Rolly, yes a 1440p is a good match. There is NOT a big fps drop from 1080p to 1440p. I upgraded a year and a half ago. The fps difference was slight. 

Your gpu is fine. And cpu. Go 1440p.

Tom's hardware is a good guide. It's where I decided. Especially since my local hardware store, had the one I wanted on sale (Best Buy chain stores in the USA). 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-monitors,4533.html

I have Dell S3222DGW bought on sale at Bestbuy. It's a slightly older version of the S3222DGM and was a previous Tom's best pick. 

Neither has HDR. Most so called HDR monitors don't give a bright enough  picture to use HDR to much benefit. On those monitors HDR is a selling point. But it cannot not doing anything useful with its HDR feature (the display is not  bright enough). 

But some folks here have a (high price) monitor that can make HDR a meaningful experience. Fine, but HDR meant nothing at all to me when deciding. 

 

Edited April 4, 20233 yr by Fielder

Back when I was scoping out monitors to make a purchase, the G5 was always considered a great choice by the gurus. It has to be a good choice.

Ask yourself: "What would Saint Steve do"?

 

 

 

The Youtube channel 'Hardware Unboxed'  is the best place for monitor reviews.  These guys know their stuff and do frequent (monthly?) roundups of the best monitors.  Spending a few hours checking out their advice is well worth your time.

If all you do is flight sim (gaming wise) then 144hz is pointless with your rig.

To be honest 1440p is probably optimal for the 31" /  32" monitor size anyway. To get serious benefit from 4K you should be looking at a much larger screen.

As far as HDR, even on a 400 nit screen you do generally get a wider Colour gamut which can be very noticeable.

Technically a wider Colour Gamut is not part of the HDR specifications but HDR and WCG tend to go together, typically HDR screens are REC2020 (10 or 12 bit Colour instead of just 8 bit).

Note that neither MSFS nor Windows really support HDR all that well so HDR in game is pot luck, some people report stunning improvements with HDR enabled and other people turn the HDR off.

Edited April 5, 20233 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

I have the 8700K/1080ti combination too and started with 1440p/60hz when using MSFS.
The GPU was stressing to much then, reaching high temps and utilization.
Then I locked my FPS to 30 and all is well now, experiencing a very smooth sim with settings on high and some on ultra like clouds, trees.
It looks like the 8700K and 1080ti are a perfect balanced couple.

3 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

To be honest 1440p is probably optimal for the 31" /  32" monitor size anyway. To get serious benefit from 4K you should be looking at a much larger screen.

32” is considered the optimum size for 4K. Hence why there are so many 4K monitors in that size. 32” is the largest size for a 4K monitor. You have to switch to TVs after than and the smallest is around 40” which is too large for many like myself.

2560*1440=3.69m pixels. 3840*2160=8.29m so over twice the number. But the detail is incredible especially after having had cataract surgery last week. For the first time since I got my 4K monitor I can appreciate the detail.

And that’s with a 1080Ti in P3D. I believe fps is better in MSFS. I would recommend a move to 4K.

49 minutes ago, bvdboomen said:

Then I locked my FPS to 30 and all is well now, experiencing a very smooth sim with settings on high and some on ultra like clouds, trees.

I turned off VSync in P3D and despite higher fps of 45+ there were lots of micro stutters. Presumably because the GPU was working flat out.

Turned it back on to lock at 30Hz and the smoothness returned. Higher fps doesn’t always equate to better performance.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Turned it back on to lock at 30Hz and the smoothness returned. Higher fps doesn’t always equate to better performance.

If I recall correctly from my Assembly programming days, aiming for 30 FPS will give you another 30 FPS headroom on a 60hz monitor.
So performance peaks will be less obvious. But this is an ancient call from memory of the 80's/90's. I'm not sure about this. 🙂

20 minutes ago, bvdboomen said:

If I recall correctly from my Assembly programming days, aiming for 30 FPS will give you another 30 FPS headroom on a 60hz monitor.

That's assuming that 60fps is achievable. Whilst it might be when airborne it certainly will be difficult taxiing around large airports with lots of Ai.

My monitor has a 30Hz option so the GPU only gets pushed hard when 30fps isn't possible.

@rolly One thing no one seems to have touched on thus far is the monitor you mention is an ultrawide, so you effectively have one and a half monitors of 2560x1440 pixels at 16:9, 3.7 megapixel each (albeit in one contiguous panel) for a total resolution of 3440x1440 pixels at 43:18, 5 megapixels. I think a GTX1080 will struggle driving that at much beyond 30 Hz with MFS at higher settings (it's 30% more pixels than standard 1440p), so my suggestion would be to get a lower refresh rate monitor the same size (say circa 100 Hz, if one exists) and use the money saved towards a graphics card upgrade later.

As many others have already said, 144 Hz is never going to be needed for a flight simulator, it's only worth paying for that high refresh rate if you plan on having a very powerful PC sometime in the future or you play fast paced racing and first person shooter games.

Edited April 5, 20233 yr by ckyliu

6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

32” is considered the optimum size for 4K. Hence why there are so many 4K monitors in that size. 32” is the largest size for a 4K monitor. You have to switch to TVs after than and the smallest is around 40” which is too large for many like myself.

2560*1440=3.69m pixels. 3840*2160=8.29m so over twice the number. But the detail is incredible especially after having had cataract surgery last week. For the first time since I got my 4K monitor I can appreciate the detail.

And that’s with a 1080Ti in P3D. I believe fps is better in MSFS. I would recommend a move to 4K.

I wouldn't say optimum, I'd say 32" is minimum size for 4K to be of benefit in a desktop monitor. I can't tell the difference between 1440p and 2160p at 27", I start to perceive it at 32" at typical seating distance but it isn't a night and day comparison at that size.

For a television from my sofa, it needs to be at least 50" for 4K to show up, really 55"+. Marketing sometimes drives the specification of products rather than actual benefits; you'll struggle to get a quality 40-50" TV that isn't 4K because because unknowledgeable consumers will prefer a low quality 4K panel over a top quality 1080p panel just because of the spec sheet.

Anyway the OP's monitor is an ultrawide, so equivalent to 27" at 16:9, which I've found to be the sweet spot for 1440p.

Edited April 5, 20233 yr by ckyliu

3 minutes ago, ckyliu said:

I wouldn't say optimum, I'd say 32" is minimum size for 4K to be of benefit in a desktop monitor.

I can't find a 4K 16:9 monitor larger than 32". There must be a reason. I agree that 27" 4K is pushing it to see a difference between 2560*1440 and 3840*2160. Hence why there are so few on the market.

As for perceiving a difference gauges on some aircraft like the Xtreme Prototypes Lear 25 demonstrate it well.

Experience tells me the reason is how much of your field of view it occupies; I used a 37" FullHD LCD TV as a monitor for a couple of years and when you're sat at a desk, it fills most of your field of view (like an IMAX screen). Therefore beyond 32" at 16:9 one doesn't really gain any screen real estate, you just end up sitting further away or having to move your head and eyes to see different bits of the screen! Given most PC users are sat at a desk against a wall, there is little demand for monitors that require you sit further away than this, and those people can buy a TV.

Edited April 5, 20233 yr by ckyliu

I have had a Dell 43" 4k 16:9 3840x2160@60Hz flat display for 3 years, very impressed with it. I used to use a pair or 24" 1920x1200.pushed together which was in total the same width but not as high. the dot pitch is around the same so works really well for work and play..