![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The elusive 4k 40" monitor
- Thread starter zzz
- Start date
some do exist. The Philips BDM4065UC is the most popular, but Seiki also have a version too:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/philips_bdm4065uc.htm
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/philips_bdm4065uc.htm
Thanks guys. Don't those Samsung TVs have >20ms lag though? Why don't we see any offerings from Dell, HP, LG, etc?
The Phillips looks interesting. Lag is borderline-acceptable. Too bad the stand isn't adjustable, but I suppose a VESA mount could get around that. How do you feel about the 240Hz PWM backlight? I've heard some people can't stand that, but wouldn't it be better than a CRT running at 100Hz? I guess the better way to vary brightness is to reduce the LED current rather than PWM.
The Phillips looks interesting. Lag is borderline-acceptable. Too bad the stand isn't adjustable, but I suppose a VESA mount could get around that. How do you feel about the 240Hz PWM backlight? I've heard some people can't stand that, but wouldn't it be better than a CRT running at 100Hz? I guess the better way to vary brightness is to reduce the LED current rather than PWM.
Andrew_WOT
n00b
- Joined
- May 15, 2015
- Messages
- 30
Crossover and Wasabi Mango are not PWM
We could really use a thread that tracks all known 38-44" 4k monitors and their associated lag and dimming method. And a comment about which one is currently the best. It takes too long to read through hundreds of outdated posts
I agree, the info seems to be pretty spread out. The crossover 404K at $499 seems awfully tempting.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-CROSSOV...tor-NEW-44K-/141713915570?hash=item20fecebeb2
Thread at ocn about it
http://www.overclock.net/t/1549360/crossover-44k-uhd-led-40-inch-monitor
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Uhh, that is a complete steal at that price.
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Climber, I believe I saw somewhere that you have this monitor? So I take it you recommend it then?
Yea I do. Doesn't get used for gaming as much as I'd like but when I do it is pretty immersive and fluid. Colors are vibrant and pop, and the PQ is top notch for movies and online videos.
I use it primarily for photography and engineering and using Lightroom and Navisworks it is pretty nice being able to have multiple full size windows open at once. Makes for a pretty productive workflow.
That's a little bit on the small side. The ideal UHD monitor would be 44" since that gives us 100 pixels per inch.
With notebooks especially, but also monitors, pixel density has slowly been creeping up to 110, 120, 130 PPI and it's just not as comfortable as it should be.
Either go all-in and make a 200 PPI display, or stick to 100 PPI in my opinion.
I remember when Apple made a big deal about their 30" 1600p Cinema Displays being 100 PPI, but even they have switched to 27" 1440p instead. (110 PPI)
With notebooks especially, but also monitors, pixel density has slowly been creeping up to 110, 120, 130 PPI and it's just not as comfortable as it should be.
Either go all-in and make a 200 PPI display, or stick to 100 PPI in my opinion.
I remember when Apple made a big deal about their 30" 1600p Cinema Displays being 100 PPI, but even they have switched to 27" 1440p instead. (110 PPI)
Apple going that route is a simple matter of supply and demand from the rest of the market trickling down to them. The industry unfortunately embraced 16:9 instead of 16:10 ratio displays. As a result manufacturers that supply panels just aren't doing work on 16:10 ratio panels. Apple has little choice if they want to be competitive. They could have 16:10 panels made but the costs would be even higher than they already are for its displays.
Well I pulled the trigger on this. Too good to pass up on that sale price.
As much as I hate 16:9, I think that can be better for huge monitors. With a 40" 4x3 or 16:10 it would be harder for your eye level to be roughly in the center of the screen (assuming a typical chair and table setup). But if your keyboard and mouse could sit at a different height in front of a recessed monitor, then something like a 50" 4x3 would be badass.
Try the Crossover 434K then - it is 43".
If the 434K supports Freesync like the 494K I'll be all over it like a fat kid on a Smartie
i will post again on the hope tht someone with decision powers in the industry read and act upon information:
- 4k resolution
- bigger than 32" and smaller than 40"
- PWM free
-capable of 1080p 120hz without skipping frames
-HDMI 2.0 with true srGB ou 4:4:4 chroma at 4k60Hz
- Compatible with netflix 4k
-less than 2 frames of input lag at 4k60hz
Bonus features:
-less than 1 frame of input lag at 4k60hz
-strobing backlight at 1080p120Hz
-DP 1.2a support for freesync
how much am i willing to pay? around $1200 without bonus features, up to $1500 with the bonus features.
