Dell s2417dg or Dell U3418DW

[Genesis89]

Gtx 1070 ti. I've been on a 2411z the past 2 years I want something larger and 1440p. I play wow and counter strike source. Afraid of the lag on ultra wide and if it affects shooter performance. Anyone have any input?

[RealNC]

Well, ultrawide does have its problems. But it's just personal preference, really. I prefer 16:9. If I was a big racing or flight simulator fan, I might consider ultrawide. But for the vast majority of games, 16:9 is the most compatible (no glitches) and for me it's "wide enough."

But again, personal preference.

If you want something larger, you can go for 1440p 27" 16:9. It is still a step-up in pixel density compared to 1080p 24". You're getting a bigger screen size, and a higher pixel density (higher DPI.) And 2560x1440 is a very good match for a 1070 Ti. You are pretty much guaranteed good frame rates. But with a 3840x1600 ultrawide, that's almost 4K. You'd need a 1080 Ti for high FPS with modern games.

[Genesis89]

Should I consider that 27 dell monitor? Is there something better out possibly 30-32 inch. I know the point of the curve is to help your peripheral vision take everything in. Maybe 27 is the sweet spot?

[RealNC]

If you go 32" 1440, you will be getting the exact same DPI as 24" 1080p (92 DPI.) If you go above that (34" 1440p) you'll be downgrading your current DPI. So I'd say 32" 1440p would be a huge screen size upgrade but without any downgrade in pixel density (but no pixel density upgrade either.)

Whether 32" is too big for a monitor or not is, again, personal preference. It is huge. I upgraded from 24" to 27" and is already a very big size difference. But personally I wouldn't mind 32". I like to play games on big displays in front of me. For CS:S or CS:GO though, you would probably end up pushing the monitor back a bit, as it would almost certainly be too big for that kind of game.

There's a 31.5" 1440p g-sync display from LG (the 32GK850G) that does look like it's really good. It's a VA panel. That means much better overall image quality than TN, but it has it's own downsides too. Take a look at this post:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4384&p=34513#p34509

[Genesis89]

I was really considering that LG monitor until I read a review saying text on the screen looked very bad due to I guess the dpi? And I also saw some really mixed comments on the 27" dell. Starting to feel like I'm not going to find a monitor better than the xl2411z.

[RealNC]

I was really considering that LG monitor until I read a review saying text on the screen looked very bad due to I guess the dpi?

The DPI on that monitor is almost exactly the same (it's only a little bit better) as the DPI on a 24" 1080p monitor. Meaning fonts will look like on a 24" 1080p monitor.

Compared to a 27" 1440p monitor, the DPI is worse (obviously), since 27" 1440p has higher DPI than 24" 1080p.

24" 1080p: 91.79 DPI
27" 1440p: 108.79 DPI
31.5" 1440p: 93.24 DPI

(You can calculate these online here: http://www.pxcalc.com)

I have used a much lower DPI display in the past (81 DPI, it was a 27" 1080p), and that's where fonts actually look real ugly. Games and movies are still fine though, although you lose some of the "pop" in color definition and sharpness.

Anyway, long story short: if you currently use a 24" 1080p monitor, going to a 32" 1440p (the LG is 31.5") will give you the same sharpness. Plus the difference between TN and VA, of course. If you're looking for an upgrade to both DPI and screen size, then you should look for a 27" or 28" 1440p display.

[Genesis89]

So basically if I upgrade to the LG text wont be anymore blurry than it already is?

Secondly would you consider that dell the best 1440p 27" should I go the 27" route to save $?

[RealNC]

So basically if I upgrade to the LG text wont be anymore blurry than it already is?

It's the same DPI as 24" 1080p, so everything should look just as sharp. The main difference to IQ will be the VA vs TN issue, not the pixel density.

Secondly would you consider that dell the best 1440p 27" should I go the 27" route to save $?

I can't tell you what screen size you should get That's up to you. All I can tell you is that, personally, my 27" display is big enough for me when playing games and using the desktop for work, but I would probably be OK with 32" (I can always push it back away from me for desktop work,) and, finally, that I'm not a big fan of ultra-wide displays. So that stuff is really a list of personal preferences, not recommendations.

My actual recommendations are: having g-sync, having a panel that does not have pixel inversion artifacts and that has better gamma and contrast (that means I recommend IPS and VA more than TN, unless you really can't stand IPS and VA glow and prefer TN color/gamma shift instead.) The exception is if you prefer ULMB instead of g-sync, in which case you should probably go for a TN panel, as IPS and VA have more crosstalk in ULMB mode. Again, the other post I linked to (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4384&p=34513#p34509) has videos where the pcmonitors.info reviewer talks about IPS/VA vs TN advantages and disadvantages.

The monitor recommendations of pcmonitors.info seem rather solid to me:

https://pcmonitors.info/recommendations

As of right now, if we consider g-sync as a must-have (which I personally do), we basically get the Dell S2417DG, the Dell S2716DG(R), and the LG 32GK850G as good choices for a gaming monitor.

They don't have a recommendation for a 27" IPS or VA at 1440p. I'm using a ViewSonic XG2703-GS, which is a 27" 1440p 165Hz g-sync and I can recommend it, if you can still find it. There's 4 monitors from different brands with this panel in total (Asus, Acer, AOC and ViewSonic.) They're 2016 models though and thus might be more difficult to find, and there's a bit of a panel lottery going on where some units have backlight bleed. I happened to get a virtually "perfect" unit with no bleed to speak of, and it's very good. The colors are calibrated a bit better out of the box compared to the other brands. Compared to LG's VA monitor, you do get a bit better pixel response times, but it doesn't seem to be a major difference according to the reviews (meaning the LG seems to have slightly more ghosting, but you need to be looking close to see the difference.)

Finally, no matter which one of those monitors you pick, it will be a big upgrade to your current one when it comes to image quality and motion fluidity and clarity.

[Genesis89]

I cant seem to find that viewsonic anywhere online. Seems like the lg is around $700 Amazon the dell $450
I think it will be the better choice vs the dell. But it does seem huge sitting 2 feet away. I'll be ordering one of them Friday. There are used ones on Ebay but that's a real gamble.

Other than dead pixels what else should I be looking for on these monitors?

Lastly thanks for all your help!

[RealNC]

Other than dead pixels what else should I be looking for on these monitors?

There's always two things to check for: dead or stuck pixels, and excessive amounts of backlight bleed (BLB.) More info on checking for BLB here:

https://www.144hzmonitors.com/other/bac ... ur-monitor

(Or really just google for "blacklight bleed test".)

Having a bit of BLB is normal with LCD screens. It's rare to get a panel with exactly 0% BLB. It's fine, because it's mostly only visible in a completely dark room with a completely black image being displayed on the monitor.

However, excessive BLB can affect an area of screen even in a well lit room, and completely ruin it in a darker room.

As with bad pixels, BLB differs from unit to unit (you can get two units of the same monitor, and one can be perfect, the other atrocious.) Also, BLB can change in time. BLB is partly created through too much pressure of the frame pushing against the panel, and that changes with time. Sometimes I monitor with no BLB can get some BLB, which can then later disappear again. (I've had this happen here.)

However, an excessive amount of BLB usually means some form of permanent defect in that area of the frame, and it won't be going away.