It's nearly 2025 and the selection of 4K monitors remains abysmal. Let's discuss this sad state of affairs.

[Assimilator]

I have six simple criteria for a new monitor:

• 4K
• 32"
• > 60Hz
• 1800R curvature
• USB-C display connectivity (no need for monitor to be powered over this link, or to offer PD)
• sane price

and yet I cannot find a single display on the market that satisfies all of them. So far the two (!) I've narrowed it down to are:

• MSI MPG 321CURX: 4.5/6 because it's 1700R not 1800R, and as a "gaming" monitor will be stupidly overpriced - but it also doesn't seem to be available to buy, despite being announced 2 months ago
• Dell S3221QS(A): 4/6 because 60Hz and no USB-C; if Dell were to release a USB-C version for not too much more moola, I would probably be willing to bite

What really gets me is the lack of refresh rates in general for 4K. For 1080p and 1440p we have a multitude of 75Hz and 90Hz panels that give a nice range of options for buyers, but for 4K there's just a barren wasteland between 60Hz and 120Hz, and this doesn't seem to have improved since 4K monitors first came on the scene half a decade ago. Sure you can get up to 240Hz 4K panels now, but that's just bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers, not something actually useful to consumers. There also seems to be a push towards 1000R monitors in the "gaming" space which is also totally nonsensical to me... you aren't supposed to have your face plastered against the screen!

Thoughts? Prayers? Is the display industry becoming as feature bankrupt as every other PC segment, or is this just a case of old man yells at sky?

 

[Vayra86]

16:9 curved I think, especially at higher display res/diagonal, is getting pretty large pretty quickly. The availability is a lot better if you remove the curve, isn't it? It also opens up TVs.

Whereas a 34 inch UW 21:9 curved relatively takes less space, but you lose some height. I'm getting the idea the market slowly is settling on that difference, and applies curvature more focused in the places where it sells best.

Also in a desktop setting I think anything larger than 27 inch 'in height' (34 inch UW is the same height) is just about the top end of what a neck wants to move around for, vertically. 32 inch 16:9 is quite a stretch on the vertical plane sitting in close proximity. And if you're not sitting in close proximity, you can just get a TV. The curve also doesn't help the height issue, because its not curved top to bottom The additional height and more angled view on it also adds to geometrical warping.

 

[Dr. Dro]

It's not that the monitor industry is bankrupted in general, it's that 4K is hard to drive and the "PC mustard race" is actually something closer to the "PC beggar race". A 4K high-refresh monitor is well beyond most people's budget, and monitor is usually high on the list of where people cut costs. This gives a wide berth for premium monitors like the one you've described to be priced at practically whatever they want. Slap in some choice words like "gaming", "premium" and "G-Sync Compatible", and you get the picture. Even in upper segments, most people stop at 1440p because that's where you get the most ROI - acceptable image quality, and of course, saving on cost.

If you can tolerate lower PPI and have the real estate, buy a 42-inch LG C4 OLED TV. It's probably unbeaten and unbeatable for the price at ~$1K. 4K/144, G-Sync/FreeSync over HDMI. Once you experience OLED you don't want any other panel tech, trust me. Don't worry about burn-in on general desktop usage, my G3 is at a year old and about 3400 hours (mostly playing a game that has static HUD elements) and there is no sign of image retention to be seen. It's ready for prime time.

 

[Frick]

I thought there were tons of 4K monitors but the "curved" requirement narrows down a lot. I think a lot of people, myself included, think of it as a gimmick.

Plus as hinted if you buy a 4K monitor for gaming you'll want to ruin yourself. I almost regret getting mine, a 1440p 32" would have been so much better for me.

 

[neatfeatguy]

I'd just venture to guess that 1440p has a better market than 4k when it comes to monitors still. Clearly I have no data to back that up, but you can find a slew of different 1440p monitors and not as many for 4k monitors, that is what leads me to thinking the market just isn't there for as wide of variety of options in the 4k range.

Going off just newegg.com, searching for In Stock, Sold By Newegg, Remove Combo Deal Option (all these filters set to ON) and 2560x1440p - I get 90 options to pick from.

