Which monitor be considered

Well I did find my 19" Samsung SyncMaster 191T that I bought many many long years hey still works until I find the right monitor. Thanks guys!
 
Last edited:
Talk2dabullet said:
That one look bitchen.. I would consider it. Now what I need to do is go to Best Buy or Fry's and put that idea into motion. Cause I had a 30" Samsung so maybe I can consider the best option. $650 to 800 would probably to what we all like it to do hmmmm.
Click to expand...

I would buy it again in a heartbeat, for flying I can see infantry and trace shots at A or B from base if I get decent altitude , g-sync keeps things very smooth, there is an overclock function for the g-sync but I haven't messed with it, the machine doubles as an office PC and spreadsheets, look great as well. My only gripe is that I can't really afford two of them and going to work and having to work on other monitors is hard to adjust, you get spoiled very quickly. I thought my Macbook pro had a nice display, this puts it to shame..
 
One thing to be careful of (at least if cost is a constant consideration, as it is for most people) is to avoid getting hooked on Hz inflation. (This is also a problem if you have wildly varying refresh rates or resolution between monitors at home and at work, so less an issue for T2DB)

I have a friend, life long PC hobbyist, electrical engineer/programmer in school and now network admin fellow, who growing up always went for the high-end Hz-wise, in whatever form factor was relatively cutting edge (prosumer range).

He'd come and game at our place and shit on our monitors.

"Ouch. These monitors hurt my eyes."

He also used to kick our ass at everything (particularly Age of Empires II), the smug muthafucka.

But his complaint was legit from his perspective--he had got used to a more buttery experience.

So whither from that point? You can only go downhill--and your next monitor whatever the resolution will need to approximate that pricey refresh experience to give you the same ballpark/satisfactory response time ...

I went a different route with my last monitor purchase and overbought for need for sure, going with a 42" 4K LG monitor. This has probably locked me into a size/resolution trajectory where I'll have a hard time going smaller or going with anything less than 4K ...

Fortunately, though it's not quite the same as Moore's Law, monitors tend to increase in size and resolution at a pretty reliable rate with costs remaining relatively stable, AND high-end Hz/refresh rate seem to follow along, in their case generally managing to be among the most expensive in their size/resolution class.

All things being equal, I'd rather put that money into processing/memory/SSD, because ... we all use the computer for things other than gaming and who needs high refresh to type up a Word doc or browse the web.

Even more anecdotal side note: a large enough monitor finally convinced me to start flying the Little Bird more regularly because I felt like I could finally see ground targets from a safe distance. At 42" the breadth of the monitor also approximated cockpit in a more realistic way, filling peripheral vision in a pleasant manner.

Really, this just emphasizes the subjective nature of such a decision. There's probably a good buying guide somewhere that can prompt you to think through what you value in a display and decide via a point system, say, i.e. as rational a basis as possible ...

And that can be part of the fun. The planning.

Damn, this sounds a bit like a PSA.
 
Last edited:
TheFilipinoBaby said:
One thing to be careful of (at least if cost is a constant consideration, as it is for most people) is to avoid getting hooked on Hz inflation. (This is also a problem if you have wildly varying refresh rates or resolution between monitors at home and at work, so less an issue for T2DB)

I have a friend, life long PC hobbyist, electrical engineer/programmer in school and now network admin fellow, who growing up always went for the high-end Hz-wise, in whatever form factor was relatively cutting edge (prosumer range).

He'd come and game at our place and shit on our monitors.

"Ouch. These monitors hurt my eyes."

He also used to kick our ass at everything (particularly Age of Empires II), the smug muthafucka.

But his complaint was legit from his perspective--he had got used to a more buttery experience.

So whither from that point? You can only go downhill--and your next monitor whatever the resolution will need to approximate that pricey refresh experience to give you the same ballpark/satisfactory response time ...

I went a different route with my last monitor purchase and overbought for need for sure, going with a 42" 4K LG monitor. This has probably locked me into a size/resolution trajectory where I'll have a hard time going smaller or going with anything less than 4K ...

Fortunately, though it's not quite the same as Moore's Law, monitors tend to increase in size and resolution at a pretty reliable rate with costs remaining relatively stable, AND high-end Hz/refresh rate seem to follow along, in their case generally managing to be among the most expensive in their size/resolution class.

All things being equal, I'd rather put that money into processing/memory/SSD, because ... we all use the computer for things other than gaming and who needs high refresh to type up a Word doc or browse the web.

Even more anecdotal side note: a large enough monitor finally convinced me to start flying the Little Bird more regularly because I felt like I could finally see ground targets from a safe distance. At 42" the breadth of the monitor also approximated cockpit in a more realistic way, filling peripheral vision in a pleasant manner.

