Quake3World

For my next PC I'll be upgrading my monitor from a CRT. OLED seems suitable, but yet to arrive (1). A huge size monitor to go with the new '4K', but LCD, really (2)?

(1) Dell UP3017Q ‘4K’ UHD OLED monitor

PC Monitors wrote:April 6, 2016 Update: Dell have confirmed to us that the model is currently being fine-tuned, so the original release date was missed. This will still be released in the not too distant future, will update as we can.

News piece initially published 6th January 2016:
https://pcmonitors.info/dell/dell-up301 ... d-monitor/

Looking to get one of these. What do you think the fine-tuning is going to change?


(2) Philips BDM4350UC 43" 3840x2160 IPS 4K 60Hz Widescreen LED Monitor

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/philips- ... 24-ph.html

Might get one of these, cause they're so big

Fill me in on the reasons the 43" Philips is somewhat unsuitable for my requirements.

So far I've got:

• No G-synch / Freesynch
• 5 ms response time
• LCD colour gamut, contrast ratio not on par with CRT or OLED. Number of colours: 16.7 million - so unlike the Dell OLED it doesn't support the wider gamut coming with '4K'.

4K you will need a super beefy graphics card (or two) to push that many pixels without framerate drops. You can buy a couple of GTX Titans if you have money to burn. Plus, many Windows apps don't support 4K so you'll get menus you won't be able to read. IMO, 4K isn't there yet, the monitors are nice but the rest of the hardware/software needs improvement.

Instead, I recently bought an Asus 2560x1440 IPS 144Hz monitor that I'm happy with.

unfortunately, best screens for FPS are not best for vidéo, photo editing etc.

So it depends on your usage.

you have to watch : response time but ghosting too, overdrive and Pulse Width Modulation

as said obsidian, video card is a key point.

obsidian wrote:You can buy a couple of GTX Titans if you have money to burn.

Or a GTX 1080
Or do like TotalBiscuit and get nVidia to send you two of 'em for free

I already have nVidia GeForce 9800 GT. Yes, it's quite old and obsolete, but still does quite good performace and it's definitely okay for retro games that run even faster than with original hardware For me, it's something I won't change 'till it dies. I bet my motherboard dies before the video card does And it's a long race to watch

But the pics are sooo beautiful and it looks really great I can only imagine how fast this monster can actually run

Well, a monitor doesn't have legs so it can't run very well.

I am sure monitors can run very well

The 1080s are only 8 Gb whereas the Titan Xs are 12 Gb, so better for 4K. Right?

I think Titan X is great for triple-screen setups.
If you want to run a single-screen setup for gaming the 1080 should be enough!

DTS wrote:The 1080s are only 8 Gb whereas the Titan Xs are 12 Gb, so better for 4K. Right?

Looking at benchmarks.... no, not right

Maybe this one, 24:10

LG 38UC99 38" 3840x1600 FREESYNC IPS 75Hz WideScreen Super-Wide Curved LED Monitor

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/lg-38uc9 ... 49-lg.html

still haven't bought anything yet?

get this. http://www.asus.com/ROG-Republic-Of-Gam ... FT-PG348Q/

It looks fucking obnoxious but everything else about it is excellent.

I am considering getting this one; no news on an EU/UK release yet, though:

Samsung 49" CHG90 QLED Gaming Monitor
49-inch super ultra-wide 32:9
Quantum dot technology and HDR support
3840x1080

http://www.samsung.com/us/computing/mon ... g90dmnxza/

32:9 3840x1080 is simmilar to having 2 16:9 1920x1080 monitors.

1080? lol

Don't bother with titans, just get the 1080tis

Yeah, Titans have no real advantage over Ti in games.

I concur.

Ever tried gaming on Pascal Ti?

Connecting two graphics cards is not a good idea because there is a very small performance jump (depending on the game from 5% to 20%). There is a lot of information confirming this thesis, it is better to sell two and buy one stronger graphics card. This decision may also be better for the next years. I have one question: Is there a noticeable difference between the 144Hz and 240Hz monitor? (As with 60 VS120 or 144 Hz). Maybe someone has such a monitor and can say.

I thought I kept up to date on 'tech', seems not as this is the first I've heard of 240Hz monitors. I did some reading up and found this article of some interest and I quote in part.....

The general consensus for 240Hz monitors seems to be that if your computer can reliably handle 240 frames in a game, it can be a worthwhile upgrade. This is only appropriate for 1920×1080 monitors at this point. It’ll be a long time before you’ll see 240hz 4K monitors.

Many consumer reviews and reports on 240Hz monitors suggest that the upgrade from 144Hz to 240Hz doesn’t quite offer that same jump in performance that going from 60Hz to 144Hz offers, but there is a noticeable difference.

240hz is pointless

If you're playing twitch shooters and can output that many FPS, 240Hz makes sense. Otherwise, you compromise in other features (resolution, image quality) just to hit that refresh rate.

I have a GSync 165Hz monitor and it's clocked down at 120Hz with Gsync off. For most of what I play that's a level of FPS I can sustain. Also, there's a slight lowering of latency at 120Hz that makes everything feel a little more 'connected'.

For Q3, sweet spot FPS locks are 125 and then 333 from memory. 240Hz might match up better with com_maxFPS 333 but I'm unclear if anyone plays with that setting - It feels a bit too floaty to me.