Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«776 »
  • Post
  • Reply
TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE


Slippery Tilde

Mistikman posted:

I need some help distinguishing between 2 Acer models that are nightmarishly similar in name.

Acer Predator XB273K Sbmiprzx $849.99

Acer Predator XB273K GPbmiipprzx $699.99

For some reason, the top one is about $150 more expensive at Microcenter, but it seems to be worse across the board and I can't figure out why it's more expensive.

They both have the same screen size, the same resolution, the same panel type (IPS) but the cheaper one is 144hz vs 120hz for the more expensive one, and the cheaper one has 1ms response time vs 4ms for the more expensive one.

The cheaper one has twice as many inputs as the more expensive one. They both support G-Sync. They both do HDR (assuming poorly)

Is the less expensive one just newer and somehow supporting better features at a lower cost?

XB 273K Sbmiprzx is actual G-sync with the expensive G-sync module. Seems identical to the original XB273K Pbmiphzx from 2018 but with a new SKU because of course Acer would do that . XB273K GPbmiipprzx is Freesync ("G-sync compatible") and seems like a refresh of the old XV273K Pbmiipphzx. You want the GPbmiipprzx.

I'm the goon who has a XV273K GPbmiipprzx by the way, hereinafter referred to as the XV273K. It's okay but not worth its launch price of $1k - bad panel uniformity, pretty slow response time in general and especially at lower refresh rates. I dunno how or if these updated models have been improved, but if it's still mostly the same you're getting something that's worse than an LG 27GL83A in most respects except for resolution, at almost twice the price. For me that's okay, I value resolution higher than most and don't really play shooters much these days, but you should know that's what you're getting.

You can't actually use the XB273KGP at 144Hz by the way, it's still only DP 1.4 so you're limited to 120Hz unless you want to output YUV 4:2:2 or something to it, and don't do that, it looks terrible.

TheFluff fucked around with this message at 09:21 on May 18, 2020

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE


Slippery Tilde

e: oops double post

nerox
May 20, 2001


8-bit Miniboss posted:

Unfortunately the 27GL83A is an Amazon exclusive. So you're stuck with using things like NowInStock or hovering on the page for stock refreshes when Amazon proper puts them up.

I had mine ordered in less than 24 hours with this website. If you make an account, it can be setup to text you when it comes in stock. The text contains a link to it purchasing it, so I had one ordered within a minute of it coming back in stock.

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!

K8.0 posted:

4k gaming monitors aren't a real thing yet. Maybe in 6-12 months the first good ones show up, but they'll be really overpriced for a while.

There are no 4k gaming monitors that are really worth buying yet. The monitors aren't particularly good, they're very niche products with lots of limitations and compromises, largely because HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.4 don't have enough bandwidth for them. Maybe in 6-12 months the first ones start showing up. Alternatively, buy an LG OLED and wait for HDMI 2.1 GPUs to come out. There is a goon who has had I think an XV273K for a few years, and while he's happy enough with it I don't think he's ever recommended anyone else to buy one.
Well goddamn.

My secondary 1440p144 display is developing streaks between the top and display layers, presumably lovely application of glue that's now aging differently, or whatever. I'm not really going to buy exactly the same specs either, so it's gotta be 4K and I'd also like to keep the high frame rates (including some kind of VRR). The first 4K120/144 displays have been announced like almost a year ago, and there's still barely anything so far, other than those Acers (and I guess equivalent Asus models).

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE


Slippery Tilde

Combat Pretzel posted:

Well goddamn.

My secondary 1440p144 display is developing streaks between the top and display layers, presumably lovely application of glue that's now aging differently, or whatever. I'm not really going to buy exactly the same specs either, so it's gotta be 4K and I'd also like to keep the high frame rates (including some kind of VRR). The first 4K120/144 displays have been announced like almost a year ago, and there's still barely anything so far, other than those Acers (and I guess equivalent Asus models).

