Quote:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/aoc-c3583fq-35-inch-curved-ultra-wide-freesync-monitor,4719.html
LMAO @ this garbage product. 1080p on a 35 inch monitor selling for $600. hahahahah
[TH] AOC C3583FQ 35-inch Curved Ultra-Wide FreeSync Monitor Review
Capt
Quote:
LMAO @ this garbage product. 1080p on a 35 inch monitor selling for $600. hahahahah
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Joined
·
3,124 Posts
Quote:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/aoc-c3583fq-35-inch-curved-ultra-wide-freesync-monitor,4719.html
LMAO @ this garbage product. 1080p on a 35 inch monitor selling for $600. hahahahah
Joined
·
2,330 Posts
WHHYYYY ARE WE STILL MAKING 1080p MONITORS!!!!!!!
And then you do it on a 35" SCREEN!!! are you MAD AOC???
Seriously, at 1080p youll be able to clearly see each pixel
1440p at least.
And then you do it on a 35" SCREEN!!! are you MAD AOC???
Seriously, at 1080p youll be able to clearly see each pixel
1440p at least.
Joined
·
29,887 Posts
Quote:
People seem to think that 1080p on an ultra wide is the same as 1080p on a 16:9 screen. That's not the case. 1080p ultra wide is actually 2560 x 1080 which offers more pixels. These added pixels fill up the increased real estate of the larger aspect ratio, giving you an image which does not seem stretched or starved of pixels. I own 1080p, 1080p ultra wide and 1440p screens so I speak from experience here.Originally Posted by SystemTech
WHHYYYY ARE WE STILL MAKING 1080p MONITORS!!!!!!!
And then you do it on a 35" SCREEN!!! are you MAD AOC???
Seriously, at 1080p youll be able to clearly see each pixel
1440p at least.
Joined
·
3,518 Posts
Still a 1080p display. Just more pixels horisontally to fill up that space since its longer.
Joined
·
3,445 Posts
2560x1080 for 29" is acceptable, anything higher and it needs to be 3440x1440.
Joined
·
2,330 Posts
Display size: 32.25" × 13.6" = 438.72in² (81.91cm × 34.56cm = 2830.41cm²) at 79.39 PPI
80 PPI..THATS HORRIBLE. Im sorry but thats not cutting it. This is a brand new product, not a year or 2 old release.
To put it into perspective, the 34" 3440x1440p monitors :
Display size: 31.36" × 13.13" = 411.76in² (79.66cm × 33.35cm = 2656.48cm²) at 109.68 PPI
and 16:9 27" 2560x1440p
Display size: 23.53" × 13.24" = 311.5in² (59.77cm × 33.62cm = 2009.68cm²) at 108.79 PPI
Anything between 100 and 140 PPI is the sweet spot for monitors as you do not require any scaling but have a brillinat unpixeladed image.
Obviously getting closer to 140 is better detail but close to needing scaling.
When you start going under 100 and you can start to see pixels in text at an average seating/distance from the panel.
Source : https://www.sven.de/dpi/
80 PPI..THATS HORRIBLE. Im sorry but thats not cutting it. This is a brand new product, not a year or 2 old release.
To put it into perspective, the 34" 3440x1440p monitors :
Display size: 31.36" × 13.13" = 411.76in² (79.66cm × 33.35cm = 2656.48cm²) at 109.68 PPI
and 16:9 27" 2560x1440p
Display size: 23.53" × 13.24" = 311.5in² (59.77cm × 33.62cm = 2009.68cm²) at 108.79 PPI
Anything between 100 and 140 PPI is the sweet spot for monitors as you do not require any scaling but have a brillinat unpixeladed image.
Obviously getting closer to 140 is better detail but close to needing scaling.
When you start going under 100 and you can start to see pixels in text at an average seating/distance from the panel.
Source : https://www.sven.de/dpi/
Joined
·
7,101 Posts
I would rather have this for $600 than a 34" 1440p for $1200 (or even $900) anyday. It's basically like a 27" 1080p (16x9) screen which is acceptable at proper viewing distances.
And for those of you asking, the reason they are still making 1080p screens is because that is still the resolution of choice. It takes a decent amount of power to push a 1440p ultra wide, why shouldn't there be an ultra wide option for people who can't spend $600 or more per gpu.
And for those of you asking, the reason they are still making 1080p screens is because that is still the resolution of choice. It takes a decent amount of power to push a 1440p ultra wide, why shouldn't there be an ultra wide option for people who can't spend $600 or more per gpu.
Large screen gaming is better. Gaming on a huge immersive screen I never regret going 70 inches at 1080p. 4k sets are better Vizio can do 120fps @ 1080p aswell with 19ms input lag. Motion blur still some what of an issue but OLED takes care of that if you can dish out 5k LG has some 65' inch 0.1 responce time OLED tv's
Joined
·
1,398 Posts
Quote:
That 120fps is a lie if it still says 60hz as input. The extra frames are duplicates and interpolated to make that "muh 120hz"Originally Posted by Deout
Large screen gaming is better. Gaming on a huge immersive screen I never regret going 70 inches at 1080p. 4k sets are better Vizio can do 120fps @ 1080p aswell with 19ms input lag. Motion blur still some what of an issue but OLED takes care of that if you can dish out 5k LG has some 65' inch 0.1 responce time OLED tv's
Quote:
Because far more people can power them than power high hz 1440p screens, and quite a few gamers value performance over resolution. Not sure why I need to point this out on an enthusiast site. Not sure why you would whine about the product either when it doesn't stop them producing 1440p screens as alternatives. The more variety the better for the consumer.Originally Posted by SystemTech
WHHYYYY ARE WE STILL MAKING 1080p MONITORS!!!!!!!
And then you do it on a 35" SCREEN!!! are you MAD AOC???
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
I tend to agree with some of the replies above. These monitors have their use. It requires a LOT of GPU horsepower to get 100 FPS @3440x1440 like my Acer X34 with G-Sync. My 2x 780Ti's under heavy OC's struggle at full resolution on any new games and even on quite a few 2 to 3 year old games. Not that 780 Ti's are top of the line now but they still pack a lot of punch for their age. I couldn't go back to another smaller, I'd rather lower the settings until I can upgrade to a new single 1080 Ti or higher. But I still see the need in these types of monitors simply because not everyone can afford a $1200+ monitor then $1,000 for the GPU power needed to max newer games at that resolution. More choices are always better than few when it comes to computer components.
Joined
·
6,599 Posts
Quote:
Honestly feels like this product is too little, too late for that price. $400-450 would have been a more appropriate price range if the target range is mainstream GPUs in the $200-400 range.
Got my LG 34UC88 for a little over $700 and it's one of the best 34" 3440x1440 on the market since it doesn't have the quality issues that most ultrawides do. I don't play very demanding games (mostly Overwatch), so my $200 R9 290 does perfectly fine. I came from using a 27" Qnix that was 2560x1440 and 120Hz, but Ultrawides are just a much different experience when it comes to gaming, general usage and watching media.Originally Posted by bigjdubb
I would rather have this for $600 than a 34" 1440p for $1200 (or even $900) anyday. It's basically like a 27" 1080p (16x9) screen which is acceptable at proper viewing distances.
And for those of you asking, the reason they are still making 1080p screens is because that is still the resolution of choice. It takes a decent amount of power to push a 1440p ultra wide, why shouldn't there be an ultra wide option for people who can't spend $600 or more per gpu.
Honestly feels like this product is too little, too late for that price. $400-450 would have been a more appropriate price range if the target range is mainstream GPUs in the $200-400 range.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
