Goliath_1911

From my own research on this monitor when i  was thinking  of buying the same one, but in 27 inch instead of 32, i reached the result that this was not the best one. Especially if you went for 32, you would have been better off with 27 inch at 1440p, better pixel density at that size. The color and quality of the panel also are average. 
I decided i will go for the Odyessy G6 27 inch at 1440p 240hz. This one is overall ALOT better in every aspect vs the g55a , only downside is it costs more, and personally i am fine with that, i want to go from 1080p to 1440p along with a decent bump in image quality, not just resolution. Sadly when i decided to go for it, it went out of stock, still waiting for them to be available again, or a newer model comes out.

There are alot better options than the G55a for the same price, one of them was a LG monitor..... google "G55A rtings" their review has suggestions for better monitors. Goodluck!
Edit: sitting infront of a window is not the best thing to do when sitting infront of a monitor, idk maybe u usually close the shades

16 minutes ago, adm0n said:

So the reason why the colors looked better on your friends monitor could be due to other reasons, maybe it was brighter or he used a more saturated image profile. That being said, if you are after a better visual experience VA is the way to go for the better contrast.

Hmmmm might be, i will look into the color profiles for each monitor , though i think it is stock profile.

Also yeah another thing i was looking out for was the smearing, his monitor looked smoother, but idk if it was the 144 vs 165 difference (its not much to make a difference right?) or if its just because it is an old VA panel.
Thanks!

13 minutes ago, TatamiMatt said:

Gigabyte M27Q for 1440p 27 inch 170Hz 0.5ms response time with great colour and HDR

Or MSI G272QPF, same as above but 1ms instead of 0.5 but with better colour again, though a little pricier for the extra colour

 

so whatever your preference is on the actually meaningful "gimmicks" 

 

4K is hard to run on top end graphics in hard to run game, so if you want framerates that keep up with the refresh rates with high/ultra and/or raytracing 1440p is the way to go

 

Im playing cyberpunk with maxed setting on 1440p with HDR on and struggling to get above 130fps in crowded areas so on higher end games like that 4K pushes the boat out quite a bit on balancing and justifying its price and FPS with refresh rate

 
Thank you for ur reply !! will look into those monitors
As for the non gimmicks part i meant something like freesync premium or gsync, HDR , QDOT etc

Hello i guys, recently i decided it is time to change my 6 year old monitor , Samsung Odyssey QDOT 24 inch 1080p running at 144hz, it is curved and has a VA panel. I saw a friend`s Odyssey G3 which has a ips panel and it kinda looked better than mine in colors so i thought imma go IPS this time, as well as feeling the need to get a bit bigger monitor , 27 or 28 inch as i finally feel that "24 inch is the sweet spot" is over. 
So plan is going 27/28 inch, dont care about curve , IPS preferably , but I can`t decide on the Resolution, 1440p or 4k. I have already built  a new rig recently, but i didnt upgrade my GPU and remain on a 2070 super . It will handle 1440p but i doubt about 4k, i plan to replace it with a second hand 3080 ti or 3090 or just wait till the 5000 series since the 4080 handles 4k good, the 5000 series hopefully will be even better at 4k.

So i am thinking either get a 1440p that i can run right now , and postpone buying gpu till 5000 series, and have a easier time running the resolution in the future.
OR get the 4k monitor, struggle a bit, but in the very long term i would not have to think of changing the monitor to go to higher resolution, you know either a jump from 1080p to 1440p then later on jump to 4k or just a big jump from 1080p to 4k and forget about upgrading the monitor for a long while.


the 2 i am conisdering are : 

-1440p : Samsung 27AG500 27″ Odyssey G5 2k
-4k : Samsung 28BG702 Odyssey G7 28″

Also i would welcome any recommendations for alternatives, and wouldnt mind getting a high end 1440p with better features ( non gimmicks ofcourse!)  instead of the 4k one.

Thanks in advance!!

2 hours ago, StDragon said:

5% to 15% with VBS and HVCI enabled. It might improve with code optimization, but it's basically a CPU generation worth of performance lost. Basically, VBS is here to stay, and everyone is just going to have to live with the performance penalty if you value security. But, it can be disabled if you really want too if all you do is game and need to squeak out every last bit of CPU cycles.

