Return to Level1Techs.com

Need a Monitor suggestion

#61

For 2160p, yeah, but for 1440p, 32" is a bit large and looser on the ppi. But thank you.

0 Likes

#62

can confirm.

0 Likes

#63

So, I simulated the 38" ultrawide with my buddy’s 40" TV, and damn… That’s big… And with all those pixels, IDK, y’know?

Right now it’s either gonna be an ultrawide or a super ultrawide. We’ll see what the market brings in terms of sizes, specs, and features. I really wanna hit 100-120 ppi, 10-bit 95% + sRGB at least 100hz, freesync 2, and ips or similar with a low response time/ghosting and little input lag (sub 20ms total). HDR would be a bonus, even if it’s HDaRen’t.

0 Likes

#64

Okay. So.

I just bought the LG 38in 3840x1600 UW.

I have nothing but good things to say about this display. If you’re looking for a beautiful display with pretty good response time, that runs beautifully at 75hz (haven’t tried overclocking it yet), look no further. Yeah, the price tag is nothing to sneeze at, but at the end of the day, I’d say it’s absolutely worth the price.

I was sorta in the same market as you are, so if you’ve got questions, let me know.

So this thing hits the following:

  • 10 bit 99% sRGB (I’ll show you the calibration graphs when I get on my desktop tomorrow)
  • ips
  • low response time, imperceptible ghosting to someone who’s used to TN
  • HDR (seems to be actual HDR, but it’s hard to say for sure, I’m not really a pro on it. Andromeda looks wonderful in it, when you’re just looking at scenery and stuff)
  • 110ppi

I’m gonna be honest with you:

This display isn’t for the weak-gpu-owning. I’ve got a 1070ti and I can’t max out some of my games. I’m absolutely sure I wouldn’t be able to max BF5.

If you have less than a 1080 and being able to push native resolution maxxed out at 100+hz is of the highest priority for you, I would highly recommend going with a 1440p 21:9 instead. I bought this display for the screen real estate while writing code and editing videos. It’s wonderful for those purposes, but I don’t max most new games. (I want a 2080ti now, but I spent all my PC budget for the year on this monitor)

It’s definitely taken a bit to get used to, in comparison to my 24in 1200p display I was on previously. I’m extremely happy with it though.

0 Likes

#65

Now that’s what I was looking for. Someone who’s actually had experience with it all.

As far as the weak GPU, thing, I have a 1070 FTW. When i bought it, I was basically aiming for the highest overclocked most powerful factory 1070 for the money. And I’ve got that. I will say this, though; I’d be totally fine running games pillarboxed if I had to.

I just want to be able to stay above freesync range with the 1% lows, which means average FPS would be 60-75-ish. Game settings should all be maxed, or 1 step below max.

In GTA V, I currently have it all maxed, with motion blur and depth of field turned off, and extended draw distance in ‘advanced graphics’ turned all the way down. Finally, grass is on very high instead of ultra for me and shadows are on softest because PCSS did some weird shit. I can nail my goals down and then some at 1440x900 this way, 4x MSAA with TXAA and FXAA on, and MFAA on in Nvidia control panel.

In Watch Dogs 2, I have everything maxed except extra details, shadows(ultra instead of PCSS), motion blur, depth of field, and AA, with temporal filtering and the only other AA option that allows you to activate running together. The AA level of that is good enough, but I’m more happy it gives me better framerates. Speaking of which, I also hit goal and beyond on this, on the same resolution, WITH resolution scaling maxed out at 1.5 in game. ((From my research, most games scaling like this multiply both directions, whereas DSR multiplies total pixel count, so I’m technically running 2160x1350 or ~3MP as opposed to ~1.3MP.))

0 Likes

#66

If you’d like to read through my thread, here’s a link:


I’m going to give you this recommendation:

Don’t over-buy your monitor. Games are not going to stay at the same level, and if you buy a more powerful GPU later, you’ll need the higher end units to push max on a similar high-end display.

I would strongly recommend against the 3840x1600 display class due to your gpu limitations. Save money and get 1080p UW or 1440p UW if you absolutely must. In fact, I recommend against the 1440p UW as well, I’m just stating it as an option. You’re trying to push a lot of frames for the resolutions you’re looking at on a 1070.

Don’t get me wrong, the 1070 is a good card, it’s in no way bad, but you’re trying to do high-end enthusiast things on a mid-range enthusiast card. That wouldn’t matter if you were doing something that’s not time sensitive, but you are.

