I think monitors are sort of like ice cream... meaning two people could "taste" the exact same ice cream or monitor, and come to two completely different conclusions. One person may look at this monitor I'm staring at and say it's the worst looking picture s/he's ever seen.. while another could look at it and swear it's the best monitor ever made anywhere at any time. It's a matter of taste.

So, for that reason I really can't recommend this monitor (or any monitor for that matter) to others... since I have no idea whether your tastes are like mine.

But I purchased this with very low expectations. It was an inexpensive (for a 32 inch 1440p curved monitor) choice from a South Korean company I had never heard of. I was buying it mainly to "get bigger" because my vision sucks and the bigger something is the more likely I can make out what it is (sort of like that eye chart where I can see the two big letters a the top but nothing else LOL). But I expected nothing great.

It's the best looking monitor I've ever looked at. Bar none. I'm not kidding. The whites are so white and the blacks are so black and the colors are.... nothing short of amazing. I have caught myself just sitting here staring at the damned thing. It's that good. I can't believe how lucky I am sometimes. I mean I got this monitor for less than $400 (they gave me a partial refund because initially on the product page they had it listed as a G-Sync monitor but it is not... and since they refunded me the money they've changed the spec page to correctly state AMD's Free Sync).

The games look..... nothing short of SPECTACULAR. I just can't get over how good this thing looks. Better than my ASUS 27 inch one (which before this had the best picture I ever saw). Better than the Dell monitors I had. Better than the AOC and ACER monitors I've had in the past. Better than the LG monitor. Better than any monitor I have ever had or even looked at. It's... amazing. It's just really amazing.

I just wanted to post that because... well, dammit, that small South Korean company that I had never heard of deserves some kudos. This. Monitor. Is. Awesome.

Looks nice. I ended up spending a bit more and went with:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B01DOIFV12/ref=psdcmw_428652031_t1_B014F9QHVC

It is a fecking amazing monitor. Played fallout4 with widescreen, AC syndicate, and currently far cry 4. No lags or graphical problems as yet, smooth as butter max res. Next up will be cod: ww2, that should be a real test.

We'll i doubt that it's any good.. for anyone with taste?
Is it an LCD?
LCD are incapable of doing good blacks, even 5,000 TV's get beat by 10 dollar monitors. I can recommend monitors to people, because itès not magic, itès real measureable figures, which represent how accurate a display is, the more accurate it is, in SMPTE, the more recommendable it is. itès like numericic, 4.3/10, 7.4/10. yur display there is like 4.5 out of ten, there are displays way up in 7.8. The new galaxy s8 display is way up at 7.8 out of ten. Yes there are different ways a display can be accurate or inaccurate, but if you have a grading system, with steps, and you offer that for people to review and understand I think it's easily to make recommendations based on that,.

Not only this, but most lcd monitors are typically only capable display content with 255 shades of gray, old CRT monitors can easily do content with 1024 steps of gray, thats alot more grays, but that also means much finer color across the board, because all colors have shades. Your monitor like likely supports only 255 shades of gray, from white to black., other monitors support 1024 shades of gray. And not only that, but lcd's presently are very incapable regarding the handling of shades between adjacent pixels.. If it's an LCD you might think this is good, because you have little experience, but i'm betting i could find a dozen faults which make it totally un-appreciable compared to other "real" performance monitors., and find that it's generally terrible.., I was impressed by an AH-IPS too, once.
PLUS, while 1440 is nice; all else considered equal,
it doesn't follow the typical media increment., of 540p, 1080p, 2160p, so most of your media, presently will be from an additionally compromised materials handling, resultant in inter-pixel errors or incorrect spot sampling. thats not saying it's not good, that's just saying, often times everything your watching is un-necessarily compromised, except 720p captures because 1440p follows the 720p increment.. Youtube offers a good bitrate for 1440p samples of 4k and 8k content, and even some much less common 1440, in the case of 8k, your losses will be much smaller, then say from 1080p or 4k downsample corruptions. And you'll be well treated for 720p media, in some places, from some 720p broadcasters, for an incremental 1:4 1440p pixel map, but good luck finding decent bitrates for that. Youtube 720p birrates, for common 720p broadcasters; are far too low for reasonable quality, people often accept the terrible spot related corruption of a 1080p content downscaled in a compromising lossy fashion, at their system for the bias bitrate youtube offers 1080p users, rather then choosing the low bit rate but native 720p option. That said, fyi, if you see a feed, which is say, native 1080p at 20mbps and one at native 720p at 20mbps, @your 1440p display it might actually be better to choose the 720p option,. for the pixel map of the incremental upscale., than the 108p option, if your display solution handles incremental upscales correctly.

