Author Topic: Looking to buy a new monitor, some opinions would be appreciated (Read 9461 times)

angelicajames · « **on:** May 30, 2019, 06:02:18 pm »

Looking to get either a 1920 x 1080 144Hz, a 2560 x 1080 60Hz monitor or a 2560 x 1440 60Hz.

I am SUPER interested in getting an ultra-widescreen, but not sure how well it works with poe which would be my main concern. I know some games freak out with odd resolutions, and if I'm forced to play 1920x1080 pillarboxed and locked at 60Hz then there's no point in me buying one, to begin with.

I have a 1920x1080 144Hz monitor as my main one right now, so what I buy will probably become my main one while what I currently have would be secondary. In all honesty, if 2560x1080 works then I'll 100% go for it, but otherwise, it would be nice to know if 2560x1440 works nicely with the game for you guys.

Simon · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2019, 06:13:12 pm »

To be honest i am doubful of people that claim that they can see faster than 60Hz but then I prabably have attention deficit. I tend to go for resolution over speed and prefer IPS, the LG monitors of which i own 1 are to be seen te be beleived.

cnering · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2019, 06:26:48 pm »

2560x1440 (16:9) is an incredibly common resolution. I've never played a game that didn't natively support it. 2560x1080 would be extremely wide and low res, I'm not sure you'd want a monitor like that.

The 30+ inch Ultrawides do seem to have relatively poor support, it depends on what games you play but I would expect at least a few of them to block off the sides of the monitor to fix the aspect ratio. I think even big ones like Overwatch still don't have full ultrawide support.

The gaming sweet spot right now is IPS 2560x1440 at 144hz. 4k is too many pixels to push at high refresh rates, and 1920x1080 is too low res to look crisp. Given that you have a 144hz monitor now I'm surprised you're even considering 60hz models, for most people (myself included) once you see 144hz you'll never go back to 60hz under any circumstances. It's just so much better.

Simon · « **Reply #3 on:** May 30, 2019, 06:29:37 pm »

4K is unneccessary for moving content. The only reason i use it is for text smoothness and general good experience of not being able to see the pixels.

cnering · « **Reply #4 on:** May 30, 2019, 06:56:43 pm »

Oh definitely, 4k looks gorgeous, I would just pass on it if the focus is more on gaming.

JxR · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2019, 07:18:12 pm »

Quote from: Simon on May 30, 2019, 06:13:12 pm

To be honest i am doubful of people that claim that they can see faster than 60Hz but then I prabably have attention deficit. I tend to go for resolution over speed and prefer IPS, the LG monitors of which i own 1 are to be seen te be beleived.

Your pretty much right. 144Hz monitor is honestly a waste of money and GPU processing power. 60Hz is enough for mere mortals, although this article would imply that its possible to notice a difference up to ~77Hz. I have no idea if there is more recent studies or better ones though.

http://news.mit.edu/2014/in-the-blink-of-an-eye-0116

Simon · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2019, 07:23:24 pm »

It's like the resolution thing, 4K is plenty unless you want a huge moniter that you will physically have to pan to see all of the content on like multi monitor setups now. I saw a videa by linus where people chose the faster monitor over the higher resolution but I really do not see how you can tell a 60Hz from a 144Hz if the image itself is moving. No more than i expect to watch 4K videa because my mind has plenty to go on with 1080 moving around.

JxR · « **Reply #7 on:** May 30, 2019, 07:33:06 pm »

I've had the same old Dell Ultra sharp 30" monitors for years now. Different versions, and bought at different times when they run their 50% off sales. Maybe one day I would get a 4k monitor, but then it would probably have to be 2x 4k. I would rather have more screen real estate than a single high-rez monitor. You can only make your desktop windows so small after all.

Simon · « **Reply #8 on:** May 30, 2019, 07:44:16 pm »

Well my point with resolution is that 4K is the max anyone will need as after that it is a waste of resolution unless it was say one huge 8K monitor that you intend to use as 4x 4K spaces. People often want more than they need and decide that they can tell thedifference to justify it. You wouli strauggle to spot a single pixel black pixel on a white background on a 1920x1080, 4K is therefor plenty. I have a 27" which I can sit close to and not see the pixels. I also have a 42.5" as my main monitor but I sit about 1m from it.

JxR · « **Reply #9 on:** May 30, 2019, 07:50:46 pm »

Yeah, I have laptops that are much higher rez than my desktop monitors. 4k would be great, and I get your point and agree with you about 8k. I would love to get some new monitors one day, just not a priority at the moment.

cnering · « **Reply #10 on:** May 30, 2019, 08:06:25 pm »

Have you guys actually tried 144hz monitors in games before? I'm completely shocked at your responses, the higher refresh rate is extremely noticeable in almost all situations. Even moving the mouse around on a 144hz monitor is VERY noticeably smoother. I've had my parents, my grandparents, and all of my friends use my monitor at 144hz, and without even mentioning it they all immediately noticed and commented on the smoothness. I think the only time you wouldn't notice the difference is in videos (their framerates don't change) and in animations. Even scrolling through webpages at 144hz is very noticeable.

In games it's even more surprising. The difference is astounding. I sincerely cannot see how anyone could think 60 and 144hz are the same, the experiences are just so wildly different. Looking around in an FPS at 144hz is a completely different experience than at 60hz. Everything is clear and sharp even under quick movement.

Simon · « **Reply #11 on:** May 30, 2019, 08:12:25 pm »

No i have not used 144Hz before. i suppose if you can see an LED blink at 50Hz then yes it perhaps makes a difference. I don't know if the jumping in scrolling web pages is the monitor or the PC/graphics rendering. On the whole i am happy with 60Hz.

JxR · « **Reply #12 on:** May 30, 2019, 08:15:57 pm »

Quote from: cnering on May 30, 2019, 08:06:25 pm

Have you guys actually tried 144hz monitors in games before? I'm completely shocked at your responses, the higher refresh rate is extremely noticeable in almost all situations. Even moving the mouse around on a 144hz monitor is VERY noticeably smoother. I've had my parents, my grandparents, and all of my friends use my monitor at 144hz, and without even mentioning it they all immediately noticed and commented on the smoothness. I think the only time you wouldn't notice the difference is in videos (their framerates don't change) and in animations. Even scrolling through webpages at 144hz is very noticeable.

In games it's even more surprising. The difference is astounding. I sincerely cannot see how anyone could think 60 and 144hz are the same, the experiences are just so wildly different. Looking around in an FPS at 144hz is a completely different experience than at 60hz. Everything is clear and sharp even under quick movement.

My response was based on neurological research from MIT, so I have to go with trusting the science that 144Hz is physically impossible for a human to notice. I did state that the research showed that humans may be able to see up to ~77Hz. I also stated that I had some old ass Dell 30" monitors, so I haven't used 144Hz either. But, based on the little research I did, not much would convince me that a human could see a difference in the 77-144Hz range (except better research).

I will also note, that I'm not current on the technology of these monitors. So, if say they work by drawing the top half of the screen, followed by the bottom half, then that would put the full screen refresh rate at 72Hz. Which would put the total refresh rate near the human limit. I will leave it to someone else to provide such data though if that is how they really function.

apis · « **Reply #13 on:** May 30, 2019, 08:26:08 pm »

On old CRTs the difference between 60 and 120 Hz refresh rate vas very noticeable, although CRTs are different beasts I wouldn't rule out that there could be some difference.

Simon · « **Reply #14 on:** May 30, 2019, 08:29:39 pm »

I think with CRT's it was about fliker and phosphor persistence, with LCD's that all goes away and all it is down to is how much we care about the refresh rate. I used a monitor on 30Hz rather than 60Hz when I first got it as the graphics card could not do 4K very well and I never noticed the difference. It was less laggy at 30Hz as the GPU could keep up better.

cnering · « **Reply #15 on:** May 30, 2019, 08:39:48 pm »

Quote from: JxR on May 30, 2019, 08:15:57 pm

My response was based on neurological research from MIT, so I have to go with trusting the science that 144Hz is physically impossible for a human to notice. I did state that the research showed that humans may be able to see up to ~77Hz. I also stated that I had some old ass Dell 30" monitors, so I haven't used 144Hz either. But, based on the little research I did, not much would convince me that a human could see a difference in the 77-144Hz range (except better research).

I will also note, that I'm not current on the technology of these monitors. So, if say they work by drawing the top half of the screen, followed by the bottom half, then that would put the full screen refresh rate at 72Hz. Which would put the total refresh rate near the human limit. I will leave it to someone else to provide such data though if that is how they really function.

I think that study is showing something different. It's not saying that humans couldn't tell a different in refresh rate above 75hz, it's saying that showing humans images at a rate of 75hz was about as fast as you could go before the brain couldn't process it in time to tell what it was. If you showed someone an image for 1/72nd of a second, they had a pretty good chance of being able to tell you what it was. Showing them the same image for 1/100th of a second, they couldn't.

That's not at all the same as saying 144hz isn't noticeably smoother than 60hz.

