kksnowbear

@Vitamin_J94 Here's something that might be worth a look: https://www.newegg.com/samsung-ls57cg952nnxza-57-duhd-240-hz-odyssey-neo-g9-va-white/p/N82E16824027274?Item=N82E16824027274&SoldByNewegg=1 (Just happens to be a NewEgg link, I don't make anything from any source for it and it's also available from Amazon and other places too) It caught my eye since it's the same type Samsung VA panel as discussed above, at 4k in the vertical (50% more pixels than your current setup) ...but with *twice*(!) the horizontal pixels as 4k (7680, the same horizontal FOV as you're accustomed to). So you gain in the vertical without losing in the horizontal. If I'm looking at things correctly, it would be roughly the same physical height as your 32s; something like ~16" (and actually a bit more, if I'm not mistaken). And with that magnificent 1000R curve. Immersion like no other Maybe worth considering. Of course, if you just prefer to go to a 16x9 aspect ratio and still get 4k vertical pixel count, there's always the Ark 55 as above Best of luck to you, whatever you choose.

Yup. And this is why I strongly prefer curved over flat panels (even though I still think the 21:9 and 32:9s are more immersive than 16:9s that are available). The Ark 55 gets points for sheer size and a 1000R curve; if you do the math a 55" panel is comparable to even the G9 in the physical FOV...plus it's 4k and yes a very good panel even if it's VA... I often think I should've jumped at the $1450 mark a few months ago...but it may come back around in time. What I really wish is the Ark 55 was an OLED panel...lol but then it would cost like 8 billion dollars and I couldn't afford it anyhow

This is something that I've been considering for quite some time. I just wish it offered a better panel than VA (if I'm not mistaken), plus even though at 4k its an increase in vertical resolution, I'm actually losing 33% in horizontal FOV compared to my current G9. But I may do it yet (and even though it's 55" my measurements indicate conclusively that will fit quite nicely over my desktop once mounted properly, yet never come close to my knees, and still put my eye line at/near the actual industry expert-recommended top edge of the monitor vs the center... )

It may be true that ultrawides are more appropriate to simracing environments, given their extra FOV in the horizontal. I'm just not a fan of claims that ultrawides "lose" something in the vertical. As I illustrated earlier, they don't lose anything provided you're comparing apples-to-apples at the same vertical resolution (and why would anyone do anything else but apples-to-apples?) That claim is misguided, ignores empirical data, and is more of an optical illusion that it is even close to fact. An ultrawide monitor looks like it's not as tall because of it's aspect ratio, but resolution is what determines what you see in-game. For example, my G9 shows me exactly as much of the game as any 1440p 16:9 monitor in the vertical - and it shows twice as much in the horizontal. In fact, 33% more than even a 4k monitor in the horizontal (5120 vs 3840). Consider that there's nowhere in the game that you enter your monitor's physical size. That's because the game doesn't know or care what size monitor you have - all it knows is how many pixels high, times how many pixels wide. That pixel count determines what you see (without turning your head); the FOV or viewport, if you will. If you feel you'd be happy with a 16:9 aspect ratio, then there's little doubt that a 4k OLED display (size as you prefer/budget allows) is the way to go. However, if you want something curved and larger than say ~48", OLED isn't likely an option. Be aware also that it's misleading for anyone to suggest that you can't use monitors >48" in a flight sim environment - even on a desktop. Military aircraft commonly feature displays, gauges, and controls at and even below knee level, and obviously what a pilot sees goes well below typical desktop height - a fact that using monitor stands like yours (and other creative approaches) can be set up to reflect nicely, especially if one doesn't have the physical displays etc...so buy whatever size your budget permits

Your "in-game" vertical field of vision is precisely the same as anyone running a 1440p monitor. It's a myth that you're "losing" anything by running a ultrawide type aspect ratio. Moreover, since you're already at 1440p, the only way to increase resolution is go to 4k (or some variant of 2160 "short side") - which, as above, if you want to keep a similar aspect ratio, the resulting resolution would then obviously require much more of your GPU (though I don't know that anyone even makes such a monitor that's bigger than 32"). Just something to think about (and I speak from first hand experience). You can go to a 4k at 16:9 but you'd be sacrificing the 300% horizontal FOV you paid to get from three monitors - and only gaining 50% in the vertical. (FWIW I use a Samsung Odyssey G9 49" 32:9/5120x1440 monitor).

