Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Display Units

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 11:49 AM
Lysrin's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,625

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sswilson View Post
This is my issue when looking at upgrades these days. I'm so used to the 1200 that I'd never be able to go back to 1080p (that's for TVs.... ;) ) on my monitor, but I'm not convinced I have the grunt in a single 970 to properly drive 1440.
I think you do. My brother-in-law is running a single Gigabyte 970 (only factory overclock) on a 4790K non-overclocked system and he doesn't have any issues with 1440p gaming on a BenQ 27" monitor on high to ultra settings. Not adaptive sync tech on his BenQ. Now granted he might not be pushing over 80 fps all the time, he likely hovers around 60 +/- 10 fps, but it is a lovely gaming experience over all and he has never complained since we built his system.

Last edited by Lysrin; January 25, 2016 at 12:16 PM. Reason: Softening my comment a little :)
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 12:17 PM
Ravenor's Avatar
MVP
F@H
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Oakville, Ontario
Posts: 299

My System Specs

Default

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Do a review of the Acer Predator XB271HU. This is the next monitor I am looking to pickup and would really value your opinion.
__________________
Roy: [singing] We don't need no education.
Moss: Yes you do; you've just used a double negative
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 12:35 PM
Lysrin's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,625

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenor View Post
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Do a review of the Acer Predator XB271HU. This is the next monitor I am looking to pickup and would really value your opinion.
Caldezar mentioned in this thread that he has that monitor. Perhaps he can provide you with some real world feedback while waiting for HWC to review?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 12:47 PM
Lysrin's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,625

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vittra View Post
There seems to be some confusion in arguments here, or at least amalgamation of various things.

16:10 is better than 16:9 for productivity purposes, sure. Example 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 on a monitor of the same size (lets say 24"). Of course, resolution and aspect ratio are two different things, 2560x1440 (16:9) is clearly better than 1920x1200 (16:9) by the same token. Of course, if you compare 2560x1600 (30", 16:10) to 2560x1440 (27", 16:9), the former provides more vertical space while the latter provides better pixel density (PPI). The balance of all these things matter.

However, resolutions and physical monitor size don't matter when it comes to field of view in games. This is separate from UI elements being smaller and the anti-aliasing (typically higher PPI) benefits of higher resolution.

The actual field of view is calculated based on the monitor aspect ratio along with the field of view scaling mode used.

As most games continue to use HOR+, 1920x1080 (16:9) actually provides more view horizontally, and the same view vertically, as 1920x1200 (16:10). As you can imagine, 21:9 also benefits from this, but this can be quite odd in some games unless you manually adjust the FOV value, and even then, you may not be able to get it quite right.

Anamorphic typically keeps the same view and does this for widescreen aspect ratios by cutting off a portion of the top or bottom. You may recall Witcher 2 was like this originally but fairly quickly changed due to complaints.

These are the most typically used ones, but there are others (such as Vert-, which is very detrimental to widescreen).
Missed your comment Vittra, good info as usual. That is certainly a valid comment about how games handle FOV. In my comments comparing the viewing real estate resolution to resolution I was making the assumption that the hypothetical game used for comparison would natively support both. So, all things being equal, in the 2560x1440 vs 3440x1440 comparison, if the game handled both correctly it would increase the horizontal FOV correctly for the latter while keeping the vertical FOV the same for both. If that is the case then you would have no vertical loss on the 3440x1440 res monitor, but you would gain viewable width. Similar thing can be accomplished at a given resolution in games that allow adjusting the FOV, I do that in Elite Dangerous for example, but you have to be careful as things get warped looking pretty quick. My hope for a game that directly supports 3440x1440 would be that the FOV would widen correctly without the distortion and warping.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 01:58 PM
Allstar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Metro-Vancouver
Posts: 560

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vittra View Post
... but smart adjustment of certain settings (on a per game basis) will have you playing without any worry.
This has been my experience as well

Edit: Injecting SMAA via SweetFX is useful for some games where in-game AA is too much of a performance hit, i.e. GTA V.

Last edited by Prickly007; January 25, 2016 at 02:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 03:14 PM
Sagath's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 3,264

My System Specs

Default

Bleh. Another marketing ploy 'curved' monitor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vittra View Post
*snip*
If you are looking to simply max sliders in games you will definitely have problems, but smart adjustment of certain settings (on a per game basis) will have you playing without any worry.

Personally, I'd say you should be more concerned about the implications a higher resolution will have to your mouse settings.
Too true. Although I'm running a 980ti to push my 27" 2560x1440 monitor, I am a huge fan of just letting nVidia Experience tell my game what settings to run at for optimal image vs framerates. I remember not that long ago (Farcry 1 days) spending literal HOURS tweaking a game to get good framerates with nice eye candy. Now I get all that with the click of an 'optimize' button. Fan-tas-tic.

