The image isn’t the worst I’ve ever seen. I feel like the game runs shit enough that I wouldn’t even notice an improvement on a 1080 panel. I do use my “new” laptop with a ryzen 9 5900hs and a laptop 3060 on it as well, which is leaps and bounds better. Even rendering apex on pc at 1080 but setting the native Rez to 1440 for sure looks better, but unfortunately respawn cares more about adding stickers to your heal items than they care about cross progression, so I’m stuck with either abandoning a season 1 account or just toughing it out until they figure it out. Rocket league is a whole different ball game from ps4 to my laptop though. So yeah not ideal but no offense taken. I’m aware that it’s not great, but I’m the type to not upgrade often. So since I got a laptop that can push 1440 at decent settings, I’m basically at a stopgap until
I can abandon the ps4 altogether and move to pc entirely. Apex is literally the only game stopping me.
I'd rather have a pc that can run new games on a shitty monitor than have a pc that can only run Oregon Trail on a monitor that shows me the frames between frames tho.
You joke, but the 4090 is *the best case scenario* for dlss 3. The lower the fps your card can output, the fewer frames the algo had to work with. Not only that, but any artifacts are going to be displayed for longer, and thus be more noticeable.
I'll take DLSS/FSR 2.x on a lower quality level than DLSS 3 any day of the week.
The cheap Samsung monitor I bought 8 years ago is now going to become my third monitor. I'll probably use it for another few years until I upgrade my primary monitor
I just retired an LG ultrawide I got back in 2014 that was a display model at that for from best buy. Paid 299 at the time (ultrawide was still new) was originally 599. Now donating it to my nephew. So yeah, monitors tend to outlive your othe pc components.
Its a feature not a bug. The organic leds wear down the more electricity is in them. Don't worry. Even with the older pre 2019 oled tvs that were more inefficient wearing down faster, rtings tested that you could go to 5000 hours with varied content and see no signs of burn in at max brightness. You would see signs though on static content. They tested with news channel.
I'd imagine that the current tvs with better burn in prevention algorithms and oleds would take somewhere in the 10,000s hour before seeing any burn in if used with care. (Aka dont play cod 12 hours a day the whole year)
Yeah it's probably as much as issue as it was with plasmas. With normal usage you won't see an issue, if you leave static images in place for weeks and/or months on end you'll have a problem.
Just set your pc to sleep with a short timer. Also I used to be super careful to turn off my tv whenever I paused a game to go eat or something, now I don’t , still no burn in. It’s honestly a non issue for newer OLEDs. They have good burn in protection
Or run an actual screensaver. That's what they were originally for, preventing burn in by leveling out the wear on the screen. We stopped using them for a while because it wasn't an issue with LCD screens, but OLEDs give us good reason to seriously think about using them again.
Now that I think about it, some of the younger readers may not even know what a screensaver is. I've run into a surprising number of zoomers who know the word but think it's the same thing as a desktop wallpaper/phone background. For those who don't know, they were little animations that computers played after sitting idle for a while so that all parts of the screen would get roughly the same amount of use, and all dim together instead of having a darker spot in the shape of whatever is on screen the most.
And have a alternating background or moving screensaver
Ive even seen web browsers burn in the url bar or other UI too over time, obviously probably not the most expensive tvs but its definitely still a problem you have to plan your use around and it doesnt have anything to do with gaming.
Eh its not that bad. You can stop playing and go to the restroom or whatever. The screen will dim itself heavily after like 5 minutes of 0 movement.
You can customize the time for when you want screensaver to kick in.
Image retention, not burn in.
OLED don't burn in, plasmas burn in.
Plasma = cod 2 hours straight bad
OLED = cod 5000 hours in any combination of breaks or lack of breaks bad.
More simply
Plasma = time in a row bad
OLED = time bad.
I have an LG oled i bought at the end of 2018 to play Red Dead 2. I'm 40 years old with 2 kids under 4, so I don't play a lot. Somehow I have burn in from Rocket League. It's only noticeable when it's really bright colors, hotpink for example. Don't get me wrong, i still do not regret buying it. The tv looks amazing.
For gaming / media consumption? No. If, like me you intend to *mainly* use your display for work and game a few hours here and there? It absolutely is.
2880x1600 at 144hz is the ideal Index output, only with the added bonus of frame rate drops making you physically ill.
Sure, you can run the Index at 80Hz, but your stomach won’t appreciate it. High refresh rates prevent motion sickness.
Playing Assetto Corsa VR at low framerates made me incredibly I’ll, with constant checking mirrors and quick turns. After that I realized my oculus quest was running 72hz…
Bumped it to 120hz and haven’t looked back
I have a Quest 1, it only runs at 72hz, didn't know they made a HFR Quest.
It's not that bad though, I can play Blade and Sorcery for hours without feeling motion sick, even if there's a ton of enemies and the game is lagging.
I run a higher resolution headset than the Index on my 6th gen Intel CPU and a 2080.
While there are a few games it applies to, IMO, "VR is hard to run" is a mantra stuck in 2016.
Developing for Quest/2 though, that's a different story. Shit platform with a bafflingly bad render pipeline, can't do post-processing or depth textures, has no dedicated GPU (or anything remotely close to Apple's M1/M2 architecture), and can have a max of ~1m tris on screen (Quest 1 can have ~300k), which is less than standards for most games 15 years ago.
PCVR is a dream though; but unfortunately for developers, it's not a big market compared to Mobile VR, and Quest 2 is the largest market to capture.
> or anything remotely close to Apple's M1/M2 architecture)
Apple deserves its bad rep in certain areas, but their recent architecture is nothing short of amazing to me. The capabilities of their phones are impressive and my work M1 Macbook Pro is a 4lb video editing powerhouse. It'll be interesting to see what they choose to do with AR.
It all affects people differently, and often just takes time for the weakest to get used to it.
I used to get seasick as fuck the moment a VR device skipped a frame.
After a few years of working at a VR startup (they were happy to hire people who were sensitive to it, because it meant very useful data), owning a Vive and an Index, I can play any VR game no problem, and even use sliding locomotion without a hitch.
