Upgrading monitor (Gaming.) Torn between 4k TV and high end 100+ HZ.

J

JMFitzy85

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
79
Hey guys,

I know I usually just post to bleed you guys dry of information, so thanks in advance.

So I'm putting my brain in a pretzel over which direction to go for my monitor upgrade.

I'm coming from a 2015 Samsung JS6300 I believe, it's a 40 inch 4K. When I had it the picture quality blew me away, the panel coupled with the resolution. I thought I would miss 120HZ but I really kind of didn't..

I would think that's my answer but now I'm struggling between the Sony X800D (55) and a comparable Samsung offering. I find myself wanting to upgrade the quality of the colors etc over smoothness.

But, I have this bug in the brain that's wanting to try GSync and less of a demanding resolution. Some of the curved 100HZ offerings that are out there.

I have a Zotac Amp GTX 980TI, I know it's not enough to drive 4K at all eye candy but I plan on upgrading when the 1080 TI's come around, assuming they do.

Tl;Dr

Any 100+ HZ monitor suggestions on the high end? Any experience with Sony's x800d or the comp Samsung offering?

I've noticed the x800D can do 120HZ from a PC at 1080p.. is that gross to look at on a 55? Thanks!

EDIT: X850D
 
Last edited:
I have a 40" 4k right now, and while its awesome for lots of things, i would trade it for a 34" ultrawide with frreesync and 100 hz in a heartbeat!
 
257Tony said:
I have a 40" 4k right now, and while its awesome for lots of things, i would trade it for a 34" ultrawide with frreesync and 100 hz in a heartbeat!
Click to expand...

Interesting. Any reason for that?

That speed really helps things feel better, huh? I could never quite push it until now.
 
JMFitzy85 said:
Interesting. Any reason for that?

That speed really helps things feel better, huh? I could never quite push it until now.
Click to expand...
Yes, once I tried the high refresh rate coupled with variable refresh it's hard to go back to 60hz and tearing. I may feel different if my 4k had freesync.
 
JMFitzy85 said:
Hey guys,

I know I usually just post to bleed you guys dry of information, so thanks in advance.

So I'm putting my brain in a pretzel over which direction to go for my monitor upgrade.

I'm coming from a 2015 Samsung JS6300 I believe, it's a 40 inch 4K. When I had it the picture quality blew me away, the panel coupled with the resolution. I thought I would miss 120HZ but I really kind of didn't..

I would think that's my answer but now I'm struggling between the Sony X800D (55) and a comparable Samsung offering. I find myself wanting to upgrade the quality of the colors etc over smoothness.

But, I have this bug in the brain that's wanting to try GSync and less of a demanding resolution. Some of the curved 100HZ offerings that are out there.

I have a Zotac Amp GTX 980TI, I know it's not enough to drive 4K at all eye candy but I plan on upgrading when the 1080 TI's come around, assuming they do.

Tl;Dr

Any 100+ HZ monitor suggestions on the high end? Any experience with Sony's x800d or the comp Samsung offering?

I've noticed the x800D can do 120HZ from a PC at 1080p.. is that gross to look at on a 55? Thanks!
Click to expand...
There are 2 things wrong with your post that may change help sway you. First of all, the X800D you're looking at is available in 43" or 49", but not the 55" you keep mentioning. Secondly, the X800D cannot display a 1080p input at 120Hz according to rtings.com (quite reputable). Although it will accept a 120Hz input, the display itself is limited to a physical refresh rate of 60Hz.

Hope that makes things a bit easier for you.
 
Could not and would not ever go back to a smaller than 40" display again. Watch far too much content on it and anything smaller than 40" with a high resolution is far too difficult for my 40 year old eyes to read comfortably.

I never had a problem with 60hz and 30ms input lag it all feels the same to me once it gets up to at least that fast. If you're sensitive to it you'll have to make a concession one way or another.
 
257Tony said:
I have a 40" 4k right now, and while its awesome for lots of things, i would trade it for a 34" ultrawide with frreesync and 100 hz in a heartbeat!
Click to expand...
A friend of mine did the exact opposite. He HATED having to deal with the ultrawide resolution since so many games didn't support it natively and you'd have to do a ton of tinkering to get it working, so he sold it... Plus, the 34 ultrawide is only slightly larger than a 27 inch display, just allot wider. After being 40 inches, I couldn't handle smaller than 32 inch and I doubt even that would please me. I already have a 120 hz 2ndary monitor if I really want to play a game at higher refresh rates (Korean 27 inch), I only even notice it in FPS, in other game types 60 hz vs 120 hz really isn't that noticeable to me.
 
