|
GreenBuckanneer posted:so far im still not sold on 144hz Be sure that you're actually getting 144Hz. There are numerous ways that can get messed up. It's true that some people just don't notice it as much, but for me it's immediately noticeable between my 100Hz and my 144Hz monitors, and dropping down to the 52Hz for my dumb MBP is just painful.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
DrDork posted:Be sure that you're actually getting 144Hz. There are numerous ways that can get messed up. It's true that some people just don't notice it as much, but for me it's immediately noticeable between my 100Hz and my 144Hz monitors, and dropping down to the 52Hz for my dumb MBP is just painful. it's running at 144hz per previous posts, I just don't think it's a big deal outside of the higher fps numbers while also not getting tearing. I just think it's, so far, not really worth having paid the extra bucks. Color, response time, contrast, screensize, all seem more important to me over actual HZ. You can tell a difference but not in the way you can tell a difference with 720p media vs 4k.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
For me frame rate > pretty much everything, maybe my brain is broken but I'd rather game on 1080p/144hz than 4k/60hz
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
I'm undecided on whether to return mine (I hope doing so isn't a hassle). I was actually impressed by 144Hz, but I don't have the hardware to push that many frames on many games. I also don't think it's worth the loss of contrast/blacks. I thought the tech was at a point were fast frame rate didn't come with significant compromises, so I bought a fancier monitor than I could support because I will eventually replace my PC with something better. I'm surprised I haven't seen many 83A goons with similar misgivings. I don't think it's just my particular screen. The RTings test shows it has a particularly bad contrast ratio.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
Something people seem really eager to overlook is that framerate IS resolution. It's insane to me how out of whack people are willing to get - chasing barely perceptible pixel sizes while ignoring that images are jumping many tens or even hundreds of pixels per frame.Rinkles posted:I'm undecided on whether to return mine (I hope doing so isn't a hassle). I was actually impressed by 144Hz, but I don't have the hardware to push that many frames on many games. I also don't think it's worth the loss of contrast/blacks. I thought the tech was at a point were fast frame rate didn't come with significant compromises, so I bought a fancier monitor than I needed because I will eventually replace my PC with something better. A few thoughts - there are plenty of people who care more about contrast, and you can certainly make other tradeoffs between response time and contrast. It's just that these LG panels are the current best set of tradeoffs on the market for most people, and contrast is the low point. The contrast of a given panel is also by no means consistent. Since IIRC you bought of warehouse, it's quite possible that your monitor was previously returned for having particularly bad contrast. No way to say without an objective test. Return shouldn't be bad, that's a big reason we tell people to buy from Amazon and not Newegg. If you're torn but aren't feeling like response time is a particularly huge deal for you, maybe an Innolux panel monitor is a good option. LCDs are a dogshit technology and we're always going to have severe compromises as long as they're around. May MicroLED save us all (some time around 2050). Even then, it'll almost certainly be a few generations before we get truly great displays. Don't expect anything that truly has no real compromises until the curse of sample and hold awfulness is dead and gone from monitors. K8.0 fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:LCDs are a dogshit technology and we're always going to have severe compromises as long as they're around. May MicroLED save us all (some time around 2050). Even then, it'll almost certainly be a few generations before we get truly great displays. Don't expect anything that truly has no real compromises until the curse of sample and hold awfulness is dead and gone from monitors. SEDs sounded neat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:48
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:I'm surprised I haven't seen many 83A goons with similar misgivings. I don't think it's just my particular screen. The RTings test shows it has a particularly bad contrast ratio. Probably because a lot of them are already used to bad contrast from even shittier screens. You also can't get all that much better while still staying IPS, and bumping over to VA has enough down-sides that many people aren't going to find them worth it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
I was upgrading from an old TFT LCD, which apparently had pretty good contrast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
The contrast ratio doesnt bother me a lot on the 83A, personally. I've never owned an OLED TV or phone though, so maybe I would notice more if I had. My reference point is other IPS/VA/TN monitors, and I personally would rather sacrifice the black levels than deal with the other tradeoffs of TN or VA ever again. There are other IPS monitors that have slightly better blacks than the LG NanoIPS panelled monitors, but not outrageously. There isn't one golden magic monitor, just gotta choose which tradeoffs you are ok with. There is also the possibility that those units getting returned to amazon barely used and resold on the Amazon Warehouse are ones that lost the panel lottery in the first place, and have even worse contrast ratio than usual for the SKU.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
