avi8tir

Best monitor for P3D?

Recommended Posts

I asked this question a while back. I want to see if anything new/different has come into the market. 

I currently have an Acer Xr34. I've had it for 3.5 years now so I'd like to go 4k --- I think. I had considered the BenQ PD3200U in the past. 

Building a brand new 9900k / RTx 2080 Ti system so should be able to handle most anything.

Suggestions?

 

FYI, my gaming is 75% P3D, 25% call of duty type games. 

Edited by avi8tir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

If you have room, a 42-55 inch 4K TV as a display makes P3D a completely different experience.  Been using one on my dedicated simming machine for 3-4 years now.  I've never played FPS games on it.

Do some research, though...you can't just hook up any old 4K TV and get good results.  The technology has been changing rapidly--features change a lot from model year to model year--so make sure your info is current.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi !

I completely concur with what Bob says. I run a Philips 43" 4K display as main display and a secondary 21" side display for the various addons. Immersion is a killer ! And the RTX handles it very well. The improvement in FPS was quite noticeable over my previous GTX 1080 (non Ti).

I also love to play city builders like Cities Skylines and Civilization 6 on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your RTX 2080Ti is a perfect choice for 4K but 9900k is not a good choice for P3D as P3D does not make use of HT a 9700K is far better suited as it has no HT runs cooler and a pre-binned 9700k @5.1 is 40% cheaper than a 9900k at the same speed. 9900k is frankly a bad choice for P3D/DCS. P3D likes the fastest clock speed possible, not HT.

Look at Bob Scott signature, the guy knows what he is talking about and look what CPU he went for a super-fast/overclocked 8086k again no HT.

Have a read here.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-9700k-9th-gen-cpu,5876-9.html

Edited by Nyxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

super-fast/overclocked 8086k again no HT.

Pretty sure the 8086K has HT. :biggrin:  Of course the 9700K is lacking in one particular area... it has 12MB of cache while the 9900K has 16MB.

Greg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please... Read the topic title guys!  Its about monitor selection, NOT about CPU choice!  With these posts, this thread turns into 15+ pages of CPU and HT on/off debate. 

Respectfully submitted.  I’m in the market for a new monitor too & thats what I want to read about....

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

9900k is frankly a bad choice for P3D/DCS. P3D likes the fastest clock speed possible, not HT.

I have a 9900K without HT. HT is always an option - check the BIOS. you can turn it on and off. HT useful for those processors with 4 cores or less, but otherwise it can impose an overhead you don't want, as well as more heat.

My 9900K is running at 5.5GHz, with the cache at 5.0GHz and DRAM at 3.6GHz. Mind you, I am using liquid cooling with an external cooling system attached! 😉

Sorry, no monitor or TV here -- three projectors and a 210 degree FOV curved screen! 😉

Pete

 

Edited by Pete Dowson
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a 4K TV at least 55". I have a Samsung serie 7 and it is the best investment I done for my flightsimming. It is like have 4 x 27" 1920-1080 in front of you.

I am sitting 100 cm away from the screen and it is crystal clear.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Your RTX 2080Ti is a perfect choice for 4K but 9900k is not a good choice for P3D as P3D does not make use of HT a 9700K is far better suited as it has no HT runs cooler and a pre-binned 9700k @5.1 is 40% cheaper than a 9900k at the same speed. 9900k is frankly a bad choice for P3D/DCS. P3D likes the fastest clock speed possible, not HT.

Look at Bob Scott signature, the guy knows what he is talking about and look what CPU he went for a super-fast/overclocked 8086k again no HT.

Have a read here.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-9700k-9th-gen-cpu,5876-9.html

First, to the topic at hand--if you go with a regular smallish computer monitor (27" and below) I think the current 3rd-generation G-Sync is simply awesome.  I just built a second portable machine, for travelling.  I put a 24" Dell S2417DG G-Sync monitor on it, and it's really made a believer out of me.  With P3D on the 4K TV I run 30Hz refresh rate, with VSync on and unlimited frame rate set in the sim.  Very, very smooth.  With FSX on the travel PC, I run 29fps frame rate lock in the sim, with no VSync and G-Sync enabled in Windows.  Also super smooth, with no tearing--and the stuttering that used to accompany frame rate slowdowns together with VSync is pretty much gone.  Also, the G-Sync works as-advertised at frame rates well below the 30fps mark...when it slows down into the 20s in heavy scenery, there is no stuttering.  There is a lot of old wisdom that suggests G-Sync does not work at low frame rates...that old wisdom pretty clearly no longer applies with the current monitors sporting the 3rd-gen G-Sync boards out there now.

