Tech Enthusiast

Just wanted to point out that all the points towards "average" are off by a longshot. You are NOT showing the average values in that steam survey. You are showing "Most people use this". In the example of CPU clocks, 20% use low clocks. That is not the average tho. You could have 19% use 6ghz, another 19% use 5.9ghz etc. Should look over that and clarify. ;-)

Thanks all for the suggestions. After doing a few more hours of Google and Reddit Research, checking each and every suggestion here,... I am quite sure that there simply is no Monitor matching my wanted specs, apart from the damn expensive Asus thing in my OP. The LG one seems to be the closest match for around 1k, without having too many drawbacks that are unbearable. Sadly, I have been burnt by ultrawide and curved screens (tried both and hated both to be frank). This further limits my options, since "gaming" monitors seem to go the way of the curve at this point, at least quite a few of them. 27 Inch really is not an option either (this would increase my options like 10x, I know), since 32 inch really turns out to be the sweet spot for me. My wife still has one 27 inch screen and looking at them side by side, it gets dwarfed by the 32 inch. Ontop of that 32 inch seems to be the limit on what my field of view allows, without missing crucial popups and informations on the sides. So going bigger is not an option, since I can't place the monitor further away from me right now (this may change once we move into the new house in about half a year). So for now it seems to be the two options from my OP, with the LG being the much better value for sure. Even knowing the clear advantages of the Asus Monitor, I can't justify the 3x price hike. Going for the "cheap" 1k option from LG allows me to have fun now and once a great 32 inch OLED (or better) with the desired specs shows up for 1500 or less,... I can just switch and sell the LG one. Thanks again for all your input and suggestions!

That list looks terrible. This is either a troll post, or your friend just looked up the most expensive part and told you to buy it, without even checking if they are actually good. In that case, I do have some snake oil to sell btw. If you are interested, hit me up!

Thanks. Will give it a good look. Not a fan of VA Panels or Curves, but if the end result is better than what LG offers, I don't mind.

That is exactly my thinking. Better yes, but not 3x the price better. I have found one more contenter in those lists, but it seems hard to find in any store or even a review,... * Acer Predator X32 FP - https://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/OffersOfProduct/202056432_-predator-x32-fp-acer.html#datasheet Certainly, at my absolute upper limit at around 1600 bucks. Any Monitor Geek here that could give an insight on how well those 550+ dimming zones and mini led compare to the LG Ultragear? Would it be a (very) noticeable difference that warrants the extra 600 bucks?

That one is pretty dimm and curved / ultrawide. Not a big fan of either.

Been a journey I have been on for years now. In the past 2 years several screens have popped up, for quite hefty prices. I am looking at these two: * LG UltraGear 32GQ950-B, 31.5" - https://geizhals.de/lg-32gq950-b-a2730590.html * ASUS ROG Swift PG32UQX, 32" - https://geizhals.de/asus-rog-swift-pg32uqx-a2507431.html As you can see the prices are around 1k and around 3,4k. So quite a difference. Obviously the ASUS one is much better. MiniLED, over 1000 dimming zones and 1400 vompared to 1000 HDR. But I am not willing to spend (much) more than 1k really. Maybe 1500,... ... my question is: Is there a middle ground Screen somewhere? Something that offers a little better display tech than the LG Ultragear, without increasing the price by 3x? I am not willing to go below 32 inch size or below 1000 peak brightness. That kind of makes the search very narrow and hard.

Possible. I only looked at about 5 reviews and they all showed the 5800x3d winning in most cases vs the current gen AMD chips. Intel is pretty good with their gaming performance in their 13th gen, but I did not think they were THAT cheap to get. About the conjuring more money: I honestly don't think anyone could get 1500 bucks and not get 1600 by waiting another month. I would not change anything in that part list to be honest. Not downwards at least. I would double the memory and get a better GPU and deal with the little waiting time it would take to get that money. Since you mentioned a Student License and are from Germany: I made 950 bucks / month by being a tutor in LMU Munich. And another 600 bucks by waiting tables 4 days a month. We are talking a couple weeks TOPS to increase that budget, if you want to. And it would really pay off. That list is great. It really is. Just add a few bucks to upgrade the GPU and memory and you are golden. Hell, you could order a few parts on a "pay over 12 months" plan and not have to do extra jobs on a weekend at all. However, I can't stress it enough: A better GPU is worth A LOT more than it costs at that price point. 200 bucks extra get you a MUCH better gaming experience. If you really can't make that work for some reason, your current List is fine. But you will regret not conjuring up that extra money.

