Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Aug 2, 2019.
LOL 100FPS in 4K, maybe in half life
Yeah but why pay £2600 for a 35" (not quite 4K) monitor when you can buy this 43" proper 4K monitor for half the price: https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/compu...43-led-gaming-monitor-black-10192548-pdt.html
Granted its not 200Hz or G-sync but you're getting slightly higher resolution and the difference between 144hz and 200hz is barely noticeable. The 43" Acer is also Free-sync 2/G-sync compatible so you're not shelling out an extra £500 for that noisy G-sync module with the active cooling fan. And the price? It's half of what you'd for the 35" Asus monitor.
Be under no illusions here, Asus are insulting our intelligence here and are blatantly trying to rip gamers off.
Nice monitor. Just need the money - anyone up for a bank heist?
Wrong! I've reached over 200+ FPS @ 4K in certain AAA games*.
* during loading screens
I want Acer Predator x35, its same as Asus just 2500USD in USA [for example, on newegg] Im not from USA so i have no idea how much it will be but cheaper then ASUS for sure, maybe we will get normal regional price
I dont care about high FPS, i mean if a monitor has 120hz mode thats enough for me and even if it has more i wont use it for technical reasons
Acer Predator CG437K P was on my shortlist but it doesnt have: FALD with 512 zone, it doesnt have real Gsync module instead cheap software variable refresh [GSYNC Ultimate is a better solution then FreeSync, no matter what AMD fanboys say, its a much better solution all around that does amazing things, you get what you pay for]
I also kinda want to go sub 4K resolution for RTX [Since 2016 i been using 55inch OLED tv as my PC monitor so 4K is just everyday for me]
people say 21:9 is amazing experience, so thats too
P.S.Im not an idiot, I wont pay same amount of money for a monitor as for new 2019 OLED that has HDMI 2.1 and 4k/120hz with freesync, if the price will be similar ill either get the monitor you linked Or Ill get new OLED C9 [Or i might say screw it and keep using my oled until next year models come out with more features, since tehre is no reason to buy HDMI 2.1 TV now
i wont be able to use the 4K/120 nor freesync, so why waste money, i rather wait untill next gen GPU with HDMI 2.1 comes out and get a new OLED to replace mine, but if the monitors will cost reasonable and its soemthing I can use right now ill get one. The one you listed is my number 2 choice after Predator x35]
According to FRAPS, yeah.I just opened Mass Effect Andromeda on ultra settings + HDR10 and FRAPS reports 77-100fps. It fluctuates between those numbers, which is absolutely playable and buttery smooth. And that game uses the Frostbite engine. Dota 2 on ultra settings fluctuated between 156-205 on 4K ultra preset depending on how much action was going on.
I'm not kidding around and neither is the RTX 2080Ti. Take a look at Hilbert's review - look at those number in 4K ultra on Battlefield 1: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_rtx_2080_ti_founders_review,18.html
Ok .. in BF ... At 4K you have 105 FPS .... But you forget this monitor has a refresh rate of 200 Hz ... So you need 200fps or more ... Constant ... No dropping not fluctuating .... No hiccup !
And keep in mind the word ... Constant
P.s. I am not trying to argue with you ... Maybe just to trick my mind into not caving in and buying this !
Yeah I got tired of waiting for new monitors to come out so i bought an LG 55SM9000 a couple of weeks ago while it was in the summer sale for £1100. Its a 4K Nanocell TV with 4x HDMI 2.1 sockets on it. The colours are very similar to the C9 OLED when i compared the two TV's in the store. Of course the OLED has unbeatable blacks but i was a bit apprehensive about using an OLED as PC monitor due to screen burn-in. The next gen graphics cards will most likely have HDMI 2.1 but for now i can either run the TV in 4K 60hz or 1440p 120hz over the GPU's HDMI 2.0 port. But eventually when the new GPU's come i'll be able to switch it to fully fledged 4K 120hz. Another reason i opted to go for the Nanocell was because i have a well lit room and the OLED panels are full gloss, very reflective. The Nanocell is semi-gloss and doesn't reflect much at all.
