Aorus FI32U - @ $950(USD} -- For Sale Now

DanNeely

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,103
In my opinion if you do a lot of office work this monitor would be better choice due to the text clarity issues on the 43 inch. It's unfortunate this model is so much smaller though. If you primarily game the fv43u is a great choice.

Due to one being ips and the other VA it's pretty much apples and oranges though.
Yeah. I suspect if forced to chose between the two panel type would probably drive as many decisions as size would.
 

xDiVolatilX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
338
In my opinion if you do a lot of office work this monitor would be better choice due to the text clarity issues on the 43 inch. It's unfortunate this model is so much smaller though. If you primarily game the fv43u is a great choice.

Due to one being ips and the other VA it's pretty much apples and oranges though.

Honestly, I notice no difference in text clarity. I understand that some might be more sensitive to text clarity. I for one can't tell any difference & I read all day lol.
 

VistaVick2

n00b
Joined
Apr 6, 2021
Messages
25
Yes, it may be worth trying out for yourself. But if you do 80 percent office work/coding even noticing it once and a while becomes amplified.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,467
I ran a 40" Samsung 4K TV as a monitor for a few years. It was great for gaming, but almost useless for work.

You can web browse okay, but doing anything serious on a screen that size is painful.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,467
I got the aim stabilizer working. I think I had to disable both HDR and local dimming. But I was messing with the settings a bunch, those were the last things I changed before the aim stabilizer became enabled.

Definitely looks good, a little darker but still very nice compared to older monitors I've tried. The weird part is that it appeared as if it was enabled even before (when the OSD said it was disabled).

It does seem better now, but I can't be sure what's going on since the monitor looks almost like BFI is always on (at least when HDR is not being used). But I have to test more to be sure.

DOOM 2016 was smooth at 100 fps but it looked great before so not a huge difference. Cyberpunk had the most improvement, I think my FPS was around 60 but if felt smoother and more clear for sure.

Also tried L4D, but as it was running so fast already I did not notice any difference. Maybe it helps more at lower frame rates? I don't know.
 

Roen

n00b
Joined
Aug 7, 2021
Messages
45
I ran a 40" Samsung 4K TV as a monitor for a few years. It was great for gaming, but almost useless for work.

You can web browse okay, but doing anything serious on a screen that size is painful.
What made it painful, and how much distance did you put between your eyes and the monitor?
 
Last edited:

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,467
What made it painful, and how much distance did you put between your eyes and the monitor?
Well I was saying painful as meaning inconvenient, but it did hurt my neck a bit having to look around to see the edges of the screen.

Keep in mind, I had it at a normal monitor distance, about 1 foot (mostly because my eyesight sucks). I know people usually move large screens backwards, but then why not get a smaller screen and put it at a normal distance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roen
like this

Roen

n00b
Joined
Aug 7, 2021
Messages
45
Thanks. I asked you because:
I used to have a great 30" monitor, but after ~12 years it gave up the ghost. I then had to settle for the smaller 27" size just to have a g-sync module and a fast IPS panel with no obvious flaws. I wanted a 32" but there just weren't any good options, and honestly there still aren't any great 32" options because I'd have to give up the g-sync module and I'd be going from 4ms avg rise or fall to ~7ms rise or fall. I also don't like the fact that they're all DCI-P3 gamut now with sRGB modes that lock you out of settings which renders the 32" monitors all utterly useless for everything that isn't HDR and not color management profile aware which is the vast majority of all content, applications and games. So the 32" size doesn't feel like enough of an upgrade and I would prefer a little bigger than that in the first place. Hence I am considering skipping the 32" category and going straight to 43-48" 4k for the flexibility to create and use any custom resolution I want, display it 1:1 and still have a decent size image without upscaling. It seems like that would work best on a 48" LCD (compared to 43") due to the lower, 92-ish PPI resulting in a larger image. It'd be a waiting game though because at that size, I'm still seeing slower pixel response and more inputlag in reviews the larger you go and I have a 2080 Super and would need a 3000 series GPU for HDMI 2.1 in order to make use of the VRR on a 48" since they all still lack a DP input. I'd have to wait for GPU prices to normalize considerably, 'cause I refuse to pay through the nose for a GPU again.