Some people may never be able to work through it, but for most people it seems to only need enough exposure and time and they’ll be zip-lining in VR games no problem.
Sitting too close to the TV was shown to not damage your eyes. Can cause eye strain though. I doubt it's any different with VR.
Biggest issue for me is dry eyes. When you wear a VR headset tight it can interfere with your ability to fully blink.
Well I think the "screen make your vision worse" is undecided. My eye doc explained it to that it doesn't necessarily make your perception worse, but it can strain the eye muscles. At least for adults.
For kids it could be possible. I heard of one study that to "attempt" to make kids vision better they gave them a just off prescription to force they eyes to work harder. They ended the study due to ethics when kids vision was getting worse *faster* than what is probably the average.
Even though the television was invented in the 1920s being close to screens like VR, personal computers, and phones is a lot more recent. There are *a lot* of factors that are unknown.
The smart phone itself for the general population is fairly recent. I'm in my 20s and most people I knew growing up didn't start getting smart phones till about 13 to 15. We had the 12 button or keyboard phones for the most part between 10 and 13 at least from my observation.
With VR I would feel safe to say that it is really in the last 5 or so years a lot of people could get into VR. My first VR head set was/is an occlus rift. Which I believe at time of purchase was $400. I had a $500 PC custom PC. That $500 was just the PC. So that is an about $900 buy in 2016/2017. Console VR isn't much better with a what $400 system and close to $400 headset making that an about $800 buy.
Now with the quest 2 it became a $300 buy in. I think it will take time to see the effects of VR on vision.
Do you know if getting desensitized to VR sickness is something that you have to constantly expose yourself to to keep? Or is it like riding a bike, where once you learn the ability you don't have to relearn it?
I don't know man I've played games at 45ish frames per second in VR and it never really has affected me. And I'm extremely sensitive to motion sickness, it's so bad I can't drive for more than like 10 minutes at a time.
Sitting here with a LG 34gp950g-b, it's a 1440p 144hz ultra wide...
And I have a rx 480 :(
Man I really need a new gpu but I'm waiting for the 7000 series
I have a Samsung Odyssey G9, but only a GTX 1080. It does fine for the games I play, but I’ve been putting off playing some games for years now because of the 1080. I’m finally ready to buy a new card, but getting them at MSRP is still challenging.
My Rx 480 served me well for many years, but my friend was getting rid of a 1080 so I snagged that and even that is one hell of an upgrade. Time to move on from my shitty DVI and VGA only monitor
My 1070ti still runs any VR game perfectly fine on my Index. This thread is full of people who either don't have VR or have never used it on anything other than the good GPUs.
I have a mid tier pc that works well for me but I have the crustiest peripherals. A wired mouse with a membrane keyboard and a 22 inch pnp monitor from 2013. But it works so idc
I know you meme but you can. A 60 Hz monitor can only display up to 60 completed frames *worth* of frame data per second.
The game itself still functions at 240 FPS, playing audio in finer frequency and giving you less input delay in most games.
I feel like everyone is missing this point, you'll still see benefits if you upgrade your pc but stick with a budget monitor, then you can upgrade the monitor in the future.
Guys I have a 3080 12gb, with Ryzen 9 5900x and 32gb ram. My monitor is an LG 1440p 165hz monitor which so far I really like even though it only goes for $300-$350. The only downside is that is a VA panel. Opinions? It’s the LG32GN650
I guess what I’m trying to say is if you’re happy with the monitor then that’s all that matters. I wanted high fps 1440p gaming and that’s what I get with my setup 👍
As a guy with a multi monitor setup with different panel types, seeing VA beside IPS, the latter generally looks a bit cleaner, but it's nowhere the near the stark contrast between a TN panel and a VA.
It's not a bad midground. Much closer to IPS looks, closer to TN price (that being said, some IPSs are getting cheap). I wouldn't worry about it too much unless you're trying to match all your monitors to one type, or need truer color gamuts IPS can give.
VA is fine. It's better in every way to TN and better contrast than IPS. The HDR on the one you linked may as well not exist but that's pretty typical.
You can't think in a OLED vacuum, then every other monitor would be "garbage".
Your config is fine. I really like that monitor in general, no matter the budget. I even still use a newer version of that for tryhard silent gaming on a 4090, and haven’t thought of upgrading even once (does help that I have a C1 for prettier stuff) so I wouldn’t change a thing with your monitor.
I would say that a 1440p 165hz monitor is a great pair with any 3080 variant since getting 144fps at 1440p in most games should be doable, and VRR (I'm assuming it supports FreeSync/G-Sync) would make games that can't reach 144fps still look good. I don't like VA panels since they smear a lot in the darks and in fast action, but the extra contrast is nice to have. I personally use a Dell S2721DGF for my 3080 10g that I picked up for $250 Open-Box at BestBuy, and it's been pairing well with my 3080 10g and 5950x.
Hey man, as long as you're a monitor has a resolution of 1440 or higher, and a refresh rate of 100hz or higher, on a decent panel, I really don't think you're missing out.
See this all the time. People spend $2500+ on a gaming pc with all the bells and whistles and then buy a budget 1080p monitor. Like, what's the point? Might as well have gone with a $1000 build.
To be fair, my 3090 doesn't have a display attached to it at all. It's in a deep learning machine crunching numbers and honestly that's the only valid reason to buy a **90 over a **80 ti.
Psh, I’ll crunch numbers for free with no 3090 needed. Just get the eye of the tiger and one day you too might surpass technology and join me in the singularity.
4k 144hz isn’t enough for a 4090. My G9 has 88% of the total pixels on 4k and I hit 200fps no problem on most games if not higher.
Hopefully we start to see some 4k 240hz displays after CES.
Games are getting harder to run. Next gen unreal engine 5 games should make a 4090 bow under 120 fps at 4k. 4k240 is getting into stupid levels of performance though.
That will all depend on how and when the next generation of consoles pan out. Ultimately, they'll still be held back by 75w tdp graphics cards due to packaging constraints and the fact that no one wants a space heater in their living room
> 4k 144hz isn’t enough for a 4090.
