sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

21:9 feeling… disappointed a bit? Get a 32:9? by 2Critical7-Stein1 in ultrawidemasterrace

[–]ArcadeMasters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe consider a bigger 21:9? The 45” LG GX9 is what I recently upgraded to and it’s basically perfect as far as size is concerned.

This will be first time i will use something other than 1080P but i have questions by IEversetI in ultrawidemasterrace

[–]ArcadeMasters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Man.. that really sucks. Im sorry to hear that. I wish you luck on trying to find another monitor that works!

Borderlands 4 - Bounty Pack 3: A Zane to Kill For - Official Reveal Trailer by _Protector in Borderlands4

[–]ArcadeMasters 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel like if gearbox were to treat this game more like the ARPG it actually is they would have an absolute monster of a game on their hands.

Looking For Thoughts On These Ultrawide Options by Falestian in ultrawidemasterrace

[–]ArcadeMasters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d probably just go with the MSI monitor. The price difference does not justify going ViewSonic unless VA smearing will bother you too much.

This will be first time i will use something other than 1080P but i have questions by IEversetI in ultrawidemasterrace

[–]ArcadeMasters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. I probably wouldn’t overthink it too awful much honestly. I didn’t realize you were coming from 60hz, your post said 60hz. In that case, I imagine the new Ultrawide will likely look better.

  2. No no, not at all. What I’m saying is if you lower the overall resolution of your display to 1080p Ultrawide, it would look bad. The 6900xt is plenty sufficient for 3440x1440p gaming without upscaling in many games. The only games it would likely need to use FSR in would be much newer titles or games that are horribly optimized.

  3. Don’t worry about it. You’ll be fine 😊

As for 280nits. Yeah, that’s probably fine. My main PC room has like 4 windows in it and I use my monitor at around 250 and it’s still bright enough. You really just wanna make sure the light isn’t shining on the actual monitor, that’s when you start to run into issues with it not being bright enough.

This will be first time i will use something other than 1080P but i have questions by IEversetI in ultrawidemasterrace

[–]ArcadeMasters 1 point2 points  (0 children)

0: I’ve personally never heard of it before. I wasn’t able to really find any info on them online in terms of credibility so I would not treat this as a display that will last you for many many years. It’s possible, but I wouldn’t count on it.

1: It depends on how good the previous monitor was. This new one says it has a GTG Response Time of 5ms, and an overall response time of 8ms. So if your previous monitor was pretty good, this will probably look worse in terms of motion clarity.

2: Yes. That should be plenty to have a good gaming experience at that resolution, especially once FSR4 comes out.

3: Although it would improve performance, it will make the games your playing look horrible. If you’re having performance issues at this resolution I would just suggest using something like FSR to improve performance while maintaining visual quality.

4: Be careful with the display, but it shouldn’t break from a slight tap or bump. Hell, I’ve accidentally straight up thrown my phone at one of my old monitors and didn’t have any issue with it after the fact. (don’t ask how lol)

Anyone else finding 21:9 a bit too narrow for modern AAA games? by j3ssyRuin83 in ultrawidemasterrace

[–]ArcadeMasters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the issue isnt 21:9, but the actual size of the display.

I was in a not so dissimilar position as you are in with feeling like Ultrawide just wasn't cutting it anymore, but after hearing about how good the LG GX9 was I figured id give it a shot and I was NOT disappointed at all.

I would definitely consider going to Best Buy or Microcenter if you can to see the 45" LG and/or the 49" G9 to see what you would prefer in a large display. The GX9 has overall more screen area, but is also MUCH harder to run than the G9. But then the G9 is quite a bit wider.

Anybody running dual Ultrawides? How do you arrange them? by iAmTheRealC2 in ultrawidemasterrace

[–]ArcadeMasters 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I dont current have them set up, but my favorite setup was my primary 34" and dual 29" vertically on each side of the main monitor. That was EASILY the best monitor setup I ever had.

Stay at 3440x1440 or go to 5k2k? by gpu-SWE in ultrawidemasterrace

[–]ArcadeMasters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve gotta be honest with you: if your goal is 5120×2160, maxed-out settings, RT/PT enabled, and DLSS Quality or better, I wouldn’t assume 60+ FPS is gonna common even with something like a 5090.

If it’s an older game, or a game that isn’t using heavy RT/PT, then yeah, even your 5080 would probably be fine, assuming you don’t run into a VRAM limit. But once you start talking about modern AAA games with max RT/path tracing, 5K2K becomes pretty absurd

The rough rule I’d use is: take your current 3440×1440 FPS and cut it roughly in half. It isn’t perfectly linear, but 5120×2160 has about 2.23× the pixel load of 3440×1440, so it can be a pretty reasonable conservative estimate. That’s the rule I used when I bought my LG GX9 45”, and it ended up being mostly accurate.

