ronik56 - HWzone Forums
Skip to content
  • Create an account


registered user
  • Number of messages

  • Join

  • Recently visited

About ronik56

  • Birthday 01/01/1980

Recent Visitors

Visitors to your profile are disabled, and you can not see who recently visited your profile.

Ronik56's ratings

Zone Wannabe

Zone Wannabe (2/6)



  1. I was waiting for Black Friday to order the Asus RT-AX86U, but suddenly it is out of stock in their Israeli store. In the American store it is in stock, so they probably just stopped sending it to the country. Months sold to the country and suddenly stopped. Hallucinatory.
  2. Cellcom and Partner have a distribution to about 30% of the public, and even when Bezeq operates, it will operate only to a similar percentage. They connect for a total of 3-4 months, they will not be able to connect more than that. By the end of 2021 they expect the 60-65 percent area to be connected, in any case it is well after January.
  3. I know it's not what you're looking for and it's not 4K or a suitable size, but if the RTINGS review has already come out then Samsung's G9 introduces HDR1000, technically it's 1440p but it's 5120x1440 which's pretty close (7.3 ~ million pixels to ~ 8.3 dc in 4K, About 89% of the pixels), there is 240HZ and VRR and it is indeed 49 inches but it is 32: 9 so maybe it will come in if the problem was the height and not the width. Again, not what you wanted and you are locked on the OLED 48 (which will be much better, except for the part that you will have to be a little crazy in terms of maintenance as a screen - black background, no task bar, auto screen off after 2 minutes, etc.) but it would not hurt to add For discussion. The review from RTINGS: Something else you wrote 2 pages ago and I remembered it now in a delay of a few weeks - you wrote that HDR1000 includes local dimming and this is the important improvement because of you Want it and not the HDR600 for example. That is not accurate. 1000 does require Local dimming but 600 and 500 also require local dimming. Only 10 and 400 do not. 1000 also does not require a full array, the G9 is an edge lit. So just pointing out that if the insistence on HDR1000 for local and not the maximum brightness, then 600 is right for you too.
  4. Why not DisplayPort? Unless you intend to use the screen speakers (which is not found on every screen and honestly pure junk, even the TV speakers. Do yourself a favor and enjoy quality sound, 300-400 speakers will give you great performance compared to the TV. Let's say MicroLab's FC-330 hopefully Having leftovers in stock in the country, or their SOLO 6C, H200) DP is better and can handle high resolution and frames from HDMI. For the PS5 this is indeed a consideration, but HDMI for the DP can address the issue. And as for the OLED this is indeed the best option, but keep in mind that there are more waiting for the 48-inch and the importer has not yet brought, do not be so sure about the import of the model, especially with the supply chain condition - you will know where we will be another year (even less , Remember I'm finishing elimination operations in the May-June area ahead of the new series) and the burns are a very serious problem in such a static use as a computer. Download all the Task / Nav bar in the operating system because everything is static - the moment, the icons, the clock, change the background to black everywhere (let's say the edge of the site here. The permanent gray to the left of the text does not change, most sites do not have Dark Mode anyway) , Always make sure to turn off the screen and not just leave it on for a few minutes, etc. Maps in games can also be a serious problem and all the other static parts in the corners. It will probably take a few years, but finding yourself with burns after 2-3 years on such a screen does not sound like a hit.
  5. It's a crazy screen no doubt, but at $ 3600 it already makes more sense to go for an OLED to save the excess for a video card he would have to buy to take advantage of it.
