hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345
Results 81 to 94 of 94

Thread: Ultrawide Wonderthread

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Only one here to predict a win for God Emperor
    Posts
    12,463
    Looking forward to playing this on 3840x1600 with highest settings so very much.
    Are you an engineer? -- Quack

  2. #82
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,939
    So looking to buy my self some nice things on cyber monday; currently looking at getting a snazzy new monitor. My main question at this point is if G-Sync is worth the extra spend? I found a really nice LG monitor that seems to tick all my boxes, but it is AMD freesync. The G-Sync Version of it is almost $300 more; is it really worth that?

  3. #83
    GeromeDoutrande's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Fakefrenchistan
    Posts
    1,769
    I wouldn't spend $300 on G-Sync - it would make more sense to me to spend the money on a better graphics card instead if anything. Which UW are you looking at?

  4. #84
    Specially Pegged Donor Overspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    NL fuck yeah
    Posts
    3,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    So looking to buy my self some nice things on cyber monday; currently looking at getting a snazzy new monitor. My main question at this point is if G-Sync is worth the extra spend? I found a really nice LG monitor that seems to tick all my boxes, but it is AMD freesync. The G-Sync Version of it is almost $300 more; is it really worth that?
    The two technologies are virtually identical in practice. The real difference is if you're pairing it with an Nvidia (G-Sync) or AMD (Freesync) card. The $300 is Nvidia-tax.

    That said, it's hard to find a bad G-Sync monitor and it's a lot easier to find a bad Freesync monitor, so do your research if you're leading towards the AMD/Freesync camp.

  5. #85
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,939
    Well the way I am looking at is that either tech is really only useful if you're dropping frames right? I will be pairing this with some beefy hardware, i7 7800x and a 1080ti, So I really shouldnt have frame rate issues to begin with so I am questioning whether G-sync would be of any use at all for that $300 premium. The monitor only comes two flavors of Free Sync G Sync so I might as well get the cheaper one right?

    Quote Originally Posted by GeromeDoutrande View Post
    I wouldn't spend $300 on G-Sync - it would make more sense to me to spend the money on a better graphics card instead if anything. Which UW are you looking at?
    LG 34UC79G-B 34" 21:9 UltraWide IPS Curved Gaming Monitor 2560 x 1080 (2K) Resolution, AMD FreeSync, 144 Hz Refresh Rate, Dynam

  6. #86
    VARRAKK's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 27, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Well the way I am looking at is that either tech is really only useful if you're dropping frames right? I will be pairing this with some beefy hardware, i7 7800x and a 1080ti, So I really shouldnt have frame rate issues to begin with so I am questioning whether G-sync would be of any use at all for that $300 premium. The monitor only comes two flavors of Free Sync G Sync so I might as well get the cheaper one right?

    Quote Originally Posted by GeromeDoutrande View Post
    I wouldn't spend $300 on G-Sync - it would make more sense to me to spend the money on a better graphics card instead if anything. Which UW are you looking at?
    LG 34UC79G-B 34" 21:9 UltraWide IPS Curved Gaming Monitor 2560 x 1080 (2K) Resolution, AMD FreeSync, 144 Hz Refresh Rate, Dynam
    2560 x 1080 resolution on that LG screen make it terrible.
    Got 1440p on such a big monitor, you won't regret it.

  7. #87
    GeromeDoutrande's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Fakefrenchistan
    Posts
    1,769
    I'd imagine you'll pretty consistently max out the frame rate with your card on that resolution, so I would agree with your view on G-Sync.

    Is there a particular reason for going with a low resolution display (other than display price)? I have an UW with 3440 x 1440, and for me the many dots are a large part of the appeal.

  8. #88
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,939
    Price point is certainly one consideration, but I would really like a 21:9 screen; which afaik don't come in 2560x1440 (new egg shows only 1) and high refresh rate. Bumping to 3440x1440 is a significant price jump for even 60hz screens, and just a complete no go for 100/120hz.


