Looking for Clarity. [ Monitors ]

124

Posts

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited June 19
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    I have a OLED TV I use for my main gaming monitor. I'm aware of the drawbacks and how to minimize them. I'd gladly pay $1000 for a 24" OLED monitor, but I understand I'm in the minority.

    You might not if it had rapid color degradation, which is why Dell pulled theirs. :(

    EDIT: Absolutely see a monitor in person if you can. I didn't with this one, which was a big risk and one I'm not anxious to repeat. At some point, I got tired of reading page after page of OLED/LCD reviews when I replaced my Vizio--actually going to a Best Buy (yes, that Best Buy) and seeing those televisions in person was ultimately more helpful to me than all of them combined in a way. I'd do the same for monitors.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Are there 19" or 21" 1440p monitors? I've had a quick poke around and can't see any. If they had a DP or mini-DP connector then that would be all the better.

    I have a project in mind, and a screen of that size would be perfect.

    Not sure about that size, but they make 15.6" and I think 17" portable monitors. I was looking at one for work when I travel so I could keep a dual screen setup.

    Have you got a link? Heck If I can find any.

    2k would be OK if I can't get 1440p... there's a jillion laptops with screens that size and res, you'd think there would be a standalone monitor or two?

  • BucketmanBucketman Call me SkraggRegistered User regular
    Looking at replacing my old Asus 27inch monitor thats starting to go out with something new. My other monitor is a Dell and is still working beautifully. My gut is to go with the best TV brands (Samsung, LG, Sony) but I'm not sure these days

  • MugsleyMugsley Registered User regular
    Asus, BenQ, Samsung, Dell, AOC, Acer (in some cases), LG

    BucketmanSynthesisElvenshae
  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Are there 19" or 21" 1440p monitors? I've had a quick poke around and can't see any. If they had a DP or mini-DP connector then that would be all the better.

    I have a project in mind, and a screen of that size would be perfect.

    Not sure about that size, but they make 15.6" and I think 17" portable monitors. I was looking at one for work when I travel so I could keep a dual screen setup.

    Have you got a link? Heck If I can find any.

    2k would be OK if I can't get 1440p... there's a jillion laptops with screens that size and res, you'd think there would be a standalone monitor or two?

    You could start here and poke around. Tons of knock off brands with models. Not idea how great they are.

    https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Monitor-4K-3840x2160-Lightwight/dp/B0837HCS15/ref=pd_sbs_147_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B0837HCS15&pd_rd_r=8a73bd50-4ee3-405b-bf26-6b63d6dbbc62&pd_rd_w=D3lnK&pd_rd_wg=vXfq8&pf_rd_p=d28ef93e-22cf-4527-b60a-90c984b5663d&pf_rd_r=XNZH8T1WXPK0T21G402S&psc=1&refRID=XNZH8T1WXPK0T21G402S

    I was looking at G-Story ones as I did find a couple reviews online for that brand. But they seem to be sold out.

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
    V1m
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Are there 19" or 21" 1440p monitors? I've had a quick poke around and can't see any. If they had a DP or mini-DP connector then that would be all the better.

    I have a project in mind, and a screen of that size would be perfect.

    Not sure about that size, but they make 15.6" and I think 17" portable monitors. I was looking at one for work when I travel so I could keep a dual screen setup.

    Have you got a link? Heck If I can find any.

    2k would be OK if I can't get 1440p... there's a jillion laptops with screens that size and res, you'd think there would be a standalone monitor or two?

    You could start here and poke around. Tons of knock off brands with models. Not idea how great they are.

    https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Monitor-4K-3840x2160-Lightwight/dp/B0837HCS15/ref=pd_sbs_147_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B0837HCS15&pd_rd_r=8a73bd50-4ee3-405b-bf26-6b63d6dbbc62&pd_rd_w=D3lnK&pd_rd_wg=vXfq8&pf_rd_p=d28ef93e-22cf-4527-b60a-90c984b5663d&pf_rd_r=XNZH8T1WXPK0T21G402S&psc=1&refRID=XNZH8T1WXPK0T21G402S

    I was looking at G-Story ones as I did find a couple reviews online for that brand. But they seem to be sold out.

    Ah yeah, they don't seem so prominent in the .co.uk Amazon

  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    I have a OLED TV I use for my main gaming monitor. I'm aware of the drawbacks and how to minimize them. I'd gladly pay $1000 for a 24" OLED monitor, but I understand I'm in the minority.

    You might not if it had rapid color degradation, which is why Dell pulled theirs. :(

    EDIT: Absolutely see a monitor in person if you can. I didn't with this one, which was a big risk and one I'm not anxious to repeat. At some point, I got tired of reading page after page of OLED/LCD reviews when I replaced my Vizio--actually going to a Best Buy (yes, that Best Buy) and seeing those televisions in person was ultimately more helpful to me than all of them combined in a way. I'd do the same for monitors.

    I have time, don't really need anything till this fall/winter. Hopefully stock starts returning. Since I'm not going to be doing any FPS gaming on it, getting something with FALD would be nice, but finding those at a reasonable cost is not happening lol.

    Right now I have my eye on the AOC AG273QCX or the flat version. Seems VA will be better for my scenario since I'm not going to be playing FPS or playing from an angle. However those model's likewise are out all over the place.

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    I have a OLED TV I use for my main gaming monitor. I'm aware of the drawbacks and how to minimize them. I'd gladly pay $1000 for a 24" OLED monitor, but I understand I'm in the minority.

    You might not if it had rapid color degradation, which is why Dell pulled theirs. :(

    EDIT: Absolutely see a monitor in person if you can. I didn't with this one, which was a big risk and one I'm not anxious to repeat. At some point, I got tired of reading page after page of OLED/LCD reviews when I replaced my Vizio--actually going to a Best Buy (yes, that Best Buy) and seeing those televisions in person was ultimately more helpful to me than all of them combined in a way. I'd do the same for monitors.

    I have time, don't really need anything till this fall/winter. Hopefully stock starts returning. Since I'm not going to be doing any FPS gaming on it, getting something with FALD would be nice, but finding those at a reasonable cost is not happening lol.

