kksnowbear

Problem is, the BIOS won't change the GPU fans. The chassis fans, maybe, but not likely the GPU. BTW, silent mode won't necessarily degrade performance. Possible but by no means assured. However, it still is not at all likely to correct GPU fans (if that's what's actually making all the noise). Have you tried opening the case just to see if you can tell which fans are doing it? (Pro tip: Use a length of rubber hose or aquarium tubing, hold one end to your ear and then move the other end around inside the case...makes it easier to tell where the noise is coming from. Do be careful with your hands/fingers ) Not at all to seem demanding, but I wasn't suggesting that they should tell you what to do to fix it. If it came new that way, it's on them. I'd make them do (whatever) to see that it's fixed - at their expense. I sell systems myself, and one thing I've always hated about these prebuilt places is that once you buy it, they want to bail on you. Whenever I sell something, labor for any needed repairs is free (and in some cases, shipping too).

No, and I'm not claiming I can. Neither can anyone else. You can *describe it* (maybe) but you cannot quantify it. That's the problem, those things mean different things to different people and thus cannot be reliably measured or compared. My wife *loves* artichokes, I hate 'em. Subjective. That's why we have objective things like numbers and math, to do fair comparisons on a level playing field. Did you see my edit above about the review that said the C3 display was 'confident'...? Ridiculous. Not a characteristic that can ever be possessed by an inanimate object, in any way whatsoever. Who would actually even believe such a thing a valid factor in comparison? "I decided to purchase this monitor because it was more confident than others I considered"...? Cars are transportation. Obviously a necessity in this day and age, but you don't marry inanimate objects. I understand nice cars, I had a 68 Firebird that was gorgeous. But I was 25 years old and foolishly emotional in those days. I since have owned two Toyota pickups (in over 35 years) that are reliable, utilitarian, reasonably economical, and still reasonably good looking (and most importantly, paid for in much less time than I got to drive them). I don't need to spend 60-100% more than things are really worth because of feelings, yet I still appreciate what I do have. In fact, if we're going to discuss feelings, it's far more important to me to save money on things like cars and computer monitors, and put that money aside for my grand kids' college, flowers and other nice things for my wife who's been an angel to me, or my kids who still need help at times. So there's some of what you value....you gonna tell me now that my feelings don't count just because I don't buy expensive cars and motorcycles? That's the problem with feelings in matters such as these: What is most valuable to one, is worth nothing to another. One man's trash is another man's treasure. It is simply not a reliable basis for comparison. I have feelings, sure. I just don't get them mixed up in data needed to make decisions about spending on material objects. Some of the most 'rewarding' experiences in my life didn't involve spending any money - probably among the reasons they're so rewarding. However, since you brought it up, perhaps it is I who should feel sorry for you.

Yeah, always the same with you. Ignore the facts. I'm not cherry picking anything, I presented an entire range of facts. *All* the data is available, I just don't include stuff that cannot be measured - because it's not a reliable factor. Good, respected reviews don't generally draw conclusions based on feelings and emotions. Being objective based on empirical data is not "cherry picking". I'm not excluding one point you made. You want an entire conclusion to be drawn on one (immeasurable) factor: Feelings. LMAO Like I said, I already have a wife. I'm looking at hardware here, not soulmates. I don't buy things like cars and houses based on emotion, and I believe most experts would say it's a mistake to do so. Can you compete on a level playing field or not? (EDIT: Thought better of it and just removed what I paid for my Samsung, we'll forget that for now) The G9 is a real monitor, not a TV, with twice the refresh rate and considerably higher pixel density. If I'm looking at it correctly, you're suggesting that I spend nearly $1600? True enough, it's OLED, which I'm sure is fabulous. But I'd expect more/better other features for that kinda money. The cost is overly high, due strictly to the panel technology, which (again) they are remarkable, but I'm still not getting a $1600 feeling from it. $1000 is already a lot to spend on a monitor, feelings laid aside. But $1600? Wow. Now I might find a very rare deal on the unit you suggest - which is usually the only time I will spend this kind of money, and that's the only reason I bought the G9 - but still. Let's say I could get it for only $1200 all in (which itself seems doubtful). Still a tough sell. LOL I just (very quickly) read a review of the LG C3..." (the)...TV is good, but if I knew (stuff the writer found out after using it a while) I probably wouldn't buy it." Mind you, one review, one person's opinion etc. But I'll tell you what, for that kinda money, that sh!t should be perfect. And I do mean flawless. Then I found another review that said the display was "Refined, artistic, confident..." (I'm not kidding) Wait, what? Even 'refined' and 'artistic' are a stretch in a monitor review...but 'confident'? Holy smokes...now there's someone who spends $1600 on emotions and feelings...smh

