I want to use a basic monitor (fhd) with basic soundbar for just settop box use. My issue is that basic monitors and soudbars dont have arc. Can i use a HDMI splitter 1 in 2 out to feed to the monitor and soundbar both or will there be some issues there?

So I just bought a new IPS LCD monitor and it has a lot of blacklight bleeding. I also had a VA mini LED monitor at home, the cursor alone had a lot of blooming.

I am wondering, what do you think is worse in terms of just being there and then in scenarios like movies / games? I honestly think blacklight bleeding is annoying but you get used to it because its always the same spots. Blooming, i don't know. I can imagine it to be focus consuming.

I'm talking about screens, outputs, not source.

I never knew about these until I started looking for monitors. Apparently my screen is 8 bit but nVidia control panel can be set to 10 and even 12. I'm not noticing any difference.

Usage is common use of computers: browsing, working, watching videos, gaming... not doing any photo or video editing.

So, are you able to really spot a significant difference when using the computer ?

Is it worth it to upgrade for 10 bits ? Is it bad to buy nowadays a screen that's only 8 bits ?

Thanks for any input (even to the guy that will answer 2 bits )

Hi,

I recently purchased a ASUS XG27AQDMG monitor (240Hz WOLED), but I will be returning it soon, because of annoying issues when playing at lower refresh rates.

There is a VERY noticeable gamma shift when playing 60FPS games with VRR on. Basically any game that runs under 240FPS is displayed with incorrect colors, gamma curve and ugly near-black gradients.

This seems to be normal, for WOLED monitors, at least according to this (one of the only posts I've found about this issue !).

So my question is :

• Are all WOLED monitors affected by this issue ?
• What about QD-OLED ?

I've found conflicting information when searching the web and asking others... Also I'm still not sure if my unit is defective or not.

If this is an OLED issue, why isn't anyone talking about it ? It seems crazy to me to recommend monitors for VRR / console gaming if the gamma curve is all messed up.

Here are a few pictures I took (overexposed for the most part, to make the issue more visible, but it's still very noticeable in person) :

The light cast gradient is ugly

You're not supposed to see a big white splotch here. This image in person looked almost grey, while when disabling VRR it regained its blue tint and the white splotch disappeared.

Again bad gradients, black crush

The walls in the background should not look like this

Pixel perfect has always seem an obvious choice to me for daily work tasks and reading stuff (it's different for games since there are cool upscaling techniques now).

I've been using Windows forever, and Pixel perfect gave me clear and precise text, with no blurriness or lack of consistency between letters vertical lines. Windows is perfect at 1080p, and I'm sure it is at other resolutions matching the screen's.
However, Windows used to be quite bad at scaling, many apps besides mainstream weren't taking the scaling into account, and it resulted in awkwardly small interface.

Comes into play MacOS, and MacOS is absolutely terrible at 1080p. It's ok with native apps, but it's terrible with websites or whatsapp.
The text is not clear at all. Just typing this sentence, I realize both "l"s in "all" display differently. I can somehow sharpen it a little bit with downscaling from 4k to 1080p, yet that's not a consistent and enjoyable reading experience.

So, if someone needs to use both MacOS and Windows on a single screen, it seems mandatory to go for upscaling/downscaling techniques. MacOS is supposed to do great at putting 1080p images on 4k screens, and I guess Windows will to because these are 2:1 image scaling.

But what about uneven aspect ratios, like 3:2 scaling provide ? Like upscaling 1440p on a 4k screen ?

Will there still be artifacts and blurry text ?

Would it be wiser to aim for 1440p display to display à 1440p image ? Or will MacOS be blurry regardless if it's not displayed on a 2:1 scaling ?

In this example ou can see the \"ll\"s in \"All\" displaying differently

Hello. I am curious to know the pros and cons of QD-OLED monitors and Mini LED VA (specifically the VA panel) monitors.

Any information is helpful, as I’m not very savvy when it comes to PC builds and monitors.

https://preview.redd.it/cxtx33vkjzzd1.jpg?width=5712&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3cb3740dc2a2a4f236717ddf3ae069e6ad860223

The C3 has better micro contrast when looking at the skin while the PG32UQX has better specular highlights. For example, the skin of the chameleon shines and has 3D like textures on the Asus, but it is impossible to see it in the picture. If I adjusted the exposure to show what I saw in person, the C3 would look very dim in the picture.

