# Monitor for a high end gaming PC?

Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by Jody Hodgson, Apr 25, 2019.

1. ### munchkin1Member

Joined:
Jun 6, 2010
Messages:
4,472
I actually ordered one during the recent Dell sale, was discounted down to ~$1200. After ordering, my delivery date expanded 6 weeks so I cancelled it and grabbed the acer X34P from scorptec a few weeks ago at$1049, which is almost the same. Basically as an interim monitor until we see some proper good g-sync HDR monitors at around 38" and 3840x1600 res (possibly LG 38GL950-g...)

I'm happy with it as an interim;

1. I'm sold on ultrawide, it's FAR better for gaming and productivity
2. I will never buy a non g-sync monitor now (unless freesync improves on 48/52hz cutoffs)

I think 38inch ultrawide 3840x1600 (or higher) with g-sync HDR would be the ultimate for me

macktheknife likes this.
2. ### macktheknifeMember

Joined:
Jul 26, 2005
Messages:
713
I really wish you hadn't posted about that because now I want to move from my X34 to that.

144hz IPS 3840x1600. Mental.

Will probably cost $2500 here though. 3. ### MR CHILLEDD'oh! Joined: Jan 2, 2002 Messages: 142,067 Location: Omicron Persei 8 4. ### thedirkdigglerMember Joined: May 19, 2006 Messages: 367 this that the best atm without going 2k+ i am torn, i have a old dell 24 inch. But i know if i buy a good 144hz 1440p 34 inch ips panel better than anything will come out the day i buy 5. ### macktheknifeMember Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Messages: 713 I don't think you're going to get anything better anywhere near that price for a long time. 6. ### Sarge376Member Joined: Jul 20, 2017 Messages: 4 this is so true, i have the x34 (non p) and its been a beast perfomer especially considering your hardware can power it. macktheknife likes this. 7. ### AzzanMember Joined: May 31, 2009 Messages: 1,606 Location: Melbourne New gaming monitors for Pros.. 27" AOC Agon AG271FZ2 (1920x1080 TN panel, 240Hz refresh rate, 0.5ms response time) - https://www.amazon.com/AOC-AG271FZ2...S14Y8K8WTZZ&psc=1&refRID=MXWR3Q9MBS14Y8K8WTZZ 25" AOC Agon AG251FZ2 (1920x1080 TN panel, 240Hz refresh rate, 0.5ms response time) - https://www.amazon.com/AOC-AG251FZ2...ST52EEESTP6&psc=1&refRID=VGXKG6C84ST52EEESTP6 Low input lag and shadow control allows you to see and react faster AOC low Blue mode and flickers for wellbeing during extended gaming sessions AOC Shadow control shows more details in dark scenes without affecting the rest of the screen 8. ### MathuisellaMember Joined: Dec 3, 2002 Messages: 7,011 Location: in your gearbox...grindin For me, I cannot do TN. Colour reproduction as well as viewing angles of the TN next to an IPS is just garbage. 9. ### powerMember Joined: Apr 20, 2002 Messages: 59,303 Location: brisbane IPS slower for gaming. 10. ### MathuisellaMember Joined: Dec 3, 2002 Messages: 7,011 Location: in your gearbox...grindin I don't find it slower. Sure it doesn't have the refresh rate as the TN's these days, but meh. is he playing quake 3 deathmatches ? where they say you need 299 fps or some shit. I'll be playing wow classic, I'm very mych over my FPS phase, which was from Doom 2 to Call Of Duty 4. 11. ### powerMember Joined: Apr 20, 2002 Messages: 59,303 Location: brisbane it doesn't matter if you find it slower, it is slower. 