Taking the plunge into triples...

[Alex Townsend]

As the title reads my learned sim racing brethren.

I'm taking the plunge into triples. I've debated VR, Ultrawide vs Triples in my head for what seems like years now.

I'm running a R7 3800x with a RTX 2070 super
Titles mostly played are, ACC and rF2 with a little Raceroom here and there

Questions are;

What are decent 27 inch monitors for racing?
What is the maximum refresh rate above 60 that I could get without lowering graphical quality too much?
Any strong recommendations for make/model from users with similar set up?

I've been looking at the 144hz Acer Nitro VG270p monitors so far.

TIA gang!

 

[2stains]

I'm about to do the same having been a 4k single screen user and VR user I've now decided to go triples also!
Triple 1080p is 6 million odd pixels and 4k single is 8 million odd and my 1080ti can't do ACC at 4k without dropping shadows to High and resolution scale to 85% so my thinking is I should be able to max out ACC at 6 million pixels and still get 60 fps comfortably.
rF2 on the other hand is easy at 4k max so would be pushing 100 odd fps for my 1080ti.
I think I'm getting these https://www.pccasegear.com/products...MI8ff_8Lj15gIV0Q0rCh32cgMmEAUYAiABEgIqaPD_BwE and I think they have the same panel as that Nitro you said you were looking at.

I debated 1440p monitors but with 11 million pixels I'd be up for a new GPU just to get 60 fps so at 27" 1080p has the same PPI (82) as a 55" 4k screen (use a 40"4k monitor atm with 110 ppi) and I used a Sony 55" 4k TV for a while and it looked crisp enough for me.
Hardware Unboxed did a video recently showing the best 27" IPS panels, that's where I found the LG I linked.

 

[Alex Townsend]

I'm trying to future proof a bit too. So the 144hz monitors could maybe be powered by the next GPU at some point in the future

 

[Kieran527]

What’s the budget?
I was convinced I was going Acer KG271C monitors, very good for the money, they can be had for less than 200 each. But I’ve decided on the AOC 32G1 monitors, they’ve been as low as 200 each, I’m just waiting for them to hit that again.
With the research I’ve done I can’t find better monitors for that price point.

 

[Alex Townsend]

Thanks @Kieran527 I'll check those out
Edit, they're very expensive out here. The Acer monitors I was looking at are nearly half the price here. I guess it depends greatly on what part of the world we're all in ...

 

[Emery]

What is the maximum refresh rate above 60 that I could get without lowering graphical quality too much?

With a 2070 Super, I'd expect 70-100 fps range at triple 1080p multiview. Triple 1440p is going to be rough without a 2080ti.

If you're interested in future-proofing, have you considered triple 4k and, for now, running at triple 1080p? It's definitely no problem to run the desktop at triple 4k. Note that I'm not a fan of 4k on anything less than a 40" screen as it's a waste of pixels, but, if you have to, running 1080p will look lots better on a 4k monitor than a 1440p monitor.

 

[2stains]

Triple 4k! **** how long into the future do you want your monitors to be useful! We will be several GPU generations away from running 25 million pixels at anything of a playable framerate, lol by then just imagine the monitors we could have.

 

[2stains]

KG271C

A TN panel? No way. Has to be at least VA otherwise viewing angles suffer too much don't they?

 

[Denis Betty]

I've seen vids where 100Hz is shown to be a significant advantage over 60Hz on FPS games. Also a vid where a guy claims to show that he can see the difference in 100Hz, 120Hz and 144Hz on FPS games. But I'd like to see empirical evidence that 144Hz is shown to be of some benefit in racing sims. Lots of people say it's smoother,etc, but I haven't yet seen it tested in any way.

I'm not saying that you can't see the difference, because I've never tried 144Hz monitors. I've recently dropped from 120Hz single to 60Hz triples and the refresh rate has not really been a factor in my enjoyment of sim racing so far. I had quite bad screen tearing at first, but I fixed that with Riva Tuner.

So, for clarity, please can somebody point me to a link that will convince me that I would benefit significantly from 144Hz monitors. I'm honestly not saying that there's no benefit, just that I personally haven't seen it yet. When added to the cost of a machine to run triples at 144Hz and the cost of the monitors themselves, I just wonder about how practical 144Hz triples really are at this point in time? I'm not poking a wasp nest just for fun, I just would genuinely like to see good evidence that there is a tangible benefit.

I guess I could just Google it, but I'm asking for the sake of conversation and hoping to add to the discussion.

Cheers

 

[Kieran527]

A TN panel? No way. Has to be at least VA otherwise viewing angles suffer too much don't they?

show me a VA panel in that price point with similar specs.
it’s all about compromise unless you dont have a budget

realistically as well, from our sim perspective, we have fixed seats at set distance from fixed monitors, so our viewing angles stay the same and it’s not something we have to worry about. But to be used in a more universal manner, then the viewing angles would come into account.

 

[2stains]

show me a VA panel in that price point with similar specs.
it’s all about compromise unless you dont have a budget

realistically as well, from our sim perspective, we have fixed seats at set distance from fixed monitors, so our viewing angles stay the same and it’s not something we have to worry about. But to be used in a more universal manner, then the viewing angles would come into account.

https://www.amazon.com/AOC-C27G1-Frameless-DisplayPort-Adjustable/dp/B07GD5XG5G

 

[Emery]

So, for clarity, please can somebody point me to a link that will convince me that I would benefit significantly from 144Hz monitors.

