Tiazmat

First I'll preface saying that, as far as I can tell, I'm posting this in the correct place. If this belongs in the "reviews" sub-forum, I apologize; I figured this information is most relevant to this community. So over the past few years I've had the pleasure of experiencing all sorts of monitors and TVs and I wanted to share my insights to give some perspective to potential buyers, or those curious. The "reviews" will be in chronological order of when I first owned the display, but feel free to skip around or only look at what interests you. I imagine the last few are going to by far the most interesting, but I felt it useful to include everything for use of comparison. Displays I still own will be Italicized and reviews I find will be particularly interesting will be bolded. Acer V233H (23" 1080p TN LCD) Acer GD235HZbid (23.6" 1080p 120hz TN LCD) ASUS PB238Q (23" 1080p e-IPS LCD) Samsung U28D590D (28" 4k TN LCD) Samsung Syncmaster 1200NF (22" CRT 1600x1200@85hz) LG 34UM95 (34" 3440x1440 (Non-curved) IPS LCD) Acer K242HQKbmjdp (24" 4k IPS LCD) AMH A399U (40" 4k VA LCD) Dell D2015H (20" 1080p TN LCD) Dell 2007FP (~20" 1600x1200 TN(?) LCD) HP Z27q (27" 5k IPS LCD) Sony 34XBR960 (34" CRT TV 1080i (1440x1080 pixels)) LG OLED55B7A (55" OLED 4k HDR TV) And that's that. I hope you all enjoyed.

So, the short of it is that I need a new video card in order to handle my setup, and I need help figuring out what to get. So I have a 5k monitor on the way (uses dual DP1.2), 2 4k monitors (DP 1.2 only in 4k60 mode), one monitor with DVI only, and two with VGA only (one of them is using my onboard from a 3570k, the other is using a DP to VGA converter since my 1080 does not have any DVI-I ports) My current ports are as follows: MSI 1080: 3x DP, 1x HDMI, 1x DVI-D Intel Onboard: 1x HDMI, 1x DVI-D, 1 VGA So clearly, my main concern here is displayport connections. I need 4, but have 3, and you cannot convert anything to DP (Not even HDMI 2.0, or this would be an easy fix). Keep in mind these have to be DP1.2 ports in order to run 4k60. And I don't need to be able to game on one of the 4k monitors, just able to run it on the desktop at 4k. Another concern I have is how adding another PCIe card is going to affect lane usage. A 3570k only has 16 lanes. I have my current graphics card, which presumably is going to be using 8, an ASUS STX, and an add-in card to add additional SATA ports. If I don't care about gaming with it, is using a card at 4x (assuming nothing else is taking up enough to make it less than that, which I doubt) hampering it? Will it matter? I do want a single slot card, because I'm already hurting for PCIe space. The options I have found most appealing are the R7 240, with one DVI and one Displayport, for somewhere around $30. It gets the job done, but doesn't leave much room for future upgrades. The other thing I have been considering (assuming I can find it for prices I've seen it at in the past) is the AMD v7900, with four Displayports for around $100-$120. It's spending quite a bit more money, but it means I'm never going to have to worry about connection issues in the future. So, in this thread, I'm looking for any advice I can get in this area. Are these cards good ideas, or are there better ones to be found (I'd considered an eyefinity-6 card, but can't find one under $200)? Also, since I'm using an Nvidia card, how will that affect using an AMD card (I've heard odd things about driver installations before; anyone have experience?)?