I'm the guy he was talking about who has an XV273K. It (or the refreshed models discussed at the top of this page) is okay if you really want 4K, but you're compromising on a number of points to get it, and it's almost twice as expensive as a comparable 1440p display. Maybe the refresh is better but I sort of doubt it's by much. For me that's fine, I made the tradeoff willingly, but I've come to accept that I'm a weirdo excessively obsessed with pixel density compared to almost everyone else posting in this thread.

It's also really hard to drive a 4K 120Hz display in recent games. If you don't have a 2080Ti you're going to be running with some kind of upscaling (often in the form of TAA) most of the time to get over 100fps.

TheFluff fucked around with this message at 16:03 on May 18, 2020

K8.0
Feb 26, 2004

Her Majesty's 56th Regiment of Foot

Given that it's a secondary monitor, why not buy a 4k60 monitor? Then you can upgrade your primary with a 4k high refresh VRR monitor in a year or two when the monitors and the hardware to drive them are more of a real thing.

Mr.Radar
Nov 5, 2005

You guys aren't going to believe this, but that guy is our games teacher.


Taco Defender

I've been waiting for 4K 144Hz displays as well since I've had tastes of both HiDPI and HRR and I don't want to sink money into a display that doesn't have both. I was planning to get LG's upcoming 27GN950-B display (announced at CES for release this summer) since it uses one of their NanoIPS panels and otherwise ticks all my other boxes (Freesync being the main one) but I recently found out it only has HDMI 2.0 on its HDMI inputs which feels like it would be a mistake to get now considering I'm planning to hold on to whatever monitor I buy next for ~10 years (or until monitor-sized OLED or MicroLED displays become available). Another company is putting out a display based on the same panel but with an HDMI 2.1 input but they have kind of a sketchy history and they're doing a weird pre-order thing; I think I'll wait until next year's refresh of the LG which will almost certainly include HDMI 2.1.

Mr.Radar fucked around with this message at 21:49 on May 18, 2020

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE


Slippery Tilde

Those Eve monitors are quite possibly vaporware.

As for the LG, that model is still DP 1.4 too but with compression (DSC). TFTCentral found that it worked fine on the Asus XG27UQ with no visual impact nor any additional input lag, so it might be okay. Still, the XG27UQ uses the same panel as the Acer XV273K and has much of the same issues - relatively slow response time compared to LG's 1440p offerings, and pretty terrible panel uniformity (for some reason all of the AU Optronics 4K high refresh rate panels seem to have issues with a significant darkening of the screen along the left edge). It's also pretty overpriced, at least here in Europe, where it's hard to find under 900Ä.

Mr.Radar
Nov 5, 2005

You guys aren't going to believe this, but that guy is our games teacher.


Taco Defender

Yeah, if it weren't for the panel uniformity issues with the AUO 4K HRR panels I probably would have bought either of those Asus or Acer monitors already. But I'm not in a rush to get a new display (my trusty Dell 2007wfp is still working just fine, knock on wood) so I can be patient and wait for the right display.

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!

K8.0 posted:

Given that it's a secondary monitor, why not buy a 4k60 monitor?
Running 4K on the secondary and "only" 1440p on the primary would be weird. Also for movie watching purposes, it'd need to be able to do more than 60hz. The very least run at 72hz, but for obvious reasons preferably 120hz to play both 24 and 30 FPS content smoothly.

CaptainSarcastic
Jul 6, 2013

HAIL SATAN


I don't pay much attention to consoles, but Sony and Microsoft are both touting 8K output as an option on their next generation? That seems...optimistic.

8-bit Miniboss
May 24, 2005

CORPO COPS CAME FOR MY


Holy crap Iíve been playing on TN panels for far too long. Loaded up Witcher 3 on the LG 27GL83A and christ it looks like a new game after already having 120+ hours on it.

Pegnose Pete
Apr 27, 2005

the future


CaptainSarcastic posted:

I don't pay much attention to consoles, but Sony and Microsoft are both touting 8K output as an option on their next generation? That seems...optimistic.

It could end up being an output option in the system menu, but there's no way games will run at that resolution.
I'm highly doubtful it will run modern looking games at 4K 30 without some sort of upscaling trick.
Prove me wrong Sony!