Yup, and therein is the real issue - as I described above. Most GPUs (and a lot of games, like DCS) these days are trying to improve performance by actually lowering what has to be processed graphically (as in with DLSS, FSR and RSR)...which is fine, except the sacrifice already affects quality.

The math is objective. I realize that's not suitable to your position, but it's still fact. The reason it works is because it's not subject to feelings and emotions, which cannot be measured. Any reasonable person understands that. Spending money on expensive items like these is not generally well decided based on emotion and good reviews don't often include comparisons based on feelings. The problem with your argument is 'straw man or no deal'. Either we have to accept comparing a Corvette to a freaking Escort, or you won't participate. What you want to do is remove all objectivity then say "See? My recommendation is better." Objectivity bothers you, because it doesn't agree with you. But are you capable of competing on a level playing field? As I said above, sell me. Make your best pitch. I'll tell you this, though, I don't come off my hard-earned money based on intangibles like feelings. It's gonna take something a little more real than emotions to earn my dollar. I'm buying a piece of hardware, I already have a wife. Don't get me wrong, I've seen enough OLEDs to know they're amazing (as I indicated already). But I'm not prepared to skimp on other features that do matter in order to just have an OLED - and I suspect that, given the costs, I'm not alone. Yes, I have tried 4k monitors as well, I own two in fact...but the data indicates that image quality will be less (objectively, according to pixel density) if the 4k monitor exceeds 42" (in the same type of panel technology, of course, though it shouldn't be necessary to specify that when I already stated my comparisons were "apples to apples"). Oh, and I don't sit 1 meter from the screen. I'm closer to what is probably the majority at around 22". Maybe 24" for some if the monitor isn't curved (but mine is). Around arm's length, if you don't twist your shoulder forward.

Nobody was even remotely trying to compare an OLED's image quality to a VA. I mentioned earlier in this same thread the OLEDs are incredible. Straw man: You're arguing a point nobody tried to make (that I'm aware of). Once we take the straw man out of your argument, we're still left with much lower pixel density on a 4k monitor that even comes close to the same physical size. And people *can* tell the difference in that. The rest is just math. Again, doesn't lie, doesn't have an opinion. But, hey, I had an idea: You can actually help me out. I'm considering replacing the G9 with a 16:9 monitor, just like you advocate. But it's just not as obvious to me as you seem to think. So sell me. Show me the best deal you can come up with. Mind you, the facts still apply: The human field of vision is wider than it is tall, and it's my own preference as well. So, to approach the width I have now (45.2" per Samsung), keeping the same or better pixel density, and curved (I do strongly prefer the 1000R). Cost, while not immaterial, is *always* a factor. If your best deal is $2000 for what I want, that has to be considered as well. I believe it's accurate to say I paid <$825 for my G9 a year ago IIRC.

Ah, indeed it is. Too focused on the other stuff. Corrected, forthwith. EDIT: There, I think I got them all. Thank you!

