Should [H] start testing with a Quad HD display?

Q

Quartz-1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,257
Okay, they're rather expensive now, but they'll reduce in price dramatically very quickly. And theory says that with the higher PPI you need less AA etc.

And if you're investing in a multi-GPU setup now, wouldn't it be worth knowing that it actually worked with a QHD display?
 
It would be nice... OTOH, a rough guess could be taken based on the 3*1080p eyefinity benches.
 
I highly doubt it's necessary. It's going to take a long time before games start utilizing 2K and 4K resolutions. That and the displays themselves need to come down in price to allow more consumers to purchase them. The hardware themselves-- the graphics cards-- need to be a bit more powerful than they are now to be able to push textures, pixels, and polygons to 2K and 4K resolutions even with SLI or Crossfire configurations.
 
Considering that these are still $5000 right now, my guess is this A) won't happen anytime soon because [H] buys their own hardware, and B) won't be supported soon if at all. I am 99.999999% sure the next consoles will not support 4K resolutions, so I won't be holding my breath for PC games designed for 4K for a long time.
 
Rizen said:
Considering that these are still $5000 right now, my guess is this A) won't happen anytime soon because [H] buys their own hardware, and B) won't be supported soon if at all. I am 99.999999% sure the next consoles will not support 4K resolutions, so I won't be holding my breath for PC games designed for 4K for a long time.
Click to expand...

$5000? 27" QHD monitors are available around $300ish (granted not big name brand, although even those are ~$1000 tops)
 
helloha1 said:
$5000? 27" QHD monitors are available around $300ish (granted not big name brand, although even those are ~$1000 tops)
Click to expand...

Are you sure? :p

The OP isn't talking about WQHD @ 2560 x 1440 displays. He's referring to 4K UHD @ 3840 × 2160.
 
No. I like the real world testing. I doubt many of us are running quad displays. I'd love to, but my next purchase is two more for Eyefinity. Don't think I'll go quad as it would put the bezels between 2 and 3 in the direct center (either 4x1 or 2x2).
 
Ur_Mom said:
No. I like the real world testing. I doubt many of us are running quad displays. I'd love to, but my next purchase is two more for Eyefinity. Don't think I'll go quad as it would put the bezels between 2 and 3 in the direct center (either 4x1 or 2x2).
Click to expand...

lol
 
Quartz-1 said:
$5K is about the cost of a good large HD TV.
Click to expand...
You can definitely get fantastic 55-60" HDTVs for ~$2000, $3000 tops. I don't really see a reason to spend more than that unless you are getting 70"+. My friend has an extremely nice 58" plasma from a name brand and he paid <$2500.

These monitors are around 27-30", and cost $5000. Not really comparable.
 
4K displays will not drop in price anytime soon. How long have 30" displays been available now? And they're still around $1K
 
4k displays are coming out for 2500 in the next couple months. Doesn't seem that far off. Knowing which video cards do well could sway decisions right now.

4k is more than just the niche market the 30 inch displays held, its the next big thing for display makers to push sales into a market full of people who already own 1080p displays and need convincing.

I agree the 30 inch displays held high value way too long, but then again they originated in an era when IPS was a novelty for the spendy or pros. Now IPS is becoming mass market, and we have the 27 inch panels at $400. 4K monitors will probably ship this year in cheaper TN versions and all.

I think 4k is a big deal its what we need to create eyefinity without bezels. H cant buy them now but as soon as the first reasonable ones hit $1000 I would think they would want to be on the boat.
 
rudy said:
4k displays are coming out for 2500 in the next couple months.
Click to expand...

You mean $5,500?

Well I read the Sharp PN-K321 4K monitor would be around that price anyway.
 
Last edited:
Well, they already do... sort of

Eyefinity/nv surround setups can exceed 4k resolution.
 
Of course every Hardware enthusiats will immediately run out and buy three of these super high resolution monitors for their computers......holy shit......it will be several years for these things to be mainstream.....we should feel good H does Eyefinity and Surround articles......alot of sites don't even go that far.

Look at the Steam surveys sometime.......24" flat screen is still pretty low on the useage list......let alone three.....
 
Westing House said at CES they will ship a 50 inch 4k TV for 2500 this spring if my memory serves me correct. Multiple display makers said that they will also ship 4k devices this year. This is more than just a niche product this is the next big thing since 3D. The iPhone did not sell for thousands of dollars when it came out with the retina display because it had volume and I believe the volume will be on the side of 4k monitors and TVs. They wont be $200 but this wave will be sold in volume in 2014 if not 2013.
 
8k. 4k is for sillies. You never buy the half measured crap before the standard equipment comes out. :p
 
rudy said:
Westing House said at CES they will ship a 50 inch 4k TV for 2500 this spring if my memory serves me correct. Multiple display makers said that they will also ship 4k devices this year. This is more than just a niche product this is the next big thing since 3D. The iPhone did not sell for thousands of dollars when it came out with the retina display because it had volume and I believe the volume will be on the side of 4k monitors and TVs. They wont be $200 but this wave will be sold in volume in 2014 if not 2013.
Click to expand...

.........and TimeWarner cable will have exactly zero support for this...........In my area we still have about half the broadcasts in lovely breathtaking 720p.........the TVs maight be available, but the programming will be seriously behind.

I'm not holding my breath.
 
magoo said:
.........and TimeWarner cable will have exactly zero support for this...........In my area we still have about half the broadcasts in lovely breathtaking 720p.........the TVs maight be available, but the programming will be seriously behind.

I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

The definition is the choice of the broadcaster. Anything Fox, Anything ESPN/ABC/Disney, NatGEO and many many others are 720p and most likely will continue to be for a while. It was a choice back in the day 1080i or 720p. They are similar in bandwidth because 1080i is interlaced but a bigger picture but 720p is a solid image but smaller. Satellite broadcasters are crapping their pants even thinking about 1080p and most broadcasters aren't equipped for it yet. It'll be a very long time before we see anything greater then 1080p from a broadcast TV perspective.
 