JxR · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2019, 08:48:48 pm »

Quote from: cnering on May 30, 2019, 08:39:48 pm

I think that study is showing something different. It's not saying that humans couldn't tell a different in refresh rate above 75hz, it's saying that showing humans images at a rate of 75hz was about as fast as you could go before the brain couldn't process it in time to tell what it was. If you showed someone an image for 1/72nd of a second, they had a pretty good chance of being able to tell you what it was. Showing them the same image for 1/100th of a second, they couldn't.

That's not at all the same as saying 144hz isn't noticeably smoother than 60hz.

If you can find reputable research data that supports your claim, I'm certainly open to reading it. Simply disagreeing with the data is not enough to convince me though. I do believe that you think you see a difference. You shouldn't feel obligated to try and disprove the data if you don't really want to. I also don't really feel like connecting to my university library at the moment to see if I can find anything better, but I'm always open to the possibility that more accurate data exists.

nctnico · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2019, 08:56:31 pm »

Quote from: JxR on May 30, 2019, 08:15:57 pm

Quote from: cnering on May 30, 2019, 08:06:25 pm
Have you guys actually tried 144hz monitors in games before? I'm completely shocked at your responses, the higher refresh rate is extremely noticeable in almost all situations. Even moving the mouse around on a 144hz monitor is VERY noticeably smoother. I've had my parents, my grandparents, and all of my friends use my monitor at 144hz, and without even mentioning it they all immediately noticed and commented on the smoothness. I think the only time you wouldn't notice the difference is in videos (their framerates don't change) and in animations. Even scrolling through webpages at 144hz is very noticeable.

In games it's even more surprising. The difference is astounding. I sincerely cannot see how anyone could think 60 and 144hz are the same, the experiences are just so wildly different. Looking around in an FPS at 144hz is a completely different experience than at 60hz. Everything is clear and sharp even under quick movement.

My response was based on neurological research from MIT, so I have to go with trusting the science that 144Hz is physically impossible for a human to notice.

What research? You have to be a bit skeptical when it comes to research about how fast people can discriminate what they see because the test setup typically used for these kind of tests isn't always perfect. At one of my former employers I created a setup using a fast LCD screen instead of the (traditional) computer monitor and the results measured using a light sensor where quite different. The LCD screen was able to get to significantly better defined exposure times than possible with the monitor. It did take some convincing towards the researcher to show the test setup my collegue and I had created was better.

And then there are individual differences between people. Some can't deal with low refresh rates and you have to respect that.

ogden · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2019, 09:06:25 pm »

Quote from: JxR on May 30, 2019, 08:15:57 pm

My response was based on neurological research from MIT, so I have to go with trusting the science that 144Hz is physically impossible for a human to notice.

I would go for experience of huge eSports industry rather than "science" of MIT students team.

JxR · « **Reply #19 on:** May 30, 2019, 09:24:18 pm »

Quote from: ogden on May 30, 2019, 09:06:25 pm

I would go for experience of huge eSports industry rather than "science" of MIT students team.

Why would you assume that it is students??

Quote from: nctnico on May 30, 2019, 08:56:31 pm

What research?

Attached. I'm not a neurologist, nor do I claim to study in this field. Like I said, if any one has a research paper that is better, more accurate, more relevant, etc. please by all means provide it. I always like learning, and could care less about being proven wrong. Not that I really look at it that way, its not MY research after all.

ogden · « **Reply #20 on:** May 30, 2019, 10:08:20 pm »

Quote from: JxR on May 30, 2019, 09:24:18 pm

Quote from: ogden on May 30, 2019, 09:06:25 pm
I would go for experience of huge eSports industry rather than "science" of MIT students team.

Why would you assume that it is students??

Ok, scientists. Whatever. That research is about "eye fixation periods". I agree to whatever they did find while flashing images in front of people. Image flashing and smooth, lag-less movements of picture elements are completely different things. It does not matter that your brain most likely do not register every frame shown, it does not need to. Timing of those frames that are registered - matter. 60Hz refresh means 16.6ms lag. Imagine table tennis player wearing 16.6ms -delay glasses while playing. He will fail miserably against one who do not wear said glasses.

Those who have definite opinion that 144Hz refresh is pointless - better try some FPS shooter @144Hz first, only then decide.

JxR · « **Reply #21 on:** May 30, 2019, 10:30:25 pm »

Unfortunately, since I moved back to the US about 5 years ago the one thing I have been convinced of is this: That people can literally convince themselves of anything. I'm a skeptic because I'm forced to be. I also totally believe that you feel like you see a difference. What I'm trying to ascertain is at what actual rate is that difference seen. So far, I'm still the only one that provided data. I don't think my personal opinion really counts, nor has anyone in this thread convinced me theirs does either.

Nctnico related his experience in an improper experiment setup and I completely can see the validity of that. I also realize that there is not going to be a perfect number, and there are going to be some outliers (I would expect the younger the person the faster they may be able to process the visual data as well).

Regardless there is going to be an average limit, to our eye/brain where buying a faster monitor truly buys you nothing, and it is just a marketing ploy. Is that at: 77Hz, 90Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, etc? Your experience with FPS vs scientific research just isn't going to do it for me. If 80Hz was your hypothetical limit, and unless you used monitors in multiple ranges of refresh speeds between 60Hz-144Hz, how would you actually know that 144Hz is better than say 81Hz? I'm not trying to condescend, and if you feel personally attacked by this: "science", well not really sure what to say to that. You've obviously convinced yourself that your monitor is superior, so just go with it and be happy. I'm just trying to learn.

The research data does already show that 144Hz is better than 60Hz because we can detect images faster than 60Hz. So maybe that is all that should really matter here for most. Personally though, if 80Hz was fast enough I would rather use less GPU time. It is probably a moot point if most of the monitors on the market faster than 60Hz are 144Hz though.

JxR · « **Reply #22 on:** May 30, 2019, 11:06:13 pm »

Quote from: ogden on May 30, 2019, 09:06:25 pm

Timing of those frames that are registered - matter. 60Hz refresh means 16.6ms lag. Imagine table tennis player wearing 16.6ms -delay glasses while playing. He will fail miserably against one who do not wear said glasses.

I re-read this and I think I better understand what you are saying. Your computer is running the game at say 80FPS, but your monitor has a set refresh rate for when that next frame can actually appear regardless of the game's frame rate. If the timing is off at just the right moment, you may be able to notice a skip. I'm I understanding you correctly?

ogden · « **Reply #23 on:** May 30, 2019, 11:06:55 pm »

Quote from: JxR on May 30, 2019, 10:30:25 pm

Regardless there is going to be an average limit, to our eye/brain where buying a faster monitor truly buys you nothing, and it is just a marketing ploy. Is that at: 77Hz, 90Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, etc? Your experience with FPS vs scientific research just isn't going to do it for me.

Sure. Then listen to pro eSports gamers. Proof that gamers benefit from 144Hz compared to 60Hz is all over internet.

Quote

If 80Hz was your hypothetical limit, and unless you used monitors in multiple ranges of refresh speeds between 60Hz-144Hz, how would you actually know that 144Hz is better than say 81Hz?

You just take fast monitor, run game at it's max frame rate, then reconfigure it to "standard 60Hz" to be blown away. It is hard to tell, you have to experience it. Unless you try it - there's nothing much to discuss. Just go to computer store and try for gods sake! - The same about swimming, girls or virtually anything - you do not know what it is until you try it yourself.

Quote

I'm not trying to condescend, and if you feel personally attacked by this: "science", well not really sure what to say to that.

LOL I am not attacked. Actually I did comment that research in my previous post.

Quote

You've obviously convinced yourself that your monitor is superior, so just go with it and be happy. I'm just trying to learn.

I had 120Hz CRT monitor when I was playing Quake and UT. Now I don't game, thus do not need anything better than 60Hz IPS wide gamut.

JxR · « **Reply #24 on:** May 30, 2019, 11:14:18 pm »

Thanks, and please see my last post. I think I may have had a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say, and hoping that what I wrote is coming closer to what you are trying to explain. At-least I think it does. I hardly play FPS anymore, but if I get a chance to try out one of these monitors I will certainly approach it with an open mind.

rdl · « **Reply #25 on:** June 11, 2019, 11:06:43 am »

As someone who started gaming when 1024x768 was pure heaven and hard to attain, it's amazing that people these days consider 1920x1080 as being too low.

tpowell1830 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 11, 2019, 11:58:47 am »

I bought my 240 Hz. refresh television monitor at Costco where there were multiple variations of the same monitor playing the same video. I noticed a distinct smoothness to the one that had 240 Hz. refresh rate. BTW, there was no sales person steering me at Costco and I made my own side by side comparisons without looking at specs. The one that I thought had a better picture, especially during action scenes, was the 240 Hz model. I know this is anecdotal, but this is the reason we choose a monitor. I never go and study the reports and specs of any monitor when I pick one. I had no idea that this monitor was 240 Hz refresh until after my side-by-side comparisons.

Scientific studies mean nothing in the real world where viewing and seeing is concerned, we like what we like, regardless of hype. That is not to say that a percentage of the world will listen to other people or sources in decision making, but there are many among us who merely want the best and by side-by-side testing/viewing can make a decision based on the comparison. This is how I pick every monitor that I buy. When it comes to computers/laptops, however, I do use a spec driven logic because these are very important when choosing a tool, but choosing a monitor is based on viewing and size. That is why I like shopping for monitors at places like Costco or Fry's because the monitors are often playing the same feed. The best is subjective when it comes to viewing, everyone is different.