Really, this just emphasizes the subjective nature of such a decision. There's probably a good buying guide somewhere that can prompt you to think through what you value in a display and decide via a point system, say, i.e. as rational a basis as possible ...

And that can be part of the fun. The planning.

Damn, this sounds a bit like a PSA.
Click to expand...


Good points, I do settle into a "that's good enough" mode, only when thing become slow as in 20-30 FPS or variable FPS do I get the itch, and it usually has to take place on my favorite game, then all of the sudden I'm looking for solutions, anything 60FPS or above I'm pretty good with saying that's good enough, playable .. lol..
 
Raynet11 said:
Good points, I do settle into a "that's good enough" mode, only when thing become slow as in 20-30 FPS or variable FPS do I get the itch, and it usually has to take place on my favorite game, then all of the sudden I'm looking for solutions, anything 60FPS or above I'm pretty good with saying that's good enough, playable .. lol..
Click to expand...

Actually, that really is the salient point--if it's your favorite thing and it starts to falter (or your performance starts to suffer) ... worth upgrading to the point that it brings the joy back. I get that.
 
Jmonty said:
also something to keep in mind, gsync will work with freesync monitors now.
Click to expand...

Oh nice! I actually was going to tell onesickpuppy that it was "AMD FreeSync". Since you said is ok that it will work with my G-Sync love it. Thanks jmonty for these awesome feedback hip hip hooray!
 
TheFilipinoBaby said:
One thing to be careful of (at least if cost is a constant consideration, as it is for most people) is to avoid getting hooked on Hz inflation. (This is also a problem if you have wildly varying refresh rates or resolution between monitors at home and at work, so less an issue for T2DB)

I have a friend, life long PC hobbyist, electrical engineer/programmer in school and now network admin fellow, who growing up always went for the high-end Hz-wise, in whatever form factor was relatively cutting edge (prosumer range).

He'd come and game at our place and shit on our monitors.

"Ouch. These monitors hurt my eyes."

He also used to kick our ass at everything (particularly Age of Empires II), the smug muthafucka.

But his complaint was legit from his perspective--he had got used to a more buttery experience.

So whither from that point? You can only go downhill--and your next monitor whatever the resolution will need to approximate that pricey refresh experience to give you the same ballpark/satisfactory response time ...

I went a different route with my last monitor purchase and overbought for need for sure, going with a 42" 4K LG monitor. This has probably locked me into a size/resolution trajectory where I'll have a hard time going smaller or going with anything less than 4K ...

Fortunately, though it's not quite the same as Moore's Law, monitors tend to increase in size and resolution at a pretty reliable rate with costs remaining relatively stable, AND high-end Hz/refresh rate seem to follow along, in their case generally managing to be among the most expensive in their size/resolution class.

All things being equal, I'd rather put that money into processing/memory/SSD, because ... we all use the computer for things other than gaming and who needs high refresh to type up a Word doc or browse the web.

Even more anecdotal side note: a large enough monitor finally convinced me to start flying the Little Bird more regularly because I felt like I could finally see ground targets from a safe distance. At 42" the breadth of the monitor also approximated cockpit in a more realistic way, filling peripheral vision in a pleasant manner.

Really, this just emphasizes the subjective nature of such a decision. There's probably a good buying guide somewhere that can prompt you to think through what you value in a display and decide via a point system, say, i.e. as rational a basis as possible ...

And that can be part of the fun. The planning.

Damn, this sounds a bit like a PSA.
Click to expand...

Holy crap Pepino! I am like darn you wrote a bible for a screen. And in good point and very great suggestion, My video cards cannot handle 4K, so it does not make since for me to invest what my video cards can't handle. Furthermore, to add a better processor, memory or even a bigger or better SSD then what I have. In all then I should consider to get a better PC not anytime soon. Then probably will get a 4K yeah!

My baby brother has a 42" 4K monitor yet he bought a NVIDIA Titan RTX like 24GB he paid $3000 yet he has the money.
 
Max resolution is one thing, but it takes a lot of GPU power to push out more pixels (ie: 4K), and the trade-off is often severe performance hits. 1080@60 is still more than acceptable, and it will likely be what you play your games at, even if your display has a higher resolution. Just something to keep in mind.

Also, your Amazon link doesn't work. Make sure you don't shorten it. All you need is the following in an Amazon URL (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004G60EHS/) Everything else is just web garbage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Who has viewed this thread (Total: 1) View details

Who has watched this thread (Total: 7) View details

Top Bottom