geekhack
geekhack Community => Other Geeky Stuff => Topic started by: tp4tissue on Thu, 29 August 2019, 15:37:09
-
[attach=1]
Seems like a really gud' gaming monitor.
240hz, 1080p, VA-panel, 27 inch, 1.5 meter radius Curved, g-sync
Most importantly ~3000:1 contrast ratio, that blows Any IPS or TN out of the water
For $370.. very reasonably priced..
Those alienware/ acer monitors are way overpriced for what they are. And they're not even VA-240hz.
The fastest VA they've got is ~165hz
And it's Samsung, so u know they won't bungle something they know precisely how to build on a very mature-technology.
Anyone seeing other gud' gamr monitors lately ?
-
There's always something...
Best I can tell, 72% NTSC color gamut (this screen) works out to around 77% Adobe rgb
A single Displayport and dual HDMI... Ouch. Displayport can daisy chain. Regardless, I'd much prefer dual DP and single hdmi as my system will use DP leaving me one of each open for other uses, either another system or another screen. It's also more future proof and a better cable.
As for it being Samsung and therefore mature-tech, while I have multiple examples I can cite the most obvious is the Note 7. Sorry, that doesn't impress me.
-
Is it better than this one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B017EVR2VM/?coliid=IQAWN0VG820VF&colid=3NMU5TUP6GJ2Z&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B017EVR2VM/?coliid=IQAWN0VG820VF&colid=3NMU5TUP6GJ2Z&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it)
thinking about upgrading
-
There's always something...
Best I can tell, 72% NTSC color gamut (this screen) works out to around 77% Adobe rgb
As for it being Samsung and therefore mature-tech, while I have multiple examples I can cite the most obvious is the Note 7. Sorry, that doesn't impress me.
Adobe Rgb is def not the right-spec for Pc-games, buh, some people like the exaggerated saturation.
Mmmm... I'm not against it, but I can live without it.
I mention samsung only because the other competitors always messes something up, like sync problems, stutter, black screens.
Samsung isn't perfect, but they're not gonna n00b it up.
For example, LG's gaming monitors have also been great with very few bugs.
-
Fairly different screen and market.
The Asus is not ultra-wide or curved, it has a slower refresh but higher dpi.
Keep on mind as you go up in dpi it taxes vram, as you go up in refresh it taxes the GPU. What works at 1080p@60 isn't going to cut it at 1440p, much less 1440p@165. At that dpi and refresh even a gtx 1070 will struggle at times, you almost need a gtx 1080 or rtx 2070 to make it run well.
-
Personally I think that 27" and 1080p is not enough.
Same, 27" and 4K is too much.
27" should be QHD.
I use Philips 40" 4K and I think that 32" would be the minimum size for 4K.
-
4K 240hz or even 2.5K 240hz won't be here for a very long time. it's this or nothing.
-
Is it better than this one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B017EVR2VM/?coliid=IQAWN0VG820VF&colid=3NMU5TUP6GJ2Z&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B017EVR2VM/?coliid=IQAWN0VG820VF&colid=3NMU5TUP6GJ2Z&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it)
thinking about upgrading
IPS is only (NEEDED) for angle color-stability in photoshop
VA is better for everything else. Gaming/Movies/Productivity/Browsing
-
4K 240hz or even 2.5K 240hz won't be here for a very long time. it's this or nothing.
Do you seriously need those Hz?
Mine is 60Hz and I think its enough.
Maybe I'm old or something...
-
4K 240hz or even 2.5K 240hz won't be here for a very long time. it's this or nothing.
Do you seriously need those Hz?
Mine is 60Hz and I think its enough.
Maybe I'm old or something...
I'm in agreement - never had an issue with 60Hz, but gamers make it seem like if you're not using 120Hz+ you're wasting your time.
-
For RTS, no, 60hz is fine.
For FPS, you Need At Least 120hz. 240hz is SUPER sm00t..
It's a Tremendous advantage
-
Personally I think that 27" and 1080p is not enough.
Same, 27" and 4K is too much.
That is the basis of Retina, pixels small enough that the eye doesn't notice them at normal user distance. However, in the never ending fight to sell more screens companies will keep increasing it.
It doesn't really hurt anything other than the needed HP to drive it, and the software lacking scalability. For example I once had an 11in laptop with a 1440p screen and the Windows taskbar was comically small or stupid big, it lack granularity to look correct. Worse, even if the OS has that fine adjustment, the software may not, on my 25in 1440p screens browser text is too small on many websites and need to be scaled.
For scaling Mac has it, hands down. Windows is meh, Linux is meh to garbage depending on what you use. I had to switch to a desktop environment that used Wayland because GTK ust couldn't handle the fine adjustment it needed. Even then I still fight a few web pages on occasion, and trying to do CAPTCHA is a pain in the neck when the pictures are so tiny.
Do you seriously need those Hz?
It's an advantage in certain games, even the average gamer can benefit from it even if they don't notice it because it reduces response time of the player a small amount. Linus tech Tips did a nice video about it and I think even they were surprised at how much it helped.
-
Do you seriously need those Hz?
Mine is 60Hz and I think its enough.
Back when I was gaming a lot, including playing the very first counter-strike, there was definitely a noticeable difference between playing at 60 fps an 99fps (if I recall correctly the very first CS would not go above a certain framerate and would display "99 fps" in some HUD, but that was 20 years ago so my memory may be failing me). It required several tricks on my machine back then to get it to run at that framerate (like for example using "low polygon count" mods to get higher fps). And, yup, it was definitely giving you a competitive advantage vs those playing at 60 fps (bust most importantly: it was feeling less laggy).
Between 30 fps and 60 fps it's day and night: old computers and arcade cabs (back in the CRT days) were often either 50 or 60 fps (depending on the continent) and games only updating one out of two frames were definitely feeling quite laggy.
Now there has to be a limit at which the eye cannot tell the difference anymore: 240 times per second: honestly I don't think it brings anything noticeable compared to 120. But 120 compared to 60: I'm pretty sure a lot of people can tell the difference in a lot of games.
-
a full on 5.2ghz Intel can hold 400-600 fps in competitive games like csgo.
So, that's a big deal for 240hz.