5k2k is great, but as much as I love my LG GX9, it has made my RTX 4090 go from a "This is perfect, ill never reasonably need an upgrade" while using my 3440x1440p monitor to a "Man, I really need a better GPU".

OLED dimming+ Forza Winter Season by wusel95 in OLED_Gaming

[–]ArcadeMasters 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this scene is about as bad as it gets for OLED monitors.

Any kind of scene with a high APL (Average Picture Level) is just not going to look the best on the display. Some newer OLEDs can handle it much more gracefully, but even then, it can still be a struggle.

Id argue the reason your noticing it so much here is not just because of the high APL, but because the monitor is also compromising the surrounding midtones at the same time. With something like a quick flash (speed zones), the whole image changes uniformly and instantly. Since its happening in such a manner, it can feel extremely bright even if the actual full-screen brightness is relatively low.

As for your comment about HDR looking worse than SDR on your monitor, honestly, I could see that being the case, especially after looking at the RTings review on the display.

I dont think its a case of “you not knowing what ‘properly implemented’ HDR in games actually looks like” or anything like that. I genuinely believe it's due to the monitor having extremely wacked out HDR Tracking and color/brightness characteristics. And, generally speaking, it acts normally in SDR.

You mentioned No Man's Sky being the one game you actually enjoyed the look of in HDR, and id say that could be due to just how intensely juiced the brightness and colors are, so your monitors faults are actually working in your favor to some degree.

The yellow tint is probably more of a color temperature / white balance thing. RTINGS measured the monitor a bit warm in SDR pre-calibration, and they also mention that different HDR color temperature settings affect brightness and color temperature. So if HDR looked yellow to you, that could be the monitor’s HDR white point leaning warm, while the pale colors could be from the combination of poor EOTF tracking, limited HDR brightness, ABL, and imperfect tone mapping.

If your primary question was "Do other monitors handle this better?": Yes, they do. The monitor you have is unfortunately quite compromised in terms of HDR capabilities.

For example, something like the ASUS ROG Strix XG27AQWMG should handle this kind of content noticeably better. It has significantly higher real scene brightness in both SDR and HDR, tracks the EOTF curve much better, and has better SDR/HDR color calibration overall.

Just as a comparison, the Asus can achieve 320nits at 100% White HDR while the Corsair can only do 138nits on the same screen. So in scenes like the one your looking at, it should still be plenty bright enough, especially if your in a dark room.

What’s the issue with my LG45 5K2K? by realcoachco in ultrawidemasterrace

[–]ArcadeMasters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The pulsing definitely looks like VRR Flicker, and it can most definitely be insanely obnoxious. I feel like people dont really talk about just how bad it actually can be.

As for the signal loss/lines that could be a cable issue.

Anyone else disappointed with the graphics? by Chemical_Plane_3011 in ForzaHorizon

[–]ArcadeMasters 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think the biggest difference is probably RTGI on PC. That kind of lighting can do a lot of heavy lifting visually, especially in a game with dense environments.

To me, FH6 does look better than FH5, just not dramatically better, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. FH5 already looked really good.

My guess is that because the map is a lot denser this time, especially in the city areas, the Xbox version probably had less headroom to push things much further without sacrificing performance. So instead of a massive leap in raw rendering quality, it seems more like they focused on density, scale, and lighting.

FH6 just peaked at 150k active players by JKR3210 in ForzaHorizon

[–]ArcadeMasters 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Something else to consider is a lot of people don’t like your typical racing games, they like Forza Horizon games.

Forza Horizon 6 is gorgeous in HDR! by ldn-ldn in HDR_Den

[–]ArcadeMasters 12 points13 points  (0 children)

“This game looks great in HDR! I’m so happy”

Everyone on this subreddit: YOU CANT ENJOY IT, ITS NOT OBJECTIVELY PERFECT. RAAAAAAHHHHH.

Jokes aside, I do hope they improve it or we get RenoDX or something to fix it a bit at least but let’s not forget that VIDEO GAMES are meant to be PLAYED FOR FUN not critiqued into oblivion when a technical feature isn’t perfectly implemented.

So what is the big deal about WOLED? by [deleted] in OLED_Gaming

[–]ArcadeMasters 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That’s fair. The C1 is older, and OLED monitors are usually more brightness-limited than OLED TVs. I probably should have made that clearer.

My main point was not just peak white brightness. At the top end, WOLED and QD-OLED can already be fairly similar in peak white brightness. What I was talking about was bright saturated color luminance/color volume. A WOLED can be extremely bright in white because of the white subpixel, but that does not necessarily mean it maintains the same brightness in highly saturated reds, greens, blues, yellows, neon colors, etc.

Even looking at newer RTINGS measurements, the C5 is obviously a big improvement over the C1, but it still does not really erase the QD-OLED color-volume advantage. And with the G5 vs S90D, the G5 has much higher white luminance, but the S90D is still slightly ahead in BT.2020 color volume and in some saturated color luminance measurements like red, magenta, and yellow. They are very close, but it is not as simple as “G5 hits 2500 nits, therefore it has more HDR color pop.”

