On a budget, looking for flat ~32" 1080p Freesync

[MajinCry]

An old friend of my father offered him his old, gubbed TV. A sweet 40" Toshiba @ 1080p, but the LCD panel is warped and 1080p is a tad too pixelated on such a large screen. But god damn, having a big picture is sweet.

Trouble is, I've only found one bloody monitor (from Currys) that:

- Has a native resolution of 1080p
- Is bigger than 25"
- Supports Freesync
- Doesn't have a curved screen.

But it's got a pretty lame contrast ratio. 4,000:1 Minimum contrast ratio, 5,000:1 max.

The reason I want native 1080p, is that I've no need for larger resolutions, and I don't exactly want to spend £400 on a graphics card to push 1440p whilst allowing for some performance headroom. 1080p Ought to be good for a 580, with a bit of wiggle room left.

You guys know of any other far-flung monitors/TV's kicking about that fit the bill?

 

[mnewsham]

At the size you want and the features you want, you are going to be required to get a curved panel.

That or drop some of your other requirements.


Acer XZ271
Lenovo Y27F
Samsung C27F591
AOC AGON AG272FCX
Samsung C32F391FW
Acer XZ321Q
Viotek GN32C

All are curved.

Here is the only one I could find similar that isn't curved
Samsung S27E370DS
But the Freesync range is 48-75Hz instead of 48-144hz like the others.

 

[MajinCry]

At the size you want and the features you want, you are going to be required to get a curved panel.

That or drop some of your other requirements.


Acer XZ271
Lenovo Y27F
Samsung C27F591
AOC AGON AG272FCX
Samsung C32F391FW
Acer XZ321Q
Viotek GN32C

All are curved.

Here is the only one I could find similar that isn't curved
Samsung S27E370DS
But the Freesync range is 48-75Hz instead of 48-144hz like the others.

Why is the industry pushing curved so hard? Is it due to it being cheaper to have a bendy screen that takes up less horizontal space, whilst also pushing up the inch stat? Can't imagine that it'd be any good for anything other than gaming.

I don't care about the refresh rate. If anything, lower is better due to the graphics card not being taxed as much in order to match it. Took a look at that monitor you found; it's contrast ratio is 1000:1 (Typ.), 700:1 (Min). Whereas the one I found at Currys has 5000:1.

I take it these are numbers taken out of the arse by the company? A bit of googling says there's not much regulation 'n' all that, in regards to contrast ratios.

 

[mnewsham]

Why is the industry pushing curved so hard? Is it due to it being cheaper to have a bendy screen that takes up less horizontal space, whilst also pushing up the inch stat? Can't imagine that it'd be any good for anything other than gaming.

I don't care about the refresh rate. If anything, lower is better due to the graphics card not being taxed as much in order to match it. Took a look at that monitor you found; it's contrast ratio is 1000:1 (Typ.), 700:1 (Min). Whereas the one I found at Currys has 5000:1.

I take it these are numbers taken out of the arse by the company? A bit of googling says there's not much regulation 'n' all that, in regards to contrast ratios.

Pretty much any monitor unless it's OLED is going to be under 3000:1.

1000:1 is typical and is what you would be most used to unless you hang around expensive monitors on a regular basis.

 

[MajinCry]

Pretty much any monitor unless it's OLED is going to be under 3000:1.

1000:1 is typical and is what you would be most used to unless you hang around expensive monitors on a regular basis.

I'm currently on an 19" Philips 1280x1024 monitor that I paid 80 bob for. Don't think that exactly counts as enthusiast grade.

Thanks for the heads up, anyhow. I'm going to give Samsung a call in the morning just to make sure that monitor has FreeSync. If it does, awwwww yeah.

 

[akmaggot666]

but what's wrong with 1440, rx580 seems like a decent card...
looking for benchmarks, playing on latest games on high quality, 1440p with rx580 u get from 45-75 fps. obv cpu matters and all that.
I'd never care for screen size, I'd always go for 144Hz, me luv 144Hz. But obv everyone has own WANTINGS. My English is limited. Quiet!
but u can always put 1440p screen into 1080p and make it easier on ur GPU :O
in other words, won't a RX 580 go above 60FPS, on HQ game settings on a 1080p, and if the monitor is 60/75Hz, means ur freesync works in 30-60/75 (some are from 30/35/40/48 to max monitors freq freesync range http://www.144hzmonitors.com/list-of-freesync-monitors ) range, what do u get from freesync if u don't drop below 60/75 fps all the time? nothing really.

And really, whatever u decide on, just google in-forward the model and keywords such as "issue", "problem", "freesync", "flicker", some have like a few posts and some have a ton, like AOC G2460PF I took, and I regret it not checking that before, it's RNG obv but no thx. (getting new one tomorrow actually, gsync)

27" 144Hz 1080p ViewSonic XG2701 what about this one?

 

[MajinCry]

The 580 can't really do 1440p without performing like my 7850 @ 720p.

Best result for the 580: https://www.pcper.com/files/review/2017-04-17/Fallout4_2560x1440_FRAPSFPS.png

And if it's a slightly more intensive area of Fallout 4: https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2017/05/12/sapphire-radeon-rx-580-nitro-8gb-review/7

It jumps down to 30fps. And Bit-Tech didn't even test the hardcore areas; Diamond City & Corvega are exceptionally taxing on the GPU.

I could run 1080p on 1440p, but then the image would be blurred yet aliased. And as for maximum refresh rates, the lower the better; having a game's fps oscillate wildly is nausea-inducing.


Just chatted with a Samsung rep. The freesync range is 30-81hz. Guess I'll be ordering that Fuuzen.

 

[PeterScott]

The 580 can't really do 1440p without performing like my 7850 @ 720p.

Sure if you insist on running "Ultra" settings, which seem to exist only to benchmark graphics cards.

At "High" it looks nearly identical, and gets a nice performance boost.

 

[Rifter]

I have no issues running 1440p with my rx480. Only need to turn down a few settings in some games. Going to 1440p at your wanted size would open up alot of panels.

 

[MajinCry]

I have no issues running 1440p with my rx480. Only need to turn down a few settings in some games. Going to 1440p at your wanted size would open up alot of panels.

I've simply no need for 1440p, and would much rather have better visuals, than better pixel density.

Sure if you insist on running "Ultra" settings, which seem to exist only to benchmark graphics cards.

At "High" it looks nearly identical, and gets a nice performance boost.

Not so much an issue of running high/ultra, but more that mods can really bring down performance. A prime example being the ENBSeries shader replacer for Bethesda's games. Boris Vorontsov's great AO shader alone can hammer the GPU.