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

CaptainSarcastic posted:

I don't pay much attention to consoles, but Sony and Microsoft are both touting 8K output as an option on their next generation? That seems...optimistic.

Well, the original XBox One "supported" 4k output, too. They didn't put much effort in pointing out that it was 4k@30 thanks to HDMI 1.4a, or that absolutely no games would run at 4k, but hey, it could output that signal!. The XBox One S actually used proper 4k support as an upgrade line, but again it sure as hell wasn't rendering games at that resolution.

That said, 8k video streaming wouldn't be entirely unreasonable for the next-gen consoles to be able to support. I mean, we're nowhere near the ecosystem needed to make that much of a selling feature in the US, but hey, maybe some day!

DrDork fucked around with this message at 15:22 on May 19, 2020

CaptainSarcastic
Jul 6, 2013

HAIL SATAN


DrDork posted:

Well, the original XBox One "supported" 4k output, too. They didn't put much effort in pointing out that it was 4k@30 thanks to HDMI 1.4a, or that absolutely no games would run at 4k, but hey, it could output that signal!. The XBox One S actually used proper 4k support as an upgrade line, but again it sure as hell wasn't rendering games at that resolution.

That said, 8k video streaming wouldn't be entirely unreasonable for the next-gen consoles to be able to support. I mean, we're nowhere near the ecosystem needed to make that much of a selling feature in the US, but hey, maybe some day!

I just looked and I guess there is a handful of 8k displays out there. I also noticed that Dell apparently decided that 1920x1080 is a 2k resolution on the page selling one of theirs.

I guess 4k adoption has gotten more substantial than I would have guessed, but the forecasts I looked at don't predict 8k becoming much of a thing for years.

wolrah
May 8, 2006
what?


DrDork posted:

Well, the original XBox One "supported" 4k output, too. They didn't put much effort in pointing out that it was 4k@30 thanks to HDMI 1.4a, or that absolutely no games would run at 4k, but hey, it could output that signal!. The XBox One S actually used proper 4k support as an upgrade line, but again it sure as hell wasn't rendering games at that resolution.
The original Xbox One actually doesn't have any 4K support at all. IIRC while the GPU was technically capable of outputting that resolution they used an external scaler that wasn't.

The One S updated the scaler so the UI and videos could be run at full 4K60 but the GPU was still a slightly overclocked version of the original so they only expose the capability to the "App" end of the system. A lot of games still didn't even render at 1080p on that hardware still, but even the lighter weight titles weren't allowed to try anything higher until the One X.

DrDork posted:

That said, 8k video streaming wouldn't be entirely unreasonable for the next-gen consoles to be able to support. I mean, we're nowhere near the ecosystem needed to make that much of a selling feature in the US, but hey, maybe some day!
Both Sony and Microsoft have confirmed some sort of 8K support in their next-gen models. so at minimum we should see video streaming/playback. Whether any substantially detailed games can actually run natively at that resolution is a different matter entirely. That said, if AMD can deliver a counterpart to DLSS 2.0 then the native rendering resolution might not be as important as it is now.

Wokrider
Dec 4, 2012


Is the Acer Nitro XV3 - 27 XV273K Pbmiipphzx a solid investment at 699$?

From what I can tell that's supposed to be a steal of a price.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

wolrah posted:

Both Sony and Microsoft have confirmed some sort of 8K support in their next-gen models. so at minimum we should see video streaming/playback. Whether any substantially detailed games can actually run natively at that resolution is a different matter entirely. That said, if AMD can deliver a counterpart to DLSS 2.0 then the native rendering resolution might not be as important as it is now.

Yeah, that's what I was saying: 8k Netflix or whatever isn't at all unreasonable, especially since both the PS5 and XBSX will use HDMI 2.1 outputs. As for gaming, that's highly doubtful unless you mean it'll do internal rendering around 4k and just upscale for output like current-gen consoles have done for years for "4k" gaming. But in that 4k TVs and content are only really now becoming common, it'll likely be well past the PS5/XBSX generation before there's much in the way of 8k TVs or content to consume in the first place.