In this scene where Arthur is standing in front of the sun, the PG32UQX makes feel like I am on of the audiences there. Everything pops and the sunlight was very impactful. His armor has better contrast than the Asus while the armor on the Asus is shining and reflecting the glare of the sunlight.

The LG has a hard time to show shadow details here, but the whole scene looks more natural than the Asus.

Again, on a bright scene whenever there is sunlight, the Asus really shines and it make you feel like you are there in the scene. Also the armor shines.

https://preview.redd.it/qys933vkjzzd1.jpg?width=5712&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8fe0073193111c862771d68980ea3d7ff6868843

After making my pervious post to compare the PG32UQX with the Xiaomi G Pro 27i, I decided to put my C3 next to the PG32UQX and I want to share my thoughts with you. I originally had the C3, then I put it in the closet after getting the PG32UQX. I want to let you guys know why I did that. The C3 has infinite contrast, but it never gives me the impact that the PG32UQX can give me when viewing contents with HDR on whether it is a game or movie. Most importantly, texts look much sharper on the Asus than on the LG. Unlike the mini led TVs ( QN900C and X95L) that I have which always try to minimize blooming while it sacrificing on making the specular highlights pop. When I was watching videos on youtube, the OLED fans say infinite contrast is everything while LED fans say brightness is everything....etc. That was the main reason why I got the PG32UQX since I wanted to see what a flagship "overpriced" led monitor can do? I have to say the more I use it, the more it blows my mind. This is the only monitor makes me want to watch a movie on it and I am a person who always prefers to watch stuff on a big screen. When i was watching Godzilla Minus one when Godzilla was charging his spine to shoot the plasma breath, those blue lights popped like a real lantern in front of my eyes and it was truly breathtaking. One problem with the current OLED monitors I have tried ( LG C3 and Asus PG32UCDM) is that the HDR performance is very weak. They have infinite contrast, but it doesn't give me the HDR impact I desire. When the monitor can go bright like the PG32UQX, the backlight shoots through the image on the screen and reveal every details of the image/ object. Some say brightness is not everything and they don't want the monitor to torch their eyes. The truth is that's not the reality and I used to think that way before getting the PG32UQX. When the monitor can get so bright, it doesn't mean it is super bright no matter what it displays, it actually means it has the capability to show those specular highlights when it is needed. You can only understand after you have experienced it in person. However, the weakness of the PG32UQX is blooming. It is not noticeable, but it is there especially on a dark scene where there are candles everywhere. Like in the first picture where the chameleon is, the Asus struggled to maintain inky black in the whole area even though it was 98% as black as the C3. I would've never noticed that if I had not had the C3 sitting next to it.

As I mentioned in the pervious post, I am not a fan or OLED or LED, I just want to use what my eyes prefer. In this post, I am talking about the picture quality, not about performance for gaming. We all know OLED has faster response time than LED. Anyway, When I watch a movie, I personally value a tv/monitor can bring me into the scene like I am there with the characters when it is displaying a bright or brighter scene over a tv/monitor displays deep/inky black in a dark scene. Of course, every person and his/her own opinions and preferences. I am not here making 2 posts to praise the PG32UQX, I just want some monitor users to know that the monitor is still expensive for a reason. Most importantly, I learned that when we watch a review on youtube, we can't trust what the reviewer say 100%. I noticed that a lot of the reviewers prefer OLED, but is OLED better than LED in every way? That, we need to find out in person.

I recently bought a 55" LG G4, but I haven't had time to unbox it yet. When I have a chance ( hopefully very soon), I will put it side by side with the PG32UQX and upload another post.

Trying to figure out what the new M4 Mac mini (base) can support.

Up to three displays: Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz over Thunderbolt and one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over Thunderbolt or 4K resolution at 60Hz over HDMI

This is the exact text from Apple website.

Now let's do some calculations.

6K display: 6144 × 3160 × 60 = 1,166,019,840 pixels/second per display.

For two 6k displays we get 1,166,019,840 × 2 = 2,332,039,680 pixels/second.

5K display: 5120 × 2880 × 60 = 884,736,000 pixels/second.

Total supported bandwidth: 2,332,039,680 + 884,736,000 = 3,216,775,680 pixels/second.

For three 4k monitors, bandwidth is 1,072,258,560 pixels/second per display. (= 3,216,775,680/3)

Dividing this by 3840 x 2160 we get final value of 129.3 Hz.

