AOC announces the best Freesync monitor yet?

[Guest]

Now just need the mount to be blue LED

[-BirdiE-]

4 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i have a 1080p 27 inch monitor and its not that bad at all. you can tell there is a difference between it and my 1440p 27 inch monitor but its not that dramatic

In my experience it's quite dramatic. But to each their own.

 

For me, 27" (16:9) is when 1080p is no longer good enough.

[spartaman64]

21 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Umm, maybe this will clear things up.

Let's take an average-ish 23" monitor, very common, nothing special, with a 1080P panel.

If you want to keep the same PPI for an ultrawide (21:9) you are looking at a res of 2560x1080 and 29".

 

This damn thing is 35", waaay too big. If you want a 35" ultrawide monitor with the same PPI you are in the 3440x1440 area, not the 2560x1080.

 

The PPI of this monitor is similar to a 23" monitor that has a res of 1600x900. Which imo looks arse, it's fine-ish for a 20" monitor but above that it has to be 1080p.

 

Also, it's a 600 dollar monitor, not a sub 100 cheap-o thing. Even tho it has a similar PPI and one of the worst panel types in the world.

ok so i think this monitor would be about 10.3739725205 inches tall? and a 27 inch 16:9 monitor is 13.2370534701 inches tall? i think i did the math correctly but idk so this would actually look better than a 27 inch 16:9 monitor because the rows of pixels would be denser 

 

edit: math error the height of the 21:9 monitor is 13.7871754502 so only slightly taller

[spartaman64]

20 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

In my experience it's quite dramatic. But to each their own.

 

For me, 27" (16:9) is when 1080p is no longer good enough.

i did some math and this monitor seems to be shorter than a 27 inch 16:9 monitor so it should actually be denser when it comes to rows of pixels. please double check on my math as it might not be correct 

 

edit: math error the height for the 21:9 monitor is 13.7871754502 which is slightly taller than the height of a 16:9 27 inch monitor which means the vertical pixel count should still be fine if you are fine with 1080p 16:9 27 inch monitors

[samcool55]

5 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

ok so i think this monitor would be about 10.3739725205 inches tall? and a 27 inch 16:9 monitor is 13.2370534701 inches tall? i think i did the math correctly but idk so this would actually look better than a 27 inch 16:9 monitor because the rows of pixels would be denser 

It's not about height alone.

I can't work with imperial so i have no clue tbh. Metric ftw

 

You have to keep the aspect ratio in mind and the pixel count, also there's more to it than raw height.

A monitor is never the size of the panel, you have to keep the bezels into count if you are going to work with raw measurements.

 

The amount of inches a monitor is, is only the panel. It's perfectly monitor A has a 23" 1080p panel and is 12" tall and monitor B also has a 23" 1080p panel but is 13" tall.

And you can't work with those height numbers because they are panel + bezel, and the number you actually need to do this kind of math is panel, without bezel.

[Mr.Meerkat]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i did some math and this monitor seems to be shorter than a 27 inch 16:9 monitor so it should actually be denser when it comes to rows of pixels. please double check on my math as it might not be correct

I did some maths and 16:9 content would be displayed at 28 inches (ish) so I don't think you did it correctly  

[Prysin]

17 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Umm, maybe this will clear things up.

Let's take an average-ish 23" monitor, very common, nothing special, with a 1080P panel.

If you want to keep the same PPI for an ultrawide (21:9) you are looking at a res of 2560x1080 and 29".

 

This damn thing is 35", waaay too big. If you want a 35" ultrawide monitor with the same PPI as a normal 1080p 23" monitor, you are in the 3440x1440 area, not the 2560x1080.

 

The PPI of this monitor is similar to a 23" monitor that has a res of 1600x900. Which imo looks arse, it's fine-ish for a 20" monitor but above that it has to be 1080p.

 

Also, it's a 600 dollar monitor, not a sub 100 cheap-o thing. Even tho it has a similar PPI and one of the worst panel types in the world.

VA panels are far from terrible, despite what people think.

 

Ive owned all three types. Whilst i agree that IPS is the best option, i'd easily take a VA over ANY TN panel in the world.

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just now, Prysin said:

Ive owned all three types. Whilst i agree that IPS is the best option, i'd easily take a VA over ANY TN panel in the world.

even over a 144Hz display if it didn't exist for IPS or VA?  

[-BirdiE-]

6 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i did some math and this monitor seems to be shorter than a 27 inch 16:9 monitor so it should actually be denser when it comes to rows of pixels. please double check on my math as it might not be correct

All I know is that my 34" 21:9 monitor had the same screen height as my old 27" 16:9 monitor (had them side by side until I sold my old one)

[samcool55]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

VA panels are far from terrible, despite what people think.

 

Ive owned all three types. Whilst i agree that IPS is the best option, i'd easily take a VA over ANY TN panel in the world.

