xboxonthego3

Cool. That makes sense. 

Thanks for the response!

The usual answer when someone asks about a new PSU:  Do you have any solid, independent reviews of that unit yet?  If no, then that's why it's not in the tier list yet.
 
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the tier list editors even posted about being aware of the new EVGA lines, so they're rather aware of new stuff, it just takes a while for a review site to post up their findings so a new PSU's quality can be judged against its competitors properly.

Benefits:
Fantastic display. It's pretty much as good as you can get in terms of colors, brightness and features on a PC monitor. Good PPI. Not low despite its massive size, but not high enough to require scaling in Windows (which brings with it a lot of issues). As someone who is used to having triple screens, the size feels very good, and the curvature really helps with immersion and usability.  
Drawbacks:
HDR on Windows is not that great, like you mentioned. The monitor really feels limited by the HDR "ecosystem". I can no longer use programs in fullscreen, which is a real issue for gaming. I used to be able to run a game fullscreen on my middle monitor, watch a video on my right monitor, and have stuff like chats and a browser on the left monitor. That is no longer possible. Support for 32:9 seems pretty hit and miss. I haven't tried it a lot, but it seems like games have problems with it. For example I tried the Unreal Tournament alpha (one of the few games I got installed) and the menu was pushed to the left side of the screen, with the right side being completely black. Seems like the menu doesn't really work at 32:9. It's expensive as fuck. I can't really recommend anyone spend this much money on a monitor.

Say LAwLz -
 
In your first post in this thread you wrote, "It's a fantastic monitor, but not worth the price."
 
You've been pretty direct about its upsides so far in this thread. What are the aspects you're disappointed with, where you feel like a buyer should be getting more at the price point?
 
* * * * 
 
BTW, to my surprise, mine was delivered Saturday, and I'm already using it - mostly for work so far. (I had an extremely heavy work weekend, so I haven't had much time to play yet!) Four main negatives so far:
 
- Backlight bleed. Not horrible, but quite visible when there's just a dark background - I notice it more than with my old 27" screen, which stands to reason. I tried taking some cell phone pictures, but they don't represent what I see very well.
 
- Using Windows with HDR. (Yeah, I found the HDR slider, which is a BIG help. But something STILL feel a little wonky. I think it's reasonable to hope that MS will make some improvements in HDR handling.
 
- Using Windows snap-to commands with an ultrawide. (I just got DisplayFusion, though, so once I get to know the program, I think I'll be good. But Windows is clearly not thought out for this. At all. And, in comparison to HDR, I don't know whether there's much hope that MS will invest much in improving this.)
 
- Using Office software with a super-ultrawide. Although it was awesome to have a 15-page running sheet open in Word and see the entire document on screen, having my menus and tool bars in the upper left-hand corner of the screen was super annoying when I wanted to edit something at the far end of the document - i.e., bottom right-hand corner of the screen.
 
Note: 3 of 4 negatives have to do with software, not the monitor itself!

Again, you are throwing around a lot of terms you clearly do not understand what they mean.
 
 
You're getting AdobeRGB mixed up with sRGB.
 
You're getting HDR10 mixed up with DisplayHDR certification.
 
 
 
DisplayHDR1000 does require a monitor to have 1000 nits of break brightness, and this monitor does.
 
DisplayHDR1000 does require a monitor to have a 99% coverage of sRGB, on top of a 90% DCI-P3 coverage. This monitor does (125% for sRGB and 95% for P3).
 
A DeltaE of below 1 would be ridiculous. I mean, the PG27UQ has a saturation accuracy of around 3 DeltaE. You're gonna need a reference monitor for it to be below 1.
 
Why a 12 or 14 bit LUT? The DisplayHDR1000 certification requires the panel and LUT to be at least 10 bits. That's already really, really good (remember, we're dealing with the power of 2, so 8 to 10 bits is a massive jump). 10 bits is already very, very granular stepping. So much that it is considered perfectly acceptable for even very color accuracy demanding applications. Besides, you are going to have a very hard time finding any program which actually has a full 12 bit color path. Even 10 bit is hard to find these days, but has gotten more common over the last couple of years. I am not even sure Windows supports over 10 bits of color depth.
Like I said earlier, I own this monitor and I run it at 8 bit color depth because DisplayPort is not powerful enough to drive it at 10 bit color at 120Hz. Let that sink in for a moment... We're already passed the maximum DisplayPort supports, and you want to further increase that by 16 times (4 more bits, each extra bit doubles the precision).
 
Most monitors doesn't even use a true 8 bit panel. They are mostly 6 bit with dithering. So this monitor is already 16 times better than most monitors when it comes to color lookup precision.

