4k vs 1440p

[PapiFiveNine]

Hi, everyone, looking for some opinions about a display choice
I'm in no rush to make a purchase, waiting around and following the market, interesting to hear some of y'all thoughts on the matter.

Monitor would be used for games, watching cable tv, and as additional desktop/work space (wall mounted)

LG 34UM88-P - 580eu
AOC U3477PQU - 550eu
These are both 1440p ultrawide 60hz

LG 32UD59 - 450eu
This one is 4k 60hz

AOC Agon AG322QCX - 550eu
This one is regular 1440p but 144hz

What would you pick and why? Keep in mind that hardware would be updated (eventually) accordingly to support the monitor choice to my satisfactory performance level.
If you wouldn't buy any because they aren't good (or overpriced), you can let me know that too, i didn't do any in-depth research.
Note that the prices are adjusted for my country and choices are limited so better/cheaper options aren't available here unfortunately

 

[n0ns3ns3]

I made my choice with UV 3440x1440 @100Hz some time ago for about 800 euros.
I use it for work (mainly codding) and it is capable of replacing 2-3 monitors. though I do have a secondary one.
if you game, I'd say 60Hz is no go, as the fluidity of image is so much better on high refresh rate monitors. I simply can not go back.
If i were to pick today, I'd go for the 34" 3440x1440 @120Hz from alienware, but it is expensive one.
4K is nice, but there are a lot of problems with scaling (game interfaces, program menus etc.) so if you are not a pro photo/video/image editor, you'd be better with 16:9 or 21:9 1440p monitor.
keep in mind, that it requires at least GTX 1070 performance level.
now to the 16:9 vs 21:9.
I like the later more, but some games, i play borderless window 2560x1440 (basically turning my monitor to 27" 1440p) as i sit about 90cm from it and it's hard to see minimaps etc. I mean I have to move my eyes to see what's there. I came to this trick after I realized that my in game performance (kills, wins etc) went dramatically down with UW. but other games (like DOOM or Quacke Champions) are really cool on UW - it's so immersive.
Anyway, the size of the monitor depends on the distance.
for 70-100cm 27" 2560x1440p or 34" 3440x1440 are about the perfect size and pixel density.

 

[PapiFiveNine]

I made my choice with UV 3440x1440 @100Hz some time ago for about 800 euros.
I use it for work (mainly codding) and it is capable of replacing 2-3 monitors. though I do have a secondary one.
if you game, I'd say 60Hz is no go, as the fluidity of image is so much better on high refresh rate monitors. I simply can not go back.
If i were to pick today, I'd go for the 34" 3440x1440 @120Hz from alienware, but it is expensive one.
4K is nice, but there are a lot of problems with scaling (game interfaces, program menus etc.) so if you are not a pro photo/video/image editor, you'd be better with 16:9 or 21:9 1440p monitor.
keep in mind, that it requires at least GTX 1070 performance level.
now to the 16:9 vs 21:9.
I like the later more, but some games, i play borderless window 2560x1440 (basically turning my monitor to 27" 1440p) as i sit about 90cm from it and it's hard to see minimaps etc. I mean I have to move my eyes to see what's there. I came to this trick after I realized that my in game performance (kills, wins etc) went dramatically down with UW. but other games (like DOOM or Quacke Champions) are really cool on UW - it's so immersive.
Anyway, the size of the monitor depends on the distance.
for 70-100cm 27" 2560x1440p or 34" 3440x1440 are about the perfect size and pixel density.

Thanks for the response, but pretty much the only available options i have are the ones i listed If i could find or afford an ultrawide with higher refresh rate i would but it's currently not possible. So if we exclude the 4K option, is the higher refresh non ultrawide better or the lower refresh ultrawide, specifically the models listed. The price is pretty much the same.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

I ordered mine from amazon.de since the prices and choices where I live are simply ridiculous XD
32" 1440p would not be comfortable for less than 1m viewing distance. So if you sit far enough and play some fast paced games, get the 32".

 

[PapiFiveNine]

I ordered mine from amazon.de since the prices and choices where I live are simply ridiculous XD
32" 1440p would not be comfortable for less than 1m viewing distance. So if you sit far enough and play some fast paced games, get the 32".

http://prntscr.com/ijb3md

This is my sitting setup. The monitor would be above the current one wall mounted. Arm's length away.

 

[Finstar]

High refresh rate won't really be too useful unless you game a lot. I personally have a 4K monitor (Asus PB287Q) and i think it's absolutely worth it. Though 4k takes a ton of gpu horsepower to drive.
I'd suggest a 60hz 1440x3440p monitor from either Dell, BenQ, Eizo, LG, Samsung or Asus.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

that's way too close for 32"1440p. you'd be better with 27" or 34" UW 32+ inch 4K

 

[PapiFiveNine]

that's way too close for 32"1440p. you'd be better with 27" or 34" UW 32+ inch 4K

That was my first intention but there are no viable options on the market unfortunately. The 27" inch 1440p.
I think i'll have to take a close look at the monitors in person in a store or something and make a decision that way. Can't really imagine what it's like over photos and videos.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

sure, just pay attention if you are able to identify individual pixels from your distance.
or what would be the distance from which you are almost unable to see them on text.

 

[PapiFiveNine]

sure, just pay attention if you are able to identify individual pixels from your distance.
or what would be the distance from which you are almost unable to see them on text.

The weird thing is that i have a 32" LG tv that is HD (720p) in my living room and when i sit at the same distance compared to my monitor (arms length) i don't mind it at all when it comes to image quality, which is absolutely retarded xD my vision is perfect btw haha. That's why i figured at same distance, same size 1440p would look great

 

[n0ns3ns3]

well, for me it's annoying to see the pixilated text or image XD.
also, for gaming, it's not only about the pixels. it's about how human vision works. We see good only at about 60degrees, the rest is peripheral vision. you can see movement there, but you can't read. the further from the mid, the less you able to identify and process. so there are few things with games:
1. the thing about game interface like battle interface with mini maps, damage panels or whatever else important there.
2. FOV - games are usually designed for up to 120 degrees, so if the monitor matches great, otherwise, you might miss important info.
that's why the pro gamers are using 24-27" panels - to have the whole monitor well within those 60 degrees (30 to each side from the center).

 

[PapiFiveNine]

well, for me it's annoying to see the pixilated text or image XD.
also, for gaming, it's not only about the pixels. it's about how human vision works. We see good only at about 60degrees, the rest is peripheral vision. you can see movement there, but you can't read. the further from the mid, the less you able to identify and process. so there are few things with games:
1. the thing about game interface like battle interface with mini maps, damage panels or whatever else important there.
2. FOV - games are usually designed for up to 120 degrees, so if the monitor matches great, otherwise, you might miss important info.
that's why the pro gamers are using 24-27" panels - to have the whole monitor well within those 60 degrees (30 to each side from the center).

Would some kind of TV be a viable choice instead? There are many more options on the market, but i understand the resolution is low only full hd for large displays plus the slow response time compared to monitors

 

[n0ns3ns3]

and on many TVs there is a HUGE input lag.