Microboard Korean Curved Ultrawide 100Hz Gaming Monitor

[Energycore]

I put my thoughts in my status update, but I really think this was a really badly done review if you can call it that. Even as a "showcase" I found it bad.

[2FA]

23 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I put my thoughts in my status update, but I really think this was a really badly done review if you can call it that. Even as a "showcase" I found it bad.

That's why I don't bother with LTT videos anymore. They have become laughably bad in quality but Linus can do no wrong apparently.

[Herman Mcpootis]

[Streetguru]

What kind of excuse is that for not throwing a Fury or Fury X on the bench to test free-sync? Did he forget that Vega GPUs will be coming that at the very least will be as fast as a 1080? Meaning even if you have an nvidia card, down the line assuming the free-sync works well on the display which we don't know at least by that review, you could in theory swap out your 1080 for a bit higher end Vega GPU if it exists

Or maybe nvidia will care about freedom and add support for free-sync, at which point assuming it's just 100% working same on AMD, people watching the review in the future will know if the adaptive sync on it is good, and could then buy it, knowing it'll work well whatever GPU they have

The Fury X at least is around a stock 1070's level, I'm pretty sure it can handle CS:GO/Dota 2/Overwatch at 4k no issue, it could even do like DOOM Vulkan at medium settings for solid frame rates, or Hitman(2016) with DX12

There's basically no reason not to at least test it to see if it works well, the review is incomplete without testing the free-sync capability of a display

and as a small side note, the linus tech tips team probably has more resources than any other tech youtube channel aside from maybe PCper, your reviews could and in my mind should be far more detailed than they are

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 hours ago, scottyseng said:

Way late to this, but on youtube, his reply was:

 

That being said, I think the out of box color kind of kills it for me at least...I mean your average person does not have a color calibrator (Even a cheap one like the X-rite ColorMunki).

Call me naïve, but that was much worse than I expected  

Is he reviewing the monitor or its potential users in the end?

 

And isn't the whole point of Freesync precisely dealing with scenarios where you dip below the refresh rate? If your system gives you 100FPS minimum then all you need is vsync at most. Giving Freesync as a reason to change his mind and do the review doesn't help to understand it either.

[orlfman]

first post, I AM A NVIDIA USER WITH A GYSNC DISPLAY, and a loonnggg time viewer but this way to outrageous. running a nano or a fury x with it would have been perfect to showcase freesync... if you get 100 or more fps on a monitor that maxes out at 100hz, gsync and freesync won't function... because their limit is your monitors max refresh rate. having a card putting out 50 fps when you have a 100 fps limit would showcase the benefit of a tear free experience both freesync and gsync offer.

 

and then complain about it tearing because it lacks gsync? what??? REALLY? its a freesync display! if anything you should have been complaining about NVIDIA REFUSING TO ADOPT THE OPEN STANDARD CALLED ADAPTIVE SYNC.

 

his excuse "amd doesn't have a card out that can run ""AAA"" at 100 fps at this resolution" is absolutely ridiculous. you wouldn't care about gsync or freesync if you got 100+ on a 100hz monitor because gsync and freesync would be completely mute. let alone there are more than just ""AAA"" games out there.

[Crimson Dog]

7 hours ago, scottyseng said:

Way late to this, but on youtube, his reply was:

 

That being said, I think the out of box color kind of kills it for me at least...I mean your average person does not have a color calibrator (Even a cheap one like the X-rite ColorMunki).

Oh that's horseshit.....

 

LTT has really gone downhill...
Techquickie is the only thing that's worth staying subscribed to nowadays, the main channel really lost its fire with all this pandering to the lowest common denominator...

[kaiju_wars]

I'm pretty sure a 390x - FuryX can run 1440p.  Even an RX 480, considering it can run BF1 at 4k..

[Shahnewaz]

7 hours ago, scottyseng said:

You've got to be kidding me.

 

And can someone tell me why one needs to play Crysis 3 to test a monitor? What does that (specific) game even tell you about a monitor?

[VeryColdAir]

5 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

And can someone tell me why one needs to play Crysis 3 to test a monitor? What does that (specific) game even tell you about a monitor?

