That's the display industry for you though. Once they had flat CRTs they spent all that time telling us to buy them because curved was bad and now curved is in. The more things change... :infinity:.

There is a difference between a convex curve (reduces your FOV) on a small display that you cannot control in manufacturing and a concave one (fills your FOV) that you can control on a much larger Ultrawide display. How you can even compare the two is beyond me.

There is a difference between a convex curve (reduces your FOV) on a small display that you cannot control in manufacturing and a concave one (fills your FOV) that you can control on a much larger Ultrawide display. How you can even compare the two is beyond me.

It was a joke because the display industry is as likely to abandon this as they are almost anything else. The only things that stick are the things that are adopted en masse. That said, it's not as if CRT monitors ever got large enough to surpass FOV, at an appropriate viewing distance, in the first place.

I would take image quality/color accuracy and PPI anytime over hz and response time and I am much more than an average gamer with tons of games into my collection, I despise the wannabe PC master race/gamers who play 3-4 FPS games and they think monitor industry should respect their fake blue blood.

I bought an Acer X34 for $999. After attaching my Spyder5 its deltaE is well within 1.0, and its curve is also mild enough for Lightroom, etc. Its PPI is the same as this one. After going 100Hz GSYNC I never go back. For the price point of $1500 I demand the best from both world, like at least 144Hz GSYNC 1600p UW IPS.

I not say above 60Hz are usless.. But.. I prefer 4K60Hz 16:9 ratio, its most popular standard, give me less problems with anything, from gamming, apps, to movies.. It's also not a problem: change aspect ratio, add custom resolution, or whatever.. Most important in screen (atleast for me) is good contrast ratio, wide color space, aceptable backlight uniformity, good black level... Then If matrix can provide good picture quality.. I look for response time, Hz's, HDR, and all other features - important features, but if one of these fail, its not a brake deal for Me. High refresh-rate displays are good.. But only if You can maintain adequate amount FPS!

It's funny really but I keep hoping that reading discussions here will help to resolve my upgrade decision! Currently using a Dell U2711. But there seems to be no agreement that a high refresh rate is the priority over a higher resolution so I am as confused as ever and all I've decided is to wait for the next generation of gaming monitors, hopefully high refresh and 4K will come together but no doubt the price will be £££££. Have to say I loved the upgrade in picture quality when I moved to 1440 seven years ago so I feel another upgrade in image quality for FPS gaming would be the way to go for me. Just bought a Sony 4K HDR and its matching 4K BluRay player and the improvement over my standard HD TV is amazing. The way the BluRay player upscales GoT produces a truly fantastic picture so I think this just shows me that I love video quality more than a higher refresh rate but to be fair, I've never played above 60Hz so wait for both I say.

Sorry if this is a silly question but could someone explain to me why one would buy this over a large 4k 60hz TV? Seems like it's better priced and a larger screen size. I bought my 43 inch 4k tv that I'm using as a monitor for 1/3 of the price of this. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why one would buy this.