Change the resolution option from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 - I get 49 options to pick from.

I know that's not a great way to compare things, but just the sheer quantity of 1440 monitors to pick from over 4k leads me to believe that 4k just isn't selling like 1440p is. Why over saturate the 4k market with monitors that may not sell as well as the 1440 market? Seems like you'd eat more of them than you would properly make a profit off of.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[Mindweaver]

I just recently upgraded my 2 side monitors from 1440p to 4k lg's non curved, but my main monitor is curved but still 1440p. I was thinking of upgrading it to a 4k curved and like you said current state is sad.

I'd just venture to guess that 1440p has a better market than 4k when it comes to monitors still. Clearly I have no data to back that up, but you can find a slew of different 1440p monitors and not as many for 4k monitors, that is what leads me to thinking the market just isn't there for as wide of variety of options in the 4k range.

Going off just newegg.com, searching for In Stock, Sold By Newegg, Remove Combo Deal Option (all these filters set to ON) and 2560x1440p - I get 90 options to pick from.

Change the resolution option from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160 - I get 49 options to pick from.

I know that's not a great way to compare things, but just the sheer quantity of 1440 monitors to pick from over 4k leads me to believe that 4k just isn't selling like 1440p is. Why over saturate the 4k market with monitors that may not sell as well as the 1440 market? Seems like you'd eat more of them than you would properly make a profit off of.

At least that's how I see it.

You could also argue that is low due to not having as many choices.

 

[neatfeatguy]

I just recently upgraded my 2 side monitors from 1440p to 4k lg's non curved, but my main monitor is curved but still 1440p. I was thinking of upgrading it to a 4k curved and like you said current state is sad.


You could also argue that is low due to not having as many choices.

You could, but you could also argue that people that already have a 4k TV just use that instead of spending money on a 4k monitor.

Lots of factors to consider out there.

 

[DaemonForce]

As a creator I could main a 2K display but the idea of more than 1 monitor and anything over 1080p sounds confusing.
There are definitely issues in my workflow where I just flat out NEED a 2nd monitor for action controls but it's rare.
What would I be doing on a 4K monitor? How would I drive those pixels for anything like gaming?
My worn and aging RX 580 isn't gonna do it and it's not like I can get delivery of a functional card that can.
So I think 1080p144 is going to continue to be my default until something forces me off of it forever.
As long as the new displays are on older and cheaper connection technologies, I'm probably good by staying put.

 

[freeagent]

I just use a TV. It is only 4K/60 but its smooth..

 

[Ruru]

I have an Acer 27" 4K120 (supports 144Hz OC with 2x DP cables, running at 120Hz is enough for me though) as my main monitor and a Lenovo 32" 4K60 for media. Enough for me so far.

1440p just wasn't an upgrade enough from 1080p when I wanted more pixels.

 

[phanbuey]

im thinking of dropping to 120Hz for this bad boy:
Dell UltraSharp 40 Curved Thunderbolt™ Hub Monitor - U4025QW | Dell USA

Bit overpriced for what it is though...

 

[chrcoluk]

To me 1440p is the best of the resolutions, and I dont mind explaining my thought process.

My desk size makes a 27inch ideal, 1440p gives me more desktop real estate over 1080p, but 4k everything would be too small, so I would just be trying to scale everything (likely end up messy, as my friends who own 4k screens confess to).
1440p seems ideal for gaming, its good enough quality to consider very well refined on the visuals, but also not needing the full performance hit of 4k, which as we know is getting very hard to reach with all the regressions on game engines and software.
However what is is interesting, in games where 4k rendering is doable, 4k down scaled to 1440p is noticeable over native 1440p. A 4k screen isnt needed to see a difference, which is cool.

The only issue that has ever annoyed me occasionally is if upscaling, 1080p upscaled to 4k should maintain pixel alignment, whilst 1080p to 1440p will fail at that, would need to be 720p to 1440p for the same upscaling effect.

I do finally own a 4k display though, I did an impulse purchase during Amazons prime day sales on a heavily discounted 4k HDR TV. May be a while before i start using though as I am probably going to have to wall mount it as the stand for it isnt suitable.