The VESA standard is called DisplayHDR, not just HDR.
DisplayHDR has three different levels. 400, 600 and 1000.
 
HDR10 is an open standard for HDR content. It defines what color space the video should be in (Rec. 2020), the bit depth (10 bits) and the EOTF (SMPTE ST 2084 PQ).
 
 
DIsplayHDR is a standard for hardware which means the display is of a certain quality and has certain capabilities.
 
HDR10 is a standard for how HDR content is packaged, and a HDR10 monitor supports and understands those formats. For example in HDR content which uses EOTF it will tell the display "produce this color at 400 nits of brightness" while if we used the regular gamma standard it would tell the display "produce 50% of your max brightness" (which in this case would be 500 nits, but on another monitor it might be 200 hits).
 
 
Yes, this monitor is a HDR10 monitor because it supports and understand all those formats defined in the HDR10 standard.
 
Yes, this monitor is a DisplayHDR1000 monitor because it supports all the things specified in the VESA standard as well.
 
 
 
 
Dude... What? I think you're using words you don't understand.
RGB and WCG are two different things. RGB is a collection of different color spaces which uses red, greed and blue, including things like sRGB, Adobe RGB, Adobe Wide Gamut RGB, ProPhoto RGB, etc, etc...
WCG is just a generic term for "wide color gamut", which this monitor has because it has 95% coverage of the DCI-P3 gamut.
The 92% coverage is for AdobeRGB, which is a wide color gamut used for printing.
The standard color gamut used by computers is called sRGB. Most monitors can't even fully reproduce that color space, but this monitor has a 125% coverage of it.
 
No it isn't. It's within all the criteria necessary for DisplayHDR1000 certification. It's even listed on VESA's website, along with the other 8 monitors which achieved that certification.
 
It does.
 
Depends on what your definition of WCG is (since that's just a generic term and not a standard with rigid definitions). I'd say 95% DCI-P3 coverage is WCG.
 
Again, it has 95% DCI-P3 coverage. What you're talking about is AdobeRGB, which is far wider than sRGB (which this monitor has 125% coverage of).
AdobeRGB is a color space meant to include most of the colors printable by a CMYK printer, but mapped to RGB colors.
92% sRGB coverage would have been really meh.
92% AdobeRGB coverage is really impressive.
 
Here is a picture showing AdobeRGB, DCI-P3 and sRGB against each other.

 
 
 

Here's VESA's site. It shows certified monitors at different HDR levels and how they are rated. 
 
https://displayhdr.org/certified-products/
 
I see the term HDR10 used. But then see HDR400, HDR600, HDR1000. I'm no expert either. But their site does list this monitor has certified for HDR1000. 
 
EDIT: Not finding good info for HDR10 requirements. From the looks of it VESA just gave us different levels of HDR that play HDR10 content. But I cannot find any hard requirements for HDR10. The 2 set of standards are talked about briefly in this article. https://www.anandtech.com/show/12144/vesa-announces-displayhdr-spec-and-tiers
 
If anyone one can find HDR10 specs/requirements from a legitimate source I would be interested. But as far as I can tell VESA's standards will play HDR10 content. 

Here's VESA's site. It shows certified monitors at different HDR levels and how they are rated. 
 
https://displayhdr.org/certified-products/
 
I see the term HDR10 used. But then see HDR400, HDR600, HDR1000. I'm no expert either. But their site does list this monitor has certified for HDR1000. 
 
EDIT: Not finding good info for HDR10 requirements. From the looks of it VESA just gave us different levels of HDR that play HDR10 content. But I cannot find any hard requirements for HDR10. The 2 set of standards are talked about briefly in this article. https://www.anandtech.com/show/12144/vesa-announces-displayhdr-spec-and-tiers
 
If anyone one can find HDR10 specs/requirements from a legitimate source I would be interested. But as far as I can tell VESA's standards will play HDR10 content. 

Umm.... I have a 2560x1080p LG 29 inch. And don't have any of the problems you mention in Battlefield 1. And in fact most if not all new games do support the 21:9 resolution without stretching. Older games on the other hand are hit and miss. I've owned 2 of these 21:9 monitors for over 2 years now. And own quite a few different games to try them on.
 
Keep in mind though when you start screwing with the FOV settings in BF1 or Battlefront it will begin to fish eye. But that would happen on a regular monitor as well. So you have to find the sweet spot.

Can we please stop propagating this myth 
 
https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm
 
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/22/10-myths-electric-cars-explored-exploded/
 
Overall and after usage, hybrids and Evs are still better than ICE cars.