Your point about mouse settings is something often lost on people, correct. The jump from the typical 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 meant I had to almost relearn how to use my mouse on a higher dpi setting IOT feel like the mouse has the same 'responsiveness' as prior to the monitor upgrade.

Simply put, you're moving the same car at the same speed across TWO TIMES as much distance. And good lord, the extra real estate 'shrinks' icons too, so if you've got bad eye sight you'll be looking at scaling your desktop size so you can see...DPI is the main reason I love these HD monitors though. going from ~80 PPI to ~110PPI is night and day for quality of image. Apples infamous 'retina' technology is really nothing more then upping the resolution on the same size display. Take a 27" 1920x1080 monitor and put it beside a 27" 2560x1440. Same thing.
__________________
My Disclaimer to any advice or comment I make;
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroSsFiRe2009 View Post
I'm a self certified whizbang repair technician with 20 years of professional bullshit so I don't know what I'm talking about
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 06:38 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 29
Default

looks like a really nice monitor
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 08:05 PM
FreeKnight's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,446

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Now there is a down side to having all this performance at your fingertips. In fact, there are a couple of downsides. The first is pretty straightforward: the 3440x1440 resolution demands an epic amount of GPU horsepower to insure it remains within its G-SYNC operating range of 30Hz to 100Hz. Yes, sure it can work wonders even if you have a mid-range video card but the last thing a gamer would want is to spend $1300 on a monitor and then have to lower the detail settings in their favorite games. That sort of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it?
That pretty much sums up why I'm not as enthused about 120-144hz and 4K displays as a lot of others. I've got a 980Ti for my 3440 and there are games where it struggles to get that 60fps. Going beyond 60hz, I'm just not willing to drop down the visual quality for the diminishing returns of smoothness as you hit higher Hz. But I don't play a lot of twitch shooters, so that might color my attitude a bit.

But if I had to make one selling point for the 21:9, it's productivity. Excel sheets and having two programs side by side for citations and quotes have just become a vastly friendlier and quick process. I don't think I could go back to a smaller screen and 16:9 or 16:10....
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2016, 09:42 PM
turtletrax's Avatar
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton(ish)
Posts: 929

My System Specs

Default

Picked one up tonight at memory express. Got them to PriceBeat a place I had never even heard of before and got it for $1535 :) With all the issues I used my savings to get 2 year IPR but got it home and other than a bit of bleed it is mint. Was hoping my old Titans would hold up a bit better, but haven't really tweaked settings at all yet. That and I haven't really been OCing my cards past the 1Ghz bios I have on them. They will get me through until Pascal hits no worries tho.

Initial thoughts:

OSD navigation is truly horrendous. Had a helluva time just setting the thing up. I thought I disliked the Dell capacitive touch buttons, but I would take them 8 days a week instead of the Predator setup. Hoping I get it dialed in and never have to bother with it much.

Miss my vertical pixels already. Been running 2560x1600 for so long that I instantly realized how much I like the extra vertical real estate. I am sure the situation will grow on me, but the initial shock surprised me.

For the (massive) positives, it is quite beautiful. The AG coating is the best I have ever had, and after adjusting the brightness down it has a fantastic picture. It does 100Hz no problem and I seem to have pretty decent uniformity. Nothing that jumps out at me at this point. I will spend some time tomorrow testing gradients and so on, but glad to have seemed to get a good sample. No coil whine either.

One other dislike is how massive the base is. I will be wall mounting this sucker ASAP. It eats up your desktop something awful, but I have wanted to wallmount my monitor for some time now and run smurf tube in the wall for the wires. This kinda forces my hand so no big whoop on that.

All in all, I am pretty happy. Have to config FO4 for 3440x1440 for a session tomorrow night. Then I can tweak settings and see how I like Gsync. See what this thing is really all about ;)


Edit: Got all the settings completed for 21:9 support and HUD corrections on FO4 and it is glorious :) 70FPS average with my Titans and that is more than enough to look fantastic and play silky smooth. Very happy!
__________________
"It's time to kick gum, and chew ass. And I'm all out of gum."

Dick Kickem

Last edited by turtletrax; January 28, 2016 at 05:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old January 30, 2016, 04:09 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 26
Default

one sexy beast :O It costs close to $1700 in Canada though!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Acer Predator XR341CK FreeSync Monitor Review Comment Thread SKYMTL Display Units 6 December 4, 2015 11:57 PM
Acer XB270HU G-SYNC Monitor Review (Comment Thread) SKYMTL Display Units 7 September 8, 2015 07:12 AM
BenQ XL2420G G-SYNC Monitor Review Comment Thread SKYMTL Display Units 21 January 22, 2015 07:26 AM