LyondellBasell

That would be my recommendation. Since your motherboard has 4-pin fan headers, I think you should look for a hub that supports 3-pin fan connections and has a 4-pin output to connect to the board.

I think to start we need some more information. We need pictures of what pin layout the fans have. From what I can find online, it says 3+3 pin? But that doesn't match with what the pictures show, the pictures show a 6-pin? connector for the fan connection to that hub. How does the fan that comes with the case normally get plugged in? Does the case or the fan hub come with adapters?

I didn't know AM5 had those lanes as standard! Thanks for the insight. I'm going to have to think about my priorities here.

That's a good point, I don't think I've researched this enough. Thank you!

Budget (including currency): $1,900 Country: USA Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: Lightroom + Photoshop//Jedi Survivor + SW Outlaws Other details: Doing some upgrades to my 2015 i7-6700k/Z190/DDR4 build. I already replaced my Titan SLI setup with a 3090 2 years ago, and am looking to refresh the rest of the system to keep pace with modern games at 4K and increasingly larger photo files. The entire build is watercooled and will remain that way, I've already accounted for all waterblock upgrades. Whatever processor I choose will be getting tuned to extract more performance. Right now I'm leaning towards the 13900k, with some DDR5 and a Crucial T700 to round out the system. I've watched LTT and others' comparisons with the 7800X3D. I know it's faster for gaming, draws less power, and prices out a bit cheaper even with a similar board. I *do* value strong performance in Adobe apps though, and I'm having a hard time making the right decision. Should I wait for the next Intel gen? Should I check out with the 13900k today? Is the 7800X3D *that* superior that I should ignore the Adobe performance and go Team Red? Help me out here, LTT.

Was going to say Fences, I believe DisplayFusion also has this feature.

Herman Miller Aeron. Buy it in your appropriate size, you can probably even find a refurbished model for a great price.

Nope, I believe you're correct. They're the same panel, the Alienware is HDR600 as compared to the 38GL's HDR400. The Alienware is technically the best panel, unless you prefer the look of the LG.

38" UW's a nice format. If you like your Dell but want to add HDR+Gsync, maybe look at the LG 38GL950G-B. Yeah, it's not HDR1000. It's one of the best panels you can buy though.

Whatever you choose, don't base any decision you make on "input lag" or "response time". You will not be able to tell with your usage case. We're not talking high-tier, competitive FPS here. There's no camera movement, there's no crosshair, and nothing you do is split-second. The things that will matter to YOU are pixel density, screen size, and display mounting options, since it sounds like you have limited space and may want the change how everything's lined up at some point. You should buy solely based on these things.

I think I'm a bit confused on what you're looking for. I understand you want a monitor mount that's freestanding, am I correct that you want the mount to hold two G32QC panels?

I think you can make a great cooling setup for less than £700. I don't believe there's any reason to even bother with sub-zero. You have a server-size space, and noise isn't a factor. Get some great radiators, and use some server-grade fans to pump as much air as you can through the system. If the server space is properly ventilated, you'll keep everything close to ambient and you can do it indefinitely with yearly maintenance.

There just really isn't a market for them. Right now, most of the work being done that requires high resolution can be done perfectly fine at 4K. I can only speak to the limited photography and cinematography experiences I've had, but for us, color reproduction accuracy is far more important than any push beyond 4K. I usually sit about 2-3 feet back from the mastering displays and from that distance, the individual pixels are not readily distinguishable. I *guess* it would be nice to have even larger displays to appreciate the impact of some of our larger-format work before it goes to publish, but 1) We've done just fine without it so far 2) I'd have a really hard time making the case to someone with budget oversight given #1 3) A lot of times, the source material we're working with (with the exception of photographs and digital images) is not shot at 8K, and certainly not seen by the end-user at that resolution. So it's enough to be able to pan around the source material at 4K, do our work, and then export.

Yes, the more light you can give yourself, the better your end-image will be. As far as color temperature goes, 6500K is going to be a little bit on the cooler side, or more blue. You can adjust the color temperature right there in-camera, but if for some reason you had no way to adjust it, I'd recommend going with a slightly warmer light rather than a colder one, cold light tends to be less flattering for skin tones.

In that case it's probably best to find a bright lamp or several that fits within your budget and either bounce it off the wall, shoot it through a sheet, or make a homemade softbox.

The short answer is, it depends. The long answer is, it really depends. We need some more information: Are you going to be taking photos or video? What environment are you going to be working in? Indoors? Outdoors? How much control do you have over the light that already exists in your space? How far away are these lights going to be from your subject(s)? Are these lights going to need modifiers for the look you're shooting for? Basically, if you want an exact answer to "how many lumens do I need", you'd have to give us a Cine Designer file and a render of what you hope the final effect would look like. That's not how lights are bought, what you really want is something adjustable. That being said, if you just want an off-the-cuff number, get something that says it can do up to a 1000W tungsten equivalent. That'll be enough to light most basic scenarios that you might want starting off. Take a look at the Aputure C120d or C120d Mark II

