lol @ 1080 being described as "pokey"...
I guess it's dependent on how close you sit to your screen and how big your screen is. One of my friends has a 30 inch screen at 4k but sits about a foot away from it. I can't imagine that being a good experience.
I believe the panel I am using is 22-24 inches (at the most) and 1080p is perfectly fine. I can barely make out the pixels. It's more noticeable in games but I would much rather have a lower res and a much higher frame-rate. I mean, games still look stunning in 1080p IMO.
I guess 1440 is becoming a new pc standard. I don't see a reason to go much higher. You're going to pay a huge performance cost unless you have a beast of a pc to go with it.
lol @ 1080 being described as "pokey"...
I guess it's dependent on how close you sit to your screen and how big your screen is. One of my friends has a 30 inch screen at 4k but sits about a foot away from it. I can't imagine that being a good experience.
I believe the panel I am using is 22-24 inches (at the most) and 1080p is perfectly fine. I can barely make out the pixels. It's more noticeable in games but I would much rather have a lower res and a much higher frame-rate. I mean, games still look stunning in 1080p IMO.
I guess 1440 is becoming a new pc standard. I don't see a reason to go much higher. You're going to pay a huge performance cost unless you have a beast of a pc to go with it.
#879 posted by JneeraZ on 2016/01/14 02:09:45
It's all about screen real estate for me. I want huge viewports in my 3D apps. The larger the better.
#880 posted by erc on 2016/01/14 04:03:34
Not much different than yours, I'll be going for this next month:
Mobo: Asus Maximus VIII Hero / Intel Z170
CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K / 3.50GHz
GPU: Asus Strix GTX 980
RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury Black DDR4-2666Mhz / 2x8gb
PSU: Corsair CX750M / 750W 80+ Bronze
Case: Corsair Vengeance C70
HDD: WD WD1003FZEX Caviar Black / 1TB
SSD: Kingston HyperX Fury / 240GB
CPU Cooling: Corsair CW-9060021-WW H100i GTX Liquid
Case Cooling: Noctua NF-F12 PWM 120mm 3000-750rpm (x4)
Sound Card: Creative Sound Blaster ZxR
OS: Microsoft Windows 8.1 64bit
Monitor: Dell U2414H 23.8" 1080p 8ms 60Hz IPS
I've looked into LCD monitors much and for the time being, decided for an IPS panel: they're slightly behind in response times but better in color reproduction. It seems that 120/144Hz panels with GSync/FreeSync are still using more-or-less experimental tech and more prone to err. Besides, they're way more expensive than a quality 60Hz panel (at least in these parts) and apart from a certain ASUS product, all of them use TN panels which are worse in color reproduction than the ones that are utilizing IPS panels. Still, I'll be considering a second monitor of that type next year, when hopefully they'll be more affordable and better in terms of design.
As for resolution, I opted for 1080p. Considering the limitations of LCD tech, it's clear that the monitor one uses directly effects the life of the actual rig - owing to the 'natural resolution' fact (which wasn't a problem with CRT's). If I choose a 1440p monitor, my rig needs to be powerful enough to run that res at 60Hz constantly. If I use a 1080p one instead, I decrease that need by a notch - where acceptable, I'll use AA, wherenot, I'll be a able to squeeze at least a year more from the same rig by simply not using AA.
#881 posted by necros on 2016/01/14 04:15:45
yeah, gfx card power was one of the reasons I went with a lower native res on a 27". At the time, I had a lowly GTS 250. Now with the GTX 960 I would be fine with a 1440 display.
otoh, erc, i see you are going for a 24". My last monitor was a 24" @ 1080 and that was more than enough to look crisp, but i would say 24" is about the max before the pixels start to be pretty visible.
but the 30" Fifth was talking about earlier? It needs to be 1440 at the least. 4k is probably excessive. Also windows doesn't scale fonts properly the way mac OS does, so you can end up with a lot of subtle broken UI elements.
#882 posted by killpixel on 2016/01/14 04:52:28
I think 1080p with a good refresh rate, 144hz and up, is the sweet spot for now.
Use that saved money to get a gtx 980 or greater and DSR/downsample everything and it might not seems so "pokey".
@Necros
#883 posted by erc on 2016/01/14 05:06:46
Yup, I figured out that anything above 24" won't look good enough on 1080p. Besides AA, there's also DSR that KillPixel mentioned - using those methods I think I'll be pretty happy with what I get. Crispness of the image wins over bigger screen size for me. I have been using 17"/19" CRTs for over 15 years now - never had the urge to go bigger.
#884 posted by JneeraZ on 2016/01/14 11:14:36
You run the 30" at 2560x1600 ... am I taking crazy pills here? 1080? The hell? :)
#885 posted by Rick on 2016/01/14 16:36:06
I wonder what they'll try to sell us after 4K. Isn't that close to the resolution limit of the human eye?
