Post A Pic Of Your Pc Here :)

spirit

spirit

Moderator
Staff member
Calin said:
After I upgrade to a 4K monitor I'll get something like a 900D.
Click to expand...
What monitor do you have now? Surely a case would be a more practical purchase.

Jamebonds1 said:
Where is my hard drive to smash!?!?! :( I have 35 pound maul axe......

I'm just tease. It is true that WD got broken easily as I take look inside. I had WD failed on me in 3 month. After I got SeaGate, they never failed on me. One of them are almost 7 years old. HSGT is hard drive owed by WD that I never tried, but heard it is good.
Click to expand...
To be honest I've had much more luck with WD. The Seagate SSHD I had died after a few months and the Seagate 3TB I had after about 2 years. The life span depends on lots of things though.
 
Calin

Calin

Well-Known Member
Geoff said:
A 32" 1080p TV as your monitor? Low pixel density, horribly inaccurate colors, high response times, input lag...
Click to expand...
I used the nvidia CP to adjust the colors and it looks decent. As for the response times and pixel density I can't argue but that's why I need that 4K 1ms response time 28' monitor.
 
tylerjrb

tylerjrb

Member
Calin said:
I used the nvidia CP to adjust the colors and it looks decent. As for the response times and pixel density I can't argue but that's why I need that 4K 1ms response time 28' monitor.
Click to expand...

4k at that size would be wasted. I'd go for a 1440p monitor. Even a 980Ti will struggle on top end games without lowering the settings right down to achieve 60fps.

I've tried a 28 and 27" 4k and 1440p 144hz monitor, both on maximum settings. The difference picture quality wise is not a huge deal. Maybe a few extra jaggies. That's going to be almost un noticeable with greatly reduced settings.

120/144hz for me is much nicer however.
 
Calin

Calin

Well-Known Member
tylerjrb said:
4k at that size would be wasted. I'd go for a 1440p monitor. Even a 980Ti will struggle on top end games without lowering the settings right down to achieve 60fps.

I've tried a 28 and 27" 4k and 1440p 144hz monitor, both on maximum settings. The difference picture quality wise is not a huge deal. Maybe a few extra jaggies. That's going to be almost un noticeable with greatly reduced settings.

120/144hz for me is much nicer however.
Click to expand...
Problem is, the 8350 can't really handle more than 100 FPS, it can barely get over 60 in GTA V. If I move to Intel, I will be stuck with 1080p. I'm ok with no AA. I play GTA V at 4K with DSR and it never dips under 50. I've also seen YT videos of people getting over 60 FPS in Battlefield with no MSAA.
 
Geoff

Geoff

VIP Member
Calin said:
I used the nvidia CP to adjust the colors and it looks decent. As for the response times and pixel density I can't argue but that's why I need that 4K 1ms response time 28' monitor.
Click to expand...
You can tweak the color profile but it doesn't change the limited color gamut that the monitor is capable of, and something which IPS monitors do a fantastic job at.

For gaming, I would not look at a 4k 1ms monitor, mainly because 1ms is pretty unrealistic but there are more important factors. You should really be looking at a Gsync/Freesync monitor, especially at 4k where you'd likely have FPS drops, but one that has a high refresh rate. 4k on a 28" display will make it much more difficult for FPS gaming as the people in your crosshairs are going to be so small, it's hard to get kills. Great for RPS and racing games though.

I'd look for a monitor with the following:
  • 2560x1440 for a <28" display
  • 4k for a 30"> display
  • IPS panel for color accuracy
  • <6ms latency
  • 75-120Hz refresh rate
  • Gsync and/or Freesync compatible
 
tylerjrb

tylerjrb

Member
Calin said:
Problem is, the 8350 can't really handle more than 100 FPS, it can barely get over 60 in GTA V. If I move to Intel, I will be stuck with 1080p. I'm ok with no AA. I play GTA V at 4K with DSR and it never dips under 50. I've also seen YT videos of people getting over 60 FPS in Battlefield with no MSAA.
Click to expand...

Why would you be stuck with 1080p with Intel? Like Geoff said G-sync with a 1440p 120hz screen would be a far better choice.
 
Calin

Calin

Well-Known Member
But again even on low settings where the GPU does nothing I can't get over 100 FPS because of the 8350 bottlenecking. Plus I'm used to big monitors. But OK I'll look at some 1440p gsync screens too
 
Geoff

Geoff

VIP Member
Calin said:
But again even on low settings where the GPU does nothing I can't get over 100 FPS because of the 8350 bottlenecking. Plus I'm used to big monitors. But OK I'll look at some 1440p gsync screens too
Click to expand...
How do you know the GPU does nothing? Are you looking at the CPU and GPU utilization during those times? Big monitors are great, but 4K is a HUGE step from a 1080p 32" TV. A 2560x1440 display would be a great upgrade IMO, and you can find those with 120Hz refresh rates with Gsync/Freesync.
 
Calin

Calin

Well-Known Member
Geoff said:
How do you know the GPU does nothing? Are you looking at the CPU and GPU utilization during those times? Big monitors are great, but 4K is a HUGE step from a 1080p 32" TV. A 2560x1440 display would be a great upgrade IMO, and you can find those with 120Hz refresh rates with Gsync/Freesync.
Click to expand...
Of course I monitor them. Even at ultra at 1440p (DSR) with 110 scaling the GPU drops to 80%ish sometimes in less demanding maps.
 
johnb35

johnb35

Administrator
Staff member
Ok everyone. Getting off topic now.

Jamebonds1,

Geek Squad is a total ripoff unfortunately. You should hear the horror stories. Price for malware removal is absurd and as said before, they aren't certified repair people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top