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

[Bill_Bright]

I have six simple criteria for a new monitor:

• 1800R curvature
• sane price

You call that "simple"?

The problem is curved monitors have not been that widely accepted. That means the demand just is not there in big enough numbers for the makers to crank them out in large numbers. That means they are not profitable enough to appease their bean-counters (and shareholders). So without the demand, supply will be low. Low supply means higher prices. It is as "simple" as that.

 

[Assimilator]

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

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

And I am nothing if not a filthy casual.

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

Anything Alienware gets black-holed in my brain because there's no fucking way I'm ever buying that overpriced rubbish. Also it looks to be basically identical to the MSI MPG 321CURX I already mentioned and while I expect MSI to shaft consumers on that model, there's no world in which they do it as much as Alienware. God I despise Alienware.

 

[64K]

It's been 10 years or so since 4K monitors became a thing for discussion. I've watched it rise over the years to almost 4% adoption on the Steam Hardware Survey but it's still to this day, and probably always be, a niche gaming product because of the cost of a GPU that can handle that resolution well. I don't know anything about what 4K monitors are being used for work though? Maybe a lot but then why are manufacturers not addressing that market?

 

[Assimilator]

It's been 10 years or so since 4K monitors became a thing for discussion. I've watched it rise over the years to almost 4% adoption on the Steam Hardware Survey but it's still to this day, and probably always be, a niche gaming product because of the cost of a GPU that can handle that resolution well. I don't know anything about what 4K monitors are being used for work though? Maybe a lot but then why are manufacturers not addressing that market?

This guy gets it. I want a 4K monitor for work mostly, and a little bit of them "vidjagames"; why are my only options Dell, or flashy "gamer" tat? Where's the middle ground?

 

[Frick]

This guy gets it. I want a 4K monitor for work mostly, and a little bit of them "vidjagames"; why are my only options Dell, or flashy "gamer" tat? Where's the middle ground?

Why is it being curved a dealbreaker?

 

[rv8000]

Curved monitors belong in the bin, not always prosumer or office/cad application friendly either.

What’s more disappointing has been the number of 27” 4K monitors recently, too small.

 

[Bill_Bright]

This guy gets it.

Yes he does. But he said the same thing I did. Only he called it a "niche" market and I said "low demand". Either results in lower supply and higher prices.

 

[Onasi]

Honestly, the 1800R curve being mandatory is what kills things for you. There just weren’t any panels at 32-inches 4K made with that curvature. That MSI screen you mentioned has a panel that’s also in several others (I’ve seen a similar Acer) and it is what it is - the most common curvature on 32 inch models is either 1700R or 1500R. I don’t know why that 1800R is the exact necessity for you, but dropping it creates an actually decent amount of options.
4K screens are still a premium market with limited options, sure, but not THAT limited. You are just getting stuck on a very particular point.

 

[Chrispy_]

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

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

Agreed, gaming on 75Hz is fine for casual users, who are likely happy with 60Hz too.

It's more that there's no market for 75Hz to 144Hz displays any more. If it's a high-refresh display, the manufacturer will target 144Hz at a bare minimum. If it's not a high-refresh display then 4K60 is almost a guarantee as it's a work screen that will be most likely doing video editing where 30fps/60fps support without judder rules out 75Hz as a desirable option

Honestly, the 1800R curve being mandatory is what kills things for you. There just weren’t any panels at 32-inches 4K made with that curvature. That MSI screen you mentioned has a panel that’s also in several others (I’ve seen a similar Acer) and it is what it is - the most common curvature on 32 inch models is either 1700R or 1500R. I don’t know why that 1800R is the exact necessity for you, but dropping it creates an actually decent amount of options.
4K screens are still a premium market with limited options, sure, but not THAT limited. You are just getting stuck on a very particular point.

1800R is a decent curvature for desktop 32" IMO, but anything from 1500R to 2000R is going to be fine.

Personally, I prefer a (slightly) curved screen to reduce the gamma/colour shifts you get off-angle, though curved screens often suffer from poor uniformity as a result of the bend stresses in the panel at the contact points with the monitor housing.

For best viewing angles, you want the curve radius to match your viewing distance, but then the perspective distortion can be pretty offputting, so a happy middle ground between 1:1 curve radius and a flat panel is usually fine.

 

[Ruru]

Agreed, gaming on 75Hz is fine for casual users, who are likely happy with 60Hz too.

