So OK, 300 series MB is not compatible with 200. However, who did invent this awkward naming scheme? I read the processor socket support 1151, I read 1151 on motherboard, buy them, and now I learn that this combination won't work? Why don't they just bumped the socket number for 8th gen? 1152...
"Game design limitations"? This is pretty grandiose name for what appears to be a trivial bug -- the absence of FOV slider widget in the game settings.
Yes, I ignored those incoherent explanations how one have to go into some confusing dance between 16:9 and 21:9. You have introduced a lot of...
Since you correctly depicted how bigger screen is supposed to expand field of view I don't know what we are arguing. You are uncomfortable with vertical elements in some scenes? Those are not going to go away, I'm afraid. There would definitely be helicopters and aliens making a nuisance from...
Please don't use the word "immersive" together with "cinematic". This is not 1950s anymore; today, anybody can buy humongous 40" 4K monitor and have IMAX like experience at the desk.
Speaking of immersion, you have mentioned VR, but are you aware of the fact that most VR sets feature something...
If you sit close enough, you just waste screen estate on the sides, which would be out of field of view. Human FOV is around 4:3 this is trivial anatomic fact.
Want an ultimate argument why "cinematic" aspect ratio is moronic? Humans have 2 eyes. Each individual eyeball, being spherical, has a...
Why do you think game developers care what FOV you use? For them it is just a trivial number, and if a user wants to adjust their FOV to their preference it is just silly not to allow to. Think about it: you have majestic 40" UHD in front of you and the FOV calculation method gives crappy FOV...
Regarding BGR pixel arrangement, can't it be that some giddy assembly worker at the factory attached panel upside down? (And QA inspecting it lost their magnified glass that day?)
And it gives you exercise. First, you need to rotate it -- a workout for your arm muscles. Then you need to stand up to read stuff at the top of the screen. They need to market it as "healthy choice" and charge a premium for it. Wait a minute... those short monitors are already more expensive...
I want to see it in portrait mode. One may think that it would be so ridiculously tall and narrow, that manufacturer should give $30 rebate for such a "feature".
Just repeated history.
30" 16:10 Apple Cinema display was precursor for those cheaper knockouts like 3007wfp mentioned by OP.
Microsoft surface studio is pretty impressive but pricey gadget, so there is room for competition.
Microsoft surface pro is 3:2, which is taller than 16:10. It is a matter of time before mainstream display manufacturers wake up to the reality that demand for 3:2 large displays is much higher than for ultrawides.
Same billing address. Same shipping address. Browser connected via same ip address. I'm too lazy to attempt a clean purchase, but I'm not paying full price knowing that they sell it for less.
Power is energy per time unit. In other words "how fast" is already incorporated into the power concept. Certainly, you didn't mean dividing power by time once more -- that "power acceleration" would be nonsensical.
I get a feeling that you are taking about thermal flows, and that you imply...
Here is the product page -- the card looks deceptively small from that angle. Before that I had 650Ti Boost followed by 970 in the same case, so it simply slipped my mind that card length might be an issue.
Power consumption for 1070 (<150w) is lower than 970 (<200w). From that perspective...
This is not the first PC I assembled. I started with ATX cases 1995-2005, but progressively felt that having such large cases is like throwback from 1980s. I downsized to micro ATX in 2005, but still thought that mATX take more space than it is actually worth. (Unlike most of people here showing...
No, getting bigger box in the world of shrinking die chips is a moronic solution. FYI mobile version of GTX 1080 is within 10% of the desktop part, so I challenge the need in behemoth PC components.
For that matter, why NVidia needs "partners"? (Same question to AMD, if they were relevant)...
What's up with ridiculously long videocards?
Here is gigabyte GTX 1070 compared to zotac 970, on top of the case where I was going to upgrade videocard. It is ridiculously long. Wasn't GTX 9XX -> 10XX supposed to be a process shrink (28->14 mm)? Why do they still manufacture those...
