Most "NEW" games. For older 4:3 games, it's even worse. Many older (originally 4:3) games have mods to play them in 16:9, but the UI is still stretched. In that case, I'd rather play them in 4:3... with black bars at the sides.

OT: I'm still amazed how many old-games-playthroughs on youtube have been stretched out from 4:3... I mean, if you do all that effort of recording the ancient thing (often with voice commentary) - why then present it in such a distorted way?

Of course. I also play anything old that was made for 4:3 with black bars, unless it has a mod that also upscales UI, HUD, text, corrects FOV etc. (which happens pretty rarely as mostly, it's just guides on how to force an old game in to 16:9 without correcting anything).

But even stuff made in recent years still often doesn't account for anything bigger than 16:9. The only benefit I see in ultra-wide is for work, where it absolutely shines due to more screen space.

I'm sure that 8K has its purposes... I highly doubt that playing games at desk-distance is one of them. Definitely not now, I can't imagine in the future.

You'd think that modern AAA games now all support ultra-wide... from what I've read, the focus on multiplayer is why they don't.
Isn't Star Craft II one of them? It's completely ridiculous; It doesn't matter if you only play the campaign - Blizzard had purposely not added ultrawidescreen support... because it can be an unfair multiplayer advantage.

It was supposed to be my password but I mixed it up when I created my account :-)

Thanks a lot for your replies and your (tailored) links, I checked them all out.

I forgot to mention I have now a +-10 year old 24" Asus VE248H (1920*1080 @60 Hz) that never failed me but it loses sharpness as soon as I move my head around and I'm using scroll bars too much in my opinion and the picture always looks "dusty".

Your replies had me think 27" is too small for a change from my current monitor, and 8K is overkill for my usage. Also, thanks for mentioning practical criteria like reasonable distance on a desktop (mine is 90 cm deep) because I was thinking the bigger, the better for whooooping immersion (like a TV set) but I'll only end up with a headache, motion sickness or vision strain if I scan constantly with my eyes/head in a "in your face" 90 cm / 34"+ configuration.

I narrowed down my criteria to 32" only because as you said 34" with more width is useless on most websites and my work applications where everything is tacked to the left and scroll is 99% of times vertical (I even put the Windows task bar on the right), but I never thought of possible multitasking untill now so that's a good point. Also the 32" seem to have "universal" defaults like 2560 x 1440 16:9 that could avoid me some headaches in compatibility. With this lower resolution, maybe the the only thing I would miss out would be impressive high resolution demo videos on YouTube.

Thanks to the tool of Canuck_Cat I could narrow down my criteria to 4 semi-finalists:

https://fr.pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#sort=-size&r=256001440&F=812800000&D=30000,165000&G=100000000000,5000000000000&X=0,59869&A=2,5

The full vertical option of LG 32GK850F-B is quite interesting for work.

Looking at these monitors, I have a few more questions:

1. If I'm not playing action/FPS games, what is the maximum acceptable response time? Should I aim for 1 ms as you said or 5ms max is OK?

2. You said 75 Hz is OK, I thought 144 Hhz was the norm for a 32": is 75 Hz enough for games or would 144 Hz be better to spare my eyes (even in working environment) or there's no noticable difference?

3. I never used DisplayPort but I do have DP connectors behind my PC, what is the best technology, HDMI or DisplayPort (because some monitors seem to work only with one of both)?

4. In your experience, do curved monitors make sense for a 32" or is it just a gadget? BTW, I'm not sure I wan't to feel more immersed in my work applications :-p

I don't know; I've had multiple TFT monitors in the last 15 years and I've never noticed the difference in response times.
Just look at your current monitor - what's the response time - do you notice it? Do you have an issue with it?

