Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - viisual

Pages: [1]
1
I do but I haven't researched how to get the fiat-shekels out of crypto and back into my bank account in Canada.  I guess I can buy some TRX and hope it sky rockets from 2 cents to 30 cents again in December or January before the crash.
Just use them at newegg :P

The newest UW LG with G-Sync has 1/3 HDR support (8 bit +FRC panel with >90% DCI-P3 coverage but very low brightness and lack of local dimming) at 1200$ and lacks an sRGB mode to prevent vast over-saturation when not viewing non DCI-P3/HDR media. 
...
the Alienware, which while consistent, has non linear and very high gamma which causes black crush and makes colors and shades too dark. 
...
Alienware and Asus are all embarrassments preset color accuracy wise to the point that I can't recommend any of them, especially since they're all 2-3 years old.

Sounds like you're not to happy with the newest LG model.

Just to be clear, is the Alienware any good post calibration, or is it so scuffed it's incapable of achieving good results even with calibration.

Dang that AW model is 2 years old and still $850, doesn't look like  any 1440p UW 120hz is in a consumer's bracket, eh?

2
Mmm maybe 1440p UW 120hz gsync should be my target?  (No HDR though is lame, I don't believe any current UW models support all those features)

UW 1440p results on 2080 ti:
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8738/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-review-seriously-buy/index16.html

3
I prioritize image quality, but not to the point where I'd recommend a 60hz AHVA/IPS/PLS panel to someone asking about budget (<300$) 144hz monitors.   

...

Budget?

Yea I'm coming to the same conclusion.  I think anything over $750 might be pushing it; unless it offers something really good for the extra money.  It's hard to pay more for a monitor than a television... although I guess I sit in front of my monitor more; perhaps I should reconsider that sentiment.

I saw some calculations that driving a 3456x1440 would be almost as hard as driving a 4K display.  If that's the case, I'd prefer to have higher FPS on a traditional 27" 1440p.  If I could achieve 120/144 FPS and have a UW 1440p with HDR/G-sync that would be perfect, but I think I'll have to settle at 27" 1440p 120/144hz G-Sync HDR.

What can you suggest now that I've narrowed down my selection.

Thanks again NCX, I know I saw you post a paypal earlier, do you have a bitcoin address perhaps?

4
Hi NCX,

Glad to see you're still around and heavily involved with monitors.  You've always provided great reviews, best of lists, and support to the community!

My computer is about 9 years old with one or two upgrades since it's inception.  I'm starting to suffer from <120 FPS in games and it's invalidating my monitor's usefulness. 

Here's what I have:
i7 2600k // GTX 970 // 16 GB 1333 mhz // LG 24GM77 (1080p 144hz)

New Build:
i7 9700k // 1080 ti or 2080 ti // 16 GB 3200ish? // ???

I have about a 2' - 3' viewing distance to work with for the monitor.

Are gamers still trending towards the higher frequency/hz feature, or have we started to trend towards visual fidelity/quality?

What I think I want:
  • 98/120/144/165 hz for competitive games.
  • G-Sync to reduce tearing. (This is still considered good tech, right?)
  • Good Visuals (HDR might be pushing it, but what are my options for image quality?)

Indecision:
  • 24" or 27"
  • 1080p or 1440p - Will I reach 120/144/165 fps at 1440p even?

Can you suggest a few monitors, I should definitely be considering, with the information I have provided?

p.s. what's your quick thoughts on ultra-wides and/or concave screens?

edit:  I noticed on reddit a thread about the future of G-Sync with HDMI 2.1.  Thoughts? (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/9sop9b/future_of_gsync_hdmi_21_vrr_support_freesync/)

Pages: [1]