Yerbury wrote:Thank you SamTargaryen. 4K is a bit beyond what I need, I believe. Elite Dangerous will be the only game I play, and otherwise, my computer use is limited to standard Office applications, browsing/surfing and some Netflix streaming.
I have to agree on using 4K for even Windows 10, although Microsoft says they are improving things for 4K and vector graphics in Office 2019 (which is still the exact same version-revision as Office 2016, version 16.0), it still sucks compared to other platforms.
Windows continues to be a massive let-down on 4K,
Yerbury wrote:I haven't done any research on 4K pricing but I am guessing that the cost is daunting.
Hardly for 60-75Hz. E.g., my Samsung 28" 4K@60Hz panels were US$399 back in 2014, and I got one for US$299 on-sale, although they are 6-bit TN. The newer 8-10 bit VA and IPS panels are <<US$400 today, 5 years later.
Now higher refresh is another story ... and 4K gets expensive there. But you really don't want 4K for Windows desktop usage.
Yerbury wrote:I'm really hoping to restrict the price to around CAN$500-600 if at all possible. That said, your setup sounds terrific.
The best price right now is on 27-32" 16:9 aspect (normal widescreen) monitors that do 2.5K/1440p (2560x1440) at 144Hz in a Samsung VA panel. They run US$250 for 27" and about US$350 for 32". They game great, and have both great refresh rates and grey-black shades.
Remember, 2.5K is almost 2x as many pixels as 2K, while 4K is exactly 4x as many as 2K.
Some people don't like VA for office work, but at 2.5K, it should be fine. Splurge if you really want an IPS, but IPS does have some 'ghosting'
on lower-end units at high refresh rates. Read reviews ... always
Otherwise ... have you considered having 2 different monitors? One for gaming, one for work? Maybe using 2 arms that swing around? I mention this because 2.5K 60-75Hz monitors are cheap (US$125-200 for 24-27"), and one can even look at 2K/1080p 144Hz monitors for cheap too (<$200 for 27", <$275 for 32"). You wouldn't want a large, 2K for office work, but for gaming with anti-aliasing, they are fine.
Again, you don't want more than 2.5K for Windows, or if you go 3-4K, you want very, very large, like 37"+. But I've always found 32" to be the 'maximum'
I want for 'desktop'
work. BTW, those 34" Ultrawide monitors (3440x1440) are more like the height of a 27-28" 16:9.
You'll see what I mean if you look at a 32" 16:9 'normal wide'
v. a 34" 2.33:1 'ultra wide'
monitors. The 32" is much, much taller than the 34", which looks more like a 27-28" ... except is ultra-wide. I won't get into the debate of 34" Ultra-wide (2.33:1) v. 2x or even 3x 27" wide (16:9) panels.
Also ... it's a lot to push 1440p@144Hz, and 1080p@144Hz is easier. It really depends on your GPU, although even nVidia these days supports AMD FreeSync (it's based on a VESA standard) in its latest drivers. But I wouldn't use a 1080p 27", much less 32", for desktop work.
Yerbury wrote:It is funny that you mention HOTAS - I have also been reading a bit on controls etc this morning. I was planning to use keyboard/mouse only, but that may not be feasible.
I went Saitek X-55 and now I'm on (now Logitech) X-56, and not disappointed. But they are not cheap. I got mine for <US$200, including one X-56 as a warranty replacement for a X-55, but they are US$250 now.
But if I wanted to only spend US$100-125, the Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS is the bang-for-the-buck. I actually have that HOTAS as well, but I'm too used to the X-55/X-56 to make the switch. I recommend it as an initial HOTAS.
I actually started playing Elite with just a Thrustmaster T.Flight Hotas X for US$30. Never pay $50 for them, they are on-sale every now and then for US$30. If you're going to pop for that for $50, just go the full T16000M FCS instead