    Right now I have my eye on the AOC AG273QCX or the flat version. Seems VA will be better for my scenario since I'm not going to be playing FPS or playing from an angle. However those model's likewise are out all over the place.

    VA's market niche seems to occupy that space between TN and IPS panels, though I'm sure that's dependent on the actual model you pick up. You won't get the sort of contrast or response times you'd get with IPS, but you make up for it in refresh rates, for example. I've heard VA also tends to have blacks better than some IPS options, it's just that their color reproduction is much, much more limited and closer to what you get with TN...not that it necessarily matters for all of us nonprofessionals.

    I've never owned a curved monitor screen myself, though I did use them on occasion. If you're not worried about viewing angles, it seems like a no-brainer, but I guess just a regular flat panel is easier to plan around especially if you're using the stand.
    Bucketman wrote: »
    Looking at replacing my old Asus 27inch monitor thats starting to go out with something new. My other monitor is a Dell and is still working beautifully. My gut is to go with the best TV brands (Samsung, LG, Sony) but I'm not sure these days

    So, Sony doesn't make PC monitors anymore (I could've sworn they did, but good luck finding one for sale anywhere).

    Samsung does, and actually their IPS panels are among some of the best when it comes to "consumer price" HRD1000, so that's good. Of course, that would also severely limited your selection with them, so maybe don't get too hung up on HDR unless it's that important.

    LG does too. They're OK. Honestly, I would not be surprised if Samsung made better gamer-oriented monitors overall, especially considering LG's weak HDR offerings. I've used them for years. So long as you're not buying new old stock, you should be safe from image retention (which is temporary anyway, unlike burn in). Pretty much everything they have worth anything is IPS, last I checked. If you can, and don't plan to use a mount, try and find the particular model that has a monitor stand that doesn't suck, it typically ends with the suffix "P" in the model code (P-W would be white furniture, P-B would be black, etc.). There's probably a good reason why they're not as popular as Samsung is.

    That leaves ASUS, Acer (who I've also owned LCDs from), BenQ (more gaming oriented, they made my monitor), and of course Dell. Historically, none of these companies could compare to Dell when it came to variety of models for every conceivable need (Samsung probably came closest, followed by LG and Acer). I don't know if that's true now, but they certainly make a large variety of models, and they run a wide range--the cheap ones are cheap, the higher-end ones are very well regarded and expensive.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Bucketman
  • MugsleyMugsley Registered User regular
    It's a bit of a roll of the dice, but last fall/winter timeframe there was an Amazon Warehouse sale and I got an Asus PG279Q for under $400.

    These are typically returns or "used" in some way so you need to take the nomenclature of quality (Very Good, Good, etc) serious. However, AW have a large return window, so they are worth investigating as a source.

    SynthesisBucketman
  • BucketmanBucketman Call me SkraggRegistered User regular
    I noticed Costco has a variety of Acers for "gaming", but back when I use to work at best buy Acer and View Sonic were the bottom brands, but that was years ago now

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Bucketman wrote: »
    I noticed Costco has a variety of Acers for "gaming", but back when I use to work at best buy Acer and View Sonic were the bottom brands, but that was years ago now

    I can't really speak to Viewsonic beyond that they're sort of like Dell in miniature and only for monitor (in that they produce both the cheapest, most generic and largely reliable office monitors and over-hyped high-framerate-200hz bright red bullshit at the other end).

    Acer is one of the top 10 PC manufacturers in the world (they were among the top five). So they're also a case of "high volume" sellers, which is true about Dell, Samsung and LG as well. Unlike Viewsonic, they actually make laptops and desktop computers as well. These brands are too big, unlike BenQ, to form much of an accurate impression of the product trying to look at their massive lineup as a whole.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Bucketman
  • MugsleyMugsley Registered User regular
    Most of the larger brands get panels from the same place, so it's more to do with price and brand QA than anything else.

    The last time I dove deep on this was about 8 years ago and back then I think there were either 2 or 3 panel suppliers. No idea if that has changed.

    BucketmanRoe
  • BucketmanBucketman Call me SkraggRegistered User regular
    Ok spent the day looking around and deep diving a bit. Wanting to stay under $300 I found 2 Acers. Unfortunately, they are both Freesync monitors and I'm running Nvidia, I have no idea how much that affects things. But I'm looking at either the acer vg280k or the acer xf270h. Both are around $300, which is the price point I set for myself. Theres a few others ones that looked ok but their all curved and I've never had a curved screen so I'm not sure if theres any actual benefit to it.

  • MugsleyMugsley Registered User regular
    I don't know if there's an official list anywhere, but a number of Freesync monitors work with GSync now. Try poking through Google and see what you can find.

    BucketmanV1m
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Bucketman wrote: »
    Ok spent the day looking around and deep diving a bit. Wanting to stay under $300 I found 2 Acers. Unfortunately, they are both Freesync monitors and I'm running Nvidia, I have no idea how much that affects things. But I'm looking at either the acer vg280k or the acer xf270h. Both are around $300, which is the price point I set for myself. Theres a few others ones that looked ok but their all curved and I've never had a curved screen so I'm not sure if theres any actual benefit to it.
    Mugsley wrote: »
    I don't know if there's an official list anywhere, but a number of Freesync monitors work with GSync now. Try poking through Google and see what you can find.

    To elaborate on that--Freesync, which is an open standard, now works with Nvidia as well as AMD GPUs. This has been true for....more than a year now? I forget exactly when it was implemented, it was a big deal.

    This does not mean "it works with Gsync" exactly, though the inference is clear-ish. Gsync is a proprietary technology (actual bit of hardware) inside certain monitors when manufacturers are willing to pay the rights to use it. It's more comprehensive than Freesync, which is royalty-free and available on any LCD that supports variable refresh (and for that matter, Samsung televisions for a couple years now, some other manufacturers too). They are separate things in monitors (most Gsync monitors also support Freesync for that reason). But eventually Nvidia gave up the resistance and enabled Freesync support in most cases, calling it "G-Sync compatible". You can find it under "Set up Gsync" in the Nvidia Control Panel (NOT the Nvidia Experience software).

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    BucketmanFeral
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    I like to have two different monitors, because in the rare instances I'm doing any kind of UI or Photoshop work, I like to see the same color scheme on two different panels. I do like both screens to be the same size, mostly for aesthetics. For the last few years I've been using 22-inch 1080P Dells (one TN and one IPS).

