Stahlmann

This post contains some great videos on the topic:

Why thousands of $? There are basically two ways to go about it: If input lag is your absolute priority, set an FPS cap (preferably in-game, but if there is no setting, use driver-side cap or RTSS) at the point where your GPU is running at about 90% utilization, and enable GPU driver-side low latency mode to get rid of the render queue and disable G-Sync. This will give you the absolute minimum amount of input lag possible. However, if you also want to prevent tearing or stuttering, or just want more general settings that will work in ANY game, cap your fps at 3 below the max refresh rate (again, preferably in-game, but if there is no setting, use driver-side cap or RTSS), enable driver-side low latency mode, enable G-sync, enable driver-side v-sync, disable v-sync in-game. Input lag will be slightly higher than the above method, but you will always get good results without having to tinker for every specific game.

They will both be equally uninteresting. There's not much that can be different with bog standard 1440p 60Hz IPS monitors. $50-60 is a decent price considering new models with these specs still cost $150 and up.

So you're basically asking for a 34" 1440p 240Hz ultrawide monitor with good HDR. So OLED it is. Your usage sounds similar to mine and I haven't run into any burn-in issues with my OLED displays. I've been using the C2 as my main monitor for almost 2 years now. New OLEDs in the 38" ultrawide format are still only 1440p, so you're sacrificing PPI compared to 34", so I'd advise against them. Personally, I'd wait until there are more reviews for different models from different brands using these panels. The differences aren't that big most of the time though. At the very least, I'd wait until Monitors Unboxed get their hands on a 34" 240Hz QD OLED model. Here is a review of the Asus model using the LG WOLED 34" 1440p 240Hz panel:

The pixelated look is probably because it's just lower resolution, the grainy look is probably because the AW2523HF also has a more aggressive anti-glare coating.

They both use the same LG WOLED panel, so basic characteristics like pixel response times, color gamut, screen coating, and the like will be similar. Asus typically has better color calibration and slightly higher brightness due to the use of a heat sink. If previous models are anything to go by, the LG will probably be a bit dimmer, but also less expensive. The Asus model has already been thoroughly reviewed, but the LG model has yet to be reviewed by a reputable third party.

The Windows 11 HDR implementation works as intended. And to play HDR games, you need to have HDR enabled in Windows. The reason your monitor looks terrible in HDR is because Samsung, like most brands, doesn't care how good HDR looks on cheaper HDR monitors. All they do is crank up the saturation and brightness to get the most "wow" effect out of the user. More often than not, it just looks awful, and for that reason, you're probably better off just not using HDR on those monitors. IF the implementation from the monitor side is good, there is no problem with having it enabled in Windows 24/7. That's what I do, and there are absolutely no problems with SDR content while HDR is enabled. But again, the monitor brand has to configure their end properly. Windows does exactly what it's supposed to. The way some monitors interpret the signal is the reason they look terrible.

Maybe try 1080p and set the scaling to integer in your GPU drivers. Higher non-integer resolutions can look way worse than lower integer resolutions. From a quick google search the game seems to have a resolution scaling option. If that's true, that's your best option. Set it to 90% or 80% and the game will render at a lower resolution, but the UI will still render in crisp 4K.

What exactly are you trying to achieve by using a non-standard resolution?

Just use G-Sync. In that situation your monitor's refresh rate would adapt to 180 Hz, and you won't be seeing tearing or have micro stutters because of an FPS / Hz mismatch. It has been proven many times that using G-Sync doesn't introduce any noticeable latency, maybe 1 ms or so.

Sofware would probably be an easier fix, but waiting for MS to fix anything is probably a lost cause. Even though this particular user already layed out the groundwork and shows exactly what the issue is and how he fixed it. Would it be so hard to make a small UI that lets you drag and drop the pixels like you do on the display settings when having multiple displays?

The Pixel 3a is simple: The pixel density is so high, and the pixels are so small, that there is no need for subpixel rendering techniques to improve anything. TV content also doesn't use subpixel rendering and therefore doesn't suffer from color fringing. What's interesting is the fact that some of these problems are not just limited to text, but other content as well, but only when the source is a PC, leading me to believe that Windows is doing some subpixel rendering shenanigans on other things as well, not just text. The strange thing is that some brands manage to do this, while others repeatedly fail. My best guess is that this is (again) just a matter of attention to detail.

I've been wondering this for a while now. Especially with high-end products like the latest 4K 240Hz OLED monitors, why is it that these panels have known problems that simply aren't fixed, or only get minor improvements that dance around the problem instead of fixing it? A few examples: QD OLED panels are known to suffer from increased black levels when light hits the display. This is known to be due to the lack of a polarizer layer. So why not add one? Both popular OLED technologies suffer from poor text clarity and, in general, color fringing around fine lines. Both brands have shown that it is possible to change the subpixel layout. So why not just go with a regular RGB stripe layout instead of Samsung's weird triangle layout or LG's BWGR layout? I know LG needs the 4th white pixel for brightness, but why not make it WRGB instead? Many of the newer HDR monitors have two picture modes for HDR. One that can take advantage of full brightness, but at the expense of accuracy. And one that is dimmer but more accurate. Why split it? Why can't the high brightness mode also be accurate? Why are monitor panels so much dimmer than those used in TVs? Again, using OLED as an example. Both QD OLED and WOLED can reach ~1500 nits in their TV models, but on monitors they barely reach 1000, some models are much lower, closer to 600 nits. From an enthusiast standpoint, it's baffling to me that there are so many monitors every year that get this close to perfection, but the lack of attention to detail makes it so they fumble it, and every model has at least one or two deal breakers. From an engineering standpoint, it's also hard to understand why they don't fix the obvious problems they know about.