Ah...so it sounds as if you're interested in 4k resolution (that is, 2160 on the vertical or "short side")...correct? Do you intend to try getting approaching a similar aspect ratio? If so, probably important to keep in mind that the total resolution will increase a *lot*. And while the 4090 is a magnificent card (I use one and have owned three), there's going to be a fairly big resulting hit on performance.

Can you specify the resolution of your current monitors, please? What model are they (or type panels; VA, IPS, etc) Also it would be prudent to know whether your intended result is same, higher or lower resolution than what your current arrangement provides.

lmao I give up...you can lead a horse...but a monkey still isn't a carpenter just because he's got a hammer lol...

What you're describing is because of what's called memory "training". Typical behavior (especially for recent gen AMD boards), depending on BIOS settings - as you've seen. The OP is discussing a different typical behavior, whereby a machine will do as he's described *if* the PSU is turned off after shutdown - as he has acknowledged above: it only happens when he switches off the PSU.

Thanks for clarifying Yes, I would say this is normal - as I mentioned above, some BIOS settings (obviously, enabling the XMP profile in your case) will cause shutdown-restart even if the machine is already running (once you save/exit, that is). For example, if you're in BIOS and change certain settings, then save/restart, the machine will just restart and boot. Certain other settings, however (usually involving memory - like with XMP in your case) when changed while in BIOS, then save/restart will cause the machine to shut down, then restart. I've always associated this with (what I call) 'initialization', where memory training occurs later in the POST sequence. In any case, I believe what you're seeing is normal behavior. Glad if it helps. FWIW the only time I turn off the PSU switch is when I'm working on stuff (swapping guts) or moving a machine. But I do have several UPS units, basically one for each bench/machine plus a couple others for the monitors etc, so I don't worry about leaving them switched on.

As you know this is the expected, "normal" behavior. I'm still not 100% clear what you mean here. Are you saying that when you do a shutdown (but leave the PSU switch ON), it still does the start-shutdown-restart the first time you start it next day, just by sitting overnight? This should be no different TBH than normal shutdown/start up at any other time of the day, regardless of how long it sits (unless at some point it's losing power somehow while sitting there.) (or) Are you saying you turn the PSU switch OFF at night, and it does the start-shutdown-restart thing when you first turn it back on? If you switch off the PSU, this behavior is typical for the first startup. Sorry but I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

I kinda thought so. That's exactly why I asked the question about the PSU Yes, on many boards** it is perfectly normal behavior if you turn off the switch at the PSU. The machine will turn on, start running, then shut down, restart, and boot normally. This has to do with 'initialization' and doesn't indicate a problem - provided it only happens when you disconnect power to the PSU entirely. (** I say 'many' because I won't swear they *all* do it, but it's not at all uncommon in my experience - seems maybe your old AsRock board did it, the MSI socket 1700 board didn't do it, maybe...and now the 890 board does. Someone might not have seen this unless they've worked around a lot of different boards.) Note that some units will only do this depending on BIOS settings/changes (usually involving memory, like with your XMP - which might explain why it doesn't happen if XMP isn't enabled - but I would say it's worth checking the settings above, too). Thing is - not a lot of people realize this - the PSU has a 5 volt 'standby' voltage (5VSB) that is always present, even if the machine is shut down. This is not the same as the 5v supply on the other PSU pins - back in the day when the cables were still color-coded, the 5VSB was purple IIRC and the other 5V lines are red. So the machine 'knows' when you kill power to the PSU, because it loses 5VSB. This will cause the machine to do what you see. It's also why you should never plug/unplug components when the PSU is still turned on/connected to 'line'. There is a 'hot' voltage present at points, even if the machine is not running. To be clear: You're saying it does *not* do the start-shutdown-restart thing if you don't switch the PSU off? (BTW, do you switch the PSU off as a habit? I know some who do, and you can - but it's generally not required. Often, concern for power surges is why people do this...I recommend a good UPS or at minimum a high-quality surge suppressor. Shut the machine down at night when you're done for the day. Realistically, switching the PSU off won't really help much if there's a big surge near your house. The potentials common with lightning can easily jump across an open switch. Unless you unplug it, it's not as effective - and again, a better option is to get some sort of decent surge suppression.)