    One of my credit cards gave me a perk where if I spend $600 at dell.com, I get $120 back, so I figured now was the time to upgrade.

    I used the perk on a Dell U2720Q, currently $580 at Dell.com. 4K with reasonable color accuracy.

    For the other side, I went with an ASUS VG279Q. 1080P with a 144hz refresh rate.



    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    BucketmanTarantio
  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I like to have two different monitors, because in the rare instances I'm doing any kind of UI or Photoshop work, I like to see the same color scheme on two different panels. I do like both screens to be the same size, mostly for aesthetics. For the last few years I've been using 22-inch 1080P Dells (one TN and one IPS).

    One of my credit cards gave me a perk where if I spend $600 at dell.com, I get $120 back, so I figured now was the time to upgrade.

    I used the perk on a Dell U2720Q, currently $580 at Dell.com. 4K with reasonable color accuracy.

    For the other side, I went with an ASUS VG279Q. 1080P with a 144hz refresh rate.

    Both are IPS? or are you just looking for 1080p vs 4k?

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    I need to see if Rting.com does a review of the EW3280U one day. Considering how many reviews are out there, I'm surprised they didn't.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like to have two different monitors, because in the rare instances I'm doing any kind of UI or Photoshop work, I like to see the same color scheme on two different panels. I do like both screens to be the same size, mostly for aesthetics. For the last few years I've been using 22-inch 1080P Dells (one TN and one IPS).

    One of my credit cards gave me a perk where if I spend $600 at dell.com, I get $120 back, so I figured now was the time to upgrade.

    I used the perk on a Dell U2720Q, currently $580 at Dell.com. 4K with reasonable color accuracy.

    For the other side, I went with an ASUS VG279Q. 1080P with a 144hz refresh rate.

    Both are IPS? or are you just looking for 1080p vs 4k?

    Both are IPS. The Dell has better color accuracy and is 4K. The ASUS has higher refresh rates and faster response time.

    These days, IPS panels have gotten so fast that there isn't much point to TN panels anymore.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    V1m
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I like to have two different monitors, because in the rare instances I'm doing any kind of UI or Photoshop work, I like to see the same color scheme on two different panels. I do like both screens to be the same size, mostly for aesthetics. For the last few years I've been using 22-inch 1080P Dells (one TN and one IPS).

    One of my credit cards gave me a perk where if I spend $600 at dell.com, I get $120 back, so I figured now was the time to upgrade.

    I used the perk on a Dell U2720Q, currently $580 at Dell.com. 4K with reasonable color accuracy.

    For the other side, I went with an ASUS VG279Q. 1080P with a 144hz refresh rate.

    Both are IPS? or are you just looking for 1080p vs 4k?

    Both are IPS. The Dell has better color accuracy and is 4K. The ASUS has higher refresh rates and faster response time.

    These days, IPS panels have gotten so fast that there isn't much point to TN panels anymore.

    There is if you don't care about color reproduction and HDR support very much, and want to save money.

    Yes, they're not great reasons. I have trouble remembering my last TN panel (it was a 1680x1050 16:10 from Acer). "Response times" on monitors have always been one of those things that get lip-service paid to it but the overwhelming majority of people would really struggle to actually perceive without close investigation and instrumentation, myself included.

    I think the market that swore by TN panels has gone over to VA (which itself is less varied), and IPS has just become the accepted norm where image quality matters at least a little (since OLED is a dead-end as noted previously).

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Feral
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 29
    I discovered that my office computer* is not able to push two monitors where one is 1080p and the other is 4K at the same time. Whoops.

    It can do 1080p at 144hz by itself, or it can do 2x 1080p both at 60hz. But if I set one to 1080p and the other to 4K, not only do I have to set one to less than 60hz but also things get glitchy. Doh.

    Ah, well. I have both my new monitors set to 1080p/60hz for now. I'll be upgrading my GPU... sometime... in the future...

    * - A laptop and docking station. I also have a gaming PC, but that's connected to a 4K TV in a different room in the house.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Uncle_BalsamicUncle_Balsamic Registered User regular
    edited June 29
    Hey all. Looks like my monitors died so I'm in the market for a new one, but I've got a few questions (it's been a very long time since bought a new monitor).

    First of all budget is probably no more than about £200 (I guess that's about $200ish), so quite budget. I'm primarily interested in a monitor for gaming, but it doesn't need to necessarily excel. I'm not hyper focused on wide viewing angles, very accurate colours, etc. Good enough is probably enough for me. I'm looking at ~24" 1080p screens.

    I'm still on a gtx 970, but I figure that some degree of future proofing is probably wise (will probably see what the graphics card landscape is like at the end of the year). With that in mind I'm thinking a freesync monitor seems the way to go. Now what are people's thoughts on 75Hz vs 144Hz, obviously there's a price difference, but is it worth going for 144Hz just for the most headroom going forward?

    I reckon on the refresh rate vs resolution I'm rather lean towards the former, but if anyone thinks that's pointless let me know.

    Hopefully that makes a bit of sense, and any advice is greatly appreciated.

    Cheers


    edit: Anyone have experience with the AOC 24G2U?

    Uncle_Balsamic on
    2LmjIWB.png
  • BucketmanBucketman Call me SkraggRegistered User regular
    Got me some new monitors finally. I grabbed 2 Acer VG270 s at MicroCenter for $250 each. Seemed like a fair deal and they are heads and tails better then what I had. 2 questions for those in the know though.

    Theres and HDR mode, should I just use that instead of messing with color balance? Also the stands that these (and all the Acer Nitro series) come with suck ass. Any alternatives I could look into? I was looking at something like This here on Amazon

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Hey all. Looks like my monitors died so I'm in the market for a new one, but I've got a few questions (it's been a very long time since bought a new monitor).

    First of all budget is probably no more than about £200 (I guess that's about $200ish), so quite budget. I'm primarily interested in a monitor for gaming, but it doesn't need to necessarily excel. I'm not hyper focused on wide viewing angles, very accurate colours, etc. Good enough is probably enough for me. I'm looking at ~24" 1080p screens.