  6. Yes, but this is the only model that fits the HDR1000 and 4K as much as you want. Anyway how many things can already be run on 4K @ 144FPS? You do not have a perfect screen that will meet all your needs. The Acer Predator X27 fits your requirements except for the price (10500) and is 27 when you did not want to go down from 32 inches. Is an HDR of 1000 (even 1300-1400), 144Hz and supports G-SYNC. Or you have the Philips that lacks gaming features, but a more normal price, 4K HDR1000. Dell has a 55-inch OLED screen but at a price of $ 3000 it is already cheaper for you to buy in the country LG CX 55. They have a 30-inch OLED screen from 2017, but it is even straighter, I do not know how its HDR, It is small for you and also not available in the country. HDR1000 TVs are also quite rare, and it is a product that is much easier to push HDR in such a standard. I remember that computer screens that are OLED are expected to come out this year / next year, but again, you will know how the HDR (maybe it will only reach 700-800 and not 1000), price, size and when it will arrive in Israel (unless you are willing to order from abroad) Either go down in HDR requirements (even Samsung's Q80R scratches the 1000 from below and it's one model below their flagship TV), or in screen size, or in gaming. In 2021-22 there will be new models that are closer to what you're Want to know how close they are, when and at what price?
  7. 5-15 percent on the CPU may actually indicate the problem, because it is quite suitable for one core at 100%. The software may only support one core and not multiple cores, but its load is "large" on a single core in the processor and a bottleneck is created there. So technically you only use 5-15 percent but in practice the processor can not bring more, because of the software. It's very, very unlikely if it's copying and pasting files that shouldn't be heavy on the CPU (unless it's a really really old processor, but then it had 2-4 cores probably and you would not see only 5-15 percent but 25 percent or more ), But if you are talking about opening files, for example video files, you can see there problems because of coding which many times works single-core and heavy on some processors. But the chance of a bottleneck in the processor here is unlikely and the most likely factor is interference. If the cable passes near noise and electromagnetic interference this is a logical reason, especially electricity (i.e. sockets, electrical ducts). You probably would not have reached a reasonable speed in the ditch at all, but there may be some devices in the middle that turn on intermittently. Try to put the computers right next to each other and move then, away from sediment and electrical products that might pass along the way, if that solves then the problem is there. Another possibility is that the router itself is too weak and unable to handle all of these files. Beyond that, if you have a lot of small files then the speed goes down. If it stays stable with a large file (try transferring video or ISO of 10-20GB) then it's simply because of that.
  8. If you're fine with 48 inches, why not go for the Philips 436M6VBPAB? It's 43 inches, supports HDR1000 and on the way you get a crazy 1: 7000 contrast which is very impressive for TVs as well, which is much more important for picture quality than HDR or 4K.
  9. Not too much. The question is what screen size do you plan to use? If you are ready for 43 inches then there are TVs that will cost you much less than screens that display maybe a quarter of their quality, but 43 is a very large screen. In terms of innovations since 2019 it's roughly Samsung's G7, but it's not 4K. There are some not bad things, but they are either expensive (Philips 436M6VBPAB with HDR1000 and insane contrast of 1: 7000, but for 1500 NIS less you can buy a TV that will show the same performance at the same size), or not at the appropriate resolution (the G7 as mentioned, the LG 38WN95C-W which is both wide, both large (38 ") and 1600p and not 4K). There are things like the Acer Predator X27 that I do not want to mention at all, at this price it is better already to break a wall, expand the room and bring a 48-inch OLED screen. There's a situation where you'll get out of it with a bit of excess in relation to the screen. You're looking for an HDR1000, which is a pretty strict standard, there are very few screens in general, including TVs. Samsung's Q80T, TV of 5000 NIS and up (depending on size) provides you Actual rivets.The Q700T provides you with about 70 rivets, so it's not even an HDR450 and it's a 600 NIS TV, model 3800. The HDR2020 is nice too (though not so impressive) and the HDR400 is not bad anymore, you will feel a difference Clearly. True it's not HDR600 or higher and will not look as spectacular as it is, but it's definitely noticeable in relation to SDR. In short, either buy a TV (which is 1000 "or higher), either break the box on a screen or go down to 43p, otherwise you will stay with the screen your. Maybe another year, maybe three.
  10. ronik56