Well, sorry I cannot help you with modding Morrowind (I've done it before, but I'm sure there are people who can do it far better than I), but I have spent a lot of time modding skyrim, so I'll give you what I can. Firstly, we need to get the boring stuff out of the way that will make the game playable. SKSE http://skse.silverlock.org/ ENBoost http://enbdev.com/download_mod_tesskyrim.htm http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/38649/? SSME http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/50305/? The Unofficial Patches http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/19/? http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/23491/? http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/31083/? http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/25127/? These mods are basically essential to playing the game correctly with stability. I'm sure you could find information about why these are necessary, but yeah, moving on... If you want the BEST experience with textures, then the Mod Combiner is the way go about it, but it isn't exactly quick, so I'll be giving you the best of the more basic mods. Mod Combiner: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/51467/? Skyrim 2k: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/607/? That is basically the all-encompassing pack (It doesn't actually touch nearly anything, but it does do a lot). Most popular. Good. Skyrim Flora Overhaul: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/141/? The predominate flora mod, very good, highly recommended. Ruins Clutter Improved: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/14227/? Retex/remodel of dungeon stuff, looks great. Static Mesh Improvement Mod: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/8655/? Remeshes of lots of the bad looking meshes in the game. Very highly recommended. Realistic Water Two: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/41076/? Essentially the best water mod right now, makes the water look incredible. Enhanced Blood Textures: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/60/? Does exactly what you would expect it to do. Looks great. Ultimate HD Fire Effects: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/28642/? I can't remember if there has been a better fire mod since, but this one is good and has been around for a long time. Detailed Rugs: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/29608/? A Book of Silence: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/24909/? Retex of armours and weapons. Fantastic mod. Skyrim Realistic Texture Overhaul Series: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/38539/? http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/56137/? http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/58461/? http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/59563/? http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/59469/? Nice textures for the Landscapes, Caves, Clouds, Mountains, and Dragons Audio Overhaul for Skyrim 2: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/43773/? Great audio mod that makes the game feel much more realistic. Vivid Landscapes: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/49344/? Has great textures for all sorts of things, most of which include Parallax maps. This is certainly a good start to a mod list, but I'm sure there's a lot missing here. If you want me to go on, then I could go on, but this stuff is the most important to getting the best looking game possible.

So sorry about the formatting issue! Wasn't aware of it and was gone for a while. Shoot, I didn't do my research first. I swear there was a phone with a quality TN panel and I thought it was the HTC. Maybe it was a Sony?