It does look good during bright and vibrant scenes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Cygni posted:The contrast ratio doesnt bother me a lot on the 83A, personally. I've never owned an OLED TV or phone though, so maybe I would notice more if I had. My reference point is other IPS/VA/TN monitors, and I personally would rather sacrifice the black levels than deal with the other tradeoffs of TN or VA ever again. There are other IPS monitors that have slightly better blacks than the LG NanoIPS panelled monitors, but not outrageously. There isn't one golden magic monitor, just gotta choose which tradeoffs you are ok with. FWIW, a decade ago artists in film, commercials and graphic design were creating and compositing all their colour critical work on Eizo and NEC IPS displays that boasted contrast ratios of ~600:1
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
Rollie Fingers posted:FWIW, a decade ago artists in film, commercials and graphic design were creating and compositing all their colour critical work on Eizo and NEC IPS displays that boasted contrast ratios of ~600:1 You sure? My previous (cheap) monitors are about that age (one's older) and definitely have better contrast ratio than my 83A (which should be better than 600:1)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:You sure? My previous (cheap) monitors are about that age (one's older) and definitely have better contrast ratio than my 83A (which should be better than 600:1) I am sure because I'm one of the artists that had to use those displays for years. These are the monitors that every film company used: https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eizo_sx2762w.htm (649:1) https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_2490wuxi.htm (632:1 after hardware calibration) I would say these two probably make up a third or more of all monitors that VFX companies still use to this day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
As a new high refresh haver, I would say I definitely notice high refresh more in day-to-day computing (like browsing, just general windows and office poo poo) than I do in gaming. I can notice it in gaming the most in terms of responsiveness to my inputs, but I kind of have to focus on it to consciously 'notice' it, whereas scrolling a website is still pretty mind blowing for me as I regularly switch back to a 60hz screen throughout the day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:50
|
|
|
Rollie Fingers posted:I am sure because I'm one of the artists that had to use those displays for years. I wish quantifying these things didn't take specialized equipment, cause I'd love to know how many of my issues are objective, subjective, or contextual (for instance, I have pretty bad lighting in my room)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
I'm incredibly picky about colour and gamma, and I believe anyone even semi serious about using their monitor to the best of its abilities should invest in a basic colourimeter like an i1Display Studio or even a used ColorMunki. You only need to buy them once and the difference they make is often huge if the monitor has had a lovely factory calibration and they've set the brightness and contrast too high, thus loving up gamma. I have an LG 38GL950G which is an expensive screen and has had an adequate factory calibration, but I calibrated it and I now have better greens, better gamma and a luminance of 120 cd. So calibrate your screens and you'll have accurate colours and an optimal luminance level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
$149? That’s half the price of a decent monitor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
Some people are more likely to notice higher spatial resolution than higher temporal resolution (refresh rate). I'm one of them myself. Judging by how many people post about how amazed they are at how smooth scrolling is on their new 144Hz monitors though I think it's more common to care more about temporal resolution. For myself I barely noticed it on the desktop but the vastly improved response time does help in games. I really wanted high pixel density though so I ended up with 4K 120Hz which is pretty stupid expensive and not a realistic option for most people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 12:12
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Some people are more likely to notice higher spatial resolution than higher temporal resolution (refresh rate). I'm one of them myself. Judging by how many people post about how amazed they are at how smooth scrolling is on their new 144Hz monitors though I think it's more common to care more about temporal resolution. For myself I barely noticed it on the desktop but the vastly improved response time does help in games. I really wanted high pixel density though so I ended up with 4K 120Hz which is pretty stupid expensive and not a realistic option for most people. I don't know. Where I hang out online, people never seem to shut up about PC games at "4K and 60 fps", but to me that configuration only shines in stills or when there's very little motion in the scene. Maybe these people are playing very sedate games where they're staring at the back of a barely moving player character for every moment of gameplay. At or around 60 Hz, motion resolution, even at UHD, goes to poo poo when something moves at a medium pace in the scene. Sitting at monitor distances, there's no substitute for frames and Hz for me. I'll never understand it, but then I don't really play 3rd person games. Another thing that people seem to hold up as a really important metric is incredibly high resolution textures and I don't really give two hoots about that either, without the motion resolution to do them justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 13:12