This idea is at least 1 year old:
I teach you how to widescreen (21:9) native 16:9 monitor
However, I challenge the very right for existence of that odd aspect ratio (21:9, properly called 7:3). Human vision is close to 4:3, the original IMAX aspect ratio, therefore height challenged monitors...
I use 40" UHD in "normal" landscape mode, but keep all the windows opened in the central 4:3 area, because at 22" of viewing distance the sides are just at too much of an angle. Also, full window renders ridiculously long lines of text on forums like this.
In general 16:9 displays are too...
40" is only marginally wider than 34" ultrawide:
Visual TV Size Comparison : 40 inch 16x9 display vs 34 inch 21x9 display
Both have the same pixel pitch, so the above comparison demonstrates that if you are impressed with 34", then 40" would blow you away.
If you think 40" is too much, then...
Not sure if you noticed, but some photo images are in portrait mode. Therefore choosing height challenged ultrawide monitor for photo editing and wasting most of its screen area is not the right decision.
In pixel unit length, yes.
However, the displaywars comparisons above vividly demonstrated how pathetically short "ultrawide" displays are. Therefore, saying that "3440x1440 will be much wider" is highly inaccurate. The correct assertion would be: "3440x1440 is woeful waste of pixels on the...
Introduce thin non FALD line. The often cited dynamic range 1000000:1 dynamic range is a misnomer, because at any given time human eye static dynamic range don't exceed 1000:1 (and I have seen numbers even lower than that). Be realistic: a user is not going to wait an hour to adapt his eye to...
1440 is short compared to 2160. Oh, this ultrashort nonsense is also not as wide as UHD? And it costs more? Features spotty support in games? "Ultrawide or 4K" why is it even a question?
Ultrawide been good for gaming is urban legend. Unless you race cars or shoot through embrasure all day long. Once you need to look down your feet, or shoot helicopters you are screwed. In a word ultrashorts are not cool. They are fugly.
I have already mentioned that HOR+ is a horrible method to calculate FOV. It makes no difference between 16:9 TV positioned far away on the wall, versus 16:9 monitor on your table. If the method is wrong it would be fixed.
Of course, you have chosen to believe that the only way to expand your...
40" UHD at 22-24" is what many people use these days. It is much less ridiculous than setting up 3 monitors side-by-side and watching the world through embrasure.
A question for 21:9 proponents. When you look slightly below the bottom edge of your screen, what do you see? The monitor stand...
The wow factor for 2.37:1 epic movie is not something to ignore. In the old days some theaters in Moscow and other Soviet empire cities had 1500 seats with ginormous screen, dwarfing even IMAX venues. However, speaking of 21st century, the scope becomes more and more irrelevant today. 40" UHD...
Suppose you bought this oddity, and proudly presented it to your friends. I wonder what kind of jokes they would make at your expense while watching latest game broadcast with pillar boxes. "So you payed 100 grand for this shorty with glaring hole beneath it? Did they run out of panel material...
21:9 is more immersive than taller screen? This suggestion is laughable, as evidenced by IMAX.
FOV is not a function of aspect ratio. It is defined by screen size and viewer distance from the screen.
"Close" means nothing. My viewing position is 22- 24" from the screen, which I didn't change since the time when I used 27". Knowing that human angular resolution is about one arc minute, this is the optimal viewing distance for 100 ppi monitor. Get yourself closer and you'll start recognizing...
If you flashmount 40" to desk level, then the center of the screen is just where 27" on a mount/pedestal usually is. Then, given the same pixel pitch, you just have more screen area at the left, at the right, at the top, and at the bottom. Why in the world you think starring at the void space...
16:10 is niche aspect ratio now. With sparse offerings you would likely have trouble finding a model fitting your specs. Today, you would likely to find cheaper, and taller 16:9 screen which would have more horizontal lines too.
I'm programmer as well, and am OK with 40" UHD monitor. The 16:9...