Samsung U28D590D 28 Inches, 3840x2160, TN Panel. Let's talk about the panel first. For all of the non-believers out there, you CAN have a good looking TN panel (HTC One, anyone?). No, it doesn't look as good as IPS usually does, but it does look miles ahead of my other sub-par TN panels. The 1 billion colors doesn't mean that it's going to be a photo-editors dream, but instead it starts to make up for the fact that it's a TN panel. The viewing angles are, as expected, TN quality. Again, it gets a lot worse, but there is a color shift. The response times are actually very good. There is very little 'motion blur' as a result (not what it's technically called, I know. But you get the point). You can't expect it to be 120hz quality, but you won't be disappointed. The input lag is another story, though. According to those who've measured it, the input lag is about 40ms. That is not great. This monitor should not be used by a gamer that feels they need exceptionally low input lag. In practice, it doesn't feel quite so awful, but I won't say that it isn't noticeable. It's there. While not a huge deal, there does seem to be a slight amount of backlight bleed. So the blacks are slightly blue-ish. It isn't 'bad', but it's an LCD. What did you expect? Ergonomics? Pretty awful. The stand looks good, (as does the rest of the monitor) but the construction is absolute trash. If the ASUS model with the same panel is a similar price, it's a no-brainer: get the ASUS. But if it isn't, then the Samsung is fine. The worst part is the exclusion of a vesa mount, but I'll live. Among other things, I with there was a USB hub. But the monitor just has its DisplayPort 1.2, 2xHDMI 1.4, and 1/8 inch headphone jack. If you want 4k, then this is the sensible budget option, depending on the price. If it's lower than about $500, then it's probably the monitor you want, assuming you're on a budget. But it just depends on current prices; I recently saw the Dell IPS for only $30 more. If you have some more money and are a bit more serious about gaming, then the Acer G-sync with the same panel as this works. If you want IPS, then the Dell P2715q or ASUS PB279Q are great options. But at this point I'm basically naming all of the 4K monitors out right now. If you care that much, I'm sure you can decide for yourself or research elsewhere. I personally wanted the new ASUS PG27AQ, but I decided to spend the money I got back on a second 970 and an AIO liquid cooler. I will be waiting so I can get a DisplayPort 1.3 compatible GPU and a 5K monitor (Hopefully by the end of this year!). LG 34UM95-P 34 Inches, 3440x1440, IPS Panel. This thing is beautiful. This thing reinvigorated my love for IPS. It is absolutely gorgeous. Fantastic contrast, too. The backlight bleed is bad. Really, really bad. Plenty to warrant sending the monitor back. But luckily it isn't horribly noticeable when you aren't looking at a black screen. This is a known issue with this monitor, but that doesn't make it excusable. Normally that would strike disaster when watching a movie, since it is letterboxed, but this little devil alleviates that issue entirely! Movies are what this is really made for (at least in my opinion). This thing is unreal when you are watching something it the monitor's native aspect ratio. The productivity is also fantastic. The 110 PPI over 34 inches means that you can easily see and deal with a lot of content on the screen at a time. Putting two things side-by-side at 1720x1440 each is great. I installed LG's Screen Split software, but I got it from their website and it does not seem to work. Motion blur is prevalent, but not ridiculous. As a gamer, you will easily notice it. I have dealt with much worse, though, and this isn't terrible. Unless you're an FPS player, you shouldn't be concerned (but if you play FPS games, are you really considering this monitor? Really?). The input lag is very tolerable. Not nearly as bad as the Samsung 4k. The stand is a disappointment, but there is a VESA mount included. Plenty of ports, with a USB hub and an interesting inclusion of thunderbolt. Cool! The "UM95" does not have a curve, so I do not have experience with that. But I can say that it would probably have a small, but in most cases, positive effect. Sadly, in many cases, the UC97 is significantly more expensive, so I probably would not recommend it for that reason and that reason only. Gaming is pretty cool on this. There are games that don't exactly support it (Dota 2, one of my favorites, does not like it very much). Third person games are great though. Racing games are also excellent. But I would recommend either anti-aliasing or DSR (When I was playing Fallout New Vegas at 5880x2880 (which was butter-smooth, by the way), there was still noticeable aliasing, but that game tends to be an aliasing nightmare). The Insightful Conclusion Coming from using a number of 23 inch 1080p monitors, using 4k for the first time was an unforgettable experience. The desktop at this resolution is daunting, since there is an insane amount of space and the icons are so much smaller than you've come to know them. It doesn't feel like you're using a PC anymore; it's as if you've ascended past the PC into something more unfamiliar, but extremely more exciting. 157 pixels per inch. Stunning. It creates an experience that is so much different from the 23"-1080p experience with about 96 PPI. And the 110 PPI 27 inch 1440p feels more like "Enhanced 1080p". 4K is absolutely unbelievable. When I plugged in the LG 34UM95 for the first time, I was hoping for this experience once again, but in a different way. Unfortunately, That didn't happen. It was cool. It was beautiful. It was a different experience. But it wasn't unforgettable, or stunning, or all that exciting. It was good, and functional, but that's it. But obviously my view of this is not the only one. Linus obviously cares less about the PPI and much more about readability. I won't lie, 28" 4k is difficult to see. Not painful, especially if you keep it close to you, but it's not easy. But I still have shortcomings with the 3440x1440 monitors. I feel like the aspect ratio is either too narrow or too broad for gaming. I think 21:10 would be better (I might be wrong, it just feels like it's just slightly too narrow). But eyefinity or surround intrigue me greatly, and having that solution in a single monitor would be great. But I don't feel that it is a solution to this either. When it comes down to it, I feel that if I spend an exorbitant amount of money on a monitor (In this case, about $700 USD because I got a refurbished unit), I expect to be blown away. And an, in my opinion, unexceptional pixel density. I thought I would love this monitor. But now I've discovered that I care far more about pixel density than about other things such as differing aspect ratios that many people care about. If this monitor were, say, 5880x2880, then I would absolutely love this monitor. But it looks like I'll have to wait for that.\ At this point, I have returned the LG 34UM95-P. I believe I might buy another 21:9 in the near future. But I am not willing to spend a large amount of money on a monitor I am not willing to use as my main display due to low pixel density. I am currently looking at the 29" crossover because it would be perfect for movies and good for productivity. I don't mind 96 PPI for auxiliary monitors. Well, I hope I have given people a different perspective on this issue. It all just comes down to what YOU want in an expensive monitor. (The first time I posted this, it was in the wrong section. Whoops! Hopefully here it will get more attention)

