Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Green_Manalishi on August 12, 2018, 12:55:58 PM
-
Looking For A 49"-50" Monitor (TV). My Head Is Spinning From Everything I've Read. What Are You Using? I Don't Plan On Going VR, Using Trackr IR.
Thank You For Your Input.....
-
Let's start with your current hardware, especially the video card. It would also help to know the resolution you're currently running the game and the frame rate you get with your system. Adding to that if you're happy with the performance.
Assuming you currently get a solid 60 FPS and your monitor has the common 1920x1080 resolution, the following will roughly tell what to expect with higher class monitors:
- A 50" screen, 1920x1080 @ 60 Hz- no extra load to your system
- 2560x1440 @ 60 Hz - a little more load but most likely still no big issue for your video card
- 1920x1080 @ 144 Hz - your video card may struggle keeping the FPS three digit
- 2560x1440 @ 144 Hz - a high end video card required for solid gameplay
- 4K (3840x2160) @ 60 Hz - a very high end video card required, the load is literally quadruple to #1. Still may need to tune the game down a little.
- 4K @ 144 Hz - basically no current video card can run that at full details.
Of course there's models in between, finding a place for them in the list should be no big issue.
-
Hardware: i7 7700, GeForce 1060 w/6gb, 16gb RAM
Recommend/Using Brand/Model??
And This Lag Input And The Grey To Grey??
-
I have the same basic "hardware" as you and I use an "Insignia" 42 1080 TV and have no issues. I think with any new TV you can get today will work fine.
-
Hardware: i7 7700, GeForce 1060 w/6gb, 16gb RAM
Recommend/Using Brand/Model??
And This Lag Input And The Grey To Grey??
Thanks, that helps a lot!
Your video card is very good for 1920x1080 @ 60 Hz, giving you a solid 60 FPS max. For what I've read it might be capable to run a 144 Hz monitor reasonably well, too, at the same resolution. That would raise your max FPS to 144. A faster monitor makes fast moving objects more life like since it shows more subtle movements. Think about drawing a circle using 60 straight lines against the same drawn with 144 straight lines.
Another option is to stay at 60 Hz but raise the resolution. Your GTX1060 is well capable for a 2560x1440 (or 2560x1600 if you can find one). That's something I know by own experience using a GTX970 which is roughly as powerful as yours. A higher resolution will give you a more detailed image.
I just did a test flight with V-sync off to see how high and low my system will go. Over the sea I got 175 FPS at the max, above 150 in average. Strafing the smoking field on the deck the FPS dropped as low as 11 until the ack got me! However, I've got a decade old Core2Duo as processor which may affect dealing with multiple polygons and my video drivers are outdated due to compatibility issues. Guess it would be due time to get a new rig at some point... Anyhow, that little test proved what I wanted to know: Plenty of oomph in most situations, in high polygon areas such as a furball over a smoking field there may be a drop.
This simple calculation will give you a benchmark for comparison: Resolution x Refresh Rate. So if we assume that your card can do well with 2560x1440x60=221184000, 1920x1080x144=298598400 would be a tougher job by almost a half but 1920x1080x100 would be at the same ballpark.
Grey to grey... I'd say 5 Ms and below is good enough. Simplified that tells how long it takes for a white dot to go back to black. Movement on the screen happens when adjacent pixels change colour. If the previous pixels stay somewhat lit you'll see a fading tail following moving images. Black to black would be ideal for comparison, but for marketing purposes they prefer grey to grey which is a shorter time, from "when the white dot starts to separate from a grey background until it blends back in" and not saying how light grey the grey is!
Input lag tells how long it takes for an image to travel from your computer to be visible on the screen. Many TV sets have all sorts of image enhancing technology which can add a significant lag. When connected to a PC all such enhancers should be turned off. On some TV's it happens automatically, on some others the setting is hidden under many sub-menus. There's charts in the Internet telling exact model numbers, Google is your friend.
Last but not least: Size doesn't matter! As you can see in the formula above, it's only about resolution and refresh rate. Those two determine the load on your system no matter what the screen diameter is. Size is only relevant when compared to your desk and room.
-
Great write-up and explanation Bizman! :aok
-
:aok
-
There is nothing wrong with getting a 4K tv that is great for PC gaming and playing at 1080p until you have a system capable of doing better. I have found several websites covering the best 4K options for PC gaming. They do have some low budget options that produce decent results, particularly in the area of latency.
A lot of the lists overlap, so here is just one example: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/by-usage/pc-monitor
One brand that pops up as being really good for gaming, but really easy on the wallet are the TCL 55R617, and its cheaper, but slightly lower quality cousin the TCL 55SS405. I have considered both. It is impossible to beat the price to performance/feature set, particularly its low latency for a budget TV. However, read the reviews. The quality is inconsistent. If you get a good one, it will be good out of the box and last. But that is not the experience of many reviewers. It is a Chinese brand trying to scoop up Vizio's reputation for value, but apparently their quality control isn't up to Korean/Japanese standards yet. I may as yet get one, but I am in no hurry. I am waiting to see the nVidia BFGD (big format gaming displays) hit the market before I decide on a monitor.
None of the options are perfect. It would be useful to bring a decent laptop into a store that has models you are interested and test your game(s) of interest on them before committing to a particular display.
-
One thing you need to keep in mind is that the wider the screen the taller it will be also. The optimum position for a screen is to have the top edge of the monitor at eye level. So, unless you are fairly tall going big will only cause you more physical fatigue, and it gets worse the older you are (bifocals for instance require a more extreme neck bend). There are extra wide screens that have short vertical height, but anything over 42" is really too much even for big guys.
-
Here's another benchmark. I have a similar system and am using a 2560x1440 monitor. I get about 120 fps in the air, around 80 near the ground, and 60ish over a damaged town.