In other words, the base M4 should be able to support three 4k monitors running at 120 Hz.

Can anyone confirm this?

I know there are many posts here on the subject but I haven't seen anything new lately, people have had the DWF or the DW for a very long time, and I would love to know from your long experience with the screens what the current situation is when it comes to burn in (and how satisfied you are of course)

So I received the AW3423DWF two days ago, and I'm still bothered by the screen burn issue. I debated whether to buy the MSI MAG 341CQP or the Gigabyte MO34WQC (which received Black Friday discounts and were at a similar price) but in the end I went for the Dell because from what I saw there is a consensus that it is excellent. Some places say that QD-OLED computer screens are more susceptible to burn in and some say the opposite.

I'm going to be using the screen for both gaming and studying, internet, movies, etc. which means there will be a lot of static stuff displayed on the screen for a long time. I did that after a minute without moving the mouse, the screen turns off, but when it comes to studies in ZOOM, this is not always the case and the screen can stay on for a long time (of course, I activated DARK MODE, but this does not apply to everything)

Although the warranty provider in my country says that it includes burn in, but I also do not want to build on that (there are always those who will try to make excuses and not provide the promised service, etc.) and I also plan to stay with the screen well beyond the 3 year warranty.

It is clear to me that screen burn-in is inevitable, but unlike my C3, this is also a different panel (QD-OLED generation 1) and it is also a computer with much more static things that can cause burn-in

So from your experience with the DWF / DW, do you have burn in? What is the nature of your use? How long have you had the screen? Regardless, are you happy with it?

thanks!

Hello guys.. i need some help regarding maximum fps from hdmi 2.1

I want to buy external monitor with 2K 180hz or 240hz for my Laptop, Acer Nitro 16 AN16-41. But i feel little bit worry if i can't get a maximum Fps since it is not Displayport, and some people even got 144hz even though their monitor capable for 2k 180hz.

So, can HDMI 2.1 laptop deliver a maximum fps to HDMI 2.1 Monitor? Also is it true that the manufacture of monitor limit or cap HDMI 2.1 with only 144hz as maximum fps?

Does anybody here using laptop and external monitor?

Thank you.

Hello! I'm looking for advice on a new monitor setup and would appreciate any insights. Here’s my current configuration:

• I use a KVM switch (TESmart 2 ports, 4K) with a widescreen monitor that allows me to swap between an HP laptop (work) and a Mac laptop (personal computer).
• I’m considering upgrading to either an ultra-wide curved monitor (32:9 aspect ratio) or possibly setting up a dual or triple monitor setup.

Here are my questions:

1. Compatibility: Will my current KVM setup support an ultra-wide 32:9 monitor without issues, or is this likely to be problematic?
2. Cost & Functionality: The ultra-wide is quite expensive compared to setting up two or three separate monitors. For anyone who’s tried both, do you think the added cost is worth it for a KVM-connected setup?
3. Multi-Screen Experience on Mac and HP: If I went with multiple monitors, would I face any major issues switching between the two laptops?
4. Upgrade KVM: Will my dual port KVM will need to be upgraded if I switch to a 2 or 3 screen set-up?

Thanks in advance for any advice or experiences you can share!

I can’t find a single 1440p 240hz TN panel on the market today to save my life! What happened? Can someone tell me what’s the brand & model of the last one made? I can only find limited gaming monitors with TN panels, the most notable was the ASUS 1080p 500hz model. WOW such over kill for someone like me, I want to be competitive for my casual fps gaming but not at 500hz lol. I didn’t realize they switched over to IPS, VA, OLED Panel for most of the QUAD HD gaming monitors.

If tired and returned SEVERAL different types of PANELS and I can’t get used to them, It causes me to suffer from a lot of motion sickness, eye strain and headaches. Especially OLED! Holy fuck! I can’t play longer than an hour before needing a break for my old man eyes, I guess.. Which is weird because I have an older Sony 55inch oled tv in the living room, no issues when watching tv. I suspect that most TV is 60hz and movies are 24hz? I don’t know.

Rant over lol

Anyways, I have an old TN panel, at 1080p 240hz which gives me no headache, no motion sickness. I think that TN look better than IPS and VA Panels for FPS gaming, pixel to pixel, the viewing angles do suck and the colors are terrible but I can use it!

but if anyone knows what was the last 1440p 240hz TN gaming monitor I would really appreciate it and thank you in advance.