There alot undesirable realities with your display performance, i suggest. Anyone can find anything impressive, if one has no understanding of the world or what makes for a good display.. Does that mean all people should take your recommendation an adopt clearly a bottom denominator recommendation? Like selling terrible but fashionable glasses, to the whole population.. I suggest it's not recommendable, for everyone to look through your crud vision... 30 inches is way to big for proper monitor use, for dealing with fine details. Your need a display close, to leverage close-range vision, OR you incurring tons of ergonomic loss, and vision loss. put it close, and it's too big for you to operate ergonomically, the sides of the display will be to far and even out of the periphery, and you'll have to turn your head most terribly, to see the sides,. if you move it back, so that you can see it all, and you push the display out of close range vision, and thus, into retardo zone, where anything looks "good", because you can't see well enough because it's so far away, lol.,.,

Glad your happy, but i highly doubt your recommendation, that this is good, and makes your games look "spectacular" is worth any salt, due to the compromises of accuracy in reproduction, and probably should be contested to say it's likely not-so at all, for people to avoid ending up crud vision and thinking thats great, when they could achieve much better(more accurate).. Maybe for a complete amateur with no taste willing to operate handicapped, eating hormone filled chemical McDonald's, with little nutrients or flavor; might be great for that.., and i been there before too bro,.. but I'm fairly certain it's no here near what other options have presented themselves in quality displaying..

But now I can show you terrible faults in all modern LCD offerings, from 200 dollar monitors to $5,000 HDTV's, which make them not a good(accurate & ergonomic) monitor for content =)

That looks like the one I have on my wish list (LOL) It costs $999 here. But yeah, I saw that one at Newegg and immediately thought "That's the one I really want". I'll go check out my wishlist and post a link and then we can see if it's the same one or not. If it's not the same, it's pretty darn close.

EDIT: Link
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009869
.
. Well, as I said in the post above, I can't recommend this (or any other) monitor to anyone else.

But I love it.

While your saying you "wont recommend it", when your "commending it" and singing praises, and making allegations like "it makes my games look spectacular", "better than my other ones", it's come off as a recommendation.. Even if though your saying your not making any recommendations...!!! People might think, ohh shoot, it will be "great(well performing) for myself then too.," but i suggest; when understanding the circumstance that it is likely not so, by definition., if great means performance in accuracy that is.. Though, some people, like allegedly yourself; may very well find they are happy after buying the display, which may be an improvement in some ways or all ways, over their previously display solution...

It's really nice to have a new display ones happy with., It`s also nice to have an accurate display and to get "good" results. And maybe my well versed suggestion is wrong, in the very wild odds.. but i have to contest, that it's un-likely well performing(accurate) and faithful in reproducing source contents, though it may have some enjoyable merits for you and other consumers! Like all displays involve compromise, and if your happy your happy. I hope the whites arnt to blue for you. There are displays which perform well in displaying content. Flanders Scientific and Sony sell pro broadcast monitors, which are strong when reproducing contents, the new Dell oled is probably alright, which is also 30 inches. And more oleds are surely to appear in 2018.. and probably with more impressive specs, like 0.00-1000 nits luminance differences between adjacent pixels, for rec.2020 mastered contents. The new OLED display in the samsung galaxy s8, has individual pixels capable of going from 0.00nits(black), to 1000 nits(white) in luminescence, fully seeing rec.2020 luminance, thats between one pixel and the pixel next to it, one 0.00 muminance, and the next 1000 nits, where yours maybe if your lucky has a difference between .10 and 200nits in adjacent black and white pixels, say you had 1 or 4 pixels grids of white and black squares. Hey if your happy your happy, but it has flaws in many ways, all displays have flaws, but more so compared to even free solutions, like say give away old 2070SB diamond pro`s, which can often be had for free or nearly so. But by all means, enjoy your games =) But i have to contest, it`s likely not spectacular monitor for displaying contents, generally speaking,. and is arguable unprefferable compared to other solutions in ways, actually, and there are pretty good solutions too.

deleted

Current OLED technology has low life expectancy.
Already after 10 000 of hours of work theirs specs start to degrade.

That monitor has a lackluster resolution and a bad refresh rate for NVIDIA cards (if the spec is 60Hz for NVIDIA cards, which it seems to be...but I'm not sure because it's worded unclearly).

It's not a bad deal for the price it's offered at, but "spectacular" is probably quite the overstatement.