The TV spec isnt top of the range, but is the following.

4k Dolby vision HDR10 compliant.
VA screen.
Back lit with full array.
Has low latency and interpolation modes (will very likely have these disabled).
8 bit +frc not native 10bit
VRR support.

Current TV which is dated by todays standards.

1080p
IPS - so yes poor darks
Edge lit
No special features, so no low latency, no interpolation etc.
I assume either native 8 bit or 6bit + frc.
SDR

 

[Mindweaver]

You could, but you could also argue that people that already have a 4k TV just use that instead of spending money on a 4k monitor.

Lots of factors to consider out there.

Yeah I have a LG C1 65" OLED and I have thought about just picking up a new LG C3 43" from my main monitor.

 

[N/A]

With a triple display setup in mind, you can choose the Alienware AW3225QF and drop sanity, pure bliss. Except maybe for word processing.
Even for a single setup 1K or half that won't matter to me.

 

[Dristun]

Parts of it, I believe, is that most people 1) think that scaling options either don't exist or are still as bad as 10 years ago and 2) think that they absolutely have to play everything at native. I haven't seen anyone in the industry (except Apple quite a while back) address these concerns or include in their marketing slides a mention that things are perfectly fine on all these fronts now, so people keep buying 1440 or 1080 monitors.
Another part is that the market is just smaller than TVs and monitors are overpriced relative to TVs both in low- and high-end.

 

[dirtyferret]

A 4K high-refresh monitor is well beyond most people's budget, and monitor is usually high on the list of where people cut costs

this on top of
1) a lot of people just went to 1440p within the past four years and are more than happy with that performance
2) the cost of a GPU that drives1440p AAA games at top settings and high FPS is outrageous
3) the cost of a GPU to drive 4k AAA games at top settings is insane

As more vanguard tech people adopt 4k monitors you will see prices come down and brands can reduce manufacturing cost and reduce margins but increase volume.

im thinking of dropping to 120Hz for this bad boy:
Dell UltraSharp 40 Curved Thunderbolt™ Hub Monitor - U4025QW | Dell USA

Bit overpriced for what it is though...

grab me one while your at the Dell store, I'll pay you back next time we go to Whataburger

 

[Frick]

To me 1440p is the best of the resolutions, and I dont mind explaining my thought process.

My desk size makes a 27inch ideal, 1440p gives me more desktop real estate over 1080p, but 4k everything would be too small, so I would just be trying to scale everything (likely end up messy, as my friends who own 4k screens confess to)

1440p on 32" would be ideal for me. I use 150% scaling on 4K. Scaling is ... not a huge problem, but it's not flawless. Especially since I also have a 24" 1080p monitor next to it, Steam gets really confused when I start the main monitor*, and I have to resize the window for it to look normal.

* I have a Samsung U32J590U over DP, and if I leave it on and let it go to standby for long enough I have to unplug the power cord and plug it back in for it to react to anything, so I turn it off when not in use and that mixing of scaling is what confuses Steam I think.

The only reason I have this monitoe btw is I was looking to upgrade and at €250 is was cheaper than the majority of 1440p monitors. EDIT to add it still is (if you need holes for a VESA mount)!

 

[unwind-protect]

I still hate high-dpi monitors. Too many games and other software that doesn't scale.

I am all set with my flat 43" Gigabyte. Until it breaks, which apparently those like to do.

 

[phanbuey]

I still hate high-dpi monitors. Too many games and other software that doesn't scale.

I am all set with my flat 43" Gigabyte. Until it breaks, which apparently those like to do.

43" 4k really is the perfect size at 100% scaling.

 

[Chrispy_]

MonitorsUnboxed will give you loads of options, the reason I think you're finding nothing is because you want a curved display.

As already mentioned by others, 4K high-refresh is a luxury low-volume item that pretty much requires a 4080S or 4090 to drive most games at those higher framerates. Manufacturers aren't offering budget high-refresh 4K because it's an oxymoron.

 

[Assimilator]

As already mentioned by others, 4K high-refresh is a luxury low-volume item that pretty much requires a 4080S or 4090 to drive most games at those higher framerates. Manufacturers aren't offering budget high-refresh 4K because it's an oxymoron.