Am I the only one who thinks that phones are getting more boring every year?

https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-B150-HD3-DDR3-rev-10#support-cpu

Idk, cosmetic only loot boxes are fine IMO (if the DLC is free), because they do not affect gameplay in any way shape or form and they are much better than paid DLC, as they don't split the player base. (Talking about online games)  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
EDIT: I've just realized that Ghost Recon Wildlands has microtransactions and paid DLC. Come on Ubisoft, this is not okay.

Scream US number one

Aren't these contradictory?
[1]: Blizzard is not giving money from sales towards the prize pool
[2]: Blizzard is giving 50% of sales (some money) to the prize pool
 
Am I missing something here?

News should be objective and non-opinionated, or at least try to be. 
This is anything but that, plus your arguments do not even have a logical support. 
 
People are fine buying a football jersey for $60, but players should get an in-game jersey for free? It’s only a couple dollars and fans get to support their own teams. 
 
This is great to support the rise of eSports. Gives companies more reasons to remain competitive and keeps the league more alive. 

It's acceptable the way it currently is. These are just re-colored base skins that have team colors. It's not giving anyone a competitive edge, it's strictly aesthetics. If you want to show others that you prefer a specific team on the league, you can buy skins for that team and support them in doing so. It's no different than the people throwing hundreds of dollars at their favorite twitch streamers, except they get something in return for doing so.
 
I really don't get your disdain towards this specific practice, as it's not like other micro-transactions. This post just feels like it's trying to capitalize on the anti micro-transactions bandwagon as a whole. Yes, in specific contexts, micro-transactions are bad, but when it's harmless, and in support of players preferred teams, it's harmless. No different than selling jerseys or sports merchandise. 

More enjoyment =/= Advantage in the game. The original post is the same as every other whine about micro transactions. "It gives them an unfair advantage" and is "milking money"
 
Its nice to get a new, fancy skin but isn't required. I barely even look at my skin during game, that's how much it affects me. I could play the game for the rest of my life with zero cosmetic items and still have as much fun as I do now.
 
 

Really? Please, you're having a laugh, right?
 
How the hell does cosmetic items affect how you play? I could play Overwatch with no skins, no sprays, no highlights or emotes and still be the same skill I am.

Disagree 100% with this post.
 
Just because they charge money for something does not make it anti consumer. They're additions to the game, and they have no effect on gameplay. 
 
I think this is a totally fair way to do micro transactions. The fact they added 312 skins is frankly insane. 

Oh no, a developer adds cosmetic items to a game which you can either get from playing the game or pay for the ones you want! and not just that, if you go with the latter, 50% of the money goes towards esport teams instead of the developers!
 
What a terrible thing to do!
 
/sarcasm
 
 
Edit:
Actually, I think these are really good news. I think this is a great example of how to do lootboxes properly.
1) Release the game at full price.
2) Constantly release patches which adds new characters, tweak things, new maps etc, for free.
3) Have cosmetic things which you can either get from lootboxes (which you earn by simply playing the game), or by buying specific skins with money.
4) Give some of the money you earn from lootboxes (50% is a big chunk) to the esport teams to support them.
 
On top of that, you can get one free skin of your choice for free. 
 
I see this as a win-win-win situation.
Players gets a great game with gets additional content for free. On top of that you never feel like you lost because someone had spent more money than you. Blizzard wins by having a reliable stream of revenue to fund future content with. eSports wins by getting funded by the developers themselves. Good job Blizzard!

Thats not exactly what it says. It may sound like it but it may not be it, hard to say... it is quite a blank statement.

Full quote is this, and you posted it. 
It may literally mean something like Assassin's Creed or Mass Effect MP, or probably something completely different. I'm not saying they won't implement microtransactions (highly possible they will) but out of all game companies CDPR has earned the right of doubt before jumping to conclusions and literally pulling them from 3 sentences.
I'm pretty sure they won't be build the game around them even if they implement them, but this way of reasoning is becoming ridiculous, even if you turn out to be correct. 

Im glad they cancelled the Surface Mini. I don't think it would of sold well on aesthetics alone.
 
But I disagree with you on app switching. I argue that Windows 8/RT was the best for app switching. Swiping from the left to pull up open apps? One swipe? How is that cumbersome? I also never had a problem with it showing all the apps. I was able to easily go thru and select the app I wanted. Maybe you prefer the iOS or android for app switching. But I would say cumbersome is definitely a stretch. 

Tell the difference between mining, folding at home, and other applications. Then tell my why I should be punished for using a card I bought and should have software that can arbitrarily decide that I've done something a company doesn't like. Maybe the next step is they burn your System ID into the card and if you try to sell it then it won't work.