Currently not available.

 

If you like gaming you should forget about 4k gaming with UHD 770. You will be gaming at 1080p or even lower. It's a great "card" to run Reaper or some other DAW though as it doesn't introduce much DPC latency. I love it, personally, but Vega graphics in Radeon 5XXXG is about 2x or more better.

Best monitor? It depends on how much music you make, or rather your preference. If you go with a 4k monitor and you're gaming 90% of the time you will waste some money because you will be running it at 1080p most of the time. If you go with a 1080p monitor you will have a better looking picture when gaming at 1080p and a much smaller one when doing music with your DAW. The choice is yours.

Personally, I have HD 630 graphics on my main computer and I play some really old games sometimes. They work and look extremely well. I have a 1080p 27" Dell monitor and it's perfect for both. I could go for a 4k monitor, but I have no need to do so, really. Rather make some more music than dwell on what I should buy.

 

CPU: i7-12700K
Graphics: UHD-770
Motherboard: Asus Prime Z690-P

1 x DisplayPort
1 x HDMI
Support max. 4K@60Hz as specified in DisplayPort 1.4.
Support 4K@60Hz as specified in HDMI 2.1.

€600,00 budget (for graphics card AND screen monitor)

31-33" screen size is an absolute must have for me.

From the digging ive done so far the other must haves are (correct me if wrong):

*HDMI 2.1
*2k-144hz-1440p (minimum)
*ISP (faster) or VA (slightly better picture quality)

In trying to narrow this down to a couple of monitors to choose from,

-will the UHD-770 graphics easily handle the above base monitor specs or am I crazy and even those minimum specifications are too much to ask of the lowly 770 and thus a waste of money?

if it wont easily handle that base spec monitor,

-which monitor is the next step down that will play nice with 770? (I need exact specs to look for shopping)
or
-what is the cheapest graphics card that can handle those 2k base specs? (e.g., GTX 1080? RTX 2060 Super? RTX 3060?...)

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2022

It's not lowly at all. See http://audiosex.pro/threads/i7-12700k-uhd-770-graphics-best-32-monitor.65070/#post-646304

Please see the official intel graphics specifications again:

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...25m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html#tab-blade-1-0-4

 

You don't need an extra graphics card for 4K.
The only important thing is the DisplayPort, which you have on your motherboard.

 

Last edited: May 26, 2022

Ok... given the specs and your requirements I'll try to add some info here, no answer unfortunately but as someone who's looking at a new display I'm following this thread with interest.

For normal desktop usage, say a DAW, web browser, or watching 4K video, then the UHD will be good for any given display (or two).

And for the games you listed (ET and CS) it's probably good enough on 60Hz, those are fairly old engines that should be handled by any integrated GPU of this generation. With more modern ones it gets tricky, but you're not going to run modern AAA games with that chip.

I personally upgraded my GPU recently (not strictly for gaming, but that was a consideration as well) to a RTX 3060, and well... at the moment the prices are too wild, and you'd be best served for looking at discounts and deals. For decent gaming performance (at 2K) you'd be best served with a GPU that can handle AMD FSR or Nvidia DLSS, since those make good framerates on higher resolutions, at AMD front it seems that a RX590 is the minimum and NVidia it's RTX2060.

I'm not really into "big name" games, but recently I've been playing God of War and Elden ring on the 3060, with a 1080p display at 60Hz refresh rate and it handles maximum settings without breaking a sweat. A 3060 is roughly equivalent to the previous gen 2070 to give an indication of the performance. Also (and I can only compare it to my previous card, an AMD RX580) the 3060 is very quiet, which for audio work is fantastic.

So for a discrete graphics you are looking at previous generation cards, and at the moment while the prices are still inflated they can be found on deals.

So to recap: for audio use you're good to begin with including older games, but if you want to do gaming/graphics work you will be looking at a discrete GPU eventually.

