Question Old vet getting back into gaming! need help pc build please

[35below0]

Actually even with the current RTX4000 series as crazy as it is. The only GPU that was actually worth getting was RTX4090 from the beginning. The performance jump between the 90 card and level below is much greater than what it was with previous gen.

Not disagreeing with you on value but there was one other 40XX that was worth the price. But it was the 4060 and for many gamers that GPU would choke on their desired frames/settings so they were forced to open their wallets and buy a higher tier card. With nvidia gleefuly taking the money.

The 4090 was and is indeed the greatest value for the money, unfortunately it is a lot of money. For those who don't need the performance, the 4080 was well overpriced, ditto 4070. A 4060 around $300 is a massive leap over iGPUs and costs about what it should.

This is all ignoring AMD of course, and looking only at nvidias.

As for the OPs budget or wishes, they'd unfortunately fall into that zone of RTX 40XX GPUs where the right choice comes with an exhorbitant price.
And imagine paying that price only to see that within 6 months or a year the new RTX series comes out with miles better price/performance.

So you are correct in arguing that buying a 4090 would still mean having a very powerfull PC with respect to games, once the new cards are out. I thought the OP would not want to spend that much though.
Tricky situation.

 

[King Dranzer]

Not disagreeing with you on value but there was one other 40XX that was worth the price. But it was the 4060 and for many gamers that GPU would choke on their desired frames/settings so they were forced to open their wallets and buy a higher tier card. With nvidia gleefuly taking the money.

The 4090 was and is indeed the greatest value for the money, unfortunately it is a lot of money. For those who don't need the performance, the 4080 was well overpriced, ditto 4070. A 4060 around $300 is a massive leap over iGPUs and costs about what it should.

This is all ignoring AMD of course, and looking only at nvidias.

As for the OPs budget or wishes, they'd unfortunately fall into that zone of RTX 40XX GPUs where the right choice comes with an exhorbitant price.
And imagine paying that price only to see that within 6 months or a year the new RTX series comes out with miles better price/performance.

So you are correct in arguing that buying a 4090 would still mean having a very powerfull PC with respect to games, once the new cards are out. I thought the OP would not want to spend that much though.
Tricky situation.

It will take another 2Yrs after the release of RTX5090 to be dethroned. That is a long time. But here what one need to consider if he goes for lets say RTX4070 he will have to upgrade every gen to keep up with the game requirements. Whereas if he goes for RTX4090 then he can easily skip a generation or two. RTX4090 be around same performance or a bit above what RTX6060 be. Considering that. The total price spend on all the three GPUs be around same as what RTX4090 costs so yeah in this case he only be spending once and will not have to replace the GPU or worry about upgrading stuff repeatedly. Build once and forget kinda deal. Yes so if he gets RTX5090 then he can easily skip upgrading through RTX6000 series RTX7000 series and even RTX8000 series. That is a very long time.

For example the person who purchased RTX2080Ti over RTX2070 in that generation absolutely did the right thing. As he still gets very decent performance out of it without having to upgrade to RTX3070 and then RTX4070. Hence actually saving money in this case as you know how expensive those two were.

 

[helper800]

It will take another 2Yrs after the release of RTX5090 to be dethroned. That is a long time. But here what one need to consider if he goes for lets say RTX4070 he will have to upgrade every gen to keep up with the game requirements. Whereas if he goes for RTX4090 then he can easily skip a generation or two. RTX4090 be around same performance or a bit above what RTX6060 be. Considering that. The total price spend on all the three GPUs be around same as what RTX4090 costs so yeah in this case he only be spending once and will not have to replace the GPU or worry about upgrading stuff repeatedly. Build once and forget kinda deal. Yes so if he gets RTX5090 then he can easily skip upgrading through RTX6000 series RTX7000 series and even RTX8000 series. That is a very long time.

For example the person who purchased RTX2080Ti over RTX2070 in that generation absolutely did the right thing. As he still gets very decent performance out of it without having to upgrade to RTX3070 and then RTX4070. Hence actually saving money in this case as you know how expensive those two were.