    I'm still on a gtx 970, but I figure that some degree of future proofing is probably wise (will probably see what the graphics card landscape is like at the end of the year). With that in mind I'm thinking a freesync monitor seems the way to go. Now what are people's thoughts on 75Hz vs 144Hz, obviously there's a price difference, but is it worth going for 144Hz just for the most headroom going forward?

    I reckon on the refresh rate vs resolution I'm rather lean towards the former, but if anyone thinks that's pointless let me know.

    Hopefully that makes a bit of sense, and any advice is greatly appreciated.

    Cheers


    edit: Anyone have experience with the AOC 24G2U?

    For your size and budget, and your GTX 970, 1080p seems like a safe bet. But for £200 (more than $200US, but let's assume inflation anyway), if your market is anything like ours...your 144hz or even 100hz options aren't going to be that special. It sounds like you're going to be pretty exclusively in the domain of TN panels (which we just discussed), so you can throw out HDR (eh, it sucks on home computers anyway) or better color reproduction (ouch).

    On the other hand, that AOC panel has solid reviews, and is G-sync compatible for just under $200.

    In broader terms, I think myself (and every single other person in this thread who prefers IPS) would have to concede that, especially with a GTX 970, it is not worth trading IPS-quality color reproduction and viewing angles for 144 hz which, because you're using a GTX 970, is actually going to be more like a 50 to 80 FPS experience (at least you'll have G-Sync to help with that). But this really one of those things you have to answer for yourself: are you willing to give up multiple things--color and contrast most obviously--for a higher refresh rate and G-sync support? If so, there's your answer.

    A freesync monitor is something practically everyone should have at this point, now that Nvidia has caved on this point. Personally, I would argue that 1080p isn't future-proofing on anything but a compact laptop, but your needs will vary.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    BucketmanUncle_Balsamic
  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    Kind of a basic question, but what's the deal with curved monitors? Why are they a thing? What benefit over flat panels do they provide?

    Friend of mine is in the market for a new monitor, and is asking about them, and, frankly, I've never had one.

    omgbfz5lzi1s.png
    Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
    The Disappearance of Inigo Sharpe: Tomas à Dunsanin
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Kind of a basic question, but what's the deal with curved monitors? Why are they a thing? What benefit over flat panels do they provide?

    Friend of mine is in the market for a new monitor, and is asking about them, and, frankly, I've never had one.

    If you get a really big, or really wide, monitor, and you sit at exactly the right spot, the edges will be closer to you and that is nice.

    I mean, personally, I think it's not worth the added expense even considering that most curved monitors still have kind-of-shitty stands so who knows if you'll actually be able to sit in the right spot to begin with, but it's still a nice perk. Though viewing angles are potentially worse than a normal monitor.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    ElvenshaeBucketman
  • LD50LD50 Registered User regular
    My opinions on curved monitors changed drastically when I actually bought one.

    Assuming you are using your monitor as a monitor and not as a big tv (IE you are sitting in front of it with it centered in front of you): it is really nice. The curvature makes it so every part of the screen is equidistant and perpendicular to your actual eyes. This means that you have perfect viewing angles regardless of how nice the viewing angles on the panel are. This is especially noticeable with large monitors that you are close to. I have a fairly nice ASUS flat screen in addition to my curved montior, and even though it has fairly good viewing angles, I'm close enough to it and it's large enough that the corners of the screen are slightly more 'yellow' than the center when viewing a solid white background. There is zero color distortion at the edges of my curved display under the same conditions, and it's 4 inches bigger.

    Speaking of, Samsung is releasing a shiny new version of my favorite monitor, and I'm going to snap one up as soon as they're released later this month.

    Trajan45Elvenshae
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    LD50 wrote: »
    My opinions on curved monitors changed drastically when I actually bought one.

    Assuming you are using your monitor as a monitor and not as a big tv (IE you are sitting in front of it with it centered in front of you): it is really nice. The curvature makes it so every part of the screen is equidistant and perpendicular to your actual eyes. This means that you have perfect viewing angles regardless of how nice the viewing angles on the panel are. This is especially noticeable with large monitors that you are close to. I have a fairly nice ASUS flat screen in addition to my curved montior, and even though it has fairly good viewing angles, I'm close enough to it and it's large enough that the corners of the screen are slightly more 'yellow' than the center when viewing a solid white background. There is zero color distortion at the edges of my curved display under the same conditions, and it's 4 inches bigger.

    Speaking of, Samsung is releasing a shiny new version of my favorite monitor, and I'm going to snap one up as soon as they're released later this month.

    Having used curved monitors--you have better viewing angles. Because you have a human face and human eyes, they're not going to be "perfect." As long as you're sitting in the right position, which is generally how we use monitors, you can perceive the advantage. If you're glancing at your monitor from another part of your desk or to the left of it, etc., it's worse.

    That being said, I probably sit closer to my monitor than most people would "like" because I've been using UHD monitors for several years and intend to get my money's worth out of them.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Elvenshae
  • The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard Registered User regular
    edited July 13
    I currently have a ROG Swift PG27UQ Gaming Monitor – 27” 4K UHD (3840 x 2160), Overclockable 144Hz, G-SYNC Ultimate, Quantum-dot , IPS, Aura Sync as my main PC gaming monitor with a 1080p monitor on either side for documents and chat windows. My boyfriend recently saw Linus' unboxing for the Samsung - Odyssey G9 49" LED UltraWide Curved QHD FreeSync and G-SYNC Compatible Monitor with HDR - 5120 x 1440 240Hz and crapped himself over it. Would the monitor experts here like to weigh in on which they think is the overall better monitor gaming or otherwise? If my current monitor is better then I'll just stick with it, but if you guys overwhelmingly say that this Samsung one is better for gaming, I might put it on my wishlist for Black Friday and maybe ditch the two 1080p monitors. If it's the better monitor, how's this sound, have the Samsung be as my main monitor with the Asus off to the side for chat windows and such as well as older games that don't easily support ultrawidescreen gaming?

