The "What Monitor" Thread

Rattlehead_ie

Slightly relevant to my question, but thought like other components a monitor thread might be a good all-in-one thread to start.
So on to my question: Since its X-Mas got a load of OcUK vouchers and looking to maybe upgrade my monitors

Currently have 2 x 24" windescreen 16:9 1980 x 1080 2ms Monitors

Either a larger screen 30-32" at 2560 x 1080 or a slightly smaller (yet bigger than my current) at maybe a 27-29" with 3840 x 1440.
I mainly game, then general use is watching streaming TV or coding (network wide - so super wide could be good).

Just trying to think for gaming whats better aspect ratio, response time, resolution and am I better sacrificing inches for better specs mentioned previously.

Any suggestions, thoughts on ppl who have gone back from dual to single and regretted it etc.

I Armour I

As per always the important questions are budget and graphics card?

But otherwise if you ignore possible QC issues and are minted, go for rog swift or acer predator! The major "thing" seems to be 1440p 144 he gsync but most are happy for some nice 21-27 inch 1080p 60hz ones...

I will upgrade when prices drop!

.G.

Been in the market for a monitor for months myself but no idea what to get. I need one that will work with my PC and my PS4. I have a 24" 1080P Samsung which is great but I want to go bigger, much bigger to increase my immersion in games. I sit pretty close to the screen so no idea what size I should be looking at. I'm thinking at least 32" and 1440p but everything that size is ultra wide and I'm not sold on that plus no idea how my PS4 would take to it. The there's the whole 144hz thing, do I need it, will it make any difference to me etc. I play all sorts of games but mainly racing sims and its immersion in them I'm really looking for which is where ultrawide would be useful I suppose.

Got a 970 as my GPU at the moment but will probably upgrade that when pascal lands if there's big gains.

Mr Blobby

Buying a new GPU soon so decided i may as well upgrade my monitor too. This looks pretty decent - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00BDBWE0Y?ie=UTF8&camp=3194&creative=21330&linkCode=shr&qid=1389892890&sr=8-1&keywords=i2369vm

I'm not a fan of dual monitor setups for some reason... Not really sure why.

Rattlehead_ie

I Armour I wrote: »

As per always the important questions are budget and graphics card?

But otherwise if you ignore possible QC issues and are minted, go for rog swift or acer predator! The major "thing" seems to be 1440p 144 he gsync but most are happy for some nice 21-27 inch 1080p 60hz ones...

I will upgrade when prices drop!

Thanks for the response. Was looking at the 500-650 sterling mark re budget and my GPU is a 290x gaming edition 4GB.
You make a good point around GFX card and if I'm going to be able to handle above 1080 with it.

TerrorFirmer

For either 1440P 144Hz, or 4K, you will really need a GTX980Ti or dual GTX970 or R9 290/390 at a minimum for a decent experience.

A single 290X hasn't a hope unfortunately, unless you drop a load of settings, but that somewhat defeats the purpose of having such a beautiful monitor in the first place.

I wouldn't worry about going from dual to single, at the higher resolution you won't really have any issues.

2560x1080 superwide isn't that taxing and offers a fantastic immersive experience, however some AAA games still doesn't support the resolution natively, which is irritating.

MarkAnthony

My baby.

Having done trip monitors, 27" 1440p etc. etc. including Oculus rift the above is the most immersive gaming experience I've ever had with the possible exception of the oculus which I will buy as a secondary display.

NOTE: I'm not sensitive to frame rate so I find my R9 290 to be fine for driving this display with everything on Ultra. (Fallout 4, Total war, Elite:Dangerous).

Rattlehead_ie

MarkAnthony wrote: »

NOTE: I'm not sensitive to frame rate so I find my R9 290 to be fine for driving this display with everything on Ultra. (Fallout 4, Total war, Elite:Dangerous).

You get your games up to the 3440x1440 rez and full details with a 290?? I assume this is a 4GB GPU.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

A single 290X hasn't a hope unfortunately, unless you drop a load of settings, but that somewhat defeats the purpose of having such a beautiful monitor in the first place.

This is what Id worried about and that I would be left with a sweet monitor but not the GPU to run it

MarkAnthony

Rattlehead_ie wrote: »

You get your games up to the 3440x1440 rez and full details with a 290?? I assume this is a 4GB GPU.

That's correct.

At peak I'm running the GPU at 1100Mhz core vs the 947Mhz stock but recently I've been having issues so it's been running at 947Mhz and I havent really noticed a difference except in the TW games, but they're stupidly high requirements anyway.

I've also had the monitor overclocked to 75Hz on miniDP, can't say I noticed the difference vs. 50Hz on HDMI to be honest but I'm coming back home with a nice shiny displayport cable so I think I'll leave it alone at 60Hz.