That's presuming you get no dead pixels. If you get any dead pixels, then it's a horrible deal. ROFL! No, dead pixels are not "normal"...they are an enjoyment-killing severe defect. And the company must be shipping a lot of dead-pixel-filled panels to put that statement right on the webpage in hopes (a) to brainwash consumers into thinking that dead pixel defects are not actually defects, and (b) give themselves a legal loophole to avoid replacing dead-pixel-filled monitors because consumers agreed to accept their "dead pixels are not defects" BS before buying it. Yes indeed, OLED sucks. In addition to dying out, OLED also suffers from burn-in just like Plasma TVs did (which is why they are now extinct).

OLED will be extinct in a few years too. It will be killed by self-emitting QLED which looks as good or better than OLED yet does not have OLED's defects.

It's rather funny that others are telling me what I am seeing with my own eyes. lol.

I've been on computers since the 1980's.. I've gone through probably 2 dozen monitors over the years.

And this is the best one ever. (so far).

Now you may look at it and disagree (and I think I pointed that out in the OP) but you're not going to tell me I'm not seeing what I'm seeing because I am. The clarity is amazing. The whites are really really white and the blacks are really black (some serious contrast here). And the colors? OMG. Simply beautiful.

And at 75Hz it's not near as good as others (I've seen some 1440p's with a 144Htz refresh rate... so this is half roughly). And you could go on and on about the shortcomings I'm sure.

But it's the best monitor I've ever seen. But i still can't recommend it to anyone because... well, this thread shows exactly why. Two people can look at the same exact thing and come to two different conclusions. And there is simply no way I could possibly know who out there might have tastes (or lack thereof if you prefer) like mine. So I can't and won't recommend it. I will however give this company (Crossover) kudos for making a monitor that I like. It's the best monitor purchase I've ever made.

Its not the best you've ever seen, im sure, "sharpness" isnt everything, and oftentimes it's at the cost of reproducing material. The best you've ever seen, in displays, means the most accurate. unless you've hardly ever seen many monitors, it's not so. i t may be the one you prefer the best., but i suggest it is not the best..

one my main monitors i run at 90hz,. its even smoother, for the past age, it's from like the year 2000, cost me 10 bucks i search for these things, and is way more accurate in many respects. but i have many monitors.

You might prefer to run your display though, at 72hz though when your running blu ray content, if your display can properly do that,. for the best "motion" because blue ray playback is 24p(23.976 frames per second), and then each real frame of 24hz will be displayed as one of three into 72hz, and be much closer
at 72hz, and be without MUCH jutter, because 72hz is an incremental of 24p, for some of the best blu ray source motion rendering outside of true 24hz refresh.. otherwise your doing a slight inaccuracy in motion.. and diservice to the materials,. if your display is competant it should do 72hz, also 75hz is not great for 30fps or 60fps sources, because it's not an incremental map like 30hz 60hz or 90hz refresh rates.. good for 24p films though @72.. and maybe "butttery smoothe" for you in games. i do 90 and find it's also very smoothe. sometimes i do 75hz and i find it's nice too. I think 144hz is a bit of an overkill, and that the greatest difference is from 60hz upto 75hz., after that there is a difference, but it's in diminishing returns the farther you go, the xbox 1 was doing 30frames per second i think, and same thing with playstation 4, so we got it good., over 60hz. I thikn 120hz is unfortunate, i think 90hz is a great place to be., after that t's alot of bits for more deminished returns., in orders of magnitude, if teh greatest difference is from say 30hz and up, per hz.

more monitors doesn't mean you have a good perspective,.
I have owned many as well. AH-IPS LED, pva, and the lot.

"

Yes indeed, OLED sucks. In addition to dying out, OLED also suffers from burn-in just like Plasma TV's did (which is why they are now extinct).

OLED will be extinct in a few years too. It will be killed by self-emitting QLED which looks as good or better than OLED yet does not have OLED's defects.
"

Yes i agree oleds presently seem to suck for image retention/burn in. however, to counter the plasma arguments, final generation plasmas were much better then even 2010 panels for image retention, and significantly better than before that, and is for many people is basically not extant, in my findings. I think the big killer for plasma was more profitable LED marketting (terrible displays), and the potential sale of OLEDS and QLEDS. Basically, no matter how good plasma was or could be, there were MUCH higher profits for manufacturers elsewhere, pending i suggest a completely uninformed and tastless consumer majority. Basically, why sell a display you can profit 50 dollar from at a sale price of 400 dollars, when you can profit 350 from selling another display at the same price (LCD panels cost like 15 bucks.)?