Wow ok you are the first person i found that would do that.

 

I have TN and IPS monitors atm, and i have used VA panels in the past.

I kid you not some of them were so bad that when you sat perfectly in front of them, the sides would shift color, it's awful...

[spartaman64]

10 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

It's not about height alone.

I can't work with imperial so i have no clue tbh. Metric ftw

 

You have to keep the aspect ratio in mind and the pixel count, also there's more to it than raw height.

A monitor is never the size of the panel, you have to keep the bezels into count if you are going to work with raw measurements.

 

The amount of inches a monitor is, is only the panel. It's perfectly monitor A has a 23" 1080p panel and is 12" tall and monitor B also has a 23" 1080p panel but is 13" tall.

And you can't work with those height numbers because they are more panel + bezel, and the number you actually need to do this kind of math is panel, without bezel.

well the length measurement is just the panel and the pixels of course is just the panel also. and you dont have to convert between units so you dont have to know how to work with imperial. so what i did is make a right triangle with 35 inches as the hypotenuse for 21:9 monitor and yep i made an error the height of the 21:9 monitor is 13.7871754502 anyways the two legs is 21x and 9x so i did (21x)^2+(9x)^2=35^2

8 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

I did some maths and 16:9 content would be displayed at 28 inches (ish) so I don't think you did it correctly  

yep the height of the 21:9 monitor is actually 13.7871754502

 

edit: people in school asks why we learn the Pythagorean theorem well this is why. so you can use it to determine if the vertical pixel count of a monitor is enough lol

[Prysin]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

even over a 144Hz display if it didn't exist for IPS or VA?  

yes. Because i dont need 144Hz for the type of games i play. I mostly play MMORPGs or RPGs in general, i could easily play at locked 30FPS for what ingame performance matters.

 

As for the whole 144Hz debacle. Matter of fact is, the vast majority of people arent skilled enough in FPS games for 144Hz to be a need. It is a placebo for them, more then a actually crucial tool.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, samcool55 said:

Wow ok you are the first person i found that would do that.

 

I have TN and IPS monitors atm, and i have used VA panels in the past.

I kid you not some of them were so bad that when you sat perfectly in front of them, the sides would shift color, it's awful...

then its not a VA panel. Then it was a TN with malicious marketing. I have never seen a VA panel (use one a daily driver atm, have used 3-4 throughout the years and seen quite a few more) with worse viewing angles then a TN. NEVER. Not once.

[samcool55]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

then its not a VA panel. Then it was a TN with malicious marketing. I have never seen a VA panel (use one a daily driver atm, have used 3-4 throughout the years and seen quite a few more) with worse viewing angles then a TN. NEVER. Not once.

What do you mean TN with malicious marketing?

 

The few absolute terrible monitors i used were all VA so it wouldn't make sense to not market them as TN as they are in general better.

[Mr.Meerkat]

10 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

All I know is that my 34" 21:9 monitor had the same screen height as my old 27" 16:9 monitor (had them side by side until I sold my old one)

Yay, I did do my maths correctly then (35 inch would be roughly 28 inches then)

 

Thanks for confirming  

 

8 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

yep the height of the 21:9 monitor is actually 13.7871754502

Gotta love scale diagrams, 1cm=2 erm...pixels? so 21:9 is a 10.5cm by 4.5 cm rectangle and 16:9 is a 8cm by 4.5cm rectangle, 21:9 has a 11.4cm diagonal with 16:9 having 9.1cm so 35/11.4 x9.1=27.94~ inches  

 

7 minutes ago, Prysin said:

yes. Because i dont need 144Hz for the type of games i play. I mostly play MMORPGs or RPGs in general, i could easily play at locked 30FPS for what ingame performance matters.

 

As for the whole 144Hz debacle. Matter of fact is, the vast majority of people arent skilled enough in FPS games for 144Hz to be a need. It is a placebo for them, more then a actually crucial tool.

Fair enough, I think I'm at the point where 120Hz of my 1080p main does make a difference so I think I'll continue to stay with the extra smooth experience  (level 7...or was on faceit so I think I'm semi-pro enough)

 

edit: Rip grammar

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

What do you mean TN with malicious marketing?

 

The few absolute terrible monitors i used were all VA so it wouldn't make sense to not market them as TN as they are in general better.

i dont think you know what VA is at this point. Whatever. Haters gonna hate. But even Linus would disagree with your opinion.

[samcool55]

4 minutes ago, Prysin said:

i dont think you know what VA is at this point. Whatever. Haters gonna hate.

I know what VA is, it's just that the color shift when you look at them from an angle can be really annoying, sometimes so bad you don't even need to look at them from an angle to get color shift. That's the reason why it's really hard to get a VA panel monitor around here.

 

They can be good but the few very awful ones are the ones you can get here the most, sadly. So unless you really know what you want in the VA panel market, it's likely you end up with junk.