    The_Spaniard on
    Xbox: SpanWolf, Playstation: Span_Wolf, Nintendo: Span_Wolf - 4854-6434-9883
    Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Span_Wolf/, Origin: Span_Wolf
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    I currently have a ROG Swift PG27UQ Gaming Monitor – 27” 4K UHD (3840 x 2160), Overclockable 144Hz, G-SYNC Ultimate, Quantum-dot , IPS, Aura Sync as my main PC gaming monitor with a 1080p monitor on either side for documents and chat windows. My boyfriend recently saw Linus' unboxing for the Samsung - Odyssey G9 49" LED UltraWide Curved QHD FreeSync and G-SYNC Compatible Monitor with HDR - 5120 x 1440 240Hz and crapped himself over it. Would the monitor experts here like to weigh in on which they think is the overall better monitor gaming or otherwise? If my current monitor is better then I'll just stick with it, but if you guys overwhelmingly say that this Samsung one is better for gaming, I might put it on my wishlist for Black Friday and maybe ditch the two 1080p monitors. If it's the better monitor, how's this sound, have the Samsung be as my main monitor with the Asus off to the side for chat windows and such as well as older games that don't easily support ultrawidescreen gaming?

    That's a tough comparison to make "fairly", and for a pretty obvious reason: your ROG Swift, is, in fact, technologically comparable to "typical" UHD monitors (albeit yours is glowing and 'roided out like an East German Olympian or an American Tour De France winner). You could use it for things besides gaming and not look completely absurd (not that you wouldn't look absurd using the other monitor in any circumstance). Whereas that Odyssey G9 is some sort of abomination out of a beautiful nightmare.

    Frankly, I'd say the ROG "wins" on the simple basis that literally every game out there supports the 16:9 aspect ratio standard, since the adoption of 1080p. By contrast, you can be sure if any game can't take advantage of 16:9 it definitely won't take advantage of whatever-the-hell 5120x1440 is. You'd be getting used to having varying amounts of empty space when playing aspect-ratio-locked 1440p or imperfectly reproduced 1080p games. Likewise, I'd like to see what kind of processing power it takes to push 1440p-super-duper-ultra-Lawrence-of-Arabia-wide aspect ratio at over 100 FPS, much less 200 or more.

    Which is not to say, aside from its terrible awe-inspiring design, the G9 doesn't have some advantages. The QLED picture will almost certainly be superior at color reproduction over Quantum-dot IPS unless I'm missing something obvious, even if the difference is difficult for us mere mortals to pick out. We've already discussed when, where and why you might want to used a curved monitor, and if you're dropping this sort of dollars, you've gone from "Will my desk let me comfortable sit in the precise position so this curved screen doesn't look terrible?" to "What color do I want my surround-sound cockpit throne's leather finish in?" if you'll excuse the expression. From what you described, it doesn't sound like you use your 1080p "sub screens" as extensions to the ROG Swift running itself at 1080p (nor should you--resolution fucking matters, and don't let anyone chasing the ultra-wide dragon tell you otherwise), but aside from doing the same, there's no denying the clear advantage a single display would have over a multi-monitor arrangement anyway. Assuming you actually have a game that can take advantage of that screen real estate without running like crap or being plagued by a bad UI.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    I currently have a ROG Swift PG27UQ Gaming Monitor – 27” 4K UHD (3840 x 2160), Overclockable 144Hz, G-SYNC Ultimate, Quantum-dot , IPS, Aura Sync as my main PC gaming monitor with a 1080p monitor on either side for documents and chat windows. My boyfriend recently saw Linus' unboxing for the Samsung - Odyssey G9 49" LED UltraWide Curved QHD FreeSync and G-SYNC Compatible Monitor with HDR - 5120 x 1440 240Hz and crapped himself over it. Would the monitor experts here like to weigh in on which they think is the overall better monitor gaming or otherwise? If my current monitor is better then I'll just stick with it, but if you guys overwhelmingly say that this Samsung one is better for gaming, I might put it on my wishlist for Black Friday and maybe ditch the two 1080p monitors. If it's the better monitor, how's this sound, have the Samsung be as my main monitor with the Asus off to the side for chat windows and such as well as older games that don't easily support ultrawidescreen gaming?

    Synthesis already covered a lot of good points. As background information, what the ultrawide basically is is two 1440p monitors side by side. So I think that if you use all of the screen real estate that you currently have and use that real estate a lot, the ultrawide might be worse. The other thing is, what resolutions do you play games at now? Your 4K monitor has a few more pixels than this, so if you have a rig to play at 4K this should be fine, but if you play at lower resolutions you might have issues running games at this monitor's native resolution.

    Beyond that, I guess what I would think about is, what kinds of games do you play, and would they benefit from a bunch of screen real estate? If you have a driving rig, I think this would be awesome. If you play a lot of FPS, I also think this would be awesome. Other games? Meh, it's nice to have one screen for your game and another screen for chat or whatever.

    steam_sig.png
  • The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard Registered User regular
    edited July 13
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I currently have a ROG Swift PG27UQ Gaming Monitor – 27” 4K UHD (3840 x 2160), Overclockable 144Hz, G-SYNC Ultimate, Quantum-dot , IPS, Aura Sync as my main PC gaming monitor with a 1080p monitor on either side for documents and chat windows. My boyfriend recently saw Linus' unboxing for the Samsung - Odyssey G9 49" LED UltraWide Curved QHD FreeSync and G-SYNC Compatible Monitor with HDR - 5120 x 1440 240Hz and crapped himself over it. Would the monitor experts here like to weigh in on which they think is the overall better monitor gaming or otherwise? If my current monitor is better then I'll just stick with it, but if you guys overwhelmingly say that this Samsung one is better for gaming, I might put it on my wishlist for Black Friday and maybe ditch the two 1080p monitors. If it's the better monitor, how's this sound, have the Samsung be as my main monitor with the Asus off to the side for chat windows and such as well as older games that don't easily support ultrawidescreen gaming?

    That's a tough comparison to make "fairly", and for a pretty obvious reason: your ROG Swift, is, in fact, technologically comparable to "typical" UHD monitors (albeit yours is glowing and 'roided out like an East German Olympian or an American Tour De France winner). You could use it for things besides gaming and not look completely absurd (not that you wouldn't look absurd using the other monitor in any circumstance). Whereas that Odyssey G9 is some sort of abomination out of a beautiful nightmare.