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

And AMD Ryzen users would still need to wait for AMD driver update. I think they said the 21st as a target release date for them. (I guess they want extra days to tests with the latest update, and fix whatever that might need to be fixed, if anything was found)

Thanks for the info, guess imma stick with windows 10 for a while... My 8th gen i5 8400 is already bottlenecking my gpu a bit, but i fear that 5-15% hit might bottleneck it more (was supposed to get a 9900k, the i5 was supposed to be just a temporary cpu and get replaced last year, but life smacked me and am stuck with it for now, f  for paying extra for a proper board for the i9) 

8 minutes ago, StDragon said:

You're going to have to be more specific. But if you're asking specifically of AMD performance issues, scheduled updates are pending on the 19th (tomorrow) or 20th. We'll just have to see the new benchmarks to validate the correction once available.

not just AMD cpus, i remember reading that it decreases performance in games by 20 % give or take

Are the performance issues fixed??? 

14 minutes ago, Ruffleduffle said:

what gpu and case do you use?

I got a zotac 2070s amp extreme something and a aerocool project p 7

I noticed one time when i had the side panel removed to clean it, the gpu was throwing all the hot air out of its side straight at the panel,and it blows out  ALOT of air (which explains why the glass was hot lol,also had a game running in the background that`s why its hot)
I got 3 intake fans ,2 of which are relatively close to the gpu , and 2 exhausts at the top.

From the tests i have seen on youtube , it doesnt make much of a difference ,but idk if in my case it might help, if all the hot air is blown straight up to the exhause instead of circling back down and into the gpu fans. The cpu is fan it barely goes over 55c, if it is affected i can just switch the fan to the other side of the air cooler and add a intake fan at the back.
any guys with a similar situation noticed a decent difference , temps for me are mostly 70c on the gpu, i want it to be cooler just to reduce the fan noise( and no changing the fan curves didnt help cause lowering it for silence would have me running at 80+c)

 

35 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

i didn't need to know that.

16 minutes ago, Mateyyy said:

Doing a quick search on GTX 1080 scores in Heaven, that looks in line.

I'd ask the seller for a GPU-Z screenshot, if that looks normal then I'd say it's good (if the price is also good, of course).

That is the thing, tho even before this screenshot the owner said its 4Gb, and it my friend said the box had 4gb written on it , i dont have the picture. Though he decided to stay away and avoid risking it on a possible scam, ez to get away with it in our country (so the moment he pays, poof nothing he can do lol)

1 minute ago, Mateyyy said:

If it was a screenshot of Unigine Heaven or an older benchmark, then it's probably just the app not recognising more than 4GB of VRAM (for example, Heaven says my 2070S has 4GB of VRAM when it's actually got 8GB).

If it was a screenshot of GPU-Z saying the 1080 has got 4GB of VRAM, then yeah don't bother.

14 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

If there's an applicable picture, you should show us. I guarantee he's trying to pass off a 970 or a 960 as a 1080.

 this is the image which got me wondering about the performance

Hey all, my friend was looking for a upgrade to his gpu, and was looking around for new or used cards, he found a local seller of a GTX 1080 with a suitable price, tho it was 4GB, after asking me about it , i told him NOPE, forget about it , probably a fake GPU, it is nonesense to have a powerful GPU, limited by 4GB VRAM, which his 1060 has 2 GB more 

Then again , I`ve read before that it can be a issue, or a damaged VRAM, out of curiosity, does anyone know if there is such an issue, and as far as i can tell there is no 4gb 1080 , the owner provided a benchmark where the score and fps were within margin of error of a normal 1080 ,but what made it more suspicious is that the driver version is from april 11 2019, (as if the 4gb is not fishy enough). Also the owner said its a "mini" variant of a 1080

Anyway i told my friend to forget about it, it`s probably a scam, though am just curious about this if it could be a damaged 1080 , anyone who would share some knowledge is appreciated,or did i miss a useless 4gb 1080 release???? (which i doubt since i basically wank to tech news at this point ). 

6 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

If the PSU is new, I would just return it under the return policy of the store, and buy a different brand or model. The reality of things is that manufactures tries to avoid coil whine, at least on their non-budget products. But depending on your system configuration and power from the wall. It can happen, and there is no fix, beside trying a different configuration of components with differing circuitry design.

