The TR Podcast 174: PCIe SSDs and FreeSync displays

Duration: 1:24:39

Hosted by: Jordan Drake

Co-Hosts: Scott Wasson, and Geoff Gasior


RSS (MP3) | iTunes (MP3)

This episode of the TR Podcast is sponsored by MSI. MSI’s new 4GE 2QE all-in-one gaming PC is svelte and powerful. The 24GE features an Nvidia GeForce GTX 960M graphics card with 2GB of RAM, Intel Core i7 processing power, a beautiful 23″ 1080p display, and much more for $1300. Be sure to check it out.

Show notes

There’s only one Geoff to have to worry about for this episode—a return to the “old cast”, if you will, of our humble podcast. Tune in for a tablety… FreeSyncy… SSDy… corny-jokey kind of night with the gang.

We’re still streaming each of our podcast recording sessions live on Twitch. If you want a combination of our dulcet tones and stunning visages, you’d do well to catch the next show live—or check out the YouTube edition of this episode below.

Send in listener mail, and we’ll answer on the podcast:

Follow us on Twitter – ScottJordanGeoffThe Tech Report

Video edition

Listener mail

Best GPU? – from Ethan:

“‘ve watched your podcast for a year or two. You guys have continued to do good coverage over the industry that changes most. What is TR’s recommendation for decently priced cards for compute now that it is known the Titan X has poor DP performance?”

Tech discussion

  • Microsoft unveils Atom-powered Surface 3 tablet – Read more

    Dell stretches ultra-slim Android slate to 10.5” – Read more

    Asus’ MG279Q display hops on the FreeSync wagon – Read more

    A fresh look at storage performance with PCIe SSDs – Read more

    BenQ’s XL2730Z ‘FreeSync’ monitor reviewed – Read more

That’s all, folks! We’ll see you on the next episode.

Comments closed
    • mcnabney
    • 5 years ago

    8K displays are almost completely pointless – even on the desktop. Higher resolutions really only allow a larger visible image at full sharpness. That in turn allows for more detail to seen in movies, games, photos… whatever. 1080p allowed up to a 30 degree image size before the viewer isn’t going to see any more detail. It has been nice, but that doesn’t really provide a big image quality. a 30″ 1080p desktop monitor is terrible because the pixels are clearly visible from the viewing distance of the desk.
    Now 4K doubles that effective maximum image size up to 60 degrees. That is a nice big image for most any usage. It is an almost ideal size for movies and games to be immersive. In addition, 35mm film (most film in the 20th century) doesn’t have more detail that can be scanned that is higher than 4K. That makes this resolution a nice long term resolution. It is both big and sharp and is the limit of most video content created.
    Then there is 8K. This provides an engulfing experience – absorbing up to 120 degrees of your vision with full detail. The true ‘sitting in the front row at the theater’ experience. For 99% of uses this is simply too much. Nobody will be able to see the detail because they won’t be comfortable sitting with that big of a picture – so the detail will be wasted. There are really only a handful of consumer uses for this much detail – actual theaters and VR. I think that for the consumer the only logical usage is VR. Imagine an image that has no pixel structure at all, but still completely engulfs your vision. That will be a ‘thing’. As for computer monitors – they just aren’t practical. Who wants a 60″screen on their DESKTOP, because that is how big they would need to be for a 3′ viewing distance.

      • Melvar
      • 5 years ago

      I’m not trying to be rude here, but you really don’t seem to understand this at all. on a 28″ 3840×2160 display you can still see clear aliasing in many cases. On a 40″ 3840×2160 display the pixels are nearly the same size as they are on a 27″ 1440p monitor. In either case 8K would improve things visibly.

        • mcnabney
        • 5 years ago

        No you can’t. A 28″ UHD display has the same pixel density as a 14″ 1080p. You aren’t going to see the pixel structure 3′ from the screen. I actually agree that the proper size of 4K monitor should be in the 35-40″ range. You really think people are going to put a 70-80″ screen on their desktop?

          • Melvar
          • 5 years ago

          Only old people put monitors that small that far away. On the 28″ 4K monitor I’m looking at right now my preferred viewing distance for gaming is about 24″-30″ (it would be closer if not for the screen-door effect being so pronounced), and a bit further out for Windows stuff.

          Edit: I just checked with a measuring tape and pixels are still visible at 3′.

