Best PC monitor or preferably TV for my gaming?

[LucidNightmare]

Hello, all. I've recently bought a gaming PC. I've been a console player since the N64. I've played some Bethesda games and a little of the PC games my underpowered laptop can actually manage to run. Now, my question is this. Is there a TV that I can buy that will help me play my games with as little lag and as much of a good picture that I can juice out on my new PC? If not a TV, I may be persuaded (with enough info and stats) to go with a smaller but less expensive and better for PC gaming monitor. That's what I'm asking all of you for. I want more than just my opinion. Personally I'd just stick with my 55" Samsung 1080p TV. But I do know there are possibly better options. So, let the discussion commence.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

Big Boom Boom eredeti hozzászólása:

Read the OP. He does not stream, he does not render. Just stop.

Also 6+ cores PC has nothing over quad core i7 in Arma 3 or BF1. Especially Arma 3. Ryzen 7 loses big time on Arma 3, so is i7-6950X OC to 4.5Ghz. The new core X doesn't change that

You should just stop and listen to your accountant on how to spend your money.

he does not Stream now, that does not means that he will never do streaming, or multitasking in the future. YOU SHOULD STOP. JUST STOP.

Buying a i7 7800x is nothing bad by any means, considering he is getting the same gaming performance. except for some $150 more money, and in return he is getting 2 extra core and 4 extra thread. and a far more versatile PC.

PLEASE STOP.

i don't listen to crap accountants, thank you.

[Big Boom Boom]

Yeah right, it's not like he doesn't need EPYC dual CPU 64 cores 128 threads in the future to research cancer Cure!

Seriously. Is it school holiday or something?

Btw, if I remember correctly you don't even have gen6/7 i7.

[LucidNightmare]

Guys, guys. Please do not argue. All this thread was for, was other people's opinions on a good monitor/TV that I could take into consideration once I save up my money again to buy one. I appreciate the people who didn't rag on me for the choices I made for picking my own PC parts. I know I could've saved a lot of money by reviewing things more than I did and building it myself. I appreciate the people telling me the things I could've gotten instead, also. For me, I barely have enough time to spend at home as is, let alone come home from work and try and watch videos on how to correctly build my PC. I just wanted something that would work right away for something I personally really enjoy, gaming. I salute all of you smart people that know the ins and outs of the PC world. Just, please do not hate on mine or anyone else's rigs. Especially don't argue over something that doesn't really have anything to do with the original question, ya know? It's good you're passionate, but be nice about it and look at it from an objective view instead of a subjective view. 🤙🏻

[Big Boom Boom]

Tbh, i already presented you with a choice of two monitors depending on Vega + FreeSync scenario (and cheaper) vs keep your GPU + Gsync (more expensive).

[hawkeye]

Cloud Boy eredeti hozzászólása:

you can't measure universal gaming experience just by playing one single game. Different games are made differently using various game engine. An example like ''Arma 3'' is more CPU dependent game than GPU, if you play Arma 3 you will notice that the CPU is the bottlenecking factor, not the GPU. Another CPU demanding game is Battlefield 1, it uses 100% of an i5 6600 when paired with GTX 1060. Meaning if you paired with a GTX 1070, at least an i7 CPU will be needed to avoid CPU bottlenecking. let alone GTX1080 and 1080TI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ8AXDzJix0

The page below shows that from an i7-920 to i7-4770k there isn't much difference in Arma 3 performance. So it's not cpu-dependent. The article author comments about this.

https://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

The reason why someone might think this, could be the way i5's often show 100% core usage in msi-afterburner but i7's don't.

I suspect it is due to hyperthreading. If I disable hyperthreading on my i7 it will often show 100% core usage. If I turn ht on, it might show 40% load. Framerates are identical. The key point is that msi-afterburner shows a hyperthreaded core as two separate cpu's. However a hyper-threaded core is only about 25% better than a non-hyperthreaded core, not twice as good.