 

Personally, I hate coil whine. If it is constant, it gets annoying real fast, and if it fluctuates like yours, it sound like a HDD under load and is annoying. But then again, I am all for computers that are ultra quiet operating. Ideally, if possible, one should not know if the system is turned on or off by it's sound, at least at idle. It is a computer not a car engine. But that is just my view.

well it`s been in use for a year, though it is still under warrenty, as said above due to the  covid situation it might take some time for one to get sent back

Also for some reason in my country almost all stores sell AeroCool psus which from what i heard are not that good, and risky, this coolermaster one is the only psu i managed to find that is not Aerocool lol, i might just hang on this one for a while, and import a seasonic psu when i upgrade my cpu (planning to jump from the i5 8400 to 9900k)

11 minutes ago, SpookyCitrus said:

If you used the PSU with a low power GPU and then get something a bit beefier coil whine can happen. Some people say you can get rid of it by "breaking in" the components. Running some intense stress tests for a few hours or until the coil whine stops. If the coil whine isn't loud or constant I wouldn't worry about it.

well i did jump from a 1050 ti to a 2070 super (old gpu was in the new rig for like 7 month)

It happens when the power usage increases massively(start a heavy game) , but goes away after like 10 secs

Coil whine is minimal , i couldnt tell if it was whine or something else tho, had me worried for a bit .

Thanks for your help!!!

8 minutes ago, SpookyCitrus said:

You could try, they'll likely just send it back to you or send you another unit that may have the same issue or be in worse shape, depends on what they have in stock usually when you RMA and they replace the unit they send back another RMA'd unit that they repaired, so it will be used and sometimes they can be a little worse cosmetic condition than what you sent in. Plus right now with whats going on most RMA centers are closed, so you'll likely get the RMA accepted and send it out and wait a month or two at least to get the used or same unit back. In my opinion if it doesn't bother you just deal with it. If it does buy a new PSU. I, especially right now wouldn't recommend RMAing it. 

i don`t mind the sound as it`s only there for a like 10 secs, but i was worried if it is something faulty since this rig is new , barely 1 year old , and i just recently installed a new gpu so was afraid of something getting toasted,

Also i was wrong in saying the psu is 1,5 years old , i did get it 1,5 years ago but i installed it when i got all the new rigs parts so basically in use for barely a year

so i guess i will forget about the RMA

9 minutes ago, SpookyCitrus said:

Yes, that is coil whine. Typically not a bad thing, mostly just annoying. 

i asked the support of the store where i got it and he said he couldnt tell so i posted here

he told me to RMA it tho, and if am right coil whine isnt included in the warrenty i think , 

should i just RMA it anyway??

Hi , i know coil whine is generally not much of an issue but recently it started to make a weird sound for a couple of seconds as soon as a load hits it, but then fades out, it is in the video below

Can someone confirm if it is indeed coil whine ??? I can`t tell if it is , help is appreciated!!!

EDIT: forgot to add its a coolermaster masterwatt 650 80+ bronze

40 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Oh, I don't doubt that resolutions and frame rates can be higher. But you're not really missing out on the core experience, and early on (I figure roughly the first year or two) PC gamers sometimes have to look on with a bit of envy.  And until late in the console cycle, getting those higher resolutions and frame rates can be prohibitively expensive for some.  Yeah, the rumored 3080 Ti might well outrun the PS5's GPU in most respects, but it'll likely cost twice as much as the entire PS5.

TL;DR : Amazing graphics at 30fps doesnt mean next gen consoles will beat high end pcs.

PC doesn`t really need a 3080 ti to beat a ps5

you can already beat it with existing hardware, put the ssd thing aside cause it doesn`t mean alot (pc got 5 gb ssds, but in reality the are just for loading times since pc got more ram and v/ram, ps5 is using the ssd to compensate the 16gb of combined ram/vram), pc was always able to reach the quality of consoles and run better almost always, unless its a low end pc. If u wanna be on the level off consoles u can push everything to high/ultra settings and run on 30 fps, on a medium / low budget pc. my old rig which retired last summer at a age of almost 7 years had a 3rd gen i3 ,8gb ram and a 750ti(i had before it some nvidia gpu  which i bored from a frnd,forgot the model name) which was later upgraded to a 1050ti cause while cleaning the 750ti from dust, it slipped and got damaged. This rig handled most of the games at high 1080p high settings between 40~70 fps , which was already better than current gen consoles from 2013 till the end of summer 2019. Even then i could have kept running the same rig on high/medium settings and go down to 30 fps. But i upgraded to a i5 8600,16gb ram 1 tb nvme,1 tb hdd , room for more storage and a 2070 super which are now running all games at maxed out settings at 120+ fps @1080p, something which consoles could never do, even next gen. Next gen consoles will most probably run on high settings the same as pc, but hit 120+ fps too?? i doubt it.They may have a 120 fps mode that disables some graphic settings to reach it or run on a select number of games. Then again i hope i am wrong, cause each gen i get a xbox for the living room,otherwise i will start using steam link to play on the tv i guess.