    Frankly, I'd say the ROG "wins" on the simple basis that literally every game out there supports the 16:9 aspect ratio standard, since the adoption of 1080p. By contrast, you can be sure if any game can't take advantage of 16:9 it definitely won't take advantage of whatever-the-hell 5120x1440 is. You'd be getting used to having varying amounts of empty space when playing aspect-ratio-locked 1440p or imperfectly reproduced 1080p games. Likewise, I'd like to see what kind of processing power it takes to push 1440p-super-duper-ultra-Lawrence-of-Arabia-wide aspect ratio at over 100 FPS, much less 200 or more.

    Which is not to say, aside from its terrible awe-inspiring design, the G9 doesn't have some advantages. The QLED picture will almost certainly be superior at color reproduction over Quantum-dot IPS unless I'm missing something obvious, even if the difference is difficult for us mere mortals to pick out. We've already discussed when, where and why you might want to used a curved monitor, and if you're dropping this sort of dollars, you've gone from "Will my desk let me comfortable sit in the precise position so this curved screen doesn't look terrible?" to "What color do I want my surround-sound cockpit throne's leather finish in?" if you'll excuse the expression. From what you described, it doesn't sound like you use your 1080p "sub screens" as extensions to the ROG Swift running itself at 1080p (nor should you--resolution fucking matters, and don't let anyone chasing the ultra-wide dragon tell you otherwise), but aside from doing the same, there's no denying the clear advantage a single display would have over a multi-monitor arrangement anyway. Assuming you actually have a game that can take advantage of that screen real estate without running like crap or being plagued by a bad UI.

    Well to answer musing question about processing power I'm currently running a 2080ti, which I need for running demanding games at high settings on my current 4K monitor. I currently have an L shaped desk and my main 4k monitor sits right in the center of the bend with me sitting right in the crook.

    I guess my major question is if ultra-widescreen gaming at 1440p for games that support it is better than standard widescreen at 4k? I've always been curious about ultra-wides, but with my most recent monitor purchase I went with the Asus because it was pretty much the best 4k gaming monitor that you could get. The choice was basically between a good standard 4k gaming monitor or a really wide 1440p monitor. I ultimately went with your opinion that resolution matters and went 4k over really wide 1440p, but with some early reviews of the G9 saying that gaming on a quality ultra-widescreen is a transcendent experience and this is the best of the best, has got me curious.

    It really comes down to is the better option to have both with the 4k off to the side for games that don't support ultra-wide settings, or that with my current setup it's just not worth it?
    tsmvengy wrote: »

    Synthesis already covered a lot of good points. As background information, what the ultrawide basically is is two 1440p monitors side by side. So I think that if you use all of the screen real estate that you currently have and use that real estate a lot, the ultrawide might be worse. The other thing is, what resolutions do you play games at now? Your 4K monitor has a few more pixels than this, so if you have a rig to play at 4K this should be fine, but if you play at lower resolutions you might have issues running games at this monitor's native resolution.

    Beyond that, I guess what I would think about is, what kinds of games do you play, and would they benefit from a bunch of screen real estate? If you have a driving rig, I think this would be awesome. If you play a lot of FPS, I also think this would be awesome. Other games? Meh, it's nice to have one screen for your game and another screen for chat or whatever.

    Well for your first question my 4K is the main everything monitor, the 1080p monitor to the left I just use as a permanent menu for my game clients to show my libraries, and the 1080p monitor to the right is used as my omni-chat window with all my chat clients tiled in it. If I got the G9 I'd use that as my daily driver and put the 4K off to the left with all my chat windows on it.

    For your question about gaming resolution, I don't mess around and always do native desktop resolution. I have a pretty beefy machine and play everything in 4K by default.

    As far as what kinds of games I play, I'm an everything bagel type of gamer. I like all genres short of most sports and heavy sims. So shooters, RPGs, RTS, platformers, action-adventure, arcade racing, fighting, puzzle, etc. So I think an ultra-wide would be great for shooters and racing games. Maybe RTS games and platformers as well.

    The_Spaniard on
    Xbox: SpanWolf, Playstation: Span_Wolf, Nintendo: Span_Wolf - 4854-6434-9883
    Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Span_Wolf/, Origin: Span_Wolf
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited July 13
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I currently have a ROG Swift PG27UQ Gaming Monitor – 27” 4K UHD (3840 x 2160), Overclockable 144Hz, G-SYNC Ultimate, Quantum-dot , IPS, Aura Sync as my main PC gaming monitor with a 1080p monitor on either side for documents and chat windows. My boyfriend recently saw Linus' unboxing for the Samsung - Odyssey G9 49" LED UltraWide Curved QHD FreeSync and G-SYNC Compatible Monitor with HDR - 5120 x 1440 240Hz and crapped himself over it. Would the monitor experts here like to weigh in on which they think is the overall better monitor gaming or otherwise? If my current monitor is better then I'll just stick with it, but if you guys overwhelmingly say that this Samsung one is better for gaming, I might put it on my wishlist for Black Friday and maybe ditch the two 1080p monitors. If it's the better monitor, how's this sound, have the Samsung be as my main monitor with the Asus off to the side for chat windows and such as well as older games that don't easily support ultrawidescreen gaming?

    That's a tough comparison to make "fairly", and for a pretty obvious reason: your ROG Swift, is, in fact, technologically comparable to "typical" UHD monitors (albeit yours is glowing and 'roided out like an East German Olympian or an American Tour De France winner). You could use it for things besides gaming and not look completely absurd (not that you wouldn't look absurd using the other monitor in any circumstance). Whereas that Odyssey G9 is some sort of abomination out of a beautiful nightmare.

    Frankly, I'd say the ROG "wins" on the simple basis that literally every game out there supports the 16:9 aspect ratio standard, since the adoption of 1080p. By contrast, you can be sure if any game can't take advantage of 16:9 it definitely won't take advantage of whatever-the-hell 5120x1440 is. You'd be getting used to having varying amounts of empty space when playing aspect-ratio-locked 1440p or imperfectly reproduced 1080p games. Likewise, I'd like to see what kind of processing power it takes to push 1440p-super-duper-ultra-Lawrence-of-Arabia-wide aspect ratio at over 100 FPS, much less 200 or more.