@The_Nephilim Just to make sure, I don't recall seeing confirmation this memory is on the manufacturer's QVL. I could've overlooked this, and it's likely the memory *is* on the QVL - but I'd want to confirm that first. Memory *not* on the QVL often works, yes - but if you're having issues, it's something that bears confirming. Something else: Looking over Gigabyte's notes on the BIOS webpage, I see this note in several of the fairly recent BIOS updates: This is interesting because you've consistently seen your symptoms occur when setting the XMP profile (and *only* then), but other changes don't cause it. Since this particular mode (Low Latency) is automatic whenever an XMP profile is applied, it would probably be worth trying with the "Low Latency" *disabled*. This is covered on p.13 in the manual: (Incidentally, the most recent BIOS doesn't specifically mention this...did they take it out? I dunno...try it - although you said you'd already tried F16. Just a thought.) FWIW I think I'd also consider disabling the "High Bandwidth" setting, if only for testing. I'd try disabling one of these two settings, the other, or both. While the manuals do sometimes mention these settings, they usually just say something completely meaningless and unhelpful, like saying a setting enables or disables a certain feature while saying nothing about what the feature actually does. Unfortunately, this is typical - so we don't really know what the setting might be doing or not. As has been mentioned, I also believe what you're seeing is related to memory. I'd suggest that pages 13-15 of the manual might be helpful; these are all settings that govern the way memory behaves, especially at boot. Worth considering IMHO. Finally, a question, just to be sure: The PSU's switch isn't being turned off in between boots, correct? It's not "normal" for a machine to shut off then restart every time - but with many boards it *is* normal behavior, when the power is removed/switched off at the PSU (and also when certain BIOS values are entered/changed). HTH

A 50 series GPU cannot increase a monitor's maximum refresh rate. A 50 series GPU cannot make a monitor display frames at a rate higher than it's maximum refresh rate. It doesn't work that way. That's your response. The topic has nothing to do with 'victim spiel'. Please stop the personal insults. I've asked you many times, politely, to stop.

Please stay on topic and stop trying to pick a fight with me. I've asked repeatedly and politely.

I simply responded to your assertions concerning my prior comments - which were absolutely on topic. Yours were not. Please stay on topic and stop trying to pick a fight with me. I've asked repeatedly.

The topic was explicitly renamed to "NVIDIA 5 Series cards". This was made very clear. Nothing in your post has anything to do with the topic. Please stay on topic and stop the insults and personal attacks.

The thread topic is NVIDIA 5 Series cards, as renamed. My comments are strictly related to 50 series card performance (including as applies to refresh rates). Your comments are about how monitors work, and have nothing directly to do with the topic of Nvidia 5 series cards. I have asked many times to stay on topic, stop the personal attacks and insults, and stop trying to pick a fight with me.

The 17-game HUB average at 1080p, 5080: 176FPS, 4080 Super: 177FPS. (See below about why a 4080 Super - but even if you used a plain 4080, it averaged 175). 1 or 2 two frames at ~175...that's margin of error. So much for 'objective gain' in price/performance of rasterization, without factoring in the fake frames, for all but the 5090. But, to be accurate, the point I raised about that comment was that there was actually no data at that time to support the claim - and there wasn't, of course. Now the data is available, and we'll just say "it ain't good" Per Steve: Essentially, the GeForce RTX 5080 only managed to match the 4080 Super at this resolution. It seems the Blackwell architecture struggles slightly more than previous generations at lower resolutions, and this isn't always due to a CPU bottleneck. Essentially, if you wanted this level of performance from a 16GB GeForce GPU, you could have gotten it a year ago. Some may argue that the RTX 5080 should be compared to the original 4080, but that's nonsense. The RTX 4080 was essentially a failed product – and that's not even referring to the "unlaunched" AD104 version. The $1,200 RTX 4080 we ultimately received was a disappointment, and most gamers agreed by not buying any. This led to stock sitting on shelves, forcing Nvidia to release the 4080 Super, which was essentially the same GPU in terms of performance but with a $200 price cut. Maybe if Nvidia lowers the 5080 by $200, it'll be more of an objective gain in price/performance. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely - at least for a while.