Samsung U28D590D 28 Inches, 3840x2160, TN Panel. Let's talk about the panel first. For all of the non-believers out there, you CAN have a good looking TN panel (HTC One, anyone?). No, it doesn't look as good as IPS usually does, but it does look miles ahead of my other sub-par TN panels. The 1 billion colors doesn't mean that it's going to be a photo-editors dream, but instead it starts to make up for the fact that it's a TN panel. The viewing angles are, as expected, TN quality. Again, it gets a lot worse, but there is a color shift. The response times are actually very good. There is very little 'motion blur' as a result (not what it's technically called, I know. But you get the point). You can't expect it to be 120hz quality, but you won't be disappointed. The input lag is another story, though. According to those who've measured it, the input lag is about 40ms. That is not great. This monitor should not be used by a gamer that feels they need exceptionally low input lag. In practice, it doesn't feel quite so awful, but I won't say that it isn't noticeable. It's there. While not a huge deal, there does seem to be a slight amount of backlight bleed. So the blacks are slightly blue-ish. It isn't 'bad', but it's an LCD. What did you expect? Ergonomics? Pretty awful. The stand looks good, (as does the rest of the monitor) but the construction is absolute trash. If the ASUS model with the same panel is a similar price, it's a no-brainer: get the ASUS. But if it isn't, then the Samsung is fine. The worst part is the exclusion of a vesa mount, but I'll live. Among other things, I with there was a USB hub. But the monitor just has its DisplayPort 1.2, 2xHDMI 1.4, and 1/8 inch headphone jack. If you want 4k, then this is the sensible budget option, depending on the price. If it's lower than about $500, then it's probably the monitor you want, assuming you're on a budget. If you have some more money and are a bit more serious about gaming, then the Acer G-sync with the same panel as this works. If you want IPS, then the Dell P2715q or ASUS PB279Q are great options. But at this point I'm basically naming all of the 4K monitors out right now. If you care that much, I'm sure you can decide for yourself or research elsewhere. LG 34UM95-P 34 Inches, 3440x1440, IPS Panel. This thing is beautiful. This thing reinvigorated my love for IPS. It is absolutely gorgeous. Fantastic contrast, too. The backlight bleed is bad. Really, really bad. Plenty to warrant sending the monitor back. But luckily it isn't horribly noticeable when you aren't looking at a black screen. Normally that would strike disaster when watching a movie, since it is letterboxed, but this little devil alleviates that issue entirely! Movies are what this is really made for (at least in my opinion). This thing is unreal when you are watching something it the monitor's native aspect ratio. The productivity is also fantastic. The 110 PPI over 34 inches means that you can easily see and deal with a lot of content on the screen at a time. Putting two things side-by-side at 1720x1440 each is great. I installed LG's Screen Split software, but I got it from their website and it does not seem to work. Motion blur is prevalent, but not ridiculous. As a gamer, you will easily notice it. I have dealt with much worse, though, and this isn't terrible. Unless you're an FPS player, you shouldn't be concerned (but if you play FPS games, are you really considering this monitor? Really?). The input lag is very tolerable. Not nearly as bad as the Samsung 4k. The stand is a disappointment, but there is a VESA mount included. Plenty of ports, with a USB hub and an interesting inclusion of thunderbolt. Cool! The "UM95" does not have a curve, so I do not have experience with that. But I can say that it would probably have a small, but in most cases, positive effect. Sadly, in many cases, the UC97 is significantly more expensive, so I probably would not recommend it for that reason and that reason only. Gaming is pretty cool on this. There are games that don't exactly support it (Dota 2, one of my favorites, does not like it very much). Third person games are great though. Racing games are also excellent. But I would recommend either anti-aliasing or DSR (When I was playing Fallout New Vegas at 5880x2880 (which was butter-smooth, by the way), there was still noticeable aliasing, but that game tends to be an aliasing nightmare). The Insightful Conclusion Coming from using a number of 23 inch 1080p monitors, using 4k for the first time was an unforgettable experience. The desktop at this resolution daunting, since there is an insane amount of space and the icons are so much smaller than you've come to know them. It doesn't feel like you're using a PC anymore; it's as if you've ascended past the PC into something more unfamiliar, but extremely more exciting. 157 pixels per inch. Stunning. It creates an experience that is so much different from the 23"-1080p experience with about 96 PPI. And the 110 PPI 27 inch 1440p feels more like "Enhanced 1080p". 4K is absolutely unbelievable. When I plugged in the LG 34UM95 for the first time, I was hoping for this experience once again, but in a different way. Unfortunately, That didn't happen. It was cool. It was beautiful. It was a different experience. But it wasn't unforgettable, or stunning, or all that exciting. It was good, and functional, but that's it. But obviously my view of this is not the only one. Linus obviously cares less about the PPI and much more about readability. I won't lie, 28" 4k is difficult to see. Not painful, especially if you keep it close to you, but it's not easy. But I still have shortcomings with the 3440x1440 monitors. I feel like the aspect ratio is either too narrow or too broad for gaming. I think 18:9 would be better (I might be wrong, it just feels like it's just slightly too narrow). But eyefinity or surround intrigue me greatly, and having that solution in a single monitor would be great. But I don't feel that it is a solution to this either. When it comes down to it, I feel that if I spend an exorbitant amount of money on a monitor (In this case, about $700 USD because I got a refurbished unit), I expect to be blown away. And an, in my opinion, unexceptional pixel density. I thought I would love this monitor. But now I've discovered that I care far more about pixel density than about other things such as differing aspect ratios that many people care about. If this monitor were, say, 5880x2880, then I would absolutely love this monitor. But it looks like I'll have to wait for that.\ I have decided that I am going to return the LG 34UM95-P. I believe I might buy another 21:9 in the near future. But I am not willing to spend a large amount of money on a monitor I am not willing to use as my main display due to low pixel density. I am currently looking at the 29" crossover because it would be perfect for movies and good for productivity. I don't mind 96 PPI for auxiliary monitors. Well, I hope I have given people a different perspective on this issue. It all just comes down to what YOU want in an expensive monitor.