    Which is not to say, aside from its terrible awe-inspiring design, the G9 doesn't have some advantages. The QLED picture will almost certainly be superior at color reproduction over Quantum-dot IPS unless I'm missing something obvious, even if the difference is difficult for us mere mortals to pick out. We've already discussed when, where and why you might want to used a curved monitor, and if you're dropping this sort of dollars, you've gone from "Will my desk let me comfortable sit in the precise position so this curved screen doesn't look terrible?" to "What color do I want my surround-sound cockpit throne's leather finish in?" if you'll excuse the expression. From what you described, it doesn't sound like you use your 1080p "sub screens" as extensions to the ROG Swift running itself at 1080p (nor should you--resolution fucking matters, and don't let anyone chasing the ultra-wide dragon tell you otherwise), but aside from doing the same, there's no denying the clear advantage a single display would have over a multi-monitor arrangement anyway. Assuming you actually have a game that can take advantage of that screen real estate without running like crap or being plagued by a bad UI.

    Well to answer musing question about processing power I'm currently running a 2080ti, which I need for running demanding games at high settings on my current 4K monitor. I currently have an L shaped desk and my main 4k monitor sits right in the center of the bend with me sitting right in the crook.

    I guess my major question is if ultra-widescreen gaming at 1440p for games that support it is better than standard widescreen at 4k? I've always been curious about ultra-wides, but with my most recent monitor purchase I went with the Asus because it was pretty much the best 4k gaming monitor that you could get. The choice was basically between a good standard 4k gaming monitor or a really wide 1440p monitor. I ultimately went with your opinion that resolution matters and went 4k over really wide 1440p, but with some early reviews of the G9 saying that gaming on a quality ultra-widescreen is a transcendent experience and this is the best of the best, has got me curious.

    It really comes down to is the better option to have both with the 4k off to the side for games that don't support ultra-wide settings, or that with my current setup it's just not worth it?

    That's a bit different. This is less a technical comparison and more a aspect-ratio comfort one. Even if someone gave me an Odyssey G9 as a gift, I doubt I'd take it over my BenQ because of the piss-poor experience it'd mean for a substantial part of my library (I consider "gigantic black blocks" to be a poor experience), but that's because I play a wide variety of games, most of which don't play nice any wider than 16:9.

    The G9 is, almost certainly, going to be a superior experience to the alternative multi-monitor experience with the exception that you're not going to get the eye-melting resolution count of, for example, three UHD monitors side by side (or even two, but we don't do even numbers for an obvious reason), and that is arguably offset by the lack of bezels and potentially the higher refresh rate. But, frankly, "ultrawide" is not inherently advantageous over "normal" widescreen in every game that supports (and it's a liability in every game that doesn't). Personally, I think they're a great addition in simulation/cockpit games (right up there with VR, and superior in some ways such as convenience and flexibility), and that may also be true in first-person shooters (I'm largely console when it comes to FPS though), but they're tedious at best in third-person shooters and outright unpleasant across a variety of strategy games (I really wouldn't want to go past 2:1 in most of the strategy games I play). You may not have that difficulties, however, you're probably the only one who can answer that with certainty.

    There's a reason we're using 16:9 after all this time: it's sort of the best of (most) worlds. But there are times where it could be better, certainly.

    Also, your GTX 2080ti is not going to "push" 240 FPS at that resolution. Not unless you're running at low-medium, but you probably already knew that (and you'd still be surpassing the usual 60 as you already are....so long as you played games that let you do so). I'm not even thinking about ray-tracing which, considering you're doing 2160p at ~100 FPS, I'm guessing you aren't either?

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    tsmvengy
  • The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I currently have a ROG Swift PG27UQ Gaming Monitor – 27” 4K UHD (3840 x 2160), Overclockable 144Hz, G-SYNC Ultimate, Quantum-dot , IPS, Aura Sync as my main PC gaming monitor with a 1080p monitor on either side for documents and chat windows. My boyfriend recently saw Linus' unboxing for the Samsung - Odyssey G9 49" LED UltraWide Curved QHD FreeSync and G-SYNC Compatible Monitor with HDR - 5120 x 1440 240Hz and crapped himself over it. Would the monitor experts here like to weigh in on which they think is the overall better monitor gaming or otherwise? If my current monitor is better then I'll just stick with it, but if you guys overwhelmingly say that this Samsung one is better for gaming, I might put it on my wishlist for Black Friday and maybe ditch the two 1080p monitors. If it's the better monitor, how's this sound, have the Samsung be as my main monitor with the Asus off to the side for chat windows and such as well as older games that don't easily support ultrawidescreen gaming?

    That's a tough comparison to make "fairly", and for a pretty obvious reason: your ROG Swift, is, in fact, technologically comparable to "typical" UHD monitors (albeit yours is glowing and 'roided out like an East German Olympian or an American Tour De France winner). You could use it for things besides gaming and not look completely absurd (not that you wouldn't look absurd using the other monitor in any circumstance). Whereas that Odyssey G9 is some sort of abomination out of a beautiful nightmare.

    Frankly, I'd say the ROG "wins" on the simple basis that literally every game out there supports the 16:9 aspect ratio standard, since the adoption of 1080p. By contrast, you can be sure if any game can't take advantage of 16:9 it definitely won't take advantage of whatever-the-hell 5120x1440 is. You'd be getting used to having varying amounts of empty space when playing aspect-ratio-locked 1440p or imperfectly reproduced 1080p games. Likewise, I'd like to see what kind of processing power it takes to push 1440p-super-duper-ultra-Lawrence-of-Arabia-wide aspect ratio at over 100 FPS, much less 200 or more.

    Which is not to say, aside from its terrible awe-inspiring design, the G9 doesn't have some advantages. The QLED picture will almost certainly be superior at color reproduction over Quantum-dot IPS unless I'm missing something obvious, even if the difference is difficult for us mere mortals to pick out. We've already discussed when, where and why you might want to used a curved monitor, and if you're dropping this sort of dollars, you've gone from "Will my desk let me comfortable sit in the precise position so this curved screen doesn't look terrible?" to "What color do I want my surround-sound cockpit throne's leather finish in?" if you'll excuse the expression. From what you described, it doesn't sound like you use your 1080p "sub screens" as extensions to the ROG Swift running itself at 1080p (nor should you--resolution fucking matters, and don't let anyone chasing the ultra-wide dragon tell you otherwise), but aside from doing the same, there's no denying the clear advantage a single display would have over a multi-monitor arrangement anyway. Assuming you actually have a game that can take advantage of that screen real estate without running like crap or being plagued by a bad UI.