|
|
|
So I got the AW2721D Positives - Build quality is nuts - Bezels are tiny, of course it has an inner bezel but this is smaller than usual (7mm except bottom) - It's a drat 240hz IPS - HDR can be pretty good in well lit scenes, the brightness is surprising after a SDR monitor. It can do 500 cd/m2 fullscreen white without HDR. - OSD is good and the RGB lighting is adjustable - Gsync ultimate - The fan is inaudible. You might be able to hear it if you have a 0 fan computer. - 1000:1 contrast instead of 700~ of typical nano IPS Negatives - Build quality is pointless and pushes up the price. You don't see the back of your monitor. - Stand is excessively large - No HDMI 2.1 so HDMI is not a good option. - Currently no DSC so 240hz HDR won't work. This is meant to be in a firmware update. - HDR backlight zones make dark scenes worse than no backlight as it amps up the IPS glow in that area. - No sRGB clamp which seems like a no brainer OSD option. I think you could use an ICC profile to resolve this? I know they sell on brand but I think at least $100 of the price is going into the build. You are also paying a premium for native gsync which doesn't have that many benefits (mainly adjustable overdrive and full hz range) but at least it's insurance against issues that a lot of "compatible" screens are having. It directly competes with the 27GN950 due to the price except that is 4k (a bad resolution for a display under 32" in my opinion) and does not have a Gsync module. Uncalibrated  500 peak brightness if you go up to 100 
Carecat fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
How necessary is colour calibration for gaming and general messing about on decent IPS panels (like the 27GL850) these days? I have a Spyder 5 Express that has been gathering dust for five years (bought because a particular monitor - a Hazro - was reviewed as looking like poo poo out of the box) and they have sold on eBay recently for more than I paid for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Is the obsession with minimizing bezels leading to worse backlight bleeding?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 15:09
|
|
|
SuperTeeJay posted:How necessary is colour calibration for gaming and general messing about on decent IPS panels (like the 27GL850) these days? I have a Spyder 5 Express that has been gathering dust for five years (bought because a particular monitor - a Hazro - was reviewed as looking like poo poo out of the box) and they have sold on eBay recently for more than I paid for it. I haven't read a lot of reviews but the initial accuracy of gaming monitors varies a lot. Check an rtings review for the monitor and don't sweat it as long as their calibrated score isn't garbage, which means you probably won't be able to adjust it to your liking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:$149? That’s half the price of a decent monitor. That's why a lot of people suggest going used, or buy one to calibrate their monitor(s) and then just resell it. While colors / white point can drift somewhat over time, with LED backlight monitors it's a lot less noticeable than it used to be with CFL backlight monitors so you don't really need to be recalibrating monthly these days. SuperTeeJay posted:How necessary is colour calibration for gaming and general messing about on decent IPS panels (like the 27GL850) these days? I have a Spyder 5 Express that has been gathering dust for five years (bought because a particular monitor - a Hazro - was reviewed as looking like poo poo out of the box) and they have sold on eBay recently for more than I paid for it. It's not "necessary," but a lot of monitors you can knock off 2-4 dE, which is noticeable if you put them side to side. I'd say most people on most monitors aren't going to look at the screen and go "hey, these greens are way oversaturated!" But if you do a before/after they could probably point out the difference. Whether that's worth $ is a very personal question. If you've already got the hardware you'd be kinda silly not to use it, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 17:09
|
|
|
SuperTeeJay posted:How necessary is colour calibration for gaming and general messing about on decent IPS panels (like the 27GL850) these days? I have a Spyder 5 Express that has been gathering dust for five years (bought because a particular monitor - a Hazro - was reviewed as looking like poo poo out of the box) and they have sold on eBay recently for more than I paid for it. In general, LG monitors tend to come with very good factory color calibration, as do Dell monitors. If you're going to do color critical work, sure, use a colorimeter. If you're an average user, gently caress it. If you're in between, it probably depends on the brand and specific monitor you buy, and as others have stated, rtings is a good resource for looking up factory calibration, as is reddit. Getting more data points from people who have used colorimeters on a given monitor will give you a better feel for if you want to bother or not. Totally agree that it's silly to have a colorimeter sitting around. Use it, sell it, whatever, but don't just sit on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
Local OfficeMaxDepot has the Acer EB321HQU on sale for $180 - its 32" IPS 1440p. Good, bad, ugly ? Would be replacing an Asus 1920x1080 VE248 that I've had for at least 8 years. Still using a 8gb 1080 card in my system.
