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!

9 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

How about Samsung Odyssey Neo G7. 

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.

11 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Better on paper, certainly. How much of a difference will that make and is it worth the price? Probably not.

That is exactly my thinking. Better yes, but not 3x the price better.

11 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

I would recommend to have a look at the monitor lists, buying guides and reviews on:

https://www.displayninja.com/

https://www.rtings.com/monitor

https://www.prad.de/ (German)

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?

11 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

What about the QD OLED alienware AW3423DW ? It has specs you want, is OLED and around 1300EUR

https://geizhals.de/dell-alienware-aw3423dw-210-bcye-a2695205.html

 

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.

1 hour ago, Avallyn said:

So, assuming you can't magically conjure more money than ca. 1500€, which tradeoffs would you make in this https://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/2dY3v3  to get the more expensive GPU?

(Also, if I put the 13600KF vs the 7 5800x3d into google, the benchmarks it spits out all favor the intel CPU and the intel CPU is cheaper where I am as well. Why do you think the 7 5800x3d is better? Or did I get my numbers mixed up again? That already happened once in this thread)

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.

Just now, HenrySalayne said:

Maybe we can once again take a step back from the kindergarden level and return to a more factual discussion.

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.

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Wow. I think you should spend some time filling the gaps in your scientific knowledge. The energy of a moving body follows the quadratic equation E = 1/2 * m * v². So you need four times the power to get to the same speed two times as fast.

Charging on the other hand is a linear equation. It's simply E = P * t. So twice the power will cut the time in half.

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.

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

So energy conservation is a lie? Oof...

What do you think heat is?

3 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Refer to paragraph 1.

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).

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

Oh yes you can. And it's trivial. If the 25W charger reaches 25%, the 45W charger has to hit 45% (or at least something close). If this would be the case, we would not have this conversation. As it stands right now, the best case recorded is just one quarter of the advertised improvements. What a joke.

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.

11 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

So why is it overheating? Malicious intend by the testers or bad design by Samsung?

We don't know because the testers don't give the needed information to judge that. Exactly the issue I am calling out the whole time. Not enough context to get a meaningful picture.

17 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

And that's 12% at best (in one edge case) while we would expect 80%.

No. "We" would never expect that because that is not how charging works at all.

You are the only one expecting this, totally ignoring all the physics behind this.

There is a reason the fast-charging phones (100w and up) use two batteries to get these speeds.

There is also a reason the first 50% of charging go by MUCH faster.

There is also a reason the first 10 minutes of charging are even faster than that.

And there is a reason all the tech outlets promote NOT using fast charging, to not grill the battery.

The mentioned "tests" seem to ignore all that and just pretend the same nonsense you are pretending.

You could make a 2000w charger, and it would not go any faster, due to physical limitations. A 7% or 12% gap in charge is accurately what would be expected with a jump from 25w → 45w. And a 1% gap is precisely what would be expected with an overheating battery. Fast charging is meant to help with short bursts of power need, and never to fully charge a phone all the time. It even says so in all the paperwork on every smartphone I have bought in the past 7 years (even before that, but I can't check anymore).

Ignoring all that, ... I still don't understand why you are happy to trust a test that omits all the needed information. Ignoring the topic at hand, this seems like (sorry) a very dumb approach to about anything in life. Don't you want to know context? Don't you want to know WHY something shows up as X, rather than Y?

A Porsche is driving exactly at the same speed as a VW Golf. This is also a true statement, but without context it can mean just about everything, ... the implied meaning of "a Porsche is not faster than a golf" is simply wrong. But missing context still implies that, ...

12 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

You both suggest that in several independent tests with different devices the battery was already cooking and that's why all of these tests don't show any significant improvement? Sounds like a far shot to be honest. GSMArena did at least three runs all showing the same picture.

I am suggesting the tests have been done in SOME way, and for SOME reason they don't tell us how. That is a red flag, always.

Have they cooled down the phones between the runs?

Have they cooled down the phones after discharging them?

What else have they done /not done that they don't tell us?