Technically, no it's not reduced - at least not compared to a 'normal' (16:9) 27" monitor. And I actually have an 32:9, right in front of me, along with three 27" units in the same room, and two others nearby. The 32:9 is exactly as tall as a 27" monitor, and twice as wide. That's why the monitors are all specified in terms of 'aspect ratio', that is, the ratio of the width to height (32:9 compared to the typical 16:9). Even if we compare to a 32" 16:9, the height isn't that drastically different: I believe the display in a 32" 16:9 is about 16.5" tall, where my 49" 32:9 is about 14.5" tall. (I'm not counting 48" units here, more on that later.) It (my 32:9) is also still 1440p; there are 1440 pixels on the vertical side of the monitor, same as if it were 27", or even larger - and in fact it's sharper than a 32" 1440p because there are the same number of pixels in a smaller space (smaller displays are always sharper at the same resolution). Further, if we're comparing apples to apples (i.e. 1440p resolution to 1440p, *not* 4k) then the 32:9 1440p has *double* the pixel count: 7.3 million for the 32:9 vs 3.6 million for the 16:9 1440p. And again, if you go to a 32" monitor, it's not going to be as sharp - the same number of (vertical) pixels has to cover a larger area. So by comparison you're not losing pixels, nor vertical size (compared to a 27" 1440p). You're also not losing sharpness compared to a 32" 1440p, it's actually increased. The issue that is being confused here is that the 32:9 width is doubled compared to a 27" 1440p monitor. This makes the monitor twice as wide (of course) which appears longer in the horizontal (or "wider"...of course lol). If you consider a 16:9 monitor that's just as wide as my 32:9, it would have to be twice as tall. But here's the key: If you were to do that, and still maintain pixel density (and thus clarity), you're now looking at 5160 x 2880 pixels (twice the pixels in height, same in width as the 32:9). That's approaching *double* the pixels of 4k...(take a sec, absorb that lol). While I'm sure it would be nice looking, it would also undoubtedly cost an arm and a leg, and would further choke even the best GPU to death trying to keep up with all those pixels. I don't know if anyone even makes such a thing, but based on your comments here, I'm gonna say it's not in your range And yes, just like Deezle pointed out: You get a wider picture that's just as tall. It's easy: Count the pixels. A 1440p 32:9 has the exact same "view" in the vertical that any other 1440p does. They're all 1440 pixels, no matter which is bigger. The difference is the 32:9 has *twice* the horizontal view (again, compared to a 16:9 1440p). To be completely accurate, as I said earlier, I'm considering a 16:9 replacement for my 32:9. But I'm still not sure, based on all the same above. And here's why: If I were to go to a 16:9 monitor, it will *have to be* 4k to even come close to the same sharpness, and even then I'm actually losing clarity if I want to keep the same width. And I like the width, because that's the way human vision works. Our field of vision is about 40% wider than it is high (just over 210ᵒ horizontal vs just below 150ᵒ vertical). (That is, if - heaven forbid - we upset the masses by bringing objective data and fact into a technical discussion. I know, it's outrage.) Now, even at 4k, I'm factually losing clarity in the horizontal, because the pixel count horizontally will be 3840 over the same physical distance as my current 32:9, which has 5120 pixels horizontally. That's 33% more pixels in the same horizontal space as a 4k 16:9 of the same width. It's true that I'd gain total pixels in the vertical by going to 4k, but keep in mind, they're now spread out over a larger area: The 16:9 4k will need to be *twice* as tall, to be as wide horizontally as my 32:9 is now, but the vertical pixels don't double going from 1440 to 4k. It's only a 1.5x increase. So, to be accurate, if I go to a 4k 16:9 of the same width as my current 32:9 1440p, I'm losing pixel density (and thus, clarity/sharpness) in both the horizontal and vertical. Now, that might not matter as much if you place the monitor further away...but then, to me, there's no point in buying a bigger monitor just to move it further away. Pythagoras tells us that your eyes see the same size picture as a smaller monitor when you move it far enough away (I actually made a spreadsheet for calculating that). Regardless, where it does matter is the closer you get to the actual screen. I believe it is accurate to say that at typical distances, most people will have little trouble seeing that a 108PPI image is noticeably sharper than a 80PPI image is. I believe the math is exactly as I've described it above (thought it's always possible any of us makes a mistake). While it's true that it's "all relative", it remains that, in terms of 'pixel view' as outlined, you're not losing vertically - you're gaining horizontally. The math doesn't cover personal preference, of course. That's up to the individual. But the math absolutely can and does quantify, in crystal clear terms, the differences as far as measurable aspects are concerned. And please: Don't take my word for it. Below is an image of two pixel density calculators; both show my current 49" 32:9 1440p, one vs a 48" 4k 16:9 and the other vs a 55" 4k 16:9. In both cases my 1440p 32:9 has a higher pixel density (PPI) and thus a sharper image than 4k. The 48" 4k has only 84% the pixel density of the 1440p 32:9, *and* I'm losing width if I go that way. The 55" has the same width (within 1") but look: The pixel density - which determines sharpness - drops to 73% of my 49" 32:9. So choose carefully. As I said earlier: Study. These things you read about "slits" and reduced height are nothing more than subjective human observations, as are those concerning clarity/sharpness of the image. The available data indicates it is accurate to say that once a 4k monitor goes past ~42" it can no longer have the same pixel density (and therefore, picture clarity/sharpness) as a 32:9 1440p. The math is objective; it doesn't care who's right, it doesn't have an opinion, and it doesn't lie. From https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php :