A 5700 already struggles to hit 60FPS at 4k on an older game like Destiny 2 or BF5. AMD is unlikely to pull a DLSS 2.0 competitor out of their hat anytime soon--the software side of the ecosystem has long been one of AMD's weakest points, and they haven't given any indication that it's something they've been working on. People have just been assuming because if they don't, they're pretty solidly hosed in the GPU arena vs NVidia until they can do so. But that doesn't mean it'll be anytime soon.

Even if they did have one, and it gave comparable 50% speed ups, you'd still be trying to push 4x the pixels with a card that just about meets the minimum for comfortable 4k@60 gaming. It's a non-starter, honestly. Maybe the PS5 Pro refresh might take a crack at it?

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE


Slippery Tilde

Wokrider posted:

Is the Acer Nitro XV3 - 27 XV273K Pbmiipphzx a solid investment at 699$?

From what I can tell that's supposed to be a steal of a price.

There's some discussion of this monitor at the top of this page. If you've decided that you want 4K at 27" and you want high refresh rate and you won't compromise on either of those two and you have a GPU that can make use of it then it's the best option and $700 is a decent price for it. You can get a 27" 1440p monitor that's better in most respects except the resolution for $375, though.

I got basically the same monitor (an earlier SKU but the same panel) at launch for about 1000Ä about a year and a half ago, for reference.

Wokrider
Dec 4, 2012


TheFluff posted:

There's some discussion of this monitor at the top of this page. If you've decided that you want 4K at 27" and you want high refresh rate and you won't compromise on either of those two and you have a GPU that can make use of it then it's the best option and $700 is a decent price for it. You can get a 27" 1440p monitor that's better in most respects except the resolution for $375, though.

I got basically the same monitor (an earlier SKU but the same panel) at launch for about 1000€ about a year and a half ago, for reference.

Yeah, I've read through the recent pages on the thread but got pretty burned out on the Acer models due to all the drat similarities. I was leaning towards the LG 27GL83A-B 27 but they've gotten to almost 600 without tax it's crazy right now.

Having a outside opinion really helps, thanks.

Lowness 72
Jul 19, 2006
BUTTS LOL

Jade Ear Joe

Don't buy it third party. Look for it to come in stock on Amazon.

Whiskey A Go Go!
May 7, 2007

So if I break a bone, I get a cookie? Good deal!

I am currently looking for monitors for my girlfriend as the 10 year old Samsung monitor she has kicked the bucket. She wants a IPS 1080p monitor for work and gaming. I am just confused by the whole Amd Freesync/Gysnc Compatible and Gsync monitors difference as I been out of the tech game for the last 4 years. Is there a big differences between Amd Freesync/Gysnc Compatible and Gysnc Monitors other than price? Is Gysnc Compatible just as good as the Gsync module when it comes to combating screen tearing? Are there issues with Gysnc Compatible monitors that don't exist with gsync module monitors?

Wokrider
Dec 4, 2012


Lowness 72 posted:

Don't buy it third party. Look for it to come in stock on Amazon.

Got it through acer recertified, it was a scratch and dent.
They are a good deal if you don't mind cosmetic annoyances or a refurb, plus the huge advantage is 679$ with no tax abd free shipping and a 90 day warranty for any dead pixels/issues with operation.

Dogen
May 5, 2002

Bury my body down by the highwayside, so that my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride


Whiskey A Go Go! posted:

I am currently looking for monitors for my girlfriend as the 10 year old Samsung monitor she has kicked the bucket. She wants a IPS 1080p monitor for work and gaming. I am just confused by the whole Amd Freesync/Gysnc Compatible and Gsync monitors difference as I been out of the tech game for the last 4 years. Is there a big differences between Amd Freesync/Gysnc Compatible and Gysnc Monitors other than price? Is Gysnc Compatible just as good as the Gsync module when it comes to combating screen tearing? Are there issues with Gysnc Compatible monitors that don't exist with gsync module monitors?