For a 43-48" I'd move my desk back off the wall and put a good 3-4 foot between my eyes and the panel.

I know people usually move large screens backwards, but then why not get a smaller screen and put it at a normal distance.
Two reasons:
1. Because my eyes have become short sighted already from too many years of "normal" monitor viewing distance and now I need glasses, and I don't want to make that worse faster than it needs to.
2. Because in order to use any custom resolution you want without upscaling, you need low enough PPI, about 92-ish, to still have a large enough picture for immersion. The only two sizes that offer that PPI are 32" QHD and 48 4K", and the latter offers way more flexility/options in terms of the resolutions you could use: 3840x1600, 3440x1440, 1440x2160 for pinball, 2560x1440 if you need more fps, anything goes. So, "why not get a smaller screen and put it at a normal distance": because then you don't have options. A 32" has the correct PPI for that flexibility but effectively only lets you choose between 2560x1440 and 1080p 1:1. So you lose the option to create a custom ultrawide or ultratall resolution whatever works for for the type of game.

That said, there aren't any real options yet in that 48" size (no DP ports, more inputlag, burn-in with non LCD variants, most 48" LCD variants that exist lack HDMI 2.1 still, general lack of 48" options because TVs are mostly larger). No good options in 43" either (the FV43U being the best 43" atm and it's objectively worse than every smaller VA panel in all aspects, all you get in return is size, 1000nits and a DP port).... but I don't see a g-sync module sporting 32" panel with fast response, low lag and high contrast either so I'm considering to just wait it out again with my 27" until going huge becomes a viable option. Always seems to be a waiting game when it comes to monitors. The waiting doesn't go by the month or year, it's counted in decades.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,467
I understand, but I would say 32" 4K is the perfect size. And this monitor is very good, but I do agree with you about the color management.

It looks best in HDR mode, but that locks out several important settings, though it might be okay as long as your are not doing serious photo editing or that sort of stuff.
 

Roen

n00b
Joined
Aug 7, 2021
Messages
45
I was testing in Metro Exodus recently, and my 2080 Super just about pushes enough fps to stay above 75 at all times (sometimes reaching 100). 80+ is where a shooter starts to feel snappy to me (100+ ideally), but I'm talking without RTX enabled. With RTX enabled, even if I enable DLSS as well (degrading the image quality) that's about a -14 fps hit, dropping me to 60 at times. And this is at 1440p, so without a 3080 or faster I don't see myself running a 4K panel at native in new AAA games ever. And that's when I realized that the high pixels per inch panel then would stop me from running a lower than native resolution, 'cause 1:1 the picture would be tiny, whereas upscaling 1440p on a 4K 32" panel just looks bad and so does upscaling 1080p (even with non blurry integer scaling) because 1080p just isn't enough pixels for the 32" physical size. So what makes you say that 32" 4K is the perfect size? You'd have to not care that your best looking new games run at 30-40 fps, or keep buying $1700 GPUs every few years. Only a 3090 can pull off 80+ fps and only in well optimized games. In 3 years it won't be able to do it anymore.

I don't really mean to go against the size/res of the monitor that's the topic of this thread... I was just curious about your experience with a "large format" display (experience noted) since I stumbled upon your post about that. But now I'm curious about your thought process toward 4K at 32". To me, 4K makes more sense either at 27" or smaller, OR at 43" or larger. Because at 27 or 24" you can run 1080p on it with integer scaling (non blurry) when you need more fps and still have that low pixel count look acceptable due to the limited physical panel size, and at 43" and larger, you can start to use below native resolutions 1:1 with no scaling and still have reasonable image size. After thinking about it a lot, 32" is exactly where I don't like 4k. I mean I like it, just can't do it for practical reasons.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,467
Yeah, makes sense. I have an RTX 3060 on this machine and it's enough to run the games I've tried at 4K but with medium settings around 60 - 100 fps. Wouldn't bother with ray-tracing but DLSS helps.

I've used a bunch of monitor sizes. My main machine is a 34" ultrawide, and I prefer that for work, but I would also consider a 32" 4K as my main monitor. My reasoning is that TVs are too big, anything 40" or above is just not practical as a monitor. But 32" is great, I use 125% scaling and everything is sharp and readable.