It's more that there's no market for 75Hz to 144Hz displays any more. If it's a high-refresh display, the manufacturer will target 144Hz at a bare minimum. If it's not a high-refresh display then 4K60 is almost a guarantee as it's a work screen that will be most likely doing video editing where 30fps/60fps support without judder rules out 75Hz as a desirable option

60Hz is also fine for slower-paced story-based games and similar. Nothing to complain when gaming with my 1080p60 TV, I guess that TVs have some trickery with their game mode stuff and other things.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

I had a curved monitor at one of my offices at work(I have two offices, one in each building I work at). It was annoying when I was needing to shift around the office to get people to sign things and so on because OS corner notifications would get difficult to see if one popped up from the notification/system tray on occasion.

I am enjoying my new monitor in my specs. ASUS ROG Swift 4k 240Hz OLED 32". It was 1.24k USD but worth the upgrade. *for gaming at home*

 

[Frick]

60Hz is also fine for slower-paced story-based games and similar.

This kind of talk makes me never even want to try a higher refresh monitor, because I really don't want to be chasing them frames. 4K 60fps is hard enough.

 

[Onasi]

@Frick
Meh, it’s not THAT bad, anything above 120 for single player is just gravy (essentially diminishing returns kick in HARD) and even for MP competitive games above 240 only matters if you are in the top 0.1% of players. And those don’t play at 4K anyway.

 

[AsRock]

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?

I'd be happy with 1440p or 4k but would have to be 120Hz and 40" panel.

 

[Dr. Dro]

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.

Unless you can get the C3 on a very good discount, buy the C4. 144Hz, newer panel. I received the 2024 webOS update for my G3, it did not receive some of the new functionality like LLDV from the G4 - safe to say LG is gonna be stingy with feature backport.

I'd be happy with 1440p or 4k but would have to be 120Hz and 40" panel.

C4 all the way. Totally worth it.

This guy gets it. I want a 4K monitor for work mostly, and a little bit of them "vidjagames"; why are my only options Dell, or flashy "gamer" tat? Where's the middle ground?

OLEDs have all sorts of mitigation in place for text and static imagery, but I reckon you won't find many models above 60 Hz that are still using traditional VA or IPS panels that carry at 4K resolution, market just isn't there. Gamers want fast refresh and the image quality that traditional monitors can't provide, and most business monitors are all 60 Hz and focus on things like color accuracy instead.

I just looked it up: there's the LG 32UQ750-W which fits your bill to a T, maybe this is what you're looking for after all.

Amazon.com

and a similar one from ASUS, ProArt PA329CV

Amazon.com

 

[AsRock]

Unless you can get the C3 on a very good discount, buy the C4. 144Hz, newer panel. I received the 2024 webOS update for my G3, it did not receive some of the new functionality like LLDV from the G4 - safe to say LG is gonna be stingy with feature backport.



C4 all the way. Totally worth it.

Yeah $1k TV sure, i don't need oled or HDR for my gaming.

And it's a annoying TV so. I don't need/want the BS that they put in to TV's.

 

[sneekypeet]

I will lay this out and see if it helps. IMHO you either get a normal 4K with some bells and whistles, curved, which is a huge limiter, or there are 4K set up more for photo and video editing with as near color perfect as its gonna get, and with a Spider colorimeter, you can get things to 100% correct for the internets. That seems to be where the market is currently.

I am very happy with my 43" screen, but I paid out my a$$ for it when it was new.

At CES there were more gaming oriented screens in the smaller ranges, but most of them were 27" models, nothing as big as requested.

As an experienced TV gamer, you miss a shit ton of things going on, draw distance doesn't always help draw things, and the color is horrible compared to the good screens available.

 

[lexluthermiester]

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?

I think the problem is that 4k just isn't important enough for most game players and media watchers. 1080p is still the gold standard for much of the world. Manufacturers know this and are in no hurry to make affordable 4K displays yet.

At CES there were more gaming oriented screens in the smaller ranges, but most of them were 27" models, nothing as big as requested.

When I do go 4k, 27" will be the size I go for. 24" + 27" 4k would be ideal.

I recently went from a 27"+32" 1440p to 24"+27" 1080p. The size drop was because the 32" was just too big. The drop to 1080p was because of scaling issues.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Yeah $1k TV sure, i don't need oled or HDR for my gaming.

And it's a annoying TV so. I don't need/want the BS that they put in to TV's.

I'm not really bothered, the image quality makes it more than worth it. I do maintain the TV-side of things here because I use it on occasion, but otherwise you'll find it's a great panel. Keeping the Wi-Fi off after initial configuration should do away with all the "boring TV stuff".