I use a 6-core 8086K on my primary machine because it clocks to 5.3 GHz with HT turned off...fast single-core performance is still important in P3D.  I think six cores at 5.3 vs eight at 5.0 is probably a wash...it wasn't worth rebuilding Rome to find out...5.3 on the 8086K really hauls the mail, and leaves little more to be desired.

That said, my portable is a 9900K clocked to 5.0 GHz (on air) and my spare 1080Ti into the aforementioned small 24" G-Sync display.  As we have known for some time, FSX responds to brute force...at 5 GHz with 8 physical cores it has come back to life, and it's a hoot to have some of my orphaned add-ons back, like the PMDG MD-11, the Eaglesoft CitationX, etc.  I chose the 9900K over the 9700K knowing that I wouldn't be using HT--why?  16MB of level-3 cache vs 12MB on the CPU die, that's why.  The 9900K was on sale, and the premium over the 9700K was like $80. 

I don't want to hi-jack the thread further with non-monitor hardware discussion, but wanted to set the record straight. 

Cheers

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lownslo said:

Pretty sure the 8086K has HT. :biggrin:  Of course the 9700K is lacking in one particular area... it has 12MB of cache while the 9900K has 16MB.

Greg

Yes well, he has his HT OFF and that's why I said no HT. Also to pay 40% more just to have 4MB cache is in the realms of money to burn, the return on that 40% price,  into gains is not worth even talking about in P3D.

2 hours ago, joby33y said:

Please... Read the topic title guys!  Its about monitor selection, NOT about CPU choice!  With these posts, this thread turns into 15+ pages of CPU and HT on/off debate. 

Respectfully submitted.  I’m in the market for a new monitor too & thats what I want to read about....

Yes, it is about TV's but the point is the saving over a 9700k pre binned @5.1 and a 9900k pre binned @5.1 would buy for a 4k TV. 

Current prices here in the UK are a far cry from $80 for a pre binned.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900k-pre-binned-5.1ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-66d-in.html

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i7-9700k-pre-binned-5.1ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-66a-in.html

Anyway, each to there own!

Edited by Nyxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joby33y said:

Please... Read the topic title guys!  Its about monitor selection, NOT about CPU choice!  With these posts, this thread turns into 15+ pages of CPU and HT on/off debate. 

Respectfully submitted.  I’m in the market for a new monitor too & thats what I want to read about....

To continue on topic, the display I own is a Philips BDM4350UC/00. It has no Gsync, tops at 60Hz but this is more than enough for simming and the type of games I play. I paid around 500 euros for it.

It sits at about 80 cm from my head and it is very immersive. I have to move my head to see corners, and the 4k resolution is awesome at this distance.

If you choose the TV way, be careful because many entry level 4k TVs actually run at 50Hz. It all depends on your budget.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@avi8tir, you haven’t mentioned a budget or maximum available space. Can’t really recommend anything until I know those.

I’m very happy with my PD3200U.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nyxx said:

Yes well, he has his HT OFF and that's why I said no HT. Also to pay 40% more just to have 4MB cache is in the realms of money to burn, the return on that 40% price,  into gains is not worth even talking about in P3D.

Yes, it is about TV's but the point is the saving over a 9700k pre binned @5.1 and a 9900k pre binned @5.1 would buy for a 4k TV. 

Current prices here in the UK are a far cry from $80 for a pre binned.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900k-pre-binned-5.1ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-66d-in.html

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i7-9700k-pre-binned-5.1ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-66a-in.html

Anyway, each to there own!

Holy Christmas, that's more than two and a half times what I paid for my 9900K.  And it was more like an 18% premium over the 9700K, not 40%.

But given that the OP has already decided on a 9900K and 2080Ti (a rockin' combo), it'd be a shame to see all that pushing an old 27" WQHD monitor.

One other note on large-format 4K TVs as an option...bigger is better up to a point...for me, 55" was perfect, and though I had room on the desk and in the budget for a 65" display, at that size and viewing distance (~1m) I could pretty clearly see pixellation in the image on the 65" display.  There's no real substitute for test-viewing various display options at the distance you intend to use it. 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, avi8tir said:

 I had considered the BenQ PD3200U in the past. 

That is the exact monitor I run presently.  I am very happy with it.

I do run at 30 hz refresh, at 4K, driven by a 1080ti and 8700K @ 5.0 and it's very smooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever monitor you go with, just make sure it can operate well at 30Hz, most monitors with an HDMI port will be able to run at 30Hz or 60Hz.

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP here - thanks for all the input. I do not want to run a TV - I also use the monitor for work when I am working from home so it needs to fit on my desk. Lots of spreadsheets! 