- 4k resolution
- bigger than 32" and smaller than 40"
- PWM free
-capable of 1080p 120hz without skipping frames
-HDMI 2.0 with true srGB ou 4:4:4 chroma at 4k60Hz
- Compatible with netflix 4k
-less than 2 frames of input lag at 4k60hz
Bonus features:
-less than 1 frame of input lag at 4k60hz
-strobing backlight at 1080p120Hz
-DP 1.2a support for freesync
how much am i willing to pay? around $1200 without bonus features, up to $1500 with the bonus features.
Erasmus354
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 9,450
The thing to keep in mind with those Crossover displays is that they aren't using top grade panels. You are likely to have stuck / dead pixels on those displays. It is one of the reasons they are so cheap, they are using the panels that LG etc... couldn't sell to big name brands. If that bothers you, it is probably better to buy something more mainstream that is using the higher grade panels.
I think you are right. Having said that Human eyes have a wider field of view than a vertical one. So with regard to 48" monitors and possibly 40s, you really do want to go wider rather than taller. And I have to admit looking at my 48" I can only conclude that increased vertical height would be a problem at this size.
AMH A399U - 39.5 inches, 4k @ 60Hz, 4:4:4 Chroma over DP 1.2, VA Panel. This is probably the same panel as the Crossover 404K which runs around similar prices.
- http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-AMH-A39...pered-glass-/141687838765?hash=item20fd40d82d
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o553bTyFElQ
Crossover (about $40 more): 39.5 inches, 4k @ 60Hz, 4:4:4 Chroma Over DP 1.2, VA Panel, CONFIRMED PWM-Free.
- http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-CROSSOV...tor-NEW-44K-/141713915570?hash=item20fecebeb2
- http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1857962&page=3
I personally still think 1440p is the sweet spot for gaming. But productivity wise, 4k blows it out of the water.
- http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-AMH-A39...pered-glass-/141687838765?hash=item20fd40d82d
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o553bTyFElQ
Crossover (about $40 more): 39.5 inches, 4k @ 60Hz, 4:4:4 Chroma Over DP 1.2, VA Panel, CONFIRMED PWM-Free.
- http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-CROSSOV...tor-NEW-44K-/141713915570?hash=item20fecebeb2
- http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1857962&page=3
I personally still think 1440p is the sweet spot for gaming. But productivity wise, 4k blows it out of the water.
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I keep seeing people say this, and while that may be true, can't you just run a 1440 custom res on a 4K screen. Hell you can run ultrawide, you can run 3840x1600 if you so choose. I don't see how limiting the screen space can ever be a negative.
I was referring more to the performance aspect of 4k gaming. Sure, you could play games at 2560x1440 on a 4k monitor to help downplay the performance hit, but you aren't getting the full native resolution. Don't get me wrong, i'm sure many do use 1440p on a 4k monitor and have no problem with it. Hell, sometimes I run a virtual 4k resolution on my 1440p monitors just to see what it's like.
But overall, it takes a pretty damn good ( and for many--- impractical) computer to max out games on 4k @ 60 fps, while 1440p takes a good computer to max out and have an enjoyable experience with. This was the same story with 1440/1600p when they were considered top-of-the-line resolutions. As we all know, as graphics cards get better, higher resolutions become more and more playable. It's all about the waiting game.
There's also nothing wrong with limiting screen space or even maximizing screen space. When it comes to that, it's about personal preference.
after living with practically every setup out there, I really don't understand the love for 1440p. not sharp enough without a lot of AA, doesn't scale well for productivity/web content, middling source content, not wide enough to feel immersive, and long term, it makes for a somewhat awkward accessory resolution compared to just a 1080p (1080p is still great at browsing documents and web pages imo). at least a 4K accessory monitor can be split up neatly in multiple ways (like quad 1080p)
1440p just feels like a middling bastard child to me. ok at most things, good at none of them - and will be forgotten quickly as more 4K and beyond becomes available
***all imo /shrug
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,858
Just above 20ms in game mode, yes.
(23ms?)
It is below my detection level.