I get what you are saying about GPU performance, 4K is intensive, but you don't necessarily need a 3090. When I had the 40" Samsung I used a Radeon VII, and I could play almost any game at 4K with maybe a few settings tweaks. Even a 1080 Ti can do 4K in many games (though obviously not max settings).

And with FreeSync, even 45 - 50 fps can be playable. I have this in Cyberpunk on the 3060. Usually I can get around 60 fps but in fights it might drop to 45 fps. Not ideal, but still playable. And the aim stabilizer helps as well to keep things smooth (but at the cost of brightness and loss of HDR).

Also, 4K is better than 1440p since you can use integer scaling. If you do find a new game that doesn't perform well, you can run 1080p with integer scaling and it still looks good (not blurry). With 1440p you are more limited.
 

Roen

n00b
Joined
Aug 7, 2021
Messages
45
Integer scaling on a 32" looks really bad because it's just not enough pixels, you lose all sense of detail. It's not really an option, imo. At standard viewing distance that pixel count is meant for 24". With 1440p you are limited, yes but QHD is low enough that I can get everything to run very smoothly on a previous gen card on high settings. If I end up going 4K no matter what the size is I'm getting a 3080 as soon as prices drop, nothing less. I know, I'm an fps/gfx whore... The idea of running older games at 4k on a massive screen seems fun too, but anticipating that it may take years before I have a 3000 series card if I go 4K I want as many options below native res as I can get.

Since you said you sat quite close to your 40", I still have decent hope that 4K at 43-48" will work out for me. Just have to be super patient for a good one in that size to come along. I may still pick up a 32" QHD panel in the meantime just to hold me over because 27" feels so small... and I'm stuck with the 2080S for the foreseeable future.

Edit: 1440p at 32" isn't entirely limited. Due to the 16:9 physical aspect ratio you get a decent amount of physical height, which means you can get away with things like 2560x1340 / 2560x1200 for a bit more fps and a wider FOV to boot. Or even 2560x1080.
For the FI32U try making 3840x1600 and 3840x1440 / 3440x1440 custom resolutions for when you want to run higher gfx settings and ultrawide view.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,467
Whatever you choose, I think 27" is too small unless for 1080p (where going bigger will make pixels too large). 27" 1440p is still a nice sweet spot.

After getting this 32" it is just so much better for gaming and movie watching. 43" could work if you push it back. I mean, I did like the 40" TV a bunch, and I made it work, I just don't think I would try again for my setup. 48" is getting too big, and I even tried 55" briefly and it was a mistake.

Keep in mind, I only play single player games and I usually play old titles to catch up, in which case I am okay with an RTX 3060 on this rig as I can max out older titles at 4K and I have a large backlog on Steam games to play through. I'll play newer games on my main rig or on the PS5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roen
like this

Roen

n00b
Joined
Aug 7, 2021
Messages
45
The high ~138 pixel density of 4k at 32" would make it impossible to do what I'm hoping to achieve 'cause anything sub native would look very small on that with no upscaling. From experience with a 30" 2560x1600 montior I know I found 102 PPI too high a pixel density when playing games at lower than native resolutions as it resulted in a rather small image, let alone if I were to move the monitor back more like I'd prefer. I briefly tried two different 32" QHD VA monitors too. I ended up returning both as they were bad, but those had roughly 92 PPI. That, for viewing at arm's length, seemed about as low PPI as I'd ever want to go. In other words for arm's length that's as big as a sub native res' pixels are allowed to get. Then to move it back to 3-4 ft, to compensate for the distance that makes a sub native 1:1 non upscaled res' image appear smaller, I'd need a lower PPI than that 92. My priority is to make sub native resolutions appear big enough. People always seem to draw the line at 81 PPI which is 1080p at 27": some dislike the low density at arm's length, others find it just about acceptable. It's most people's bottom limit. Guesstimating from that I'd have to assume my optimal PPI (since I'm gonna be moving it back more) would be somewhere between 81 and 91. 4K in that PPI range dictates that the panel is only allowed to be somewhere between 48" an 55". My gut says to not drop too far below 90 PPI for the sake of image quality so a 50" sounds about right. I'll say again because it'll seem so strange: I don't prioritize the physical fullscreen size - I don't care how big it is, instead I just want to maximize the size of sub native resolutions. I know it's weird/counterintuitive but you don't actually have to use the whole screen and I intend not to most of the time, because it's all about getting the right PPI on the panel for the job. There will be a custom resolution running with black bars or borders a majority of the time. I can move back to a practical maximum of 4 feet if I need to, however the further back you go the smaller the sub native resolutions will look. With a wall mounted monitor it takes less than 10 seconds to drag my desk backward or forward on the wood laminate floor scratch free as needed depending on how much of the screen I'm using for a game, which is determined by fps and the game genre's ideal aspect ratio.