I've never heard of the effects of TFT refresh rates on your health/eyes. (unlike CRT monitors) Backlight dimming modulation is a different matter.
In general - some people prefer high refresh rates / FPS for "fast action" games. For anything else, higher than 60 Hz/60 fps can be hard to notice. Me, I'm fine with anything above 30 fps (stable).
Make up your own mind - maybe go try it out in a store, just don't make decisions based on what "people on the internet" say. (including me)

Here's some reading material:
https://www.tomshardware.com/features/displayport-vs-hdmi-better-for-gaming
In short, it doesn't matter, unless you want 4K with more than 60 Hz
A practical use case: connect your desktop to your monitor with DP, that leaves the HDMI ports free to connect other HDMI-only devices (laptop/console/etc.)

It's the fast-paced competitive shooters that are mostly driving the +165Hz 1ms stuff. A lot of people are fine with 5ms for many other games.

It's down to the individual preference (most people can see the difference but not everyone cares enough to want to spend +£1,000 on a 2-4x more powerful GPU to run 144-240Hz display vs much easier to drive 60-75Hz). As StingingVelvet said, if you play a lot of older games that are locked to 60Hz, sometimes it can be more annoying to constantly swap back & forth between 60Hz / 144Hz than picking say a 60-75Hz display and sticking with it consistently to develop a better sense of "habituation". As for the health of your eyes, if you get a flicker-free monitor there shouldn't be any visible differences for work. They're nothing like old CRT monitors where you needed +85Hz to avoid seeing the obvious flicker.

nVidia cards used with Freesync monitors require a DisplayPort for the Freesync part to function. Beyond that there isn't much difference for the average person. Most decent monitors should have at least one of each.

Depends on personal preference. I tried a curved monitor and it was OK for games but all the non-straight lines in Excel, Photoshop, etc, drove me nuts and I definitely prefer "flat" for working applications. You really won't know how you feel about curved monitors until you try them yourself. It's one of those things people tend to either love or hate but won't know in advance simply by asking other people on the net. See if you can test one in person somewhere (a friend, high-street store, etc) before buying.

I'm not entirely sure if my monitor does auto switching in a way that it is non perceivable or that the gsync feature prevents any abnormalities but i have a 144 hz monitor and have found no trouble what so ever with any game or piece of software i'm using ranging from the 90's to current day. For the triple A titles 144 hz is automatically selected and older games, to a point of course, do offer most of the time the same refresh rate option

I feel that it's a bit related to native vs. non-native resolution. e.g. 1080P on a 1440P screen will be the most noticeable when using your OS/programs and games with a lot of UI elements - and the least noticeable when viewing moving images (movies, fast(er) games without much of a UI).

I'm not sure about what you are trying to say here is the entire truth concerning the different output modes.

During the search for a monitor i came across a lot of user reviews that offered the wisdom that the monitor talked about should be used with a display port to get the most out of your card's power.
Personally I did not had a feeling that games did perform better when i used the new monitor with a display port cable instead of the old hdmi 2.1 cable i was using with the old monitor, and outside 2 EA titles that performed on higher graphics with less gpu consumption it seemed that other titles faired about the same ( though this observation has to be taken with several grains of salth since 2k obviously has a higher demand on the games then a 1080p resolution )
but with all the mentioning i noticed i thought it maybe could be wise to leave that notification with this post

------------------------
quote from a tomshardwaresharepost

DisplayPort vs. HDMI: The Bottom Line for Gamers
HDMI cable plug

(Image credit: Shutterstock)
We've covered the technical details of DisplayPort and HDMI, but which one is actually better for gaming? Some of that will depend on the hardware you already own or intend to purchase. Both standards are capable of delivering a good gaming experience, but if you want a great gaming experience, right now DisplayPort 1.4 is generally better than HDMI 2.0, HDMI 2.1 technically beats DP 1.4, and DisplayPort 2.0 should trump HDMI 2.1. The problem is, you'll need to buy a TV rather than a monitor to get HDMI 2.1 right now, and we're not sure when DP 2.0 hardware will start shipping (RTX 40-series maybe).

For Nvidia gamers, your best option right now is a DisplayPort 1.4 connection to a G-Sync display. If you buy a new GeForce RTX 30-series card, however, HDMI 2.1 might be better (and it will probably be required if you want to connect your PC to a TV). Again, the only G-Sync Compatible displays out now with HDMI 2.1 are TVs. Unless you're planning on gaming on the big screen in the living room, you're better off with DisplayPort right now. Ampere supports HDMI 2.1 but sticks with DP 1.4, and G-Sync PC monitors are likely to continue prioritizing DisplayPort.