Does not matter time warner does not really support 1080p either, did not stop everyone from buying 1080p sets. Think about it the way I do, its about pushing up the average. When 4K hits volume you mightfinally get 1080p, they will just call it 4k
 
OFaceSIG said:
The definition is the choice of the broadcaster. Anything Fox, Anything ESPN/ABC/Disney, NatGEO and many many others are 720p and most likely will continue to be for a while. It was a choice back in the day 1080i or 720p. They are similar in bandwidth because 1080i is interlaced but a bigger picture but 720p is a solid image but smaller. Satellite broadcasters are crapping their pants even thinking about 1080p and most broadcasters aren't equipped for it yet. It'll be a very long time before we see anything greater then 1080p from a broadcast TV perspective.
Click to expand...



Yeah........now on your 5000 dollar giant screen higher Resolution TV you can make the poor broadcast quality even worse......

Same as looking at 480 on your HD TV now......no thanks.
 
Last edited:
rudy said:
Does not matter time warner does not really support 1080p either, did not stop everyone from buying 1080p sets. Think about it the way I do, its about pushing up the average. When 4K hits volume you mightfinally get 1080p, they will just call it 4k
Click to expand...


I receive 1080 broadcast signals on NBC and some selected cable channels, and I have TimeWarner.

I have a Sony HD LCD and I have to admit it's disappointing now after a long, long time still not getting true HD broadcasts, especially for the crazy rates we pay.

Still having that poor quality magnified on three times the screen area would just plain suck.
 
The bigger issue is that a 50" TV is not a monitor. I can't sit close to a 50" screen and the PPI is not as good.

Sure, I can put it in my living room, and it would be pretty awesome for something like Steam Big Picture. But I still keep my primary gaming setup in my game room in my house, so ... I'm more interested in the 27-30" monitors with 4k resolution.
 
Rizen said:
The bigger issue is that a 50" TV is not a monitor. I can't sit close to a 50" screen and the PPI is not as good.

Sure, I can put it in my living room, and it would be pretty awesome for something like Steam Big Picture. But I still keep my primary gaming setup in my game room in my house, so ... I'm more interested in the 27-30" monitors with 4k resolution.
Click to expand...

LG showed one at CES (well were going to, I didn't pay attention if they actually did or not :D). It's UHD so I guess it will be the lower "4k" resolution and it's 30". :D
 
Like I said no one complained when 1080p came out, most 1080p and perhaps all on cable are compressed so they really are not 1080p and its typically obvious. Throw in a blu ray and compare any cable channel to it, not going to be the same. OTA might be different.

Also if you push a 50 inch TV to the back of your desk and it is 4k and you sit normal or back in your chair its probably going to look as good as the monitor you have now. 50 inch 4k is 88 DPI which is the same as those 1680x1050 monitors we were all buying for a couple years.

The point is less that you would use a 50 inch 4K, TV and more that if a company is offering a 2500 MSRP 4K TV this year then the monitors that are smaller probably wont justify a higher price than that.
 
This guys makes a bad argument, its the kind of argument that landed us lots of shitty standards, like 30 fps was all a human can see and 24 for films, and pentile displays. 1 he mentions nothing of nyquist, which states you cannot just set things at a resolvable resolution in order for information to be in good shape it must be greater than what you can resolve. Second he makes a bunch of averages and uses them. So 4k is not good for a 50 inch TV at 10 feet, but what if someone has a 55 inch TV or 65, now the line becomes less clear. He also keeps trying to say well this and that is good enough. But the fact is these things should be measured in the best case scenarios to accommodate all people If I walk past my plasma TV, it looks like shit, if I sit at my normal viewing distance 9.5 feet at 55 inches I can tell that while I cannot resolve every single pixel the text in windows running a pure 1080p and various curves are not as crisp as my eyes can see, this makes text more difficult to resolve than if it just looked crisp to me. If you give me double that resolution then I can really say it looks like a painted picture not a a digital image with pixels. And our goal should be that, to make sure that anyone who sees a TV or monitor cant tell that pixels even exist even if they move a little closer than normal. Sitting at 10 feet any person can lean forward and 10 feet turns into 8 feet. On a tight budget sure you can make those sacrifices but with more money why? Once mass market production hits it will be little or no more expensive to make 4k monitors and TVs.

that says nothing of the fact that once TVs go 4K they will start to become much better devices in a wider range of circumstances including using them as large monitors.

No one who had bad eye sight ever sits around and says I really hate that high resolution display but people with good eye sight will definitely notice a low resolution display. Think about it from the opposite view and it makes alot more sense. High resolution devices are just alot more flexible when you condsider that in a couple years they will cost as little as current 1080p sets the question is why not? And given all the fringe benifits like forcing display cables to finally get up to DVI-D speeds so we can finally move out of the VGA/DVI era, as well as allowing faster displays is important. I never ever cared about 3D but I do care about the fact it gave use 120hz panels. Once again guys like that probably spent a whole week convincing me 120 fps did not matter, but it does I can feel it.
 
Rizen said:
I am 99.999999% sure the next consoles will not support 4K resolutions, so I won't be holding my breath for PC games designed for 4K for a long time.
Click to expand...

What makes you so certain? Next-gen consoles are based on AMD hardware, and AMD cards that you can get for under $100 (7750) support 4k resolution.
 
I noticed that i could do 2xaa and 4af with my new monitor compared to 8xaa and 16af on regular 1920x1080 and see no difference or loose any frames.

To be honest i can barely notice even if i shut off aa and af running 2560x1440.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top