PC Hardware Talk Megathread

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's really only for FPS though. Anything over 80 or so is barely noticeable in games like Witcher and even less so in sim games. For games where ambiance and atmosphere are the thing, you're inevitably going to think they look better in higher res and on a bigger display. Which is basically what that video showed - they only stopped noticing the difference and preferring the higher frame rate when they were playing Doom, and those are likely people who play more FPS and are just used to the higher refresh rate for competitive purposes.

White Out said he played Civ 6 and Cities Skylines. Those are basically the perfect example of games where your framerate stops mattering at a low count, and resolution makes a massive difference. If he said he plays a bunch of COD and Overwatch, I'd be right there with you saying "yeah, get a 27" 144hz screen".

And again, I almost always game in 1080p or 1440p 120hz depending on which screen I'm using so it's not like I'm hugely biased here.

Stop making this complicated!

I'll never be a high end gamer, I game casually. I think a 1440 27" is probably my sweet spot. I will be getting into flight sim and maybe some ea sports games again on my pc. I think weighing all options I like the 27" 1440 compromise. There's also the dollars I'd have to spend to get to the 4k 27 or larger screens

[Inferno]

This is the monitor I want.

https://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX77699

34" and 144hz. The price though(along with it being in stock) is still holding me back as after taxes it's around $1300. I really wish I would have looked for a new monitor during Black Friday because it was $950 before taxes then.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's really only for FPS though. Anything over 80 or so is barely noticeable in games like Witcher and even less so in sim games. For games where ambiance and atmosphere are the thing, you're inevitably going to think they look better in higher res and on a bigger display. Which is basically what that video showed - they only stopped noticing the difference and preferring the higher frame rate when they were playing Doom, and those are likely people who play more FPS and are just used to the higher refresh rate for competitive purposes.

White Out said he played Civ 6 and Cities Skylines. Those are basically the perfect example of games where your framerate stops mattering at a low count, and resolution makes a massive difference. If he said he plays a bunch of COD and Overwatch, I'd be right there with you saying "yeah, get a 27" 144hz screen".

And again, I almost always game in 1080p or 1440p 120hz depending on which screen I'm using so it's not like I'm hugely biased here.

Edit: I will say that if I could only use one monitor for everything, and I had to keep it at least somewhat reasonable (because otherwise the answer is just "buy a CRG9"), I'd be looking at a 34" 1440p monitor with a refresh rate of 100hz+

Then why pay the premium for a 4K monitor if you're almost always running games at 1080p or 1440p? Sounds like a waste of money to me.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

Then why pay the premium for a 4K monitor if you're almost always running games at 1080p or 1440p? Sounds like a waste of money to me.

So, in my case, I have two monitors I use regularly, plus my laptop screen. My laptop is a 15 inch 144hz screen. I play absolutely no FPS games whatsoever, and no MMORPGs or anything. I like RPGs, mostly, or story-driven "create an experience" type of games.

The first screen I use, which is in my home office, is an LG 43UD79-B, which is essentially a 43" 4k TV that's been monitor-ized. This has a cap of 60hz, but if I'm playing something in 4k, there's generally just no way I'm getting it above 60FPS anyway. The size of the thing, what you can fit on the screen, is fantastic. So for games like DOS2, or isometric strategy games, or, say, Civilization, it's absolutely the tits. Also a good option for things that aren't too demanding; I played Disco Elysium on it in 4k, which was very pretty. I've been re-playing Witcher 3 on it the past few days and that works fine too in 1440p ultra. However, at the end of the day, the reason I bought it is for productivity. It's huge, it's sharp in 4k, and I can have a ton of stuff open for work at the same time. When I got it it was $400, so it was pretty easy to pull the trigger.

The second screen is a CRG9. As far as I'm concerned it's the best monitor you can buy for all purposes. The 1000 nit brightness just obliterates everything else on the market, and 5120x1440 is an amazing resolution for literally everything that it's optimized for. Playing Senua's Sacrifice on it, wearing Nari Ultimates, is legitimately mind-bending stuff. But it's also a good monitor for those iso games, because you get so much of the map on one screen - I played through most of DOS2 on it, and that was great. Again, though, the key thing for me is productivity - it's my office monitor. That means that the only time I play games on it is if I need a break while working late or on a weekend... But the fact that I use it for work justifies the $1200 I spent on it when it was on sale last year.

If I was building a gaming-exclusive rig, I would probably be buying something like this.

EDIT: Actually, this one is something I looked at too, pretty much exactly what I was describing above. 34", 100mhz, 1440p, and under $1k. If I had to buy something right away...

[White Out 403]

It would almost be worth the money just to see my wifes expression if i had this thing setup in my basement.

[photon]

I'm pretty happy with my 27" 1440p G-Sync, it is a really good sweet spot.

I've been holding off on an ultrawide, want to wait until I can get G-Sync HDR one for a decent price, but it's getting harder to hold off.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm pretty happy with my 27" 1440p G-Sync, it is a really good sweet spot.

I've been holding off on an ultrawide, want to wait until I can get G-Sync HDR one for a decent price, but it's getting harder to hold off.

Be careful with ultrawide.


It's tough to come back from.

Some days im managing 8-10 windows and I don't know how I managed with 3 screens before.

[White Out 403]

ok CP braintrust and specifically master race...

these are the monitors i've shaved it down to

please weigh in

https://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX80848
https://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX79688
https://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX79049

[photon]

The MSI is a VA monitor so I wouldn't prefer that one.

The Gigabyte one is curved, not sure I'd like a curved monitor that small.