Price... yeah, it's a bit of a bite. But worth it, best upgrade I ever got

 

[sneekypeet]

When I do go 4k, 27" will be the size I go for. 24" + 27" 4k would be ideal.

You would assume that until actual desktop usage at 100% scale. IMHO you have to bump up scaling on apps and desktop to where it looks 1440-1080p anyways. My test monitor is a 27" and near impossible to use unless you live 6 inches from the screen. Just my 2 cents, but I would go 32" as the minimum, and ponder a way to slide back from the desk a bit. Or, a deeper desk in general.

I sit about 3 foot away from my screens at the desk, and is why I can run dual 43s without neck pain or eye strain.

 

[Frick]

@Frick
Meh, it’s not THAT bad, anything above 120 for single player is just gravy (essentially diminishing returns kick in HARD) and even for MP competitive games above 240 only matters if you are in the top 0.1% of players. And those don’t play at 4K anyway.

120 is twice as much as 60. Pretty bad for 4K when I'm struggling for 60 with a GPU that is around #13 of Fastest GPU currently available.

 

[sneekypeet]

120 is twice as much as 60. Pretty bad for 4K when I'm struggling for 60 with a GPU that is around #13 of Fastest GPU currently available.

I could od 4K60 with a 1080ti or a 2080. Does take a lot more GPU power to make up that extra 60Hz tho. Are you using dual monitors on that system, that eats more than you'd think.

I am one of those who cannot tell between 60 and 120Hz tho. Like if I reinstall drivers, I dont notice until the frame counter tells me its not set right....lol

 

[Hyderz]

speaking of 4k there is an ultrawide monitor dubbed pseudo 4k res, 3840x1600 which i am currently eyeing on but there is barely any ultrawide monitors with this resolution
LG and Viewsonic i think are the ones that have it and possibly a few others.. the only thing stopping me going this resolution are the games... let alone a true 4k .... without dialing down some settings
its almost november and CES2025 is just a little over 2 months away... so we might see some interesting new monitors... and hopefully they dont take that long to come to market...

 

[sneekypeet]

pseudo 4k res, 3840x1600

I just wonder about support for anything gaming. Are you doomed to have black blocks on either side, or do you mod titles for said resolution? I seriously don't know, asking to be enlightened.

 

[Chrispy_]

You would assume that until actual desktop usage at 100% scale. IMHO you have to bump up scaling on apps and desktop to where it looks 1440-1080p anyways. My test monitor is a 27" and near impossible to use unless you live 6 inches from the screen. Just my 2 cents, but I would go 32" as the minimum, and ponder a way to slide back from the desk a bit. Or, a deeper desk in general.

I sit about 3 foot away from my screens at the desk, and is why I can run dual 43s without neck pain or eye strain.

96dpi is the golden standard for desktop monitors if you want to avoid scaling, which means 46" at 4K resolution. That makes sense when you think about it, because it's just four 23" 1080p displays and 23" is a great size for a 1080p desktop monitor.

32" is a natural fit for 1440p (30.5" would be ideal but they've stopped making that size, so 32" is the closest you'll get at 93dpi instead of 96dpi)

I've bought several (about 40-50) 32" 4K screens at work for people of various ages and eyesight and nobody, not even the perfect-vision young interns like using 32" 4K screens without scaling, so scaling is just a wart on the experience that you have to learn to live with unless you do go for a larger display, which then runs into the problem of extreme viewing angles and focal-length variance - if you have a 46" TV with the centre at arms length, the edges are significantly further than arms length away from your eyes, and the viewing angles are probably approaching 35-40 degrees off-angle in the corners.

In case you're wondering where 96dpi comes from, it's calculated from systems and data that existed long before most of us were born - and is based on the correct size of print to read comfortably with 20/20 vision (corrected with glasses or otherwise) at arms length. Publishers and printers worked out what size font to use based purely on human feedback from mass population and that's why most books use a very similar size font regardless of what size the actual pages are. Microsoft simply translated the widely-accepted gold standard for font size at specific viewing distances and translated them to screen distance and pixels per inch - that's why we arrive at 96dpi for 100% scaling.

You can eschew this 96dpi if you sit closer or further than ergonomically recommended from your display, but the ergonomics of the eyeball are that your muscles are most relaxed for things in your hands at arms length. That's not coincidence, that's hundreds of millions of years of evolution from the first tool-wielding apes - so unless you want to fight your own eyeballs the recommendation for a long-term display is to view 96dpi at arms length.