I don't understand the infatuation with liquid cooling. I see little need to overclock these days and the stock Intel fans are all but silent except under heavy loads. It's not that liquid cooling isn't a little better or less noise, but the improvement doesn't seem anywhere near worth the added complexity and cost.
#886 posted by JneeraZ on 2016/01/14 16:37:50
Tubes filled with water inside your computer ... what could go wrong?
VR
is where the next 10 years are... and augmented reality after that.
#888 posted by JneeraZ on 2016/01/14 20:29:43
VR won't be a real, useful thing for at least another 2 years ... IMO. It'll be a toy for rich kids until then.
#889 posted by JneeraZ on 2016/01/14 20:30:08
And in terms of doing WORK inside of VR ... that's a ways out yet. I'm just talking about games that really leverage the platform properly.
4k
is probably only going to be a thing for pc gamers. The current gen of consoles will only be able to do 4K if the game is very simplistic looking due to the extra horse power needed.
If I was optimistic I'd say consoles need about 5 years. But I'm a pessimist so I'd say consoles need 10 years.
#891 posted by Lunaran on 2016/01/14 21:24:32
Liquid cooling is what happens when the kind of young man who puts a spoiler and blue underlights on a Toyota sedan is more into games than he is into cars.
#892 posted by Rick on 2016/01/14 21:28:54
I had kind of forgotten about VR, but I agree it's probably the coming thing for a lot of video games. I don't see watching movies or TV with it though.
Maybe a real video wall will become practical. I can certainly see the value of 4K monitors if they're 80" or larger and hang on the living room wall.
I think I may have to upgrade my video card this year. If I do, I can probably squeeze another year or two out of that computer.
#893 posted by JneeraZ on 2016/01/14 21:37:08
I could definitely see VR head gear taking the place of current iMax/3D movie theatres.
#894 posted by necros on 2016/01/14 21:43:23
I wonder what they'll try to sell us after 4K. Isn't that close to the resolution limit of the human eye?
It just depends on the monitor size. 4k @ 40" might be a stretch.
#895 posted by [Kona] on 2016/01/15 01:04:31
Oh you guys don't think liquid cooling is necessary? Perhaps I'll downgrade it to the H80 instead, save $70. The CPU cooling is like the 4th most expensive thing I think!
Looked into pricing on monitors that go above 60hz and they're double the price. Yep think i'll just stick with my 60hz. or I could get a 60hz 4k 28" monitor: http://www.pbtech.co.nz/index.php?z=p&p=MONSAM9282&name=Samsung-LU28E590DSXY-28-UHD-3840x2160-1MS-Response
But I don't think the image quality is worth the price.
#896 posted by Rick on 2016/01/15 01:36:56
I used to be an AMD person and aftermarket coolers were pretty much a necessity. In 2007, starting with the Core2Duo, I switched to Intel. I've always just bought their boxed processors. They come with a heatsink and fan and a 5 year warranty. I've not had any problems at all.
Watercooling
#897 posted by DaZ on 2016/01/15 02:38:14
Strictly for overclockers IMO. A good quality aftermarket fan cooler is all you need! Don't use the stock cooler that comes with Intel CPUs they are shit
#898 posted by Rick on 2016/01/15 03:20:52
The stock Intel coolers are fine. I've used them on every computer I've built since 2007 and there have been zero processor or fan problems.
Overclocking
#899 posted by killpixel on 2016/01/15 04:01:25
I pretty much overclock everything but never watercool. Too much money, time and maintenance.
Configure your case correctly, use quality fans, sinks, etc. and you'll be just fine.
The first thing I did when I got my 4790k was delid it, level it via sanding and applied liquid ultra and OC'd it to 5ghz with great temps. That's probably a little excessive and not for everyone.
I just recently got my gtx980 to 1.5ghz core / 8ghz mem!!! the thing is a beast!!
@ Rick - In my experience, intel coolers are fine for typical consumer use in a well configured case. They tend to last quite a while. However, for anything beyond that, the performance simply isn't there.
#900 posted by necros on 2016/01/15 04:06:09
i still have one of these: http://www.thermaltake.com/products-model.aspx?id=C_00001476
been with me for 5 years (or more? it's been so long I can't remember). excellent cooler, super quiet, used on 3 CPUs so far. i'll be sad when the lga1150 socket goes away.
#901 posted by Rick on 2016/01/15 05:13:24
"typical consumer" Lol, well that pretty much describes me and everyone I've built a computer for in the last 20 years.
Games, movies, music, YouTube and random web browsing... yep, that just about covers it.
|