 

I previously had 2560x1440 27" screen and that offers perfect pixel density,
if you absolutely need 32" screen, is that because of more workspace (= higher resolution, like 3840x2160) or because of mediocre eyesight (or viewing distance) where you need everything visible bigger (= lower resolution, like 2560x1440) or are you aiming for nonstandard aspect ratios like 21:9 (3440x1440 or 3840x1600)?

actually you got the display types opposite - IPS has better image consistency and viewing angles, VA has worse image but more likely to have high refresh rates cheaper

good graphics card for (gaming) 2560x1440 60Hz is GTX 980 Ti and similars
good graphcs card for (gaming) 3440x1440 100Hz is GTX 1080 Ti and similars

another thing you might not want to underestimate is height adjustment and tilt of the monitor stand, it's actually what splits good monitors from mediocre ones and majority of "TVs" nowadays

also do note, vast majority of gaming graphics cards actually have zero fan speed policy unless temperatures reach certain threshold,
for ex. my ASUS STRIX GTX 1080 Ti doesn't spin fans at all, unless playing heavier games - its heatsink is well designed and huge enough to cool down the card on its own when doing things like audio mixing in Reaper where temps don't go over 60°C
with that said, I highly recommend free Fan Control app for Windows which can define curves and fan speeds for all the stuff your PC has: https://github.com/Rem0o/FanControl.Releases

 

So it is confirmed the UHD-770 will run 4k @60hz no problem.. SWEEEEET! I dont need to buy a new card!

"The only important thing is the DisplayPort" and why is that? From the comparison charts and reviews Ive read, DisplayPort 1.4 is inferior to HDMI 2.1.

Thanks for some real world usage examples. The pricing between RTX 2060 and 3060 is so minimal that if im gonna buy a card its probably gonna be the 3060 which seems to be entry level to high-end monitoring. Then again, I just read a GTX 1080 is in the same quality bracket and is quite a bit cheaper than both of those cards (but there are 8 or more different versions to choose from???). Hmm The "Ti" version is bumped up to 2060 prices, which means I am back to 3060 again. round and round we go...

I've been using 32" forever, it fits perfectly on my desk, no head movement required and meets ideal triangulation monitoring in my studio. Also, it is perfect size/distance for watching videos and movies from the back wall couch.

With or without a new card, but especially with, I really want to get into 2560x1440 @144hz territory as i've seen that mentioned a few places as the "perfect" setup for multi usage. As far as my usage goes, i'm probably 70% DAW, 10% artwork creation, 10% music video creation, 5% web creation, 5% gaming. I have my PC partitioned for all work offline in Windows 10 Pro and then basic web usage in Windows 11 Pro online obviously. The reason I'm still on 10 for work is hardware/software compatibility and offline safety.

"TN monitors are the fastest but cheapest, due to poorer image quality when viewing from a side angle. IPS monitors have slightly faster response times and show color better than VA panels, but VA monitors have the best contrast out of all three panel types." - Toms Hardware

----


If the UHD is "good enough" and wont cause issues, I'll use that. If not, I think I could afford the GTX 1080 (which version???) and 32" 2k-144hz/4k-60hz 1440p HDMI 2.1 monitor and have some extra change leftover to grab another 16gb DDR5. Is buying the old tech GTX card a waste of money though?

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2022

Start with the UHD, which is certainly good enough for desktop usage. Then try the games you mentioned (CS & ET) which run will ok. Only then consider a discrete card.

If you're not considering gaming as your new pursuit then more RAM is probably the better way, but if you've got say 32GB already then it's probably not worth the effort. I would recommend 20XX (and beyond) series though as they support DLSS (mainly for games) and have more future-proof display outs.

Best of luck!

 

I'm running an Electriq 32" Curved 4K HDR monitor on an i9 12900K with onboard UHD-770 graphics.

Runs at 60hz 4K with no issues using display port, although HDR does not work the screen just goes an awful shade of grey. Unsure if this is down to not having a GPU or that the display port can't handle HDR. Not tested it to see, as I don't really care about HDR in my studio for making music lol.

