Teamliquid Monitor Thread - Page 89
Forum Index > Tech Support |
SixStrings
Germany2046 Posts
| ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20157 Posts
On February 06 2015 04:08 SixStrings wrote: Okay, so I have to accept tearing as a fact, unless I want to spend 120 € extra on a Gsync module? Vsync is much more of a problem than tearing, so that's not an option. Yea. There's some stuff with adaptive sync (on newer screens with amd gpu's) and eDP (on laptops) going on, but those solutions don't have all of the tools of the gsync module so they have to either enable vsync (with the flaws of it) or disable it and tear when getting frames too quickly or too slowly | ||
SixStrings
Germany2046 Posts
| ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20157 Posts
| ||
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Dell S2415H — 24" 1080p glossy AH-IPS — $198 after code P43LD0MQJLGB33, $100 Dell eGift card free with monitor http://accessories.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=US&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=860-BBEM&~ck=mn&dgc=BA&cid=285111&lid=5447194&acd=12309209382360120 Probably similar panel as what's in the P2414H, U2414H. | ||
excal
Canada166 Posts
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/dell-ca-ultrasharp-27-u2715h-499-a-1679367/ Seems like a really good monitor in reviews and I'm probably going to pull the trigger on 2. | ||
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
So it's a good deal but doesn't particularly demand purchase if you're looking for 2560x1440 IPS. | ||
U_G_L_Y
United States516 Posts
| ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20157 Posts
| ||
z0rz
United States350 Posts
Looks like the Korean monitors come in two flavors: 1) Dual Link DVI only (highly overclockable) with glossy screen 2) Multiple inputs (poor overclocking) with matte screen I wouldn't mind getting a Dual Link DVI monitor if I could use a converter of some sort, but the ads say something along the lines of "Also cannot be used by Port converter (D-sub, HDMI, DP converter)". Are there any Korean IPS monitors out there with something other than Dual Link DVI input, a glossy screen, and 1440p? Seems impossible to get all three :< | ||
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
| ||
z0rz
United States350 Posts
| ||
dgsdm
198 Posts
I'm considering getting two IPS monitors: Dell U2414H or Asus VN248H-P or alternatively getting one Korean monitor and adding a second one later down the road, but I have a few questions about them: 1) Size aside, are these korean monitors visually better than the 24 inch IPS monitors I mentioned? 2) There's so many of them so how should I go about picking the right one? I'm reading something like how the latest QNIX models are using lesser quality panels or something. 3) Is it even worth it to get these 27" 1440p monitor aside from having more real estate? I feel like they are just bigger than a 24 inch and more taxing to run games on your system. Also it doesn't seem like current mainstream media isn't quite there at 1440p as most content are 720p or 1080p. | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20157 Posts
3) Is it even worth it to get these 27" 1440p monitor aside from having more real estate? I feel like they are just bigger than a 24 inch and more taxing to run games on your system. Also it doesn't seem like current mainstream media isn't quite there at 1440p as most content are 720p or 1080p. I don't think it is, as 27" 1440p is basically exactly the same pixel density as 22-24" 1080p, so you're only gaining screen size and it won't actually look any better for the important stuff that resolution helps while gaming like temporal aliasing | ||
dgsdm
198 Posts
On March 03 2015 01:05 Cyro wrote: I don't think it is, as 27" 1440p is basically exactly the same pixel density as 22-24" 1080p, so you're only gaining screen size and it won't actually look any better for the important stuff that resolution helps while gaming like temporal aliasing You're right about the pixel density, they are essentially the same but different size. Hm.. decisions! Thanks for your input! | ||
QuantumTeleportation
United States119 Posts
On February 23 2015 18:54 Kupon3ss wrote: http://www.ebay.com/itm/X-STAR-DP2710-LED-MULTI-27inch-AH-VA-Panel-WQHD-2560x1440-Computer-Monitor-/331180242313?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d1be17589 I have 3 of these. Really excellent for gaming. What panels do they use? is it LG or ...? | ||
bluegarfield
Singapore1128 Posts