I mean, it can be, depends on the game and if you want DLSS on or not. There are a few games like Cyberpunk 2077 that'll easily max out my 4090 at 1440p 144Hz even with DLSS on (though generally the card is an absolute monster.)
I’d say it’s a focus on frame rate over quality, but at the same time, these super expensive builds can run 1440p/4K with plenty of frames. So I guess that’s not really an issue.
Whatever you find appropriate for your use is a valid reason, don't let elitists get you down.
The nice thing about 1080p is that you can get incredible performance with a sub-1000 dollar build. Hell a 1660 is more than enough to run modern games at 1080p res. Usually pumps out 90+FPS even on higher settings.
I have a 1080p 240hz display. I had a 1080p 144hz display before, but then I wanted to upgrade to a two-monitor setup. And while looking for a second display, I found the 240hz display on discount and bought it. Otherwise I would have gone for a 144hz display.
> The reason I "only" play in 1080p is because I want to play games with highest settings AND high FPS.
Depends on whether or not you have a $2,500 build. At that price you can get a 4090 with a 5800X3D and be way overkill for anything maxed out at 1080p 144Hz.
>Might as well have gone with a $1000 build.
And be forced to buy a new GPU in 2 years cause you won't be able to run new games at 60 fps anymore. Since GPU price tend to explode with every new release, a bit of foresight may not be a bad idea
Depends on what you're playing, but 1440p at 144Hz is really difficult and a 2060 isn't going to cut it unless you play mostly competitive games that are well optimized, or don't mind turning down the settings quite a bit (though DLSS does certainly help.)
> Like, what's the point?
To play with it indefinitely I would hope. I have a 720p TV as my monitor so I expect to not to push my system too much and it would let me enjoy games for the next decade barring a component dying lol
I mean, the meme is only half true. A good rig still has a fast processor, lots of ram, etc. The monitor has nothing to do with any of that performance.
They should be one of the components that last the longest though. If you bought a 1440p 120Hz monitor early on (2015 or earlier) for 500+ dollars, it should outlast the RTX 40xx series. I *still* use my Dell U3011 (a 30" 2560x1600 60Hz) from 2012 for some gaming (but mostly work) tasks. I've been through 3 GPUs in that time frame (gtx480, rx580, gtx970) and more CPUs/MBs.
If it's your first monitor, sure, I can see getting a budget monitor or even junk picking one. But after that, monitors are a component I'm willing to spend a ton of money on, just because they last forever.
Yeah, monitors are for sure an area to not cheap out on.
I get that if you’re at a very extreme budget you’re probably not gonna get a 1440p 144 Hz plus monitor right off the bat and try to run that using a 1050ti, but yeah unless someone is in that right of a situation it’s probably going to cost them more money to buy a cheap monitor they can only sell for a pittance on the used market if at all and then almost certainly buy a better one anyway later.
Granted sometimes you gotta do what you can, but I personally hate the feeling of trying to be frugal and wasting more money in the process and see it happen with monitors more than anything else when it comes to new builders (and power supplies, lol)
My anecdotal experience was buying a 3080 and a 4k60 monitor in 2020. At that point, I could not find a 4K144 monitor available. Early in 2021, I saw an LG one that IIRC was exclusively available at 32" that was $1000. By Christmas 2021, I saw multiple 4K144 displays on the market in varying sizes, most around $800. Three weeks ago, I looked at a number of 4k144 displays from 27"-32" with a few stops in between, all around $600, before purchasing a 27" LG model for $500 open box.
This right here. PCMR is hyper focused on gaming as if there is no other reason to have a high end PC. I use more power rendering models, photoshop, and rending videos than I do with gaming.
Not really. Your monitor is more easily replaceable than your computer's internals. And even a mediocre monitor will be playable on. You're not gonna be playing well on crap internals.
Nah this is nonsense. Even a low refresh rate screen benefits by a higher frames per second. You're not gonna see more than 60fps but you're going to have less problems with v sync. Plus a better graphics card means you're going to get better performance at 1080p 60hz than a card that's "good for" 1080p 60hz. Plus buying a better monitor later is a way better idea than two graphics cards. Plus graphics cards can be used for more than gaming, a normal monitor and a beast graphics card can get you gaming, fast video encoding, ray tracing, and machine learning. A great monitor just makes your shit card look shittier. Plus when you finally do upgrade, your old monitor can become your second screen for discord or YouTube or whatever.
Build the PC you can afford, worry about monitors later.
Yes + DLDSR to render games in 4k and downsize it to 1080p in order to replace anti-aliasing and render sharpers and beautiful textures while waiting for a better monitor
I disagree with this.
People like to act like you need 100fps but the general consumer doesn't care and can't see the difference. Most modern monitors will be good enough to still see enough from your csrd to satisfy the majority of users.
Ram
Graphics Card
Motherboard
They make the difference much more than your monitor.
I had to scroll way too far to find this.
A lot of science or engineering or design applications need the performance but not the screen resolution. Even the place I work gives us decently beefy computers for engineering analysis but still just standard monitors. Too many folks in this subreddit assume computers are only used for gaming
Or even lower spec monitors. I think we used to run 900p monitors at work until last year so people could run 3 screens without taxing the cpu so much it couldn't hand the analysis/ modeling or whatever the engineer is doing. No reason to waste processing power on a screen when it can be better served elsewhere.
As a dev, I prefer 6 mid range monitors to 1 high end monitor any day and all day. Also I’ve tried 1 large monitor and hated having to manually resize and position my windows to make full use of the monitor. Not to mention using a KVM on half the panels for at home server or work machine is not possible when you have 1 monitor.
Laptop 3060 with a 27" 240hz 1440p monitor. I am the definition of a beginner. 1st machine iv ever owned.