At the end of the day, I think you’ll be happy with whatever you choose, since it’s going to be a significant upgrade.

Or, you could go the batshit crazy route and sell your 1070, buy a 2080ti and the 3840x1600 display and be happy with it. (I did the math and to get good performance out of this display, you need a 2080ti, or a multi-gpu setup)

Just so you get the idea of what you’re asking the system to do:

Now, this image doesn’t include the 38in LG displays resolution, which is a good 20% larger, in raw pixel count, than the 1440p UW.

Think of it this way, to hit the same framerates given the same graphical settings, you need to match or beat the size increase of the monitor with a performance increase in the GPU. You can shrink your performance requirements by using up some of your framerate budget or lowering your graphical settings. This isn’t a perfect scale, but it will give you an idea of what you should be expecting.

On a high-resolution display, don’t use AA or resolution scaling. I know you probably know this already, but some people reading this might not. AA really doesn’t help things and resolution scaling doesn’t help either.

You’re on a 900p display currently?

Yeah, you’ll be ecstatic with any upgrade in the ultrawide category.


If I were to give you a recommendation, here’s it:

1440p UW:

https://www.amazon.com/Acer-X34-Pbmiphzx-UltraWide-Technology/dp/B079FV8S5M

I chose G-Sync here because you’ve currently got Nvidia and as soon as you check the Freesync option, all the reasonably priced choices go away. The other option would be to pay $1150 for this, if you can find it, but at that rate, you might as well put the extra $250 you’re paying over the LG 38in into a more powerful GPU.

https://www.amazon.com/LG-34GK950F-B-34-21-Ultragear/dp/B0798Q8KG4

1080p UW:

https://www.amazon.com/LG-34UC89G-B-34-Inch-21-UltraWide/dp/B0728JH3RQ


Ehh, I’d go with the 1440p UW then. At 1600p, you’ll be more like 25-30 average. I’m experiencing 45 avg on my 1070 ti.

0 Likes

#67

Yeah, I still want my 1% lows to be in adaptive sync range. Also, the reason I want Freesync is 2-fold. 1. Nvidia supports usage on it, now. and 2. If/when AMD finally comes to the table, I want to get their baddest, or second baddest card. Assuming they keep up series for series with Nvidia.

Main reasons I wanna do THAT are to support the underdog, and to have an all matching system. Seems silly, but I like to think it’s a cool thing to do. Plus, there’s that thing about Nvidia gimping cards via drivers as they get older. Not cool. Among many other anti-consumer practices. Only reason I didn’t get an AMD car when I built this thing back in September was price. Miners still had that shit sky high. A vega 56 (=to 1070, I think) was over $100 more than what I paid for my 1070.

Okay, so you’re saying I’m gonna end up overbuying, most likely… Hmm… Well, I definitely don’t want low PPI of 2560x1080 on a 34", so it’s either 1440p ultrawide, downsize, OR, I could maybe spring for a 3840x1200 32:10? Even better for multitasking, better for racing games, and probably extremely cinematic for normal games.

Your thoughts? It’d have marginally better PPI (89.37 vs 93.56) than my current monitor, and it would be the same height as a 34" 21:9, just even WIDER. And around 0.35MP smaller/easier to drive.

0 Likes

#68

Yeah, I have the same reasons for picking freesync as well. (btw, freesync on nvidia works great)

That’s a totally reasonable thing to do. Your rig, your preferences.

4.6MP… might work, but I don’t know how that display will work out for ya. 16:5 is an interesting aspect ratio. It’s going to feel very short.

No. I can’t see the edges of my current display without moving my head while I’m playing games.

Yes.

If it were me…

…and I had unlimited budget and gaming was the priority, this is what I’d do:

2080/2080ti with the LG 1600p

…and I had the $1000 budget and the same productivity first gaming second priorities, I’d do:

keep the 1070 and get the LG 1600p

…and I had the $1000 budget with the gaming priority, I’d do:

throw a fit because the monitor you are asking for doesn’t exist. (seriously though, I can’t seem to find a monitor that checks all your boxes in the 1440p ultrawide category.

You’re going to have to sacrifice on something. My recommendation: Sacrifice on Adaptive Sync. (it’s really not that big of a deal)

Go Team Green. Grab the Acer X34 Predator. Enjoy it. Don’t stress out over “not supporting the underdog” and just enjoy your gaming setup, knowing that if you ever want to use an AMD GPU, all you have to do is install it and plug it in. You can always use AMD on your GSync monitor, just without freesync.