Here is an article for you: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...u-need-to-know/

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

Whiskey A Go Go! posted:

I am just confused by the whole Amd Freesync/Gysnc Compatible and Gsync monitors difference as I been out of the tech game for the last 4 years.

The tl;dr on it is that "GSync Compatible" monitors are pretty much as good as true GSync ones, and usually a good bit cheaper. There are minor differences, but if she's coming from a 10 year old monitor, I wouldn't worry about it. There's really very little reason to pay the GSync tax anymore.

Just note that if a monitor is advertising FreeSync but not advertising that it's GSync Compatible, you should absolutely look up some reviews to see whether it actually works or not--there are some that simply do not play well with NVidia cards at all.

ufarn
May 30, 2009


One thing you don't get without native G-Sync is Variable Overdrive. Best you can do is Adaptive Overdrive that has a few tiers of compensation for ghosting, but it runs into issues when FPS fluctuates. If you don't play competitively or don't know about the issue, you probably won't notice.

Edge issues are obviously a thing and some manufactuers seem to slap "G-Sync Compatible" on their stuff pretty early on. Just let some nerd sites and Reddit review it for issues before you pull the trigger on it.

Native G-Sync was always an insane Nvidia tax to pay on monitors that meant people like me never bothering to update their ancient monitors.

Do all G-Sync Compatible monitors support VRR over for TVs nowadays?

necrobobsledder
Mar 21, 2005
Lay down your soul to the gods rock 'n roll

Nap Ghost

What's the chances of getting a monitor with the following in the next couple years?

  • KVM
  • G-Sync
  • IPS 34"+ ultrawide
  • USB-C input or 2x DisplayPort

I'm pretty annoyed swapping between my gaming workstation and Macbook Pro and am trying to avoid buying yet another monitor (34UM95P, AW3418DW, and a P2415Q in portrait) and shoving two monitors stacked on top of each other in a standing / adjustable desk situation is super awkward. So far it looks like I have to drop G-Sync to get a KVM and expect it'll be years before we standardize on Displayport over USB-C, but maybe I'm wrong.

DrDork
Dec 29, 2003
commanding officer of the Army of Dorkness

necrobobsledder posted:

What's the chances of getting a monitor with the following in the next couple years?

Pretty low, honestly. As you note, KVM and GSync don't really go together. I've actually yet to see KVM + *sync of any sort, and that may be because the hardware needed to do so is expensive--it's hard to find a KVM at all that claims to support >1080p and *sync, and those that do are usually several hundred dollars.

You could potentially do a KVM for just your KB/M and use the input selector on the monitor to swap between inputs, though.

Whiskey A Go Go!
May 7, 2007

So if I break a bone, I get a cookie? Good deal!

ufarn posted:

One thing you don't get without native G-Sync is Variable Overdrive. Best you can do is Adaptive Overdrive that has a few tiers of compensation for ghosting, but it runs into issues when FPS fluctuates. If you don't play competitively or don't know about the issue, you probably won't notice.

Edge issues are obviously a thing and some manufactuers seem to slap "G-Sync Compatible" on their stuff pretty early on. Just let some nerd sites and Reddit review it for issues before you pull the trigger on it.

I used rtings.com for the TV i just got so I will go with their advice on the matter since it was as good as they reviewed it. I usually avoid reddit reviews because it's too many "IMO" pieces or people trying to justify their purchases to as many people as possible.

necrobobsledder
Mar 21, 2005
Lay down your soul to the gods rock 'n roll

Nap Ghost

DrDork posted:

You could potentially do a KVM for just your KB/M and use the input selector on the monitor to swap between inputs, though.
I already have one and with dual monitors it's another wild cable rodeo I'm tired of doing for the past 4+ years. I currently swap between inputs on the monitor, hit the USB switch which works 90%+ of the time, and also switch inputs on my receiver. I had a U2711 before that had a KVM and it worked very reliably compared to this separate switch.