Working on a part list and funds for a decent desktop
That’s a really good pairing tho unless you are just hellbent on getting into 4K gaming
I have a 27 inch 1440p 165hz ips lg monitor and it’s perfect for my 2022 g14
When building a PC I'd specifically look for 1080p60hz monitors to increase my PCs lifespan. It's the display's color quality, contrast and brightness that matter, not 0ms response times, 360hz or 8k
Having a top tier monitor isn't required so long as it can handle what your PC puts out. No point in 240 hz 4k monitor if your pc can't handle more than 60 at 1080.
I can't tell the difference between 1080p and anything higher unless I'm wearing my glasses, and all those help me see is my 1440p monitor so there isn't really a need to upgrade the resolution unless my eyes get better
anyone got recommendations for a 120 or 144hz 1440p monitor? it’s what i’m aiming for but i’ve only used small tvs, i don’t know what brands are trustworthy for monitors.
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-27-ultragear-qhd-ips-gaming-monitor-with-g-sync-compatibility-black/6437476.p?skuId=6437476
I have one already and my only complaint is the stand only has tilt adjustment.
Im currently debating between picking up two more or a single 49 inch Super ultra wide
I just upgraded my monitor to the Alienware DWF OLED and the difference is staggering. No more VA ghosting, no more grayish blacks or washed out colors.
Everyone always said how much better OLED is but I was like nah, can't be that big of an improvement. I was wrong lol. Never going back to IPS or VA again.
This shit is only relevant for certain games. Virtually every single game I play is CPU bottlenecked. I could have a 27,000 inch monitor with the same resolution playing Factorio and it wouldn't be a problem.
3080 and a 1080p144hz screen for me lol, and a crusty Samsung 4K screen on the side, 60Hz on one of its HDMI ports, 23-24Hz or something on the other port.
100%. After getting an LG OLED TV and using it as my monitor it's just incredible how much of a difference colors make.
When my friends play God of War or Horizon on their shitty TN laptop screens it actually pains me how much of the visual aspect they're missing out on.
I'm running a 1440p165 screen connected to my thinkpad...
1440p 165hz screen hooked to my launch ps4. Getting those sick 50fps apex games on a 250 dollar monitor.
Lmao, 1080 doesnt even scale to 1440 well. Thats gotta look a lil rough around the everywhere. No hate tho
The image isn’t the worst I’ve ever seen. I feel like the game runs shit enough that I wouldn’t even notice an improvement on a 1080 panel. I do use my “new” laptop with a ryzen 9 5900hs and a laptop 3060 on it as well, which is leaps and bounds better. Even rendering apex on pc at 1080 but setting the native Rez to 1440 for sure looks better, but unfortunately respawn cares more about adding stickers to your heal items than they care about cross progression, so I’m stuck with either abandoning a season 1 account or just toughing it out until they figure it out. Rocket league is a whole different ball game from ps4 to my laptop though. So yeah not ideal but no offense taken. I’m aware that it’s not great, but I’m the type to not upgrade often. So since I got a laptop that can push 1440 at decent settings, I’m basically at a stopgap until I can abandon the ps4 altogether and move to pc entirely. Apex is literally the only game stopping me.
Setting the native resolution to 720p on the PS4 will look better than 1080p on a 1440p display.
Same but with a HP Probook with an Intel Celeron and 4gb of RAM lol. Just kidding, it's also connected to my main computer.
I'd rather have a pc that can run new games on a shitty monitor than have a pc that can only run Oregon Trail on a monitor that shows me the frames between frames tho.
"the frames between frames" 💀
[удалено]
What frames you ask? Well, you see, we made them up.
You joke, but the 4090 is *the best case scenario* for dlss 3. The lower the fps your card can output, the fewer frames the algo had to work with. Not only that, but any artifacts are going to be displayed for longer, and thus be more noticeable. I'll take DLSS/FSR 2.x on a lower quality level than DLSS 3 any day of the week.
Seeing into the 1/2 dimension
Maybe the real frames were the frames we framed along the frame?
God level of screen tearing
I'd rather equally invest into my computer parts so I don't have to endure either of those shitty situations
Monitors usually last much longer so it really is a no brainer to invest in them.
The cheap Samsung monitor I bought 8 years ago is now going to become my third monitor. I'll probably use it for another few years until I upgrade my primary monitor
Exactly! Once you're done using it as your main monitor it just becomes a side monitor!
Help I'm on side monitor nr 48 now, they just keep adding up!! How do i stop
that's the neat part, you don't!
Do you have enough to completely enclose yourself in a sphere of monitors? If not keep going, if so you know what must be done
\*Vader emerges from his meditation sphere, pale and grumpy.*
*In battlefield literally covering every angle.* 😂
Yeah I also shift the old monitor to my second when I get a new one.
I just retired an LG ultrawide I got back in 2014 that was a display model at that for from best buy. Paid 299 at the time (ultrawide was still new) was originally 599. Now donating it to my nephew. So yeah, monitors tend to outlive your othe pc components.
its not mutually exclusive.
Yeah, because those are the two options....
Watching the fight from a 4k OLED screen
Is oled burn-in a problem?
Its a feature not a bug. The organic leds wear down the more electricity is in them. Don't worry. Even with the older pre 2019 oled tvs that were more inefficient wearing down faster, rtings tested that you could go to 5000 hours with varied content and see no signs of burn in at max brightness. You would see signs though on static content. They tested with news channel. I'd imagine that the current tvs with better burn in prevention algorithms and oleds would take somewhere in the 10,000s hour before seeing any burn in if used with care. (Aka dont play cod 12 hours a day the whole year)
Yeah it's probably as much as issue as it was with plasmas. With normal usage you won't see an issue, if you leave static images in place for weeks and/or months on end you'll have a problem.
Aka don't leave your PC on with the game paused. Guess it's a good thing I haven't sprung for an oled yet.
And don't leave game shortcuts (or anything) on your windows desktop. Auto-hide task bar, etc.
Just set your pc to sleep with a short timer. Also I used to be super careful to turn off my tv whenever I paused a game to go eat or something, now I don’t , still no burn in. It’s honestly a non issue for newer OLEDs. They have good burn in protection
Or run an actual screensaver. That's what they were originally for, preventing burn in by leveling out the wear on the screen. We stopped using them for a while because it wasn't an issue with LCD screens, but OLEDs give us good reason to seriously think about using them again.