By and large people buy what appeals to them and the specs may prove out the differences, but quality is often a subjective experience. Some people are steered to a particular model or spec by friends or family. If it looks better for you, then it IS better for you. Then there are some people who buy down to a price only, go figure. Bottom line here is that until you see the monitor in action, with actual video or gaming play, you will not know if it is a good choice for you. I have had my 55" monitor for a year now and I am happy with its' performance.

Just my 2 cents...

EDIT: And yes, this is an opinion.

Raj · « **Reply #27 on:** June 22, 2019, 07:12:02 am »

consider it-http://emerythacks.blogspot.ca/2013/04/connecting-ipad-retina-lcd-to-pc.html

brucehoult · « **Reply #28 on:** June 25, 2019, 07:38:49 am »

Quote from: JxR on May 30, 2019, 07:33:06 pm

I've had the same old Dell Ultra sharp 30" monitors for years now. Different versions, and bought at different times when they run their 50% off sales. Maybe one day I would get a 4k monitor, but then it would probably have to be 2x 4k. I would rather have more screen real estate than a single high-rez monitor. You can only make your desktop windows so small after all.

Yes, I had an original Apple 30" 2560x1600 (bought used about five years old) for many years. About 15 months ago I bought the Dell equivalent. It was *still* even now about NZ$2000. In comparison 32" 4k monitors are about a third of the price and just as good or better in everything except professional colour calibration. I have several Samsung U32J590 which go for $399 here in the USA. They're fantastic for programming. The only thing is that (in Ubuntu) I need to bump my terminal and emacs fonts up from Ubuntu-mono-9 to Ubuntu-mono-10 to save my poor old 56 year old eyes, and hit ctrl-+ to get maybe 120% on a few web pages too. A full-height emacs window shows 148 lines of code, which is superb, and significantly more than you get on a 1600 high monitor with 9 pt font.

I would not buy a 4k monitor in 28" or smaller size. You have to bump the font sizes too much, and the 32" monitors are very reasonably priced.

Halcyon · « **Reply #29 on:** June 25, 2019, 10:24:31 am »

I would be recommending 2560x1600 as a minimum. I currently use a Dell UltraSharp U3011 and 2560x1600 is its native resolution. I find that at this resolution, I'm still running out of screen real estate for the multiple windows I have open. Windows and text also looks large (I'm sitting about 50-60 cm away from it). The only reason I haven't bought a 4K monitor is because this display is just gorgeous to look at.

If your eyesight is less than average, I would recommend a larger monitor (but still at the higher resolutions).

brucehoult · « **Reply #30 on:** June 25, 2019, 10:28:45 pm »

Quote from: 3roomlab on June 25, 2019, 09:20:37 am

2560x1600 30inch, I think this pixel per inch (ppi) is high. I would be squinting. if it comes in 47inches, that makes the ppi really good.

That's only 100 ppi, almost exactly the same as an ancient 1280x960 16".

A 3840x2160 32" is 137.7 ppi, right about the same as the 133 ppi 1920x1600 17" laptops I've been using since the late 2000's. It's nowhere near "retina".

3roomlab · « **Reply #31 on:** June 26, 2019, 05:01:36 am »

Quote from: brucehoult on June 25, 2019, 10:28:45 pm

Quote from: 3roomlab on June 25, 2019, 09:20:37 am
2560x1600 30inch, I think this pixel per inch (ppi) is high. I would be squinting. if it comes in 47inches, that makes the ppi really good.

That's only 100 ppi, almost exactly the same as an ancient 1280x960 16".

A 3840x2160 32" is 137.7 ppi, right about the same as the 133 ppi 1920x1600 17" laptops I've been using since the late 2000's. It's nowhere near "retina".

you are trying to say that a screen with near retina levels of resolution (about 330ppi) is the best display and/or provides best viewing comfort?

edit : If the PPI is too high, you end up sizing up the fonts. If the screen is too small and too much info is crammed into a tiny screen, you end up moving your face up to it and sticking your eye to the screen. Then touch screens ended up with finger zoom features (or ctrl mouse wheel zoom). We all tend to use this zoom to sit back and zoom it up. Which then defeat the purpose of really high PPI. If truly high PPI viewing up close is the natural way for us, then our vision should improve over time with continous use and we should not get fatigue over it at all.

I think it is just really weird (or cleverly exploitative?). We are being bombarded by huge amount of ads about high PPI (or in passive ways?) and high FPS, when we get them, we need powerful hundred watt GFX to drive them, but when we really want to see any detail, we will ctrl mouse wheel to zoom and we replay them in slow motion +freeze frame (or zoom and freeze).

(sorry I sound like a large screen low PPI advocate/dictator)

brucehoult · « **Reply #32 on:** June 26, 2019, 05:25:51 am »

Quote from: 3roomlab on June 26, 2019, 05:01:36 am

Quote from: brucehoult on June 25, 2019, 10:28:45 pm
Quote from: 3roomlab on June 25, 2019, 09:20:37 am
2560x1600 30inch, I think this pixel per inch (ppi) is high. I would be squinting. if it comes in 47inches, that makes the ppi really good.

That's only 100 ppi, almost exactly the same as an ancient 1280x960 16".

A 3840x2160 32" is 137.7 ppi, right about the same as the 133 ppi 1920x1600 17" laptops I've been using since the late 2000's. It's nowhere near "retina".

you are trying to say that a screen with near retina levels of resolution (about 330ppi) is the best display and/or provides best viewing comfort?

Where on Earth did you find that in what I said?

3roomlab · « **Reply #33 on:** June 26, 2019, 05:30:32 am »

Quote from: brucehoult on June 26, 2019, 05:25:51 am

Where on Earth did you find that in what I said?

I have a question mark in my sentence

brucehoult · « **Reply #34 on:** June 26, 2019, 06:14:52 am »

Quote from: 3roomlab on June 26, 2019, 05:30:32 am

Quote from: brucehoult on June 26, 2019, 05:25:51 am

Where on Earth did you find that in what I said?

I have a question mark in my sentence

I did not express or imply any opinion on the desirability or otherwise of "retina" in my posts.

I simply pointed out that the resolutions and sizes being discussed are quite low and standard PPI.

ebclr · « **Reply #35 on:** June 26, 2019, 07:25:09 am »

I won this monitor

https://www.asus.com/Monitors/ROG-Strix-XG32VQ/

And is a perfect monitor for me, taste one

nctnico · « **Reply #36 on:** June 26, 2019, 09:12:49 pm »

Quote from: 3roomlab on June 26, 2019, 05:01:36 am

Quote from: brucehoult on June 25, 2019, 10:28:45 pm
Quote from: 3roomlab on June 25, 2019, 09:20:37 am
2560x1600 30inch, I think this pixel per inch (ppi) is high. I would be squinting. if it comes in 47inches, that makes the ppi really good.

That's only 100 ppi, almost exactly the same as an ancient 1280x960 16".

A 3840x2160 32" is 137.7 ppi, right about the same as the 133 ppi 1920x1600 17" laptops I've been using since the late 2000's. It's nowhere near "retina".
you are trying to say that a screen with near retina levels of resolution (about 330ppi) is the best display and/or provides best viewing comfort?

(sorry I sound like a large screen low PPI advocate/dictator)

I'd be careful with very high resolution screens especially in an engineering environment. There is still a ton of software out there which draws single pixel lines (schematic entry for example). Those lines will be hard to see. For engineering a doth pitch of 0.27mm (93ppi) is a good choice IMHO.

brucehoult · « **Reply #37 on:** June 26, 2019, 10:33:44 pm »

Quote from: nctnico on June 26, 2019, 09:12:49 pm

Quote from: 3roomlab on June 26, 2019, 05:01:36 am
Quote from: brucehoult on June 25, 2019, 10:28:45 pm
Quote from: 3roomlab on June 25, 2019, 09:20:37 am
2560x1600 30inch, I think this pixel per inch (ppi) is high. I would be squinting. if it comes in 47inches, that makes the ppi really good.

That's only 100 ppi, almost exactly the same as an ancient 1280x960 16".

A 3840x2160 32" is 137.7 ppi, right about the same as the 133 ppi 1920x1600 17" laptops I've been using since the late 2000's. It's nowhere near "retina".
you are trying to say that a screen with near retina levels of resolution (about 330ppi) is the best display and/or provides best viewing comfort?

(sorry I sound like a large screen low PPI advocate/dictator)
I'd be careful with very high resolution screens especially in an engineering environment. There is still a ton of software out there which draws single pixel lines (schematic entry for example). Those lines will be hard to see. For engineering a doth pitch of 0.27mm (93ppi) is a good choice IMHO.

I'm utterly lost here.

3roomlab said "2560x1600 30inch, I think this pixel per inch (ppi) is high. I would be squinting"

I point out that this is only 100 ppi, which is perfectly fine.

3roomlab then puts words in my mouth that I'm somehow advocating 330 ppi.

nctnico then says to avoid high ppi screens, and says that 93 ppi is good for engineering.