Yes, but the entire intent of getting a 5090 is to get a higher frame rate - so if the 4090 is right on the edge of that, unless you get another monitor...you're generating frames (and heat) you can't see. If the 'magic' smoke and mirrors were to work (not in DCS) then you'll exceed 120, but your monitor can't display that. And if a game that actually supports MFG drops below a 100-120 native rendering rate - for whatever reason - then MFG is likely to look bad (and worse in things like flight sims). FG *might* be OK (it has limits too), but that's fully supported by the 40 series; no need to buy into the 50s. Seems to me no matter how you look at it, you're either buying something you can't use currently for the features that are it's primary selling points, or, in order to use those features, you're looking at double the price of the GPU itself - some $4000 - for maybe ~20% gain in any game(s) that don't support the 'magic' (like DCS), or 350FPS using MFG that might be a laggy, blurry mess. But hey, you do you.

Not so sure about that. I tested mine just now, and it boots in ~20 sec (past the GPU LED) even though I just turned the PSU switch off and left it for several minutes. Granted, I suppose it *could* still be training memory in that short time span - but when I've seen 'training' it usually take much longer. Several minutes. It's my impression this is what the Power Down Enable does, as opposed to just Memory Context Restore. Makes sense that some people could run PDE off and think it wasn't different from only MCR, if they aren't turning off the PSU (who does?). My take on that is they (Asus) probably wouldn't bother with two separate settings if they were not different things. Now, again, I know it was changed recently, so maybe it didn't work like that all along. Can't say that I've had to mess with it that much; I always set both on and that's that. I also did not specifically test to see what happened if I turned off PDE *and* switched the PSU off, so that would be necessary to say 100% it causes retraining. Maybe some day when I have time. I believe it accurate to say that, for the boards which have this issue to begin with, BIOS typically features a setting for a training voltage - so you don't have to do a 'blanket' voltage increase just to solve the training issues. I still sometimes use a slight increase on RAM voltage, especially if all the slots are being populated (which I almost always do for various reasons.) Not usually more than 5% (0.07v @ 1.35) This does seem to help with stability, but that's been teh case for many generations of hardware now, not just the AM5 stuff. Voltage "fanout" is a known electrical phenomenon, and it definitely applies to motherboard RAM slots.

But you've mentioned several times that your 4090 gives you a frame rate in DCS that exceeds your monitor's 120hz refresh rate, so you cap frames at 117. Even if a 5090 were an improvement, how's that going to increase your monitor's refresh rate? You'll be generating frames that your monitor cannot display. Far as the future and other games go...well, unless you're getting a native render rate around 100-120, MFG is likely to do more harm than good (please see HUB video linked above, and note that this is more likely in games like flight sims where your view is constantly and quickly changing). And if you *are* getting 100-120 "non-magic" frames, why would you pay $2150 (possibly much more) for more frames, when your monitor cannot display more than 120 regardless?

Incidentally, I should say here that I have absolutely no problem with "bragging rights" if that's what makes someone happy... Just "own it", that's all.

+1 Seriously. I think this question more or less answers itself...

Obviously. Realistically, not for anything of any statistical significance. Beyond a frame rate you've indicated several times you already cap, because your 4090 exceeds your monitor's 120 refresh in DCS? So you'll be buying a new monitor (to get a higher refresh rate; see $4300 beakdown above)...or getting more frames than your monitor can physically display. Alrighty then. You keep trying to impose a grade-school explanation of simple supply and demand economic theory...Nvidia is limiting supply so that demand will increase price. Pretty simple, really. Most people seem to get what's happening, anyway. No, you wouldn't necessarily see AMD undercut them, because some people won't buy an AMD GPU regardless. AMD's smart enough to realize that there's no point cutting their own throats to entice people who aren't going to buy anyway. Only if you impose a simple 'supply and demand' argument. Look around online, there are plenty of reputable sources discussing how Nvidia is limiting supply to levels not seen before. Again, that 'law' exists only as a means to explain an inversely proportional relationship at a grade-school level. It only explains what happens *when* supply goes down; it doesn't account for *how*. Nvidia isn't controlling the entire GPU market and I didn't say that. They're controlling the Nvidia 50-series GPU market.