Posts by Kimberly Gomez34

Here’s a more powerful option than the 15.6" model.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/index.php...m_medium=click

James Gomez2 said:What’s actually the difference between G.Skill Ripjaws and Aegis? Is it even worth shelling out an extra twenty bucks for the Ripjaws—I mean, maybe not. I was doing some digging just now and looks like the best deal, I guess. Should I just grab it?

Aegis is a total no-brainer. Honestly, they're among the cheapest options out there (plus they're 3000MHz CL16), and they have a proven track record of working flawlessly on almost every motherboard you throw them at. No headaches, no nonsense.

Nothing really stands out as being particularly special here; there’s a massive sea of similar products out there. You might consider this UltraSharp line as a slightly higher tier, which is what I linked earlier for you, Philosopher.

Yeah, it’s a solid choice. You'll likely get about $33 10 years of reliable service out of it, even with semi-passive cooling
.
https://www.amd.com/en_us/power-supply-550w-example

Colors aren't quite as accurate and the viewing angles leave something to be desired (though they still beat out any TN panel), but you get much better contrast and deeper blacks compared to an IPS. At the end of the day, it really comes down to the specific unit you pick up—monitors are like a box of chocolates; you never know exactly what you're going to get.

I was actually referring to this one:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=C24G1

By the way, there really isn't a 1080p 144Hz IPS monitor on the market, and since those 1440p 144Hz models are significantly more expensive than their VA counterparts, VA panels definitely offer better value if we're looking at 144Hz specs.

AOC LED monitor Q3279VWFD8 - $526 just 5 hours left

Look, if you find a solid one...

You shouldn't really see any noticeable response time issues on those 60/75Hz monitors.

Besides, there are some budget-friendly options out there right now—like 32" 1440p 75Hz FreeSync monitors (roughly $567, though they're on sale for $150+ at the moment) or even 24" 1080p 144Hz models with VA panels (also around $567).

Some reviews for the single-fan model claim it stays cool and quiet, plus they recently bumped up the warranty to 3 years 🤷
Personally, though, I’d still be aiming for the dual-fan version

who's actually pulling a fast one here 😁

Exactly. If you're working with that specific rog-ica, it actually offers a brilliant workaround by including mounting holes for both AM4 and the older AM2/AM3 sockets. Your main task is simply to track down an adapter bracket for an AM2/AM3 setup, or just go ahead and order the dedicated AM4 hardware http://www.coolermaster.com/amd-am4-...patability/en/

Whatever you do, don't settle for a TN panel—the colors are terrible and the viewing angles are even worse. Think of it this way: IPS offers the best color accuracy and widest viewing angles, while VA panels excel at deep blacks and high contrast. If possible, look for one with an ergonomic stand that allows for height adjustment, which makes it much easier to align your screen with your other monitors, along with pivot and swivel options similar to that first Dell you linked. IPS is generally the gold standard for most people, though every panel type has its trade-offs.

Here are the specific 24" 1080p IPS models with pivot functionality currently available through our procurement list:

If you want to step up a notch in quality, you should consider the Dell UltraSharp series.

The model listed above actually has a slightly taller aspect ratio (1920x1200 instead of 1920x1080), specifically a 16:10 format rather than the standard 16:9. It’s a bit of an older design—if I recall correctly, that Dell model dates back to around 2012 based on the numbering. While the industry has largely moved away from the 16:10 format, you can still find them occasionally.

However, if you prefer the newer UltraSharp models, they typically come in 1080p with a 16:9 ratio:

Brian Moore83 said:I'm torn between the Dell UltraSharp U2419H (1080p) and the P2418D (1440p); they're priced pretty similarly. Which one would be better for video editing? Will I notice a massive difference? Should I go with the lower resolution series if the colors come pre-calibrated and it looks sharper, or stick with the P series for the higher resolution? I'll be using my Lenovo Legion Y530 laptop.

My concern is that the UI might feel way too cramped on a 24" screen at 1440p...

Megan Campbell51 said:Hey everyone. I need some advice. I tend to work across multiple programs and documents simultaneously, so I find three smaller monitors more useful than one or two large ones—especially when I need to hit full screen on a single display. Currently, I’m working with a collection of old gear: a 17" Dell square monitor, a 20" Samsung TV, and another 17" Dell square monitor. I’d keep the Dell because its stand is great; it adjusts for height and rotates 90° almost effortlessly with one finger. I want to pick up two new monitors, and since they'll be side-by-side, I'd actually prefer them to be taller rather than wider. I'm not sure how ridiculous it sounds to set both up vertically, but I have plenty of desk space.
Eye comfort and image quality are my priorities. My workspace is dim, so glossy screens are an option, though I definitely prefer matte. I primarily use Microsoft Office and Adobe software. As for gaming, maybe Solitaire once a year. 😁
I also need a recommendation for a studio-quality microphone with a flexible boom arm. I looked at but I'm not sure if the value proposition is good or if there are better options out there.
I don't have speakers right now; I just use the audio from the Samsung TV, but it can be a bit quiet sometimes, so I need decent speakers—definitely with good bass.
Also, what is the best UPS with standard outlets that can handle three monitors and a PC? I need it to keep things running for at least 5-8 minutes during a power outage.
If I've posted this in the wrong place since it's a mix of topics and this forum is just for monitors, please let me know where it belongs. Thanks!

