🚀 go-pugleaf

Is it this one ?
http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/pc-peripherals/monitors/design/LU28D590DS/EN

@@@mouse@@@ 

In article <lvptu6$v10$1...@dont-email.me>, DMP  <nom...@nodomain.com> wrote:
>A friend of mine is getting rid of his gaming stuff and I have a shot at 
>getting a Samsung UHD monitor for cheap. My graphics card a GeForce 
>GTX770, so as I look at specs, I don't see the card as an issue. Present 
>monitor a Sammy 244T that I've been happy with for many years.

If by UHD you mean 3840x2160, the so called "4K" resolution, then I'd
pass on it.  I'm not sure any video card is up to displaying modern
games at that resolution without having to turn down the effects.
Also unless the monitor is huge, you're going to need UI scaling keep
things readable in a lot of games. You'd need the new monitor to be
about 46" to keep things the same size of the 24" you have now.

If it's only 2560x1440 then your graphics card can probably hold up,
but I still would probably give it as pass.  You also probably won't
need UI scaling, it only needs to be 30" to keep things the same size.
I'd be concerned with how well games support that resolution.  It should
be fine with anything recent, but I play a lot of older games, and going
from 1920x1600 to 2560x1440 would only increase the number of games
that I can't play at the native resolution of my montitor.  If you're
mainly playing the latest FPS shooters that shouldn't be a problem,
but then you're graphics card is more likely to be an issue in that case.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

On 9/22/2014 4:28 PM, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> Is it this one ?
> http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/pc-peripherals/monitors/design/LU28D590DS/EN 
>
>
> @@@mouse@@@

Yes, that's the one....

On 9/22/2014 4:33 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
> In article <lvptu6$v10$1...@dont-email.me>, DMP  <nom...@nodomain.com> wrote:
>> A friend of mine is getting rid of his gaming stuff and I have a shot at
>> getting a Samsung UHD monitor for cheap. My graphics card a GeForce
>> GTX770, so as I look at specs, I don't see the card as an issue. Present
>> monitor a Sammy 244T that I've been happy with for many years.
> If by UHD you mean 3840x2160, the so called "4K" resolution, then I'd
> pass on it.  I'm not sure any video card is up to displaying modern
> games at that resolution without having to turn down the effects.
> Also unless the monitor is huge, you're going to need UI scaling keep
> things readable in a lot of games. You'd need the new monitor to be
> about 46" to keep things the same size of the 24" you have now.
>
> If it's only 2560x1440 then your graphics card can probably hold up,
> but I still would probably give it as pass.  You also probably won't
> need UI scaling, it only needs to be 30" to keep things the same size.
> I'd be concerned with how well games support that resolution.  It should
> be fine with anything recent, but I play a lot of older games, and going
> from 1920x1600 to 2560x1440 would only increase the number of games
> that I can't play at the native resolution of my montitor.  If you're
> mainly playing the latest FPS shooters that shouldn't be a problem,
> but then you're graphics card is more likely to be an issue in that case.
>
> 					Ross Ridge
>


FWIW, here's something I found while doing research....I did not know 
there was such a thing as a display port as opposed to HDMI. Nvidia says 
their 600 & 700 will do 4K. As for the other issues you raised, I don't 
see that in the article but I will do some more reading.

https://developer.nvidia.com/4k-ultra-high-resolution-development

Pass on it.  A single 770 willl struggle with resolutions that high.

DMP  <nom...@nodomain.com> wrote:
>FWIW, here's something I found while doing research....I did not know 
>there was such a thing as a display port as opposed to HDMI. Nvidia says 
>their 600 & 700 will do 4K.

Yes, your video card will work with a 4K monitor.  You won't notice
any issues with it when using the Windows desktop, other than the fact
that everything (eg. the text you're reading now) will be almost half
the hieght and width.  The problem comes when you try to play a game.
Most games released in the last couple of years should support 3840x2160,
but performance won't be good.  Going from 1920x1600 to 3840x2160 means
your video card needs to draw almost 4 times as many pixels, with a
corresponding decrease in performance.  The means with many current
games you're going to have to turn down the graphic options to have the
game run at an acceptable frame rate.  You'll end up a with a game that
looks worse on your new monitor than your old.

Note the UHD monitor you're thinking about getting should have come
with a DisplayPort cable when new. If you do end up getting it make
sure you get the cable with it too, otherwise you're going to have to
buy one separately. 

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

On 9/22/2014 7:24 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
> DMP  <nom...@nodomain.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, here's something I found while doing research....I did not know
>> there was such a thing as a display port as opposed to HDMI. Nvidia says
>> their 600 & 700 will do 4K.
> Yes, your video card will work with a 4K monitor.  You won't notice
> any issues with it when using the Windows desktop, other than the fact
> that everything (eg. the text you're reading now) will be almost half
> the hieght and width.  The problem comes when you try to play a game.
> Most games released in the last couple of years should support 3840x2160,
> but performance won't be good.  Going from 1920x1600 to 3840x2160 means
> your video card needs to draw almost 4 times as many pixels, with a
> corresponding decrease in performance.  The means with many current
> games you're going to have to turn down the graphic options to have the
> game run at an acceptable frame rate.  You'll end up a with a game that
> looks worse on your new monitor than your old.
>
> Note the UHD monitor you're thinking about getting should have come
> with a DisplayPort cable when new. If you do end up getting it make
> sure you get the cable with it too, otherwise you're going to have to
> buy one separately.
>
> 					Ross Ridge
>


Ross-Thanks for an explanation that I could understand. I do remember 
what an adjustment it was when I gave up my old 4:3 monitor for this one 
and how I had to fiddle with it so I could at least read stuff.

Then there's the gimmicky Samsung 27" 4K with the curved screen due out 
shortly...;-)

D.