I think I am leaning towards the BenQ PD3200U --- I just hope I don't miss the ultrawide 34 that I currently have. 

I'll actually gain some screen area though. 34" 21:9 vs. 32" 16:9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BenQ PD3200U does support 30Hz and I did try P3D v4 in that mode. But the mouse lag was annoying so I switched back to 60Hz. My lowest fps are over central London westbound towards Heathrow when it drops to low 20s but that's using AIG Ai at 100% with over 300 Ai in an 80nm bubble around me. Once airborne it stays at 60.

The monitor is extremely well built and is reassuringly heavy. It exudes quality. I'm completely happy with my choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have money to drop, Acer just released their new X35. 35 inch ultrawide with HDR 1000, Gsync up to 200hz, Quantum dot and 512 zones of dimming.

https://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/predator-series/predatorx35

Your wallet will be demolished though.

I'm currently on the X27 and was eyeing this beast but the announced price might be out of my grasp.

Edit : It's 1440p not 4k though. Imho HDR makes more of a difference to me than 4k ever will but the PC monitor market is still far away in regards to 4K and HDR1000.

Too bad P3D isn't HDR ready.

Edited by TheBoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, avi8tir said:

OP here - thanks for all the input. I do not want to run a TV - I also use the monitor for work when I am working from home so it needs to fit on my desk. Lots of spreadsheets! 

I think I am leaning towards the BenQ PD3200U --- I just hope I don't miss the ultrawide 34 that I currently have. 

I'll actually gain some screen area though. 34" 21:9 vs. 32" 16:9

Samsung 40 inch TV would be excellent for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thread.

What is the disadvantage of a TV vs. monitor? Asking due to the significant price difference.

If I choose a 4k TV what spec should I be watching for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shomron, TVs with their larger screens give you greater immersion over smaller monitors. But, they’re not all designed for computer use so you have to be careful with your selection. Only those that support chroma 4:4:4 are suitable for computer use as they show text as sharp as possible without any artefacts.

And as the displays are larger the perceived sharpness will be lower than a monitor. A 32” UHD monitor versus a 40+” TV have different pixels per inch. You’re spreading the same over a larger area.

The upside of a TV is lower cost and built-in speakers. You get more for less money but UHD TVs start around 43” so you need space.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Shomron, TVs with their larger screens give you greater immersion over smaller monitors. But, they’re not all designed for computer use so you have to be careful with your selection. Only those that support chroma 4:4:4 are suitable for computer use as they show text as sharp as possible without any artefacts.

And as the displays are larger the perceived sharpness will be lower than a monitor. A 32” UHD monitor versus a 40+” TV have different pixels per inch. You’re spreading the same over a larger area.

The upside of a TV is lower cost and built-in speakers. You get more for less money but UHD TVs start around 43” so you need space.

Thanks Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, w6kd said:

There's no real substitute for test-viewing various display options at the distance you intend to use it.

I couldn't agree more with this.

I also have a 55" UHD TV (Sony 900E) that I use for a sim monitor. If you have the desk space for it the immersion is fantastic. What I like best about it though is being able to see the entire panel of an aircraft and most of the windscreen without having to scroll/pan to read gauges, operate switches/dials/levers, and look at where you are going, especially on approach and takeoff.

I am considering putting the Sony in the TV room and getting another monitor for the sim. I took screenshots of panel views and exterior shots of various aircraft and put them on a USB stick. Yesterday I went to Best Buy and had a salesman bring the screenshots up on different TV models and sizes. I am considering going smaller than 55" because sometimes this just seemed to large, although sometimes it seems perfect. My main concern was that on a smaller screen I would not be able to clearly read the dials and instrument screens. I had no problem reading them on any of the 43" UHD monitor. On my Vizio 42" 1080p monitor at home I had to zoom in to read the gauges and the image quality was terrible.

I still have not decided what size I want to get though. What I need to do now is go back and focus on the optimal distance I need to sit from a 43", 49", and 55" monitor. I already decided that 65 inches is too big for my desk area. I did also look at the images on a massive 80" TV for grins. It looked great if I stood 8 feet away.

P3Dv3 and v4 will save screenshot image files in user selectable jpeg, png, and bmp formats. All the TVs would read jpg formats, some would read png, but none that I tried (Sony, LG, Samsung) would read bmp. bmp files have the best quality but the compressed jpg still are good enough quality for this test.

The only downside to this test is that I don't think you can take a 4k screenshot if you do not already have a 4k monitor hooked up to your sim. You might have to ask a friend to take some shots for you.

Ted 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now