So that's why I feel like I have to go so much bigger than 32" for 4K even if it seems too big for a monitor. It might bite me in the rear and change my mind, only one way to find out. A good QHD 32" monitor will have to hold me over. They don't have nearly as many custom res options as 4K at 50" but they're 92-ish PPI and 50" monitors don't seem to exist yet. I always want monitors that don't exist. ;)

I do wonder: is looking at a screen up close the same thing as looking at a bigger one from farther back? Even if the FOV, how much of your eyesight's cone the screen covers is the exact same in both scenarios, maybe the closer viewing experience is still more "intimate" and therefore more immersive? Humans typically interact with things that are within arm's reach, when things are literally closer to your soul. I've never felt disconnected in the cinema though, unless the movie sucked?
 
Last edited:

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,467
I almost always run native resolution, but I will use DLSS/FSR or render scaling, and medium settings, if I need to to get above 60 fps.

I don't know why you would buy a huge monitor and run it with black bars around the image. That seems counter-intuitive, just get the right size and resolution and run native.
 

Roen

n00b
Joined
Aug 7, 2021
Messages
45
I don't know why you would buy a huge monitor and run it with black bars around the image.
Essentially, because we can't buy a 32" or 35" CRT. With CRTs, we used to be able to use whatever resolution we needed to for decent fps no problem. This whole idea is an attempt to get some of that back, except on an LCD the size of the image has to change as resolution changes to keep 1:1 pixel mapping so you grab the biggest panel you can find (without going TOO low in pixel density) so you don't run out of space when you want to run the highest resolution (4k). :D

I'd still run older games native, and when kicking back to watch a movie. I look at it like this: a 43" 4k panel is a 32", a 34" ultrawide, a 38" ultrawide, plus a 16:9 43" all in one. And a 50" is all of those plus a 50". As long as you don't have significant backlight bleed, the borders will just melt away out of mind.

Edit: I personally don't like to use DLSS because it's a form of rendering at lower res and then upscaling it, just upscaling in a smarter way. I haven't had much (or even any?) time with DLSS 2.0 so my opinion on that could still change. The version originally in Metro Exodus (non Enhanced version) was trash.
Edit2: Best for my scenario would be an 87 to 92-ish PPI panel at a more sane inbetweener size, like a 38" in 16:9 or something. They don't make them because non standard resolutions are scary apparently. We get nothing between QHD and 4K except UW, and that's weird. For 16:9 there's nothing between 32" and 43", huge jump in both size and resolution (if you consider QHD the common res at 32").
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,874
Essentially, because we can't buy a 32" or 35" CRT. With CRTs, we used to be able to use whatever resolution we needed to for decent fps no problem. This whole idea is an attempt to get some of that back, except on an LCD the size of the image has to change as resolution changes to keep 1:1 pixel mapping so you grab the biggest panel you can find (without going TOO low in pixel density) so you don't run out of space when you want to run the highest resolution (4k). :D

I'd still run older games native, and when kicking back to watch a movie. I look at it like this: a 43" 4k panel is a 32", a 34" ultrawide, a 38" ultrawide, plus a 16:9 43" all in one. And a 50" is all of those plus a 50". As long as you don't have significant backlight bleed, the borders will just melt away out of mind.

Edit: I personally don't like to use DLSS because it's a form of rendering at lower res and then upscaling it, just upscaling in a smarter way. I haven't had much (or even any?) time with DLSS 2.0 so my opinion on that could still change. The version originally in Metro Exodus (non Enhanced version) was trash.
Edit2: Best for my scenario would be an 87 to 92-ish PPI panel at a more sane inbetweener size, like a 38" in 16:9 or something. They don't make them because non standard resolutions are scary apparently.