 

HDMI vs. Displayport - What are the differences?

Even though the two standards are similar in their basic function, there are still a few striking differences. For the widespread HDMI connection, there are only cables up to a length of ten meters, after which transmission difficulties can occur. The cable for DisplayPort (DP for short), on the other hand, can be up to five meters longer. In terms of transmission speed, the latest version of the DisplayPort is clearly ahead with around 77 gigabits per second compared to HDMI with just under 43 gigabits per second.

In terms of maximum quality or resolution, the two come to a common denominator with 8K. However, note the different versions. For HDMI cables, version 2.1 achieves these values. For DisplayPorts, 2.0 is the latest version. There are also different types of HDMI cables, such as "High Speed" (particularly fast data transfer rate) or "Ethernet" (an Internet connection can be established via HDMI), so you should think about what you need before buying.

A DisplayPort on the other hand is especially interesting for gamers because it supports G-Sync from NVIDIA. The technologies perfectly matches the performance of the graphics card and the monitor to avoid judder and the like. On the other hand, AMD's counterpart called Freesync also works via HDMI. Also practical: You can connect several monitors in series via DisplayPort. So if you want to connect more than one monitor and they have two DPs, you only have to connect one to your output device and simply connect the monitors together.

Another plus is that DisplayPort is compatible with other connection types like VGA and USB-C. This means, for example, that external graphics cards with DisplayPort can also be connected to monitors with VGA or USB-C interfaces via a corresponding adapter.

 

Problem is, I must buy a monitor ASAP due to the one im currently using crapping out, so have to decide beforehand which card im gonna be stuck with. I want the card to be up to the task - card + monitor match made in heaven, both being used to "full potential"... if you catch my drift.

BTW the games run ok, but screen quality on this old monitor isnt great and the internet speed is not the greatest either so theres that. I only have 16gb DDR5 right now, so im buying the matching stick to have 32gb, but I dont REALLY need it as 16gb has been working very well so far.

 

Good to know! Cant find that monitor here, what price?

I'm confused which is best to connect with now.. HDMI 2.1 or DisplayPort 1.4 - RE: I need to order a cable ASAP!)

 

@BEAT16 thanks for confusing me even more... FFS SOMEBODY TELL ME, IS HDMI 2.1 BETTER OR WORSE THAN DISPLAYPORT 1.4 ??? a simple yes or no will do

 

Was £230 brand new from a store called Laptops Direct in the UK. For the price I cant fault it.

 

I personally use the display port for my 4K monitor. Here are a few advantages from DisplayPort :

HDMI or Displayport: advantages and disadvantages of each
https://movilforum.com/en/hdmi-or-displayport-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-each/

The video
- Transmission capacity of DisplayPort is slightly higher than that of HDMI. This is mainly because it supports fiber optic cables as an alternative to copper. In contrast, there are hardly any notable differences in the audio: both standards support up to eight channels of 24-bit 192 KHz audio.

- DisplayPort has a high data transfer rate that can reach 17.28 gigabytes per second.

- DisplayPort has an extended range transmission capability compared to fiber-optic interfaces.

After you have read everything is the conclusion: As you can see, it cannot be absolutely stated
that one connection standard is better than another. The choice depends on our own need

 

DisplayPort is always better than HDMI. I have personal grudge with HDMI... it causes more problems than solves. If you go with HDMI, be careful to buy a quality cable, but it's better to just go with DisplayPort and never worry about cables and why the monitor is not working or something.

 

damn it.. I just wasted an hour reading the DP 1.4 vs HDMI 2.1 reviews from like 10 different tech sites and came to the conclusion that in *most* scenarios, at least on paper, the HDMI 2.1 is the clear winner. Now this...

Speaking of "buy a quality cable" which of each kind are considered quality? IIRC the ones I was looking at were both branded "8K" or something.. pricewise they both were like €3-5 for 1.5m

 

If you buy an LG monitor the display port cable is already included. Plug it in once and that's it.