PC Master Race 4k Gaming Monitor

[Scouse]

So 60 FPS isn't enough?

Not really. I used to love gaming at 120fps with a monitor that'd do it.

60fps is an absolute minimum - when the most shit is going on on the screen and it's all mad it's mildly acceptable for a game to occasionally dip near those depths

 

[old.user4556]

Not really.

I can't say I've ever played CS:S or BF4 and said "you know what, I need more FPS". I do however need the desktop space.

 

[Scouse]

tldr, if you're not a CSGO/BF4/Cod wannabe pro gaymer, you probably don't need the framerates and the LG you linked will do just fine

I would love to be able to justify it - but if I have spare cash lying around nowadays I'd much rather just go on holiday.

I can't say I've ever played CS:S or BF4 and said "you know what, I need more FPS". I do however need the desktop space.

I'm with you nowadays. Simply because I've got better things to spunk my cash on. Add to that the fact that games nowadays are so derivative and compromised. All the interesting stuff is happening in the indy scene and you never need a monster to run those things.

I'll stick with my choddy 42" LG TV and my sofa, with my wireless mouse and keyboard. Who cares if I'm not l33t at CS:GO any more. I still get to fuck about but life's too short to take it seriously anymore.

Now, if they released HL3, made for the Oculus Rift, I may have to reconsider

 

[old.user4556]

I would make my family confess at Guantanamo for things they never did to get my hands on HL3 and VR!

 

[ECA]

Now, if they released HL3, made for the Oculus Rift, I may have to reconsider

Valve are backing Vive - HTCs VR headset.
I'd imagine it'll support both though, seeing as HL1/2 have VR support already.

 

[Wij]

60hz = 60 maximum frames per second.
144hz = 144 maximum frames per second.

Where they really shine is high motion where they feel so much better.
A good example is an action game - look at the background/periphery and move the camera around fast, it'll look/feel jerky even at 60hz, at 144hz everything is much clearer when in motion.



The 21:9 ones do not do 144hz just FYI.

Acer have some new "gaming" 21:9s that support higher refresh rates - claim to OC to 100hz via the on screen display settings, no faffing required.

If you have an AMD card:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/34-a...r-3440x1440-75hz-4ms-300cd-m-100m1-tilt-dp-md

If you have an nvidia card:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/34-a...r-ips-60hz-3440x1440-4ms-10001-tilt-dp-hdmi-u

Yes the nvidia one is £200 more - that's because the gsync uses an additional hardware component AND nvidia charge because it's proprietary.
Freesync was adopted into the displayport standard, and requires no additional hardware, so uh yeah.
Same way SLI motherboards are £20 more, because nvidia charge for it, while crossfire is free, so standard on most boards.

They use the same panels as the LG, but they have different bezels/inputs/etc blahblah, main advantage is higher refresh rates.

If you intend to run @144hz and wont get fps drops, then you can just buy the amd even if you have nvidia.

Biggest caveat with 21:9 or 4k monitors - YOU MUST HAVE A DISPLAYPORT CONNECTION ON YOUR GRAPHICS CARD.
AMD have had them for a while for quite a few gens, but some nvidia manufacturers don't put them on, make sure you check, otherwise you can't run them at the correct refresh rates



tldr, if you're not a CSGO/BF4/Cod wannabe pro gaymer, you probably don't need the framerates and the LG you linked will do just fine

Interesting but 34" is too much imo. Anything similar in a more normal aspect ratio at 28"? IPS panel is interesting. Should look gorgeous but would it be as responsive as LN?

 

[ECA]

Interesting but 34" is too much imo. Anything similar in a more normal aspect ratio at 28"? IPS panel is interesting. Should look gorgeous but would it be as responsive as LN?

You need to keep in mind that 34" 21:9 isnt' like a 34" 16:9.

The diagonal measurement means it's more like 1.5x27"s together rather than a single 27" or 28".


the lg um 95 is 17.3 x 83 x 46.9
eg 27" asus is 21.9 x 64.3 x 55.2

So the height is actually a few centimeters less than a 27" equivalent, but it is longer ( that's what she said ).

 

[Wij]

You need to keep in mind that 34" 21:9 isnt' like a 34" 16:9.

The diagonal measurement means it's more like 1.5x27"s together rather than a single 27" or 28".


the lg um 95 is 17.3 x 83 x 46.9
eg 27" asus is 21.9 x 64.3 x 55.2

So the height is actually a few centimeters less than a 27" equivalent, but it is longer ( that's what she said ).

Height is important for productivity though. My current monitor is 16:10 :/

 

[ECA]

Can't go wrong with a dell 4k IPS.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-P2715Q-27-Inch-Ultra-Monitor/dp/B00R420U8O/

Yes - response times are a little slower on IPS than TN, typically 3-5ms, vs 1ms on a TN.

 

[Wij]

Can't go wrong with a dell 4k IPS.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-P2715Q-27-Inch-Ultra-Monitor/dp/B00R420U8O/

Yes - response times are a little slower on IPS than TN, typically 3-5ms, vs 1ms on a TN.

60Hz and no GSync though?

 

[Gwadien]

By the way @Wij

When @ECA says get a 144 hz monitor if you're playing FPS professionally, like, it's super worth it if you're going to play top flight CS:GO or something, but I'd assume you're after pretties - so 4k monitor, so what ECA just posted.

 

[Wij]

But I do miss the high refresh rates I used to get on my CRT. And yes, I could tell

I'd never have known what I might be missing if no one had told me but I know now. It will infuriate me. Gnnnnnngh!!

 

[ECA]

Thing is, the dells have nice colour reproduction and no backlight bleed or corner blues that a lot of the cheap 4k monitors suffer.