Tell ya what fellas, it's been a load of fun but you two can have it. I'll repeat my invitation to share (applicable and authoritative) data one last time here, as well as my offer to discuss it further in private, with anyone actually interested in learning about the subject.

They're the correct standards for computer monitor placement - unless you can show something that proves your opinion. You haven't yet. So you don't have a reference showing the standards are all outdated? OK, then.

I wasn't aware those standards were all so old. Of course, you have a reference showing the standards are outdated? Please share. Typically only happens when a new standard supplants the older one...so you're saying there is no current standard, is that right? I appreciate your clarification. I'm not sure I see the connection you seem to be making between size of the monitors, and what the standards maintain is optimal placement. The human gaze falls naturally just below the eye line. That's just evolution and physiology. In order to look up, muscles are used, which over time can develop fatigue, soreness, and even long-term, permanent health problems (Of course, decades ago no one ever heard of carpal tunnel syndrome, but it's quite real I can promise you...and quite painful). Having a monitor higher than eye level forces you to tilt your head back, using the neck muscles as I described. So, how does any of this factual data "expire" because monitors got bigger? If anything, it's all the more relevant as people face the trade-off between what's good for work (and fun) vs what's best for their bodies. It's not a new choice, and tbh a troubling number of people choose poorly where their bodies are concerned. I get it, but that doesn't mean the standards are wrong for attempting to improve the impact on the human body. I have a fairly large monitor too, but I put effort into proper placement, and it wasn't hard at all. BTW you'll have to do a little better than a guy in a YouTube video being more of an authority than a few decades of human physiology studies. Not sure why people are considered "experts" based on YouTube channels these days. Also I've installed and worked with monitor arrays that would put what's in that video to shame (I have also consulted/contracted on security system installs off and on for ~35 years now) ... but that still doesn't change what the standards say. Cool! So you have a reference that shows the standards are all outdated too? Excellent. I look forward to seeing that.

Nobody's trying to convince anyone to go to a smaller screen. People are perfectly free to do whatever they wish with their monitors. I believe I acknowledged that already. But that doesn't change the fact that standards do exist. IMO it's childish and ill advised for someone to dismiss recognized expertise just because they don't understand it...but hey, I get that it does happen, and of course you're free to do so if you please. Your call, not mine. The standards will still exist regardless of whether any individual is smart enough to take advantage of the potential for improvement. Always naysayers in any crowd, but that doesn't mean the standards are wrong. What's wrong is acting like it's impossible, when it's already been shown that it's not. Doesn't help those who aren't gonna do it anyway, and hurts those who might want to try.