I disagree. A 4070 ti super will be fine for at least 2 generations. It is faster than a 3080 ti and has 16gb of VRAM. I am still on a 3080 and can play everything new 60+ fps. It comes down to our definitions of 'playable.' 400-500 fps in esports games is probably good enough for the next 10+ years. A 4090 is only about 60-70% faster than a 4070 ti super, but costs at least double, sometimes more.

 

[artk2219]

"This is all ignoring AMD of course, and looking only at nvidias."

Why would you ignore the only other option around for most people? They have some competitive products in every price range except for against the RTX 4090. Yes there is also Intel, but they can't compete outside of the RTX 4060 range and below.

 

[helper800]

Why would you ignore the only other option around? They have some competitive products in every price range except for against the RTX 4090.

I agree, a 7900 xt could be another great option for a build. Personally, I prefer Nvidia's underlying features. This does come at the cost of feeding the giant and a bit less rasterization speed per dollar spent. I really like DLSS quality, and raytracing when appropriate. FSR is getting very close though, and AMD's raytracing performance is slowly catching Nvidia's. In another couple generations AMD may have performance parity with Nvidia's featureset. Then it will just come down to performance at specific price thresholds, and whatever other features are created from now and then.

 

[King Dranzer]

I disagree. A 4070 ti super will be fine for at least 2 generations. It is faster than a 3080 ti and has 16gb of VRAM. I am still on a 3080 and can play everything new 60+ fps. It comes down to our definitions of 'playable.' 400-500 fps in esports games is probably good enough for the next 10+ years. A 4090 is only about 60-70% faster than a 4070 ti super, but costs at least double, sometimes more.

Nah man it won't work. Absolutely won't work. Go back and look at RTX2070 Super. You be surprised how bad it is in comparison to RTX4070 Super. Then go and compare RTX2080Ti to RTX4070 Super. And then consider the fact of performance difference not being as huge between RTX2070 Super and RTX2080Ti while performance difference being much greater between RTX4070 Super vs RTX4090. That will translate to even greater performance gain or loss depending on the card one chooses now.

Trust me RTX4090 is actually of a great value. And absolutely worth the expenditure. Bur anyhow now with RTX5090 just months away with a good 70% uplift in performance over it. So yeah absolutely be worth it as a long time expenditure and trust me that be the only card that would do fine at 1440p for over a very long period of time without needing an upgrade.

 

[helper800]

Nah man it won't work. Absolutely won't work. Go back and look at RTX2070 Super. You be surprised how bad it is in comparison to RTX4070 Super. Then go and compare RTX2080Ti to RTX4070 Super. And then consider the fact of performance difference not being as huge between RTX2070 Super and RTX2080Ti while performance difference being much greater between RTX4070 Super vs RTX4090. That will translate to even greater performance gain or loss depending on the card one chooses now.

Trust me RTX4090 is actually of a great value. And absolutely worth the expenditure. Bur anyhow now with RTX5090 just months away with a good 70% uplift in performance over it. So yeah absolutely be worth it as a long time expenditure and trust me that be the only card that would do fine at 1440p for over a very long period of time without needing an upgrade.

Again, I disagree. We have a difference in perspectives of what constitutes 'playable' fps. If I get 60 FPS, in whatever game that is playable. Typically I want at least a combination of medium to high settings in my games. A 4070 ti super will be able to do that for at least 4 years even at 3440 x 1440p. Most games are well optimized and will be able to get 100+ fps with those kinds of settings at that resolution.

 

[King Dranzer]

Again, I disagree. We have a difference in perspectives of what constitutes 'playable' fps. If I get 60 FPS, in whatever game that is playable. Typically I want at least a combination of medium to high settings in my games. A 4070 ti super will be able to do that for at least 4 years even at 3440 x 1440p. Most games are well optimized and will be able to get 100+ fps with those kinds of settings at that resolution.

It won't. Possibly another Generation at best man. Not 2 Generations. Even that would get hard for it towards the end. Don't know where you seeing 100fps+ in newer AAA titles. Around 80fps at best. Unless you turn on DLSS which is not a great experience and won't be till NVIDIA comes to its senses and learns and copies from TV manufacturers and the algo they use for up-scaling. I would recommend DLSS only then. But well to be honest with RTX4090 and RTX5090 won't be needing to rely on DLSS.

 

[helper800]

It won't. Possibly another Generation at best man. Not 2 Generations. Even that would get hard for it towards the end. Don't know where you seeing 100fps+ in newer AAA titles. Around 80fps at best. Unless you turn on DLSS which is not a great experience and won't be till NVIDIA comes to its senses and learns and copies from TV manufacturers and the algo they use for up-scaling. I would recommend DLSS only then. But well to be honest with RTX4090 and RTX5090 won't be needing to rely on DLSS.

I can back up my claims with benchmarks. Tom's benchmarks on the matter also backs me up in my assertions. At 1440p the 4070 ti super gets well over 100 fps in most games without DLSS at maximum settings. With DLSS it can get way over 100 FPS especially in conjunction with med to high settings instead. There is definitely some noticeable differences between native resolution and DLSS Quality, however, you will be hard pressed to notice such differences in actual content. The differences are only plainly noticeable when looking at screen shots side-by-side. IMO DLSS Quality is amazing and looks nearly identical to native, especially at higher resolutions.

 

[King Dranzer]

I can back up my claims with benchmarks. Tom's benchmarks on the matter also backs me up in my assertions. At 1440p the 4070 ti super gets well over 100 fps in most games without DLSS at maximum settings. With DLSS it can get way over 100 FPS especially in conjunction with med to high settings instead. There is definitely some noticeable differences between native resolution and DLSS Quality, however, you will be hard pressed to notice such differences in actual content. The differences are only plainly noticeable when looking at screen shots side-by-side. IMO DLSS Quality is amazing and looks nearly identical to native, especially at higher resolutions.

Alan Wake 2, Cyberpunk 2077, Hogwarts Legacy, Starfield all those barely getting 80fps man. Don't know how they getting 100fps+. That is without even Ray-tracing.

And DLSS not great at all and specially at higher resolution as higher resolution also takes us to larger screen size and it is actually very much noticeable on larger screen sizes more than on smaller ones. Like even 32" 4K monitors it is much more noticeable than 1440p 27" monitors. But yeah even at 27" it is noticeable. I seriously wish that they adapted the algo brands like SONY use for their TVs. Man you should compare it to the up-scaling on SONY and then trust me you will agree how bad DLSS actually is.

 

[helper800]

Alan Wake 2, Cyberpunk 2077, Hogwarts Legacy, Starfield all those barely getting 80fps man. Don't know how they getting 100fps+. That is without even Ray-tracing.

That is not correct. Cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p ULTRA settings no RT got 99.6 fps. With Alan wake you are neglecting to say that not even the 4090 got close to 80 fps in the Toms review and that is because of the settings being DLSS off, on High, and ultra RT in a full ray traced game... Neither of the benchmark articles I linked tested Hogwarts legacy and that is probably because it is a unoptimized mess. The 4070 ti super literally averaged over 100 fps for the entire test suite at 1440p in the Toms review.

And DLSS not great at all and specially at higher resolution as higher resolution also takes us to larger screen size and it is actually very much noticeable on larger screen sizes more than on smaller ones. Like even 32" 4K monitors it is much more noticeable than 1440p 27" monitors. But yeah even at 27" it is noticeable. I seriously wish that they adapted the algo brands like SONY use for their TVs. Man you should compare it to the up-scaling on SONY and then trust me you will agree how bad DLSS actually is.

I completely disagree with almost everything said in the above... When DLSS is upscaling to 4k they use 1080p to do the upscaling which means it will look better than if you use a lower resolution screen like 1440p because they use 720p as the base. When you use 720p as a base for upscaling there is more inference that needs to be made to complete a 1440p frame vs 1080p to 4k.

 

[King Dranzer]

That is not correct. Cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p ULTRA settings no RT got 99.6 fps. With Alan wake you are neglecting to say that not even the 4090 got close to 80 fps in the Toms review and that is because of the settings being DLSS off, on High, and ultra RT in a full ray traced game... Neither of the benchmark articles I linked tested Hogwarts legacy and that is probably because it is a unoptimized mess. The 4070 ti super literally averaged over 100 fps for the entire test suite at 1440p in the Toms review.

I completely disagree with almost everything said in the above... When DLSS is upscaling to 4k they use 1080p to do the upscaling which means it will look better than if you use a lower resolution screen like 1440p because they use 720p as the base. When you use 720p as a base for upscaling there is more inference that needs to be made to complete a 1440p frame vs 1080p to 4k.

Going to have to agree to disagree then.

Anyhow no matter what fps RTX4070Ti gets simple fact is that it be needing an upgrade much much sooner than what RTX4090 or even better RTX5090 be needing. At that point one be saving time and hassle to get the GPU replaced. Where the overall cost comes to being the same.

 

[Gururu]

If you go top 3 intel or amd CPU, you should not experience significant CPU bottleneck for a few years unless new games over that time have such AI dependence that everything is uprooted and demand for new cpu architectures blows up. But honestly, it wouldn’t be practical to wait, if there are games now to keep you interested over 1-2 years.

All games available now or coming soon will be very playable with a mid range card at 1080. Not super settings, but I think we have to accept that graphic features queue up faster than cards can catch up. For me, a card that can push smooth play at 1440 with medium high settings would do the trick. It doesn’t make sense to me to be arguing which card is faster with features that wouldn’t be practical anyway. Right now for example, without a 4090 I probably wouldn’t be using Ray tracing and I am not sold on upscaling unless it is completely absent of visual artifacts. I am OCD and visual artifacts have haunted me since my sega master system days. I am just playing WOW these days, so I am delaying a GPU purchase. However, I am looking for something that can do 1440 at medium -high settings in every game for under $400.00, preferably from the new generation. I want to see Intels battlemage cards before I eat a 7800xt or 4070.

I don’t think you can go wrong with a case or motherboard that you like, since you aren’t overclocking. For the motherboard, consider audio quality, Wi-Fi and ram flexibility. Definitely get a SSD, a 850 or more power supply and a highly rated CPU cooler. I would suggest DDR 5 ram as well.

 

[helper800]

Going to have to agree to disagree then.

Anyhow no matter what fps RTX4070Ti gets simple fact is that it be needing an upgrade much much sooner than what RTX4090 or even better RTX5090 be needing. At that point one be saving time and hassle to get the GPU replaced. Where the overall cost comes to being the same.

I can agree to disagree.

With the 4070 ti super being 800 dollars but performing about 60-70% of the 1600-2000 dollar 4090, its clear what is a better value right now. I agree that if you are going to spend 1000-2000 dollars anyways, may as well get much more for your money and wait until the next generation of cards.

 

[35below0]

@edp213 this discussion of RTX 40XX GPUs highlights just how important it is to know the level of GPU performance required. It dictates the level of other key components. The better you know your requirements, the better your build overall + less money wasted.
It also shows why you should start your build with your monitor. That choice determines the resolution and target refresh rate for your games, and makes the choice of GPU much more exact. The GPU sets the bar for the rest of the system: CPU, RAM, PSU and a motherboard to house it all.

I don't want to offer you a build that would be dissapointing, but at the same time i don't want to waste your money on stuff you won't need or enjoy. I tried to build a no compromise PC that would last a long time, but i am still unsure how wide of the mark i was.

As an example, take the games Factorio, Juno/Simple rockets, RimWorld, Sins, HackNet, FTL, Destroy all Humans, Trackmania. Those are some games i played a lot so for me an entry level RTX 4060 is more than enough. And in fact i do own a 4060. Most of the time it is a lazy bastard doing nothing at all. At 2560x1440 /120, the on board graphics the 13600K provides are more than enough for most games mentioned, so the discreete GPU rarely whirrs into life.
Would a 4070 Ti SUPER be good value for me? Yes it maybe would. If i could afford it, it would run more demanding games for many years to come. After scratching my head for a while, i decided i cannot justify the expense. I simply don't need it. But it would be good value.
Anything more expensive would be wasted on me, including a 4090. The 4060-4070 is my limit.

King Dranzer is correct in agruing that a top level GPU like the 4090 would be better value because it would not need to be replaced as often. It would last much longer. It would take years until it started to chugg on recent games. Except for games like Dragon's Dogma or Cities Skyline that can make any hardware cry.
A top-of-the-line GPU can still be a poor value if it's more than is needed.

Part of the problem is that you said you only occassionally play games but when you do, you want them to fly. Unfortunately that requires a more powerfull GPU/machine even though most of the time the power will not be needed.
So what is the limit? If you could explain more precisely how you want your PC to perform, gaming wise, then the advice you get here and the suggested builds will suit you better, and your final purchase will be right on the money. That's the goal.

Why would you ignore the only other option around for most people? They have some competitive products in every price range except for against the RTX 4090. Yes there is also Intel, but they can't compete outside of the RTX 4060 range and below.

Because we were comparing RTX models generation to generation.

 

[helper800]

It is also easy to build a good baseline computer with a graphics card to test on your most demanding games on whatever monitor you buy. You have a 15-30 day return period on any graphics card that you buy for any reason from most outlets. If you get your card from a store with no restocking fees, you are free to find out if a cheaper or more expensive card is right for your monitor and games performance wise.

 

[edp213]

@edp213 this discussion of RTX 40XX GPUs highlights just how important it is to know the level of GPU performance required. It dictates the level of other key components. The better you know your requirements, the better your build overall + less money wasted.
It also shows why you should start your build with your monitor. That choice determines the resolution and target refresh rate for your games, and makes the choice of GPU much more exact. The GPU sets the bar for the rest of the system: CPU, RAM, PSU and a motherboard to house it all.

I don't want to offer you a build that would be dissapointing, but at the same time i don't want to waste your money on stuff you won't need or enjoy. I tried to build a no compromise PC that would last a long time, but i am still unsure how wide of the mark i was.

As an example, take the games Factorio, Juno/Simple rockets, RimWorld, Sins, HackNet, FTL, Destroy all Humans, Trackmania. Those are some games i played a lot so for me an entry level RTX 4060 is more than enough. And in fact i do own a 4060. Most of the time it is a lazy bastard doing nothing at all. At 2560x1440 /120, the on board graphics the 13600K provides are more than enough for most games mentioned, so the discreete GPU rarely whirrs into life.
Would a 4070 Ti SUPER be good value for me? Yes it maybe would. If i could afford it, it would run more demanding games for many years to come. After scratching my head for a while, i decided i cannot justify the expense. I simply don't need it. But it would be good value.
Anything more expensive would be wasted on me, including a 4090. The 4060-4070 is my limit.

King Dranzer is correct in agruing that a top level GPU like the 4090 would be better value because it would not need to be replaced as often. It would last much longer. It would take years until it started to chugg on recent games. Except for games like Dragon's Dogma or Cities Skyline that can make any hardware cry.
A top-of-the-line GPU can still be a poor value if it's more than is needed.

Part of the problem is that you said you only occassionally play games but when you do, you want them to fly. Unfortunately that requires a more powerfull GPU/machine even though most of the time the power will not be needed.
So what is the limit? If you could explain more precisely how you want your PC to perform, gaming wise, then the advice you get here and the suggested builds will suit you better, and your final purchase will be right on the money. That's the goal.



Because we were comparing RTX models generation to generation.

​

It is also easy to build a good baseline computer with a graphics card to test on your most demanding games on whatever monitor you buy. You have a 15-30 day return period on any graphics card that you buy for any reason from most outlets. If you get your card from a store with no restocking fees, you are free to find out if a cheaper or more expensive card is right for your monitor and games performance wise.

You guys made some huge valid points, Starting with a monitor first its a lesson I'll take to heart the second time around, I had no idea it matter that much. The monitor? That is wild, however that does make sense i mean i am seeing what I'm playing to put it from that perspective, Honestly if you were to show me in person I wouldn't know the difference...I'm to ignorant its like speaking another language lol i would need to compare both screens, I never had that kind of luxury to try out different monitors to see the difference enough, Its something i need to understand and educate myself with , I don't understand numbers to well like ms, mhz now i have some knowledge of them thanks to you guys. Still its a learning process ! If you guys want to shoot to me all kind of monitors I'm curious to look further into them. Which is consider the best? or the "worst" or cheap but still good or expensive but i guess is worth it? haha

For me I love ARPG, My favorite path of exile, diablo series and fallout, wasteland, sport video games like mma/boxing, football, and basketball, soccer also heck wrestling to throw that out there lol

I'm still deciding on a gpu however with some comments telling me i should wait i'm contemplating maybe stick with my 1060 or atleast upgrade to a 7800xt since they are below the price range but man the 4060-70-90 caught my mind i want to play stuff like COD and such but i'm terrible in fps lol

 

[helper800]

​

You guys made some huge valid points, Starting with a monitor first its a lesson I'll take to heart the second time around, I had no idea it matter that much. The monitor? That is wild, however that does make sense i mean i am seeing what I'm playing to put it from that perspective, Honestly if you were to show me in person I wouldn't know the difference...I'm to ignorant its like speaking another language lol i would need to compare both screens, I never had that kind of luxury to try out different monitors to see the difference enough, Its something i need to understand and educate myself with , I don't understand numbers to well like ms, mhz now i have some knowledge of them thanks to you guys. Still its a learning process ! If you guys want to shoot to me all kind of monitors I'm curious to look further into them. Which is consider the best? or the "worst" or cheap but still good or expensive but i guess is worth it? haha

For me I love ARPG, My favorite path of exile, diablo series and fallout, wasteland, sport video games like mma/boxing, football, and basketball, soccer also heck wrestling to throw that out there lol

I'm still deciding on a gpu however with some comments telling me i should wait i'm contemplating maybe stick with my 1060 or atleast upgrade to a 7800xt since they are below the price range but man the 4060-70-90 caught my mind i want to play stuff like COD and such but i'm terrible in fps lol

I would get something like a 4060 ti or a 7700 XT if you are going to be buying a temporary graphics card. If you are going to keep the 1060 to save the hassle of selling a temporary card later just know that not all games are going to run well at anything above 1080p resolution unless you set the settings to med and force the resolution.

Are you anywhere near the Tustin Microcenter? There are tons of monitors setup in there to compare between them. There are also curved and flat screen monitors. The curves tend to vary between slightly curved (1800r) and very curved (800r). In my opinion QD-OLED and typical OLED panels are the best performers all round, but they are some of the most expensive. They have the best colors as well as being some of the most color accurate, best contrast levels (blacker blacks in comparison to the brightest whites), they have the fastest pixel response times and very little input lag, and can now be found in a large variety of resolutions and forms. The one clear drawback is that they can get what is called "burn-in" if you let bright persistent images stay on the screen for many hours. There are tons of ways to mitigate this issue into being a non-issue. Most OLED monitors come with a warranty of 1-3 years that cover burn-in as an issue.

The other common panel technologies include TN (twisted nematic), VA (Vertical alignment), and IPS (In-Plane Switching). Check out those links for more in depth explanations.

The main takeaway is that you should buy a monitor you are willing to spend the money on that you think looks great. If there is anything wrong with a panel when you receive it, return it for another of the same. There are many panel defects that are common with completely new in-box monitors like, dead pixels, light-bleed, IPS glow, dirty screen effect, high brightness variability across different portions of the screen, color banding, and many, many more.

Buy the monitor for the graphics card you ultimately get later, not for the graphics card you use in the meantime. Meaning, even if your temporary graphics card is weak for the resolution you want, prioritize the monitor you get initially while you wait for the more powerful upcoming cards come out.

 

[King Dranzer]

​

You guys made some huge valid points, Starting with a monitor first its a lesson I'll take to heart the second time around, I had no idea it matter that much. The monitor? That is wild, however that does make sense i mean i am seeing what I'm playing to put it from that perspective, Honestly if you were to show me in person I wouldn't know the difference...I'm to ignorant its like speaking another language lol i would need to compare both screens, I never had that kind of luxury to try out different monitors to see the difference enough, Its something i need to understand and educate myself with , I don't understand numbers to well like ms, mhz now i have some knowledge of them thanks to you guys. Still its a learning process ! If you guys want to shoot to me all kind of monitors I'm curious to look further into them. Which is consider the best? or the "worst" or cheap but still good or expensive but i guess is worth it? haha

For me I love ARPG, My favorite path of exile, diablo series and fallout, wasteland, sport video games like mma/boxing, football, and basketball, soccer also heck wrestling to throw that out there lol

I'm still deciding on a gpu however with some comments telling me i should wait i'm contemplating maybe stick with my 1060 or atleast upgrade to a 7800xt since they are below the price range but man the 4060-70-90 caught my mind i want to play stuff like COD and such but i'm terrible in fps lol

When it comes to monitor. As @helper800 mentioned above QD-OLED and OLED are considered the Best. But there is the catch. It comes down to room conditions with them. As if you play in bright room conditions then WOLED Monitors with their Matte finish be a better choice over QD-OLED as in bright room conditions on QD-OLEDs the blacks get lifted and you get magenta tint. So won't get the best experience. In dark room conditions if you play in light controlled dark room then nothing beats QD-OLED get Alienware AW2725DF. Also QD-OLED monitors usually ship with 3Yr Burn-in coverage. WOLED I think only ASUS is covering it for now and Corsair(but please don't purchase Corsair one not great processing). But yes purchase the WOLED monitors from BestBuy and pay for GeekSquad warranty which is $100-150 more. Yes only go for 1440p 27" monitors stick to flat panel ones. No 4K. Not worth it specially if you want to go on without needing to upgrade anything over a very long period of time.

On the low end I say look at AOC Q27G3XMN. You test out how the experience of 1440p gonna be. But seriously you can skip it and go for OLED or QD-OLED directly. Not worth spending on low end product just to test it out and return it.

For GPU. I still would like to see you get RTX5090 when it releases in combo of 1440p monitor and be absolutely set for a good 6-8Yrs easy without worrying about upgrading anything at all.

But well that covers it up.

 

[helper800]

With the QD-OLEDs you need to be in a very bright room for the not quite black colors to show. If you were to look at a QD-OLED in a store that is lit well it would be very hard to notice the slightly not black color on black content. This is easy to test because almost every bestbuy or super store with a TV section has TVs with QD-OLED panels. You can go check one out in those well lit stores to see if that is a deal breaker for you.

 

[King Dranzer]

With the QD-OLEDs you need to be in a very bright room for the not quite black colors to show. If you were to look at a QD-OLED in a store that is lit well it would be very hard to notice the slightly not black color on black content. This is easy to test because almost every bestbuy or super store with a TV section has TVs with QD-OLED panels. You can go check one out in those well lit stores to see if that is a deal breaker for you.

Actually coating on the Monitors is kinda worse than the TVs man. I was surprised. But yeah still. Would like to have as much less light hitting it as possible. Even with only internal lighting the tint is visible. And if OP has the habit of letting in natural light during day time. Then yes that be done for. Actually many people have the habit to have natural light let in during the day time.

 

[helper800]

Actually coating on the Monitors is kinda worse than the TVs man. I was surprised. But yeah still. Would like to have as much less light hitting it as possible. Even with only internal lighting the tint is visible. And if OP has the habit of letting in natural light during day time. Then yes that be done for. Actually many people have the habit to have natural light let in during the day time.

I have personally never seen the issue and have perused many QD-OLEDs in stores. Maybe I just didn't notice. The Alienware QD-OLEDs have a glossy finish and I think there are some QD-OLEDs by MSI, ASUS, AOC, and otherwise that have matte finishes on their panels. Personally, I dislike matte finishes because it makes the image look grainy. Up until recently, the only finish common on monitors was matte. I have an LG CX 55" and it looks amazing and I think part of the reason is the glossy finish.

 

[King Dranzer]

I have personally never seen the issue and have perused many QD-OLEDs in stores. Maybe I just didn't notice. The Alienware QD-OLEDs have a glossy finish and I think there are some QD-OLEDs by MSI, ASUS, AOC, and otherwise that have matte finishes on their panels. Personally, I dislike matte finishes because it makes the image look grainy. Up until recently, the only finish common on monitors was matte. I have an LG CX 55" and it looks amazing and I think part of the reason is the glossy finish.

All the QD-OLEDs are Glossy and WOLEDs are Matte with 1 or 2 exceptions. Need to check if SAMSUNG Odyssey model is Glossy or Matte. The Dough has WOLED with Gloss finish but I think that is using 2nd Gen MLA Panel and not the latest 3rd Gen.

Edit: Don't buy Dough Monitor. Very bad consumer feedback and lot many issues with its services. Purchase from established brands only.

 

[35below0]

Nothing wrong with VA panels imo. Curved or not, as it's a matter of taste.
VA panels don't cost an arm and a leg, have excellent contrast and generally perform well in lit or dark rooms. Their weakness is "washout" that happens when viewing the screen at an angle. To that i say i watch my screen from the front so washout doesn't bother me.

IPS panels and OLEDs do not have this problem but IPSs cannot match the contrast and OLEDs cost more.

Do not jump straight to the top end of the monitor market without studying what the VA/IPS offer. They have been more or less the standard for a long time and only now are OLEDs starting to come down in price.

Shop around. You'll find something to your liking and budget.


As for a cheap interim card, i'd either sit on the fence with just the iGPU or pickup a 4060. Not Ti as it's not worth the money. A 4060 for ~$280 is cheap enough to not be a waste.
Since it's an entry level GPU, it will be a nice comparison with the 50XX generation.

 

[King Dranzer]

Nothing wrong with VA panels imo. Curved or not, as it's a matter of taste.
VA panels don't cost an arm and a leg, have excellent contrast and generally perform well in lit or dark rooms. Their weakness is "washout" that happens when viewing the screen at an angle. To that i say i watch my screen from the front so washout doesn't bother me.

IPS panels and OLEDs do not have this problem but IPSs cannot match the contrast and OLEDs cost more.

Do not jump straight to the top end of the monitor market without studying what the VA/IPS offer. They have been more or less the standard for a long time and only now are OLEDs starting to come down in price.

Shop around. You'll find something to your liking and budget.


As for a cheap interim card, i'd either sit on the fence with just the iGPU or pickup a 4060. Not Ti as it's not worth the money. A 4060 for ~$280 is cheap enough to not be a waste.
Since it's an entry level GPU, it will be a nice comparison with the 50XX generation.

Well OLED Picture quality is so crazy good that if one can afford it then no need to look anywhere else. Because be it IPS or VA even with Mini-LED don't even come close to OLED level of contrast and picture quality. If OP can afford it then no need to look into other stuff at all. As they won't even be close. Specially QD-OLED is crazy good(with only one set-back we mentioned above). Even WOLED with 3rd Gen MLA panel is good.

Only if one can absolutely not afford it. Only then look at lower end stuff. But then go way low and save money. If you can spend anywhere close just go for OLED monitors. They are simply that good.