I will again point out that 2650x1600 30" is 100 ppi, which is virtually indistinguishable from 93 ppi and is, I think, a great resolution and size for programmers and engineers.

james_s · « **Reply #38 on:** June 26, 2019, 10:54:02 pm »

4k is nice with a huge monitor, the problem is that there is a sort of arms race where resolutions are increasing and UI elements in software are getting correspondingly larger thus negating the advantage of higher resolution, that being to fit more information on the same size screen.

I think your best bet is start scouring reviews on Amazon and other tech sites then shop around for the best price. There are lots of nice monitors these days, in fact it's harder than ever to find a really bad one. They are out there though so beware, they got new monitors at a former job I had and they were horrible. I got awful eyestrain looking at them and wasn't really sure why. Then I figured out that the backlights used PWM dimming at a relatively low frequency. I couldn't so much see the flicker as just feel discomfort from looking at it. A few other guys in the office had the same complaint, a lot of other people couldn't see it at all and thought we were making it up.

3roomlab · « **Reply #39 on:** June 27, 2019, 01:10:09 pm »

Quote from: brucehoult on June 26, 2019, 10:33:44 pm

3roomlab then puts words in my mouth that I'm somehow advocating 330 ppi.

I am sorry that you have chosen that deduction

a 71ppi screen is what I use, a 12point font is roughly 7/10 size in 100ppi, the difference is quite obvious (just zoom your browser to 70-80%). @138ppi ... now this will be tiny.
but the bulk of the problem will come as most people have their keyboard on the desk and the screen is right there about 2 or 3 foot away. your eyeballs are slightly turned inwards to focus on the screen. if you move out to 5feet, some may notice a difference in the "inward turning" strain. some may like their eyes to be more relaxed, some may not even feel it.
the twisted naked eye sensation of looking at tiny smd for long hours with no optics. the cross eye effect.
it is the reason why people chose to use optics, blow it up bigger. look at it on a huge screen for hours with relaxed eyes sitting at 5 10 15 feet away.
on post #36, the ROG 30" is the same price as 55" on amazon. I will sell that ROG and buy the 55" 4k, but to retain 71ppi, this is more likely to be 65".

james_s · « **Reply #40 on:** June 27, 2019, 03:49:13 pm »

I typically have my browser zoomed out to 70-65%. It helps a bit to mitigate the pixel inflation that plagues modern design but it also breaks some pages somewhat.

David Hess · « **Reply #41 on:** June 27, 2019, 05:45:52 pm »

The first thing I look for in a monitor is wide horizontal and vertical viewing angle which goes with IPS and better panels.

ogden · « **Reply #42 on:** July 05, 2019, 07:46:59 pm »

240Hz vs 60Hz tests:

https://youtu.be/tV8P6T5tTYs

BrianHG · « **Reply #43 on:** July 22, 2019, 12:39:23 am »

If your PCB cad-ing, since most PCB software doesn't render the with 4x or higher anti-aliasing during routing, so, the higher the resolution, the better. Reading .pdf document will be a blessing. 60Hz is fine unless you specifically want specialized high speed gaming.

Going for a gaming monitor also means a much more expensive video card, especially if you want true 4k uncompressed color as such monitor have their higher refresh rates smear out the high saturated colored pixels to every 2 horizontal pixels. This kills that 4k boost for your PCB work to half quality as when you work on PCBs with their layers shown with traces illustrated in pure saturated colors becoming bulky blurry 2 pixel wide chunks. (A pitfall of many who buy economic 4k screens who claim 144hz support, yet with video and gaming, many just don't notice or care.)

Simon · « **Reply #44 on:** July 22, 2019, 06:32:50 am »

Quote from: ogden on July 05, 2019, 07:46:59 pm

240Hz vs 60Hz tests:

https://youtu.be/tV8P6T5tTYs

From the internets favourite crap peddaler. He is totally un technical and not equiped to deal with much other than plugging cards into motherboards, I unsubscribed as I got fed up with their brain dead videos full of misconceptions.

Simon · « **Reply #45 on:** July 22, 2019, 06:34:33 am »

Quote from: BrianHG on July 22, 2019, 12:39:23 am

If your PCB cad-ing, since most PCB software doesn't render the with 4x or higher anti-aliasing during routing, so, the higher the resolution, the better. Reading .pdf document will be a blessing. 60Hz is fine unless you specifically want specialized high speed gaming.

Going for a gaming monitor also means a much more expensive video card, especially if you want true 4k uncompressed color as such monitor have their higher refresh rates smear out the high saturated colored pixels to every 2 horizontal pixels. This kills that 4k boost for your PCB work to half quality as when you work on PCBs with their layers shown with traces illustrated in pure saturated colors becoming bulky blurry 2 pixel wide chunks. (A pitfall of many who buy economic 4k screens who claim 144hz support, yet with video and gaming, many just don't notice or care.)

I still don't buy over 60Hz, it's not the CRT scenario anymore, we are not relying on phosphor percistence. The image will remain until changed so the refrest rate is just about how often the image is changed.

SiliconWizard · « **Reply #46 on:** July 22, 2019, 01:17:58 pm »

Yeah. Whereas LCD panels don't suffer from the brightness decay of pixels as on CRTs, they are still affected by the opposite problem: persistence. Not all panels are created equal. Excessive persistence will definitely be noticeable on fast moving images. It's not directly related to the refresh rate, although obviously any serious manufacturer wouldn't build and market a panel supporting 144Hz refresh rate or higher if its inherent persistence doesn't allow it. That wouldn't make any sense (not saying that some lousy manufacturers don't do that...)

Now on the refresh rate itself, whereas 60Hz is completely unnoticeable for most humans on a decent LCD panel with still images, this is not the case for fast moving images. At 60Hz, this is a ~16.67ms period. This is significant and most of us can definitely perceive a difference compared to higher refresh rates. Again on fast moving images. Our peripheral neural system performs much better (and faster) at discerning "changes" and "contrasts" than at discerning absolute values.

Of course if your main use is CAD and office software, a high refresh rate would be completely useless.

David Hess · « **Reply #47 on:** July 22, 2019, 03:46:57 pm »

Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 22, 2019, 01:17:58 pm

Now on the refresh rate itself, whereas 60Hz is completely unnoticeable for most humans on a decent LCD panel with still images, this is not the case for fast moving images. At 60Hz, this is a ~16.67ms period. This is significant and most of us can definitely perceive a difference compared to higher refresh rates. Again on fast moving images. Our peripheral neural system performs much better (and faster) at discerning "changes" and "contrasts" than at discerning absolute values.

Is that because of the refresh rate or because the latency on some monitors is multiple frames in duration?

SiliconWizard · « **Reply #48 on:** July 22, 2019, 04:38:15 pm »

A several-frame latency would of course make things even more obvious.

But I can assure you that you can perceive a difference, depending on each individual, down to a couple ms when the image is moving so fast that each frame is different enough from the other. Again that's because of our ability to sense differences much faster, but much less accurately than static events. Of course we can't "see" individual frames, but we can perceive a change happening pretty quickly. Same with many other species. Probably to optimize the detection of a danger rather than getting an accurate analysis of it.

Of course that means that the underlying video stream would actually generate video with changing frames faster on the faster refresh rate. If you're feeding a 144Hz display with only 60fps or so, it's not going to be any better. It's probably going to actually look worse.

Except for the decreased latency and usually shorter persistence that comes with panels with higher refresh rates, that you can notice, if the computer only streams video to it with actual frames that are not updated as fast as the refresh rate, it will not make a difference obviously.

So yeah pretty much the only applications where you're bound to be exposed to this difference are games. Keeping the following in mind though IMO:

First, the game in question must be able to generate frames at the elevated refresh rate. With modern games and high resolution, this would often require a monster graphics card and CPU, and a very well written game engine.

Second, and probably most important for the average user: even though many people, as I said above, are able to perceive a difference with increased frame rates when looking at fast moving images, when they are focused playing a game, which is usually a pretty intense focus, they won't necessarily be able to notice any difference because their brain will be focused on something else entirely. So whether it makes a difference in real use cases, is, I admit, questionable.

Apart from how we perceive fast moving images (with movements appearing possibly smoother with higher frame rates, etc), latency itself would make a difference.
Many people can definitely perceive even a 16ms latency between a physical action on a button and the result of this action on screen. Well written games have rich graphics effects that help make this latency not very noticeable though. Tricks!

And then you can expect an overall latency when playing a game on a typical computer, between the action on a game pad, and the reaction on screen, that is significantly higher than just the display latency itself, so again here... yes this makes an objective difference. But will you notice it?

Simon · « **Reply #49 on:** July 22, 2019, 04:53:43 pm »

I'm still not buying it, you talk as though you can process over 60 images per second. So how about you run 60 different images per second past your eye and tell me what some of them are......

With the capabilities of graphics now and the huge bluray capacity why is the film industry not rushing to 60Hz and has remained at 30 - ish Hz?

What is the average movement is a scene? how many pixels does stuff actually mave frame to frame? on HD? as 4K does not support these speeds.

ogden · « **Reply #50 on:** July 22, 2019, 05:17:04 pm »

Quote from: Simon on July 22, 2019, 04:53:43 pm

I'm still not buying it, you talk as though you can process over 60 images per second. So how about you run 60 different images per second past your eye and tell me what some of them are......