Opinion. And no recognized expertise behind it. Don't see "monitor", "desk", "computer" or "gaming" in that drawing at all. Fairly obvious it's not applicable to computer users.

LMAO...Seriously? I stated very clearly I was sitting. Helps if you can read. No scale in the diagram = impossible to use it for reliable measurements. Sorry. Diagram labeled as Bifocal lenses before you changed it. Not aware of any reference which states monitor placement differs between types of usage. We covered this. Got one? No. M'kay then.

You're trying to denigrate the standards, which have long since been established by recognized experts. So they're all wrong and you're right? That's laughable. I gave dimensions before that put a 48" monitor on my desktop, eyes level at top of monitor, and bottom edge nowhere near my knees. Your opinion on that matter has conclusively been shown to be misguided. The diagram you're using is one scenario, not every situation. It's not intended to be; in fact I believe it was clearly labeled for bifocal lenses before you conveniently omitted that. There's also no scale whatsoever, so it can't be used for any reliable measurements. I've already said several times what you want is to argue. You have no authorititive references to support your opinions, and no actual expertise of your own. If anyone wants to actually try to benefit from attempting to properly follow standards defined by recognized experts as best for human physiology, they can contact me privately or make a genuine, sincere comment here. Just no point continuing to argue with someone who just wants to argue, not learn or improve anything/help anyone.

That has nothing to do with anything. People (like you) still locate monitors poorly, sit poofly, etc. That's what the standards are for and why they exist. Not just for people with glasses, for anyone with a human body. Again, you're just desperate to argue as opposed to helping anything. Yup, your opinion. Which you are intentionally making ridiculous, in order to try to denigrate the standards. Ain't gonna work. You actually have to be willing to try to follow the standards (i.e., what you're not doing). Your opinion doesn't seem to work because you don't want it to. A reasonably intelligent person would have no problem at all making the standards work just as in the diagram, if they really wanted to. I explained earlier I could easily make it work. As I said, your goal here appears to be pointless argument, not trying to improve anything.

Nope; that's also opinion, not fact. We covered this already: According to actual, recognized experts, everyone (who has a human body) can benefit from the advantages of proper monitor placement. The point of the standards isn't to help only people with glasses, or only office workers... ...it's to help people who use a computer with a monitor. You're more concerned with argument than with actually trying to improve anything. And you have yet to show any evidence that the standards only apply to office workstations. So that sounds a lot like just another of your opinions.

All opinions, as before. Just kinda pointless. The diagrams can work just fine for screens up to *at least* 55", just as I explained in detail above (with dimensions, at that). You're just trying to make it sound like they don't, to fit your argument, which is total BS. Your opinion is misguided. I don't think anyone "needs" to sit any particular way for a flight sim. Obviously opinion. (Not everyone even *has* pedals, in fact, and that's your reasoning?) Your opinions differ with recognized experts and established standards, even though you continue trying to make them seem like facts. And even though you've been offered countless times to provide references to support your opinions, you've not provided any.

I have no problem with being clear. My problem is with you representing your opinion as fact, as I've already said. "Better" is absolutely a matter of opinion; it's subjective. No one was confused about this before you came along, so if the thread's being derailed that's on you. It was discussed politely and concisely at an earlier point and without conflict (imagine that). Let's look at what I said on the matter earlier: Re: Multifocal v progressive; yessir I believe they're essentially the same thing. 'Multifocal' might be more describing that there *are* multiple refractive indices in the same lens, where 'progressive' would apply more to the nature of the transition between indices...but I believe my optician refers to mine as 'progressives'. I guess it's true to say not all multifocals are progressives, but all progresives are multifocal. I'm literally sprinkling the entire three-sentence paragraph with (at least) four very clear indications that I'm expressing an opinion. And zero conflict or confusion. If it's your opinion, why not express it as "I think it might be better"? Anyhow....as I said previously: Bottom line: The standards are still what they are, regardless of how any of us mounts a monitor. It would further appear that the body of actual experts disagree with your opinion. And in spite of multiple offers for you to present the references that back up your opinions, you've failed to do so. So I think we're done here