            • Ninjitsu
            • 5 years ago

            I have a 21″ 1080p monitor at about 3 feet. Probably drops to 2.5 feet for gaming. I zoom in on web pages and documents. It’s more comfortable and causes less strain. I’m 22.

            EDIT: I can only see pixels if the contrast isn’t adjusted properly. Right now I can’t unless I really stare hard.

            • anotherengineer
            • 5 years ago

            18″ to about 28″ is typically recommended depending on monitor size.
            [url<][/url<] I have a 21.5" 1080p and its about 22" viewing distance I would guess, and I can see pixels from that distance if I focus on them, and sometimes I get that sparkle effect from the anti-glare coating. Which I know, because I also have a 21.5" 1080p screen with no AG coating and it doesn't have the same effect, although it does have hard reflections. Future plans, wait for a sale on the 23.8" 2560x1440 coming out. And wait for reviews on who will have the lightest anti-glare coating.

            • anotherengineer
            • 5 years ago


            You can see individual pixels from 3 feet away from a 28″ 4k monitor?!?!

            Wow I would have thought that impossible. Unless it has something to do with the AG coating and that screen door effect??

            • mcnabney
            • 5 years ago

            Well, a 28″ 16*9 display is 24″ wide and the viewing distance is 36″. That means the display occupies about 33° of his vision. That is an interesting coincidence because 20/20 vision provides detail distinguishment of 1 arc minute which just so happens to make that screen size and distance perfect for 1080p. By claiming that he can distinguish detail at twice that resolution he must have some of the best eyes on earth.

            To actually test this he will need a 3840*2160 image of 1920 interlacing black lines on a white background. The viewing distance to see the distinct lines instead of a smear or shade of gray for a regular person would be 18″.

            • Melvar
            • 5 years ago

            Have you used a 4K monitor, or did you just look at some numbers?

            I have a 28″ 4K monitor. I can tell from looking at it during normal use that I would be able to discern more detail if it had more pixels. I have a 40″ 4K monitor. It isn’t even close to having pixels so small that increased resolution would not increase visible detail. I haven’t tried your line test, but it doesn’t matter. I can see aliasing in games. I can see aliasing in small text. More pixels would allow a sharper image.

            I’m nearsighted and wear glasses BTW.

            • Melvar
            • 5 years ago

            There are a lot of situations where detail that you normally wouldn’t see can become apparent, and that’s where 4K still falls short. Aliasing on high contrast edges is still very apparent, though AA is more effective at hiding it than it is at lower resolution. You also still get visual quantization errors due to the width of the pixels. Small lettering can look like it’s unevenly spaced, and things like barred gates/fences can look like the distance between the bars kind of “wobbles” as you look along their length. Moire patterns are still quite obvious, but that will probably be better solved with a less brute force method.

            In this case I drew a line in MS Paint and looked at it. I could still see aliasing.

            For the record, I doubt there would be a big benefit going all the way to 8K on a 28″ display, but more than 4K would definitely be an improvement. I think at least 32″ would be needed to really take advantage of 8K, but 5K at 28″ would be nice.

            I doubt the coating had anything to do with it, but the screen door outline around every pixel certainly doesn’t help them blend together. Then again, according to that other guy I can’t even see something as small as these pixels, much less the space in between them, so maybe I’m just imagining it.

            • anotherengineer
            • 5 years ago

            Hmmm interesting.

            I’m far sighted and do not wear glasses. I can see individual pixels on my 21.5″ 1080p probably anything ~22″ and closer to the screen.

            I was hoping that the 23.8″ 1440p screens coming out would reduce this to about 15″ and less, making the screen appear like a totally smoth and uniform image from about 20″ away.

            You have me concerned now, however it would probably be a big improvement over 21.5″ 1080p screen.

            I do find AG coatings bother me, and can pick up the glitter effect rather easily, maybe because I am far sighted, or my viewing angle or whatever I don’t know. I know glare sucks too, I’m hoping they will start using a very light almost semi-gloss AG coatings like I am seeing on TV’s, and have on my Sony TV also.

            • Melvar
            • 5 years ago

            1440p@23.8″ will probably not be as fine a resolution as you’re hoping, it will definitely be an improvement though.

            Here’s a DPI calculator you can use to [s<]drive yourself crazy[/s<] figure out pixel pitches & such: [url<][/url<] What you want is probably about a 32" 3840x2160 screen in terms of pixel size. I don't know of any smaller panels with pixels that size; it works out to about 21" at 1440p.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This