So it's risky basing i7 expected performance on i5 stats. As this video shows sometimes there is no performance gain (as in Arma3), sometimes there is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XylVCItVhS4

Another factor is the way that recent games transparently adjust graphics features based on the hardware. I have noticed that WItcher 3 on a 1080ti seems to have more special effects than on a 970, even using the same settings. Setting something to "maximum" might give a different result based on the hardware.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

hawkeye eredeti hozzászólása:

Cloud Boy eredeti hozzászólása:

you can't measure universal gaming experience just by playing one single game. Different games are made differently using various game engine. An example like ''Arma 3'' is more CPU dependent game than GPU, if you play Arma 3 you will notice that the CPU is the bottlenecking factor, not the GPU. Another CPU demanding game is Battlefield 1, it uses 100% of an i5 6600 when paired with GTX 1060. Meaning if you paired with a GTX 1070, at least an i7 CPU will be needed to avoid CPU bottlenecking. let alone GTX1080 and 1080TI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ8AXDzJix0

The page below shows that from an i7-920 to i7-4770k there isn't much difference in Arma 3 performance. So it's not cpu-dependent. The article author comments about this.

https://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

The reason why someone might think this, could be the way i5's often show 100% core usage in msi-afterburner but i7's don't.

I suspect it is due to hyperthreading. If I disable hyperthreading on my i7 it will often show 100% core usage. If I turn ht on, it might show 40% load. Framerates are identical. The key point is that msi-afterburner shows a hyperthreaded core as two separate cpu's. However a hyper-threaded core is only about 25% better than a non-hyperthreaded core, not twice as good.

So it's risky basing i7 expected performance on i5 stats. As this video shows sometimes there is no performance gain (as in Arma3), sometimes there is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XylVCItVhS4

Another factor is the way that recent games transparently adjust graphics features based on the hardware. I have noticed that WItcher 3 on a 1080ti seems to have more special effects than on a 970, even using the same settings. Setting something to "maximum" might give a different result based on the hardware.

I don't believe that Arms 3 benchmark. Any body can write anything in an written article. You need to show me some real videos where performance comparisons are showing in realtime, so that I can see the difference myself.

Latest i7 should give at least double more gaming performance than that 10 years old i7 920. That CPU is not even equivalent to a modern i5 7400.

TomEFFENJones eredeti hozzászólása:

Guys, guys. Please do not argue. All this thread was for, was other people's opinions on a good monitor/TV that I could take into consideration once I save up my money again to buy one. I appreciate the people who didn't rag on me for the choices I made for picking my own PC parts. I know I could've saved a lot of money by reviewing things more than I did and building it myself. I appreciate the people telling me the things I could've gotten instead, also. For me, I barely have enough time to spend at home as is, let alone come home from work and try and watch videos on how to correctly build my PC. I just wanted something that would work right away for something I personally really enjoy, gaming. I salute all of you smart people that know the ins and outs of the PC world. Just, please do not hate on mine or anyone else's rigs. Especially don't argue over something that doesn't really have anything to do with the original question, ya know? It's good you're passionate, but be nice about it and look at it from an objective view instead of a subjective view. 🤙🏻

@TomEFFENJones

you are not understanding the points here. No one here is saying that your CPU is bad, not even that crazy BIG BOOM BOOM. All they are saying is that you spent $150 more for buying a high performance CPU that you don't need to buy. Their point is all about that $150.

Your CPU is a best performing all rounder CPU, there is no doubt about that. Evan a child can understand this. Those who are opposing me, there point is all about spending that $150 is justifiable or not.

if you can Spend $3000 on a rig, then you can certainly spend some $150 more, to get a CPU that is Multitasking and Streaming capable. They are arguing for no reason. i'm sure even they themselves know it.

[Big Boom Boom]

It is more than $150 since X299 cheapest mobo is more expensive than mid tier Z270 mobo, and you still get locked out on PCI-E lanes and RAID feature on the mobo. Money could have put into SLI GTX 1080 or even GTX 1080 Ti SLI. But hey, listen to the kid who doesn't even know GTX 960M and i5-U laptop exist (only the most popular variant).