I believe that the reason he uses Crysis 3 is that it has a benchmark, and when it came out, it was not an easy game to run, hence all of the "can it run crysis?" memes. Now because of that meme, which he had referenced a few times in various videos, I think he started using it as a standard game to test PC's so if people bought up the question, he could say yes.

[Shahnewaz]

2 minutes ago, VeryColdAir said:

I believe that the reason he uses Crysis 3 is that it has a benchmark, and when it came out, it was not an easy game to run, hence all of the "can it run crysis?" memes. Now because of that meme, which he had referenced a few times in various videos, I think he started using it as a standard game to test PC's so if people bought up the question, he could say yes.

...What? We're testing a monitor dude. Not a CPU or GPU.

Probably the most important game to test on these high refresh rate monitors would be CS:GO, hands down. And yet he plays Crysis 3... God knows why.

[HKZeroFive]

Let's face it, Linus' videos are hardly any good anymore... they're half arsed, the testing methodology is crap, and they're occasionally downright misleading. This review only reinforces that idea even more.

 

I genuinely don't believe he's a NVIDIA schill but he's far from being a decent reviewer. If you want good reviews, there are plenty of other websites and TechTubers out there who are way, way better when it comes to quality

[seabrookmx]

29 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Let's face it, Linus' videos are hardly any good anymore... they're half arsed, the testing methodology is crap, and they're occasionally downright misleading. This review only reinforces that idea even more.

 

I genuinely don't believe he's a NVIDIA schill but he's far from being a decent reviewer. If you want good reviews, there are plenty of other websites and TechTubers out there who are way, way better when it comes to quality

Is all the Linus hate warranted? Like.. we're on the bloody LTT forum. 

I too would have liked to see the FreeSync aspect tested @LinusTech. I could see myself using a large monitor like this for productivity reasons (spreadsheets/programming, not colour related stuff ), and it would be nice to know how a card like an RX480 fared with FreeSync enabled to help mediate any framerate dips when I do game. Especially since I mostly just play Overwatch atm. The argument in the YouTube reply was that most people wouldn't pair that monitor with a ~$200ish GPU. That assumes that gaming is the user's first (or only) priority.

One of the least complete LTT reviews IMHO. But the least we can do is be constructive here..

[HKZeroFive]

1 minute ago, seabrookmx said:

Is all the Linus hate warranted? Like.. we're on the bloody LTT forum.

Does it matter whether or not we're on the LTT forum? If Linus fucks up, I have the right to criticise him. He fucked up, so now he's copping the flak.

[seabrookmx]

24 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Does it matter whether or not we're on the LTT forum? If Linus fucks up, I have the right to criticise him. He fucked up, so now he's copping the flak.

Sure it's your right. But mature, educated, and constructive criticism usually gets you farther than straight up calling someone a shitty reviewer. I actually want him to do a separate bit on the FreeSync aspects of this monitor. If you're going to pour on the salt maybe your comments would be better suited to Youtube? 

[seabrookmx]

55 minutes ago, seabrookmx said:

Is all the Linus hate warranted? Like.. we're on the bloody LTT forum. 

I too would have liked to see the FreeSync aspect tested @LinusTech. I could see myself using a large monitor like this for productivity reasons (spreadsheets/programming, not colour related stuff ), and it would be nice to know how a card like an RX480 fared with FreeSync enabled to help mediate any framerate dips when I do game. Especially since I mostly just play Overwatch atm. The argument in the YouTube reply was that most people wouldn't pair that monitor with a ~$200ish GPU. That assumes that gaming is the user's first (or only) priority.

One of the least complete LTT reviews IMHO. But the least we can do is be constructive here..

Just to generalize this.. Linus (or any reviewer) can't possibly imagine all use cases for a product. So giving an opinion from a gaming standpoint is fair.. but that's no reason to completely gloss over a key feature like FreeSync. There's always going to be non-standard use cases that a product might fit in to, and solid coverage of the product itself (and all it's features) will help those non-standard users even in the absence of a recommendation for their use case. 

[HKZeroFive]

13 minutes ago, seabrookmx said:

Sure it's your right. But mature, educated, and constructive criticism usually gets you farther than straight up calling someone a shitty reviewer. I actually want him to do a separate bit on the FreeSync aspects of this monitor. If you're going to pour on the salt maybe your comments would be better suited to Youtube? 