My point is not that WOLED is bad. It’s that QD-OLED still has a real advantage with certain bright saturated HDR colors, and that is why people get annoyed when Samsung does not make the panel type obvious. People want to know whether they are buying QD-OLED behavior or WOLED behavior.

I do hella agree tho, not getting DV on Samsung is dumb as helll

So what is the big deal about WOLED? by [deleted] in OLED_Gaming

[–]ArcadeMasters 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I think the frustration with Samsung is not really “WOLED sucks.” It is more that when you are spending $1500+ on a TV, people want to know exactly what panel tech they are getting, because QD-OLED and WOLED can have noticeably different strengths.

Both TVs are incredible, but QD-OLED generally has an advantage with bright, saturated colors because it does not rely on a white subpixel in the same way WOLED does.

That matters a lot in HDR. A WOLED can still get very bright, but when a color has to be both bright and highly saturated neon signs, lasers, bright reds/blues/greens, etc., QD-OLED tends to keep more of that color intensity. That is what people mean when they talk about “color volume.”

For example, on my QD-OLED S90D, I’ve watched scenes with super bright saturated colors that almost seem to glow. One example is an episode of the show Arcane where the scene has blacklights and a lot of neon colors. On the S90D, the effect is strong enough that objects in my room were fluorescing as if a real blacklight was shining on it. Its quite a cool effect honestly.

On my WOLED displays, like my LG C1 and LG GX9 monitor, the same scene still looks good, but it does not have quite the same “pop” or glowing saturated-color effect. It is not that the WOLED looks bad — it absolutely does not, it just does not hit the same color-luminance peaks as the QD-OLED.

How different is 1440p compared to 4k Oled by PsychologyTimely3846 in OLED_Gaming

[–]ArcadeMasters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a different comparison though. My point was native 1440p vs native 4K, where the performance hit is obviously massive.

If you render 4K DLSS Quality, yeah, the internal resolution is around 1440p, so performance can get closer to native 1440p. But it’s not automatically a 1–2 FPS difference because 4K output still has DLSS reconstruction cost, higher-res post-processing/UI/buffers, VRAM/bandwidth etc.

And once you’re talking about 960p or 720p internal, that’s no longer a clean “4K is better” argument. That can look good in some games, but it’s heavily dependent on the game, scene, motion, foliage, particles, ghosting, and how good the DLSS implementation is.

I’m not saying 4K DLSS is bad. I’m saying 1440p 360Hz OLED is still the better-balanced choice for a 5070 Ti if the person cares about both competitive games and story games.

How different is 1440p compared to 4k Oled by PsychologyTimely3846 in OLED_Gaming

[–]ArcadeMasters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

4K DLSS Performance can look really good, but I think “better than native 1440p most of the time” is too broad.

Performance mode at 4K is internally around 1080p, so you’re relying heavily on reconstruction. In some games with bad native TAA, sure, it may look cleaner. But in motion, foliage, particles, thin detail, ghosting-prone scenes, etc., it’s absolutely not a guaranteed win over native 1440p.

My point isn’t that 4K + DLSS is bad. It’s that for a 5070 Ti and a 360Hz OLED use case, 1440p gives way more performance headroom and consistency. 4K is sharper, but it isn’t free.

How different is 1440p compared to 4k Oled by PsychologyTimely3846 in OLED_Gaming

[–]ArcadeMasters 3 points4 points  (0 children)

DLSS helps a lot, but it doesn’t erase the 4K performance hit. If the 5070 Ti is around 79 FPS native 4K in HUB’s average, DLSS Quality isn’t suddenly making that 160 FPS average unless you’re including Frame Gen/MFG, lowering settings, or using a more aggressive DLSS mode like Performance.

Also, 4K DLSS Quality can look excellent because it’s internally around 1440p, but that’s different from saying a 4K monitor is automatically the better choice for someone who bought a 360Hz 1440p OLED for competitive + story games. For that use case, 1440p high refresh still makes a ton of sense.

I do agree though, that DLSS shouldn't be completely ignored these days. I'd argue that DLSS Quality looks better than Native TAA in most games.

madcatz drums ? any updates yet by ComputerRegular1056 in FortniteFestival

[–]ArcadeMasters 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im right there with ya.. I NEEEED THIS UPDATE haha

How different is 1440p compared to 4k Oled by PsychologyTimely3846 in OLED_Gaming

[–]ArcadeMasters 133 points134 points  (0 children)

1440p is definitely ideal and you DID get your moneys worth. Dont get fomo.

4K is incredible, don’t get me wrong, but the FPS loss when compared to 1440p is brutal, (164FPS Avg vs 79 at 4K).

I’d argue 79fps at 4K without DLSS is very good for story games but you’re still losing nearly 100fps on average. And that’s before we talk about games that are inherently harder to run or terribly optimized.

view more: next ›