If your experience with DLSS is with the 1.0 version in Metro Exodus then it's no wonder you don't like it. DLSS 2.0 is nothing like that and gives an image that is indistinguishable from native 4k. I wouldn't use it on a monitor with 1440p or lower resolution though as it becomes noticeably more blurry.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,467
Yes, I understand. I ran virtual ultrawide on my 40" Samsung, and that was a nice option (still a huge screen and better performance). I get that you have more options.

And monitors are in a weird place right now. At least we have this 32" 4K screen (and similar competitors) because that was missing for a long time so I'm happy about that.

It would be great if they made more in-between, it seems strange to jump from 32" to 43", that is a huge jump. But I think there is enough on the market to find something that works for you.
 

Punski

n00b
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
2
Anyone else with this monitor seen bright pixels on this display only visible on black backgrounds?

I have 10-12 of them, this is the worst area in the image. Really hard to see in normal use, but kinda bad for a 0 bright policy brand?

The picture shows colour, but to the eye they just all look bright.
 

Attachments

  • Bad Pixels - Copy.PNG
    Bad Pixels - Copy.PNG
    3.5 MB · Views: 0

DanNeely

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,103
Anyone else with this monitor seen bright pixels on this display only visible on black backgrounds?

I have 10-12 of them, this is the worst area in the image. Really hard to see in normal use, but kinda bad for a 0 bright policy brand?

The picture shows colour, but to the eye they just all look bright.

10 or 12 hot pixels should be an automatic RMA :(
 

xDiVolatilX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
338
Anyone else with this monitor seen bright pixels on this display only visible on black backgrounds?

I have 10-12 of them, this is the worst area in the image. Really hard to see in normal use, but kinda bad for a 0 bright policy brand?

The picture shows colour, but to the eye they just all look bright.
Heck even 1 dead or bright pixel would be on instant reject for me UNLESS it is a quarter or max half an inch from any edge. Any further in & instantaneous RMA.
 

Punski

n00b
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
2
Heck even 1 dead or bright pixel would be on instant reject for me UNLESS it is a quarter or max half an inch from any edge. Any further in & instantaneous RMA.
Yeah - I RMA'd it today, sent back. Dunno if I wanna refund or replacement.
 

shaxe

n00b
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
8
Is anyone else having an issue with this screen where when you alt-tab to and from an exclusive fullscreen mode game, the monitor goes to standby mode and then takes a few seconds to show an image again? Also when this happens it displays a notification of the input and resolution? It's behaving as if I have just changed input every time I alt-tab from something that's running exclusive fullscreen mode. This is my only major gripe with the screen, I'm wondering if it's something I can change somehow? as I never had this issue with other panels.
 
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
1,016
Is anyone else having an issue with this screen where when you alt-tab to and from an exclusive fullscreen mode game, the monitor goes to standby mode and then takes a few seconds to show an image again? Also when this happens it displays a notification of the input and resolution? It's behaving as if I have just changed input every time I alt-tab from something that's running exclusive fullscreen mode. This is my only major gripe with the screen, I'm wondering if it's something I can change somehow? as I never had this issue with other panels.

That doesn't seem too bad for a power saving feature, LG monitors often just turn off and then you have to power the monitor back on when the image blanks for more than a few seconds. :meh:
 

T_A

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
487
Is anyone else having an issue with this screen where when you alt-tab to and from an exclusive fullscreen mode game, the monitor goes to standby mode and then takes a few seconds to show an image again? Also when this happens it displays a notification of the input and resolution? It's behaving as if I have just changed input every time I alt-tab from something that's running exclusive fullscreen mode. This is my only major gripe with the screen, I'm wondering if it's something I can change somehow? as I never had this issue with other panels.
sounds like you whatever you were running was different resolution and/or refresh rate from desktop
 

shaxe

n00b
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
8
sounds like you whatever you were running was different resolution and/or refresh rate from desktop
Nah it's the same res and refresh rate (4k 144hz), using displayport with the cable that came with the monitor.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,467
Is anyone else having an issue with this screen where when you alt-tab to and from an exclusive fullscreen mode game, the monitor goes to standby mode and then takes a few seconds to show an image again?
Yes. This happens to me too. Strangely, I tried Left4Dead (DirectX9) and Alt-Tabbing is instant and the display mode doesn't change. But Cyberpunk 2077 (DirectX12) takes several seconds to Alt-Tab (while blacking out and displaying the resolution notice, even though desktop and game are the same res). This leads me to think that it is Windows or GPU driver related. I tried setting GPU scaling on, but this made no difference.

