Building a gaming PC

+
so there was a heated discussion on the Discord channel I was in, and it went back and forth about curved monitors and 16:9 vs 21:9 (I think). Well I have a Dell S2716DG 27" 2560x 1440 144Hz monitor, I run it at resolution 2560x1440 60Hz and I am guessing 16:9... I really don't know (as a realized listening to these guys) , what most of this stuff means to me. I have changed resolution to 2560x1440 because my games Skyrim and Fallout 4 and such don't look good at 3620x2036 which my monitor can go to. and Skyrim does not like anything over 60Hz.
I am looking to buy a new monitor (I have 3 dead pixels on this 4 year monitor). I will mainly be playing Skyrim, Fallout4, C&C, and of course CP2077... So my question is what does the ratio 16:9 and 21:9 do for me, does a game have any preset for the ratio? Right now I think I want one of the curved monitors and I want to move a 32" ( I have to clean the desk off).
 
So my question is what does the ratio 16:9 and 21:9 do for me



The 32" 16:9 monitor (purple) has more screen area. 16:9 is the most compatible gaming, video, browsing and software. If you mainly use 21:9 exclusive content then the 21:9 is a better choice.
21:9 to me misses too much vertical height. Wish we had 2:1 ratio - The height & width.

Many new games support 21:9. Everything supports 16:9 back to about 2003. Some games support 21:9 but you have to stuff around with config files to alter the HUDs as they are on the extremes of screen by default. 16:9 just works - with practically everything. Non 21:9 supported game on a 34" 21:9 monitor? now youre running the game at approx 27" with black bars. F--- that




So you say VA panels have more "natural" palette? Budget VA monitors are good too?
Not interested in curve panels as much for 1337-pro-gayming. But curved monitors seem easier on the eyes since its shape copies the curve of the eyesight. And you can potentially see more details at periphery of your screen.
As for 1080P at 27" - anti-aliasing exists for a reason.

Better contrast, blacks are truer. IPS colours are truer but good VAs come close. The difference in blacks is big. For video VA is the choice.
OLED screens are great not only because of their fantastic colour reproduction but mainly because the black is an unlit pixel emitting no light. Unfortunately they burn in so life span when used with a PC is grim.
(really, either VA or IPS is a good choice for PC use. Panel quality is much more important)

Regarding curved: its a 27" 16:9 monitor. The periphery is non-existant. Its like curving a tablet. Even if you up to 32" 16:9 , do not get a curved 16:9.
Curving introduces parralax and pin cushioning. Straight lines can look mighty bent.

If you must get curved, get a 21:9 34" or larger. (thats when curving is helpful due to width and the benefits outweigh the negatives). On anything smaller its a stupid fad that needs to go the way of the curved TV. Remember them?

Recommend most people get a 16:9 32" 1440p screen. Its compatible with all games and superb in all uses when non-gaming, its very immersive (youll never consider 27" again), requires much less power to run due to GPU pushing less pixels - 2560x1440 vs 3440x1440 (21:9 1440p) and the monitors are much cheaper - even for good quality.
One caveat - no high refresh rate. You have to be happy with 60fps. (or go with LG models using not so good AUO panels - the viewing angles are the worst youll probably ever see on a VA panel- so much so the picture is affected looking straight on)
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'd prefer better colors.

I'm eyballing that LG you mentioned. That...is a cool-looking monitor. And IPS to boot. Great balance of features.

If anyone is on the fence, I'd not discourage picking one of these up -- even based just on the specs. If you've never experienced how gorgeous IPS is...you'll be in for one heck of a treat. It won't even limit refresh rate in this case! This thing could very well become a king among monitors. (I prefer to believe that monitors use the feudal system.)
 
What exactly catches your eye with it? Keeping in mind I trust monitor specs as far as I can throw them :).

Well, odd as this may be, let me make a list of things I don't like and will avoid like the plague:
  • proprietary / untested technology
  • anything that actively tries to be bigger, louder, or the most popular option
  • stuff that tries to market the "Nike swoosh", cutting corners and expecting the brand name to carry it
  • stuff that's priced to "make a killing"
  • products that try to claim outrageous performance as standard
  • anything that tries to re-invent descriptions of features as if they're new or ground-breaking
This monitor doesn't try to do anything like that. What it does is take a wide range of established technologies and put them together in a way that should work together really, really well. 27-inch screen -- good! Nothing amazing, just solid. 144 MHz -- great! Not unheard of, just a solid standard. G-Sync compatible -- excellent! Can use Nvidia options, or use FreeSync, or whatever. Options are solid. IPS tech -- great! Can't go wrong with more intense color temperatures. It's always been a solid feature. It doesn't even try to come up with a flashy, trendy name.

But most amazingly, the price tag is fair. Okay, let's be honest, the price is still cheeky, but it's far less exploitative than other options. While other monitors may offer bigger screens, higher resolutions, curved screens, true G-Sync, higher refresh rates...each of those things will come as a trade-off. Curved screen means occasional compatibility issues due to the non-standard resolutions. Higher res means FPS plummets for certain titles. Larger screen real-estate means decreased image quality at lower resolutions. True G-Sync means higher cost...

So, yeah. This is a beautiful package that should hold its own across the board. In the end, this monitor should offer a slick...and I mean slick...experience.
 