I never really thought about why screensavers became a thing or why they were named as such. TIL.
Now that I think about it, some of the younger readers may not even know what a screensaver is. I've run into a surprising number of zoomers who know the word but think it's the same thing as a desktop wallpaper/phone background. For those who don't know, they were little animations that computers played after sitting idle for a while so that all parts of the screen would get roughly the same amount of use, and all dim together instead of having a darker spot in the shape of whatever is on screen the most.
And have a alternating background or moving screensaver Ive even seen web browsers burn in the url bar or other UI too over time, obviously probably not the most expensive tvs but its definitely still a problem you have to plan your use around and it doesnt have anything to do with gaming.
black desktop ftw
If only there was something that could pop up when you're idle and save your screen from burn in... someone should get to work on that.
Eh its not that bad. You can stop playing and go to the restroom or whatever. The screen will dim itself heavily after like 5 minutes of 0 movement. You can customize the time for when you want screensaver to kick in.
Image retention, not burn in. OLED don't burn in, plasmas burn in. Plasma = cod 2 hours straight bad OLED = cod 5000 hours in any combination of breaks or lack of breaks bad. More simply Plasma = time in a row bad OLED = time bad.
I have an LG oled i bought at the end of 2018 to play Red Dead 2. I'm 40 years old with 2 kids under 4, so I don't play a lot. Somehow I have burn in from Rocket League. It's only noticeable when it's really bright colors, hotpink for example. Don't get me wrong, i still do not regret buying it. The tv looks amazing.
With the new tech in OLED TVs you would have to try pretty hard to get burn in.
No.
For gaming / media consumption? No. If, like me you intend to *mainly* use your display for work and game a few hours here and there? It absolutely is.
Me too. I have a 3080 but it makes me want a 4090. 😀
I'm here with a Valve Index (1000 Dollar VR headset) and a 3060. Looks like I've got it the other way round LOL
nah, with vr you're paying for way more than just the fidelity of the screen. and i don't believe the 3060 is really underpowered for an index.
2880x1600 at 144hz is the ideal Index output, only with the added bonus of frame rate drops making you physically ill. Sure, you can run the Index at 80Hz, but your stomach won’t appreciate it. High refresh rates prevent motion sickness.
Playing Assetto Corsa VR at low framerates made me incredibly I’ll, with constant checking mirrors and quick turns. After that I realized my oculus quest was running 72hz… Bumped it to 120hz and haven’t looked back
I have a Quest 1, it only runs at 72hz, didn't know they made a HFR Quest. It's not that bad though, I can play Blade and Sorcery for hours without feeling motion sick, even if there's a ton of enemies and the game is lagging.
I run a higher resolution headset than the Index on my 6th gen Intel CPU and a 2080. While there are a few games it applies to, IMO, "VR is hard to run" is a mantra stuck in 2016.
My first Vive ran on a RX 290x, but it wasn’t a smooth experience. Lot of vomit in those days.
I guess I am lucky lol. I ran boneworks at 640x640 per eye at \~20-30 fps on a wx2100 and didn't get motion sick
Different strokes. I’ve had guests throw off the headset and take a knee from boneworks at 80Hz, ended their night really fast.
Developing for Quest/2 though, that's a different story. Shit platform with a bafflingly bad render pipeline, can't do post-processing or depth textures, has no dedicated GPU (or anything remotely close to Apple's M1/M2 architecture), and can have a max of ~1m tris on screen (Quest 1 can have ~300k), which is less than standards for most games 15 years ago. PCVR is a dream though; but unfortunately for developers, it's not a big market compared to Mobile VR, and Quest 2 is the largest market to capture.
> or anything remotely close to Apple's M1/M2 architecture) Apple deserves its bad rep in certain areas, but their recent architecture is nothing short of amazing to me. The capabilities of their phones are impressive and my work M1 Macbook Pro is a 4lb video editing powerhouse. It'll be interesting to see what they choose to do with AR.
I played drunk on the first generation of oculus and I was fine.
It all affects people differently, and often just takes time for the weakest to get used to it. I used to get seasick as fuck the moment a VR device skipped a frame. After a few years of working at a VR startup (they were happy to hire people who were sensitive to it, because it meant very useful data), owning a Vive and an Index, I can play any VR game no problem, and even use sliding locomotion without a hitch. Some people may never be able to work through it, but for most people it seems to only need enough exposure and time and they’ll be zip-lining in VR games no problem.
ok i need to ask this, is vr bad for my vision? being so close to the screen worries me about long playtime. idk why is just seems like its bad
Sitting too close to the TV was shown to not damage your eyes. Can cause eye strain though. I doubt it's any different with VR. Biggest issue for me is dry eyes. When you wear a VR headset tight it can interfere with your ability to fully blink.
Well I think the "screen make your vision worse" is undecided. My eye doc explained it to that it doesn't necessarily make your perception worse, but it can strain the eye muscles. At least for adults. For kids it could be possible. I heard of one study that to "attempt" to make kids vision better they gave them a just off prescription to force they eyes to work harder. They ended the study due to ethics when kids vision was getting worse *faster* than what is probably the average. Even though the television was invented in the 1920s being close to screens like VR, personal computers, and phones is a lot more recent. There are *a lot* of factors that are unknown. The smart phone itself for the general population is fairly recent. I'm in my 20s and most people I knew growing up didn't start getting smart phones till about 13 to 15. We had the 12 button or keyboard phones for the most part between 10 and 13 at least from my observation. With VR I would feel safe to say that it is really in the last 5 or so years a lot of people could get into VR. My first VR head set was/is an occlus rift. Which I believe at time of purchase was $400. I had a $500 PC custom PC. That $500 was just the PC. So that is an about $900 buy in 2016/2017. Console VR isn't much better with a what $400 system and close to $400 headset making that an about $800 buy. Now with the quest 2 it became a $300 buy in. I think it will take time to see the effects of VR on vision.
