description is a good match. Why are there so many UHD monitors available at that size if it wasn’t?

I challenged your statement because I felt it was not typical of UHD performance with a 1080Ti, one of the most powerful graphics cards available.

I wasn’t trashing your post. I just felt your results were not typical of a 1080Ti running at 3840*2160. With modest settings your hardware should run UHD with ease. Something doesn’t sound right.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Ray Proudfoot

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

@Jetset408, do you have a 2560*1440 monitor? If so, describing it as 2K is a little unusual as it actually has 3686400 pixels. It’s normally referred to as QHD and has a vertical resolution 35% greater than FullHD. A half-way house between FullHD and UHD.

[mpw8679 428]

3 hours ago, CpnBill said:

Thanks for your thoughts...

Maybe I am "keeping them around per say", I just am not sure I would like a single monitor setup when I'm working from home etc.  Perhaps I'm just a creature of habit, but I really like having three separate screens .  Perhaps in time I'd get used to having it all on one big display, but I'm not sure, and not sure I really want to take the risk of spending $450 on a 43" only to find out it's just too much and I'd rather have the separate screens.  Then again you're probably thinking what's the difference between 43" and 3 23" screens with the bezels in there separating.  Ugh....I don't know!

I’ve bought and returned about 7 monitors and tv’s over the past two years.  WalMart, Amazon, and BestBuy.  I am very picky.  If I am not 100% satisfied with something it gets returned.  I suggest you try a 40 inch 4K Samsung TV.  If it is to big you simply return it.