IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
getting locked into nvidia for the next few years is a bad idea
If you're going to bet, bet on Nvidia.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
getting locked into nvidia for the next few years is a bad idea
If you're going to bet, bet on Nvidia.
Hah, yeah. I've always been a default "underdog" supporter. I've tried to favor AMD and ATI, separately, and together, for decades (since the mid-90s in the case of the AMD CPUs) Yet, time and time again, it's been proven to me, that regardless of their staying power (as underdogs), they've never been able to consistently deliver. In fact, in what I remember of their history, whenever they've been able to gain the crown, they've never been able to hold it in the next iteration. Couple that, in the case of ATI (or the GPU side of AMD), with consistently troublesome drivers or support. I've pretty finally capitulated to both Intel and Nvidia, especially for gaming.
I'd love to see that change, but it's such a long running and consistent trend at this point, I'm kind of amazed that it's even a question anymore. Yes, AMD does upset the order, every so often, and regularly delivers the "bang-for-buck" in the upper-middle tier, but, rarely does it consistently compete at the higher performance level, two iterations in a row, and is just as guilty as Intel on the CPU end of having near zero upgrade path one generation to the next. On top of which, I remember, owned, and suffered through numerous "on paper" top performer AMD CPUs that ultimately had major issues with thermal runaway, constant crashes with spec driven chips, etc. etc, and similar with ATI gpu's. Yet, all the while, would watch friend's intel/nvidia rigs just chug along.
I have both a system with Radeon 390 in one computer and several Nvidia cards have been in another, 970x2, 980 Ti, now 2080 Ti. I haven't noticed that AMD drivers have been any worse than Nvidia really. The 390 when it was purchased seemed like the most sensible midrange card in its price range.
In terms of CPUs, AMD has had far better support with its AM4 platform. It supports Zen 1/Zen 1+/Zen 2 and looks likely to support Zen 2+. So if you upgraded every time that's four processors without changing the motherboard. Granted, the road to that support has been a rocky one and Zen 2 still seems to be in a bit of a flux as many manufacturers still don't have the latest AGESA version out etc.
I really want AMD to be able to challenge Nvidia properly, not just in the midrange market which at this point is not relevant to me as I move towards 4K resolutions. They try to promise a 2080 Ti killer but if it comes out when Nvidia is already a generation and a half ahead then it's no good.
I'm glad that Nvidia finally caved to have Freesync support as it will lead to more GPU choices for your chosen display. It looks like they will in the future aim G-Sync more towards the high end model as more and more manufacturers would rather make Freesync 2 displays since they are probably cheaper for them to make with no reliance on Nvidia's chips.
has anyone reviewed this monitor yet. It has been listed on a local Australian website.
But I just bought the Asus XG43, although I haven't properly tested that yet, I am thinking of selling it and ordering this LG
Not really a review, but it's something..
The G-SYNC Ultimate FPGA is only like $300-$400 from what has been spread around, so you're still looking at a price north of €2.000. And lest we forget, 34" "gaming" 21:9 monitors were all around the $1,500 mark when they first hit the market.One of the reasons for the higher price if the real deal G-Sync chip. Plus it has the 35" FALD monitors beat on size, pixel speed and resolution.
The price is fine as long as we see sales around the $1400 mark. True g-sync is worth the money from my testing.
The price is fine as long as we see sales around the $1400 mark. True g-sync is worth the money from my testing.
Yeah but that's retail price. The 34gk950 is listed at $1500 but 6 months later could be found for ~$800-$900.They've already said the price of this is going to be 2300 Euros though.
Yeah but that's retail price. The 34gk950 is listed at $1500 but 6 months later could be found for ~$800-$900.
Maybe but it wouldn’t be unprecedented considering I gave you a valid example of their last generation panels dipping equally in price.Good luck with that lol... it may get a slight reduction, but not that much lol! Not unless it ends up being a big pile of poop.
Maybe but it wouldn’t be unprecedented considering I gave you a valid example of their last generation panels dipping equally in price.
That would require selling them at that price. It’s so high that I would expect only enthusiasts to bite and not having proper HDR for such a high price is going to drive a lot of people away. It’s a good size, refresh rate and resolution but it really needs to be top tier everything else at current pricing.They weren't exactly unique though... more than a few 34" monitors out there, so they didn't exactly have that market sector to themselves. The price just came down in line with the other options, that were very similar in spec. The 38GL950G is quite different... nothing else out there like it, so I can see LG and retailers keeping the price high on these for a long time yet.