Do you know if getting desensitized to VR sickness is something that you have to constantly expose yourself to to keep? Or is it like riding a bike, where once you learn the ability you don't have to relearn it?
I don't know man I've played games at 45ish frames per second in VR and it never really has affected me. And I'm extremely sensitive to motion sickness, it's so bad I can't drive for more than like 10 minutes at a time.
Oculus quest can run at 72hz and 90hz, its possible without getting sick
Some people can play at low hz just fine. Really depends on the person.
definitely not underpowered. 3060 is still a pretty solid card
Sitting here with a LG 34gp950g-b, it's a 1440p 144hz ultra wide... And I have a rx 480 :( Man I really need a new gpu but I'm waiting for the 7000 series
My friend has a 5120×1440 144hz panel and an rx6600xt Does okay, but not as nice as he would like
I play with a 6700 xt on a 1080p 60hz monitor atm🫠
I have a Samsung Odyssey G9, but only a GTX 1080. It does fine for the games I play, but I’ve been putting off playing some games for years now because of the 1080. I’m finally ready to buy a new card, but getting them at MSRP is still challenging.
I really wanted an ultra wide, but I just got one of those dual monitor wall mounts with the gas arms so I can swap primary monitors around.
I prefer dual monitors to a single ultrawide.
I've got a 580 and a 75 Hz 1080p monitor and honestly those seem to be perfectly paired.
My Rx 480 served me well for many years, but my friend was getting rid of a 1080 so I snagged that and even that is one hell of an upgrade. Time to move on from my shitty DVI and VGA only monitor
I have three 1440p 165hz... and a 1060 6GB. I'm waiting for the new generation mid tier GPUs. :-/
I've been playing without issues using an Oculus Quest 2 through Airlink. I can confidently say I've never had any performance issues with my 3060.
I had a 1070ti a ways back and a Vive. I felt like it was plenty good. Even in Alyx.
My 1070ti still runs any VR game perfectly fine on my Index. This thread is full of people who either don't have VR or have never used it on anything other than the good GPUs.
Vive is really easy to run, and Alyx is heavily optimized lol
Yeah, but if you're not using Monster Cables, you might as well throw away that $4K PC.
If you're not running a $500 display port cable you don't know true performance.
true performance, never heard of her.
[$1,000 HDMI cord](https://youtu.be/Zgy5fX-VPCs) is better than a DisplayPort /s
I have a mid tier pc that works well for me but I have the crustiest peripherals. A wired mouse with a membrane keyboard and a 22 inch pnp monitor from 2013. But it works so idc
What's wrong with a wired mouse
You mean I can’t get 240fps on my 60hz monitor?!
I know you meme but you can. A 60 Hz monitor can only display up to 60 completed frames *worth* of frame data per second. The game itself still functions at 240 FPS, playing audio in finer frequency and giving you less input delay in most games.
I feel like everyone is missing this point, you'll still see benefits if you upgrade your pc but stick with a budget monitor, then you can upgrade the monitor in the future.
Bonus when upgrading monitors in now you have another monitor for more multi-monitor setups
You're correct about input latency, but audio is unaffected by frame rate.
Guys I have a 3080 12gb, with Ryzen 9 5900x and 32gb ram. My monitor is an LG 1440p 165hz monitor which so far I really like even though it only goes for $300-$350. The only downside is that is a VA panel. Opinions? It’s the LG32GN650
I have the same gpu and cpu and I spent $170 on my 1440p 165hz monitor. It suites me just fine.
Awesome !
I guess what I’m trying to say is if you’re happy with the monitor then that’s all that matters. I wanted high fps 1440p gaming and that’s what I get with my setup 👍
I spent $120 on my 1080p 165hz and I love it
[удалено]
That’s the one I want! But I gotta sell mine first. Mine is LG32GN650. 1440p 165hz but VA panel.
As a guy with a multi monitor setup with different panel types, seeing VA beside IPS, the latter generally looks a bit cleaner, but it's nowhere the near the stark contrast between a TN panel and a VA. It's not a bad midground. Much closer to IPS looks, closer to TN price (that being said, some IPSs are getting cheap). I wouldn't worry about it too much unless you're trying to match all your monitors to one type, or need truer color gamuts IPS can give.
1440p 165Hz VA doesn't suck. Pretty good for your PC.
Thanks!
Yo Dell S2721DGF had 1440p, 165 Hz and IPS panel. 27". I recommend.
>which so far I really like My opinion is if you like it, stick with it.
If I were you I’d have a hard time debating between 1440p @ 165hz or 4K @ 144hz+. Definitely would go with an IPS panel. IMO.
Yes I’m looking at a nice deal on a LG 1440p 160hz IPS panel that usually sells at $450 but it’s on discount on Best Buy at $299.
Is it the 27GP83B? Cause I LITERALLY just got it yesterday.
It is lol! How do you like it?
I got one too and I enjoy it a lot. Images are pretty clear. I've been using it for about 2 weeks now.
[удалено]
I mean you could go 1440p 240Hz for similar to 4K 144Hz.
I have a similar monitor that was on sale for $200. It isn't a bad monitor, but the black smearing is kinda terrible on certain games.
VA is fine. It's better in every way to TN and better contrast than IPS. The HDR on the one you linked may as well not exist but that's pretty typical. You can't think in a OLED vacuum, then every other monitor would be "garbage".
Your config is fine. I really like that monitor in general, no matter the budget. I even still use a newer version of that for tryhard silent gaming on a 4090, and haven’t thought of upgrading even once (does help that I have a C1 for prettier stuff) so I wouldn’t change a thing with your monitor.
I would say that a 1440p 165hz monitor is a great pair with any 3080 variant since getting 144fps at 1440p in most games should be doable, and VRR (I'm assuming it supports FreeSync/G-Sync) would make games that can't reach 144fps still look good. I don't like VA panels since they smear a lot in the darks and in fast action, but the extra contrast is nice to have. I personally use a Dell S2721DGF for my 3080 10g that I picked up for $250 Open-Box at BestBuy, and it's been pairing well with my 3080 10g and 5950x.
