The $399 RTX 4060 Ti is being marketed as a 1080p GPU. And with only 8GB of VRAM running on a mere 128-bit bus, this is quite right. Fortunately, you can now pick up an AMD 6700 XT for just $299, and it has at least the same 1080p raster performance as the RTX 4060 Ti, plus more VRAM and bandwidth for 1440p duty.
As an overall gaming proposition, 1440p and 170Hz is comfortably preferable to 1080p at almost any refresh. Of course, if you are serious about esports, you will want a 1080p panel with a nosebleedingly high refresh. [1440p panels offer more detail in the image, giving strategy games more space for menus and tools, and allowing you to see the latest graphics extravaganza in all its glory.
Windows desktops will thank you for the extra pixels. Furthermore, this Acer really has no weak points. Peak brightness is a respectable 350 nits, and the response time is 1 ms.
Indeed, there is only the most basic HDR support and no local dimming. However, true HDR panels cost many times more than this monitor. No, this product is focused on delivering what matters, and it's great to get a display with these specs for such a low price.
My second choice is a monitor that is typing these very words. The ASRock Phantom PG34WQ15R2B, which I recently reviewed. Personally, I really appreciate the ergonomics of the 34-inch 21:9 ultrawide panel, both for multitasking in Windows and for pure immersion in gaming. I don't want to go back to a traditional 16:9 widescreen monitor.
ASRock has very solid all-around specs: 3,440 x 1,440 pixels, 550 nits brightness, 165 Hz refresh, 1 ms response, the latter by the less relevant MPRT index. Perhaps something like 2m GtG.
Response shows a little indication that this is a VA panel rather than an IPS panel. Until a few years ago, pixel response tended to be quite poor; VA monitors are subjectively not as fast as the best IPS screens. But they are still fast enough that you won't be disappointed. Certainly not the ugly, blurry mess of the old VA panels.
Anyway, you can get them now for under $300; spending three times that for a 34-inch Alienware OLED panel will often result in only a slightly better experience, subjectively speaking.
Part of the reason is that one major advantage of VA technology is contrast: at 3,000:1, this panel is three times better than a typical IPS screen, closing some of the gap with OLEDs, which have nearly limitless contrast.
Again, this is not a true HDR monitor, but the subjective experience is much closer to premium OLED equivalents than price considerations would suggest.
Beyond these two screens, more and more compromises have to be made, and like Jacob, who reviewed the Gigabyte M32UC, I like the Gigabyte M32UC for its high-resolution 4K visuals at a decent price.
However, the prospect of a GPU capable of high refresh 4K gaming is currently very painful in terms of price.
Also, the Alienware 34 AW3423DWF is a nice cutting-edge OLED kit that benefits from a glossy anti-glare coating. However, the 3,440 x 1,440 resolution is a bit of a struggle at this price point.
HDR performance is spectacular, and pixel response is out of this world. However, it is not three times the experience you get with the excellent ASRock.
In other words, you can't beat my top two deals. Spending many times more money does not dramatically improve the actual gaming experience. Depending on whether you prefer the traditional 16:9 format or the thrill of ultrawide, these offer all the monitors you really need at a surprisingly affordable price point. It's just a shame that the GPUs suitable for pairing with these tend to be expensive.
.
Comments