LG CX if money is not an issue and you want the best
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
10GB vram enough for the 3080? Discuss..
- Thread starter Perfect_Chaos
- Start date
- Status
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,196
LG CX if money is not an issue and you want the best
And you have the space!
That said, last time I looked there weren't really any good options between some 27" and the 48" CX. My sweet-spot is still 32ish.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,960
- Location
- London
I'm at 27" 1440p currently.
I *think* I'm happy enough to stick, but is ignore bliss in this regard?
Do I not know what I am missing?
I *think* I'm happy enough to stick, but is ignore bliss in this regard?
Do I not know what I am missing?
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,196
I like my 32" 4k screen, but I like it for my day job - software design/coding etc. It's definitely nice for gaming too.
A 48" on my desk feels like it would be too much. But then I used to say that about 32...
I agree with it being too much, You're reaching the realms of having to actually move your head to see things. I can't imagine searching for code or using spreadsheets in a useful way, better with two smaller screens. (At least as my preference).
I can't imagine gaming on such a big screen sitting close to it either, if you sit further away from it then the whole point of the higher res on a bigger screen is kind of defeated.
I really like 21:9. I can see myself moving up from 3440x1440 to 5120x2160 eventually, maybe, but I'm in absolutely no rush to do it. I'll wait for it to be more mainstream and for cards to be up to running that at 144hz and up.
Last edited:
Few people on the forum seem to understand these basic principles and probably don't even realise how unergonomic and impractical their setups are. 27/28"" is the sweet spot size at close desk distances and anything bigger like 32" and above then means you have to move your head and that is undesirable and over the long-term can cause bad RSI. 30" would probably be a happy medium, but no-one does that size.
48" TV's are still way too big for desks and when I see people using them at close distances I can't help but laugh at how ridiculous it is. You need to be sitting a minimum head distance of over 1m away from them to even begin to make it practical.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,170
- Location
- Rollergirl
LG CX if money is not an issue and you want the best
Bear in mind that anything over 60 FPS is bugged with the 48CX right now. It's not an issue for me as I'm only using the screen for 3rd person games which is 60fps lock.
As for vram, my 3080 has maxed regularly with my 48CX but no performance issues that I've noticed.
Where computer graphics are concerned I don't think anything tbh. You look at real good quality 1080p films/tv programs . No game has got to that. If a game got to that then that would be amazing. That pees all over 4k games. Ray tracing is the step to realism but it's still early days .
Last edited:
I went from 27" 1440P to 48" 4K and never looked back. As long as you can be far enough away from it, it's great. Resolution wise, I see a big image quality difference. Everything is sharper.
I think the ideal size for me would be 40-43", though sadly you can't buy a good IPS/OLED that size. If you could it would cost double the CX48. Mass production brings the price of the CX48 right down.
I hear the firmware is on it's way soon. Hopefully will solve that problem
That won't happen over night like you make it sound like. By the time that takes places I will be on a RTX 4080 or AMD's equivalent at the time
? 4K 60 - 100+ fps is here today for PC. It's expensive, but awesome. It will be much cheaper come November, when the new consoles launch, putting 4k 60fps games in the hands of hundreds of millions of console gamers.
Available and mainstream are two different things. Most will not have a OLED for starters, what percentage of house holds do you think have these? Then you have the comment about 4K 100+ fps being here today, that won't be mainstream for years either. Unless we have completely different definitions of mainstream?
Yeah agree. I think being mainstream is too early with 4k 100fps! Like you say unless it is a completely different definition.
For being mainstream ie the PS5(because your average joe won't buy a £700+ graphics card for the PC) to run games at 4k 100fps it would have to drop the quality down a lot surely. It's nice kit but it's nowhere near a 3080. It's all about making money for Sony isn't it - oh get new 4k tvs..anyway that's my views on it.
Last edited:
There are many, many more console gamers than PC gamers. The new console generation (launching in November) enable 4k60 for console gamers, at an amazing price point. Consoles are getting double the memory (16GB!), over the double CPU performance! (Zen2) and a custom special 1TB SSD.
These consoles make 4k60 mainstream, whether people accept it or not. For PC, it's much more expensive. 3080's cost almost twice the console price, let alone the rest of the PC to power it. Then there's a monitor....
We've been talking it about it on forums for years. People blindly bought Nvidia cards, even when AMD had competitive offerings. This caused Nvidia to increase prices over the last few years, to the point where a the 3080 (not even the highest end GPU) costs £700-800, close to the double the price of a console...
As I say, most devs will likely target 30fps, there maybe a 60fps option available but I do not think most will target 60fps unless they are forced by Sony or Microsoft. You need to understand that 60fps is not something hard to achieve, could have been done on PS4, 3, 2 and even 1. They almost always chose to go 30fps so they would max out graphics, there is a good chance that will continue.
Not defending the over priced GPU's from Nvidia, but I get the feeling the 3080 will offer anywhere between 50-100% better performance than what is available in consoles. There are people happy to pay £800 extra for just 15% better performance. Lol.
Anyway, 4K will not be mainstream on PC for a few years yet, I believe that was the point that was originally being made here. Not sure how we got onto consoles.
You need to understand a few things as well mate.
1. Console optimisation means developers can get much more performance out of equivalent PC hardware, on consoles. Just look at the graphics on "the last of us part2" - that runs on ancient PS4 hardware, and looks incredible. Imagine how games will look on the next gen consoles, with over 5 times more performance!?!
2. 3080 has less VRAM than a console. While some will upgrade their 3080's before it becomes a big deal, it must feel quite crappy to buy a 4k GPU and be close to maxed out on VRAM from day one at 4k.
3. PS5/Xbox series X will eventually offer more performance than a 3080 will (once developers fully master it) simply due to console optimisation. Though by the time this happens, 4000 series will be out etc.
4. People pay £800 extra for 15% performance because they want to. Same for other luxuries in life.
5. There are people buying 3080's (a 4k GPU) still running 1080P, or 1440P, when 2070/2080/2080ti cards can murder both resolutions. That's arguably throwing money away as well - paying £650-850 for a lower resolution experience than a console.
You think that the PS5 will eventually offer more performance than a 3080??
Last edited:
- Status