The video is flawed in many, many ways and the fact he's defending it just shows that something like constructive criticism isn't going to change much (if anything).

 

The truth is that it was a bad review and all the flak he's getting for it (including mine) is deserved. Nobody should argue against that.

[WaRMaiN]

I think I have a better option than the X-star monitor: The AOC C3583FQ . Its a 2560x1080 AMVA Panel with 160hz of Refresh Rate. It would be a better option, and the price its cheaper than 700$...

There is the Link to Buy: http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-AOC-C3583FQ-35in-VA-Curved-LED-Display-35-in-LCD-Monitor-TFT-Active-Matrix-/152314905357?hash=item2376ad030d:g:yBEAAOSwcUBYJnd6
 

4K Monitor or similar have a lot of problems to hide the blur effect on their panels, and the AOC looks like a good Gaming Ultra Wide monitor without expending 1000$+-...

[Bojamijams]

This video made me unsub from LTT.  Quality has gone to shit and this is the last straw

[Nero24]

18 hours ago, scottyseng said:

Way late to this, but on youtube, his reply was:

 

.

Basically the methodology is as flawed as the justification for it. And it is not an AMD vs. NVIDIA argument.

 

The 1080 cannot push 100 frames at that resoultion on actually recent AAA titles either. So it comes down to the choice of game, which is obviously completely arbitrary then. Especially considering that Crysis is not commonly used by many publications as a benchmark at this point, for good reasons.

 

But this is NOT a GPU test, in fact the testing medium (both hardware and software) is actually irrelevant, as long as it delivers the interesting testing situation for the MONITOR review. So, even if LTT wants to stay with this 4 year old "dinosaur" of a game, there is no reason at all not to lower the settings, even the resolution, so whichever AMD card on hand is able to push the 100FPS requred for the scenario.

 

Lastly, both Gsync and Freesync exist precisely for those cases where the GPU frame output is actually lower than the native refresh rate. So not only would it actually have been necessary for a complete test to actually get less than 100 frames -  a Gsync panel would not have given the complete picture either when the frames with the GTX1080 are at/above 100FPS!!

 

As it stands, the min-max adaptive sync refresh rates are the hardest to come by with many monitors, and even worse with a "grey import" like this.

So this is a very important element of an adaptive sync monitor review.

 

 

[Fetzie]

19 hours ago, SanityAgathion said:

I .... he ... errr, even if the Fury/FuryX or such card cannot keep ~100 Hz in CSGO or Overwatch on appropriate details at that resolution, isn't that what the frickin Freesync is for? To ... you know, synchronize refresh rate of monitor to output rate of GPU in order to stop tearing and make image smooth? This is review of monitor with Freesync feature, not GPU performance benchmark.

 

Edit: I am willing to pair this monitor with 290X/RX480 while waiting for what Vega brings in. Monitors last much longer than GPUs. If current card cannot keep up at full refresh rate - that's when Freesync kicks in. I just need to know frequency range at least, then I decide for myself, thank you.

Tahiti generation graphics cards can drive CS:GO 2560*1440 at 144 FPS, so I'm not buying that excuse.

[JuztBe]

"Let's shoot a video in 30min and call it a day, it will be perfect for our viewers." I imagine that was the thought process of Linus.

Gsync was mentioned more times in that video than FreeSync. I don't usually give any damn about Linus crappy videos, but this one - damn..

[samcool55]

Well, if i want that monitor this video is useless.

I want to know if freesync actually works and i have no clue now.

 

Oh well... I'm disappointed that even tho they have more employees than ever, they sometimes fail to remember the basics...

[Tam3n]

Lets make a video a day is taking too much over... I understand you need to steadily roll out videos now, but these days I watch less than 1/3 of them.

[PlayStation 2]

On 12/10/2016 at 7:39 PM, RGProductions said:

Prob no AMD card that can drive that.

You know, if an R9 390 has absolutely no trouble with TF2 with 4x MSAA at 3200x1800, I don't see that being used as an excuse for CS:GO, which is better optimized than the former.