Yay! I just use many programs at the same time, so having a 5820K would really be a step up for me.

Okay, thanks for the input. Since it isn't too expensive, I might just buy it and try it out. I just hope the experience is good enough for it to be a long term setup.

Cool. But what I'm worried about is using a sub-par mixer that will reduce the quality of the signal.

Okay, to start: I have 600 Ohm DT 880's, and a Xonar STX. Recently, I have been wanting to use multiple sources on my headphones, so I've started hooking them up to my Astro Mixamp instead of my STX. I'm not here to vouch for the STX being worth the money, however, there is no question it is undoubtedly a much better experience than using the Mixamp. So my idea is to buy a real mixer and to use the outputs from my soundcard and other devices to use my headphones with. (This is the specific mixer I am looking at right now: http://www.amazon.com/Behringer-UB1002-10-Channel-Mixer/dp/B00CTKI4K2/ref=sr_1_393?s=musical-instruments&ie=UTF8&qid=1415414786&sr=1-393 ) The main question is: Is the mixer going to significantly decrease the quality/loudness of output from my soundcard? I realize this isn't the perfect setup and definitely won't be AS good as simply using the soundcard, but I want a more permanent solution that I can at least enjoy using my headphones with my computer and having other inputs. Another question: If I find that the mixer is quieting the signal, could I simply purchase an amp to put between the mixer and the headphones? And is there another, good option for my wants? I would prefer not to sell my soundcard (I actually find the virtual surround the software to be very nice for multichannel music).