Yeah, LG initially wanted to make it G-Sync, but were smart to make it simply standard adaptive sync, so it would work with AMD and upcoming Intel GPUs. As for other features, it fits exactly what I need as well. 27" - optimal size for me. 2560x1440 / 144 Hz (variable/adaptive) - great optimum for current day GPUs. IPS with wide color gamut and good response time for that resolution? Very good for gaming. Oh, and it also apparently has low input lag.

Don't buy the 1 ms claim though, that's marketing. On that override preset, it has massive overshoot. 4 ms is more like it (no overshoot), and it's anyway great for gaming at that response time. Still, it's a big achievement making an IPS with 4 ms and such good color gamut.

See some details here:

 
Last edited:
Recommend most people get a 16:9 32" 1440p screen.
Of all budget sub-200$ VA monitors I only see MVA monitor AOC Q3279VWF. It has slightly bigger price than those 27" monitors I was looking for before. What can you say about panels used in AOC monitors?
BTW for 1440P RX 480 is barely enough to hit that 75hz. It has to be RX 5500XT at least. There's no RX 5500XT on the market right now and no idea when they will be available. Prolly gonna cost 2x of that RX 488/588. Ouch.
 
Framerate laregely depends on the game. I suppose for TW3, to hit anything above 80 fps on max settings with 2560x1440, you would need 5700 XT. At least judging from the fact that I get around 110 fps now, with 1920x1200 using RX 5700 XT (Wine+dxvk).

Looking forward to test it using 2560x1440 / 144 Hz adaptive sync monitor.
 
I suppose for TW3, to hit anything above 80 fps on max settings with 2560x1440, you would need 5700 XT.
I won't even have free 349$ to spare for RX 5700 (never, in fact) and you're talking about 5700XT. Besides, no one puts 5700/XT next to 4/4 i5. 4/8 at the very least.
For me personally, 30+ fps with freesync is perfect in TW3. Finished it a couple of times with worse framerate.
It's also dependent on the game if max refresh rate is needed to be hit. FPS games sure need to. Doom 2016 and multiplayer shooters need to exceed that.
That's why 1440p seems questionable.
 
I don't really care about hitting max refresh rate all the time. Just having higher framerate than 60 fps (80 or 100 and more) makes it already a lot smoother (less motion blur), which is nice in games like TW3. And supposedly 144 Hz adaptive sync monitors should be good for that. So getting smooth transitions and higher resolution is enhancing the experience for it.

As for FPS (genre), that depends on the game too. Ion Fury for example doesn't need that much to be played, and it's a great game :D
 
@SigilFey: Just got that LG 27GL850-B (2560 x 1440). I'm pretty impressed! First of all, colors are very good. Out of the box(!) it feels as good or even better than my 60 Hz IPS Dell Ultrasharp (and that has very good colors). And I was worried it's going to be worse.

The upside - high refresh rate makes a lot of things smoother and less ghosted. For example scrolling text feels a lot more pleasant for the eyes.

The monitor build itself is nice, no cheesy design or anything like that.

Going to gaming, I finally managed to run TW3 with better resolution, better refresh rate and adaptive sync :) Feels smoother too:



As you can see, Sapphire Pulse RX 5700 XT pulls around 85+ fps in it at that resolution on Linux in Wine+dxvk (max settings, hairworks disabled). And monitor adapts refresh rate to it, according to the on-screen monitor menu. I'm using Mesa-navi-aco for it (llvm gives slightly higher framerate now, but eventually aco should get better than llvm).

I kind of paused playing TW3, while waiting for this monitor, but now I'm going to get back into it :D
 
Last edited:
Guys, what do you think about BenQ EW277HDR monitor? VA and HDR support for such a low price is pretty appealing. Appealing because of games that support "HDR" that is.
 
Guys, what do you think about BenQ EW277HDR monitor?

This is the first time that I see this monitor, and I find it pretty cool. I think this is the cheapest monitor you can get for HDR and with such thin bezel. But personally, I would go for what also increases my field of view, hence ultra-wide screens even though they are not compatible with every content. There is the lg 34wk650, or the smaller lg 29wk600.

But of course everything falls to your priorities, preferences, and budget that you want from a monitor.
 
VA and HDR support for such a low price is pretty appealing. Appealing because of games that support "HDR" that is.

A word of warning.... I haven't looked into the topic a lot, or recently, but I believe HDR slapped on a monitor label should be approached cautiously. You can easily find monitors claiming to be HDR without much functionality to leverage it in any meaningful capacity for a variety of reasons. It's quite common on cheaper monitors, in fact.
 
A word of warning.... I haven't looked into the topic a lot, or recently, but I believe HDR slapped on a monitor label should be approached cautiously. You can easily find monitors claiming to be HDR without much functionality to leverage it in any meaningful capacity for a variety of reasons. It's quite common on cheaper monitors, in fact.
Well there should be a way to test if there's an actual HDR. Of course it's not a blind instabuy.
Oh, and regarding BenQ EW277HDR - I just checked, it doesn't have a DisplayPort connector. That's an instant no. Every normal monitor should have one.
For what purpose? Asking for real since HDMI is more common.
 
DP is the modern display connector. HDMI is archaic in comparison, and is pushed around only because of HDMI cartel that controls TV business. Basically, all new features in drivers are first supported in DP, and only later added to HDMI. Genreal rule of a thumb - avoid HDMI whenever possible, unless you have no choice but to use it. For sure never buy monitors that are HDMI only.
 
Top Bottom