I plan to buy an odyssey g9 monitor (WQHD 240hz 49 inch). On my gaming laptop I have a Thunderbolt 3 port (DP 1.4) which is only connected to iGPU, an mDP 1.2 which is connected to dGPU and an HDMI 2.0b also to dGPU. My question is which port should I use to connect my laptop to the monitor in order to get the best performance out of it.
In case of doubt, the DP1.4 may support 5k240
The others already have their problems with 4k120
I think you can save yourself worrying about it because the screen is too bold for your laptop.
But it's not connected to my graphics card. Is there maybe a way to change that?
What do you mean by that?
Does your laptop even manage a constant 240 fps with a 5K resolution? To be honest, I find it difficult to imagine, and if not it would be a pretty unnecessary purchase
Your laptop has a GTX 1650. You will NEVER be able to display 5K at 240 Hz with it.
So what do you want with the fat screen?
I quote "Thunderbolt 3 Port (DP 1.4) which is only connected to iGPU"
So, according to you, you have a DP1.4
That's not 5k. This is a 32: 9 1440p (2k) monitor. 5k is misleading.
The monitor is cool, I also looked at it, but it still has a lot of problems. If I really want to have it, I would wait until the new revision is out, which makes a lot of problems at the moment. Personally, 32: 9 is too wide to play with.
To your question, the part is connected with Displayport and your laptop is not sufficiently powerful to play on the thing without knowing what exactly you have.
Although I think this statement is nonsense. Why should you build it like that?
Is it a 32: 9 1440p monitor, there are still fewer pixels than 4k. Has nothing to do with 5k.
240fps are not necessary to operate the monitor.
You are probably right and the laptop is incapable of this.
Of course you can also operate the monitor with less than 240 FPS, but why should you buy a 240 Hz monitor if the 240 Hz can't be used to the full? And that regardless of the resolution
You can output the signal to a monitor via Thunderbolt3 and a specific adapter, it's not rocket science
Because 240hz can never be exhausted when gaming. It's completely okay if you can decide whether you want graphics quality or fps.
This is an ultrawide monitor, you can play witcher 3 in 40fps, then in 250fps cs: go and then in 120fps in Battlefield or something. It's just different depending on the game. With the screen diagonal there's no 170hz monitor or something, most of them are at 100-120hz, which can be surpassed.
I have e.g. 3440x1440 @ 175hz. I'm super happy with that too. Always 175hz, no, but if necessary - yes. In the end, it's not a main reason to buy the part, it's more of a bonus, colors are great and 32: 9 - if you want something like that, you don't have a lot to choose from anyway. Gsync also on board. Is everything ok - if you go with the premise that you have to use every feature of your monitor with every game in order to justify the purchase somehow, then you don't need to buy anything, that is technically not possible with a broad usage behavior.
I don't disagree with that either, but that has nothing to do with my point that it makes no sense to buy a 240 Hz monitor for the resolution and the laptop
Yes, you still have a lot of fps in some games. From then on I bought the part because of the good picture. The 240hz are no longer a main feature but a bonus.
Is not comparable with the purchase of a 240hz 16: 9 subclass screen, which is just there and offers nothing else. That would actually be nonsense. And god knows what kind of laptop he's got when he thinks of a 1500 euro monitor…
I think you know exactly what I mean, but apparently you'd rather have the last word ^^
No, I think you are wrong because one situation simply can't be transferred from one situation to the other. It doesn't make sense to not buy a monitor that has 100 features just because I can't use one of them in many situations. You buy 100 features to have something for every situation, not to use them all at the same time. The logic you use with 200-300 euro monitors - and where you would be right - no longer works here.
You don't even know what features he wants to buy the monitor for, just like me. The only information we have is that it gives the (misnamed) resolution and refresh rate of the screen. And since there are other and cheaper monitors on the market with the same resolution and a lower refresh rate, it makes perfect sense to point out that this purchase may not make sense for him and his laptop. If that doesn't matter to him, he can buy it, and as already mentioned, I don't disagree with your points. It is still quite presumptuous of you to present my comment as 'wrong' ^^
So reports say 5k
Even if the port is only connected to the integrated graphics card?
I know why you buy such a monitor, because I'm the target group and many know who the target group is.
But of course, if the questioner is stupid you have a point. But then any advice is nonsense. Haha.
Yup
The monitor does not care whether the signal is supplied by iGPU or dGPU
I doubt, however, that the iGPU can handle the 5k240 smoothly
How do you know that I don't belong to the target group? I have a monitor myself with a resolution of 5120 * 1440 pixels and a refresh rate of 120 hearts. And even with a very powerful computer, I rarely achieve a resolution of 120 fps in very few games, but of course that can't be generalized and depends on which game I play and how 'pretty' I want it to be. Everyone has different priorities anyway. The point is, however, that even with features like G-Sync or FreeSync, problems like a blinking image with doubled frames can occur, which only gets worse the lower the frame rate. Of course, you can simply reduce the repetition rate in the monitor, but why do you get a monitor with 240 Hz… But as long as the questioner does not reveal his priorities, we will go in circles with our argumentation, and assumptions are a bit unnecessary. Nevertheless, there are enough people who believe 'higher resolution and higher refresh rate = better monitor', but don't bother with the topic at all, and therefore it is quite justified to go into such details
For information only, 5k becomes 5.120 x 1.440. According to another user, that's not 5k. But at least this resolution would work
Adaptive Sync, AMD FreeSync Premium Pro (60-240Hz via DisplayPort, 60-240Hz via HDMI, with LFC support, with HDR), NVIDIA G-Sync Compatible (60-240Hz via DisplayPort)
https://geizhals.de/...71996.html
So as usual via DisplayPort.
And why do you want to buy this monitor with a laptop? That is not at all related 😅
This works with an external GPU. However, you also lose performance there. Which laptop or which GPU do you have?
Is he right too
5k would be 5120 x 2880
Gtx 1650. Omen 15-dc1015ng
Is it at least 4k?
Don't LAUGH that either
4k would be 3840 * 2160
5120 × 1440 corresponds to two QHD images (2560 × 1440) side by side
Sorry The answer should go to EnemynApps
It's nice that you wrote again what I already wrote "The resolution quality you see in the part corresponds to a completely noirmal 27 inch 1440p (2k) monitor. The difference is - you have 2 of them in one."
The maximum digital resolution, according to https://www.nvidia.com/.../gtx-1650/, is 7680 x 4320 at 120 Hz.
So it shouldn't be a problem. The performance in games then fluctuates and may have to be reduced.
I will never play with it
Then I suppose you want to cut videos or work with it?
Yes, after all, I'm a hobby programmer and that's a good investment
What the **** is then the monitor 1k or what? 😭
Whether 5k, 4k or whatever, the performance will still not be enough for 240 Hz. And if you go via WQHD anyway not.
A gaming screen is a good investment for Eugen programmers. You have to explain in more detail what advantage it offers you.
As a programmer you have a thousand windows open. Code, tutorial page, output… That's why you need a lot of space. I don't want it because it's a gaming monitor, but rather it has the best curvature in my opinion and offers a lot of space.
People are really not aware of what the 240Hz can do to the performance of the graphics card. Always want to have the fastest monitor and think "Oh, the graphics card can do it easily"
Then you work better with 3 screens than with a huge one.
Would make more sense to me now too. Especially since I can't attribute any specific programming benefit to the high frame rate.
If it should be a 32: 9 monitor, then it is also cheaper.
But in the end you have to decide if you want to take the money to buy the monitor.
No, but because it is the only 1000r curved monitor
OK. This makes it the only 32: 9 monitor listed on Geizhals.
