chrcolukYeah brexit screwed us I think on that, AMD probably not wanting to eat the import costs.

The good news is that AMD sells their reference design boards through AIBs just like Nvidia used to until around Pascal. So you'll likely be able to score one, even being outside of a priority market, like me :)

Dr. DroThe good news is that AMD sells their reference design boards through AIBs just like Nvidia used to until around Pascal. So you'll likely be able to score one, even being outside of a priority market, like me :)

With the AIB premium :(.

ARFI have a question for you - do you think that screen door effect exists or you think that it's a myth?

... It very obviously does. Did anything I said indicate otherwise, or are you just trying very hard to make up some straw man gotcha non-argument? The screen door effect is limited to cases where resolution per degree (of your field of view) is quite low. It's ubiquitous in VR, but VR is also an extreme case in terms of PPD. Pixelation and jagged edges become visible long, long before the screen door effect (unless there is something seriously wrong with your display, or it's a very low quality panel, like an older TV). Screen door effect specifically refers not to seeing individual pixels, but the non-illuminated grid between pixels becoming visible, and no matter your visual acuity that doesn't happen with a regular desktop monitor at regular viewing distances. If you sit very close to a low quality 32" 1080p monitor you might start to notice it, maybe. 1440p? Not a chance.

Valantar... It very obviously does. Did anything I said indicate otherwise, or are you just trying very hard to make up some straw man gotcha non-argument? The screen door effect is limited to cases where resolution per degree (of your field of view) is quite low. It's ubiquitous in VR, but VR is also an extreme case in terms of PPD. Pixelation and jagged edges become visible long, long before the screen door effect (unless there is something seriously wrong with your display, or it's a very low quality panel, like an older TV). Screen door effect specifically refers not to seeing individual pixels, but the non-illuminated grid between pixels becoming visible, and no matter your visual acuity that doesn't happen with a regular desktop monitor at regular viewing distances. If you sit very close to a low quality 32" 1080p monitor you might start to notice it, maybe. 1440p? Not a chance.

You can't introduce a specific viewing distance requirement. Everyone will sit wherever they want to to observe the screen door effect.
Your threshold of actually seeing it and irritating you is rather low, which doesn't mean that there aren't many people with much better vision who don't tolerate it even in the slightest hint, shape or form.

ARFYou can't introduce a specific viewing distance requirement. Everyone will sit wherever they want to to observe the screen door effect.
Your threshold of actually seeing it and irritating you is rather low, which doesn't mean that there aren't many people with much better vision who don't tolerate it even in the slightest hint, shape or form.

Man, discussing anything with you is always a blast. Unfounded assumptions of things you have absolutely no way of knowing? Of course! Taking the fact that there is variability in human perception and running with it so far you crash into the sun? Sure, why not?

Like, what on earth do you know about my visual acuity? Also, no, my threshold for seeing that and it irritating me is high. A low threshold means something is easily achieved.

I never introduced a specific viewing distance requirement. I said that the screen door effect is dependent on pixels per degree as well as the ratio of illuminated pixels to dark surrounding grid of your display (i.e. the relation between pixel size and pixel pitch). In general, human visual acuity is at its peak within a ~5° circle at the center of our vision and we generally have sharp vision for about 40°, with pretty severe detail loss beyond that. So if you want your monitor to look sharp without forcing a ton of strenuous eye movement (which causes both short and long term eye strain), you adjust your viewing distance so that the monitor roughly fills that 40-degree circle. And yes, there is indeed variance in both people's eyesight and people's preferences - for me, 32" at what I consider normal desk viewing distances - about an arm's length, or ~90cm - is too large for long-term comfort, even if it can be more immersive. It would just force too much eye movement for comfort. On the other end of the spectrum you have pro esports players who sit 15-20cm away from their monitors while playing. But they also exclusively use 24" monitors (typically 1080p).

If that kind of distance is your preference, then I can indeed see how the screen door effect might bother you, but then you're also making extremely poor use of your monitor overall, as even a 24" monitor as those distances is going to be well outside of your sharp field of vision, and going larger at that distance would just be throwing money out the window as you literally wouldn't be able to see it. And even with perfect vision, 1440p on a decent-quality 27" panel will have zero screen door effect from ~30cm onwards. The exception here would be a mointor with exceptionally small pixels and a lot of dark space between them - as many older, lower quality panels had, especially TV panels.

So, the possible options here are:
- You have superhuman vision (which you don't)
- You only have experience with poor quality LCD panels (possible, I have no idea)
- You like to sit so close to your monitor that your nose is almost touching the panel (possible, but unlikely)
- You've convinced yourself that you're seeing a screen door effect when what you're seeing is really something else (could be an overly aggressive anti-glare coating, could be jaggedness or pixelation, could be just the inherent imperfections of human vision, could be whatever)

My money? It's on the latter. Yes, the screen door effect can absolutely be observed on a 1440p display of any size if you get close enough, but unless your panel is absolutely shit, any combination of monitor size, viewing distance and visual acuity sufficient to actually see it will be extremely uncomfortable to use.

chrcolukWith the AIB premium :(.

I'm pretty impressed by the ASUS TUF - but it's ownership bias, my RTX 3090 TUF has been heavily used through the two years that I've owned it - from gaming to studies to business this card has gotten me through it all, and it doesn't have any signs of aging in it! It's built like a tank, has excellent cooling and no fancy RGB, it could be an option if you want a no-nonsense GPU that is not the strict reference design.