For me frames are more important. They make a huge difference.One of the easiest ways to notice the difference is set up a racing game on a console and pc , like forza horizon 4 ,on xbone it ran at a 30 fps and driving on high speed was sluggish, meanwhile on pc it ran at 140+ fps on all maxed out settings, graphics looked much better than console and while driving on high speeds it was smooth AF which made the experience better.

It`s all marketing, every gen of consoles "OUTPERFORMS THE HIGHEST END PC!!!"

it would run decently, then 1 or 2 years later if u compare the games on all platforms u will see the consoles starting to lag behind pcs more (talking from my own experience)

6 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

lets do some math then, i grabbed Gears tactics as it was the first that popped up on overclock3d.net (1440 ultra), in this game the 2080 ti has 125 max 100 average 79 min (99%tile)

a 5700xt has 88 max 72 av 66.8 min which turns out to be: 42%, 38%, 20% higher performance,

now what we know of the consoles gpu

xbox x 52 Cus which is 30% higher than a 5700xt, also has 25% higher memory bandwidth at around the same frequency, all this together would put a rdna 1 xbox x at around: 

112 max 92 average 85 min

which is around 10% slower than a 2080 ti before any improvements due to rdna 2 or optimizations due to being a known unique hardware configuration

 

the ps 5 is a bit harder to get to but lets try

first ps5 has 36 Cus vs the 40 of the 5700xt, but how much does that matter?, in a hardware unboxed video from multiple tests when using the same power target the difference is 3.5% or less stock is around 10% (different power targets), the frequency difference seems to be around 15.7% (2200 vs 1900)

ps5 98 max 80 ave 74.58 min

which puts the ps5 25% bellow the 2080 ti before rdna 2 is accounted for

 

the xbox x is right there with it, 8 fps difference on average fps, sadly we dont know how much rdna 2 improves "ipc"

granted the ps5 is slower with a 20 fps difference.

 

 

with this i hope to have shown that the consoles wont be slow and i am no console guy at all, but i have to appreciate what they did on the hardware side

i didnt say they are gonna be slow , i said it is getting overhyped.

there are other things at play here other than the GPU, 

this is all in theory, as i said let`s see in practice instead of overhyping shit.( as in when it comes out)

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

if you mean before ps5 and the new xbox is released sure, but this new consoles are beasts, both should perform pretty dam close to a 2080 ti

that 500 dollar console has a 8 core zen 2 and around a 2080 super card so just looking at price wont tell you everything. plus the ps5 has a really high frequency which will help a lot with pixel fill rate

 

this consoles i am afraid to say will be beasts, on pcs reading and writing to your ssd takes cpu cycles and quite a lot of them if you want 4+GB/s, the ps5 and the xbox have controllers that reduce the cpu overhead, you can brute force it but you will need maybe 4+ extra cores just to do the IO, then we get to the fact that that same controller also compresses memory on the fly increasing effective bandwidth to over 9GB/s and with peaks of 20GB/s, you point out that consoles don't have vram, true which also means they don't have a bottleneck between the cpu's and the gpu's memory pools.

pcs right now will have a hard time streaming as much data as ps5 can no matter how powerful you think your system is.

gpu wise its really powerful as well, the ps5 should be just below a 2080 ti and the xbox just over it, i wonder how this will affect pc graphics prices

About that ram and vram, u do realize they got speeds of 20+ gbytes/s??

edit: there are already 5gb/s ssds for pc too.....

the consoles are basically using the ssd as slower ram...