You can't tell every image shown even at 24fps. Does it prove that 144Hz refresh of even 60Hz is pointless? - Hell no. As I already said - for few decades gaming industry and top FPS gamers proves that there is gain from > 60Hz refresh. It is not about processing different images per second. Your vision does not work like video camera.

Simon · « **Reply #51 on:** July 22, 2019, 05:34:04 pm »

True, another way of looking at it is what angular speed can we perceive. people will always want more but for eample 8K video is a complete waste of time..... in the same vein what is the smallest angle per second that can be appreciated.

Marco · « **Reply #52 on:** July 22, 2019, 05:41:34 pm »

Quote from: Simon on July 22, 2019, 04:53:43 pm

With the capabilities of graphics now and the huge bluray capacity why is the film industry not rushing to 60Hz and has remained at 30 - ish Hz?

People associate high framerate with television and thus lower quality. So they'd rather have a juddery mess which looks awful on each pan and which makes Michael Bay movies even worse than they have to be (you could follow the action of shaky cam a lot better at higher framerates).

The minimum framerate necessary to get rid of judder is the same as the flicker limit, so around 70 Hz for most people. But only for stroboscopic displays, capture and hold displays need far higher framerates for smooth motion (240 Hz TV's are generally a bit of both, motion compensated upconversion to 120 Hz with a strobing backlight ... which in marketing speak is then translated to 240 Hz).

Simon · « **Reply #53 on:** July 22, 2019, 06:01:44 pm »

Well TV was always 25/30Hz, they just drew the pictures as half pictures at 50/60Hz to stay in syc with the grid, if they could do real 50/60Hz there would be no interlacing, it was a trick to get higher frame rates than the transmission bandwidth could take.

Marco · « **Reply #54 on:** July 22, 2019, 06:07:14 pm »

A 50/60 Hz interlaced video is not 25/30 Hz in any meaningful way. You can encode 25/30 Hz in it, but that's it.

ogden · « **Reply #55 on:** July 22, 2019, 06:10:34 pm »

Quote from: Simon on July 22, 2019, 05:34:04 pm

True, another way of looking at it is what angular speed can we perceive. people will always want more but for eample 8K video is a complete waste of time..... in the same vein what is the smallest angle per second that can be appreciated.

Yes, 8K seems to be overkill in any case except professional imaging/editing or whatever which I do not care about anyway. FPS gamers trade resolution for refresh, for example Tfue plays Fortnite looking at 1920x1080 @ 240Hz.

Quote from: Marco on July 22, 2019, 05:41:34 pm

With the capabilities of graphics now and the huge bluray capacity why is the film industry not rushing to 60Hz and has remained at 30 - ish Hz?

Mostly because 48fps film does not feel like film, it looks too good

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_rates

Some considerations here:
https://www.tested.com/art/movies/452387-48-fps-and-beyond-how-high-frame-rates-affect-perception/

Quote from: Simon on July 22, 2019, 06:01:44 pm

Well TV was always 25/30Hz, they just drew the pictures as half pictures at 50/60Hz to stay in syc with the grid, if they could do real 50/60Hz there would be no interlacing, it was a trick to get higher frame rates than the transmission bandwidth could take.

Sure. Yet today we can watch some 60p HD sports channels.

BrianHG · « **Reply #56 on:** July 22, 2019, 07:07:00 pm »

Quote from: Simon on July 22, 2019, 04:53:43 pm

With the capabilities of graphics now and the huge bluray capacity why is the film industry not rushing to 60Hz and has remained at 30 - ish Hz?

What is the average movement is a scene? how many pixels does stuff actually mave frame to frame? on HD? as 4K does not support these speeds.

Not I'm not knocking on your argument about 60fps being fast enough, it is, but:

1. When watching movies at 24fps, you are a passive observer and the film has motion blur smoothing out the image which aids the mind in a smooth motion interpretation.

2. LCD screens have an additional 1 frame delay, making a 24 or 30fps setup look like a cartoon delayed animation when working on a PC, especially when manually routing/editing PCBs.

3. Have you experienced 60fps cinema? Some IMAX releases have it and the motion is smooth as silk.

4. Get a gaming mouse for your PC, even with a 60fps monitor, the window dragging and board manual routing is just 10x more slick and smooth. If you really want it, yes a lower res 120hz, 20x smoother display, with a gaming mouse is even better. (If you do not own a true high refresh/poll rate low latency gaming mouse, any high fps responsive screen is TRULY a waste of your money. I will just jerk around like a random stuttering 30hz-50hz screen. Any potential windows internal mouse poll rate update upsampling which may be used on normal mouses just messes up the hand motion connection to the screen experience. (I still miss the connective feel from hand motion to display my overclocked Amiga had with it's parallel mouse port interface updating every single V-Sync without fail.))

My recommendation, 60hz is enough, but still invest in a gaming mouse and use it's gaming drivers.

Oh, and I've been paid good money to create a quality 1080i to 1080p upsampler which regenerates an interpreted true progressive 60fps, not 30fps. In fact, I could not sell 30fps, since even bottom end TVs today use motion adaptive de-interlacing converting 1080i60 fields per second to 1080p60fps. I wonder why everyone has gone through the trouble is 30fps or 24fps is fast enough.

Simon · « **Reply #57 on:** July 22, 2019, 08:01:34 pm »

IF 60FPS is fast enough for film why do videa games want more? I would have thought that interactive stuff care more about latency than throuput?

ogden · « **Reply #58 on:** July 22, 2019, 08:43:38 pm »

Quote from: Simon on July 22, 2019, 08:01:34 pm

IF 60FPS is fast enough for film why do videa games want more?

Watching movies you do not track your targets with crosshairs - that's why. Also not every video game wants more than 60fps, not every recreational player will benefit from > 60FPS even playing demanding games. My suggestion here stands - go to gaming hardware store and try some shooter game on 60Hz, then 144Hz or 240Hz. Now you are talking about food you never even tasted. How do you know?! - You can't.

Quote

I would have thought that interactive stuff care more about latency than throuput?

They both matter. Don't buy 144Hz monitor with 25ms response time - if such exist. 60Hz monitor with 1ms response time does not beat 144Hz monitors with 4ms - because total latency between screen and game physics is inter-frame time added to response time.

BrianHG · « **Reply #59 on:** July 22, 2019, 08:50:04 pm »

Quote from: Simon on July 22, 2019, 08:01:34 pm

IF 60FPS is fast enough for film why do videa games want more? I would have thought that interactive stuff care more about latency than throuput?

This is a CAD forum. A 4K desktop screen would be used for CAD here. 60Hz is great.

Yes, if you manually route like me, I do recommend a good PC with a gaming mouse as it tracks better, windows will get a number of polls per each VSync forcing a super responsive touch and the gaming mouse sensors usually track rapid hand motion better as well.

For the price difference, going from a 25$ mouse to a 65$ mouse is a far better investment than going from a 300$ 4k60hz screen to a 900$ 4k 144hz screen.

You do not need a high speed gaming mouse for MS Excell or web browsing. For CAD, drawing & painting, the extra 40$ is better than the extra 600$.

Not to mention, if you spend the extra 600$ and don't spend the extra 40$ on a mouse that updates it's position fast enough, the 144Hz screen will just look like a 30Hz screen on the desktop. Yes, that worse than a 60hz screen.

BrianHG · « **Reply #60 on:** July 22, 2019, 09:01:00 pm »

Quote from: Simon on July 22, 2019, 08:01:34 pm

IF 60FPS is fast enough for film why do videa games want more? I would have thought that interactive stuff care more about latency than throuput?

Remember, an active matrix LCD monitor also needs to receive a frame, the it updates the pixel content of that frame at the next VSync, sometimes even 50% later. A faster frame-rate is not only smoother, bu this latency is cut almost 3 fold at 144hz. Also, an LCD which can respond to such fast video also should change pixel state in far fewer milliseconds making things even better.

A CRT, certain near direct through capable 3 chip DLP video projectors, and NON-active matrix OLED screen with direct through capabilities are the only display technologies left which update pixels in real time as they come out or your video card creating the lowest latency possible.

ogden · « **Reply #61 on:** July 22, 2019, 09:06:19 pm »

Quote from: BrianHG on July 22, 2019, 08:50:04 pm

This is a CAD forum.

No it's not. Gaming is mentioned two times in first post of this thread. After all there are many who do more than one thing on their PC - not only CAD but perhaps gaming as well.

SiliconWizard · « **Reply #62 on:** July 22, 2019, 11:20:11 pm »

Quote from: Simon on July 22, 2019, 04:53:43 pm

I'm still not buying it, you talk as though you can process over 60 images per second. So how about you run 60 different images per second past your eye and tell me what some of them are......

You don't seem to have completely read or grasped what I said. Our neural system in general doesn't "process" information in the same way as a basic video processor would. It's very good at perceiving CONTRASTS (which means differences in general, be it spatially or temporally). But the structures that can detect contrasts very fast can not do so accurately. Conversely, perceiving information accurately is pretty slow. With our visual system, we CAN perceive very fast motion, but we would be totally unable to describe it precisely. Our brain doesn't even "process" all images, it processes their changes.

