How big is your Gaming screen?

is g-sync really worth it? like night and day difference? I have a 2k monitor with a 4ms response time? are you saying thats not good enough, say it aint so ha ha
 
I've got a Dell 27" 1440 g-sync monitor and kept connecting to my 4k tv because reasons. I kept switching back to the g-sync because I notice what it's like without it now. So, naturally I bought an Alienware 34" 3440 x 1440 ultrawide w/g-sync.

I know that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, so take this with a grain of salt as it's only my two cents. :geek:
 
SixFootDuo said:
I have friends tell me it's too big. I tell them, no, it's no different than when someone uses 3 x monitors .. the difference is, I don't have bezels lol. It always shuts them up.
Click to expand...

For me its too bright and too flat. I didn't go three screens just for the almost 5k resolution, I did it for the more immersive FOV. Even at 50 inches its still one standard 16x9/10 image that would show up on one of my monitor's. Sure probably larger and with greater fidelity. Now tack two more onto that and now were talking. I don't think 49 is too big, just a lot of work to look at vs a more comfortable surround setup feeding almost all aspects of my vision data but everyone has their preferences.

Some people really hate the bezels but once you get focused in you usually only look at the front monitor and the sides fade into your peripheral. Size the bezels dont move your eyes can fade them out fairly well. My side screens are stacked behind my center monitor so I only really have 1 bezel really. But it's not for everyone for sure, and sadly not enough games support it properly.
 
Orddie said:
3x 27” 4K monitors

I’m starting to think it’s too much
Click to expand...


Yeah. I'm running mine in portrait mode, NVSurround and 4K-per, unmagnified, is just ever so slightly too small to be easily readable.
If I had it to do over again, I'd save myself around $500 and back down to 27" 1440p monitors.

And trying to do remote access on client machines from mine is an exercise in hilarity. If I don't scale their screen(s) up, anything under 1080p looks is like trying to work on a postage stamp.

(Scaled down to 1024 wide)

Supporting1366x768.png
 
I'm thinking up upgrading from a 17" Dell Monitor to a 24" Widescreen CRT FW900 version. What do you guys think? Does anyone still use CRTs? I feel like they have way better quality than flat panels but they went out of style due to people wanting 1 inch thick panels that don't weigh one hundred pounds.
 
I didn't even know people still used CRTs, i read a post a while back about someone using one and I just figured it was a typo. haha, but hey if it works for you then it's all good.
 
M76 said:
Getting bigger hopefully. Just put in an order for one of these.
Click to expand...

THE IMAGE, IT IS ENDLESS

Congrats!

Though seriously, they don't mention refresh rates or FreeSync ranges on their own site?!?

[And I'd be moderately excited about one of these if it came in a G-Sync 100Hz version, though my biggest concerns with these wides and IPS in general are the contrast ratios for dark stuff in games and the potential for uneven backlighting]
 
IdiotInCharge said:
THE IMAGE, IT IS ENDLESS

Congrats!

Though seriously, they don't mention refresh rates or FreeSync ranges on their own site?!?

[And I'd be moderately excited about one of these if it came in a G-Sync 100Hz version, though my biggest concerns with these wides and IPS in general are the contrast ratios for dark stuff in games and the potential for uneven backlighting]
Click to expand...

Well they haven't confirmed my order yet, only got an automated message so far. And the price went up 25% after my order. So I'm half expecting a "sorry we can't deliver it for that price" phonecall.

It goes up to 75hz that's what I found. If it was only 60hz I would definitely skipped it. I'm still a bit worried about it being IPS, as all my previous screens were TN panels and I was 100% satisfied.

The main reason I got this one is because it has almost the same pixel pitch as my current screen, and I knew I wanted 3840 wide HDR is just an added bonus.

BTW it's not just that the freesync range is not shown but the aspect ratio is also wrong on the official site. It is actually 24:10, not 21:9.
 
Last edited:
M76 said:
HDR is just an added bonus.
Click to expand...

I have an HDR Freesync display on my desk right now, fed by an RX560 (it's a side monitor not used for gaming), and I can say with all honestly that the HDR function is exactly worthless. I recommend trying it once so that you can see for yourself, but the desktop experience is outright terrible.

[for games that support HDR and make good use of the extra contrast it's supposed to be pretty good, but that's neither here nor there for me]
 
65" 4K Samsung KS8000. One of these days Gsync TVs will be a thing, and later they will be affordable. That's the day I will scream like a little girl while gaming on a 65"+ Gysnc TV.
 
arestavo said:
65" 4K Samsung KS8000. One of these days Gsync TVs will be a thing, and later they will be affordable. That's the day I will scream like a little girl while gaming on a 65"+ Gysnc TV.
Click to expand...

Since the good TV's are doing nothing but increase in size, I may have to wait until there is truly a good 4K, 40"+ 16:9 monitor with G-Sync, HDR support and a decent refresh rate before I change displays. For productivity I find that anything beyond 49" is just too much for me.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I have an HDR Freesync display on my desk right now, fed by an RX560 (it's a side monitor not used for gaming), and I can say with all honestly that the HDR function is exactly worthless. I recommend trying it once so that you can see for yourself, but the desktop experience is outright terrible.

[for games that support HDR and make good use of the extra contrast it's supposed to be pretty good, but that's neither here nor there for me]
Click to expand...
Honestly I'm very skeptical about HDR. Some people say it's so much better, it's not even comparable. But I expect it to either outright annoy me with overexposed bright spots or too light dark areas, or simply be meh.
 
M76 said:
Honestly I'm very skeptical about HDR. Some people say it's so much better, it's not even comparable. But I expect it to either outright annoy me with overexposed bright spots or too light dark areas, or simply be meh.
Click to expand...