Also out of all the mobo, the Gigabyte Aorus tend to have better onboard sound as their main selling point. Or you could pick up an actually good sound card for, idk, that $150. See what's I'm getting? For a home theatre system you're spending money on the wrong things. Priority is GPU, sound card and monitor, not CPU.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

Big Boom Boom eredeti hozzászólása:

It is more than $150 since X299 cheapest mobo is more expensive than mid tier Z270 mobo, and you still get locked out on PCI-E lanes and RAID feature on the mobo. Money could have put into SLI GTX 1080 or even GTX 1080 Ti SLI. But hey, listen to the kid who doesn't even know GTX 960M and i5-U laptop exist (only the most popular variant).

Also out of all the mobo, the Gigabyte Aorus tend to have better onboard sound as their main selling point. Or you could pick up an actually good sound card for, idk, that $150. See what's I'm getting? For a home theatre system you're spending money on the wrong things. Priority is GPU, sound card and monitor, not CPU.

No it's not more than $150, even less.
Because x299 MoBo is really cheap now, around $210. And jumping to i7 7700k to i7 7800x is only $50 more.

https://m.newegg.com/products/9SIA2F85WK0547?nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-PCPartPicker%2c+LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=3938566

So your whole point is he should spend that $150 in a better GPU or sound card, instead of buying better CPU, right. ...??

Well that's a completely subjective
matter, if someone feels that he needs a better 6 core multi tasking CPU ( just like any Ryzen 7 buyer but with Intel brand name) then he can can buy it. And if someone feels he needs a Sound card then he can spend that $150 in a sound card or GPU. Its up to him. I don't see anything wrong with it.

But the main question is, why Mr. Big BOOM BOOM is making a fuss about that matter. You can't blame someone for spending $150 more for buying a better next level CPU. Or no way call it a bad buy.
Is beyond understanding.

[Big Boom Boom]

Did you bother (once again) look at his mobo? $349. You can pick up same quality z270 for $200. Heck $100 z270 mobo is better than that MSI trash you link. A $200 z270 is mid/high tier.

https://m.newegg.com/products/N82E16813132927
That is enthusiast level and only $220.

I7-7800x is not next LVL CPU. You think Intel is dumb enough to price it only $80 more? There is a whole lot of issues with x299 but of course you don't even know half of it. VRM, PCIe lane locked, RAID etc.

Of course this also mean more expensive cooling. The go to cooling for x299 is Custom loops not AIO. Money better suited for better GPU and monitor, where it will give a lot more benefits. Money doesn't grow on trees, and OP does have a budget. His setup will NOT afford something like 4K HDR 144Hz monitor now thanks to that.

Also custom loops need maintenance. Do you know how yet OP? They are unlike AIO closed loops. scratch that it is an AIO made by Asetek. Upon further looks it performs worse than Corsair H110 GT which is 280mm rad lol.

Edited: for comparison purposes, I build 1 exactly same PC on origin with i7-7700k, SLI GTX 1080 Ti and Creative Zx sound card. It comes out at $4,128 (no promotion for Samsung SSD that's included in extra cost). This setup will murder outright the original setup and 60% faster at gaming. You are looking at over 100+ fps The Witcher 3 maximum setting 4k or 60+ fps 5k.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

if somebody posts a good comments, there is a kinds of people who become jealous, they just can't see that another person is taking the cake. So they start opposing him for no real reason. That is exactly what happened here. And it is nothing new for any forums, not just Steam.

if Someone has enough budget ($200-$250 more), buying a latest intel i7-7800X, can't be described as Bad Buy. Since it has same Single Core performance as i7-7700k, but with More Cores and More Threads. And has almost same Gaming performance as i7-7700k (only 7% slower), but with added multitasking and Streaming ability.

Yes you can place your arguments, why you think that i7-7700k is better than Latest i7-7800X, then it is up to OP, whom to follow.

But you can't call other people ''Crazy'' or ''know nothing'', just because he prefer i7-7800X platform. People who does this, eventually fall into their own traps. NO EXCEPTIONS.

[Revelene]

Cloud Boy eredeti hozzászólása:

-snip-

Well, this thread was kinda about monitor or TV suggestions, not his hardware choices.