I know, i have extensive exercise with samsung 2014 plasmas and Panasonic 2010's plasma's, I witnesses a BIG difference in retention/burn, at least in early panel life, and not even seeing it with the 2014 panel witht he same (not dissimilar) materials. but i didn't do HEAVY gaming on either. And the 2010 my experience thus far had been limited to early life of the panel... i never seen how rentention was mid-life, say at 25,000 hours., if the retention were less then.., and likely so i suggest, especially if materials changed. like if displaying a variety of games, over 25,000 hours, rather then only one, lol, then it might actually have proved to be a non issue for me, there as well. however never got to see that yet.

and there is a half life to image retention, or rather sub-pixel wear, where retention issues might be lost or diminished greatly, i suspect. with both plasma and oled. that is, when all sub pixels meet a middle wear zone of time, say between 10,000 hours and 50,000 hours, retention might not be such an issue as when the displays are new, when all sub pxiels have accrued many thousands of hours, Afterall., its hard to say with oleds, since most ppl probably don't have 16,000 hours on their panels yet... so those reports are of all of display infancy in use, at least mainly so...

But; I mean oleds are great at displaying the content, i didn`t mean they are a great display solution overall, and wouldn't necessarily recommend the hdtv's, which are ABL limited, for anyone owning some other older display solutions, in certain circumstances... and wont recommend them for the wear.. i was simply meaning in terms of accurate reproduction, and spectacular reproduction of game materials. The one in the s8 is probably the best, and is leagues beyond this "best display", in terms of picture quality (accuracy),, it can do, i think, a fullfield white of 1000nits, way more reference than any oled HDTV capped at 126nits(fullfield), and way better pixel control than a FALD QLED solution.. 1 pixel can be pure white, 1000nits, the next one off, and then one beside it a shade of gray out of 1024, all completely unaffected in reproduction by their adjacent pixels, So a spectacular representation of game materials, even in 0.00-100 nits, for rec.709, So i was wanting to make that point, of available visual reproduction.. that there are measures and existing solutions which are by definition waaay better for displaying particular game contents. that is; if the best display in industry is the most accurate..

Self emiting qled., thats a tossup, sony already did that, but they wont release it at the "consumer level". The thing is there too, wleds, and qleds sub pixels will probably, i suggest, become more blue over time, like a non-qled led,.. and result in color imbalances between pixels within the sub pixels which are worn, so you take two red sub pixels and they will look very different depending where on the panel they are and the life of that subpixel LED, i suspect to be an issue at least for early adopters, when the time comes, based on the issues of leds. I also predicted OLED HDTV wear, based on OLEDs, long before reports came out, frmo what i seen in embedded displays, which has proven to be an issue., So in the case of self emitting LED pixels, im concerned some pixels or subpixels will be more blue, or dimmer, or eratic in spectrum, or just different, than others displaying the same value, in reproduction, for reference conditions, and led light has spectrum issues too, in harsh peaks, im concerned might be in displays as well, offering false gamut, and not mitigated enough by QLED, (3m's QDEF). It's a shame about oled's in consumer hdtv's and the retention/wear issues. But again, that might be self defeating in mid-life. i havn't seen real indepth reports with recent panels with lots of use, say over 15,000 hours. WOLED though, are very blue white, almost as bad as some LED LCD displays..

Plasmas phosphors were rated for 100,000 hours before they are at 80 percent brightness, i think it is. Theres alot of midlife, most wont make it out of infancy i'm sure.

I read that slightly differently - I thought that was newegg adding the caution that it is normal from THIS manufacturer.

But otherwise I agree with your point.

Some funny people around here... lol.

I must say, I am impressed at how much better the cheaper monitors are nowadays and how far TN panels have advanced and how close to their theorethical limits the best ones have come.

OLEDs are expensive and if their lifetime is so much shorter, that makes them even more expensive.

I remember seeing really high quality monitors in the eighties and nineties but they cost a fortune then. What we normal mortal people used caused eye strain and headaches. I am sure paying the equivalent of €8000 (no typo) today tempts few. I guess these high class CRTs can be found cheap nowadays.

I would not buy it just because of its description: LOL.

Yes, that seems to be the one. Gsync (gay can on autocorrect!!) with the nvidia card. Refresh rate is 60 default but you can set it up to a hundred via the buttons, I have it at 90. The res really does allow a lot of real estate, easily having 3 or 4 windows open in what would have been 19xx x 1080. Being an ultra wide does mean looking for patches or other things as older games don't have that functionality, AC black sail and rogue there is a replacement exe out there for this, fallout 4 needs flawless widescreen. So do bear that in mind, haven't tried a truely old game yet, but have my old monitor as backup. It's not particulate heavy, and has handles to allow you to move around. Looks great, button menus are a little bit awkward. Setup is dead easy. There is some light bleed at edges, but not too bad. So yes, I am well pleased with it, need to test it out on a lot more games yet though (cod next and maybe an old one).