Explaining that in a simplified way, that would be a bit like equivalent-time sampling. Trading accuracy for speed, or speed for accuracy. Obviously something is lost along the way, but it can still provide some useful information in some contexts.

Our auditory system works much with the same principles. The hair cells in our cochlea aren't able by themselves to process sound with as fine frequency/temporal changes detection as we actually can perceive. Higher-level neural relays allow to detect contrasts to drastically enhance the overall performance. To illustrate some of that, even people with "absolute hearing" cannot possibly detect a 1Hz difference in a pure sine wave presented alone. Now if you present two such sounds with a 1Hz difference only (or even less) at the same time, or just one after the other, but very close temporally, many people can perceive the difference. We don't "process" things individually.

Since the faster the differences (contrasts) are, and the less details of them we get, it's probably completely possible to design a video processor based on some kind of psycho-visual algorithms, so that it could generate a high frame rate without actually having to generate complete frames for each frame, a bit like psycho-acoustic compression, but for our visual system. I don't know all the MPEG algorithms for video well, so that may be what they do (or at least some of them). But I don't know of any graphics card that would do this on the fly for gaming purposes. It would probably avoid the need to generate full frames while still being able to provide improved motion perception for the users. Just a thought. That may already have been patented a while ago... I think some TV sets that have 100Hz/120Hz refresh rates (or even double that) already have such processors to improve motion perception. They don't all seem to work very well though, but that's worth mentioning.

Also consider what I said after that part in my previous post:
Although again the difference would be noticeable by many people (we are not all perceiving things quite the same way) when they are focusing their attention on the video itself, if they are actively playing a game, I ventured that their attention is on action and that they will probably NOT perceive a difference (apart again from pure latency, which is something else), at least not consciously, as conscious perception is not multi-tasking very well for most of us. That may still improve the speed of our reflex actions, but that would remain to be proven scientifically in a study in which we would test various frame rates but make the latency identical, which would not be trivial.

BrianHG · « **Reply #63 on:** July 23, 2019, 02:37:40 am »

Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 22, 2019, 11:20:11 pm

That may still improve the speed of our reflex actions, but that would remain to be proven scientifically in a study in which we would test various frame rates but make the latency identical, which would not be trivial.

That's tricky, but, you are thinking our eyes are static stationary devices. They are not, they can track and focus on moving objects. I know very well I can read text or target trace connections on an oversized PCB in protel's ballistic mode easily on a 120hz setup. On a 60hz, the text and PCB plotting is already smearing as it hops multiple pixels when moving said objects. 30Hz will be an interpreted guess as it will look like steppy Hollywood movies.

If I did not move my eyes and focus on the objects I was moving and editing, or didn't use a gaming mouse, 120hz would be useless.

You may look at this UFO test demo: (Just follow the UFO with your eyes, see which one is clearer...)
https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=4&background=stars&pps=480

Believe me that on my Mitsubishi 240hz monitor, the top UFO and stars are as clear and smooth as silk if you follow it with your eyes. In fact, it's as clear as it it were stationary. My 60hz screens are crap by comparison.

Now for your 60hz users out there, if you cannot see the difference between 60hz and 30hz, this is what it is like multiplied another 2x and 4x when moving, cutting and paste PCB objects with a high speed gaming mouse. With normal mouses, no matter how fast your screen is you get somewhere between 30hx and 15hz crap. You may think scrolling a window's vertical contents may look better, DONT BE FOLLED, the web browser/editor is SMOOTHING out the motion artificially. It is not a true reflection of your mouse movements. You can disable this in most web browsers or window's visual enhancement features in the control panel.

BrianHG · « **Reply #64 on:** July 23, 2019, 03:15:55 am »

Note that multi-monitor setups or remote viewing software may mess up the UFO test and IE10 is limited to only 60hz. Your better off using chrome or firefox. A narrower browsing window may help smooth things out on slower PCs.

beanflying · « **Reply #65 on:** August 02, 2019, 06:11:57 am »

So today I made a 32" Hole and my 1080P 21" 60Hz looks like ..... insert possibly crude metaphor here

Two simple choices within my budget of $3-400'ish 4K 60 or QHD 144.

Must have features
Free Sync preferably down to 1Hz since paying the G Sync Tax isn't that important any more.
VA or IPS but leaning toward a monitor with 'reasonable' colour accuracy without breaking the bank.
VESA mount prefered to save bench space.

Currently leaning toward an LG 32" 144Hz for my mixed requirements but haven't ruled out 4K 60. Expected use case 40% CAD, 20% video editing, 40% General and 'some' Gaming. Yes frame rate does make a difference to fast FPS bit it is a small part of what I am likely to do so lets not re start a war much more likely I will be playing CIV5 or 6

Current leading suspect https://www.lg.com/au/it-monitors/lg-32GK650F-B circa $380USD + tax locally.

Alternates including 4K anyone or users of the LG?

Looking to buy a new monitor, some opinions would be appreciated

Simon · « **Reply #66 on:** August 02, 2019, 07:01:46 am »

Well it really depends on what you want. the choice is yours, high resolution or high speed, you choose, no one else can choose for you.

beanflying · « **Reply #67 on:** August 02, 2019, 07:07:11 am »

Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2019, 07:01:46 am

Well it really depends on what you want. the choice is yours, high resolution or high speed, you choose, no one else can choose for you.

As I have no sustained use of anything other than 1080P some anecdotal replies from those with 4K vs QHD 'real world' use is of benefit. Absolute frame rate isn't on top of my list but more the 144 QHD fits the budget so I would instead of doing down to a lower refresh rate unless anyone has a compellingly better more colour accurate alternate with a 60-80FPS.

Simon · « **Reply #68 on:** August 02, 2019, 07:20:13 am »

well 1440p is a good compromise. As I explained my priority is smooth texts so I went with 4K and have a resolution of 100dpi sitting 1m away so i got what i wanted and get te read my nice rounded fonts without jagged edges.

Black Phoenix · « **Reply #69 on:** August 02, 2019, 07:32:48 am »

Quote from: beanflying on August 02, 2019, 07:07:11 am

Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2019, 07:01:46 am
Well it really depends on what you want. the choice is yours, high resolution or high speed, you choose, no one else can choose for you.

As I have no sustained use of anything other than 1080P some anecdotal replies from those with 4K vs QHD 'real world' use is of benefit. Absolute frame rate isn't on top of my list but more the 144 QHD fits the budget so I would instead of doing down to a lower refresh rate unless anyone has a compellingly better more colour accurate alternate with a 60-80FPS.

Well I've used a 24 Inch BenQ IPS display, the BenQ BL2423PT. That was a great monitor price wise with great connectivity. The other model that I bought to the company and momentary used was this new one:
https://www.amazon.com/BenQ-PD2700q-Technology-Accurate-Reproduction/dp/B01K1INYWG/ref=dp_ob_title_ce?th=1

And I will tell you, this one is a beast of a monitor in terms of colour reproduction and functions for the price. And compared with most of the other brands it brings the HDMI cable plus the Display Port one. Dell for example only packs the HDMI cable and the VGA/DVI on them, having to buy the Display Port one.

Simon · « **Reply #70 on:** August 02, 2019, 07:37:47 am »

i have an LG 27" monitor, 4K 60Hz (runs at 30Hz) matt IPS, it is lovely, such a shame that my 43" is not the same quality. It really is like looking at paper.

tszaboo · « **Reply #71 on:** August 02, 2019, 09:24:36 am »

You cannot compare movies with 24FPS to computers. It doesnt work that way. A movie is delayed, motion of the object is captured with the camera. So in 1 frame (41 ms), the object will move, and that movement will be recorded by the camera. More than 60 FPS does make sense on a computer.
Dont believe me? Move your mouse. What you will see is several discrete pointers on the screen. Your brain disassociates them as being several different object. That's why you can see several different ones. At around 120-180 Hz the brain will only see 1 pointer, which is what you want. The actual frequency you need depends on the movement speed.

Simon · « **Reply #72 on:** August 02, 2019, 09:26:58 am »

I don't really care to see smooth mouse movement.

tszaboo · « **Reply #73 on:** August 02, 2019, 09:34:39 am »

Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2019, 09:26:58 am

I don't really care to see smooth mouse movement.

Goes beyond that. Website, datasheet scrolling, faster edit of a PCB (I'm not even kidding).
And you know, playing games. It is more immersive, cause your brain doesn't disassociate the objects.

beanflying · « **Reply #74 on:** August 02, 2019, 09:42:33 am »

24-30FPS properly exposed with 'appropriate' motion blur to 100+ FPS crisp responding display is not even a comparison to make they are very different animals.

Always worth a read and still controversial even now was Peter Jackson filming LOTR at 48FPS https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-jackson-responds-hobbit-footage-317755

Simon · « **Reply #75 on:** August 02, 2019, 10:45:49 am »

at 30Hz i scroll smoothly. You want to know what made my scrolling smooth? It's gonna hurt because it's not what you thought it would be: turning 4 of my 8 CPU cores off! Yup, web scrolling is CPU dependant, if I reduce the active cores so that there is more RAM speed per core i get smooth scrolling plus my CPU will auto overclock a bit more as it has more thermal capacity per core....... but by all means do what you need to to feel like your doing better than everyone else.

beanflying · « **Reply #76 on:** August 02, 2019, 11:35:39 am »

Seriously not hurt other than my Brain? You seriously you cripple your processor so you can scroll properly? Nobbling your CPU is just

Your 'method' has ZERO basis in logic, technology or Engineering or even dare I say it common sense. If you want to lock in a lower frame rate then do it with reduction of FPS on your system.