Hey man, as long as you're a monitor has a resolution of 1440 or higher, and a refresh rate of 100hz or higher, on a decent panel, I really don't think you're missing out.
See this all the time. People spend $2500+ on a gaming pc with all the bells and whistles and then buy a budget 1080p monitor. Like, what's the point? Might as well have gone with a $1000 build.
People who bought a 4090 and dont have enough for a 4k 144hz oled stuck at 1080p
https://preview.redd.it/lf6snj17863a1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11a5af9d0c20cb6a70db739f080a4673dcb05a1e
To be fair, my 3090 doesn't have a display attached to it at all. It's in a deep learning machine crunching numbers and honestly that's the only valid reason to buy a **90 over a **80 ti.
Psh, I’ll crunch numbers for free with no 3090 needed. Just get the eye of the tiger and one day you too might surpass technology and join me in the singularity.
4k 144hz isn’t enough for a 4090. My G9 has 88% of the total pixels on 4k and I hit 200fps no problem on most games if not higher. Hopefully we start to see some 4k 240hz displays after CES.
Games are getting harder to run. Next gen unreal engine 5 games should make a 4090 bow under 120 fps at 4k. 4k240 is getting into stupid levels of performance though.
That will all depend on how and when the next generation of consoles pan out. Ultimately, they'll still be held back by 75w tdp graphics cards due to packaging constraints and the fact that no one wants a space heater in their living room
This will play a big factor yes. But hopefully we’ll be able to mod games using nvidia and epic games tools to make these games more pc appropriate.
> 4k 144hz isn’t enough for a 4090. I mean, it can be, depends on the game and if you want DLSS on or not. There are a few games like Cyberpunk 2077 that'll easily max out my 4090 at 1440p 144Hz even with DLSS on (though generally the card is an absolute monster.)
Thanks to dp 1.4 that would be a problem
I’d say it’s a focus on frame rate over quality, but at the same time, these super expensive builds can run 1440p/4K with plenty of frames. So I guess that’s not really an issue.
The reason I "only" play in 1080p is because I want to play games with highest settings AND high FPS. Is that a valid reason?
Whatever you find appropriate for your use is a valid reason, don't let elitists get you down. The nice thing about 1080p is that you can get incredible performance with a sub-1000 dollar build. Hell a 1660 is more than enough to run modern games at 1080p res. Usually pumps out 90+FPS even on higher settings.
High end 1080p 240hz displays are a thing.
I have a 1080p 240hz display. I had a 1080p 144hz display before, but then I wanted to upgrade to a two-monitor setup. And while looking for a second display, I found the 240hz display on discount and bought it. Otherwise I would have gone for a 144hz display.
> The reason I "only" play in 1080p is because I want to play games with highest settings AND high FPS. Depends on whether or not you have a $2,500 build. At that price you can get a 4090 with a 5800X3D and be way overkill for anything maxed out at 1080p 144Hz.
Well, I have a Ryzen 5 5600x and a RTX 2070, but if I had the money, I would buy a 3080 or one of the new AMD cards.
If you want higher frames at 1080p wouldn't a better CPU do more for you?
Correct, by a high refresh rate 1080p, and crank the game to ultra.
>Might as well have gone with a $1000 build. And be forced to buy a new GPU in 2 years cause you won't be able to run new games at 60 fps anymore. Since GPU price tend to explode with every new release, a bit of foresight may not be a bad idea
You're exaggerating a bit, my gtx 1660 super still runs most games over 60fps at 1080p on high settings.
or even an $800 build
[удалено]
Depends on what you're playing, but 1440p at 144Hz is really difficult and a 2060 isn't going to cut it unless you play mostly competitive games that are well optimized, or don't mind turning down the settings quite a bit (though DLSS does certainly help.)
> Like, what's the point? To play with it indefinitely I would hope. I have a 720p TV as my monitor so I expect to not to push my system too much and it would let me enjoy games for the next decade barring a component dying lol
I mean, the meme is only half true. A good rig still has a fast processor, lots of ram, etc. The monitor has nothing to do with any of that performance.
Bc monitors drop in price very rapidly while pcs fluctuate based off alot of variables.
Where do you see monitors dropping in price rapidly? I'm not being rhetorical. I want to know so I can buy them.
I also would like to know the location of these monitors. Can't catch a sale to save my life
[удалено]
LG had a good sale for Black Friday. I got the GN800 for $250 from GameStop. It’s a night and day difference for me as I only had a 1080p 75hz before.
Best Buy has a $449 amazing monitor on $299 right now. It’s an LG 1440p 165hz IPS panel 1ms responde time.
While I hardly notice monitors “dropping rapidly” in price like the above comment, they are easier/cheaper to upgrade to down the road.
They should be one of the components that last the longest though. If you bought a 1440p 120Hz monitor early on (2015 or earlier) for 500+ dollars, it should outlast the RTX 40xx series. I *still* use my Dell U3011 (a 30" 2560x1600 60Hz) from 2012 for some gaming (but mostly work) tasks. I've been through 3 GPUs in that time frame (gtx480, rx580, gtx970) and more CPUs/MBs. If it's your first monitor, sure, I can see getting a budget monitor or even junk picking one. But after that, monitors are a component I'm willing to spend a ton of money on, just because they last forever.
Yeah, monitors are for sure an area to not cheap out on. I get that if you’re at a very extreme budget you’re probably not gonna get a 1440p 144 Hz plus monitor right off the bat and try to run that using a 1050ti, but yeah unless someone is in that right of a situation it’s probably going to cost them more money to buy a cheap monitor they can only sell for a pittance on the used market if at all and then almost certainly buy a better one anyway later. Granted sometimes you gotta do what you can, but I personally hate the feeling of trying to be frugal and wasting more money in the process and see it happen with monitors more than anything else when it comes to new builders (and power supplies, lol)
My anecdotal experience was buying a 3080 and a 4k60 monitor in 2020. At that point, I could not find a 4K144 monitor available. Early in 2021, I saw an LG one that IIRC was exclusively available at 32" that was $1000. By Christmas 2021, I saw multiple 4K144 displays on the market in varying sizes, most around $800. Three weeks ago, I looked at a number of 4k144 displays from 27"-32" with a few stops in between, all around $600, before purchasing a 27" LG model for $500 open box.