Benq is a decent brand, I'd probably pick that one out of those three. I didn't see a review on TFT Central which is usually the place I go for monitor reviews.

I prefer the ASUS or the Acer 27" 1440p IPS monitors, but they're quite a bit more $$.

This one is in that price range though (out of stock at MemEx) https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews...ing_vg27aq.htm
https://www.amazon.ca/Gaming-VG27AQ-.../dp/B07WQ4FXY9

Not HDR though, if that's important.

Here's TFT Central's recent roundup: https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/article...fresh_rate.htm

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by photon

The MSI is a VA monitor so I wouldn't prefer that one.

The Gigabyte one is curved, not sure I'd like a curved monitor that small.

Benq is a decent brand, I'd probably pick that one out of those three. I didn't see a review on TFT Central which is usually the place I go for monitor reviews.

I prefer the ASUS or the Acer 27" 1440p IPS monitors, but they're quite a bit more $$.

This one is in that price range though (out of stock at MemEx) https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews...ing_vg27aq.htm
https://www.amazon.ca/Gaming-VG27AQ-.../dp/B07WQ4FXY9

Not HDR though, if that's important.

Here's TFT Central's recent roundup: https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/article...fresh_rate.htm

What if I like va tho?

[photon]

That could be fine. This review says it doesn't have an sRGB emulation mode which would probably be a deal killer for me; I tried a wide gamut monitor without sRGB emulation and it drove me crazy.

https://www.displayninja.com/msi-mag272qr-review/

But otherwise looks ok, the contrast looks really good.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by photon

That could be fine. This review says it doesn't have an sRGB emulation mode which would probably be a deal killer for me; I tried a wide gamut monitor without sRGB emulation and it drove me crazy.

https://www.displayninja.com/msi-mag272qr-review/

But otherwise looks ok, the contrast looks really good.

What's that mode for?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That Asus TUF monitor that Photon posted is a pretty great option in that price range.

Whiteout I missed what the setup you're using is though. What are the specs?

[White Out 403]

This is a 2015 build
Intel 6700K
Maximus VIII Hero ROG Motherboard
G Skill TridentZ D4 3200M 16 gigs (2x8)a
3 TB 5400 RPM HDD
250 GB SSD HDD
ASUS GTX 1060 OC

The asus looks nice but I'm leaning towards the msi as it's locally available and under 500

[photon]

Back in ye olde days, computers worked in the sRGB colour space.. basically the range of colours that everyone (well Microsoft and HP, but everyone followed) used. Having a standard means the red that guy A makes his website is (mostly, close enough for most) the same red you see when you look at it on your computer.

This is fine, except sRGB isn't all the colours. sRGB is the triangle in this bigger space of colours:



Wide gamut (HDR for example) means using a larger colour space, a bigger triangle with more colours. Which is great for content that uses that colour space.. image editing, watching movies, playing games that support it, etc. Everything looks better.

Problem with that becomes when a source that wasn't created with that in mind is displayed in that higher range of colours.. things will look different, not as the creator intended. Everything generally looks more saturated or somewhat off.. reds can look more neon red, etc. Web browsing being one huge one.

Some people don't really notice and don't care. I can't stand it for some reason.

Some monitors have different modes, my old Dell was a wide gamut monitor but it had an sRGB mode so that websites and stuff looked as intended, so I could flip back and forth if I wanted.

But it's a pretty subjective thing, some people couldn't even tell the difference while others would instantly see. Not being able to have an sRGB mode would kill it for me, but it might be perfectly fine for you.

What I don't now is if Windows helps with these kinds of things nowadays.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by photon

Back in ye olde days, computers worked in the sRGB colour space.. basically the range of colours that everyone (well Microsoft and HP, but everyone followed) used. Having a standard means the red that guy A makes his website is (mostly, close enough for most) the same red you see when you look at it on your computer.

This is fine, except sRGB isn't all the colours. sRGB is the triangle in this bigger space of colours:



Wide gamut (HDR for example) means using a larger colour space, a bigger triangle with more colours. Which is great for content that uses that colour space.. image editing, watching movies, playing games that support it, etc. Everything looks better.

Problem with that becomes when a source that wasn't created with that in mind is displayed in that higher range of colours.. things will look different, not as the creator intended. Everything generally looks more saturated or somewhat off.. reds can look more neon red, etc. Web browsing being one huge one.

Some people don't really notice and don't care. I can't stand it for some reason.

Some monitors have different modes, my old Dell was a wide gamut monitor but it had an sRGB mode so that websites and stuff looked as intended, so I could flip back and forth if I wanted.

But it's a pretty subjective thing, some people couldn't even tell the difference while others would instantly see. Not being able to have an sRGB mode would kill it for me, but it might be perfectly fine for you.

What I don't now is if Windows helps with these kinds of things nowadays.

Is that the thing that makes super saturated colours?

[photon]

Pretty much yeah.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by photon

Pretty much yeah.

Thanks for the super detailed explanation.

I actually love stupid vivid colours

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That Asus TUF monitor that Photon posted is a pretty great option in that price range.

Whiteout I missed what the setup you're using is though. What are the specs?

https://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX79927

This is the TN version for 540. I think because I don't really do FPS a TN panel is a decent compromise?
edit: I guess I got that in reverse.. the IPS looks nicer with a little worse refresh rate

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't even consider TN panels as a viable option, so I can't say if they're better than they were a decade ago. I've always just written them off as being solely for competitive gamers who need the lowest response time possible at the expense of every other aspect of the display.