I think the real benefit of 144 Hz is they are always Freesync or G-Sync. At lower price points, you'll find 75 Hz monitors that are also Freesync or G-Sync.

A decade ago, we all started aiming for stable 120 fps in order to use 3D glasses so each eye would be presented with 60 Hz refresh. That fell by the wayside for various reasons (graphic capabilities that lowered fps faster than the GPUs improved fps and the advent of VR goggles). Strangely, if I understand it correctly, VR goggles have mostly settled on 90 fps to achieve 45 Hz refresh for each eye.

I don't have a link, but 90 Hz refresh is around where the majority of the population stop seeing benefits from higher refresh rate. As old as I am (57), I definitely see a benefit at 75 Hz over 60 Hz, but haven't tested myself at higher rates.

 

[Kieran527]

https://www.amazon.com/AOC-C27G1-Frameless-DisplayPort-Adjustable/dp/B07GD5XG5G

so you didn’t see me mention the c32g1

 

[Alex Townsend]

I'm about to do the same having been a 4k single screen user and VR user I've now decided to go triples also!
Triple 1080p is 6 million odd pixels and 4k single is 8 million odd and my 1080ti can't do ACC at 4k without dropping shadows to High and resolution scale to 85% so my thinking is I should be able to max out ACC at 6 million pixels and still get 60 fps comfortably.
rF2 on the other hand is easy at 4k max so would be pushing 100 odd fps for my 1080ti.
I think I'm getting these https://www.pccasegear.com/products...MI8ff_8Lj15gIV0Q0rCh32cgMmEAUYAiABEgIqaPD_BwE and I think they have the same panel as that Nitro you said you were looking at.

I debated 1440p monitors but with 11 million pixels I'd be up for a new GPU just to get 60 fps so at 27" 1080p has the same PPI (82) as a 55" 4k screen (use a 40"4k monitor atm with 110 ppi) and I used a Sony 55" 4k TV for a while and it looked crisp enough for me.
Hardware Unboxed did a video recently showing the best 27" IPS panels, that's where I found the LG I linked.

Just to advise I couldn't open that link, states 404 forbidden...
What monitors make and model are they and I'll do a google.

 

[Alex Townsend]

Main thing is that I can get a good stable refresh rate at 1080p, I'm not looking for 4k triples for racing. Although if they were capable of 4k that would be a bonus for different titles on a single screen at some times... which I must admit is rare.

 

[Jason Mullin]

I just purchased an Acer Predator 27” 2560x1440 144hz from amazon for $450.

I’ve had a few ultra wide IPS panels from 2560x1080 to recently 3440x1440. The 1080 pixel density on a 34” was terrible, the 34” 1440 was of course better but nothing I’ve had balanced performance and looks better than 1440 on a 27”

I know it’s a tall order but I’m going to buy two more of these predators they’re that good.
I was heavily considering waiting for Samsung G9 to arrive but really want to get on with my new rig.

 

[Emery]

the 34” 1440 was of course better but nothing I’ve had balanced performance and looks better than 1440 on a 27”

Uhm, isn't the height of a wide screen 34" the same as a 27" 16:9, in which case 1440 is the same? If there is a difference, it certainly isn't as large as the difference between 1080 and 1440.

Checking two different random monitors, the 1440 21:9 34" pixels are .2325mm and the 1440 16:9 27" pixels are 0.2331mm... so the 34" 21:9 is merely an extra wide 27" monitor. Hmm, in my random sample, the 27" pixels are 5% larger, so if anything, the 34" 21:9 panel should be sharper.

 

[Jason Mullin]

Uhm, isn't the height of a wide screen 34" the same as a 27" 16:9, in which case 1440 is the same? If there is a difference, it certainly isn't as large as the difference between 1080 and 1440.

Checking two different random monitors, the 1440 21:9 34" pixels are .2325mm and the 1440 16:9 27" pixels are 0.2331mm... so the 34" 21:9 is merely an extra wide 27" monitor. Hmm, in my random sample, the 27" pixels are 5% larger, so if anything, the 34" 21:9 panel should be sharper.

Yes it is the same height, difference in picture must be in the manufacturers panel. Both ultrawides were LG, the 27" 16:9 Acer clarity and colors look much better to my eyes.
The biggest difference though is the Acer 144hz. The LG UMP 34 could do up to 75hz, the LG 3440x1440 was limited to 60hz.

 

[Jason Mullin]

So, for clarity, please can somebody point me to a link that will convince me that I would benefit significantly from 144Hz monitors.

I can't convince anyone to spend a considerable amount more for 144hz, but I can say after years of sim racing at 60/75hz the jump to 144hz is noticeable. Not so much in picture quality but the smoothness of gsync is just something you need to experience with your eyes.

Here's some light reading with others saying the same.

Which monitor for Racing Sim?

Hello, now after years of enjoying and actually using my HP w2207h for my photography job I want to put it into my office while I need a monitor for gaming or to be more precise Assetto Corsa since its the only game I play besides Pro Pinball Ultra and Battletech. Since my old one uses 60 hz I...

www.racedepartment.com

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go max out a credit card to run these predators above 100fps.

 

[Denis Betty]

Thanks @Jason Mullin but I was asking for empirical evidence. Something scientific(ish), or at least something more than hearsay and opinion. I've seen enough to be fairly convinced that there is significant improvement from 60Hz to 100Hz, although as I said earlier, I recently dropped from 120Hz to 60Hz and I haven't found this to be a problem. Unfortunately I don't see many 100Hz monitors with Freesynch on the market, so it would be 75Hz if I were to upgrade I guess.