[-BirdiE-]

17 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Wow ok you are the first person i found that would do that.

 

I have TN and IPS monitors atm, and i have used VA panels in the past.

I kid you not some of them were so bad that when you sat perfectly in front of them, the sides would shift color, it's awful...

Quote

Another key advantage of VA is the improved viewing angles and colour reproduction compared to TN.

https://pcmonitors.info/articles/lcd-panel-types-explored/

 

I feel like you're confused.

[samcool55]

1 minute ago, -BirdiE- said:

https://pcmonitors.info/articles/lcd-panel-types-explored/

 

I feel like you're confused.

Colors are better, but viewing angles aren't.

Linus confirms this, tbh i don't know anymore.

I guess they can be better than TN but it seems like that's just not always the case. At least that's what i can make of this now...

[-BirdiE-]

20 minutes ago, Prysin said:

As for the whole 144Hz debacle. Matter of fact is, the vast majority of people arent skilled enough in FPS games for 144Hz to be a need. It is a placebo for them, more then a actually crucial tool.

I mean, yeah... If you're a casual gamer getting a 144hz panel thinking it's going to make you better at gaming.. you're a very confused person.

 

I wouldn't say it's a placebo though. It's more of an aesthetic thing. I had an issue a while back with windows reverting to 60Hz from 144Hz, and when I'd boot up a game I'd notice immediately. Purely a viewing experience thing though. Definitely didn't make me better at games... God I suck at games..

[-BirdiE-]

3 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Colors are better, but viewing angles aren't.

Linus confirms this, tbh i don't know anymore.

 

3 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

I guess they can be better than TN but it seems like that's just not always the case. At least that's what i can make of this now...

 

From another source 

Quote

And while the viewing angles of VA panels are wider than TN, the shift is similar to a TN panel and renders most VA panels ‘not ideal’ for tasks that require a great amount of color accuracy.

So it sounds like you were right, just confusing color shift with viewing angle. (although apparently it's roughly the same, not worse)

[samcool55]

1 minute ago, -BirdiE- said:

 

 

From another source 

So it sounds like you were right, just confusing color shift with viewing angle. (although apparently it's roughly the same, not worse)

I'm a bit confused.

So if i understand correctly, let's say you look at a monitor from a 90° angle.

if it's a VA panel that would mean you can still read it, but the colors are awful due to color shift.

And with a TN panel you just can't read it at all because it's just a mess.

 

I guess that could make sense, somehow...

[Prysin]

5 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

I mean, yeah... If you're a casual gamer getting a 144hz panel thinking it's going to make you better at gaming.. you're a very confused person.

 

I wouldn't say it's a placebo though. It's more of an aesthetic thing. I had an issue a while back with windows reverting to 60Hz from 144Hz, and when I'd boot up a game I'd notice immediately. Purely a viewing experience thing though. Definitely didn't make me better at games... God I suck at games..

except a lot of people swear by high refresh rate, as if it is neccessary to play FPS games. Does it help? not much. Only the best players (talking global tournament level players) will actually need it. Regional/national top end teams may need it, but certainly benefit from it.

The rest of the hyperactive self-righteous peaseants have no real benefit from using it. They think they do. But it doesnt matter.

 

Its the same as with the turds who think you need 500 FPS to play CSGO on a 60Hz monitor. Claiming the "input lag decreases so much". Whilst in reality we are talking of a fraction of a fraction of a improvement.

[Prysin]

Just now, samcool55 said:

I'm a bit confused.

So if i understand correctly, let's say you look at a monitor from a 90° angle.

if it's a VA panel that would mean you can still read it, but the colors are awful due to color shift.

And with a TN panel you just can't read it at all because it's just a mess.

 

I guess that could make sense, somehow...

not colors, gamma (aka shade).

Yes, i can notice that on my VA panel. The edges are often a shade or two brighter then the dead centre. But you only really notice it in extremely dark/gray color ranges. If you use a actual color like blue, green, red, purple, yellow, orange and any hue of these, then you cannot see it.

VA just isnt that good at grey-tones.

[-BirdiE-]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

except a lot of people swear by high refresh rate, as if it is neccessary to play FPS games. Does it help? not much. Only the best players (talking global tournament level players) will actually need it. Regional/national top end teams may need it, but certainly benefit from it.

The rest of the hyperactive self-righteous peaseants have no real benefit from using it. They think they do. But it doesnt matter.

 

Its the same as with the turds who think you need 500 FPS to play CSGO on a 60Hz monitor. Claiming the "input lag decreases so much". Whilst in reality we are talking of a fraction of a fraction of a improvement.

I'm entirely with you on the game performance business. Unless you are a professional, you really won't see any noticeable benefit in your play.

i.e. your results in game won't be any better

 

However, in terms of viewing experience... It definitely feels a lot smoother than a 60hz monitor. You'll still die like a scrub, but your death will be super smooth.