TerrorFirmer

The framerate must be brutal, I've a 980Ti and at 4K at ultra FO4 was not really playable due to constant drops which destroy immersion, averaging about 45 but dropped to 30 at times. Playing at 1440p ultra now and while there's the odd hiccup the game runs great overall.

Just looked up benchmarks there and the 290X hits lows of 19fps at 4k, with an average of 33fps...I wouldn't really consider that playable, but each to their own.

MarkAnthony

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The framerate must be brutal, I've a 980Ti and at 4K at ultra FO4 was not really playable due to constant drops which destroy immersion, averaging about 45 but dropped to 30 at times. Playing at 1440p ultra now and while there's the odd hiccup the game runs great overall.

Just looked up benchmarks there and the 290X hits lows of 19fps at 4k, with an average of 33fps...I wouldn't really consider that playable, but each to their own.

I'm not playing at 4K though

I'm 30-60FPS perhaps a little lower at times but I would notice frame-rates in the teens, pretty much never happens. I've loads of extra texture packs installed also.

Lu Tze

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'm not playing at 4K though

I'm 30-60FPS perhaps a little lower at times but I would notice frame-rates in the teens, pretty much never happens. I've loads of extra texture packs installed also.

Any chance you could post some benchmarks? Would be good for those of us considering a monitor upgrade next year whether we need to work out an additional 400+ on a graphics card!

MarkAnthony

Lu Tze wrote: »

Any chance you could post some benchmarks? Would be good for those of us considering a monitor upgrade next year whether we need to work out an additional 400+ on a graphics card!

My fire thinggy extreme score was 5450 iirc. If you tell me what to do I can do it . Bear in mind the monitor I have has only marginally more pixels than a standard 1440p monitor. 3440 vs 2560.

Edit another thing to bear in mind is I'm underwater so I don't suffer from the throttling spikes aggressively oc'd AMD cards on air do. I only ever had a reference cooler so maybe the custom coolers don't either but dunno; can see a card normally at c.80 hitting 95 occasionally.

Lu Tze

MarkAnthony wrote: »

My fire thinggy extreme score was 5450 iirc. If you tell me what to do I can do it . Bear in mind the monitor I have has only marginally more pixels than a standard 1440p monitor. 3440 vs 2560.

Edit another thing to bear in mind is I'm underwater so I don't suffer from the throttling spikes aggressively oc'd AMD cards on air do. I only ever had a reference cooler so maybe the custom coolers don't either but dunno; can see a card normally at c.80 hitting 95 occasionally.

A lot of games have built in benchmarks, GTA v tombraider, sleeping dogs off the top of my head if you have anything like that? Or the uningine heaven or valley benchmarks? That's quite a lot more pixels in the ultrawide monitors, and extra 3rd or so!

MarkAnthony

Lu Tze wrote: »

A lot of games have built in benchmarks, GTA v tombraider, sleeping dogs off the top of my head if you have anything like that? Or the uningine heaven or valley benchmarks? That's quite a lot more pixels in the ultrawide monitors, and extra 3rd or so!

25.6%, a 4K screen is over 40% more than a 1440p UW. Also bear in mind 4K is an 'at least standard' so could be a wee bit more.

My maths is subject to correction ofc.

Bear in mind also whats being rendered. On an UW it's the sides of an image. On a 4K it's all over, including the centre of the screen where, usually, there is much more going on.

Rattlehead_ie

So I ended up going with
LG34UM95
while also maybe sorta "accidentally" buying a 390x

Thanks for all the input and ideas guys, appreciate it.

Mr Blobby

Rattlehead_ie wrote: »

So I ended up going with
LG34UM95

while also maybe sorta "accidentally" buying a 390x

Looks ace!
Going the same route but i'm Upgrading from a 6970 2GB to a 390 + 1440p monitor.

Probably will have to go the Korean monitor route. The name brand monitors are just too expensive for me.

MarkAnthony

Rattlehead_ie wrote: »

So I ended up going with
LG34UM95
while also maybe sorta "accidentally" buying a 390x

Thanks for all the input and ideas guys, appreciate it.

Actually should have said one of the advantages and criticisms of the Dell is the curved screen. I love it but it does cause backlight bleed in the corners. Again it doesn't bother me but would drive others mental. LG doesn't have that issue.

TheDoc

The new ranges of monitors are definitly enticing me, but not sure I'll get really big gains. Speaking with a cousin over Xmas who is picking up a 24" 144hz monitor shortly with Gsync. He runs a 970 in his rig while I have a 290x.

