The Best 4K Gaming Monitors

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,341   +2,629
I know technically people can now play "high framerate 4k" that is, not truly 4k just upsampled 1440p or 1080p thanks to DLSS and FSR

However I have a feeling people wanting to game at 4k might be more interested in image quality and not raw framerates. Specially because if you settle for something more reasonable as 4k and *only* 60FPS then you are very likely to get away with a much more reasonably priced GPU (With or without the inflated prices, which might end up being just the new prices for good) Whatever games you can't run at native 4k 60fps then you can also use a modest 3060 to push out "4k-like" visuals @ 60 with DLSS or FSR
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,453   +3,784
I agree with the use of an OLED TV for your PC - but as a second monitor. I have the 65" Sony A9f, and at 65", there is no way I could put it on my desk.

But I have a wireless keyboard/mouse that I can move to my couch when it's time to game or watch 4k movies.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,056   +877
I know technically people can now play "high framerate 4k" that is, not truly 4k just upsampled 1440p or 1080p thanks to DLSS and FSR

However I have a feeling people wanting to game at 4k might be more interested in image quality and not raw framerates. Specially because if you settle for something more reasonable as 4k and *only* 60FPS then you are very likely to get away with a much more reasonably priced GPU (With or without the inflated prices, which might end up being just the new prices for good) Whatever games you can't run at native 4k 60fps then you can also use a modest 3060 to push out "4k-like" visuals @ 60 with DLSS or FSR
Actually DLSS and FSR are more viable at higher resolutions as they have much greater internal resolutions to work with.

You would have a much harder time working out if DLSS is on or off at 4K than 1440p for example.
 

godrilla

Posts: 325   +155
Wake me up when I can have 240 Hz at 4K/UHD.
What's more important to you 240 frames per second at 4k to get instant response times 1 ms and low input lag or the same low input lag and response times 1ms but 120 fps at 4k with less waisted resources?
Also imagine the hardware requirements to push 4k 240fps.
The c1 at 4k 120fps already competes with the fastest lcds out there for input lag and response times. What I learned is that there is no ideal monitor out there but monitors vendors will charge you a sky is the limit premiums on marketing perceived ideal monitors that fall short every time. The c1 comes close, well closest as we have ever been to ideal content consuming display to date.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 628   +546
Speaking as a LG B6 user, I can say Burn In is a long term issue, but LG has been very good with panel replacements (even out of warrantee). And there are basic mitigation steps you can take. Newer models are also far more burn in resistant then my old B6 is.

As for pixel structure, yes, ClearType is more or less a necessity, especially if you aren't running full RGB/4:4:4 (more of an issue on pre-HDMI 2.1 models). That being said, my B6 hasn't had any problems with text clarity with ClearType enabled, even when running at 4:2:2.

And yes, in terms of pure gaming features/quality, OLED smokes the competition. LCDs can only go so far, and no matter what have to suffer compromises.
 

McKocoa

Posts: 41   +55
Gaming and watching sports in true 4k is amazing. It's most impressive when you have a full HD monitor next to ultra HD 4k monitor. So much screen space and such smooth edges, it wows. Costs are still high, might be worth waiting for one more generation of gpus and monitors. Really enjoying my Acer Nitro XV282K only flaw is it's expensive; $650 for the Gigabyte M28U 28" seems like a good value.
 

Rdmetz

Posts: 340   +163
I've been gaming on lg oled's for about 5 years now with my most recent being a 4k/120hz CX I would never go back to a standard monitor or lcd TV ever again.

It just blows away anything even remotely close to it in terms of cost.

I've had 3 so far and unless something truly next gen comes along my next upgrade will be another one of whatever the current best is from LG oled at that time.
 

sreams

Posts: 191   +312
Been running a $320 50" Samsung 4K TV for years now. At 60Hz, it isn't great for twitch gaming, but I haven't found reason to spend *way* more money on a much smaller 4K monitor yet. Maybe I'll replace it when 50"/120Hz is inexpensive in the same way this was.
 

Yenega

Posts: 302   +202
What's more important to you 240 frames per second at 4k to get instant response times 1 ms and low input lag or the same low input lag and response times 1ms but 120 fps at 4k with less waisted resources?
Also imagine the hardware requirements to push 4k 240fps.
The c1 at 4k 120fps already competes with the fastest lcds out there for input lag and response times. What I learned is that there is no ideal monitor out there but monitors vendors will charge you a sky is the limit premiums on marketing perceived ideal monitors that fall short every time. The c1 comes close, well closest as we have ever been to ideal content consuming display to date.