I don't want 4K high-refresh. I just want 4K more-than-60-less-than-120 refresh.

 

[Chrispy_]

I just use a TV. It is only 4K/60 but its smooth..

4k120 TVs are pretty affordable these days. My in-law wanted a gaming TV and there was a cheapish Hisense he picked up that had FALD dimming, Quantum dots, and 4K120 for what I'd call exceptionally good picture quality for the money. It's not OLED but there are no concerns with burn in at all and it was half the price of even a cheap LG C2/C3.

I don't want 4K high-refresh. I just want 4K more-than-60-less-than-120 refresh.

so 75-100Hz? Those don't exist any more. 75Hz was standard "office-monitor" frequency that, likely only existed because manufacturers didn't want idiots to complain that "flicker free" required 75Hz or more from their outdated CRT knowledge.

100Hz pretty much vanished off the market once panel manufacturers were capable of making 144Hz panels, a good 5+ years ago at least and even now most of the cheapest 144Hz panels are overdriven to 165/170/180Hz anyway. If you only want 100Hz, just create a custom resolution on a faster panel and run it at 100Hz.

 

[Ruru]

so 75-100Hz? Those don't exist any more. 75Hz was standard "office-monitor" frequency that, likely only existed because manufacturers didn't want idiots to complain that "flicker free" required 75Hz or more from their outdated CRT knowledge.

100Hz pretty much vanished off the market once panel manufacturers were capable of making 144Hz panels, a good 5+ years ago at least and even now most of the cheapest 144Hz panels are overdriven to 165/170/180Hz anyway. If you only want 100Hz, just create a custom resolution on a faster panel and run it at 100Hz.

Before 120-144Hz 1080p monitors came truly affordable, 75Hz was typical for "budget gaming monitors".

For a casual gamer, that's IMO totally fine.

 

[SL2]

TL;DR: Pray.


Like mentioned, having a curve is the most limiting factor. I could only find one expensive AlienW with 1.7 m radius, and so-so user reviews.

Nothing between 60 and 120Hz, plenty at 144.

Monitore mit Diagonale ab 31.5", Diagonale bis 34", Auflösung: 3840x2160 (4K UHD), Bildwiederholfrequenz ab 120Hz Preisvergleich Geizhals EU

Preisvergleich und Bewertungen für Monitore mit Diagonale ab 31.5", Diagonale bis 34", Auflösung: 3840x2160 (4K UHD), Bildwiederholfrequenz ab 120Hz

geizhals.eu

Then with 60 Hz there are a couple of Dull's, with radius. You'd think that someone who wants a curved also would appreciate some Hz but nooooo..

Monitore mit Auflösung: 3840x2160 (4K UHD), Wölbungsradius: 1800R/1.80m/1900R/1.90m Preisvergleich Geizhals EU

Preisvergleich und Bewertungen für Monitore mit Auflösung: 3840x2160 (4K UHD), Wölbungsradius: 1800R/1.80m/1900R/1.90m

geizhals.eu

 

[Massdeth]

I bought the AW3821DW Alienware Monitor on sale in 21' because it was one of the few that hit much of my criteria at the time. It was also the cheapest at the time, 1265.00 total, in that range with the newer built in gsync unit that i wanted cause it helps a ton with running software at non-native rez's, so i can dial it down a bit. It will also do 12 bit but its a bit ugly, 10's much better but i found myself wandering back to RGB 8 bit anyway. On top of that Dell had the best panel guarantees for flagship units with bad pixels, panels, power circuit etc... and actually do what they say in the warranty and dont make you insane try to use it. Im also running a RTX3090 on a x299 Dark too to push the 144hz native which isnt too much of a problem with most games really. I went thru the OLED nightmare with a Sony TV and i wasnt going to go anywhere near a pc with OLED in 21', it was IPS or nothing. So in the end im happy and i think thats what matters most.
@Assimilator .... im sure you can find what youre looking for, its probably the "sane price" thats the hang up, huh?!? The specs you laid out seem pretty reasonable, really, but i havent slogged thru the available monitor market for a while.