This is prob the best you're gonna get in terms of image quality and panel quality at 4k unless you wanna go to EIZO levels of stupidity.

Some options:
27", 1440p, 144hz, G-Sync. - downsides? It's TN.

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/27-a...itor-widescreen-tn-wqhd-2560x1440-1ms-10001-d


4k w/ G-sync - but also TN.
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/28-a...-displayport-3840x2160-300cd-m2-100m1-1ms-usb

 

[caLLous]

The panel height of a 27" 1440p and a 34" 3440x1440 is near enough identical, you just get the extra width with the ultrawide. If you're watching a 16:9 video on the ultrawide, to all intents and purposes you're watching the same size video as it would be on a 27" 1440p.

I love mine for productivity, as in doing multiple things side by side. Full screen apps tend to get a bit lost with wasted space but split it down the middle (which you can do either with multiple inputs form different computers with "picture by picture" or with a software solution like DisplayFusion) and you have two 1720x1440 displays.

 

[Tom]

Right, I don't really care about 4k, but I do like those big super-wide fuckers. Currently I have a Nvidia GTX 560 plugged into some rather ancient 16:10 LG thing.

The only game I play is TF2, where I tend to run around as a heavy with a ballet dress, bird head, unicorn wig and a frying pan, hitting people who get in my way. That's it. The ultra widescreen thing would be very useful for me when editing video footage. So what do I need to buy to get a big widescreen fucker, and reasonable gaming performance?

 

[caLLous]

The aspect ratio is great for video work. You have the timeline (I'm in Vegas here) along the bottom and then a dirty great big video preview above it on the right and all other panels and things to the left of it.

I have the Samsung S34E790C and a Fury X but you could probably get away with a Fury or R9 390X (or whatever the Nvidia equivalents are), maybe even lower spec if all you're playing is TF2.

 

[ECA]

Right, I don't really care about 4k, but I do like those big super-wide fuckers. Currently I have a Nvidia GTX 560 plugged into some rather ancient 16:10 LG thing.

The only game I play is TF2, where I tend to run around as a heavy with a ballet dress, bird head, unicorn wig and a frying pan, hitting people who get in my way. That's it. The ultra widescreen thing would be very useful for me when editing video footage. So what do I need to buy to get a big widescreen fucker, and reasonable gaming performance?

1. Whatever card you get needs displayport.
2. If you go AMD, then the monitor will be cheaper, £50-200 cheaper ( assuming you want freesync/gsync ).
I think a 380 would be ok, a 390 would be definite overkill and a 390x would be ludicrous overkill.

 

[caLLous]

A 380 will not give you decent frame rates across the board at 3440x1440 with decent levels of loveliness. Probably for TF2 it would be fine but if you have any thought about future-proofing then look up some standard 1440p benchmarks and take into account that 3440x1440 is a third as many pixels again (so very roughly you can achieve 75% of the 1440p benchmark scores with any given card) and you find yourself in the 30 FPS range (if that range is your target then go nuts but it seems a shame to spend so much on a monitor that can do at least 60 fps only to limit it). This review didn't even bother benchmarking at 1440p with the R9 380 (somewhat questionable but other reviews' scores justify their decision).

 

[ECA]

I had a 280x and played a lot of stuff on it @4k just fine, including csgo. at ~100fps, the 380 will handle TF2 levels of games just fine at ultra.
Yes if he wants to play newer games he has to spend more money on a higher priced card, but if he's just doing TF2 and video/photo it isn't an issue.


EDIT: I edited out my original bashing of that review, I misread it a little. I still don't like it though.

 

[Tom]

1. Whatever card you get needs displayport.
2. If you go AMD, then the monitor will be cheaper, £50-200 cheaper ( assuming you want freesync/gsync ).
I think a 380 would be ok, a 390 would be definite overkill and a 390x would be ludicrous overkill.

So basically I'd be looking at about a grand. Hmmm, I might wait until December to see if any xmas offers come in at Scan.

 

[soze]

Black Friday and Cyber Monday are coming up.

 

[Tom]

Would something like this play games ok on one of those big fuckers?

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/2gb-...hz-gddr5-gpu-1165mhz-boost-1355mhz-cores-768-

I might occasionally play GTA5, so long as that stays around 100fps would that be ok?

 

[Raven]

2gig of RAM, avoid.

 

[soze]

A couple of sites have said you need to drop down to 1080 to game on that card it is not man enough to do 4k smoothly. I would think an Ultrawide would be the same.

 

[ECA]

Would something like this play games ok on one of those big fuckers?

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/2gb-...hz-gddr5-gpu-1165mhz-boost-1355mhz-cores-768-

I might occasionally play GTA5, so long as that stays around 100fps would that be ok?

GTA5 - no. You'd be getting like ~20-25fps.

 

[Tom]

Cool, I'm just trying to get a feel for what's good and what isn't. My mind is still in the land of Vesa Local Bus video cards and 486 DX266 CPUs.

 

[TdC]

Cyber

ASL?

 

[old.user4556]

Cool, I'm just trying to get a feel for what's good and what isn't. My mind is still in the land of Vesa Local Bus video cards and 486 DX266 CPUs.

Ahh the days of unshaven vaginas.

Oh the memories of rifling through my mate's jazz mags as he played Doom on his ereet 486 DX2 66 in the other room.

 

[caLLous]

I only had a 486 SX 33 in those days. I was so jealous of my friend with his DX2 66 with it's maths coprocessor, even though I had no idea what it did.

 

[Wij]

I only had a 486 SX 33 in those days. I was so jealous of my friend with his DX2 66 with it's maths coprocessor, even though I had no idea what it did.

The same, though it seemed to run Doom2 fine.