Still not fully decided between 1440p or 4K, but minimum is 1440p60Hz. I guess 27-28inches would be ideal since I feel 30+ inches is a bit too big for playing games. Probably will try to go for 4K monitor if the price make sense here, as the preference is picture quality > refresh rate, so may be IPS > TN as well. Also, system will be equipped with a single GTX970 or 980, so I assume it will be able to play game at 4K resolution. I havent used a 120Hz+ monitor actually, so cant really estimate how much it will be better than a 60Hz monitor for gaming, but being a casual gamer I am fine with 60Hz so far Currently only have a few models in mind as I am unfamiliar with monitor market: - 1440p: Dell U2715H - 4K: Dell P2715Q, Philips 288P6LJEB, Samsung U28D590D. Dell seem to be more widely available here than other brands, or may be I just dont know where to get stuff. I have only used Dell monitor so far and am quite satisfied with it. So say are those 2 Dell monitors above good? If there are any other suggestion for both 1440p and 4K feel free to bring up, I will try to look around. Thanks much | ||
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
If this is for gaming, don't underestimate the graphics card requirements to be able to play in higher resolutions. 2560x1440 has 178% of the pixels of 1920x1080. 3840x2160 has 400% of the pixels of 1920x1080. The difference up to 3840x2160 is huge. And some games don't quite scale UI elements well for higher resolutions. Outside of games, text scaling still is a problem in many applications. The IPS monitors have some issues with IPS glow (some models less so than others, but the U2715H isn't among the best), which may make them less good for a game with a lot of dark scenes, for example. Keep in mind that with the larger screen sizes, the more you'll see things off angle and see these things. But overall both Dell monitors should be good. Reviews of the P2715Q seem relatively scarce, though. And keep in mind that there are a lot of 2560x1440 IPS monitors, and some may be functionally equivalent or slightly better. But if Dell is what is readily available, that should be fine. For alternatives, check the review sites like prad.de, tftcentral, etc. Actually, for the 2560x1440 models, this thread may help: http://wecravegamestoo.com/forums/monitor-reviews-discussion/15027-best-27-2560x1440p-monitors-ahva-ips-pls.html | ||
Cyro
United Kingdom20157 Posts
If you're trying to run at the resolution of your monitor and FPS at refresh rate (or say, refresh rate *1.2 etc of each monitor, it doesn't change anything here) 1080p60 = 100% cpu and gpu requirement 1440p60 = 100% cpu requirement, 178% GPU requirement 4k60 = 100% cpu requirement, 400% GPU requirement 1080p144 = 240% cpu requirement, 240% gpu requirement. This is where you hit those stone walls of "hang on a second, everyone else said my CPU was good!" - they might be getting FPS of 2/3'rds of their refresh rate at 40fps in dips, but that's only ~28% of your refresh rate. Those drops from 160 to 100-120fps, while miles above the heads of most gamers, is something that you will notice and experience extremely often. And those games like Wildstar and Grey Goo that dip to 30fps or even less, well, it kinda ruins the point of having a fast system if the game just can't keep up with any CPU available on the planet. With a huge list of games available that perform awesomely, it's harder and harder to even pay any attention to those badly performing games, even if they're excellent games. at 4k for example on a single 980 you'll have to turn down settings a lot on demanding games. I have a video of SOM on an OC'd 980~ that's FPS with pretty much everything or literally everything minimum aside from Textures medium. If you raise other settings, FPS would drop a lot (but you can't raise textures to high or ultra, you have to leave them at like 1/4 of the max resolution because of VRAM constraints) Overall if you're getting 4k i would strongly recommend one of the gsync 60hz monitors, but 1080p-1440p is much easier to run. Generally 1080p and 1440p are pretty much the same pixel density so they both require the same amount of AA etc, 1440p screens are just bigger. 4k is usually ~1.5x the pixel density. That PPI change (pixels per inch) is what many games and applications don't handle well; they assume that your screen will just get bigger and bigger as resolution increases. While a 1440p screen has ~78% more pixels than 1080p and is usually around 70% bigger, a 4k screen has 300% more pixels than 1080p and it's not usually 300% larger. Even if it was, UI elements would then be waaay over in the corners of your screen and you wouldn't be able to see them well, so scaling a lot of the time is an issue. Developers just need to make UI elements bigger. Blizzard does it quite well, their games being played at 4k will automatically double the height and width of everything in the UI, so that it takes up the same percentage of your screen, but many application and games developers have just made the wrong assumption that every screen is ~100ppi or close to it (that was kinda the case in the 90's to early 2k's) and have not caught up yet | ||
bluegarfield
Singapore1128 Posts