    Well to answer musing question about processing power I'm currently running a 2080ti, which I need for running demanding games at high settings on my current 4K monitor. I currently have an L shaped desk and my main 4k monitor sits right in the center of the bend with me sitting right in the crook.

    I guess my major question is if ultra-widescreen gaming at 1440p for games that support it is better than standard widescreen at 4k? I've always been curious about ultra-wides, but with my most recent monitor purchase I went with the Asus because it was pretty much the best 4k gaming monitor that you could get. The choice was basically between a good standard 4k gaming monitor or a really wide 1440p monitor. I ultimately went with your opinion that resolution matters and went 4k over really wide 1440p, but with some early reviews of the G9 saying that gaming on a quality ultra-widescreen is a transcendent experience and this is the best of the best, has got me curious.

    It really comes down to is the better option to have both with the 4k off to the side for games that don't support ultra-wide settings, or that with my current setup it's just not worth it?

    That's a bit different. This is less a technical comparison and more a aspect-ratio comfort one. Even if someone gave me an Odyssey G9 as a gift, I doubt I'd take it over my BenQ because of the piss-poor experience it'd mean for a substantial part of my library (I consider "gigantic black blocks" to be a poor experience), but that's because I play a wide variety of games, most of which don't play nice any wider than 16:9.

    The G9 is, almost certainly, going to be a superior experience to the alternative multi-monitor experience with the exception that you're not going to get the eye-melting resolution count of, for example, three UHD monitors side by side (or even two, but we don't do even numbers for an obvious reason), and that is arguably offset by the lack of bezels and potentially the higher refresh rate. But, frankly, "ultrawide" is not inherently advantageous over "normal" widescreen in every game that supports (and it's a liability in every game that doesn't). Personally, I think they're a great addition in simulation/cockpit games (right up there with VR, and superior in some ways such as convenience and flexibility), and that may also be true in first-person shooters (I'm largely console when it comes to FPS though), but they're tedious at best in third-person shooters and outright unpleasant across a variety of strategy games (I really wouldn't want to go past 2:1 in most of the strategy games I play). You may not have that difficulties, however, you're probably the only one who can answer that with certainty.

    There's a reason we're using 16:9 after all this time: it's sort of the best of (most) worlds. But there are times where it could be better, certainly.

    Also, your GTX 2080ti is not going to "push" 240 FPS at that resolution. Not unless you're running at low-medium, but you probably already knew that (and you'd still be surpassing the usual 60 as you already are....so long as you played games that let you do so). I'm not even thinking about ray-tracing which, considering you're doing 2160p at ~100 FPS, I'm guessing you aren't either?

    I in no way expect to run that monitor at 200+ FPS. 60+ with newer high end games at max settings, and older games running in the triple-digits, I'm good with. I'm also copacetic running games maxed out with RTX on the G9 at 30+ FPS. I've always been a visuals over framerate person, though DLSS 2.0 looks to be really helping with that on both fronts going forward.

    Xbox: SpanWolf, Playstation: Span_Wolf, Nintendo: Span_Wolf - 4854-6434-9883
    Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Span_Wolf/, Origin: Span_Wolf
  • LD50LD50 Registered User regular
    I wouldn't want an utrawide as my primary monitor because of how many games don't handle it properly.

  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    I personally like going TV over ultrawide for immersion. I find the lack of height on them to kind of knock the awesomeness of the wide screen. I'd rather just go 40" or something, then you have high and wide, though you don't get the 'ultrawide' view for those games that support it.

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
    V1m
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    I personally like going TV over ultrawide for immersion. I find the lack of height on them to kind of knock the awesomeness of the wide screen. I'd rather just go 40" or something, then you have high and wide, though you don't get the 'ultrawide' view for those games that support it.

    Yes. 16:9 is already a bit wider (or shorter) than I'd prefer. 16:10 screens of the size and rez I like are not the norm.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    I have no way to put a 40" monitor on my desk, even 32" BenQ was starting to push my luck.

    That being said, I've already made my feelings known on the matter of aspect ratios, and I play enough games where, compatibility and support aside, "losing" all that real estate above and below (metaphorically and in terms of pixel count, very literally) is genuinely disadvantageous. In a flight sim it might be super-slick to be able to so naturally glance to your left or right, but you need to be able to see shit above you too.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Trajan45
  • The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard Registered User regular
    I was thinking that maybe I could do something like this and whenever I want to play a game that doesn't support ultra-widescreen I can just look right above the G9 and play.

    1x70nzsc1ya51.jpg

    Xbox: SpanWolf, Playstation: Span_Wolf, Nintendo: Span_Wolf - 4854-6434-9883
    Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Span_Wolf/, Origin: Span_Wolf
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    And that way your manservant also has a monitor, so you can just point at what you need and not interrupt your audio chat!

    Just joking, mostly. The thing is, it's hard to imagine a world where looking up for any non-ultrawide game isn't going to suck. Even if the other monitor is off. Admittedly, my poor vision means that I probably like sitting closer to monitors than most people, but unless you're used to a considerable distance from the monitor it seems rather poor. Maybe if you could easily swap the two?

    On a related note, I bought (and installed) my first adjustable monitor arm, a gas spring arm from Huanuo. Being my first one, I basically settled for the best reviewed single-arm model I could find, as a replacement for my BenQ EW3280's nice-looking but decidedly average metal stand. Installing it--not as difficult as I thought it might be, but not nearly as easy as some would suggest (also kind of tiring after a day at the office in the summer heat), though aside from the iffy angle-of-view adjustment (the monitor is honestly just a little too heavy for it) it's actually very capable (once I figured out where the hell I was actually going to mount it). The range of motion, if not the viewing angle, is very superior to what I had. Should've taken a photo to demonstrate the point.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Elvenshae
Sign In or Register to comment.