I freakin' love the high refresh rate and G-Sync of the AW3418DW even when I'm working in text editors but it's looking more likely that I'll plop a Thunderbolt 3-2 adapter and use my old LG 34UM95P on my Macs for the foreseeable future then. Combined with a P2415Q in portrait specifically for reading documentation it's a godawful mess of monitors, computers, and switches on my desk. Synergy may help better in my scenario more though. I swear I'm going to wind up retired and not needing to work before this is ever resolved.

CaptainSarcastic
Jul 6, 2013

HAIL SATAN


Whiskey A Go Go! posted:

I am currently looking for monitors for my girlfriend as the 10 year old Samsung monitor she has kicked the bucket. She wants a IPS 1080p monitor for work and gaming. I am just confused by the whole Amd Freesync/Gysnc Compatible and Gsync monitors difference as I been out of the tech game for the last 4 years. Is there a big differences between Amd Freesync/Gysnc Compatible and Gysnc Monitors other than price? Is Gysnc Compatible just as good as the Gsync module when it comes to combating screen tearing? Are there issues with Gysnc Compatible monitors that don't exist with gsync module monitors?

What GPU does her machine use?

Whiskey A Go Go!
May 7, 2007

So if I break a bone, I get a cookie? Good deal!

CaptainSarcastic posted:

What GPU does her machine use?

She is looking at upgrading her school pc as well, so it is up in the air at the moment. She is using a 660Ti at the moment.

8-bit Miniboss
May 24, 2005

CORPO COPS CAME FOR MY


Whiskey A Go Go! posted:

She is looking at upgrading her school pc as well, so it is up in the air at the moment. She is using a 660Ti at the moment.

Yeah, she'll want to get at least on a 10 series card if she wants to use G-Sync Compatible monitors. G-Sync only monitors are not as restrictive but still expensive. That is if she wants to stay on the Nvidia train for video cards.

CaptainSarcastic
Jul 6, 2013

HAIL SATAN


Like 8-bit said above, broader freesync compatibility is limited to newer Nvidia cards. It looks like G-sync goes back to the 650ti or higher for Nvidia desktop cards, and to the 965 for laptop GPUs. I personally never seriously looked at G-sync monitors because the premium has always felt too high.

MrOnBicycle
Jan 18, 2008
Wait wat?

So my PC that I built in ~2010 now (finally) died. Getting back into the whole PC building thing is pretty daunting as I've been out of it for so long, only sporadically helping family with minor decisions through the years. I don't really have a budget for the next build yet, but I figure that with all the improvements in monitor technology it's the place to start and see where a good performance build lands. Resolution-wise I'm thinking that 1080p is too little, but 4k will be super expensive as I definately need to upgrade to at least 144hz since I'll be trying to do some gaming again (my current computer couldn't run anything remotely new from the last 5 years so I haven't really bothered), and 60hz is just painful for gaming once I tried higher refresh rates.
So at the moment, an IPS (I want the good colours), 1440p monitor with at least 144hz is where I'm at. A lot of monitors are at 27", which seems like a good size. I'm using a 23" and a 24" dell at the moment (the ones in the OP). I've checked the LGs mentioned in the last pages of the thread as well as looked up the LG 27GL850. Looks very good, and has a reasonable price I guess.

So I guess my question is: Is 144hz 1440p a reasonable start or am I overstimating the cost of 4k / underestimating the cost of 1440p, and 1080p is still where it's at unless I wanna throw tons of cash at it?

Ihmemies
Oct 6, 2012



4k is super expensive. I have a 400€ RTX 2060 and it is not good for 1440p high refresh rate gaming. It's ok for 60hz 1440p or minimum details higher fps. I do not want to even look at the money required to do high refresh rate 4k gaming.

144hz 1080p is 300mpix/s
144hz 1440p is 530mpix/s
144hz 4k is 1200mpix/s

So 1440p requires nearly 2x and 4k 4x more processing power. Look at gpu reviews what kind of fps the gpu you have money for gives in games.

Ihmemies fucked around with this message at 10:35 on May 21, 2020

Whiskey A Go Go!
May 7, 2007

So if I break a bone, I get a cookie? Good deal!