For situations like yours, an ultrawide 21:9 format or even a super-ultrawide 32:9 setup works wonders. You get the surface area of multiple monitors without the clutter of extra cables or those annoying bezels between screens...





I'm not sure what your budget looks like, but I'd suggest checking some reviews on YouTube.

32:9 models are significantly more expensive:

https://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress.../multitask.jpg

To help you visualize the scale: a 34" 21:9 monitor has roughly the same vertical height as a wide 27" 16:9 screen, while a 29" 21:9 model is comparable to a wider 24" 16:9 setup.



Regarding UPS recommendations, I suggest checking out the posts by our colleague Taipan click. Alternatively, feel free to start a new thread here if you have specific questions.

As for microphone advice, your best bet would be to browse or ask within the dedicated audio section of the forum.

jadetrucker43 said:I finally worked out getting an extra 8 GB of DDR3, so I went ahead and ordered the RX 570 with 8 GB. Once I overclock the CPU, this setup should hold its own for quite a while.

It definitely will! With those specs, you can play absolutely anything. You might have to dial back the settings on the most demanding—or rather, poorly optimized—titles if you want massive FPS, but you'll be able to play...

Basically, it’s a very solid GPU upgrade. It opens up a huge library of games for you because, for example, Doom 2016 absolutely hates 2GB cards (you get all sorts of stuttering regardless of your settings), and we're seeing more and more games like that lately.

wiredotter14 said:That’s exactly the sweet spot we need. For Nvidia, this will likely be a budget card with a small chip and limited memory, whereas AMD Polaris is already a mature architecture, so they’ll be a powerhouse in that sub-$200 segment.

AMD needs to start selling GPUs for peanuts now click, and I'm expecting a significant price drop for the RX 590 too...

As for what jadetrucker43 bought, I don't expect prices to drop much further. I think they've hit bottom, especially since Nvidia isn't really threatening them in this space—they don't have anything truly competitive there. These will probably sell out first.

It’s definitely possible, though I’m honestly skeptical it won't perform at least as well as an RX 570, which already beats out the GTX 1050Ti. If you look at the math, the gap between a 1660 and a 1660Ti is about 20% (1280 vs 1536 CUDA cores), whereas dropping down to 1024 cores represents a straight 25% decrease compared to the GTX 1660. It makes perfect sense for them to release something that fills that specific performance gap between the GTX 1050Ti and the GTX 1060. In fact, it might even lean closer to the GTX 1060 level.

Fair point, it probably won't. But look, a GTX 1660 6GB might actually be a sweet spot since you can snag one for around $200, and the performance jump is massive. It really just comes down to his budget, though. Honestly, if he's planning on swapping out the whole platform anyway, he should just go big—modern games are getting absolutely brutal.

Well, it officially dropped yesterday 😁

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gtx+1660Ti

You could probably grab one this Monday. However, I’d suggest being smart and waiting a week or two for prices to level out and for stock to actually hit the shelves. Regarding the GTX 1660Ti (which performs roughly like a GTX 1070), your FX CPU is going to be a major bottleneck—it just won't be able to push that card to its full potential. That said, if you're planning to upgrade to a new platform soon (say, by this summer when Zen 2 arrives), then go for it

If you aren't planning on swapping out your motherboard and processor this year, you might want to hold out for a GTX 1660 or a GTX 1650 instead. Those would be a much more balanced pairing for an FX system (especially the latter, since the former will likely sit somewhere between a GTX 1060 6GB and a GTX 1070 in terms of raw power). If you're running a 1440p monitor, the FX wouldn't be such a massive bottleneck

Exactly, we're looking at an outdated architecture here—the CPU is running a DDR3 memory controller, so it just won't work that way.

To switch over to DDR4, you're looking at replacing the entire platform—CPU, motherboard, and the RAM itself. Budget roughly $1000 for that. Honestly, your gaming performance won't see much of a jump because the GPU is still your main bottleneck right now. However, making that move does open the door for a serious GPU upgrade down the road, which just isn't an option with that FX chip.

For a more moderate upgrade path, you could try what crimsonstag84 linked, maybe paired with some CPU overclocking.

It’s just Intel software 🤷 FX can't hold a candle to anything R5, so it's definitely not worth your time

BTW, skip the auto overclocking. Do it manually. With a freezer setup, I've got my 33 R5 1600 running at 1.35v with LLC level 2, hitting 3.9GHz while staying under 70C. If you can even squeeze out 4GHz (we're talking about the 1600X, right?), those extra 100MHz usually aren't worth the headache because they demand a massive voltage jump

Also, make sure to update all your software (HWInfo, etc.), because those X models had a bit of a temperature offset issue—the actual temp is usually lower than what you see

No, it’ll work just fine—even at 3000MHz once you enable the D.O.C.P. profile. I've seen tons of people running that exact RAM on various motherboards, including models much lower-end than yours. Your only real hurdle would be if you're running an ancient BIOS version.