D.

In article <lvptu6$v10$1...@dont-email.me>, nom...@nodomain.com says...
> 
> A friend of mine is getting rid of his gaming stuff and I have a shot at 
> getting a Samsung UHD monitor for cheap. My graphics card a GeForce 
> GTX770, so as I look at specs, I don't see the card as an issue. Present 
> monitor a Sammy 244T that I've been happy with for many years.
> 
>   Will a couple of hundred bucks be money well spent? I am not real good 
> when it comes to fiddling with hardware and settings on graphics cards 
> and FPS's and things that hardcore shooter gamers worry about, but I 
> think my question is simple enough. Thanks for anyone who can share 
> their thoughts.
> 
> Diane

Let me put it this way: I am running a 30" monitor at 2560x1600 pixels. 
My Geforce 570 could drive that monitor without a problem. I now have a 
Geforce 780 in my computer and naturally it drives the same monitor with 
ease, the fans don't ever spin up even. In TSW where I have an onscreen 
display I am getting indicated fps of up to 130  ... completely over the 
top, considering a refresh rate on the monitor of 60Hz.

I have windows 7 as OS, I can scale up my desktop to a size where my 
ageing eyes can easily cope with the fonts. I can scale up text on my 
web browsers similarly. It's not a problem. If I have a problem with 
reading very small fonts in a game, I run the game in a lower 
resolutioin and the fonts look bigger, and become readable.

The monitor Trimble linked says it has scaling in it - in other words 
you can run a smaller resolution into that monitor and it will use it to 
fill the screen, without your video card having to do the heavy lifting.
(which incidentally it would be able to do, you have a good card there). 

If it was me, I'd have a go at that monitor. But then that's me. 
Obviously some people here have a different opinion.

-P.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/pc-peripherals/monitors/design/LU28D590DS/EN

I'd go for it because of the 1ms response & run it at 1/2 resolution = 1920 
x 1080.
Samsung's description stresses its abilities at up scaling.
Else where I read its stand is not adjustable at all .

Also its 16 x 9 & I must have 16 x 10 (at least!) & its LED / TN
so I would pass.

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse  (Ooooh CRT ...sob ;( 

Peter Huebner  <no.one@this.address> wrote:
>The monitor Trimble linked says it has scaling in it - in other words 
>you can run a smaller resolution into that monitor and it will use it to 
>fill the screen, without your video card having to do the heavy lifting.
>(which incidentally it would be able to do, you have a good card there). 

All monitors can scale, but that defeats the purpose.  Why buy a 4K
display for gaming if you're not going to be playing games at that
resolution?  You definitely don't want the monitor doing the scaling
anyway, as it will do a worse job than the video card.  In particular it
looks like the monitor in question here, the Samsung U28D590D doesn't
have scaling options so will stretch everything to 16:9 regardless of
what the original ratio is.

>If it was me, I'd have a go at that monitor. But then that's me. 
>Obviously some people here have a different opinion.

I think you're under estimating how much of performance hit 4K resolution
has. Having to draw 4 times as many pixels than the top resolution
most games are meant to handle (1920x1080) is pretty big burdern on
the video card.  And probably for little gain, since few games have
a complete set of extra high resolution textures, as they also need 4
times as many pixels as the "high resolution" textures designed for 1080p.

You also seem to be much more tollerant scaling than I am.  Even video
card scaling doesn't look good to me.  For games that can't be played
at my monitor's native resolution I'd rather play unscaled with black
borders.  (640x480 games are an exception, this makes things too small,
so I have to live with scaling in that case.)

The only reason why I'd get a 4K monitor today would be to watch 4K
movies and other 4K video content.  However that content doesn't really
exist today, and probably be very expensive when it does.  It looks the
industry is aiming to keep it in the very high end of the market as long
as they can.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:40:56 +1200, Peter Huebner
<no.one@this.address> wrote:

>In article <lvptu6$v10$1...@dont-email.me>, nom...@nodomain.com says...
>> 
>> A friend of mine is getting rid of his gaming stuff and I have a shot at 
>> getting a Samsung UHD monitor for cheap. My graphics card a GeForce 
>> GTX770, so as I look at specs, I don't see the card as an issue. Present 
>> monitor a Sammy 244T that I've been happy with for many years.
>> 
>>   Will a couple of hundred bucks be money well spent? I am not real good 
>> when it comes to fiddling with hardware and settings on graphics cards 
>> and FPS's and things that hardcore shooter gamers worry about, but I 
>> think my question is simple enough. Thanks for anyone who can share 
>> their thoughts.
>> 
>> Diane
>
>Let me put it this way: I am running a 30" monitor at 2560x1600 pixels. 
>My Geforce 570 could drive that monitor without a problem. 


Read this regarding 4K gaming and notice the level of GPU hardware
required to struggle along at a rather pathetic 30-ish frames per
second in games like Crysis 3, Battlefield 4 etc.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/what-hardware-do-you-need-to-run-stuff-at-4k-resolution-on-your-pc/

I know, I know....there will always be folks who insist that 30 frames
per second is "good enough for them", but the difference is when I say
something is "good enough" I mean good enough for EVERYONE, whereas
most people only mean "good enough FOR MY OWN eyes" when they say it.
Good enough for everyone is a frame rate that never drops below 60FPS
minimum, and averages much higher.

I realize this is an RPG newsgroup and most RPGs are not as dependent
on frame rate to have a good time as a pure action shooter, but the
bottom line is that if you plan your hardware purchases with "good
enough" performance as a goal, there is no headroom to keep up with
the next crop of games that will inevitably come out and push the
performance envelope even further.

Even the fastest multi-GPU setups money can buy struggle to get "good
enough for everyone" frame rates in reasonably modern 3D games.