Phones are not built to endure constant pressure; they are built to handle everyday common usage and a little more.

No one would power drain their phone and recharge it three times. People drain their phone over the day and usually recharge it overnight / in the evening and if they forget it, they need a quick and helpful charge in the morning. 45w will do that last bit MUCH better, and for the other use cases even a 5w charger would top it off before it gets use again.

But the bottom line is:

We simply can't take anything definitive from these results because we don't know how they were achieved. 

To get useful information out of a result, you NEED to know the context.

To make it as plain and simple as possible:

If testing were done with a full cooldown period, this result would show a broken marketing promise and / or a faulty product design.

If testing were done WITHOUT a full cooldown period, this result would show a meaningless situation that at best would require further testing and at worst means nothing for the consumer at all.

The only sure takeaway here is to avoid these "testing" sources in the future, since they don't do a decent job at showing the full picture and context for results, which makes most results meaningless or even worse: misleading. Even if the result was valid and real, ... since we just don't know. And there certainly is enough false and / or misleading information around that gets treated like a fact.

32 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

You are somewhat right. But in the end we are not talking about small differences, not at all. The charge level indicated by the device is unreliable (it's just an educated guess, so we should not focus too much on the reported battery level).

45W should take only 55% of the time compared to 25W. And below 50% this difference must be clearly visible. It's not. And the reasons for this don't matter. It's just not a feature of this device.

That is like saying a 200hp car should be twice as fast as a 100hp car,... in a town with a speed limit of 30.

Heat is a thing. Actually the Nr 1 thing for charging nowadays.

If you abuse the phone to empty its battery, and it is already burning... even a 10w charger will likely give the same results.

That is why testing needs to be explained. Just showing these results can mean nothing, or everything, or something in between. We just don't know.

All we know is: There is at least one possible condition under which a 45w charger is not charging faster, in a 30min test, than a 25w charger.

Far from giving a full picture.

I kind of expect two things here:

1. The battery was on fire before the 45w test and could not charge as fast due to a save lock.

2. A 10-15min charge would show dramatically different values.

Bonus expectation: Put the phone on a brick of ice while charging and it would fly up much faster on the 45w charger.

All things a good and fair comparison should test and point out. Only a full picture is a real help for the consumer, not a cherry picked and unknown one off use-case.

That looks more like they forgot to actually enable fast charging.

Apart from that, as many have stated, way too many variebles left blank in order to actually take it seriously.

Well, there have been major breakthroughs,... that is not what "always 30 years away" means at all.

We will get breakthroughs at an increasingly fast pace. That does not mean "it is done and works!", it just means another hurdle has been beaten.

There is more than one challenge in getting theoretical infinite power.

29 minutes ago, dizmo said:

No, I'm right.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/why-nuclear-fusion-is-always-30-years-away

So, an article that basically says: "there have been setbacks in research of a new technology", is your basis on being "right" on it never releasing ever? Because that is exactly what "always 30 years away" suggests. It will never get there.

That is a pretty low bar as far as "proof" goes, man.

6 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

To put that into context solar panels kill about 100-150 people a year

Oh boy. I guess we can stop right there.

Solar panels killing more people than all the nuclear accidents haha.

"If I don't see a person dying, it did not die!" kinda arguments are not exactly a debate I am willing to partake in. I will leave that to US political debates and other comedy shows.

10 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

We’ve had fission reactors since the 50’s/60’s? 

And all of those proved to be as perfectly safe and secure as you suggested? Yes?

The best we can do is build new ones that are MUCH more save, but "perfectly save" is far off. As long as a meltdown can happen, the possible fallout is just way too big to call it save.

If the worst that could happen was a sick person in the plant, we could call that perfectly save. If a "woopsie!" could lead to several hundred thousand dead people AND a dead piece of land for centuries, it is hard to call it perfectly save.

8 minutes ago, dizmo said:

What's the long standing joke? Nuclear fusion is always about 30 years away? 

Its really not. It is just not an easy to do thing and people outside of research have a very short time window they pay attention to.

Basically, if it takes longer than a week, it is boomer stuff.