That would require selling them at that price. It’s so high that I would expect only enthusiasts to bite and not having proper HDR for such a high price is going to drive a lot of people away. It’s a good size, refresh rate and resolution but it really needs to be top tier everything else at current pricing.
I am fairly agonizing over waiting for this monitor and paying the premium for it vs just buying a 34GK950F right now.
The pros of the 34" are immediate availability, greater local stock so i can be picky with regards to panel lottery (if neccessary) and of course saving about $700-900. The only real con I can think of is that, somehow, the 34" just feels slightly too small vertically. I worry that I would regret it in 6 months time.
The 38" just ticks soooo many boxes. But the main con here is its not even available yet, and likely wont be widely available for 3-8 months if the launch experience of the 34" is any indicator (LG seems to be horrible at product launches). Who knows how long it will be before there is enough stock to have the luxury about being choosy on panel quality. I know that only in the last month as my local dealer finally had real amounts of stock on hand of the 34" and that's, what, almost a year after launch? Frankly the price and HDR dont even matter to me (much).
The €2.300 price includes VAT, which averages out to 20% across the EU. Without VAT it is €1.916. The EU also generally has higher import duties. Combined with higher shipping rates due to the difficulty shipping from southeast Asia to the EU compared to the US I would expect retail price of this monitor to be around $1,800 USD. Average sales tax across the US is 5%, so that would only add $90 to the price at time of sale.They've already said the price of this is going to be 2300 Euros though.
xbox and amd have been able to do VRR on samsung 4k tvs for awhile now. The amd gpus can even run 1440p 120hz since the panels are 120hz in the more recent tvs. Nvidia supporting VRR and freesync and still calling it G-sync by title in their drivers is nice but without a displayport on the tvs you aren't getting 4k 100hz 4:4:4 10bit or 120z 8bit 4:4:4.. the nvidia gpus still lack hdmi 2.1 and most tvs do too so far. What good is VRR from 48hz to 60hz with all of that sample and hold blur? Unless you are running non native resolution perhaps but then the quality is muddied.
Sure someday we'll have hdmi 2.1 , 120hz 4k VRR + QFT OLED tvs and Samsung high density and high HDR color nit FALD tvs as well as the next gen of xbox and ps5 doing some hacked form of 4k 120hz on hdmi 2.1 most likely.... and someday nvidia will release a hdmi 2.1 gpu that does VRR. Until then these monitor manufacturers are going to profit off of 100hz+ 4k (and uw) displayport monitors.
so 60Hz is a non issue .
I would not go back to 60 Hz even on the desktop. Yesterday my display had for some reason gone to 60 Hz and I quickly felt something was off. 120+ Hz just feels so much more responsive.
The 3840x1600 is a pretty good resolution and 38" a good size for it and a 2080 Ti would run that quite nicely. LG just really messed up by making the pricing unappealing by not having at least HDR600. Even if it didn’t have FALD just having decent HDR capability would make the high price palatable. I’m still probably going for the 43" 4K models because I like the form factor better and can still use ultrawide resolutions if I want.
It’s a tough situation where this monitor is too expensive while the 43" models are still coming and everything else is either excessively wide (5120x1440 49") or just 3440x1440p, which I don’t consider enough of an upgrade from 1440p.
What's getting to me is the price, I can get a 65" OLED TV for $2000.
Very different monitors though. If you have any serious professional/work consideration, the 43" is basically no good. Too much gamma/contrast shift, poor colour reproduction and the BGR issue... none of which will remotely be a problem on the 38GL950G (although typical IPS glow/bleed might be). The 43" may be preferable for gaming for some people, given the more punchy colours you get with VA, and the bigger size of course, but the LG is more of an all rounder for those that need a work AND gaming screen, with perhaps greater emphasis on the work aspect.
That said, 4K is same horizontal res as the 38GL950G, but has an extra 35% pixels in height... and height makes a huge difference when it comes to productivity. Personally, I would find the specs of the LG on a 43" 16:9 monitor FAR better suited for my needs.
I think we will need to see how the XG43UQ and the Acer CG437K P turn out to be. As for work, I’ve edited images on an 8-bit TN panel and it has been fine but I don’t do color critical print work etc and to be honest most gaming displays are not suited for that anyway. If the colors are reasonably accurate head on TN or VA will do just fine. You can always double check on a better display. The 38" LG has its own issues for this kind of stuff due to being curved.
I considered the dual QHD Samsung CRG90 but seeing it in person it just seemed awkward, having more vertical space is often just more useful.