gmaverick019 said:
steelbom said:
it's all good and fine that you want that 27 inch monitor 1440p, but yeah..you must be going off the most expensive price on the market for a 23" 1080p
(this is LED too, mind you)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009315
^it goes on sale like once a month two, i got my grandparents 2 of those for 220 bucks total, that's right, two of them.
so yeah, just saying, your price is a bit construed on your 23 inch there..otherwise not gonna argue the other stuff.
I think the argument that he, and i was getting at earlier, is that most things don't have native for, or don't make things that support 1440p for mainstream use. yeah you can stretch it and maximize all you want for more space, but when it comes to games, that won't make a lick of difference, playing games at 1080 with higher frame rates is better than playing a game on a 1440p monitor with medium settings, the 400 dollar gpu would just be matching the 1080p monitors ability, rather than bottlenecking it with worse framerates/graphics. (i used to have 720p monitor for a while, i was doing about 1.5x the amount of frame rates for it that i am on my 1080p right now) (but as you've stated, your imac is not a gaming rig first and foremost, so not a big deal.)
Ah well I wasn't taking into account sales or anything.
Freechoice said:
Actual quality of the display itself? As in the physical appearance? Or are you talking about TN vs. IPS?
Of course not, I'm talking about colour quality and uniformity, brightness and constrast uniformity, and yes viewing angles as well.
Part of me doesn't believe you actually know what you're talking about. I don't know anyone that actively strives to get 120 FPS on something like Battlefield 3. If you assumed that had anything to do with the refresh rate, it doesn't.
And no, it's not subjective. Go onto a tech forum and ask. A higher refresh rate means you get smoother images.
You can't hear shit, he's getting ridiculous FPS, the temperature is nominal and it looks so fucking smooth.
Are you kidding me?! That's the whole point of a 120Hz display is so that you can see 120 FPS rather than just 60 as is the case with a 60Hz display and that's why everything is much smoother. If you're not getting 120 FPS then you're not fully utilizing the display, and if you're only getting 60 FPS then you're not getting any benefit from it whatsoever.
That's not what I said, I said that whether a 27 inch 1440p is better than a 23 inch 120Hz is subjective.
Oh and a 6990 sounds like an air bus, yet alone two of them. It just doesn't come across as loud as it is because it's on a video, and it's recorded at a distance too. Look at the bottom of this review of it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4209/amds-radeon-hd-6990-the-new-single-card-king/18, it's recorded at 70 dBA -- that's insanely loud, and now put two of them together and you get a jet. I'm talking about 20 dBA which is near silence.
You do get that the difference between a decent monitor and what you want is the cost of the rig itself, right? That's what I say is stupid. In fact, what you just said is applicable against you. What you're talking about is something that will work just as well for a smaller price tag. If I had the desire to play Crysis 2 at 60 FPS and I wanted to get a 580GTX for 450 and someone told me I could get the same result with a 280 for half the cost, the desire to play Crysis 2 at 60 FPS has been satisfied for less money.
I don't care about how high I can get my FPS. I still use a 9600GT from like 4 years ago because the damn thing still runs what I need very well. I built my current setup for like 750 bucks and that was a while ago.
You see, I value my money and don't waste it on superfluous crap that doesn't actually help me game better. I'm seeing you brag about Apple (which is the first sign of a hipster) and I'm saying to myself "this is a tool right here." That guy with the Power Rangers villain for an avatar could probably build you a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar superior PC than what you think Apple is rolling out and do it for like half the cost. How do I know this? Because I've done custom work on my PC. I've looked at the prices for Macs and their upgrade parts. I remembered all the memes about Apple products being the toys for people with more money than sense.
No it isn't, the rig I want to build costs $1400 not $800. Yet my desire isn't to play Crysis 2 at 60 FPS, it's to play Crysis 2 on a nice big display and that's going to cost money, I've done it before and it's well worth it. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be going back to it now would I?
That's great for you then, but that doesn't suit me. I have different needs than what you do.
I don't waste my money either. I've already told you several times that I want a big display because it's more immersive and I like it, yet you continually say it doesn't improve anything -- how would you even know if you've never owned one? I wasn't bragging about Apple either.
I could build myself a much more powerful rig than the iMac Apple will be releasing, and I'm an Apple enthusiast and I know the prices of all the Macs, and I know how much they've improved in that area over the last couple of years. Any upgrades you purchase from Apple are heavily over priced, but the stock systems themselves are great.
You somehow think you're going to get a value for an all-in-one deal and deluding yourself into believing that having a mac is a worthwhile venture.
Think about this. You somehow believe that a yet to be revealed mac is going to be able to outdo a custom built PC at a competitive price even though it's been historically true that desktops released by Apple are more expensive than their competitors while still being of equivalent power. How do they make money off of this? If the whole setup has a 2k price tag, 1k for the monitor and 450 for the card (which is the price I found by looking up 7970), that means they only get 550 dollars profit if you discount the RAM, the motherboard and everything else. Where does the profit get generated?
If anything, the thing is probably going to cost you 2.5k or more. You are the only person defending this here and it's not because we're all Windows supremacists. It's because we know what the fuck we're talking about.
You're doing an awful lot of assuming about me, and I don't even think you know anything about Apple, 120Hz displays, or 1440p displays whatsoever. I wasn't even talking about Macs in my last couple of replies to you, only using a 27 inch 1440p display for gaming so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up now.
Do explain to me how I'm deluding myself into believing that a Mac is a worthwhile venture?
I need a Mac for work. And I prefer OS X to Windows. I like the form factor, I like that it's silent, and I get the display I want which is great for everything I do -- work, casual use, and gaming. On top of that the hardware itself is powerful enough to handle everything I throw at it. If I had the money, I'd spend $1500 on my dream rig and then hook up a $900-$1000 27 inch 1440p display to it but I don't. So I'll sell my current iMac and then fork over another $1k to pickup the iMac.
Where does the profit come from? Do you really expect Apple is paying retail for these? Hardly. And where did you get that $2.5k figure from? The current 27 inch iMac starts at $1999 and it's been that way for several years now, continually offering better hardware each year.
>>>>>
I've never said that an iMac is a better choice if you want to game but it is capable of gaming if you want what it offers, and it suits me very well for what I need. And yes it'll cost you near $1k to throw together a decent rig with a 7870 and a i5 3570, display aside. But obviously you've got the ability to upgrade those parts easily, choose a smaller display which might suit you better, or invest more in specific aspects of your rig to get exactly what you want, all major pro's to doing your own custom rig, but for me, personally, the iMac is more than suitable.
