You do realize that freesync is just to smooth out video signal and frametimes right? It doesn’t cost anything. The only one that costs money is Nvidia’s G-Sync. Freesync is AMD and opensource. And if I remember correctly, the license for it says something about it cannot be a feature that is charged for.
1 Like
- I was being sarcastic based on a previous post.
- Still cost money to develop.
1 Like
I think NVidia recently started supporting Freesync.
I’m waiting a few months to see how that matures, apparently this monitor isn’t on their approved list.
Yeah, I know. Sheesh. I’m just making fun of the fact it seems like they take any opportunity to bump up prices and add features for that sole reason.
And @MazeFrame @pega
Well, 34" is pretty massive. I have a 40" TV near me and i’m thinking my desk doesn’t have enough space. Or maybe it does? I’ll have to pull out the tape measure and see for myself. Measuring diagonally. But at what angle?
Or I could just find the dimensions of the monitor.
1 Like
Their approved list is a joke…
I think the main issue is, they didn’t implement the full DP1.2a and HDMI something something standards, so they don’t really natively support Freesync, so they have to stitch together some software solution…
2 Likes
Interesting, wonder how FS2 would actually work.
Hey, so 4K can’t be 21:9 right?
That would be 5120x2160. Not sure I ever heared of a monitor with that. Sounds like a nightmare to drive GPU wise.
It is mentioned on wikipedia
1 Like
That would be pretty sick monitor to own though just to have it display the desktop at that. And I can just run some games at 2560x1080p since most GPUs (especially an RX 570) doesn’t stand a chance against 5120x2160p, of course I could just settle for ultrawide 1080p or standard 1440p really.
1 Like
Thanks to Samsung and some others. Big arse displays are becoming a think with freesync and HDR.
It like the early adopter stake in the ground keeps moving. The specs keep getting better.
here is the actual size comparison between 21:9 34 inches to 16:9 40 inches (your tv)
http://www.displaywars.com/40-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9
(u can use this site to get your measurements of display length and stuff too)
the diagonal inch size might be close, but the actual display area for the 21:9 screen is only 61% of the 40 inch tv.
also keep in mind, that there is no reason, that the display has to end where the desk space ends.
as long as the display’s stand can fit on the table just fine, then the display can get over the edges of desk just fine, so i suggest u check what stand is used, check the dimensions, if it fits, if it looks fine for u, if the display goes over the desk’s edge and keep the curve in mind too, if it would have one.
most computer displays come with a relatively compact stand, compared to tvs, that have a stand, that takes up the whole length of the tv (and is garbage…)
so keep that in mind in your measurements and when shopping for your display.
I’m pretty sure the current situation isn’t going to change soon.
Most people are still on 1080p and have been for a decade or so. For 99% of people there is no reason to upgrade. 1440p is for enthusiasts and “Pros”.
4k isn’t coming down in price too much, because the market isn’t growing. In the past, with a bump in resolution, eventually the mass market shifted (from 1024x768 to 1600x900 to 1920x1080). This isn’t the case with 4k as most people have no use for it. You can barely tell the difference on 24 inch or 27 Inch Monitors, larger screens often don’t fit, Scaling on all OS’s other the OS X is abysmal still and in Games you need to have a 1500+ bucks rig to even get close to 60 FPS. That’s just not feasible for most people.
And without big sales, economy of scale doesn’t kick in.
4k with more than 60Hz is even worse, because the Display interfaces/specs are relatively new to even technically be able to drive that. And even a 2080ti will struggle in most modern games.
For anyone who is actually interested in 144Hz Displays and above, they will gladly sacrifice resolution and detail in Game for an competitive advantage. and 4k isn’t an competitive advantage. Which is why most E-Sports is still running 1080p although 1440p 144Hz Displays have been a thing for a long(ish) time.
Finally, more and more people realize that having two or three lower resolution screens is way more productive than a single 40 inch 4k Screen.
Add to that the overall decline in Desktop usage, the rise of Smartphone Usage and Laptops with Chrome OS and such, then it’s pretty clear, why the Display Market isn’t moving.
For the Classical display we’ve reached basically the pinnacle of what we actually could use and need (apart from edge cases and pro use cases).
1 Like
If you ‘need’ to spend a lot of time in front of computers, and want to preserve your eyesight, the best way to do so is to sit as far away from them as possible. Anecdotally, I sit roughly 3x as far from my monitor as most of my friends, and update the prescription for my glasses about a third as often.
Comfortable viewing is primarily about angles so if the display is physically 33% larger, then sitting 33% further away will make it look the same as what you are used to — with the added benefit that it will do less damage to your eyes.
I generally view ever-increasing display sizes as A Good Thing™ and look forward to being able to push my seat further and further back from the screen.
Balancing size and native resolution — to keep things comfortably readable at ‘large’ viewing distances — tends to direct me towards panels with the lowest resolution in their size bracket. As these tend to be the cheapest ones, that’s fine by me. 
For reference: My main display is a 27" with a native resolution of 1080p which I view from 1.4m away. Works really well for me. I had a 27" 1440p display for a few years but gave it away — non-scalable chrome was too small to read/distinguish at native resolution, and (non-integer) scaling resulted in non-vector elements becoming annoyingly blurry.
tl;dr: Leverage the mass market trend — towards larger screens and higher resolutions — to preserve your eyesight. The money you save on glasses will either greatly offset or even exceed what you pay for a larger monitor (and better graphics card).
Well, the LG display I was looking at measures 32.2" wide. And I never really appreciated just how massive my desk is. I remember worrying if my Phantom 820 case could fit. No problem. Same with a 21:9 34" monitor, surprisingly. And as far as glasses and eyesight go, I think i’m a freak in that regard. Never had eyesight problems and I hope I never do. I don’t wanna wear glasses. They look too stupid.
So I guess 21:9 it is. I’m kind of in a dilemma with my PC, too. I don’t know if I should upgrade to Ryzen and go full AMD w/ AMD graphics, or still stick with my non-K i5 Skylake system and just upgrade the graphics. Don’t really know how long this CPU will hold out. The plan was to wait for Intel to respond to Ryzen in full force with basically their new Nehalem. Something revolutionary. Still waiting on that. -_-
Fucking Intel…
1 Like
Go for the gpu, there’s no need to upgrade the cpu in real world scenarios unless you heavily rely on a workload that requires it.
I want to stick with Nvidia, but… well. Look at the prices. Holy shit.
You’ll be waiting a VERY long time… they don’t have a response other than smoke and mirrors. Here is the good news with your current situation… Ryzen 3 announcement end of May along with pricing for CPU and hopefully shortly after motherboards. You will then be able to make an informed decision whether the 3XXX’s are where you want to go or score a very good deal on the 2XXX’s with known motherboards. Either way I think you’ll win especially over your current box. Navi is the wildcard here… it could be worth a shit at low to middle, maybe middle high end… or it will be another over hyped production from RTG. By mid July you should have a very solid idea of what the landscape is(Navi is a couple months after Ryzen).