Assuming that it's all dialed in, it is an absolutely superior experience.

I wish you the best of luck getting to that point :).
 
g00z13 said:
is g-sync really worth it? like night and day difference? I have a 2k monitor with a 4ms response time? are you saying thats not good enough, say it aint so ha ha
Click to expand...

4ms = 60hz panel
If you run vsync that adds 3 frames of lag. So thats another 5ms of lag
Your only other choice is turn off vsync and have tearing (causes motion sickness for me)

Now if you get a 120-144hz Gsync, your panel lag is now cut in half. And now you dont have to have vsync, so no 3 frame lag.

The down side is the amount of horse power required to get 120-144hz.
 
M76 said:
Honestly I'm very skeptical about HDR. Some people say it's so much better, it's not even comparable. But I expect it to either outright annoy me with overexposed bright spots or too light dark areas, or simply be meh.
Click to expand...


HDR on win10 is currently really really broke. You would have to do alot of research to get the correct combo and settings to have it look right.
 
I got a 27' MAC27CQ

Pretty cool one except he's not G-sync but that's ok
 
Hulk said:
I'm thinking up upgrading from a 17" Dell Monitor to a 24" Widescreen CRT FW900 version. What do you guys think? Does anyone still use CRTs? I feel like they have way better quality than flat panels but they went out of style due to people wanting 1 inch thick panels that don't weigh one hundred pounds.
Click to expand...
They are better... when they work. My FW900's just a big fat doorstop until I figure out how to fix whatever's setting off the neon spark gap bulb. It blew a few years back when trying to warm up from a cold start, which usually had the RGB guns randomly going fullbright like something was shorting out...

The problem now is that CRTs are massively going up in price due to this recent retrogaming craze and examples of the better monitors dying off (usually FD Trinitrons), and while VGA monitors are largely immune to this (they usually don't sync down to 15 KHz, as required of an old game console or a Commodore Amiga), it's starting to blow over there as well for the FW900 and other GDMs. I liked it when they were still cheap... (not that my FW900 was, cost me $250 on craigslist, still a bargain while it worked!)

The other big problem is that NVIDIA Maxwell cards are the latest to have any sort of native VGA output. Pascal, Turing, and any AMD card since the old R9 290X will force you to use a DisplayPort adapter that likely has a vastly inferior RAMDAC to the 400 MHz ones that used to be standard in older graphics cards.

Still, I insist on using 'em on the older computers I maintain, when I have the space to accommodate them. I actually got a pretty nice Diamondtron-based 17" Apple Studio Display at a VCF meet a few months back, and it still looks great image quality-wise despite not being able to push the high resolutions and refresh rates of my GDM-5410 or dearly departed GDM-FW900.

But for my flagship? I'm on an Eizo FG2421 now, one of the few LCD monitors I can stand looking at after having used the FW900 for so long. Saves me a lot of refresh rate-related hassle, too, because at least games defaulting to a 60 Hz mode for whatever silly reason won't give me a headache.
 
Dan_D said:
Since the good TV's are doing nothing but increase in size, I may have to wait until there is truly a good 4K, 40"+ 16:9 monitor with G-Sync, HDR support and a decent refresh rate before I change displays. For productivity I find that anything beyond 49" is just too much for me.
Click to expand...

Ya just gotta sit back in your recliner and you can go much, much bigger :cool:
 
40" 4K Monitor.. mounted it on the wall at my desk. I can sit enough away to make it very managable. No looking back!
 
Dan_D said:
That doesn't work too well for productivity. Text looks like garbage, and I HATE font scaling with a passion.
Click to expand...

It was alright on my last-gen XPS13, when it worked of course; my current ultrabook is 1080p due to that, and I'm pissed that you can't get a new model XPS13 with the top-end guts but without said high-res screen...

[or the flippy version, which I replaced it with for photography, but with the same guts, big WTH from Dell on that series]
 
ASUS ROG SWIFT PG278QR 27" 2560x1440 1ms 165Hz G-SYNC for primary
65" Samsung KS8000 for games/movies

I thought the 65" might be too big for a 12' x 12' room. I have zero regrets.
 
g00z13 said:
is g-sync really worth it? like night and day difference? I have a 2k monitor with a 4ms response time? are you saying thats not good enough, say it aint so ha ha
Click to expand...

It can be, yes. I used a monitor with G-Sync for a long time (ROG Swift) and it blew me away. This coming from someone who really doesn't care about response times. I don't game competitively, or even really play multiplayer games much anymore, and I've never noticed a difference going from a low response monitor to a higher one or to a TV (which is considerably higher than pretty much any monitor). For me, I loved G-Sync because it dealt with tearing (which I cannot stand) without all of the other issues like frame rate inconsistency, that could come with V-Sync. It was especially noteworthy when playing demanding games where pushing 60+ FPS was a challenge. Before G-Sync, I absolutely had to be able to achieve a constant 60 fps or greater. With the Swift, as long as I stayed above about 45 fps, games still looked buttery smooth. It ultimately meant I could push the most demanding games a little harder without noticing the performance penalty.

When I got rid of that monitor for an ultrawide, I decided not to pay for G-Sync, telling myself it was too much money when the bulk of my gaming is done on a TV and the sort of games I still play at my computer, which are mostly strategy games, wouldn't benefit from it. While, I ended up regretting it, I really did notice the lack of it on the handful of FPS's I still play at my desktop. So much so that I ended up getting a Vega 64, knowing they were overpriced at the time, to get freesync going. I don't like freesync as much as G-Sync, but it's a lot better than gaming with old school V-Sync.

Oddly enough, I still don't notice its absence when gaming on my TV. I couldn't tell you why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top