A good monitor is purely for 27" games in full hd
Prompt a simple not expensive (up to 15k) good monitor 27" with full hd resolution, mostly will play AAA, do not play online games, cleanly at home a couple of hours before bed run, system 1660 super and amd r5 gen 1.PoizonZ wrote: I
bought VX2776, the coolest and most beautiful and with a good picture
and how do you like the pixels? I really did not notice the transition from 24 to 27, I just kicked from a healthier screen, did
you notice a decrease in PPI in Monica?
for 16k took?
just mine for 165 Hz for discounts, also for 16 they gave at one time, I took for 17k
sgtghost
will be if the card is 10th generation or higher and connected via the display port
sgtghost
Read forums. Not all monitors with free sync work with Nvidia. Many bugs and artifacts
sgtghost
Not all cards are friends with him, from the 10th generation, but you also need to look at a certain card.
SPR1GGAN
I of course xs about VX2776-smhd, but in general I used that 24 "on the fulcrum, that 27" also did not notice the pixels on the fulcrum. Yes, they will not be visible, of course, if you sit 50 cm from Monica, you will see)
PoizonZ
27 is too much for 1080. 23-24 is optimal. I was convinced on myself. Although, if you sit far away, then the pixels do not go into your eyes ... For games, it's better to take telly in the region of 20k and it will be better.
Slonvprotivogaze wrote:
Have
you been convinced of yourself? on a cheap VA? then there are no questions
Slonvprotivogaze wrote:
For games, it's better to take a TV set in the region of 20k and it will be better
than what? response in 30ms?
24 and 27 with a difference in the price tag of 1k or even 2k, this overpayment is fully justified,
let everyone look with his own eye like a picture for him, but to say 100% that 27 for full is bad, so-so opinion
Slonvprotivogaze is
fine, I have already tried it, all this is stupid fairy tales, I would conduct an experiment, I would just show you the monitors from arm's length during the game, how much would correctly determine which monitor is where :) and it would take a couple of seconds, because if you need more, it means you need to strain to see the difference, and this overpayment is not worth it
SPR1GGAN wrote:
finally I don’t care that the density is less, only if you read something you can notice, and then not much, it doesn’t bother me at all
Slonvprotivogaze wrote:
27 is too much for 1080.
Or is it not enough?) It depends on what you were convinced.
PoizonZ wrote:
finally don’t care that the density is less, only if you read something you can notice, and even then not much, it doesn’t bother me at all
And what about fonts? It would be VA, it would be loose and cut off from above (for example, some Samsungs sin with this). Are all the rules here?
SPR1GGAN
what are you showing? there above the T you can see that there are a little serifs, such problems do not bother me Pirogo4ek
well, so not only samsa, but everything on their matrices, I don't know my model for sure, but my eyes don't get tired of reading, I slightly reduced the sharpness at first, I played RDR 2 , there is a lot of scribbling, there is something to read, along with subtitles, so my eyes did not get tired, and that means that everything concerning fonts suits me completely
inkoggnito
this is my full hdd at 27 on IPS, an excellent picture, and this is an example of the fact that there are no conspicuous pixels there
PoizonZ
Again, it depends on vision and preferences. I have an Asus 144Hz 27 ips (the model is broken to watch), with 40 cm pixels are quite tangible. If you play with clarity, it's much better, but not much. My option is a TV set. (I've been playing for six years) For strategies and isometry - 24 "for the eyes. Well, or 27, but 2k minimum.
Pirogo4ek
No, 27 - 2k minimum it is necessary to look. The optimal point for 1080 is a 45 "TV set (the second monitor) or a 24" monitor. Personally, from my own experience.
Slonvprotivogaze
Well, I've just measured the distance with a tape measure for interest, it's less than an outstretched hand, I don't sit at that distance, I have a comfortable 80, nothing is visible at this, that's why wqhd is a completely useless resolution, especially if you play.
inkoggnito wrote: that's
why wqhd is a completely useless resolution, especially if you play.
Well, if the hardware allowed me to play normally at this resolution, then I would not refuse 2k. And so this kind of monitors like the Viewsonic VX2776-smhd will be popular not only because of this resolution, but because of the price and versatility. If you want for games, if you want for video, it is also convenient to work on such a matrix, your eyes do not get tired and the text is not loose.
what's the point in games from wqhd, except that the load on the video card will be at least 30-40% more, you seem to have not read what I wrote about my system, and you also suggest taking it from 144 Hz, why do I need this in AAA projects, while 2776 is the best option
