TallboyGus

At home right now I happen to enjoy some outstanding hand-me-down Predator X27s. I absolutely adore 1440p, the benefits of IPS over TN, and the high refresh rate that these monitors bring. G-Sync for tearing is also an excellent addition that I plainly can't imagine going without. However - I'll be moving into a dorm pretty soon. I wanted to plan in advance on how to get a monitor onto my desk that is smaller than these two beasts of 27" monitors. However, I've tried to look up what is essentially a smaller version of the "XB271HU bmiprz" - i.e., a 24", 25", 23.8" etc. class of monitor that is just smaller, but with the same/similar features. Using pcpartpicker.com I can find some monitors that match some of these criteria, but they're either TN or don't have G-Sync. I know that many laptop displays have managed to do most, if not all, of the above in less than 17" displays. Is there a reason that the monitor with all these features cannot exist? Is there a monitor that meets all these criteria that I simply can't find, or that isn't listed on pcpartpicker? I've been searching for a day or two and I'm coming up blank p.s. - I am going from two monitors to one because of space constraint (the desk in the dorms does not allow for desk clamp monitor arms, so the monitor will have to sit on my desk next to my tower), and ultrawide is not out of the picture at all.

Since the new NZXT Kraken X72 has just been released, I was thinking of adding it to the plan for my personal rig. Problem: I totally love the Phanteks Enthoo Evolv mATX (TG, of course) and I'm unsure as to the height compatibility of triple rads in it. http://phanteks.com/Enthoo-Evolv-mATX-TemperedGlass.html According to Phanteks, the maximum width of the radiator could be 126mm, so the X72's 120mm thickness seems like it'd be totally fine with that. What I'm worried about is the height of the radiator. I'm worried that they say that "oh, triple rads fit" more as an accommodation for open-loop triple radiators that might have more low-profile plugs, instead of the tubes that come out of of a closed-loop radiator. On the site, it doesn't say how long/tall the radiator can be in order to fit in the case. https://www.nzxt.com/products/kraken-x72 Does anyone know from experience what can fit? Length of the X72 is 394mm according to NZXT

There's the schism. See, I'm talking about more general use for stuff like animators, image editors, people who do most of this stuff at home and have their monitors are double use for work and gaming From the bit that I've dabbled in coding optimization for games, I know that taking resolutions at sensible intervals is much easier than anything else. If someone were to make a monitor with one of RED's weird pixel measurements, for example, textures and stuff would have to be upscaled in areas, to the point that they might artifact. Cameras and monitors having to do with cinematography will of course have their own special requirements and standards, but that AIN'T what I mean. EDID profiles are the set-in profiles in your monitor, that allow it to run at lower resolutions, and respectively higher refresh rates, usually. That might just be in engineering models. I'm not sure about that, don't quote me on it. But in a normal 16:9 monitor, these EDID profiles ALWAYS range from 540p-2160p, with the 16:9 pixel ratio remaining, in the way you'd expect. This entire article began as a bickering point of mine that the accepted "5k" resolution in modern 5k monitors is just doubled from 2560x1440, and I simply wanna see some shit making SENSE, rather than being referred to in a shorthand system that doesn't even work all the time.

Again, looking at samsung's 32:9 monitor that's 3840x1080, I'd be surprised if you could get someone to call that a 4k monitor, but I suppose you could call it whatever you want. RED themselves have some odd logic in their everything, and considering that they're actually breaking new ground with every sensor that they make,I'd say they're allowed to define what they like in the making of these sensors and in their marketing papers. 16:9 monitors are by far the most common. I don't see the point in having some special monitor like one with a 21:9 or 4:3 aspect ratio - with wholly different professional uses - and grouping those in with 4k. Why not refer to those by special pixel measurements, since they are made to be different? That's already done with monitors between 4k and Full HD, they're specified by their pixel measurements. I don't understand your point as to why they shouldn't be described that way in the future, nor do I understand why you default to believing that this is all my conjecture. I didn't just say this. I like, I proved it. Up there. Using real world examples. And math that you can check yourself, if you think I made a mistake. And I used it as a proof for stuff that exists already like 8k. Yes it's shorthand. But so are conjunctions in the English language, and those definitely have a system behind them.

I know you're probably looking at this from a TV perspective, but that wasn't the use case that got me so fired up to write this. See, the original reason for actually getting a 5k monitor, 3k monitor, etc. is so that you could edit pictures that are at a lower resolution than your monitor, without having any drop in quality while you edit, and have all the tools for editing in the square around the image. An example would be if you edited a 4k image in a 5k screen, you'd have the full 4k image, with all the photoshop tools around it. Obviously 4k is a marketing thing at this point, and I have my own optimistic opinions about the tech market, but I see literally one 3k monitor when I go on amazon, and otherwise. But considering how hard it is to run an 8k monitor, I would not be surprised if some companies went to 5k, 6k, etc. first. This way, you can calculate how many pixels those are/ will be, based on a system that's been around for years. Have fun!

