|
DrDork posted:ULMB and GSync are completely different technologies aimed at different things: GSync attempts to eliminate screen tear and lower input lag by carefully managing frametimes and syncing frames to monitor refresh cycles. ULMB attempts to lower the blur observed on rapidly changing images by strobing the panel rapidly. A side effect of ULMB is reduced perceived brightness because it is actually off for some portion of time that it otherwise would not be. You are correct that they are incompatible technologies. Which is better depends on which problem bothers you more. Isn't that Vsync? I thought GSync told the monitor when to refresh in order to achieve those objectives.
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
Has there been any word about new 5k panels? I'd instantly buy a >30" 5k gsync monitor, even at great cost. It'd last ages.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
priznat posted:Oh lord I just found out about the dell u3818. That looks pretty kick rear end. It would go great next to my Dell 30". Only about 10% difference in DPI, which is about as good as you get, and same vertical pixel geometry. If only it were gsync!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:Are there any 3440*1440 G-Sync monitors that support HDR to pair with my GTX 1080? I saw Destiny 2 turned all the way up and kinda need that. I don't think there are yet, but at the end of the year there are supposed to be such monitors based on quantum dot displays. 200Hz, too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
dreesemonkey posted:What size 4k monitor would I need for using native resolution? 32"+? K8.0 posted:Personally I think 32" is kinda the sweet spot for 4k, but 27" is much more available. Regardless, in general running at 4k you're going to be using scaling in windows to make text larger. It doesn't necessarily have to be quite as large as it would be on a lower PPI screen since there is some added clarity, but yeah just don't worry about it too much and set it to something that works well for you. I've actually been thinking a bit about monitors more in terms of PPI rather than geometry, lately. It seems to me that the sweet-spot for comfortable desktop size is ~100-110 PPI, or some integer multiple thereof (only because of legacy resolution dependent UIs, which most desktop environments still have). This is the resolution range of 1440p 27" monitors and 1600p 30" monitors. Apple seems to agree, as you'll note that all their 'retina' displays are double this, in the range of 200-220 PPI, which would allow them to use simple integer scaling of their UIs. That's why some of their retina displays have unusual, nonstandard geometries, such as the upcoming XDR display, which is 32" with a geometry of 6016x3384 (certainly non-standard) which gives a nice PPI of 218. I use a 32" 2160p monitor, and I can't use it at 100% (i.e. no) scaling, I have to use it at 125% which gives a feature size about equal to a 100 PPI monitor. The downside is that older windows programs are blurry when this scaling is applied to them. It's kind of frustrating to move your mouse over the tray icons and see some fuzzy menus and some non-fuzzy ones. As it happens, the 43" 4k panels that are out there are about 100 PPI, so they are comfortable to use without any scaling, but are of course enormous. If you want to be able to use integer scaling on a monitor of common size (i.e. 27" or 32") you would be looking for a 27" 5k monitor, which is 217 PPI. Using a 200% scaling rate on one of these would be great for old UIs, they wouldn't be fuzzy and would appear as they would on a 27" 1440p monitor. It's no surprise that the 5k displays apple sell are 27". To get in the n(100-110) PPI range for 4k you would need a monitor between 20" and 22" - I don't think they exist, and not sure anyone would want one anyway. Panels nowadays seem to fall into certain bands of PPI - 110-110, ~137, ~163, and ~217. I think the first and last are the good ones that lead to less crap with scaling, but for what must be cost reasons panels tend to be in the middle two bands nowadays. I'd love it if the XDR's panel became more widely adopted and not so drat expensive, it's perfect.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
space marine todd posted:Since I have given up waiting for a 42" 4k screen with G-Sync for now, what's the best 42" 4k screen I can get for coding/spreadsheets/streaming? I'll just use my laptop's 144Hz G-sync screen for gaming. There is the Asus ROG XG438Q which has Freesync 2, but I don't know whether it is Gsync Compatible. Also not sure what the panel quality is like compared to existing IPS 43" UHD low-Hz panels.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 23:34
|
|