It's not a problem, my 3080 Ti already can hit 150-200 fps in most games at 4K/UHD if I want to. When aiming for high fps, you obviously lower settings instead of using "ultra preset" and there's barely any penalty of going to 2160p from 1440p on Ampere top SKUs because they have insane bandwidth and tons of cores (which don't really can be utilized in 1080p and 1440p). And there's always the option for DLSS to improve fps alot. 4K/UHD going forward is not going to be a problem to drive for people with high end GPUs. And Displayport 1.4 with DSC can do 240 Hz just fine. It's just a matter of time before we see 240 Hz panels/monitors. And I like to have a VRR range of x-240 instead of x-144 and hit the limit all the time.

I already have an OLED 120 Hz but it's too large for shooters so I still use my IPS 1440p at 240 Hz which is way faster. I am not going back to 120-144 Hz on my PC thats for sure. Especially not on a LCD screen which are slower in pixel response than OLED.
 
Last edited:

Yenega

Posts: 302   +202
1. LG 27GN950-B · 2. Acer Predator XB273K · 3. LG 27UL650 · 4. Eve Spectrum ES07D03 · 4. Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ

PG32UQX beats them all but you pay the price however you get HDR that actually work (FALD with alot of zones is needed on LCD).

None of those monitors you listed can do HDR properly.

I heard good things about Gigabyte M28U however I would probably also choose LG 27GN950 if I wanted a 4K/UHD monitor today. And Asus PG32UQX if price did not matter.
 
Last edited:
I am sick of reviews that are out of touch with the gaming world. A review of gaming monitors that do not include Ultrawide monitors? What a joke? I would never go back to a standard monitor after using a 37.5 Ultrawide for over a year. Personally, I would like a 100hz+ 43in UW with 3840x1600 rez. 49in is goofy.
 

bajasadrveta

Posts: 11   +4
Hi why is there no Review of 27" LG 27GP950-B it was released few months ago and it is a good monitor. It has 4k with HDR and HDMI 2.1 at price of $899. Here is the link https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27gp950-b-gaming-monitor
Please review it I want to compare it with the Asus 32 inch that offers 4k HDMI 2.1! Thanks!
Way too close to 1000$ to justify it over a 32inch (for size) and M28U for price to performance. It's also in a territory of better performing ultrawides or simply put multiple 1440p monitor setups, if you need pixels for content creation.
 
Way too close to 1000$ to justify it over a 32inch (for size) and M28U for price to performance. It's also in a territory of better performing ultrawides or simply put multiple 1440p monitor setups, if you need pixels for content creation.
M28u has lower hdr rating, 8 bit color only also the color saturation is worse too(no DCI-P3). Also, due to having small room and table I don't like monitors above 27inches.
 

bajasadrveta

Posts: 11   +4
M28u has lower hdr rating, 8 bit color only also the color saturation is worse too(no DCI-P3). Also, due to having small room and table I don't like monitors above 27inches.
Than go for the LG. If you can justify those features, it should make you happy. I was just putting my two cents out there.
 

Yenega

Posts: 302   +202
I am sick of reviews that are out of touch with the gaming world. A review of gaming monitors that do not include Ultrawide monitors? What a joke? I would never go back to a standard monitor after using a 37.5 Ultrawide for over a year. Personally, I would like a 100hz+ 43in UW with 3840x1600 rez. 49in is goofy.

I will never buy Ultrawide (again), because alot of games are don't support 21:9 and black bars or stretching is what you get in these games. Even new games.

And this topic is about "4K Monitors" hence why Ultrawide is not mentioned - Strange huh? 4K/UHD have 3 million more pixels over 1440p Ultrawide.

21:9 is never going to be a standard, since most games are developed for consoles which are made for TVs aka 16:9 (HUD and everything else is optimized to 16:9 as a result). However 99% of PC gamers use 16:9 too, thats why Developers focus on 16:9 support and always will

Had an Ultrawide for 4 weeks before I returned it. It does nothing for me, in the games I play, especially in shooters the aim is off using ultrawide and the extra pixels only distracts, which is why no pro gamers are using ultrawide.