In any case, you might be better off running borderless fullscreen. It just works better and there is no performance hit like in the old days. In fact, in some games borderless window is slightly faster.
 

shaxe

n00b
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
8
Yes. This happens to me too. Strangely, I tried Left4Dead (DirectX9) and Alt-Tabbing is instant and the display mode doesn't change. But Cyberpunk 2077 (DirectX12) takes several seconds to Alt-Tab (while blacking out and displaying the resolution notice, even though desktop and game are the same res). This leads me to think that it is Windows or GPU driver related. I tried setting GPU scaling on, but this made no difference.

In any case, you might be better off running borderless fullscreen. It just works better and there is no performance hit like in the old days. In fact, in some games borderless window is slightly faster.
I dunno, even these days when I play borderless fulscreen, games tend to feel a bit flickery/choppy compared to exclusive.
 

LurkerLito

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,402
Is anyone else having an issue with this screen where when you alt-tab to and from an exclusive fullscreen mode game, the monitor goes to standby mode and then takes a few seconds to show an image again? Also when this happens it displays a notification of the input and resolution? It's behaving as if I have just changed input every time I alt-tab from something that's running exclusive fullscreen mode. This is my only major gripe with the screen, I'm wondering if it's something I can change somehow? as I never had this issue with other panels.
I am pretty sure this has to do with the windows HDR setting. If it is on then it happens for almost all games if it is off alt-tab is like what I am use to. In the worst case for me it put the monitor into standby mode and didn't come back. It gave me no signal. I had to power off the monitor then turn it on to get it back.
 

shaxe

n00b
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
8
So if I could get some FI32U owners to test something out for me, it would be a big help:

I noticed some awful red flickering on a grey texture in a game I was playing, you can see it happening in these:

Video: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=UTZ6X244cjJUNldhZWt0VXZRcU9nZ2dIZWNPd3ZR
Image 1:
Image 2:

I have determined that this only occurs when I am using 144hz, it doesnt happen at 120hz. I have tested this with the DP and HDMI cables supplied with the screen and it occurs at 144hz using either. It occurs on all overdrive settings (including off). It occurs at both 8 bit and 10bit (RGB and YCbCr444). It occurs at limited and full RGB range. It occurs when HDR is enabled and disabled.

I don't need to be in the game to see this effect, if i just observe this screenshot @ 100% maximized in chrome, irfan or windows photo viewer with the screen set to 144hz the same issue occurs when i scroll up and down (i direct linked the download on dropbox because the issue doesnt occur in the google drive photoviewer):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0hzzh4tou5cbt7/tm-screenshot.png?dl=1

If any FI32U owners could download this screenshot png, open it in your photo viewer app, maximise the window it is in, set it to 100% scaling and scroll/pan up and down the image and see if they get the same red splotches appearing when the screen is set to 144hz, I would greatly appreciate it before I contact the store I bought this screen from.

I ask that you maximize the window because these splotches don't seem to occur even at 144hz unless at least 95%+ of the monitor is displaying the image.

Does anyone have any theories on what could be causing this if I don't have a faulty screen?
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,467
Yeah, it happens on my screen too with that image.

Maybe it is an artifact of DSC or FRC?
 

shaxe

n00b
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
8
Thanks so much for that. When I set mine to 422 it still happens, on 8 and 10bit.

That's a shame that yours is doing it as well, do you think I should contact gigabyte about it since it might be an issue for every FI32U?

Just to make sure these are the same as your colour settings?:
yxkgKbk.png
 
Last edited:

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,467
Yeah, those were the settings I had, but actually it's still happening.

I had desktop scaling set to 150%, and this changes how images are displayed. I set it to 100% and it looked way worse. Then I tried 150% again and dragged the image around and the pink splotches came back.

Honestly, I don't think it's a faulty monitor. It probably has something to do with the compression (DSC) would be my guess.
 
Top