You just don`t get it right- with 4080 you pay the same as 4090 but it use much less power. You actually saving!

ValantarMan, discussing anything with you is always a blast. Unfounded assumptions of things you have absolutely no way of knowing? Of course! Taking the fact that there is variability in human perception and running with it so far you crash into the sun? Sure, why not?

Like, what on earth do you know about my visual acuity? Also, no, my threshold for seeing that and it irritating me is high. A low threshold means something is easily achieved.

I never introduced a specific viewing distance requirement. I said that the screen door effect is dependent on pixels per degree as well as the ratio of illuminated pixels to dark surrounding grid of your display (i.e. the relation between pixel size and pixel pitch). In general, human visual acuity is at its peak within a ~5° circle at the center of our vision and we generally have sharp vision for about 40°, with pretty severe detail loss beyond that. So if you want your monitor to look sharp without forcing a ton of strenuous eye movement (which causes both short and long term eye strain), you adjust your viewing distance so that the monitor roughly fills that 40-degree circle. And yes, there is indeed variance in both people's eyesight and people's preferences - for me, 32" at what I consider normal desk viewing distances - about an arm's length, or ~90cm - is too large for long-term comfort, even if it can be more immersive. It would just force too much eye movement for comfort. On the other end of the spectrum you have pro esports players who sit 15-20cm away from their monitors while playing. But they also exclusively use 24" monitors (typically 1080p).

If that kind of distance is your preference, then I can indeed see how the screen door effect might bother you, but then you're also making extremely poor use of your monitor overall, as even a 24" monitor as those distances is going to be well outside of your sharp field of vision, and going larger at that distance would just be throwing money out the window as you literally wouldn't be able to see it. And even with perfect vision, 1440p on a decent-quality 27" panel will have zero screen door effect from ~30cm onwards. The exception here would be a mointor with exceptionally small pixels and a lot of dark space between them - as many older, lower quality panels had, especially TV panels.

So, the possible options here are:
- You have superhuman vision (which you don't)
- You only have experience with poor quality LCD panels (possible, I have no idea)
- You like to sit so close to your monitor that your nose is almost touching the panel (possible, but unlikely)
- You've convinced yourself that you're seeing a screen door effect when what you're seeing is really something else (could be an overly aggressive anti-glare coating, could be jaggedness or pixelation, could be just the inherent imperfections of human vision, could be whatever)

My money? It's on the latter. Yes, the screen door effect can absolutely be observed on a 1440p display of any size if you get close enough, but unless your panel is absolutely shit, any combination of monitor size, viewing distance and visual acuity sufficient to actually see it will be extremely uncomfortable to use.

You got everything opposite to right. Pixels per degree is a lie and you should throw it away as a proof and defence for your views.
I will stop here discussing anything with you related to 4K. Obviously, you will never accept that such a technology exists, and you will continue to promote primitive 1080p and 1440p large screens.
Good luck.

ARFYou got everything opposite to right. Pixels per degree is a lie and you should throw it away as a proof and defence for your views.
I will stop here discussing anything with you related to 4K. Obviously, you will never accept that such a technology exists, and you will continue to promote primitive 1080p and 1440p large screens.
Good luck.

Pixels per degree is "a lie"? Wow, holy crap, are you actually denying the existence of basic aspects of physical reality now, like distance and angle? Fundamental geometry? 'Cause that's what would be necessary for the concept of pixels per degree to be a lie. Man, you tend to have some pretty out there views, but this is a new high.

Also, have I ever "promoted" "large screens" at 1080p? I'd like you to show me where, please.

Also, what technology am I not accepting the existence of? 2160p LCD panels? Thanks for the laugh!

ValantarPixels per degree is "a lie"? Wow, holy crap, are you actually denying the existence of basic aspects of physical reality now, like distance and angle? Fundamental geometry? 'Cause that's what would be necessary for the concept of pixels per degree to be a lie. Man, you tend to have some pretty out there views, but this is a new high.

Also, have I ever "promoted" "large screens" at 1080p? I'd like you to show me where, please.

Also, what technology am I not accepting the existence of? 2160p LCD panels? Thanks for the laugh!

Human vision is a field in the biology science, and has nothing to do with artificial physics statements. But even in the physics field things are quite relative.

ARFHuman vision is a field in the biology science, and has nothing to do with artificial physics statements. But even in the physics field things are quite relative.

Yes, things are relative even in physics. For example, the field of view covered by a display of a given size is relative to the distance between it and the eyes of the person looking at it. Are you saying that the fact that eyesight is a biological function denies the existence of perspective, or its effect on the perceived size of object as distance varies? Are you saying that a thing that is further away doesn't look smaller, and cover a smaller part of your field of view? I'd love to hear which part of this is "artificial", please.

ARFHuman vision is a field in the biology science, and has nothing to do with artificial physics statements. But even in the physics field things are quite relative.

ValantarYes, things are relative even in physics. For example, the field of view covered by a display of a given size is relative to the distance between it and the eyes of the person looking at it. Are you saying that the fact that eyesight is a biological function denies the existence of perspective, or its effect on the perceived size of object as distance varies? Are you saying that a thing that is further away doesn't look smaller, and cover a smaller part of your field of view? I'd love to hear which part of this is "artificial", please.

The two of you should do at least one of three things.

• Get back on topic, and stick to it. Everywhere
• Start a different thread somewhere else if you feel your discussion has merit, and could use the input from other members, or they could benefit from your mutual insight
• Put each other on your personal ignore lists

Figure out which you'll do, or your choices will be limited for you.