Will probably take a look at what his is like before deciding if I want to take the plunge.

Larger monitors at 1440p really arn't peaking my interest at all.

Dcully

I have both a 27" 60hz 1440 screen and a 24" 144hz gsync 1080 screen side by side, for gaming no comparison the 144hz gsync destroys the other in every way,i understand its hard to understand just how much better can 144hz gsync be but it realy has to be seen to be believed.
IM a pc gamer close on 20 years now and it is by far the single most impressive tech ive seen in pc gaming,seriously you thought your games looked smooth until you tried it,you will never go back to 60 hz, it feels like slow motion to me now.

Ofcourse a 1440 Gsyc 144hz would be better than my 1080 but then I would need a second 970 and that's before I lay out €850+ on such a monitor which has to be said is a huge risk based on the horror stories from acer and asus monitors recently.

zarquon

The dell uses the same lg panel as other curved models. It's simply not true to say that lg does not have that issue. It's a lottery though and some monitors are better than others. Bleed is minor enough on my xr341ck so im happy with it. Freesync on this monitor is fantastic

MarkAnthony

zarquon wrote: »

The dell uses the same lg panel as other curved models. It's simply not true to say that lg does not have that issue. It's a lottery though and some monitors are better than others. Bleed is minor enough on my xr341ck so im happy with it. Freesync on this monitor is fantastic

It doesn't have the issue related to the curve. I said nothing about backlight bleed in general.

zarquon

I had a really bad u3415w and it was aweful, it really is a lottery. If you get a good panel you are lucky. I got settled on my second xr341ck. It can take a few dsrs to get a good one. The xr341ck worked out cheaper than the u3415w and has freesync which is incredible on the screen. Its not perfect but considering the quality of the previous monitors i had I'm happy enough. The u3415w is great if you don't mind 60hz or freesync/gsync

Stand is great on the u3415w, much better than the xr341ck. I bought an ergotron mx and the setup is perfect now

MarkAnthony

zarquon wrote: »

I had a really bad u3415w and it was aweful, it really is a lottery. If you get a good panel you are lucky. I got settled on my second xr341ck. It can take a few dcrs to get a good one. The xr341ck worked out cheaper than the u3415w and has freesync which is incredible on the screen. Its not perfect but considering the quality of the previous monitors i had I'm happy enough. The u3415w is great if you don't mind 60hz or freesync/gsync

Stand is great on the u3415w, much better than the xr341ck. I bought an ergotron mx and the setup is perfect now

Dont get me started on the display port shenanigans! :pac:

MarkAnthony

Right so you lot have me curious! :pac:

Just done a couple of quick tests in Fo4. Firstly frame rates. Wandering around Oberland station, one of the settlements, with everything on Ultra, meshes set to a smaller size for mods (harder on gpu better visuals), a load of additional textures and my 290 at stock speeds (947/1250) I'm getting between 45-60FPS at 3440x1440. (tested using fraps)

I set the monitor to 80Hz with CRU and ran around a bit with my monitor set to fast mode for latency (forget what it's called the grey to grey thingy). Did the same load with the monitor set to 50Hz I really could not tell the difference. Where am I meant to be seeing this? In the motion blur when turning quickly? That I think is limited on my set by the 5ms response time (ah that's it, responce time!). I thought I might have detected some difference, subconsciously but I also realise that could be a placebo effect. Do I need higher frame rates? Perhaps that's the issue - perhaps I need to get 80FPS+ for the 80Hz test? Are you lot getting 144+ FPS on 144Hz monitors? :eek:

Feedback and instructions welcome.

Edit: I might be at 1000Mhz on core. Having major issues with overclocking of late on the new drivers.

MarkAnthony

Okay seems some of my mods weren't loading and I've figured out that the voltage increase isn't being applied when windows starts from a cold reboot to my 290. Thanks to the person who suggested that in another thread. No matter what I do I can't get the bloody thing to work. No matter though as I was on 1100/1500 + 100mv seems happy at 1050/1350 stock volts so I'll just leave it at that. On that note I'm seeing 30-60FPS depending on whats going on in FO4. Some dips to 22 - which I do notice, but that's while scoped which I think is an issue with the game rather than the horsepower of the GPU.

So in short.

Can notice sub 30FPS framerates, post 30FPS I'm not seeing much, if any, difference.

Cant see a difference between 50Hz and 80Hz but then I didnt change the frame rate.

Conclusion: 3440x1440p isn't much more of a strain (circa 20%) than 2560x1440p but you may want to turn the detail down on both resolutions if you're sensitive to framerates. I'll go for the extra wide 21:9 any day after using a 100Hz 2560x1440p for over a year but perhaps I'm strange!