AMD gamers may have a few more options, as there are inexpensive FreeSync monitors with HDMI available. However, DisplayPort is still the preferred standard for PC monitors. It's easier to find a display that can do 144 Hz over DisplayPort with FreeSync, where a lot of HDMI FreeSync displays only work at lower resolutions or refresh rates. HDMI 2.1 meanwhile is only supported on the latest RX 6000-series GPUs, but DisplayPort 2.0 support apparently won't be coming for at least one more generation of GPUs.

What if you already have a monitor that isn't running at higher refresh rates or doesn't have G-Sync or FreeSync capability, and it has both HDMI and DisplayPort inputs? Assuming your graphics card also supports both connections (and it probably does if it's a card made in the past five years), in many instances the choice of connection won't really matter.

2560x1440 at a fixed 144 Hz refresh rate and 24-bit color works just fine on DisplayPort 1.2 or higher, as well as HDMI 2.0 or higher. Anything lower than that will also work without trouble on either connection type. About the only caveat is that sometimes HDMI connections on a monitor will default to a limited RGB range, but you can correct that in the AMD or Nvidia display options. (This is because old TV standards used a limited color range, and some modern displays still think that's a good idea. News flash: it's not.)

Well, just my opinion here:
1). I would always go for 1ms. Higher response rates are fine, and if you play anything on a standard telly would likely be higher than that. But one day you might want to play a twitch shooter and notice. Just a word of caution, if it’s costs a bit more, get it.

2). A fair few games only run at 60mhz. With your card you should be able to push higher though. As I say, I tend to limit my monitor at 80, but it can go up above 100mhz.

3) To use resolution above HD, you will need to use DP ports. Your card will have them. Try to get the latest ports versions. Explanation on wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

4) my 34 uwhd tends to feel at the limit of what my eyes can utilise. Curved helps bring the edges in a bit. Is it a big difference, probably not.

Finally, I said it above, you have a nvidia card, you should not look at freesync, use gsync. They are made by the same company to work at maximum benefits, where freesync is designed to work with anything.
Also, it’s always a toss up, money versus what you can get. Me, I would maximise anything I can for the money even if I go over a bit.
Oh, go and see them in action at Fnac (think that’s France, but could be Belgium only). Having a few lined up showing the same image can really help in terms of what you want from colour, brightness etc. Which may not always be the “best” but might suit you more.

"Game performance" has nothing to do with Displayport or HDMI - by themselves. Different versions of both just support or limit some resolutions/refresh rates/sync/(HDR?)... technologies.
AFAIK, the OP's GTX1070 doesn't support HDMI 2.1 for e.g. 4K120Hz, but it can do that combination with Displayport (1.4). But it doesn't matter if you don't have or buy a 4K120Hz monitor.
If you already get the most out of your connection, Displayport v3.8 or HDMI v6.4 aren't going to improve on it.

I think you're confusing HDMI with DVI. Just look up the specifications of HDMI (especially 2.0 and 2.1). They go way above HD (I assume you mean Full HD, because "just" HD = 720P).
Yeah, GSync is the "better" technology. Downsides: needs Nvidia, adds a lot to the price, needs active cooling (fan(s), more noise).

Indeed, Fnac is a well-known electronics (and more) chain in Belgium.

Whatever monitor you end up with, make sure it has no defects. :)
.

That's impossible to "make sure of". Even if you buy a display model in-store; some defects might only become apparent once in use.
Possibly the worst defect (still, arguably) is dead pixels. It's not that common anymore as it once was - but you can only avoid it 100% by buying a display model in-store. Of course, display models are not "brand new, unused", they're sort-of second hand (but without the possible higher price discount).

Yes, I technically know that game performance and display port on nvidia's site should not be related, that said display port is the way to go for nvidia and..... i think i read to much user feedback that did indicate that there are games out there that apparently NEED display port, to function ...