    PC TV screen

    A bit problematic in the Corona era. Guess electrical stores, maybe in an Apple store you can access a computer with a huge screen. You do not need a dedicated video card anyway, most of the built-in cards today will suffice for 4K as well. FHD content is lighter than 4K so it will run even more easily. You will lose information and quality that you can get on a 4K screen if you play FHD, but it will still look fine as long as you do not sit too close.
  11. ronik56

    PC TV screen

    The question is distance. Measure your distance from the screen / the maximum distance you can sit on it regularly and see accordingly. There are 43-49 inch computer screens and that's fine, if you are at a suitable distance. Most of them are also Ultrawide which is more comfortable than 16: 9 for a screen of this size. Each operating system has the option to increase the entire interface by percentages and then it is suitable for 4K and large screens. Split into two halves Yes, there is software and it is also quite simple manually - drag a window all the way to the right / left side of the screen and it will change its size to half of the screen. For reading, you must make sure that the monitor supports Chroma Subsampling 4: 4: 4 4K. Without it the text will not look good and it will be very problematic in prolonged use. Most TVs today are supportive, but it is very, very important to make sure of that. Another thing to make sure is Flicker free or if not then try to have PWM as high as possible, highly recommended above 300 Hz. I do not want to confuse you with what exactly it is so if you would like to go to the links that explain: -flicker Regarding movies, the difference between screen and TV is huge. TVs almost always with a VA panel, its advantage is real blacks and excellent contrast, which is probably the most important figure for picture quality, or more precisely for an impressive "cinematic" picture. In VA screens you will almost always get a contrast of 1: 3000 in the specification of the screen and in practice in real tests closer to 1: 2500-2800, depending on the screen (there is also a matter of luck and differences between models). Some monitors reach 1: 3500-4000, but there you will usually have to compromise on 1440p instead of 4K. I think only one Philips model provides a really impressive contrast of about 1: 7000 and also 4K, but it is 43 inches and will cost much more. And TVs? A 43-inch, 4K TV that costs 1400 NIS will display a contrast of 1: 5500, twice as much as a computer screen with a 2-4-inch 27K 32K VA screen, which will also cost you between 2000 and 2500. A 43-inch 4K TV for 400 shekels will bring you a number in the 1: 7000 range. (Specifically, these are Samsung's 7100RU and TU8000 models). TV will also provide you with true HDR. Most monitors provide HDR10 (which means nothing). The screen can read HDR signals, but not beyond. Not really able to display an HDR image), then you have HDR400 monitors (which are technically capable of displaying HDR but you will not really see a difference between it and a normal image because it is really really low). Then you have HDR600 monitors that are already capable of really showing a difference between an SDR but still not that impressive. HDR800, 1000 or higher screens are already more expensive than OLED screens that will be several levels above in every aspect, with prices around $ 2000. In short, if movies is what you want- a TV screen will be a few levels above and also cheaper. The problem is office work of any kind and prolonged browsing. If you sit a lot in front of the screen and at close range, a TV screen will be a serious problem. Some are fine with a 43-inch screen from a distance of 70-100 cm, some are a nightmare for them. 50 inches it will almost certainly be unbearable in the distance. There are no smaller TV screens than this, only 720-inch 32p screens, but this is a flashback to 2010 and will be much worse than a computer screen. There is only one 32-inch 4K on the TVs and this is Samsung's Q50 / Q50R, unfortunately not available in the country. Beyond that it's not Flicker free but it's not that terrible. You need to understand what your main use is, how many hours a day you will work and how much you will observe and what the distance of from the screen is. Every TV screen today is 4K (except 32 inches) and this will solve the pixel density problem as long as you sit at a reasonable distance (probably over a meter).
  12. I do want to upgrade, both because of the size and because of the quality. From the reviews I just got the impression that I will pay 2000-3000 NIS mainly for another 4-9 inches and in such a situation there is no reason to invest over 800 NIS and take the P2719H which will be bigger, or maybe not upgrade at all. I read a bit more and came to the conclusion that I have a point in upgrading. Another 4-9 inches would be great, I still do not sit at a Retina distance so that 4K will benefit me (sits between 50 and 80 cm from a 23-inch screen), the HDR is nice even if far from perfect and especially the contrast. I realized that the VA panel is admittedly less good in terms of colors than IPS, but not by much and the huge difference in contrast is much more important anyway for movies, especially in the dark. So I should get a substantial improvement in the experience in upgrading to a larger 4K with a VA panel. From my search the BenQ EW3270U looked good, but for some reason the RTINGS gave it a 7.6 in multimedia compared to 7.9 of the 27 UK650-W. The comparison itself between them is almost identical. The LG wins in: 1. Ergonomics (I will hang on the wall anyway so the stand that comes with it is irrelevant to me) 2. Peak Brightness 3. Viewing angles (I am in front of the screen, maximum angle of 10-20 degrees so irrelevant) 4. Gray BenQ Uniformity Wins in: 1. Contrast 2. Black Uniformity 3. Color Gamut 4. Color Volume Considering that contrast is supposed to be most important for movies and also colors and blacks are better BenQ should be a better screen for movies clearly, but not only is it even Not found on the page of their recommended screens for Multimedia, they clearly state: Overall, this is a very good monitor that's feature-packed for its price, making it the best monitor for watching movies we've seen so far. Something that is a bit unclear to me given the review. What I want to ask is how is the BenQ EW3270U within the budget for movies and how is it in relation to the 27 UK650-W? Are there other screens that are recommended, maybe even better? And if I was wrong somewhere (VA in relation to IPS, contrasts in movies, etc.) I would love to know and learn next.
  13. No, of course I'll watch 4K movies. I'm currently watching 1080 because the screen is 1080 and I will not gain anything from 4K, but if my screen is 4K I will watch 4K movies. In games I just can not carry 4K with the RX580 but I rarely play anyway. Eventually TVs had a significant change in quality. When I switched from a TV screen from 2009 in my opinion to a screen from 2015 which is a bit above the entry model there was a drastic improvement, two 1080 screens. Today the jump will also be significant to a parallel screen in terms of price. My thing is it feels like nothing has been added to screens in the last 5-7 years beyond more pixels (which I just wonder how significant the contribution will be) and more frames. Here are some comparisons of similar screens with a difference of two years between them from RTINGS: The Dell U2719D and the Dell U2717D are very similar overall, but the U2719D performs better. The U2719D has much lower input lag, but worse black uniformity. The U2717D has a mini DisplayPort connection, but other than that, there is not much difference between these models. The Dell U2415 is a bit better than the Dell P2417H. The U2415 has a slightly higher resolution than the P2417H. Overall, picture quality and performance are very similar. Lastly the old screen is better, and here's a 4 year difference when the old screen is better (!!): The Dell U2715H is slightly better than the Dell U2719D. The U2715H has more inputs, including a mini DisplayPort connection, and an additional HDMI port. Other than that, these two monitors perform very similarly, with no significant differences between the two. This is what I am actually asking, if there is any point in upgrading because it seems that there is not really a difference between models and sometimes the old model is even better. If so what I will gain from switching from a 1080p screen from 2014 to a 4K screen from 2020 is 2-3 tiny leaps of differences between generations and especially a resolution upgrade, which gives me the impression that this is a step and a half forward for 3000 NIS, which is just not worth it.
  14. The thing for me is how much I will feel the difference in these screens in relation to my P2314H, or for that matter in front of a more recent similar model, like the P2319H or P2317H. It is clear to me that there will be a difference, the question is how big, specific in the movies? The difference between 27 and 32 is significant, but I have room for each of them. The 32 may be a bit crowded, but there will be room. I add this to expand the range and selection in case there is some winning model over 27.
  15. I'm looking for a 27 or 32 inch screen, the most important thing to me is the image quality in movies / series, then office work / surfing for quite some time during the day and at the end of gaming (I will play at 60FPS @ 1080P even if it is a 144 and 4K screen). I'm always prone to IPS, but I do like to watch in a dark room and although to this day it has not really bothered me, a lot of talk about the contrast and priority of VA in black rooms. On the other hand I realize I'm sacrificing a bit from the image quality, so a bit hesitant. The budget is between 2000 and 3000, if there is something a little over 3000 there will be a serious difference I am willing to add. My main dilemma is how substantial will be the difference between my current screen (Dell P2314H, IPS panel and 1080p) and a new screen. From the impression I get it does not seem that there have been too significant improvements in screens in recent years, each generation seems to have a small improvement in image quality and mostly add techno 'around (G / Free Sync or 144Hz) or pixels. I understand that HDR is not really on any computer screen because they are not bright enough. All this makes me doubt that I will feel a serious difference worth 2000-3000 NIS. I am currently leaning towards the LG 27UK650-W or maybe the BenQ EW3270U because of watching in the dark. What magnitude of difference to expect between them and the P2314H? If there are any other recommendations I would love to hear
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site