Very hot here today (34 degrees). Giving my 2011 macbook pro 15" a little work, i noticed a single vertical line on the display. No system crash and it's cooled down now and line has gone.
At the time, cooling was going fine - about 6000 rpm - and GPU never got above 60, though CPU was at times up to 85.

Is it likely to be an LCD or GPU anomoly. 

will only get worse 

Console gaming is pretty much dead since PS4/Xbone did fuck all to be interesting gaming platforms. 

Re my screen hardware fault - Yah... Most of the summer i had a screen line. So i've been looking out for a 2011 display for <= $200 (I can do it myself). But it's turned cold tonight and it's disappeared. :)

Has anyone checked out the new 12" Macbooks ? It has one freaking port. 1! Even by apple's standards, that's pretty amazing for a whole thirteen hundred US bucks. Some new USB thing for power and usb and video. Also has a retina display, a new keyboard getting mixed reviews, and a super low power Intel Core M with a decent turbo speed of >2.4GHz
http://www.apple.com/macbook/ 

Well, it is time for me to build up a new rig to catch up on 5+ years of PC gaming. What I can't decide on is what LCD to buy. I'm opting for 1920x1080 ones, preferably a 120/144Hz one. The thing is, no matter which one I'll choose it looks like I won't get the clarity and contrast of a high-end CRT (which I still use one way or another). It's clear that the newer tech has still its shortcomings. Still, no other options on the market so the step must be taken. So, do you guys have any recommendations? 

the Asus VG248QE on Daz's recommendation. It's a great monitor, it's 144hz and will make it impossible for me to go back to 60hz. For gaming I cannot recommend it enough, it may be even more true for older games since they don't tend to limit their frame-rate to 60hz.

Truly it is the best monitor I have ever bought, in a lot of ways it's superior to the 4k TV that I own.

The monitor isn't without it's faults though. The default settings are terrible, you will spend 20-30 minutes trying to get the brightness/contrast etc perfect. I have no idea how people without a monitor already do this, I used my tablet as a reference to get the colours right.

Also the monitor appears to have a very bizarre dithering problem. I don't have a clue why it uses colour dithering in some circumstances as it clearly has an excellent range on it. You will see it on some games more than others. After a while you won't notice or mind it but it is jarring at first. 

Check qw.nu threads 

erc what'd you decide on for your build? My computer is also 5 years old so I'm about to build a new computer too. Trying to keep it below NZ$3000 (USD$2000), which it's right on now. Anyone else just got a new computer?

Intel Skylake Core i7 6700K 4.0Ghz 8MB LGA 1151

Asus (Z170 PRO GAMING) Intel� Z170 ATX Motherboard

SAMSUNG (MZ-N5E500BW) 500GB 850 Evo Series Solid State Drive, M.2

Asus (STRIX-GTX970-DC2OC-4GD5) Overclocked STRIX GTX 970 DirectCU II 4GB GDDR5 SLI,

G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 2666Mhz

Corsair Carbide 500R White Mid-Tower Case

Microsoft Windows 10 Home, 32/64-Bit USB

EVGA SuperNOVA 650 G1 650W 80+ Gold Full Modular Power supply

Corsair Hydro Series� H110i GT 280mm Extreme Performance Liquid CPU Cooler

Plus install/build is only $80 so I reckon I'll get the shop to do it for me.

Already got the mouse, kb, extra hdds and monitor. I went and bought a cheap LG 27". Maybe should have looked into one of these 4k ones if they're that much better. 

I would seriously recommend looking at getting a 144hz monitor. Especially for games, the difference in smoothness is unreal. 

Looks like a great machine there Kona. You'll definitely be able to run ad_swampy at 30-40fps on that rig. ;)

Also, DaZ is right. Get a high refresh rate monitor. They're incredible. 

Never cared about refresh rate after going lcd, but I do have a 27" @ 1920x1080 and I find it very low res. 

Screen size is everything for me. I agree with Necros, I've never noticed refresh rate after switching to LCD. Makes no difference to me.

I have a 30" Apple screen and it's fucking phenomenal ... I've had it for, like, 4 years now and it's still my favorite monitor ever. 

Actually, probably closer to 6 years ... this thing is a tank. 

For me the refresh rate was just to avoid the annoying flickering @ 60hz on CRT.

I did play games at 120hz back in the day of CRT and it was OK, but it wasn't a top priority for me.

You can get high refresh but it costs you. I'd rather spend that cash on monitor size or resolution. 

"For me the refresh rate was just to avoid the annoying flickering @ 60hz on CRT."

Yes! Exactly. 60hz or lower and my file explorer window would be flickering constantly. 

I mean, that's the resolution my phone has, I think. I didn't go all the way to 4k though, I have a 2560x1440 25" I'm pretty happy with. 

lol @ 1080 being described as "pokey"...

I guess it's dependent on how close you sit to your screen and how big your screen is. One of my friends has a 30 inch screen at 4k but sits about a foot away from it. I can't imagine that being a good experience.

I believe the panel I am using is 22-24 inches (at the most) and 1080p is perfectly fine. I can barely make out the pixels. It's more noticeable in games but I would much rather have a lower res and a much higher frame-rate. I mean, games still look stunning in 1080p IMO.

I guess 1440 is becoming a new pc standard. I don't see a reason to go much higher. You're going to pay a huge performance cost unless you have a beast of a pc to go with it. 

lol @ 1080 being described as "pokey"...

I guess it's dependent on how close you sit to your screen and how big your screen is. One of my friends has a 30 inch screen at 4k but sits about a foot away from it. I can't imagine that being a good experience.

I believe the panel I am using is 22-24 inches (at the most) and 1080p is perfectly fine. I can barely make out the pixels. It's more noticeable in games but I would much rather have a lower res and a much higher frame-rate. I mean, games still look stunning in 1080p IMO.

I guess 1440 is becoming a new pc standard. I don't see a reason to go much higher. You're going to pay a huge performance cost unless you have a beast of a pc to go with it. 

It's all about screen real estate for me. I want huge viewports in my 3D apps. The larger the better. 

Not much different than yours, I'll be going for this next month:

Mobo: Asus Maximus VIII Hero / Intel Z170
CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K / 3.50GHz
GPU: Asus Strix GTX 980
RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury Black DDR4-2666Mhz / 2x8gb
PSU: Corsair CX750M / 750W 80+ Bronze
Case: Corsair Vengeance C70
HDD: WD WD1003FZEX Caviar Black / 1TB
SSD: Kingston HyperX Fury / 240GB
CPU Cooling: Corsair CW-9060021-WW H100i GTX Liquid
Case Cooling: Noctua NF-F12 PWM 120mm 3000-750rpm (x4)
Sound Card: Creative Sound Blaster ZxR
OS: Microsoft Windows 8.1 64bit
Monitor: Dell U2414H 23.8" 1080p 8ms 60Hz IPS

I've looked into LCD monitors much and for the time being, decided for an IPS panel: they're slightly behind in response times but better in color reproduction. It seems that 120/144Hz panels with GSync/FreeSync are still using more-or-less experimental tech and more prone to err. Besides, they're way more expensive than a quality 60Hz panel (at least in these parts) and apart from a certain ASUS product, all of them use TN panels which are worse in color reproduction than the ones that are utilizing IPS panels. Still, I'll be considering a second monitor of that type next year, when hopefully they'll be more affordable and better in terms of design.

As for resolution, I opted for 1080p. Considering the limitations of LCD tech, it's clear that the monitor one uses directly effects the life of the actual rig - owing to the 'natural resolution' fact (which wasn't a problem with CRT's). If I choose a 1440p monitor, my rig needs to be powerful enough to run that res at 60Hz constantly. If I use a 1080p one instead, I decrease that need by a notch - where acceptable, I'll use AA, wherenot, I'll be a able to squeeze at least a year more from the same rig by simply not using AA. 

yeah, gfx card power was one of the reasons I went with a lower native res on a 27". At the time, I had a lowly GTS 250. Now with the GTX 960 I would be fine with a 1440 display.

otoh, erc, i see you are going for a 24". My last monitor was a 24" @ 1080 and that was more than enough to look crisp, but i would say 24" is about the max before the pixels start to be pretty visible.

but the 30" Fifth was talking about earlier? It needs to be 1440 at the least. 4k is probably excessive. Also windows doesn't scale fonts properly the way mac OS does, so you can end up with a lot of subtle broken UI elements. 

I think 1080p with a good refresh rate, 144hz and up, is the sweet spot for now.

Use that saved money to get a gtx 980 or greater and DSR/downsample everything and it might not seems so "pokey". 

Yup, I figured out that anything above 24" won't look good enough on 1080p. Besides AA, there's also DSR that KillPixel mentioned - using those methods I think I'll be pretty happy with what I get. Crispness of the image wins over bigger screen size for me. I have been using 17"/19" CRTs for over 15 years now - never had the urge to go bigger. 

You run the 30" at 2560x1600 ... am I taking crazy pills here? 1080? The hell? :) 

I wonder what they'll try to sell us after 4K. Isn't that close to the resolution limit of the human eye?

I don't understand the infatuation with liquid cooling. I see little need to overclock these days and the stock Intel fans are all but silent except under heavy loads. It's not that liquid cooling isn't a little better or less noise, but the improvement doesn't seem anywhere near worth the added complexity and cost.