Slow response is not smooth either just your brain thinks it is. Research why most films stick to 24FPS or take the time to look at the link above and why it was such a stir at the time.

And if you must knobble your FPS then this might be of use https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/rtss-rivatuner-statistics-server-download.html

Simon · « **Reply #77 on:** August 02, 2019, 11:50:14 am »

I did not reduce my core rate to make scrolling smoother. I just noticed that apart from overall system responsivenell this was also a side effect.
What i am trying to explain is that getting equipment with big numbers on it may be a complete waste of time. So you display refreshes at 120Hz, woo hoo, well done you. but what steps does the screen scroll in?

beanflying · « **Reply #78 on:** August 02, 2019, 12:05:47 pm »

What you are trying to 'demand' is our eyes agree with your brain which they don't. If 30FPS suits your brain then so be it.

Even in CAD at that would be terrible and there is no way I would even contemplate halving my current frame rate. In a Video editing enviroment 50-60FPS is 'normal' and at 30FPS is likewise going to be painful and no one doing video would put up with it as a work situation.

You need to face it high frame rates have a place in Gaming and there is ZERO evidence to prove the contrary. The Jury is well and truely in and the evidence is there to PROVE this is beneficial.

Likewise those who continue to claim the Earth is Flat also doesn't make it true.

As to screen 'scroll' rate 1:1 and that is why Freesync/Gsync and Low Rate refresh monitors exist.

Simon · « **Reply #79 on:** August 02, 2019, 12:20:56 pm »

I'm not saying that i prefer 30Hz but i can hardly tell the difference between 30 and 60. Films run no higher than 30Hz so going to 60Hz will only affect PC stuff where i could not care less. Ultimately everything in the chain needs to be able to work at that speed. I guess that at 4K i will get better response at 30Hz than 60Hz and as i can't see the difference particularly if 4K 60Hz is too much load so lags anyway i may as well stick to 30Hz.

My point about reducing CPU count increased scrolling smoothness was simple to point out that the whole chain needs to support what you want.

As for CAD, 3D cad will on my machine mith what i use not refresh at 60Hz on 4K, even 30Hz is a problem. for PCB's why do i want smoothness? I use a grid, stuff will snap into place anyway. and I am pretty sure that I am not making routing decisions in 16ms.

ogden · « **Reply #80 on:** August 02, 2019, 12:36:48 pm »

Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2019, 12:20:56 pm

I guess that at 4K i will get better response at 30Hz than 60Hz and as i can't see the difference particularly if 4K 60Hz is too much load so lags anyway i may as well stick to 30Hz.

Bottleneck could be video adapter. Culd you tell models of: CPU, video card, monitor? I ask about monitor because looking for my next IPS monitor as well, your hands-on experience feedback may be helpful because LG 27" 4K IPS is in the list.

Karel · « **Reply #81 on:** August 02, 2019, 01:31:13 pm »

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/what-did-you-buy-today-post-your-latest-purchase!/msg2588547/#msg2588547

Simon · « **Reply #82 on:** August 02, 2019, 02:06:40 pm »

Quote from: ogden on August 02, 2019, 12:36:48 pm

Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2019, 12:20:56 pm
I guess that at 4K i will get better response at 30Hz than 60Hz and as i can't see the difference particularly if 4K 60Hz is too much load so lags anyway i may as well stick to 30Hz.

Bottleneck could be video adapter. Culd you tell models of: CPU, video card, monitor? I ask about monitor because looking for my next IPS monitor as well, your hands-on experience feedback may be helpful because LG 27" 4K IPS is in the list.

it's a ryzen 7 with 3.2GHz RAM and an Nvidia P400 Card that will do 3x 4K monitors. It's aimed at CAD stations so probably not great for silly video work but I do'n do any of that.

Simon · « **Reply #83 on:** August 02, 2019, 02:08:30 pm »

And yes LG 4K IPS monitor is a dream to work with. Superb colour depth it's like working with shiny photo paper but not glary as it's a matt finish. It cost as much as the 43" 4K IPS screen, I just wish I could affort a 43" screen of the same quality.

ogden · « **Reply #84 on:** August 02, 2019, 02:50:07 pm »

Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2019, 02:06:40 pm

it's a ryzen 7 with 3.2GHz RAM and an Nvidia P400 Card that will do 3x 4K monitors.

Unless plugged in wrong PCIe slot and not getting all the (16) lanes needed, that card is more than capable of showing anything you throw at it on 4K 60Hz display. Well, supposedly over proper DP v1.4 - capable cable (w/o DP->HDMI converter as well). What you say about non-smooth scrolling and especially your solution, is strange. My immediate check would be - download gpuz utility and verify that graphics card bus interface is reported as PCIex16 3.0 @ x16 3.0.

Simon · « **Reply #85 on:** August 02, 2019, 03:00:08 pm »

But whatgenerates the original data, does it come from the CPU by any chance? 400MHz on paper per processor, not to mention the 2 threads per processor and that DDR4 is hardly the real speed, it runs at about 50% actual speed often so i could be looking at the equivalent of 100MHz per thread..... on an old processor with RAM that ran at 90+% the theoretical data rate.

ogden · « **Reply #86 on:** August 02, 2019, 03:43:29 pm »

Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2019, 03:00:08 pm

But whatgenerates the original data, does it come from the CPU by any chance? 400MHz on paper per processor, not to mention the 2 threads per processor and that DDR4 is hardly the real speed

What you are talking about?

All 8 cores can run at specified clock frequency, at the same time. Ryzen 7 + 3.2GHz DDR4 can copy RAM->RAM at around 40 Gbytes/sec, not bottleneck at all. PCIe v3 speed is 15.75 GB/s (×16 lanes). 4K screen at 32bits/color takes 3840 × 2160 x 4 = ~33 MBytes. Multiply that by 60 fps and result is 1.9 Gbyte/s. Any questions?

Simon · « **Reply #87 on:** August 02, 2019, 06:57:13 pm »

Uh, but backgroung tasks will always be using the other cores + virtual cores, you have 16 processes trying to access RAM at once. I don't knw all the ins and outs all i can say is that having less CPU's makes the system more responsive. I don't need 8 cores running at 100% so....

Simon · « **Reply #88 on:** August 02, 2019, 07:09:49 pm »

Remember th more levels of DDR you have the more organised you data needs to be in just the right way to maximise bandwidth. If you have 16 concurent processes trying to get data too and from RAM i wager it's going te be pretty chaotic.

Every time there is another release of DDR, I run a speed test with sisosoft sandra and every time the efficiency goes down, the more DDR "x" there is the less of the actual bandwidth seems to be useful for general computing. so i have 3200MHz of bandwidth and 16 concurrent processes: 3200/16 = 200MHz, given my last test putting RAM bandwidth efficiency at 50% that is 100MHz per core.

I think multiproccesor systems are great at true multithread and large applications but actual system responsiveness is not great. If you are running a huge scientific simulation sure chuck all the cores you have at it, it will over time be faster. but if you want brute responsiveness less cores more RAM bandwidth.

ogden · « **Reply #89 on:** August 02, 2019, 07:51:46 pm »

Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2019, 07:09:49 pm

so i have 3200MHz of bandwidth and 16 concurrent processes: 3200/16 = 200MHz, given my last test putting RAM bandwidth efficiency at 50% that is 100MHz per core.

This would be true ONLY in case you have 16 concurrent processes each running at 100% CPU load and all processing huge amounts of RAM, all the time missing cache. Rarely any computer experience such situation because why the hell you need to continuously move gigantic amounts of data w/o even taking CPU time to do ANY processing? BTW on my win10 system I have just browser currently running and there are 190 processes and 2200 threads. By increasing CPU core count twice, you decrease OS thread switching overhead two times.

Quote

I think multiproccesor systems are great at true multithread and large applications but actual system responsiveness is not great.

Better know instead. Information about multiprocessing internals including RAM arbitration in MP systems is all over the internet. What operating system do you run? If you want smooth GUI experience, it shall be workstation OS (not windows server) and processor scheduling optimized for foreground applications:

Simon · « **Reply #90 on:** August 02, 2019, 08:12:19 pm »

Like i sad it's just a subjective impression that the system is more responsive with 4 cores (+ 4 virtual bollocks) than 8+8, i had the same at work on an old i7 with 4+4 cores, switching off some of the cores made the system more responsive and the CAD software worked better because it is strictly single thread and crap and it's no coincidence that the reseller of the software recomends dual core systems or did when you could buy dual core.

beanflying · « **Reply #91 on:** August 03, 2019, 02:24:01 am »

Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2019, 02:06:40 pm

Quote from: ogden on August 02, 2019, 12:36:48 pm
Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2019, 12:20:56 pm
I guess that at 4K i will get better response at 30Hz than 60Hz and as i can't see the difference particularly if 4K 60Hz is too much load so lags anyway i may as well stick to 30Hz.