12. ### SmegensteinMember Joined: Sep 12, 2008 Messages: 6,069 Location: Hobart - TAS "For Pros".....only 1080p? bruh.... we talking a matter of 4ms vs 1ms are we not? EDIT: https://www.pcgamer.com/au/ips-monitors-have-finally-reached-the-coveted-1ms-response-time/ Or we talking 1ms vs 1ms? Or did you mean something else? 13. ### AzzanMember Joined: May 31, 2009 Messages: 1,606 Location: Melbourne AFAIK real pro fps players like Toxjq(he's won world Quake tournament several times) all use 240Hz, 1ms, 1080p monitors. I've played against him few times on Crysis 3 and it was like playing against a bot.. and I think I'm better than 95+% of all Crysis players. I can give you YouTube link for my Crysis 3 gameplay and Toxjq's if you want. Last edited: Jul 4, 2019 14. ### SmegensteinMember Joined: Sep 12, 2008 Messages: 6,069 Location: Hobart - TAS Well shit, I stand corrected, had a bit of a peruse and it seems the better e-sports pro's all do indeed rock FHD: https://prosettings.net/rainbow-6-pro-settings-gear-list/ (R6 as an example, also checked out some CS players and the Toxjq bloke you mentioned) Azzan likes this. 15. ### macktheknifeMember Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Messages: 713 CS pros play on stupid resolutions as well like 800x600. If you're a 'hardcore' enthusiast then just stick to the fastest 1080p monitor you can afford and work around all the settings to get the best combination of FPS & visibility. 16. ### SmegensteinMember Joined: Sep 12, 2008 Messages: 6,069 Location: Hobart - TAS Yeah, I think I will still opt for 1440p for my next monitor (and IPS). Half the games I play are PVE, so I don't need that competitive edge, would prefer the extra pixel density macktheknife likes this. 17. ### AzzanMember Joined: May 31, 2009 Messages: 1,606 Location: Melbourne Heh that brings back some good memories.. playing against Toxjq on Crysis 3 DLC map was probably the most fun I ever I had on fps game.. here's my Crysis 3 compilation video(think I ran it on ~23-24" Samsung 120Hz LED TN panel with GTX580 Matrix or GTX670), and always ran the game at 1080p lowest settings so minimum fps always stayed above 100fps. and here's Crysis 3 clip of Toxjq's god like accuracy.. iirc he had highest kdr out of all Crysis 3 players and he always got accused for using aim bot Last edited: Jul 5, 2019 18. ### AzzanMember Joined: May 31, 2009 Messages: 1,606 Location: Melbourne Yer it comes down to the games you play, for RPG games like Diablo 3 you don't really need a 120+Hz monitor. Diablo 3 is super old and it only support 1080p res but for Diablo 4 you should have heaps more advantage if you use super high res monitor like Samsung CRG9 cos that way you'll be able to see mobs much sooner compared to 1080p. 19. ### MathuisellaMember Joined: Dec 3, 2002 Messages: 7,011 Location: in your gearbox...grindin fuck 1080p 1600P is where it's at. 4k screens take too much$ to drive adequately

1080p screens just aren't enough when you get to larger screen sizes above 19 inch

1440p screens are all 16:9, and are inherently flawed because of it, as that aspect ratio was only adopted for monitors for the sole reason of cost cutting in the 16:10 screen lineup, which is far more aesthetically pleasing on the eyes when viewing as it's the closest to the golden ratio of 1.618

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10_aspect_ratio

16:10 (8:5) is an aspect ratio mostly used for computer displays and tablet computers. The width of the display is 1.6 times its height. This ratio is close to the golden ratio " φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " which is approximately 1.618.

Also, 16:10 suits A4 pages best, 2 pages open on your screen just like a book.

I use 2x Dell 30 inch ultrasharps 3011 model with 2560*1600 resolution driven by a single 1070 GPU. No issues with games, movies or anything, it's been great.

Note: I have a Dell ultrasharp 2713 that's been retired as it was replaced with the 2nd 30" screen, it's now for sale

20. ### bobsledMember

Joined:
Sep 30, 2010
Messages:
306
Hell yeah! Rockin a U3011 here as well.