Monitor comparison: 4k flat vs wqhd curved

Posted 19th May
dear gamers/techies/ninjas

I was contemplating monitor for work and video editing and wanted to check with you real life experience of a "4k resolution flat monitor" vs "ultra or wide qhd curved monitor". A 32" or above should solve my purpose

the more I check the details 4k resolution seems better for the eye, but curve uwqhd looks cool.

so just wanted to check what's the practical advantage of curved wqhd monitors?

any recommendations for uwqhd monitors of 34" - 43" from your experience? (I feel 49 is too big)
Community Updates


I have a QHD curved not wide. I find the curve to be a novelty however it allows more view angles. I feel when playing games such as CSGO I can see more of that makes sense. If your doing gaming you need a great graphics card for 4k gaming so I wouldn't bother if not !
PC operating systems like Windows and Mac OS were designed with the assumption that pixels would always be the same size and objects on screen had their sizes specified in pixels.

So the normal behaviour for PC monitors over the past three decades was that an increase in resolution was accompanied by an increase in physical size. Higher resolution meant more room for stuff.

The nominal pixel size is ~96dpi, although it varies between about 80dpi and 110dpi to accomodate different viewing distances and sharpness of eyesights. That equates to 40-55" for 3840x2160 and 34-45" for 3440x1440.

However, there's always been a desire to allow pixels to be used for more detail rather than more space. IBM and Microsoft introduced 3840×2400 monitors and windows support to use them in 2000 and by 2010 it was obvious enough that it's a good idea that both iOS and Android were written that way from the start.

But for Windows and Mac OS the limitation has always been to get application developers to support it and it's only really in the last five years that's happened in any great numbers.

So monitors over about 110dpi are known as a Retina or HiDPI display and they're intended to be used differently to other monitors. To display the same thing as a lower resolution monitor, but in more detail (in those applications which support it).

The reasons you'd avoid a HiDPI screen is compatibility. Although support has grown enough that they're here to stay, it's not at the point where it's universal and robust.

HiDPI also works best at double the resolution which would be a 24" 3840x2160 or 32" 5120x2880 (which I don't think has been released yet) so in theory a 32" screen with 1.5x resolution (3840x2160) will be slightly blurry in comparison to 1x or 2x. Although I haven't sat down with one to actually see whether it's a big enough effect to be relevant in reality.

So 4K at 43" is just a normal (albeit large) monitor, it's only something different at smaller sizes.

Ultrawide monitors are useful in gaming because games tend to be set up to expand the view for wider aspect ratios, so they actually allow you to see more rather than less than a 16:9 monitor of the same width but more height. For office use I'm not sure, but cuttting away the top and bottom just to leave the more useful portions may offer some of the eye strain benefits of a smaller screen without the disadvantages of less space?

I don't know if anyone's come up with a good technical reason why curves are good, but plenty of people have expressed the opinion that they make the screen feel better so there's probably something to them.
So what you guys saying is there is no enough reason to go with curved at this moment?
I am sitting in front of a 32" 4K at the moment though I run it at 1440P as 4K would be a joke.
I like to sit close to the screen and find that the edges are not in my line of sight. When I look to the left or right side I am effectively off centre. I was pondering this last week and thought that on reflection, curved would be really useful for my viewing distance.
Anybody who buys ultrawide without it being curved must get annoyed rather quickly.
Post a comment