After experience with an IPS monitor, and the Samsung 4K monitor, I would say that the 4K is definitely worth the TN. People really need to see the panel before they can truly judge the 4k monitors out right now. Yes, in terms of viewing angles it certainly is TN. But when looking at it straight on, it's very nice. Maybe not -quite- on the level of the IPS that I used, but far far beyond any other TN panel I've used. Now there are several reasons why 1440p might look more appealing than 4K right now, but if your biggest gripe is TN vs IPS, then I think you should only go for the 1440p if you're insane about your monitors being IPS (which it doesn't seem like you are). And let's be fair, TN makes it cheap, which in terms of a fairly expensive technology, isn't exactly a bad thing. And it means response times are going to be better (There are always exceptions, but I think we can agree on this). As you mentioned, the only way to get over 60hz (not counting overclocking) is with the ROG Swift, and it just isn't worth the price tag. And not to mention it's TN just like the 4Ks (Yes, you need it for high refresh rates, but it's still a downside) IMHO, 4K is the way to go. The experience is fantastic. but if you plan on sitting more than 3 feet from your monitor, you better have perfect vision of it's going to be nearly impossible to use. But if you're closer then it's really cool having a ton of space to play around with. I'd just like to mention that from the build in your sig that you'll only have 3 GB of VRAM, which isn't fantastic. You'll get by at 4k on most games, but there will be times you hit the limit. Just don't expect to play a crazily modded Skyrim seriously without 4+ GB of VRAM.

Also using Windows 8.1. Thing is, you expect it to be able to basically replicate 1080p, and just be much sharper. But it fails to do that, and even looks more blurry imo. I suppose I was a bit harsh. It's still perfectly usable, but I would NEVER trade the extra space for simply bigger text. If it actually took advantage of the pixels and made it look clearer, then I'd be sold.

The scaling at 1080p is exactly what you'd expect. 4 pixels for every pixel, so it's "perfect". Except for the fact that 1080p at 28" is ugly imo, so I wouldn't do that regardless. But it works just fine if you sit far away, or you want to get the most out of your games. 1440p is.... decent. Since it has to interpolate, it's going to be blurry. But to be fair, it could be worse. Games were okay, for the relatively short amount of time I tested it. It's a bit blurry, but it's perfectly usable. But if you want to use the 1440p on a 4k monitor more than the 4k, then honestly I think that the cheaper 1440p monitors (sometimes getting down to a bit over $200) are a better option. But I think you'll be alright with your 290 at 4k, and whenever you upgrade, you'll certainly love it. And if you HAVE to have the best performance, then using it in 1080p is great and 1440p is good as well. Text scaling, on the other hand, is horrid. It looks terrible. I have it turned off, so I always have full desktop space. Natively, things aren't exactly easy to see, but it isn't necessarily uncomfortably small, and it's something you adjust to (I sit about 2 feet away from the monitor, for reference).

The Samsung U28D590. The Asus is the better monitor, but I got the Samsung on sale, and the only real difference is the stand (which is fairly significant, but still, $100 more for a better stand? Nah...), since they use the same panel. Give it a few months and there will be better options available for better prices, but I don't regret getting one now.

4k. Undoubtedly. Speaking from experience. I love my new 4k monitor. Heck, I only have a 7950, but you just have to be realistic. I KNOW that I can't run anything on ultra, and most things I can't run great unless they're fairly low, but man it looks absolutely STUNNING. So many people are still stuck on recommending 1440p monitors since 4k isn't easy to drive, but if you have realistic expectations, then it truly is a fantastic experience. And it honestly surprises me that I can run some things very well. Dark Souls 2 is a consistent 60 fps at 4k. Heavily texture modded Fallout New Vegas (not able to handle ENB, sadly) runs at 60 all day. Even Bioshock infinite runs from 40-50 if you turn down SSAO and leave everything else at ultra. And you guys who claim that just because a panel is TN means it's complete rubbish really need to see the panel that the samsung and asus 4k monitors use. Yes, it's TN. Yes, it has color shift. But it actually looks incredible for a TN panel. I would say that it's on-par with my Asus PB238Q, except the samsung 4k I have now has almost no motion blur, whereas the PB238Q wasn't the prettiest choice for gaming because it was distracting when you turned. The benefits of having 8 million pixels compared to a measly 3.5 million is hugely noticeable. The thought of playing something at 1080p or 1440p is just shocking. It honestly feels like games were meant to be played at 4k. It is a completely different graphical experience.