    That LG screen seemed to be a pretty good compromise of everything I was looking for, But if you have any suggestions around the $500 mark I am all ears.

  9. #89
    GeromeDoutrande's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Fakefrenchistan
    Posts
    1,769
    This is the display that I have (and I would recommend it to others) for $700:
    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16824022484

    Different people obviously have different types of priorities; the LG certainly seems serviceable (obviously see whether there are reviews for the thing etc).

    edit: just to note that 2560x1440 is not a 21:9 resolution.
    Last edited by GeromeDoutrande; November 20 2017 at 07:48:35 PM.

  10. #90
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    9,939
    Quote Originally Posted by GeromeDoutrande View Post
    This is the display that I have (and I would recommend it to others) for $700:
    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16824022484

    Different people obviously have different types of priorities; the LG certainly seems serviceable (obviously see whether there are reviews for the thing etc).

    edit: just to note that 2560x1440 is not a 21:9 resolution.
    Hmm that is nice I could probably swing for that. Granted I am planing to do all my ordering on black friday/cyber monday so I should be able to pinch a bit here and there if that monitor or something similar isnt on sale

  11. #91
    VARRAKK's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 27, 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,583
    Quote Originally Posted by GeromeDoutrande View Post
    I'd imagine you'll pretty consistently max out the frame rate with your card on that resolution, so I would agree with your view on G-Sync.

    Is there a particular reason for going with a low resolution display (other than display price)? I have an UW with 3440 x 1440, and for me the many dots are a large part of the appeal.
    Don't be a half ass, if you are going for premium screen gotta pick from the top shelf.
    3440x1440 or nothing. 100hz makes an awful lot of difference too.

  12. #92
    Donor Pattern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,277
    3440 x 1600 and 3840 x 1600 exist also, if you are not a scrub.

  13. #93
    Donor Aea's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    13,910
    I have the scrub 4K (3440x1440) and it's nice. Not used for anything but code editing though, got an old-school 2650x1600 at home for gaming.

    "Gaming" at 60 FPS though, and massive IPS input lag. Not a big deal for me. I can't be bothered to replace a $1K monitor TBH.

  14. #94
    Specially Pegged Donor Overspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    NL fuck yeah
    Posts
    3,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Well the way I am looking at is that either tech is really only useful if you're dropping frames right?
    No, the tech is useful whenever the FPS your GPU produces and the Hz your monitor runs at aren't perfectly synced up, which is basically all the time.

    You get tearing whenever your fps is different from your monitor refresh rate, regardless of whether you're under or over it. There are tons of ways of dealing with that (v-sync, double/triple buffering, adaptive sync, etc) but all of them add some amount of lag and have other drawbacks like only being able to run at 1/1 or 1/2 or 1/3 etc of your refresh rate with v-sync.

    G-sync/freesync circumvent this entirely by just slaving your monitor to display the actual frames coming from your GPU and displaying them as soon as they're ready, reducing lag in the process. This also fixes the vast majority of stuttering issues you get with normal monitors.

    With G-sync/freesync you'll want to limit the framerate of your games to just below the maximum framerate your monitor can keep up with, as the syncing tech will disable if the GPU produces more frames than the monitor can keep up with, leading to tearing again. The most important spec of a syncing monitor is the range at which it can keep syncing. Both the minimum and the maximum framerate are important, and there are monitors out there that have a lower max syncing framerate than what the panel can display (144Hz monitor only having a 30-90 fps syncing range for example), which isn't what you want. And you want the minimum to be as low as possible so that the game can remain fluid during big fps drops (loading stuff, network, etc). In the Freesync case you want your max fps to be at least 2.5x your min fps, so that it can do some magic (doubling/tripling/etc frames) to remain fluid below it's min fps. Not sure if G-sync has a similar requirement or if all G-sync monitors automatically meet this requirement.

    Honestly you have to properly experience it to believe it, it's silly how much more fluid it is than old-fashioned monitors without it.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •