Over

Over the years I've tried several mice from several brands, but sooner or later, they all brake down. I'm gentle with my hardware, but I guess I use the scroll wheel click too much, thanks to a competitive online game I play. Usually what happens is that after 1 to 1,5 years (max), I have to press harder and harder the scroll wheel button, for it to register the click. Until it stops working or the mouse wheel actually brakes physically. My latest mouse is a Roccat Burst Pro, and it's my favourite mouse so far. It's the one that lasted me longer is probably what I will buy again, if no ones recommends me something better. The scroll wheel button is already spotty (sometimes registers my click, sometimes not) for a couple of months and today I've started to have to press much harder, so I'm guessing it will breake anytime, time to buy another one. So, anyone knows a mouse that is tough, durable, specially the scroll wheel button? I don't care about high dpi (I play with around 1500-1800dpi), nor I care about RGP (although this one I have is pretty). I prefer wired, as I play competitively. I know mice have a life expectancy, but I have no idea how much 80000000 clicks should last. Maybe 1-1,5 years is normal from a gamer with heavy usage and I'm asking for something that doesn't exist. Or maybe it's the way I use the mouse that wears the scroll wheel button faster... Anyway, any recommendations are welcome.

bump

I've decided not to buy an ultrawide game monitor, maybe one day, with OLED technology. So I've turned my attention to a 27" 1440p monitor. I'm undecided between the two monitors in the title. The LG one is 550€, so it's 150€ cheaper than the 700€ Asus one. And I'm more inclined for that one, but ASUS has better HDR support, as it can get brighter. rtings.com site has a review of the LG monitor but not of the Asus one. Other reviews say that LG's HDR is not very good (but then, it seems almost no monitor has good HDR, specially at this price range). rtings says "it can display a wide color gamut in HDR, but unfortunately, it can't get bright enough to bring out highlights.". The Asus can actually reach the 400 nits brightness in HDR, still not enough for real HDR-10, but better than the 350nits of the LG. Tom'sHardware says "Excelent HDR" in its pros and cons section, but Guru3D says "Compliance with the HDR 400 standard on an 8-bit matrix will not bring the user much joy." and "In HDR games, HDR is often "screwed on" only for light flashes, blaster shots, or more atmospheric explosions, with the rest of the scene losing contrast. In my opinion, perhaps subjectively, none of the existing games looked "tasty". The last comment seems more like a criticism of HDR implementation in games in general than Asus' fault. If they had a review of the LG to compare... But they don't. I would like to have a monitor with decent HDR support, but it seems none of these monitors are particularly exciting on that front. But most monitors in this category can be even worse on that aspect. And I would not like to go for the 1000+€ monitors (and even those, HDR is not highly praised or have setbacks). So, I would like to know your opinion, and specially, experience about these two monitors. Specially about the HDR. Is Asus' better HDR worth the extra 150€? Or even if it has better HDR, is it weaker on other aspects comparing to LG? Of course, if there is another monitor, with good HDR and for around the same price as these two, please, let me know.

I think you convinced me not to go for UW, yet. Maybe one day, with OLED panels. My TV is a LG B6 OLED and it's great. Something like that, but smaller (<32" or <38" ultrawide) would be the ideal. But I still want to upgrade from my old BenQ 24" XL2411. Great to hear. Although I was thinking about going for a bigger monitor, and those black bars might become more annoying, the bigger they are. Your vertical monitor is 16:10, so that means you have some extra width in that position. That helps a little bit. But like Stahlmann98 above, you're not recommending the UW for gaming. Did you mean UW in general, or did you mean your monitor model in particular?

I can see how that vertical position of your secondary monitor compensates for your main monitor extra width. That would solve everything for me, except maybe watching youtube videos in that secondary monitor. Btw, what is that UW monitor? I've thought about that, but I was assuming that if a game doesn't support uw resolution, I could always play it in 16:9, with black borders. When I watch movies with black borders, I usually don't mind. I don't know if the borders are on the sides and being much larger, will be distracting. SPecially because I'm thinking about going for an IPS monitor, wihch might not have the deepest blacks... Hum...

I'm currently using a dual monitor setup. One 24" 1080p, which is my main monitor and do fullscreen gaming and is in front of me. And a 22" monitor, a little bit to my right side, where I browse the internet and do other activities, while gaming, for example. I'm very tempted to buy an ultrawide monitor, with high resolution and HDR, for gaming and videos, but would like to keep a secondary monitor, to do stuff while gaming in fullscreen. I'm just afraid that with the center monitor taking a lot more width, the right monitor would have to be further to my right and it might become uncomfortable to use that way. Or maybe the differences in screen sizes may be off putting? So I would like to know if there are any other people here that are using a similar setup and what has been your experience with it. You're enjoying it with no problems? Any regrets? Negative experiences?

I'm wondering is DLSS can be used for other resolutions besides 4K. For example, someone who games @1440p or an UltraWide resolution, can benefit from DLSS? Or it only works to upscale lower resolutions to 4K?

I'm a little bit out of my depth about this. Are you saying that with PCIe Gen 3, the RTX 3080 or the NVMe SSD will be bottlenecked? Or are you just saying sometime in the future I might want to upgrade the GPU, for example, and only then PCIe Gen 3 might be not enough?

I have a 500/100 Mbps internet from my ISP and I'm using their router which supports 1Gbps. Is there any advantage to use a Cat.7 or Cat.8 ethernet cable to connect my PC to the router? I know it won't be faster, of course, but I wonder about signal stability, latency and such. Or should I just get a Cat.6 ethernet cable and be done with it?