I also own 2080Ti and such numbers are just unreal, maybe in some games, maybe that andromeda is not demanding, but I Play mainstream games, Tomb Raider, Metro etc, even without RTX the FPS is borderline above 60 in latest TR, with nvidia upscling you can get to 80 maybe more, but with RTX it will drop back
When I moved to 4K I started to buy high end cards: 780ti>970SLI>980ti>1080>1080ti>2080ti, but I never had acceptable 4K experience, I hoped that 2080ti will be THE 4K card but i guess it will be 3080Ti
Sure but you're not going to notice the difference between 120hz or 200hz. Going from 60hz to 120hz is like night and day. But from 120hz to 200hz the difference is negligible. 120hz is the sweet spot. You get excellent colour coverage at 10-bit and buttery smooth gameplay at 120hz. G-sync and Free-sync will also help keep the game running smooth at lower fps.
Yeah notably i wasn't using RTX On in any of my games. To me that's half-baked tech. Next gen will handle it better, no doubt.
As far as Burn-In i can say im a specialist, since 2016 and i had no burn in, even thou most of the day the display shows web browser with tabs, i just know which settings use and i dont abuse the TV, for example if you lower the OLED light to below 50 there wont be any burn in and in reading web i dont need more light, actually mine set to 40.
Every couple days i run OLED panel clear option as prevention.
And thats it, its fine. And its last 3D Tv, its the One and ONLY ULTIMATE 3D TV, when they finally made them AMAZING and then they killed 3D in 2017, this OLED has 4K panel, but its LG so its Passive 3D, the glasses are light and feel like kids glasses so no issues, because its 4K panel the Passive 3D is full resolution [on 1080p panel Passive 3D is 50% resolution], add to it the fact that its OLED and BOOM, you have Ultimate Home 3D TV, I dont know if tehre is anything better, maybe VR HMDs have betetr 3D since they can isolate each eye spertly but they not TV.
As far as gloss or reflective, im a Full Darkness type, sun burns me, my room is permanently dark 24/7, I have window shades plus special curtains that block the sun, the only light in my room is artificial, when i need it, otherwise my room is a dark cave
BUY IT, you dont need 200hz since this mode decreases the color bit to 4:2:0, but in 120hz mode its full RGB and you dont need more.
Does this mean stoners actually have worse colour perception when they're under the influence?
Ok ... I am still waiting for that Nigerian prince to send my cut ( it's been 5 years now ) but hey ... Once I get it I will by 2 of this babys ... Why stop at one !
Maybe go full R and buy ... Dam ... A screen protector from the 90s ... So I don't get eye fatigue
Agreed. I've got zero interest in a new monitor until DP2 monitors are available. If prices are this stupid I'll continue to wait patiently.
@Prince Valiant ... my monitor is ok'ish ... but I really want to move up the resolution ladder to 2560*1440 ! maybe also 120 - 144hz ... but I am still debating VA or IPS ! so far VA is better ... but it has a ghosting effect ... my eyes are on the Benq EX3203R ...
Monitor is not bad or anything. But what's with light uniformity? It has 512 zones and does not look very well calibrated to take advantage of them.
Very nice review, HH. Agree the cost on this thing is atrocious--plus it's G-sync hardware--which limits the useful cases for it immediately. Freesync 2 would have been far wiser as nVidia is now supporting it (2?), finally. I don't like Ultra-wide res--never have. And I'd prefer 32" 4k as opposed to 35" @ 3440x1440. But you make a good point about the resolution--my 5700XT Ann Ed. parses 2x the number of frames per second @ 2560x1440 than at 4k, sometimes 3X. But I like 4k--and the whole "144Hz-200Hz" thing smacks of cheap TV's advertising interpolated frame rates. As long as I can get stutter-free, fluid gameplay, 60 fps or even less, is fine by me. Buy this thing and a 2080ti and we're ringing the bell at $4,100 and we haven't even bought the computer. The number of people who will buy $2700 monitors and $1400 3d cards I'd estimate at maybe 1% of everyone who buys GPUs and monitors and is more than a little interested in gaming. I'm sure my next monitor will--probably--be HDR, but that depends. On the quality, price, and game support. I like HDR a lot--it's needed, badly. I'm just not sure how much *I* need it atm. Everyone is always trying to pick my pockets, it seems! Getting harder and harder to fend them off these days...(yeah, sure, it's not like they've had to *work* at it lately!) Is "computer poor" a thing, now?...
Even Apple thinks this thing is expensive.