For any gaming focused PC there is one simple rule: Buy the most expensive GPU you can and build the remaining system around that. OK, maybe a little too simplistic, obviously don't spend 1k on a GPU and 500 on the rest,... but if you can, actually do that. No, really. The GPU will be the one component you REALLY notice. The other stuff is nice to have and better parts will be better, yadda, yadda. But in reality you won't notice the difference between two ram kits that vary in price by a factor of 2x. But you will notice the difference of going just one tier higher for a GPU. Exaggerations aside: Get the better GPU. Think hard about getting an even better one and if you really can't find the few bucks extra to get it. You. Will. Notice it. The rest of the system is pretty fine. Id go with a 5800x3d tho, as it currently is one (if not the) best gaming CPU for that budget.

At this point I am 100% sure the guy is just a really crazy troll that got us all. There is no way in hell this is serious. I fear for humanity if it is... no one could be this stubborn in his denial of reality. Apart from that one party in that one country, where it seems to be the common thing to do.

Sure, if you start presenting facts and not just wild fever dreams for once. Like really... your nonsense has been debunked time and time again. There are quite a few people in this topic alone that really know how batteries and charging works (much better than me), and you just insist on ignoring all they say, while keeping your happy wonderland ideas intact and repeated over and over.

Ah, my bad. So charging is just a matter of energy flow and neither materials on both ends have any impact or losses due to heat, conversion, chemistry or something unimportant like that. Did not know that charging negates those laws. What do you think heat is? Same. It seems like you are thinking a power line --> charger --> battery is like a bottle --> hole --> cup. Which is simply wrong on about every possible end. Really should stop trying to argue that against all the people trying to explain why it is wrong. You are just making yourself look bad by googling random snippets from Wikipedia and forgetting to look at all the context (funnily like in that test lol).

You really need to stop posting this crap. That is just not how charging works, and it never has and does not work like that for ANY phone or whatever else for that matter. Just like, 200 horsepower don't accelerate a car twice as fast as 100 horsepower do. Laws of physics are in place that don't match your expectations, but that is a "you" problem, not a Samsung problem. Samsung claims a 50% charge in 30 minutes, and they reach that under best-case conditions, fall short of it by 2-4% on worse conditions. Marketing has always been the best-case kind of thing, and people know that. And the best case recorded also matches their advertised improvements. YOU are the only one that reads 45w charging as "advertised 80% improvement". Neither does Samsung claim that, nor is it possible or sensible. Your example with Ryzen is baffling as well. You compare a CPU that needs to be spot on and every % counts to get a stable FPS in games in real time, ... and compare it to charging that is usually done HOURS before you wake up. OF COURSE, people care more for the former and can't be bothered to get all upset about the latter.

If it is so easy to please your curiosity, I envy you. Really do. Wish my world was this easy. Just because no one else bothers to test something that should be obvious... the one person that does, MUST be correct, no matter what he says. Amazing logic. Guess we can end this now. Enough time wasted.

Since they did not state what their procedure was, we just don't know. No idea how that is not clear? It could be a 30min cooldown time, no cooldown time, ... hell, they could have put a torch to the phone before each test for all we know. They don't let the readers know, so that is fishy. Usually, if you don't state HOW you conduct a test, you can expect an agenda behind the results. Nowadays, that is fine enough for some folks, as this debate prooves. It does not seem to matter if a result is valid, just that it is written down, without the need to know how it came to be. Really unsure what is there to debate here. No context has been given, so the results are up for random interpretation / useless. If that is enough for you, be my guest. If you don't understand why context matters, there is nothing I / we could say to change your mind anyway.