In PC mode it is in the mid 40's to low 50's, and is very noticeable, but not really noteworthy for desktop apps, IMHO.
I think 1440p at ~27" just happens to be a current sweet spot for bang/buck.
There needs to be something between 32 and 40. That would be like having nothing between 18" and 27", it doesn't make sense. There used to be 36" panels in the world, they just passed due to low demand. I think 4k at 36" would be spectacular.
But I might be alone
But I might be alone
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,505
That is why I decided to just get a large 4k monitor to use as a monitor instead of those TVs. That and the Samsung TVs use PWM. Waiting on some reviews of the Crossover 434k to decide between it and the Wasabi Mango 420.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,858
I play all my games in game mode. It has lower lag than any non-crt monitor I've ever owned, and is completely imperceptible to me.
I switch to PC mode for desktop use. The 50ms is noticeable here if you are looking for it, but not bothersome.
I couldn't play most games in PC mode though.
To me this setup is very good.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,858
You must be a slow mouse user compared to me
What do you do on your desktop? Play whack a mole?
that's what I used too - and I found it underwhelming....
but I came from bigger setups down to 1440p, not up from 1080p....so it's just my personal experiences with it. I'm definitely in the minority given the market trends - I'll just never understand it /shrug
tegirinenashi
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 140
Indeed, there is clear gap in 4K display diagonals spectrum, and yet manufacturers are busy offering yet another 21:9 nonsense. I suggest that the volume of their 21:9 offerings is such small fraction of UHD, that 36" UHD is much more viable niche. Somebody in their business strategy department should be fired.
It looks like laptop revolution, which happened decade ago or so, killed display industry. Before that they had decent sales volumes driving innovation, so that computer displays were always ahead of TVs. After everybody switched to laptops display manufacturers stopped to innovate. If it were up to them we would still be paying $1200 for Apple Cinema display knockoffs with no alternative in sight. (This positive influence of TV industry comes as surprise for me)
Last edited:
^agreed
I was hoping that the XB280HK would hold me over for a few years while I wait for the market to fight itself out to a true upgrade. TN with good enough colors, fast response time, g-sync, 4K resolution, wider resolution than 3440x1440 21:9 so it should be even more immersive when combined with g-sync
and when I finally got it, I couldn't believe how small it was. it was sharp...sure....but it just felt like I was staring through a peephole coming from 1080p surround, 1440p surround, and 3440x1440. I couldn't get over it. my render resolution just felt small....
4K at <30" just felt pointless and very "early-adopter". Sold it off and just went back to 3440x1440 for now and to see that the market is just getting more sub 34" 4K monitors makes me shake my head in disappointment
I was hoping that the XB280HK would hold me over for a few years while I wait for the market to fight itself out to a true upgrade. TN with good enough colors, fast response time, g-sync, 4K resolution, wider resolution than 3440x1440 21:9 so it should be even more immersive when combined with g-sync
and when I finally got it, I couldn't believe how small it was. it was sharp...sure....but it just felt like I was staring through a peephole coming from 1080p surround, 1440p surround, and 3440x1440. I couldn't get over it. my render resolution just felt small....
4K at <30" just felt pointless and very "early-adopter". Sold it off and just went back to 3440x1440 for now and to see that the market is just getting more sub 34" 4K monitors makes me shake my head in disappointment
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,858
I've never used 1440p. I got a 30" 2560x1600 Dell U3011 in late 2010, and I loved it, but it started to die. Moving up to the 48" Samsung JS9000 was the next logical progression for me
With all the GPU power we have at our disposal these days I don't think I can agree that 1440P is the sweet spot. Its an abysmal resolution anyway. All the monitors that use it are pretty much small. I much preferred 2560x1600 over 2560x1440. For productivity 4K only works in my opinion when you have a display large enough to get the text to a readable size without manually adjusting the font size which tends to distort how some windows appear. At the right display size (40" Plus) I'd agree that 4K is where it is at for productivity.
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Well who wouldn't prefer the 30, but look at the cost difference!
Dell 30" 2560x1600: $1250
Dell 27" 2560x1440: $600
Newegg has a "perfect pixel" 27" 1440 AH-IPS for $279. Looks like a sweet spot* to me.
*Note: "sweet spot" is not intended to apply to users who use a 48" computer display; it applies to the general public.