MREBoy fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Some people are more likely to notice higher spatial resolution than higher temporal resolution (refresh rate). I'm one of them myself. Judging by how many people post about how amazed they are at how smooth scrolling is on their new 144Hz monitors though I think it's more common to care more about temporal resolution. For myself I barely noticed it on the desktop but the vastly improved response time does help in games. I really wanted high pixel density though so I ended up with 4K 120Hz which is pretty stupid expensive and not a realistic option for most people. Yeah $1200 for a 27" 4k monitor is asinine imo. $300 is about what I'd top out on a monitor. As for the refresh rate, I notice it, but then my brain takes it for granted. I still have my two dell 60hz ips monitors right next to it I use all day long but it's not night and day like some people make out. There's still some slight ghosting, if I pay attention, but barely better than my 2015 monitors. Yeah, it's "smooth" but I've never thought "my forums posting should be smoother" if anything I was "i want more screen size and resolution and colors, my gpu will put in the work" If anything it confirmed what I was initially thinking, it wasn't super useful for me to go to 144hz, probably better to get two 1440p 75hz panels w/ vesa mounts so I could later take advantage of that instead, and sell the old 1080p ones. GreenBuckanneer fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
I would say it is a bit large for 1440p but it will have the same PPI as your 24" screen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Amazon just had a used 26GN950 for $696 from Amazon warehouse. By the time I clicked add to cart it was gone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Is the obsession with minimizing bezels leading to worse backlight bleeding? No, and if anything it probably is helping to drive micro led development.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 22:32
|
|
|
Managed to order a 27GN950 after setting up a stock alert. Should ship next week!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
Riflen posted:I don't know. Where I hang out online, people never seem to shut up about PC games at "4K and 60 fps", but to me that configuration only shines in stills or when there's very little motion in the scene. Maybe these people are playing very sedate games where they're staring at the back of a barely moving player character for every moment of gameplay. I hate using low DPI screens because I can't unsee how blurry they are. It's subjective. I thought I was going to notice high refresh rate a lot more than I did considering how much it got hyped up. GreenBuckanneer posted:Yeah $1200 for a 27" 4k monitor is asinine imo. $300 is about what I'd top out on a monitor. The XV273K was $1k new when launched but is quite a bit cheaper now. It's still expensive but it's not $1200. I have no idea why you're so stingy with your monitor budget though when you've blown a lot more money on other system components. A good monitor will last way longer than any other computer component you could possibly buy - you can keep a good monitor for 10 years or more and many people do. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Managed to order a 27GN950 after setting up a stock alert. Should ship next week! You might be the first goon with one, plz trip report!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:A good monitor will last way longer than any other computer component you could possibly buy - you can keep a good monitor for 10 years or more and many people do. IDK, I just think it's not worth it, and based on what i've spent so far, it's hard for me to see the value between a $100 monitor I bought four years ago and one I bought two weeks ago. Increase in size and res, yes, refresh rate? not really. I don't see how that's hard to understand. If I don't see an increase in value, I can't justify the price differences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:IDK, I just think it's not worth it, and based on what i've spent so far, it's hard for me to see the value between a $100 monitor I bought four years ago and one I bought two weeks ago. Increase in size and res, yes, refresh rate? not really. I don't see how that's hard to understand. If I don't see an increase in value, I can't justify the price differences. That makes absolutely no sense at all. All computer parts have an absurd price to perceived value ratio - spending twice or even three times as much on a GPU gives you only a tiny bit better perceived quality. More importantly though, at 1080p 60Hz there's literally no difference at all between a $200 GPU and a $1500 one, because you're bottlenecked by the monitor. If you like high resolution more than high refresh rate fine, then get 4K 60Hz instead of 1440p 144Hz - it's not that difficult to run 4K60 and the monitors cost about the same these days. But don't underspend on your monitor making your expensive GPU completely meaningless, that's just a complete waste of money. Sell your 3070 and go back to a 1060 in that case. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:That makes absolutely no sense at all. All computer parts have an absurd price to perceived value ratio - spending twice or even three times as much on a GPU gives you only a tiny bit better perceived quality. More importantly though, at 1080p 60Hz there's literally no difference at all between a $200 GPU and a $1500 one, because you're bottlenecked by the monitor. If you like high resolution more than high refresh rate fine, then get 4K 60Hz instead of 1440p 144Hz - it's not that difficult to run 4K60 and the monitors cost about the same these days. But don't underspend on your monitor making your expensive GPU completely meaningless, that's just a complete waste of money. Sell your 3070 and go back to a 1060 in that case. This isn’t actually true at the moment due to ray tracing but close enough. The low number moves to $400.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
There's always supersampling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 04:31
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:There's always supersampling. I’ve given dynamic super sampling a couple of tries and it’s always been painful on my screens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:That makes absolutely no sense at all. All computer parts have an absurd price to perceived value ratio - spending twice or even three times as much on a GPU gives you only a tiny bit better perceived quality. More importantly though, at 1080p 60Hz there's literally no difference at all between a $200 GPU and a $1500 one, because you're bottlenecked by the monitor. If you like high resolution more than high refresh rate fine, then get 4K 60Hz instead of 1440p 144Hz - it's not that difficult to run 4K60 and the monitors cost about the same these days. But don't underspend on your monitor making your expensive GPU completely meaningless, that's just a complete waste of money. Sell your 3070 and go back to a 1060 in that case. For one, the 1060 is already sold. For two, the 3070 ensuring 60fps+ minimum in anything relevant is really all I care about. The increased resolution at 1440p is a benefit, and all I can say is I've had this monitor for a week and the only thing so far I give a poo poo about is the high fps without tearing. That's the only good thing I can say so far about this monitor. Otherwise there's nothing over my existing monitors that are five years old that wow's me 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:Otherwise there's nothing over my existing monitors that are five years old that wow's me I'm not sure condolences are in order for your eyesight, or congratulations on the frugality said eyesight will allow you to maintain while the rest of us yearn for every higher refresh rates (and price points).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 08:45
|
|