The ideal matchmaking solution works in such a way that every player should end up at a rank where they have a ~50% win rate, i.e. playing against other players of the same skill level. It's not rigged to make you lose unless you're already playing at a much higher rank than you should be in terms of skill. It's other players playing against the rules, like smurf accounts or cheaters in general, that ruin it, not a matchmaking algorithm. And I haven't heard any ideas that would fix matchmaking in every game. People often want to play with their friends, who probably don't play at the same skill level most of the time. So unless you want to prevent people from playing with their friends, you can't really fix it. And at this point, you can just leave multiplayer out. Playing with friends is also probably the biggest reason why smurf accounts exist. Because good players cannot play with their friends if they use their main account, which is much higher ranked. I have no idea what matchmaking has to do with microtransactions. So far, I haven't played a game where matchmaking is correlated with pressuring people to buy microtransactions. Maybe you mean social pressure, where higher ranking players tend to show off more expensive skins, etc. But I have no sympathy for people who fall for the slightest bit of social pressure. Competitive games typically don't have gameplay benefits built into their Battle Passes.

I don't play most of the game series I grew up with anymore. But it's not that I deliberately quit. It's just that I lost interest in those types of games when I grew up, and even the newer entries in the Battlefield or Call of Duty series for example just don't appeal to me anymore. I'm not boycotting any game series or developer/publisher, but it's harder for me to convince myself to buy games from EA or Ubisoft. If they still release a great game, I will probably buy it. Voting with your wallet doesn't just mean not buying games, it also means buying games that are moving in the right direction. Ultimately, in the long run, developers and major publishers will simply follow the money, and hopefully that means that social justice warriors who have no real skills to contribute to a better game and are just doing it to send a message will be filtered out.

Watch in cinema or fullscreen mode - problem solved. Imo YouTube's player is by far the best of all the current streaming platforms.

If the monitor is only used for CS2, then get the Viewsonic XG2431. It's a 24" 1080p 240Hz IPS monitor that offers everything that could make an impact for games like Counter Strike. On top of that it has an amazing backlight strobing feature that brings top-tier motion performance. It's one of the very few "Blur Busters certified" monitors out there.

Stop spending money without a reason. Save the money for when there are new products that pique your interest or when something breaks.

Most modern TVs run into this problem, not just OLEDs. It's basically just the pixels being "too fast" and not introducing any more motion blur that could mask low fps content. But you can play around with the motion interpolation settings. On both my C9 and C2, I manually set both interpolation sliders to 5 and most content now looks like 50-60 fps without much stutter or interpolation artifacts, no matter if it's native 24 or 30 fps. Idk why so many purists hate the soap opera effect. Why would I want to watch content with more stutter? Anime looks great. But you will probably need some amount of motion interpolation to smooth out very low fps shows.

Especially since you also do work, I'd recommend to go for regular LCD monitors. The Samsung Odyssey Neo G7 is a good Mini LED VA monitor. If you want to still try your luck with OLED, go for one of the 32" 4K models.

Then contact Asus directly. Provide them with the serial number and your Amazon receipt and they should have a service center that covers your region. The monitor is obviously broken, so going for a repair/replacement at Asus' expense is the easiest and cheapest solution.

Both top OLED manufacturers have shown that they can change the subpixel structure. I understand that LG still has to incorporate their white subpixels, so they have 1 too many, but I don't understand why Samsung doesn't just make a regular RGB stripe layout and ditch all this crap. The fact that they changed the layout from 1st to 2nd generation shows that they know it's a problem. I'd really like to know why both panel manufacturers are dancing around the problem instead of fixing it. Same with their ambient light reflecting coating on QD OLED panels. Why don't they change it if they know it's a problem?

All OLED panels have inferior text clarity compared to regular LCD monitors. The newer 32" 4K panels brute force better text clarity with higher resolution, so the artifacts are still there, but much smaller, so less noticeable. Still, it's odd that my 42" C2 doesn't have this problem, even though LG's BWGR subpixel layout is known to be the worst OLED technology for text clarity. I use it at 150% scaling in windows and there are no problems with color fringing in any situation. And it has a similar pixel density to your 27" 1440p model. Maybe try to bump up the scaling to 125% or play around with different clear type settings.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. All this leads to stress. And long-term stress ages you. But there are other factors like social media and camera filters that create unrealistic expectations of how people look, and in reality almost everyone looks older than their social media posts. I swear to God, my sister-in-law looks like she's 15 in her social media photos, but when you actually stand in front of her, it's very obvious that she's in her 30s and a heavy smoker.

Kids generally don't care about the specs of a PC. Most of them just think of a PC as a box that can play Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft, which aren't exactly demanding games.