It's mostly useful for sim's, which I don't play. Most games I play don't support 21:9 properly, and sucks for older games and/or emulation etc.

I had the LG 38WN95C-W, 38 inch Ultrawide with 3840x1600 at 144 Hz with Nano IPS. Sadly HDR was crap and capped at 4:2:2 using 144 Hz had to run 120 Hz to get 4:4:4 Chroma Subsampling. Backlight were trash too so HDR performance were a joke anyway, even tho it was 1500 dollars..

I will take my 65 inch OLED with 4K/UHD at 120 Hz native + Gsync any day over an ultrawide if I want "immersion" in a game. Simply next level visuals - blows any pc monitor away. PC monitors are lightyears behind top-end TV's in terms of image quality, especially HDR and especially for dark room gaming (OLED is king, by a huge margin).

For my PC monitor I won't settle for less than 240 Hz going forward. 1440p/240Hz is amazing and I will move to 2160p when 240 Hz is out. 200 fps at 240 Hz is smooth AF, waaay better than 100 fps using 120 Hz. Zero blur or smear.

I hope to see OLED PC monitors in the next years, hopefully with 240 Hz, but 120 Hz OLED is closer to 150-160 Hz LCD in terms of smoothness, so I could settle for 180-200 Hz if OLED. OLED has way faster pixel transistioning and no smearing at all. OLED is king until microLED is ready for consumers, which might take 5-10 more years.

Upcoming 42 inch OLED TV's might be worth it for many people that want a big PC monitor with perfect HDR and 120 Hz + VRR.
 
Last edited:

Reehahs

Posts: 1,294   +962
I will never buy Ultrawide (again), because alot of games are don't support 21:9 and black bars or stretching is what you get in these games. Even new games.

And this topic is about "4K Monitors" hence why Ultrawide is not mentioned - Strange huh? 4K/UHD have 3 million more pixels over 1440p Ultrawide.

21:9 is never going to be a standard, since most games are developed for consoles which are made for TVs aka 16:9 (HUD and everything else is optimized to 16:9 as a result). However 99% of PC gamers use 16:9 too, thats why Developers focus on 16:9 support and always will

Had an Ultrawide for 4 weeks before I returned it. It does nothing for me, in the games I play, especially in shooters the aim is off using ultrawide and the extra pixels only distracts, which is why no pro gamers are using ultrawide.

It's mostly useful for sim's, which I don't play. Most games I play don't support 21:9 properly, and sucks for older games and/or emulation etc.

I had the LG 38WN95C-W, 38 inch Ultrawide with 3840x1600 at 144 Hz with Nano IPS. Sadly HDR was crap and capped at 4:2:2 using 144 Hz had to run 120 Hz to get 4:4:4 Chroma Subsampling. Backlight were trash too so HDR performance were a joke anyway, even tho it was 1500 dollars..

I will take my 65 inch OLED with 4K/UHD at 120 Hz native + Gsync any day over an ultrawide if I want "immersion" in a game. Simply next level visuals - blows any pc monitor away. PC monitors are lightyears behind top-end TV's in terms of image quality, especially HDR and especially for dark room gaming (OLED is king, by a huge margin).

For my PC monitor I won't settle for less than 240 Hz going forward. 1440p/240Hz is amazing and I will move to 2160p when 240 Hz is out. 200 fps at 240 Hz is smooth AF, waaay better than 100 fps using 120 Hz. Zero blur or smear.

I hope to see OLED PC monitors in the next years, hopefully with 240 Hz, but 120 Hz OLED is closer to 150-160 Hz LCD in terms of smoothness, so I could settle for 180-200 Hz if OLED. OLED has way faster pixel transistioning and no smearing at all. OLED is king until microLED is ready for consumers, which might take 5-10 more years.

Upcoming 42 inch OLED TV's might be worth it for many people that want a big PC monitor with perfect HDR and 120 Hz + VRR.

It seems like in terms of framerate you get the following these days:

- 1080p at 360Hz
- 1440p at 240Hz
- 2160p at 144Hz

OLED for HDR
HDMI 2.1 a must have
Contemporary panel-tech
A decent price for all of the above can be hard to find

KVM switch is a nice edition in some monitors.