Recent content by Desert Fish

  1. D

    Corsair 45WQHD240 ultrawide 45” 1440p 240Hz OLED with LG panel

    Holy frak. Even if it's slightly worse then the AW3423, I'll take it. If I can afford it, that is. This isn't going to be cheap. Also, 1440p at this size is crappy, but at least I won't need scaling.
  2. D

    Samsung Odyssey ARK 55" 4K Gaming monitor

    Ironic considering your user name. ;) I have been using one of the 27" monitors at work in portrait mode an am comfortable with it. Distance is also an important factor, I am planning on about 0.8 m from my eyes. Still, putting it as far down as it goes and angling it up will probably be a must...
  3. D

    LG UltraWide 40WP95C-W 39.7" 21:9 Curved FreeSync 5K2K (5120 x 2160) HDR IPS @ 72 Hz

    Also, scaling (games) becomes less noticeable as the effective pixel density gets higher. My main issue with this monitor is actually that it's not curved enough.
  4. D

    Samsung Odyssey ARK 55" 4K Gaming monitor

    Assuming reasonable quality and price, I'll buy it for sure unless a comparable OLED is announced in the mean time. The curve is a must-have for me, and 34" is getting too small.
  5. D

    Why ultrawide? Curved?

    I'm 99% sure there aren't any. OP seems to be confused.
  6. D

    LG 48CX

    To reduce sample-and-hold motion blur, which has nothing to do with variable vs fixed refresh rate. Read more on if you are interested.
  7. D

    How much better do you consider gaming at native resolution?

    What's wrong with the 32" QHD? Going by my experiences, 34" FHD is fine, but seems like a downgrade. It's also slightly smaller (area).
  8. D

    Samsung Odyssey: 49" 5120x1440, 240 Hz, HDR1000

    I really don't like the aspect ratio, I would greatly prefer "regular" ~2.38:1. Still, this sweetie would have to be seriously flawed for me to not buy it. The combination of size and curvature seems awesome, way ahead of the competition.
  9. D

    1680x1050 but larger?

    You may also want to consider 27" 1440p with 125% scaling. That should be equivalent to 87 DPI without scaling, but with sharper, non-pixelated text.
  10. D

    34" useless after windows scaling?

    Personally I find 125% scaling to be comfortable with 3440x1440. If fitting more on the screen is the only reason for upgrading, I would suggest to find a way to see such a display for yourself.
  11. D

    Do any of you prefer 27" 1080p over 24"?

    I would suggest to use scaling. That's what I do. I have some issues with a few applications in Linux that don't scale right, but the crispness more than weighs up for that.
  12. D

    LG 25UM5x - black sheep of the UWs

    I don't get it. Why not go for 29" or 30" at a greater distance? And why would you want so little vertical display area?
  13. D

    Every Monitor Sucks

    Interesting perspectives, so different from my own. 2.5K at 27" is all the pixel density I want, and would be happy with less. Way too small, though. And 32" is also unacceptably small.
  14. D

    32" 16:9 monitor too big for Gaming?

    Umm... 24" 1080p is exactly the same pixel density as 32" 1440p. Also the same as 48" 4k. As far as I'm concerned, 4k without scaling is totally impractical, regardless of display size.