Side note: I did my own research and the interwebs say it’s a HP OMEN x 27. Which it’s hard to believe that was the very last model/brand since that was 5 years ago!

Unbelievable that I didn't know about this.

Twinkle Tray is just a tiny Windows app that can change your monitor's brightness. Yes, the actual brightness value that the physical monitor buttons change. Of course this is thing. Of course this is possible via monitor cables and has been for 20 years. So why is it not a standard features of the OS to use this and instead I have to get an app for it? Sigh.

I have been painstakingly setting brightness lower at night, fumbling with the buttons, accidentally hitting the source button instead. Now the app fucking automatically lowers the brightness on schedule. It'd be 10% better if it used the actual sunset time, and 10% better if I had a light sensor, but this is good enough.

I've been shopping for monitors with automatic brightness sensors and now I don't even care about that since this app makes it easy. It should be possible to get a sensor and script it too.

Hey,

i just bought the KOORUI 24.5 inch IPS Gaming Monitor, QHD(2560x1440 and 165hz). Its sharp, but i don't really see a much bigger difference to my old Asus XG258Q 240hz Full HD monitor. Is there a better difference between a 27 inch in 2560x1440 and 24.5 inch 2560x1440 monitor or will the result stay the same in terms of quality?

For context, I was having an argument with my friend about peripharals and the topic of gaming monitors came up. When he asked me what refresh rate my monitor was and I told him the standard 60hz his jaw DROPPED, he told me as a young working man who spend a lot of time on my PC working and gaming that it was utterly ridiculous that I hadn't upgraded to a better monitor after all these years. I told him that I don't buy into the psyop of spending all my money on getting that extra edge that these companies try to sell you, I use a keyboard worth 40 dollars, a classic logitech mouse (Probably my nicest piece of equipment) and a basic HP 24" monitor that I must have bought a decade ago.

His face almost went white, he looked at me like I didn't believe in the moon landing barely able to even speak. He went on a tangent about how laggy my monitor must look due to the refresh rate, how he could barely even play a game on my set up without wanting to die (mainly due to the monitor).

This is where it hit me, this guy has all the latest equipment, 3 HD 244hz curved monitors, the best custom mechanical keyboard money can buy and yet... My rank on games is WAY higher than him. We both play Starcraft 2, and while not an FPS the game relies heavily on speed, reactions and precise clicks for micro. I'm amongst the highest players in the game (Approx top 300) while he is struggling to break into the 90th percentile of players. I asked him, if my monitor is so bad, why doesn't it affect me? I refrained from saying why am I higher than you because I don't think that would go down well. He said that it does affect me and that I've managed to delude myself into thinking 60hz is fine because it's all I know and that once I swap to the higher I'll realise how handicapped I've been this whole time. I told him that these kind of things literally have zero impact on anyone that isn't a progamer. He's seriously pissed at me and called me "Re*ardedly ignorant" and basically hasn't spoken to me since.

Yet when I went online I saw that people generally side with him - but in my experience the proof is in the pudding, IMO the people that spend all their free time discussing monitors for performance would be better spending their time on refining strategies, practising their aim and learning.

Hi,

for years I have been using standard ICC profiles with SDR displays and for the past few years I've been using OLED HDR monitor that -surprise surprise - does HDR as well.

It is calibrated to D65 standard pretty well hadware-wise, so native response in both SDR and HDR are pretty much perfect.

The issue I'm having is color management, as I have to use three different settings:

1. SDR content - set display to SDR and gamut to SRGB, apply SDR SRGB icc profile

2. SDR Wide gamut for photo editing - set display to SDR and gamut to native, apply SDR wide gamut ICC profile (for apps with color management support)

3. HDR for movies / gaming - set display do HDR, no profile.

So I just switched to Windows 11 with so called Advanced color management and it got me thinking, because it does so many things well. HDR is turned on and

1. SDR is displayed SDR in HDR container and anything but color managed apps are in sRGB, great

2. SDR is displayed SDR in HDR container, and color managed apps display proper wide gamut

3. HDR is displayed HDR and it's all good

The issue that is well recognized is that the default SDR gamma in HDR container is waaay too flat and there are multiple generic profiles that can apply 2.2 or 2.4 gamma in SDR content within HDR container. It's called MHC2 as far as I am aware.