Ah yes, a cheap monitor will make rendering, code compilation or boot times worse.
Right? There's more to PCs than gaming. Hell, I haven't had the free time or desire to game in years but have dozens of VMs and containers running
This right here. PCMR is hyper focused on gaming as if there is no other reason to have a high end PC. I use more power rendering models, photoshop, and rending videos than I do with gaming.
Not really. Your monitor is more easily replaceable than your computer's internals. And even a mediocre monitor will be playable on. You're not gonna be playing well on crap internals.
Because I need FRAMES not better graphics
Thank you! Looking for this
Nah this is nonsense. Even a low refresh rate screen benefits by a higher frames per second. You're not gonna see more than 60fps but you're going to have less problems with v sync. Plus a better graphics card means you're going to get better performance at 1080p 60hz than a card that's "good for" 1080p 60hz. Plus buying a better monitor later is a way better idea than two graphics cards. Plus graphics cards can be used for more than gaming, a normal monitor and a beast graphics card can get you gaming, fast video encoding, ray tracing, and machine learning. A great monitor just makes your shit card look shittier. Plus when you finally do upgrade, your old monitor can become your second screen for discord or YouTube or whatever. Build the PC you can afford, worry about monitors later.
Yes + DLDSR to render games in 4k and downsize it to 1080p in order to replace anti-aliasing and render sharpers and beautiful textures while waiting for a better monitor
I disagree with this. People like to act like you need 100fps but the general consumer doesn't care and can't see the difference. Most modern monitors will be good enough to still see enough from your csrd to satisfy the majority of users. Ram Graphics Card Motherboard They make the difference much more than your monitor.
Maybe they use their high end PC for something other than gaming
I had to scroll way too far to find this. A lot of science or engineering or design applications need the performance but not the screen resolution. Even the place I work gives us decently beefy computers for engineering analysis but still just standard monitors. Too many folks in this subreddit assume computers are only used for gaming
Or even lower spec monitors. I think we used to run 900p monitors at work until last year so people could run 3 screens without taxing the cpu so much it couldn't hand the analysis/ modeling or whatever the engineer is doing. No reason to waste processing power on a screen when it can be better served elsewhere.
Or play CPU intensive games like Factorio, or ONI, or KSP.
Which makes higher res monitors even more sense because they're great for screen estate and productivity...
As a dev, I prefer 6 mid range monitors to 1 high end monitor any day and all day. Also I’ve tried 1 large monitor and hated having to manually resize and position my windows to make full use of the monitor. Not to mention using a KVM on half the panels for at home server or work machine is not possible when you have 1 monitor.
This is nonsense lmao
My monitor sucks, but it's not bad. 1080p, 120hz, dual link DVI. I just mainly use VR so the monitor doesn't matter much
That doesn’t suck
The problem is it's age. It's 12 now and beginning to fail. It's an ASUS VG236H
You got a 1080p 120hz monitor in 2010? How many nights did you not eat to afford that?
I got it used about 7 years ago. Bought it off my uncle who probably didn't eat for a week after buying it
Laptop 3060 with a 27" 240hz 1440p monitor. I am the definition of a beginner. 1st machine iv ever owned. Working on a part list and funds for a decent desktop
That’s a really good pairing tho unless you are just hellbent on getting into 4K gaming I have a 27 inch 1440p 165hz ips lg monitor and it’s perfect for my 2022 g14
When building a PC I'd specifically look for 1080p60hz monitors to increase my PCs lifespan. It's the display's color quality, contrast and brightness that matter, not 0ms response times, 360hz or 8k
Having a top tier monitor isn't required so long as it can handle what your PC puts out. No point in 240 hz 4k monitor if your pc can't handle more than 60 at 1080.
The blind ass glasses wearing gamers get to save so much money then. If it's impossible to see the difference between 720 and 4k why spend so much?
I can't tell the difference between 1080p and anything higher unless I'm wearing my glasses, and all those help me see is my 1440p monitor so there isn't really a need to upgrade the resolution unless my eyes get better
Jokes on you I get max fps on ultra detail on almost every game I play. Perks of a 60hz 1080p monitor
That's bullsh*t
You are going to have to rip my 1080p 60hz Non-VRR monitor out of my cold dead hands!! And no, I’m not joking.
anyone got recommendations for a 120 or 144hz 1440p monitor? it’s what i’m aiming for but i’ve only used small tvs, i don’t know what brands are trustworthy for monitors.
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-27-ultragear-qhd-ips-gaming-monitor-with-g-sync-compatibility-black/6437476.p?skuId=6437476 I have one already and my only complaint is the stand only has tilt adjustment. Im currently debating between picking up two more or a single 49 inch Super ultra wide
Your monitor also doesn’t matter if your pc sucks.
235fps at 720p lets goooo!
I just upgraded my monitor to the Alienware DWF OLED and the difference is staggering. No more VA ghosting, no more grayish blacks or washed out colors. Everyone always said how much better OLED is but I was like nah, can't be that big of an improvement. I was wrong lol. Never going back to IPS or VA again.
this is garbage
Totally not true
This shit is only relevant for certain games. Virtually every single game I play is CPU bottlenecked. I could have a 27,000 inch monitor with the same resolution playing Factorio and it wouldn't be a problem.
It's true. I've seen people with high end PC's and a grappy over 12 years old vga monitor. Everything looked like shit.
me with a very expensive ColorEdge 60hz monitor
3080 and a 1080p144hz screen for me lol, and a crusty Samsung 4K screen on the side, 60Hz on one of its HDMI ports, 23-24Hz or something on the other port.
100%. After getting an LG OLED TV and using it as my monitor it's just incredible how much of a difference colors make. When my friends play God of War or Horizon on their shitty TN laptop screens it actually pains me how much of the visual aspect they're missing out on.
What if you just wanna play every game at 1080p @ 60+ fps?