Bottleneck could be video adapter. Culd you tell models of: CPU, video card, monitor? I ask about monitor because looking for my next IPS monitor as well, your hands-on experience feedback may be helpful because LG 27" 4K IPS is in the list.

it's a ryzen 7 with 3.2GHz RAM and an Nvidia P400 Card that will do 3x 4K monitors. It's aimed at CAD stations so probably not great for silly video work but I do'n do any of that.

Your P400 is a problem, it lacks memory and speed to manage even one 4K monitor in a working environment. The 3 x 4K on the spec sheet is an optimistic video playback spec where far less work is done by the GPU/frame.

Even the RX580 I have in my new Ryzen box will be limited in frame rate at 4K which is why I am more inclined to go QHD instead. My reason to consider 4K is to maybe put a decent card instead of the 580 in it since the release of the 5700 and 5700XT have made it closer to affordable.

Simon · « **Reply #92 on:** August 03, 2019, 07:34:41 am »

Well i just wanted something cheap at the time.

BrianHG · « **Reply #93 on:** August 03, 2019, 11:43:05 pm »

Pseudo 16K camera down-sampled to Youtube 8K here (Quality comparison between camera and film resolutions):

BrianHG · « **Reply #94 on:** August 04, 2019, 02:54:06 am »

Quote from: BrianHG on August 03, 2019, 11:43:05 pm

Pseudo 16K camera down-sampled to Youtube 8K here (Quality comparison between camera and film resolutions):

Holy shit, looking at the video's example digital zoom in at the 1080p, if I were to download the example 16k footage and tile display that with multiple 1080p projectors at 100 inch each, not only would the picture something like as tall as a 3 story apartment building, but, standing only 2 meters away from the display, it would be as sharp and clear as a single 100 inch 1080p still camera image.

If I were to create a 16k projector and display that image at only 100 inches, even looking at it with a 10x magnifying glass, that image would be as sharp and clean as life itself.

beanflying · « **Reply #95 on:** August 04, 2019, 03:23:52 am »

Part of the reason I wanted to be able to play easily with 4K coming in on my new box. Drone footage can be a little off target and for smaller ones fixed zoom so you can digitally zoom in and centralize a target or track a different path to that flown. ** Not the reason I am considering a 4K monitor as you can edit 4K footage on a 1080P if you 'have to' but it sucks fairly much.

If it is only for online or youtube uploads then 1080P is still heaps for a final job IMO. Different if you are processing for other final uses.

beanflying · « **Reply #96 on:** August 17, 2019, 08:06:29 am »

Well worth a look if you are considering a new monitor for work or play. Not just another gamer FPS or die review site

https://www.rtings.com/monitor

For my options waiting to see what some actual user experiences are with the new LG 27GL850-B 27" 144Hz IPS Flat. Next alternate all rounder is the Gigabyte AD27QD Both have very good (for high refresh rate monitors) DICp without paying both arms and a leg for a professional colour grading monitor.

There is a few others based on the same panel if you have G-Sync compatible cards. The two above are freesync compatible.

beanflying · « **Reply #97 on:** August 26, 2019, 04:21:40 am »

And for those who added to my thinking the result is on the bench and it is HUGE

Front to back it is 250mm to the screen front if you are looking at desk or bench use so as planned I will be wall mounting it which will get it back to about the same 100-120mm of my current Samsung. It comes with all the leads including power adapter for most countries (win for me I get a second 110V earthed IEC for my few bits of TEA on the transformer)

Why this and not wait for the LG

It was a complete coin toss but there is some very small gains with the Gigabyte over it. Reasons not to buy ACER is some apparent quirks ASUS using apparently the same panel was only 8 bit and 100% RGB unlike the other three. Also I scored a hefty evilbay discount code and got it to my door for $800 AUD inc Tax which is a touch under $500 USD without tax.

The soon to be unused stand is btw excellent smooth tilt pan swivel and height adjustable. Best I have come across anywhere on any screen!

Yes the RGB worked once but it won't be staying on because

gamer rgb head watches the rear of their screen.

Screen on stock settings is way more vibrant than anything I can get on my current Samsung cheapy and just so much screen real estate to play with. Hot plugged it and hooked straight up with the RX580 allowing dual screen with no settings changes as to be expected in 2019 I guess

Black Phoenix · « **Reply #98 on:** August 28, 2019, 02:48:09 am »

Quote from: beanflying on August 26, 2019, 04:21:40 am

Yes the RGB worked once but it won't be staying on because gamer rgb head watches the rear of their screen.

BUT BUT RGB gives more frames per second and GHz in the CPU...

Just joking, but a good use for that RGB if you have the monitor close to a white wall is to put it on white for creating a backdrop/bias lightning that's easy for the eyes when using in darker environments, kinda like this:

https://www.howtogeek.com/213464/how-to-decrease-eye-fatigue-while-watching-tv-and-gaming-with-bias-lighting/

That's the main reason for some monitors RGB on the back, the ones with bigger strips that the logo only.

Mechatrommer · « **Reply #99 on:** August 28, 2019, 05:26:23 am »

4 pages just to know technicalities how to buy a monitor... can we be twice more productive when working with 120fps vs 60fps monitor? or twice the time spent to play games or watching movies all our entire life? people sent rocket to the moon when monitor was like maybe 15-30fps.. my recent Acer VG270 is not so stellar after several samsung monitors damage. but albeit its 1920x1080 60-75fps limited, at least i know its colors are consistent to the eye on almost all angles of view, and i know its color correct since i have ColorVision SpyderPRO to calibrate it. why i bought it? because its the only best option at affordable price available at my favorite local shop, no special reason specific to its technical specification, so long it can do what a normal monitor today can do. and i think after this i will look after Acer brand since i have much older Acer LCD thats still working albeit its degraded backlight power currently in the office, bought cheaper before few of my damaged Samsung LCD/LED monitors. if you people really obsessed with buying high technical spec monitor, go buy monitor calibrator as well such as from DataColor (ColorVision SpyderPRO) or Gretag Macbeth if you have thick pocket, so you'll know you are not looking at factory fabricated colors nor played up by placebo effect on your high money shiny monitors when watching games or movies, and esp on editing and printing colors imageries like i am... fwiw..

Black Phoenix · « **Reply #100 on:** August 28, 2019, 07:33:24 am »

Quote from: Mechatrommer on August 28, 2019, 05:26:23 am

4 pages just to know technicalities how to buy a monitor... can we be twice more productive when working with 120fps vs 60fps monitor? or twice the time spent to play games or watching movies all our entire life? people sent rocket to the moon when monitor was like maybe 15-30fps.. my recent Acer VG270 is not so stellar after several samsung monitors damage. but albeit its 1920x1080 60-75fps limited, at least i know its colors are consistent to the eye on almost all angles of view, and i know its color correct since i have ColorVision SpyderPRO to calibrate it. why i bought it? because its the only best option at affordable price available at my favorite local shop, no special reason specific to its technical specification, so long it can do what a normal monitor today can do. and i think after this i will look after Acer brand since i have much older Acer LCD thats still working albeit its degraded backlight power currently in the office, bought cheaper before few of my damaged Samsung LCD/LED monitors. if you people really obsessed with buying high technical spec monitor, go buy monitor calibrator as well such as from DataColor (ColorVision SpyderPRO) or Gretag Macbeth if you have thick pocket, so you'll know you are not looking at factory fabricated colors nor played up by placebo effect on your high money shiny monitors when watching games or movies, and esp on editing and printing colors imageries like i am... fwiw..

To each and their own, for some people a small car is enough, for others a Ferrari is better. Why a Macbook if a Windows PC is more powerful and cost less? Some people like the ecosystem, some people like the design.

beanflying · « **Reply #101 on:** August 28, 2019, 07:51:55 am »

For me it was about where to compromise and where to let go on the $ to get the performance mix I wanted. The Gigabyte I picked is more like a Subaru WRX

1080P was never going to cut it for my graphical workload (it has been a PITA for a long while for me) and 4K came with to many compromises due to the budget I was allowing myself so 1440P was the pixel count. Size mine sits behind my workbench so 32" 16:9 was absolute max and in the end I went 27" to get the other specs I wanted.

Been using my former Samsung bench monitor on the Laser today and it is really horrid after the last few days on the new one.

Black Phoenix · « **Reply #102 on:** August 28, 2019, 08:15:24 am »

Quote from: beanflying on August 28, 2019, 07:51:55 am

For me it was about where to compromise and where to let go on the $ to get the performance mix I wanted. The Gigabyte I picked is more like a Subaru WRX

1080P was never going to cut it for my graphical workload (it has been a PITA for a long while for me) and 4K came with to many compromises due to the budget I was allowing myself so 1440P was the pixel count. Size mine sits behind my workbench so 32" 16:9 was absolute max and in the end I went 27" to get the other specs I wanted.

Been using my former Samsung bench monitor on the Laser today and it is really horrid after the last few days on the new one.

Yes I must say that fits that part of your bench that was too empty. That hole you show some posts before


EEVblog Main Site	EEVblog on Youtube	EEVblog on Twitter	EEVblog on Facebook	EEVblog on Odysee