8-bit Miniboss posted:

Yeah, she'll want to get at least on a 10 series card if she wants to use G-Sync Compatible monitors. G-Sync only monitors are not as restrictive but still expensive. That is if she wants to stay on the Nvidia train for video cards.

She was able to get a monitor from her work for the time being. Seeing how prices are surging from lack of supply she is not in a rush to get a new one. She will probably change her mind on what she want a dozen times before she upgrades in the fall.

K8.0
Feb 26, 2004

Her Majesty's 56th Regiment of Foot

Ihmemies posted:

4k is super expensive. I have a 400€ RTX 2060 and it is not good for 1440p high refresh rate gaming. It's ok for 60hz 1440p or minimum details higher fps. I do not want to even look at the money required to do high refresh rate 4k gaming.

144hz 1080p is 300mpix/s
144hz 1440p is 530mpix/s
144hz 4k is 1200mpix/s

So 1440p requires nearly 2x and 4k 4x more processing power. Look at gpu reviews what kind of fps the gpu you have money for gives in games.

A 2060 won't push the newest games at max settings at 1440p/144fps, but neither will a 2080Ti. A 2060 is strong enough to give you a comfortably locked 140 FPS in competitive games, and solid performance at reasonable settings in anything. People don't need to feel like they need the latest, highest end GPUs in order to bother owning a high refresh rate monitor.

4k being >2x the pixel count of 1440p is definitely a bear though, and without software side changes it's not a realistic goal for most users any time soon.

Black Griffon
Mar 12, 2005

Now, in the quantum moment before the closure, when all become one. One moment left. One point of space and time.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.





My screen is six years old and there's weird glowy bits on it now, like if you killed someone with divine magic and their essence escaped through cracks in their skin.

I want to upgrade my resolution from 1080p, but keeping a smooth frame rate is important. I game a lot, so having one of cool unlocked whatamathings would rock. I probably don't give a poo poo about curved screens unless it's extremely useful for some reason I can't figure out.

I'm thinking I'll use my old Angel Crack as a secondary monitor, but...

I'm getting my Socialist Norwegian Vacation Bonus in a week, and it's real good money, biggest purchase of the year money. If I could pick up two matching screens which fit my specifications, then I wouldn't discount that venture. I've been thinking about getting a two monitor setup for a while, though it would probably just be for multitasking, not gameplay, as I imagine two monitors in a driving setup or something would just be the pits. I guess I'm wondering if that second monitor is really worth going for, but I also guess that's up to me at the end of the day.

Also, if I check a top ten list there's a good chance a bunch of them won't be on sale here, because my country is kind of dumb that way.

Whether it's one or two screens, I'm willing to spend a bit of cash, but I'm not gonna go for something super expensive a $700 raptor 27, for example, is probably a bit over the top, but I paid like $100 for my old monitor so I can do better than that.

Lastly, old Angel Crack is a 24'', and I think I want something bigger.

Edit: I guess that if someone else has recently upgraded from 1080p to 1440p and found that they got a significant framerate drop, I could stick with a 1080p, I'm just getting the impression it's on the way out. To give you a very vague idea of what my options are, here's the most sold screens on my wepshop of choice.

Black Griffon fucked around with this message at 21:50 on May 21, 2020

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

K8.0
Feb 26, 2004

Her Majesty's 56th Regiment of Foot

What GPU do you have? A GOOD 1440p 144hz+ IPS Freesync monitor is probably what you want. You do not need two of the same monitor, and unless money is no object you generally don't need high refresh/VRR on your secondary monitor. That money can do more somewhere else.

I think there's another Norwayposter here who has found some deals in the past. Those prices seem actually not obscene for euro pricing, but none of them are monitors we'd typically recommend. VA monitors have deeper blacks than IPS, but the pixel response times (especially dark/grey colors) are MUCH slower and unless you really hate how IPS looks it's not worth the tradeoff for a gaming monitor. Do not buy a TN monitor unless you give absolutely zero fucks about color (even most streamers who make a living playing games competitively use IPS displays over TN).

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«776 »