What I can see is two different, authoritative sources (one a national association of genuine experts, nonetheless) being referenced with very clear, detailed information (and even pictures)...and you're still arguing about it. I don't know why it should surprise me...but I have to say that this is just remarkable. In any case, it remains that the actual experts who established standards for monitor placement included variants for people wearing multifocal lenses. (Which wouldn't really be necessary if your version of multifocals applied, thus it clearly does not). You said "Multifocal lenses are better for looking at a screen in front of you since the up close correction is across your whole field of vision instead of just along the bottom." Now, if multifocal lenses do as you say, then the monitor placement standards wouldn't need to include variants for those wearing them. Yet they do: nullnull

And I'm absolutely sure that's not accurate (and that's not an opinion). Factual statements are made here quite frequently. You can't even admit you were wrong when presented with factual proof from an authoritative source....wow. Here's another image from the Canadian Association of Optometrists website (https://opto.ca/eye-health-library/multifocal-lenses) null And here we go again...an opinion, being expressed as though it's fact. It's isn't necessarily "better" (that's your opinion), and there was no conflict about this before you started. Well, at least we finally get to the point of establishing that was only your opinion. And since we've established you're not an actual expert in optometry or ergonomic physiology studies...well...

BTW on the question of multifocal lenses (which I actually did describe earlier, if we're not too busy arguing to read...):

You don’t need a degree in optometry to wear eyeglasses and know what they are Yes, but that's not what you do. You go on to represent your opinions on the matter as facts, saying things like "Progressive or bifocal lenses aren’t great for using a PC screen in front of you" and "A better solution would be computer glasses...". These statements sound as if they're expressing fact. Phrases like "arent great" and "would be" are definitive in nature. You represent your opinions as if you were an expert. If that's not what you're doing, then why not say "I think (progressive lenses arent great)" or "in my opinion..." or even "computer glasses might be..." As I said, the standards address wearing various corrective lenses, because it's not only very common, but because it can be accomplished. Wouldn't be that way if the industry agreed with you that it's better to just get computer glasses. So, yet again, we find your opinions represented as fact, yet in stark contrast to what actual experts say.

All of this might be true for you. Not for me, and certainly not for everyone. Among other things some people, myself included, can't wear contacts. And it still doesn't change the standards, nor the fact that I can absolutely and effectively use a monitor even greater than 48" consistently within the standards (yet not touching my knees), *with* a desk that has *more* space, even for gaming...unlike what you've said. I didn't realize you were also an expert in optometry. How foolish of the industry to overlook that it's not appropriate to use a computer if you wear multifocal lenses. If only they had asked you, before they actually created standards specifically for those who wear multifocal lenses. Meanwhile, back in reality... The standards recognize that lots of people wear progressive lenses, and as I said, include variants just for that specific purpose. They wouldn't have been able to do that if it weren't possible, or was going to cause the very problems they set out to correct. Somehow, in spite of your claims, they got it right, without forcing people to tilt their heads back (in fact, specifically avoiding it). While wearing multifical lenses. Imagine that.

Absolutely, it's my pleasure - and thank you Re: Multifocal v progressive; yessir I believe they're essentially the same thing. 'Multifocal' might be more describing that there *are* multiple refractive indices in the same lens, where 'progressive' would apply more to the nature of the transition between indices...but I believe my optician refers to mine as 'progressives'. I guess it's true to say not all multifocals are progressives, but all progresives are multifocal As for the eyesight/aging thing...it also happens I do quite a bit of electronics work, and some of the components are brutally small...I take my glasses off entirely for this. Below is a sample; this is assembled entirely by hand, with no visual aids at all. But for everything else (including gaming), if it's not within about 5-6 inches from my face, I'm fairly blind without glasses lol.