I know your knee-jerk reaction is to act as if I created this system, though I went through painstaking detail to describe how this system was already created, but... yeah... I'm not sure how I can describe this any better, but it isn't. My. System. Yes, I went through the process of calculating it, and that's my way of calculating it so that it follows an already established system, but I didn't just invent this. Sorry to disappoint. My point overall is that 4k (for example) refers to a specific, 16:9 or 256:135 aspect ratio definition. Anything other than that - like Samsung's 3840x1080 32:9 monitor - only shares some aspects with 4k, but isn't. It'd be better referring to those by their pixel measurments, like General Winter suggested. These "k" measurements do have some sort of specific reference, to a system already established, and I gave a way to find them. Sorry that that makes you biased against me for some reason, I guess.

Except that it isn't my convention. It's a staple. It's the reason why people who disagree with you will tell you 2560x1440 isn't 2.5k or 3k. Going by your logic, 3440x1440 is approximately (with heavy rounding off) 3k. But good luck trying to convince someone who owns a top-of-the line 3440x1440 high refresh-rate monitor to call it a 3k monitor, my dude. That sounds nonsensical to me, but that's just my opinion.

Alright, little bit of math involved here. But, my main issue - and the reason I was inspired to write this - was when I found out even Linus himself got the measurements for 5k (he put 5120x2880 in a review of the LG 5k monitor) completely incorrect. 5k is 4800x2700 Now I know what you're going to say: "There's no 5 in that number!!! He's wrong! Kill him!" Hold on, there's a reason for all of this. There's no 4 in the beginning 4k's 3840x2160, is there? The explanation comes from DCI, the measurement started in the cinema industry that was originally brought on from Cameras so that a little bit of recording info (timestamps, etc.) could be shown on the borders, to be cut out in post-editing. True DCI measurements are still the basis of resolutions today, and the DCI 256:135 aspect ratio is the basis for the standard widths of monitors (1080 and 2160) But true DCI 4k is 4096x2160, and DCI 2k is 2048x1080. Ugly. Too many pixels on the sides, ew. But their widths are the same. Here's how you can calculate resolutions for any future monitor, ever. (for ease of calculation, we're gonna take that 135 from the width of DCI, and multiply it by 4 to 540.) Notice that if we take 1080/540, we get 2. As in, 2k. the story continues the same with 4k's 2160. 2160/540 is 4. 4k. So, you multiply this magical 540 number by whatever resolution-k you wanna find out. As an experiment, we know that 8k is 7680x4320, right? we multiply 540x8 and we get 4320. Cool, right? Law of ratios, to find the 16- part of 16:9, we divide the width aspect that we just found by 9, multiply by 16. We get 7680. Confirmed works. Repeat for 5k. 540x5= 2700. Divide 2700 by 9, multiply by 16. We get 4800. 16:9 5k is 4800x2700. No two ways about it. Any other claim is false, I'm just sayin' that. We can also use this to calculate 6k, 7k, everything ever in the future for years to come. 540 is the magic number, and I hope you guys will find this useful for the future, if you're looking for some weird 16:9 aspect ratio for a specific purpose or somethin' 1k: 960x540 2k: 1920x1080 3k: 2880x1620 4k: 3840x2160 5k: 4800x2700 6k: 5760x3240 7k: 6720x3780 8k: 7680x4320 16k: 15360x8640

I'll probably end up building one for the aesthetics, as well. However, I don't think an AIO will screw with my basic aesthetic of "black." Thank you for being so thorough.

It never occured to me exactly how All-In-One coolers work. Are they pre-filled? Do they ever evaporate or run out? I have a basic knowledge of full loops, but nothing about all-in-one coolers. I know full loops can leak and the fluid can get some impurities and all that, but without clear tubing or windows, how would I know if such a thing happened? can dirty fluid even happen on all-in-ones? I don't know, and I think my wallet would appreciate if I considered an AIO before hitting up EK for the full suite To summarize -Are All-in-One's pre-filled, or do they need to be filled by the user? -can they / are they known to leak -can the fluid get dirty / impure And at the very least, is it still a better option to just go for a full loop straight off the bat?

I'm thinking of changing out my case soon, simply for better display purposes I need an inverted ATX Case, with a large side panel window so all my stuffs can be displayed. I won't be watercooling any time soon, and only need drive space for a normal HDD and SSD, so no basement necessary. I was looking at the Corsair Carbide Clear 600C, but there's no spot for an optical drive or my fan controller, so, do any of you have any ideas?

Congratulations on reaching 3 million guys, you deserve it. I'd like a Razer Blade Stealth if I could, I already have a good rig at home and I just need something to do schoolwork and occasionally give me entertainment while I'm away from home. Thanks guys, you 're the best

built in speakers or no?

What do you want out of the monitors? do you need 1080p, 144hz, 1ms response time, etc.

might be due to the fact that os x might be screwing with it or the driver might be faulty. Apple doesn't like people using 3rd party stuff, so most likely it's a conflict between the os or the driver simply not being allowed to work properly.