LF a new monitor

[botfly10]

It is not the planning, like I said it is the price. The only real way to push 4k 100hz is with two 1080 TIs and that PC is going to run you close to 3k. Until the price comes down the there won't be high enough adoption rate to bring the cost down. We are seeing some headway right now in the 2k space because for 1500 you can get a PC that can push 80+ HZ in some modern shooters if you are willing to play on sub-ultra settings.

1200-1500 seems like the spot that where a lot of gamers are with their budgets. Higher adoption levels always brings down cost.

Yeah, imo 4k is kinda dumb at this point. I will trade high refresh for resolution any day.

 

[botfly10]

I bought this two weeks ago: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0173PEX20/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Took a while but I got the colors right. When I was monitor shopping I had similar requirements, 1440, IPS, around 27inches (to match my second monitor), but I also wanted Gsync. I bought this monitor initially but returned it because the colors were horrible: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0149QBOF0/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

My 1070 has been pushing 1440 just fine in the games I play GTA V and The Witcher probably being the most demanding.

EDIT: It looks less try hard in person. A lot of PC Gaming focused hardware has an aesthetic I'm not really into, and even though the monitor's feet look kinda try hard they aren't that noticeable.

I really want the Acer Predator x34 but its just too expensive for me.

 

[ShiftyDevil]

What settings are you running GTA V and the Witcher at? Are you OCing your 1070 is it in a SLI? There is no way a 1070 should be pushing 144 frames consistently at 1440p on the highest settings in those games.

I was planning on getting the 1070, but when the price dropped on the 1080 to $500 I felt the price to performance gain made sense.

For GTA V it's at max everything but with vsync off @1440p

For The Witcher it was max everything with vsync off but running at 1080p in a window. Never did test it at full 1440, had the game mostly finished when my last monitor ate shit and then finished playing with the new monitor and didn't change anything outside of switching from borderless window to just windowed. Didn't get any noticeable slowdowns.

EDIT: Now that I'm thinking about it, I may have had the hair junk turned down or off. I could always reinstall if you want me to bench it.

 

[czman]

Thought I would update.

I found two monitors that seem like they could be an excellent choice, as they would be very nice as a primary gaming monitor or if I get an ultrawide curved later they can move off to a second monitor in portrait.

Here are the two.

BenQ BL3200PT

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014372&ignorebbr=1

and

Samsung S32D850T

https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-WQHD...d=1491403215&sr=8-1&keywords=S32D850T+Samsung

The Samsung is $50 bucks more, but I have always liked Samsung picture. Whenever I go to a store to look at TVs/Monitors I always really like the Samsung images. They are both VA panels so that is very nice. The BenQ is overclockable to 70-75HZ. I have not been able to find anyone who has successfully OCed this Samsung. It also looks like the BenQ has had a few more problems.

I will probably pick one tonight.

 

[botfly10]

Do what you feel man, but I don't think I would buy a monitor that gets less than 100 Hz if it was me. Not with whats available now and with how long I keep a monitor. Shit, the next one I buy will be my first upgrade ever.

And when I talk to friends with good monitors, I hear the same thing every time - that Hz up to about 100 is the most noticeable upgrade over everything else (panel type, gsync, resolution) and that once you get used to high Hz, its tough to ever go back.

 

[Crystallas]

Same about 4k. Once you go UHD, you don't want to go back. We just need both high refresh and higher resolutions. 1440p and 80Hz is what I had in 2003 (and yes kiddies, the hardware absolutely powered it just fine, especially if you knew what you were doing). IDK why slowed down so damn much. Super useful to have higher resolutions in any era. If someone made a legit consumer-affordable production 8K monitor, I would buy it and the hardware to drive it, that's just how valuable screen real estate is in 95% of real world computing.

 

[czman]

Do what you feel man, but I don't think I would buy a monitor that gets less than 100 Hz if it was me. Not with whats available now and with how long I keep a monitor. Shit, the next one I buy will be my first upgrade ever.

And when I talk to friends with good monitors, I hear the same thing every time - that Hz up to about 100 is the most noticeable upgrade over everything else (panel type, gsync, resolution) and that once you get used to high Hz, its tough to ever go back.

I agree in principal that 100hz is what you want in a gaming monitor. I am making a bet that gsync high refresh rate monitors will drop in price over the next 18 months. I need a new monitor now, as one or my monitors is starting to go. I am betting that the 32" monitors with a pivot stand won't get much cheaper than 370, maybe down to 270. I think the gsync high refresh rate will drop far greater in the next 12-16 months.

If I was to buy the nicer gaming monitor now, I would probably end up with a 27" for about $700 and another 27" for 250. So about a grand for 2 27" monitors one being a good gaming one. If I can get a 30+" curved for $700 in 18 months I will have a 2 30"+ monitors for about 100 dollars more and all I had to do was game on a 32" inch 60hz monitor for a year or so. I don't really want to purchase two high refresh rate gsync monitors.

It is a calculated gamble. Hopefully it will pay off in the long run. This decision is really based more on the fact I am going to be getting two monitors in the next 18 months and I don't have to get the better one for gaming now. As the one I am getting will still be an upgrade and will be a really nice second monitor in a bit.