It might be worth going with the LG 1600p, rocking letterboxes or running it at lower-than-native Then you can save some cash for a more powerful GPU. See what AMD has in store and maybe the 2080ti will go down in price. (2080ti is ~75% more powerful than the 1070)

If you’re keen on keeping the monitor for a long time, I would overbuy a bit so you can grow your rig into it.


Here’s my proposal for this situation:

LG 1600p, you can get this for $950. If it’s not on sale today, wait a week, it will be. Take the $350 you have left in your absolute max budget and throw that towards a more powerful GPU. If your 1070 is in good condition, you can probably get $300-350 for it. That gives you a budget of $650. That’s a Radeon VII or a 2080. (damn, that’s actually compelling for myself)

You can rock your 1070 for a few months if you need to, just run the display at 3440x1440 or with letterboxes and you can get the GPU you want down the line.

Of course, this depends on your priorities. The frustrating thing is that, again, you’re trying to do high-end enthusiast stuff with a mid-range enthusiast GPU. The obvious answer is to spend more money on a moar better GPU, but if that were easy, people wouldn’t be starving in the world.

It really depends on how firm you are on keeping the display for 5-7 years. (and you really should get that kind of use out of these displays.

0 Likes

#69

I’ll put it this way. I’ve had this screen for 8 years, so yeah, i’d wanna keep my next one for a long time. As far as the GPU, yeah, it’s only a few months old and I haven’t touched the clocks on it.

My worry about a 2080 or 2080TI is that it’ll be bottlenecked by the R5 2600. I’ve read that even a 1080/1080ti is necked by the R5, and I honestly don’t see a reason to get an R7.

Another thing to consider is that I still have to fix my car, first, so this whole thing is at least 2-3 months down the line, and with my speakers getting worse, and my desk still a hunk of junk, those are also next up on the list, too.

Hence why this is about 75% feeler thread, trying to get a handle on what’s currently out there, or what may be out there shortly. Of course, I could just end up doing a full remodel on my PC this christmas and go balls deep on an R7, 32gb, and 2080ti or whatever AMD brings, plus the 1600p ultrawide. But, then again, that’s a LOT of guap…

0 Likes

#70

It won’t, in 99% of cases.

Not at framerates under 120 anyways.

CPU frequency is important in two cases. Complexity of the tick update code and framerates.

Trust me, you won’t be bottlenecked righ now.

Whoever said that doesn’t know what they’re talking about, unless they’re talking about csgo at 1080p.

Fix your car, then fix your desk, then choose what hardware to fix.

What’s out there will have changed by the time you’re ready to buy. Just chill for a few months, get your higher priorities fixed and smile at how prices have fell 10-15% when you’re ready to buy.

2 Likes

#71

Alright, then. TBH, I’m really happy with my current rig right now. I’m finally able to play games again since my old one has been wheezing it’s final breaths for the last couple-few years, actually.

You’ve definitely got my priorities in order, but I will say that if my speakers stop working altogether (like my chair did), then they’ll be getting replaced regardless, due to not having anything else worthwhile to listen with.

If I’m being REALLY straightforward, though, I’d rather start spending money on the overall setup. Meaning, custom bed with a partition wall, custom desk, proper monitor mount, tidying up, cable management, lights, accessories, mini quad/RC workbench, home theater, and etc.

But yeah. Let’s see what happens. Thanks for the ideas, man.

1 Like

#72

Hey, the GTX 1070 is a fine 1440p card. It will struggle (60fps?) with AAA titles but remember… your monitor will last 2-4 GPUS. Your next GPU upgrade will be much better than the 1070.

I recently grabbed a LG 32GK850F and a used Vega 56. Hitman 2016 runs at like 80 FPS, maxed settings.

0 Likes

#73
2560*1440 = 3686400 (3.68MP)
3440*1440 = 4953600 (4.95MP)
4.95/3.68 = 1.345

So we have 34.5% more pixels on an ultrawide.

OP is looking for an ultrawide.

If OP decides to go with a single 16:9 display, your statement stands, but with 34% more resolution, that will require significantly more GPU power to render for.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that 21:9 and 16:9 are two very different displays.


Sounds good. I’m always happy to help, so if you wanna chat again, hit me up.

I definitely understand the want to get a better display though, Hell, I was feeling it this year and I already had an okay display.

2 Likes