My setup is very much like the one you describe, my mounting point is on the back of my desk and I like my monitors suspended very far forward so the they float over my keyboard and mouse. I've got three recommendations for you depending on your mounting style preference. They're all from Chief, you can look them up either through the Legrand A/V website or through ErgoDirect. The K1C330 is a single desk mount that spiders into three dynamically adjustable arms. The center arm doesn't look like it's adjustable for depth, so this may or may not be the right one for you, depending on how far from the mounting point you want your monitor to be. The base for this one is much smaller than your Ergotech 130 because it's a grommet mount, so it's not relying on it's size to steady itself. It's maybe 5" by 4". The K4G310 is also a single desk mount, but on this one the monitors are attached to a bracket and then suspended by a single arm, so they are not independently adjustable. This one will allow you to position the entire array much further from the base than the K1C. They also offer it in a K4W310 if you want the wall mount version instead. As a third alternative, if you want to stick with independently adjustable arms and not an array, you can buy three arms. Desk mount, pole mount, or wall mount, up to you. Suspend the central one and set your distance, and then just adjust the other two to match/give the best fit.

>Newegg.com >Monitors >Sort by price High>>Low >Select #1 result >Checkout Now In all seriousness, start with what you know. You have a budget, and you have a screen right now. What does your screen do right now that you wish the new one would keep doing? What does your screen not do right now that you wish the new one would? Do you like your aspect ratio? How would changing it affect the applications you use? Do you like your current monitor's color reproduction capabilities? What would you gain/lose from a change in accuracy? Do you like your current monitor's size and resolution? How would your physical space and viewing distance change with a new panel? Since you've already set a budget, come up with an answer to each of these questions and use your answer to filter what's available.

I'm sure there are *some* people out there who are annoyed by it, but I am willing to bet that that market's pretty small, to the point of it not even being worth it to add another SKU for most manufacturers, let alone to develop another process they're happy with. That's not to say that they're not working on improving image quality though. Screens have gotten WAY better in terms of both clarity and glare rejection.

I think it depends on what you're looking for when you say 4K. There's panels like the LG 38GL950G, which is 3840*1600. You're correct in that it isn't "true" 4K or DCI 4K. No ultrawide will be in the expected 3840*2160 resolution, simply because of the aspect ratio. So you'll either have to look for something like the 38GL950G, which is 4K in the horizontal dimension, or something like the LG 34WK95U-W, which is 5120*2160, which is "4K" in the vertical dimension. (and 5K in the horizontal). To help the rest of us make better suggestions, can you elaborate a little more on *exactly* what you're looking for?

That's fair. Getting rid of the stand is going to be a huge plus, no matter which way you decide to go with it. You won't be able to do any vertical height adjustment on that one but if you don't mind, it's pretty much impossible to beat that price. You can always decide what solution you'd like to use for your second monitor later. Once you get the UW mounted, you can see what kind of space it leaves you and I'm sure it'll give you a much better idea of what looks best for your setup. Best of luck!

Are you *absolutely* sure you want to wall mount it, as opposed to maybe getting a grommet or pole mount? I understand the appeal of a wallmount. It frees up desk space on the actual surface and floating panels look much cleaner. On the flip side, you're limited in positioning. You'll have to put the mount over a stud, and extend your arms from there. If the stud is off center, you'll have to live with it. If you ever want to change monitors down the road, you'll have to make sure the panel size and weight can fit with the mount and arms you have. I'd recommend a grommet mount or a pole mount instead. With the right arms, you can still position your panels far from the secure point and utilize the entire surface of the desk. If you decide to switch monitors, it's much easier. You won't have to repair any walls. I'm in somewhat of the same position as you, I have a large ultrawide, and a secondary screen that I use for peripheral activities. I have them both on a pole mount, stacked one on top of the other. Due to the size of the ultrawide, this means I don't have to turn my head to look at anything going on on the second monitor. I can quickly glance up and it's much more comfortable. Just some food for thought. I have recommendations for wall mounts if you still decide that's what you'd like.

Totally a subjective opinion thing that depends on your personal visual acuity, the type of content you interact with, and how close you sit to your displays. That being said, the *general* recommended advice is that 24" is a good size for 1080p, 27" is a good size for 1440p, and 32" is a good size for 4K. 4K at 27" is definitely going to be sharper. You can do the PPI calculation and compare it to other sizes and see if you're in the neighborhood of what you're shooting for. I personally find that 32" is a great size for my 4K display such that I can use it without any additional scaling and am not able to discern individual pixels unless I look closely. This is purely anecdotal and you may find your preferences differ greatly from mine.

Sounds good! I think you'll love it

I have an LG 38GL950G and love it. It's 3840x1600 so while you do give up some vertical real estate compared to a true 16:9 4k monitor of the same size, I find the ability to maintain relatively high framerate to be worth it. I'd recommend at least a 2080Ti for optimal experience. I find the monitor's color reproduction, refresh rate, and black levels to be excellent. I don't use the monitor at the overclocked 175Hz refresh rate, I prefer to leave it at 144Hz to avoid the worst of the overdrive issues. The HDR400 is nothing outstanding, but it works, and HDR content looks *good* on it. If you don't have an OLED display or an HDR1000 display to compare it to, you'll probably think "wow, this looks really great." Buy it, but not for the HDR or the ultra deep blacks. Buy it because it's big, it's fast, and it's arguably one of the best gaming experiences you can get at 3840 horizontal resolution right now.