And bruh are you for real??? you actually think they will perform as good as a 2080 TI 

LOL

they said the same as last gen , but that was pure BS 

also yes they can run insanely good looking games, but can they pump out the fps???? NOPE 

i ran forza horizon 4 on xbox and pc, pc ran it at ~130 fps at all extreme settings while that console ran it at a 30 fps with lower graphics settings

I aint going all pc master race , just saying this is overhyping shit.

The same way they overhyped the xbone x and ps4 pro, which turned that they are not outputting actual 4k , just some ai stretched stuff...

Are you really convinced that the new gen consoles will perform close to a 2080 ti??? If u do believe that , then ur in for a huge disappointment when the consoles come out.......

Here`s a fun image of the overhype back then and now , see a pattern??? lmao

9 hours ago, Commodus said:

Nah, it's more complicated than that.

 

Sony isn't just using NVMe SSDs like the ones you can buy now.  They offer even faster transfer rates on a basic level (5.5GB/s versus around 3GB/s), and there are also special architecture and compression methods that improve things further.  RAM is another story, although it's important to know that there will be gobs of bandwidth and less overhead.

 

While I wouldn't be surprised if Sony was involved here, there is an actual reason to use the PS5 as the target instead of a PC.  The same thing that makes PCs great for flexibility also hurts the absolute potential performance -- you're beholden to standard architectures, off-the-shelf operating systems, that sort of thing.  Don't get me wrong, a PC with a fast CPU, lots of RAM and a good NVMe SSD will still accomplish a lot, but there are some areas where the PS5 and Xbox Series X will actually come out ahead for a while.

This ssd thing is all a marketing gimmick

pc had them for years, FYI there are 5gb nvme ssds out there, also consoles don`t have VRAM, and separate ram that`s why they gotta use the ssd for that 

basically a pc with 16gb of ram and 6/8 vram would not be using the ssd for that 

they are just trying to do what Apple does, reinvent something that was already there and make it a big deal LOL

You are seeing this tech now cause of new gen consoles have finally got SSDs , because most developers wouldnt bother use a feature that exists only on 1 platform

What epic did with UE 5 is great don`t get me wrong, its finally utilizing SSDs, but i think it is using it in a way to compensate the lack of seperate vram and ram ( I mean they got 8gb for ram and vram instead of 6 vram , 16 ram)

Also every console gen they would start overhyping that they will come out ahead of pcs, but i don`t think so, right now i can run all games on ultra settings with 120+ fps with no issues, which i doubt new consoles could do, maybe at 1080p with high settings.

I hope they are actually good cause i got both consoles and they are both sitting collecting dust since whenever i plug them in i notice the major difference in frames, loading , details, i go back to my pc. i like sitting on the couch playing games, more comfortable,but can`t bother move the case there   

when u get used to high frame rates u start to really notice fps drops and low frame rates. 

7 minutes ago, Commodus said:

In this case, it really was running on a PS5 (dev kit, but still).  The Game Awards had a follow-up interview where Epic stressed that they really did just load it on to the system and record what came from the HDMI output.

 

The choice of the PS5 was probably due to the storage more than anything.  Sony's system not only has an SSD, it has a highly optimized pipeline that makes it possible to load massive amounts of data very quickly.  The demo looks so good in part because Epic doesn't have to wait for gigabytes upon gigabytes of geometry and textures to load, it's just... there.

No one will know until it`s actually out

Also pcs got RAM for that... and insanely fast nvme ssds too, if it was about that they would have went with pc,tho it`s about the $$ they got from sony lol

10 minutes ago, Commodus said:

That's fairly likely, if just because full-fledged games will have multiple AI characters, more physics events, that sort of thing.  With that said, this is probably as close as many tech demos get to reflecting actual gameplay, since it's genuinely controllable, includes complicated physics events and taxes the character animation system.  The sacrifices may be hard to notice unless you're looking for them.

yeah i know, but talking mainly on it being on a console, there is a lot of gameplay trailers that are stated to be running on either the xbox or ps that look better than they actually do, on pc it probably looks like that, heck it might actually be rendered on a pc 

its also funny how Epic games who was pushing so hard into pc gaming would go reveal UE 5 running on a console lol

It looks awesome and all, but i doubt it will look anything like that when it`s actually out on the ps5 ,it will look good, but not as good as that video.

I`ve seen plenty of trialers of gameplay footage running on a xboxox,ps4 pro to know that it won`t look like that lol