So question is - is there any software that could be used to create proper MHC2 profile that would also affect colors and set variable gamma profile that would match the display response? Just like I'm using displaycal/calibrite profiler for SDR ICC profiles, but that would actually measure color patches and have them corrected for proper sRGB/P3 response in SDR within HDR container?

Hello!

So I have a 180hz 1440p monitor with 7800x3D and 7800xt.

I’m considering upgrading my GPU to a 5090 on release. That would increase my rendered fps drastically.

Consider these three scenarios:

1. A 180 hz 1440p monitor with 180 fps in game.
2. The same monitor but 240 fps in game.
3. The same monitor but 300 fps in game.

If I’ve understood this correctly scenario 2 and 3 would provide me with a smoother experience with less felt latency than scenario 1 even though my monitors max Hz is exceeded. Is this true?

Also: how much better would scenario 3 feel compared to scenario 2? At what point will I experience diminishing returns on fps rendered given the above monitor specs?

Thank you for your help!

For owners of aoc mini led q27g3xmn/bk eh, if there are any. I bought this monitor and I had a problem with a squeak from the monitor, which appeared when I made the brightness less than one hundred, at 75% it is clearly audible. I could not put up with such a drawback and returned it. But before returning it, I did not have time to properly test the monitor. I would like to ask if anyone has this problem with a squeak, from reduced brightness, high frequency, etc.? I think maybe it was just a defect, since no one mentions it ... In addition to this, I am interested in whether the mini led backlight and flickering are visible, if so, when and how does it appear?

I was considering buying qn90d (4k 144hz TV) the 43 inch model, but I was worried that low quality picture and videos would be pixelated and look worse than on 27 inch monitors since smaller screens have higher pixel densities, would smaller screens be more suitable for causal use?

If I get a 90HZ Monitor will I be able to tell the difference between it and my current 59.99HZ Monitor? (Yes that is the real HZ)

I just want my one-true-everything monitor. Hell, the ultrawide spec is even a bit of a nice-to-have. A 27" 5k/hi-dpi (>160ppi), high refresh rate (240hz+) monitor that can do it all for work and play is what I want. 140ppi just doesn't cut it outside of gaming IMO.

TB5 can handle uni-directional 120Gbps, UW5K @ 240 would be about 150Gbps, so not wildly out of the question for near-future. And not at all out of the question with DSC.

TBH though the real dream is high refresh 8K. Integer scaling for 720, 1080, 1440, and 4k. But I feel like we're quite a ways out from that, let alone being able to drive it competently.

I am building my first desktop PC since 10 years, during this span it has been only laptops in front of me, some them high end, others are just barebones.
now I am reading about gaming monitors I want to buy, I read about "blurry motion", ghosting and stuff like that.
I don't remember having this problem on any laptop I used, and I played FIFA on all of them so fast movements is present, and even my super basic pc monitor back in 2014 I wouldn't complain about this.
now I am only READING and I didn't see those blurry motion images or ghosting or slow response irl, but I have to ask : what happened to the monitors industry, why are such complains find their way to materialize in some peoples' eyes ?

Hi, I'm thinking of replacing my 24" FHD monitor (which seems about the perfect size, text-wise for my eyes) with something a bit bigger, would like a little more screen estate without moving to twin monitors (prefer focusing on one central screen and two would block my speakers).

So, considering a 27" QHD monitor and trying to gauge if the text size would be just a little too small for me (aging eyes...) No local store had one I could try so wondered if I'm way out with this line of thinking:

I took a screenshot of my desktop (win11 if that matters) and calculated the pixel density of a 24" FHD and 27" QHD. The FHD is about 80% of the QHD so I reduced the screenshot to 80% to compare the text, taskbar etc sizes. Is my logic/maths here kind of solid or so way out as not to be even funny? :)

Thanks.

I have a Dell U2724DE 120hz IPS Black with VRR. It shows as Adaptive Sync Compatible in the AMD software, so it doesn't have Freesync.

I recently purchased the Asus ProArt PA278CGV 144hz with Freesync Premium.

For a monitor for both work and play, which one would be a better choice? I probably can't tell the difference between 120hz and 144hz, and the IPS Black contrast difference is not huge imo.

Is FreeSync Premium a little better than the regular VRR if I used and AMD graphics card?