The CPU you mention is 410€ here. Do you think it's worth it, for gaming? About the RAM, I found this one: 1 x G.Skill Kit 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3600MHz Ripjaws V Black CL16 - 189,90 € There's also a 4x8GB version. What is better? Thanks for helping

Budget (including currency): 2500€ Country: Portugal Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: The most performance demanding thing I'll do, it's gaming. Anything else, I know I can do with a much weaker and cheaper PC... Other details: I have two 1080p monitors (but only use one for gaming) and I'm, planning to buy a 4K one, later. I already have mouse and keyboard and sound system. This is what's I'm aiming for: 1 x Intel Core i7 9700K 8-Core (3.6GHz-4.9GHz) 12MB Skt1151 - 349,90 € 1 x Disco SSD Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB M.2 NVMe - 229,90 € 1 x Cooler CPU Noctua NH-U14S U-TYPE - 69,90 € 1 x HyperX Kit 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3000MHz Predator CL15 - 187,90 € 1 x Fonte Modular Corsair RM 850 (2019) 80+ Gold - 124,90 € 1 x MSI GeForce® RTX 3080 GAMING X TRIO 10G - 809,00 € 1 x Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64-bit PT OEM - 116,90 € 1 x Disco Western Digital Black 4TB 7200rpm 128MB SATA III - 194,90 € 1 x Caixa ATX Fractal Design Define R6 USB-C Blackout Vidro Temperado - 159,90 € 1 x Motherboard MSI MPG Z390 GAMING PRO CARBON AC - 229,90 € Total: 2,473.10 € What do you think? Any incompatibilities? About the RAM, would go for a higher speed one, although with higher CAS? What about the motherboard? I confess I've chosen somewhat randomly, I don't know what to look for, beside being compatible with the CPU and having USB-C ports. I'm also not sure what would be the best CPU for gaming. I was undecided between and i7 or i9. And I prefer Intel instead of AMD, although I know AMD currently is very strong on CPUs. I think the cooler is compatible, although might cover the first RAM slot, not sure. Noctua is reknowned for being silent. I don't know about water based cooling, but I think they might be not as efficient and silent like Noctua's aircooling? I've chosen Fractal Design's case, because they have the fame of good insonorization.

Any news about this? I have an i7 4470 and a GTX 1080. Surely this should be playing 8K youtube videos without lag, right? Internet conection: 500Mbit.

Is it worth it to upgrade from GTX 1080 to RTX 2080 Ti, considering I have an old i7 4770K cpu with 16GB of DDR3 RAM? I don't know if the CPU can keep up with the RTX 2080 Ti performance. Or should I wait more until I can buy a new CPU and motherboard as well? I've been avoinding to go 4K because I know I wouldn't get decent FPS with my current GPU. But I'm willing to upgrade my monitor, but only after upgrading my PC.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I would prefer an internal drive. I've already have 3 external ones permanently connected to the PC, plus three 2,5" portable ones (one of them, an enclosed SSD). The internal ones have faster access times (maybe because they don't "go to sleep" as often or "wake up" faster). Also, although I have USB3, I've never got transfer speeds above 28MB/s (even with the SSD one). To other internal drives, I get a lot more speed. Plus, I already had 3 external drives fail me in the past 7 years, so I prefer this time to get an internal one (in 20+ years, only had problems once). The WD red is 5400rpm, not 7200rpm. But I see you found some other options for a similar price. One of them, Seagate Barracuda Pro, looks exactly the same as the one in my post, although cheaper. How's that? The ironwolf one you pointed looks very interesting. Thanks for the suggestions. I was about to choose the Seagate IronWolf one suggested above, but you had to fill me with doubts again. :)

I have a 1TB wd green HDD which is 6 years old and is always full. I use it only for storage and as the drive where are all my downloads are directed to. Some I keep there, most are then transfered to external drives. So it's mainly for storage and file transfers. No software or game installed. I need more room to breath, and I was thinking about buying one of these 8tB drives. What do you recommend me? WD Red (268.65€) https://www.amazon.es/dp/B07D3MWMNZ/?coliid=I3TZJGB85PH0HS&amp;colid=1A925TMV1E3Y3&amp;psc=1&amp;ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it Seagate Barracuda Pro - 8TB Serial ATA III, 7200 RPM, 3.5", 256 MB caché (320,08€) https://www.amazon.es/dp/B06Y6CCSVW/?coliid=I3G7S5U3V772PH&amp;colid=1A925TMV1E3Y3&amp;psc=1&amp;ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it Seagate Barracuda - 8 TB Serial ATA III, 5400 RPM, 3.5" (225,85€) https://www.amazon.es/dp/B075WYBQXJ/?coliid=I1BI0Z0HNXHZWM&amp;colid=1A925TMV1E3Y3&amp;psc=1&amp;ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it Since my current WD green always worked perfectly, i'm more inclined for the wd red, although I don't know if it being for NAS systems make it less recommended for my use case? The Seagate Barracuda is cheaper, but I don't know how reliable their hdds are. If you say it's reliable and the performance is similar, then i would go for the cheaper choice. The Seagate Barracuda Pro is the most expensive, but it's 7200rpm and a more recent drive, so it should be faster. I don't know if the difference of price is justified by the performance boost, specially as I won't be using for OS or any other software. What's your recommendation?