The back photo is about a month old, but the front one was taken two hours ago. My goal is to drop maybe another pound or two while holding onto my muscle mass, and I might try to strengthen my chest a bit using some bodyweight exercises.
But honestly, my main focus is on core work and getting back into running.
Lifting heavy weights is strictly off-limits right now because of a herniated disc in my lower back. It's an injury that’s also keeping me from running. I start my first round of physical therapy in three weeks, and I'm hoping to be back to training by the end of the year.
I ran into a situation like that once. I ended up fixing it just by pulling the graphics card out and reseating it back into the slot. I mean, what the hell. 🤔
I know it was overpriced, but at the time, it was the only monitor that actually had all the specs I was looking for. My first choice would have been the LG model, but it wasn't even available in US stores back then.
Dana Torres14 said:I guess I care more about my eyes. I have some vision issues, so I figure if it's 144 Hz, maybe it'll be better for eye strain. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...
Thanks everyone for the replies...
My brother has bad eyesight, and ever since we upgraded his monitor to 165Hz, he can read text without straining. So, yeah, go for it.
Dana Jackson83 said:Hi everyone. I'm looking at buying one of these two monitor models. I was wondering what you all think about which one I should pick. A few people told me the first one might be the safer bet if I go with that one.
If I had to choose between those two, I guess I'd take the first one. But both are just 1080p stretched over a 27" screen, which isn't really ideal. Also, they're both 60Hz.
For the same price, you could probably get a 31.5" AOC with 1440p resolution and a 75Hz refresh rate. It might not sound like much of a difference, but maybe it actually is.
I don't regret it at all. I’m getting over 60 fps in most games at 1440p on ultra/high settings. So, for that resolution, it’s actually a solid choice. Regarding the resolution thing, I think it holds up because many reviews mentioned that you can get close to RTX 2080 performance by just lowering the resolution scale and using some sharpening, with very little visual difference.
I tested it in a few titles, and dropping the resolution doesn't really change much for me.
And Far Cry is a strange beast, especially Primal. It's weird—you'll be sitting at 48 fps while the GPU is only at 60% and the CPU is at 50%. It just doesn't make sense, I guess. 😬
I basically bought this card because my old 7970 died on me; I hadn't actually planned on it. I was thinking about waiting for a flagship, but well, it is what it is.
Drivers are more or less okay regarding black screens, crashes, and that kind of stuff. Some games crash on me regularly; for instance, Battlefield 5 always crashes right after finishing the war story. The game saves my progress, but then it just crashes.
Some games run "weirdly." For example, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare runs at 90+ fps for me, but it isn't smooth. There is constant stuttering, and FreeSync doesn't help at all.
But there are some things I don't quite understand. I am fairly sure you would get a better framerate at 1080p resolution with an RTX 2070 than with the 5700 XT. For some reason, lowering the resolution to get better performance doesn't work here at all. This means those tricks like 80% resolution scale plus image sharpening don't make sense. Simply put, you lower the resolution and the games use fewer resources, so you end up with the same or even lower fps than at a higher resolution.
Here is a screenshot benchmark for Far Cry New Dawn, for example. 1280x720 vs 2560x1440
If you have G-Sync on, then set Adaptive Sync to OFF. 🧐
I don't personally use a frame cap, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to try; maybe it might take a little pressure off your GPU.
As for the G-Sync issue, I'm playing COD: Infinite Warfare right now and it seems to stutter slightly whenever I turn my view. I'm not sure if it's an issue with the game itself or just the drivers. My FPS stays between 90 and 130 on a 165Hz monitor. I don't really get it. 🤔
Honestly, buying a new GPU wasn't even part of my plan. My old 7970 just died on me, and since I was already forced into buying something, I figured there was no point in wasting money on something mediocre just for the sake of having it.
AMD drivers are feeling a bit hit-or-miss right now. Things seem to be improving overall, but it feels like fixing one thing just breaks something else.
For instance, certain games (atelier Ryza) that ran perfectly fine for me last year won't even launch on adrenalin 2020 drivers.
There are also some things I just can't wrap my head around. Right now, I'm playing Far Cry New Dawn. I've got a Sapphire nitro + 5700 XT. At 1440p resolution (using a mix of ultra/high settings), I'm averaging about 70fps, with dips below 50 in some... "demanding" areas. The ceiling is around 90-105fps.
On the other hand, a friend using a standard RTX2070 gets an average of 100fps at 1080p with everything on ultra; he sees brief dips to 60fps and hits a ceiling of 150+ fps. And look, I get it, 1080p isn't the same as 1440p. It shouldn't be. But for me, it is. No matter what resolution I set, the fps stays the same. Even at 720p scaled to 50%, I get the same fps as I do at 1440p, except the image looks grainy as hell. 😬
Maybe it's the CPU (2600X) or just poor optimization, but still. It's bizarre.
Just wanted to let you know that I finally pulled the trigger on the Aorus fi27q-p. It's great; Quake Champions feels like a completely different game now.
I guess the takeaway is that 1440p is actually worth the extra money. The image is way sharper compared to 1080p, more detail, less eye strain... I'm satisfied.
But, well, I don't know them, and the price isn't exactly small either. I'm planning to use a financing plan, so they need me to pay upfront instead of using cash on delivery... Does anyone have experience with this shop? Are they reliable? 🤔
Other retailers don't seem to have this specific monitor in stock at all (LG27GL850)
That Gigabyte looks interesting, though those $1300 are the cash price. It doesn't really matter, I guess; there's only about $167 difference between the VA and IPS models.
Anyway, I use my PC for gaming about 90% of the time, and I'm always in a bright room. Now I just have to decide which of those two models to go with. IPS is probably a bit faster, but I suppose that isn't such a huge deal since either one would be a massive upgrade over what I'm using right now.
Hello, I am planning to retire my old Dell u2412m (24", 16:10, IPS, 60Hz). I want to move up to a 144Hz monitor, specifically 27", since moving to a smaller screen than what I have now doesn't seem logical to me. So, I am looking for the following:
27" IPS 144Hz FreeSync 1440p
I will probably be buying this on a payment plan, so if anyone has recommendations from a major US retailer, that would be helpful. Oh, I have been looking at prices and noticed the gap between 1080p and 1440p is massive—it feels like the 1440p models cost almost double. I read somewhere that 1080p doesn't look very good on a 27" screen... Is it really that bad that it justifies such a price difference? 🤔
I was looking at that Gigabyte Aorus monitor; it seems decent on paper and the price is okay too. 😬 Does anything offer better value for the money?
I am planning to spend between $300 and $500 on this monitor.
It runs at least 6.2 miles, maybe 3-2.5 miles... it just needs time to warm up. 😬
Regarding gear, I usually run in short tights and a long compression shirt, maybe adding a short sleeve over it if needed. I don't use a Buff; I tend to breathe "through my teeth," if you know what I mean. If the temperature hits freezing or lower, I'll wear gloves for the workout.
I've been using Reddit for three years now without any issues. I don't really feel the need to use a browser to access the forum; it's faster, looks cleaner, and I suspect it uses less data too.