On March 14 2015 13:55 Myrmidon wrote: + Show Spoiler + The older 28" 3840x2160 models (the Philips and Samsung there; note that Dell, Asus, and many other companies have their own similar models too) use TN panels. If this is for gaming, don't underestimate the graphics card requirements to be able to play in higher resolutions. 2560x1440 has 178% of the pixels of 1920x1080. 3840x2160 has 400% of the pixels of 1920x1080. The difference up to 3840x2160 is huge. And some games don't quite scale UI elements well for higher resolutions. Outside of games, text scaling still is a problem in many applications. The IPS monitors have some issues with IPS glow (some models less so than others, but the U2715H isn't among the best), which may make them less good for a game with a lot of dark scenes, for example. Keep in mind that with the larger screen sizes, the more you'll see things off angle and see these things. But overall both Dell monitors should be good. Reviews of the P2715Q seem relatively scarce, though. And keep in mind that there are a lot of 2560x1440 IPS monitors, and some may be functionally equivalent or slightly better. But if Dell is what is readily available, that should be fine. For alternatives, check the review sites like prad.de, tftcentral, etc. Actually, for the 2560x1440 models, this thread may help: http://wecravegamestoo.com/forums/monitor-reviews-discussion/15027-best-27-2560x1440p-monitors-ahva-ips-pls.html Thanks Myrmidon. A quick look around based on the 4 recommended multi-input matte from that link (LG 27MB85R, AOC Q2770PQU, BenQ BL2710PT, Asus PB278QR/2014 PB278Q) did not yield much positive results. Many PC shops here do sell AOC, Asus, BenQ, etc monitors, but I just couldn't find those particular models T__T. Seem like Dell U2715H is still the easier to buy On March 14 2015 14:45 Cyro wrote: + Show Spoiler + 120-144hz can be either the most important part of your system or pretty much worthless to you, depending on perception. Also those higher resolutions are still quite demanding If you're trying to run at the resolution of your monitor and FPS at refresh rate (or say, refresh rate *1.2 etc of each monitor, it doesn't change anything here) 1080p60 = 100% cpu and gpu requirement 1440p60 = 100% cpu requirement, 178% GPU requirement 4k60 = 100% cpu requirement, 400% GPU requirement 1080p144 = 240% cpu requirement, 240% gpu requirement. This is where you hit those stone walls of "hang on a second, everyone else said my CPU was good!" - they might be getting FPS of 2/3'rds of their refresh rate at 40fps in dips, but that's only ~28% of your refresh rate. Those drops from 160 to 100-120fps, while miles above the heads of most gamers, is something that you will notice and experience extremely often. And those games like Wildstar and Grey Goo that dip to 30fps or even less, well, it kinda ruins the point of having a fast system if the game just can't keep up with any CPU available on the planet. With a huge list of games available that perform awesomely, it's harder and harder to even pay any attention to those badly performing games, even if they're excellent games. at 4k for example on a single 980 you'll have to turn down settings a lot on demanding games. I have a video of SOM on an OC'd 980~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYgcSIZ669Y that's FPS with pretty much everything or literally everything minimum aside from Textures medium. If you raise other settings, FPS would drop a lot (but you can't raise textures to high or ultra, you have to leave them at like 1/4 of the max resolution because of VRAM constraints) Overall if you're getting 4k i would strongly recommend one of the gsync 60hz monitors, but 1080p-1440p is much easier to run. Generally 1080p and 1440p are pretty much the same pixel density so they both require the same amount of AA etc, 1440p screens are just bigger. 4k is usually ~1.5x the pixel density. That PPI change (pixels per inch) is what many games and applications don't handle well; they assume that your screen will just get bigger and bigger as resolution increases. While a 1440p screen has ~78% more pixels than 1080p and is usually around 70% bigger, a 4k screen has 300% more pixels than 1080p and it's not usually 300% larger. Even if it was, UI elements would then be waaay over in the corners of your screen and you wouldn't be able to see them well, so scaling a lot of the time is an issue. Developers just need to make UI elements bigger. Blizzard does it quite well, their games being played at 4k will automatically double the height and width of everything in the UI, so that it takes up the same percentage of your screen, but many application and games developers have just made the wrong assumption that every screen is ~100ppi or close to it (that was kinda the case in the 90's to early 2k's) and have not caught up yet Thanks Cyro for the details. I have some doubts: which one will look better graphically, 1440p with Medium to High settings, or 4K with Minimum settings? Overall I guess 1440p seem to be a better options running with a mild OC'ed 4690K and a single GTX980 (not sure about the actual PC specs yet though, is 2xGTX970 better or a single GTX980 better?). Also, besides gaming, I dont think will do any activities that need 4K, watching movies may be yes but then I will need movies that come at higher quality than BD1080p | ||
| ||