Panel said:
There are 2 things wrong with your post that may change help sway you. First of all, the X800D you're looking at is available in 43" or 49", but not the 55" you keep mentioning. Secondly, the X800D cannot display a 1080p input at 120Hz according to rtings.com (quite reputable). Although it will accept a 120Hz input, the display itself is limited to a physical refresh rate of 60Hz.

Hope that makes things a bit easier for you.
Click to expand...

This was a mistake. I meant the x850D. I'll edit to reflect that.

EDIT: I've narrowed it down to the x850D or the KS8500.. I hate Samsung for not allowing 120 at 1080 on their panel.
 
Last edited:
JMFitzy85 said:
This was a mistake. I meant the x850D. I'll edit to reflect that.

EDIT: I've narrowed it down to the x850D or the KS8500.. I hate Samsung for not allowing 120 at 1080 on their panel.
Click to expand...
I'd go with the Sony. Reason? I din't have anything too logical to back myself up other than my belief that 1080p at 120Hz is a very, very useful feature to have on a TV and makes it (in my opinion) much better for monitor/gaming use.

As for irrational reasons... I like their design much, much better. I like their interface more, their remote more, their stand more, their slightly better color accuracy more, as well as the Sony name (I have pretty huge Sony bias). So yeah... I'd pick this over the Samsung.
 
Panel said:
I'd go with the Sony. Reason? I din't have anything too logical to back myself up other than my belief that 1080p at 120Hz is a very, very useful feature to have on a TV and makes it (in my opinion) much better for monitor/gaming use.

As for irrational reasons... I like their design much, much better. I like their interface more, their remote more, their stand more, their slightly better color accuracy more, as well as the Sony name (I have pretty huge Sony bias). So yeah... I'd pick this over the Samsung.
Click to expand...


Thanks for this. That's really what I'm leaning towards but it's the curve of the Samsung and the supposedly deeper blacks, lower input lag and all that's making me second guess. This has helped though. 120 at 1080 is a versatile thing to have.
 
JMFitzy85 said:
Thanks for this. That's really what I'm leaning towards but it's the curve of the Samsung and the supposedly deeper blacks, lower input lag and all that's making me second guess. This has helped though. 120 at 1080 is a versatile thing to have.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping Sony improves upon some of these in 2017's models. Personally, I'm ok with the loss of some blacks for better color accuracy. The curve, I believe, is a must have. Unfortunately, the TV market as a whole is shying away from curves, and Sony was never big on them to start with.
 
sboucher said:
Neither, buy a VR set for gaming instead. You won't regret it.
Click to expand...

Christ. VR's already dead. Nobody wants to put a heavy helmet on their head to play a fucking game. It'll be out of the picture even faster than 3D TVs.

VR is never going to work until there's a direct neural interface.
 
bigbluefe said:
Christ. VR's already dead. Nobody wants to put a heavy helmet on their head to play a fucking game. It'll be out of the picture even faster than 3D TVs.

VR is never going to work until there's a direct neural interface.
Click to expand...
Finally, someone gets it!
 
LOL, I think you guys missed the part where the OP stated he already has one.

VR is far from dead, it's booming.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sboucher said:
LOL, I think you guys missed the part where the OP stated he already has one.

VR is far from dead, it's booming.
Click to expand...

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/06/vr-sales-flatline-as-early-adopter-market-dries-up-6112288/

It's already dead. It's not booming at all. They were very disappointed by the sales of the hardware, no decent game companies are actually building games for it, so there's going to be no compelling reason to buy one. It's basically snake oil.

It cracks me up how naive and dumb people are. If something is hot, if something is going to be a revolution, it doesn't need a salesman constantly trying to sell you on it and justify why it's so important. All you see with VR is VR companies telling you about how revolutionary it is. No, fucking SHOW me, asshole. When DOOM came out, it didn't need a salesman. It was obviously fucking awesome and you wanted it. The first time you saw Mario 64 or GLQuake, it was fucking awesome, and you wanted it.

I see these shit gimmick VR games that have WORSE gameplay than games we played 20 years ago with the added benefit of strapping a sweaty helmet to my face, and it's NOT awesome, and I DON'T want it.

This generation of VR fucking sucks.
 
sboucher said:
LOL, I think you guys missed the part where the OP stated he already has one.

VR is far from dead, it's booming.
Click to expand...

Nonono. You misread the article. VR WENT "boom".

There was lots of enthusiasm in 2015 and 2016 as second-gen rigs started to move into consumer space.

The problem is, even the second-gen stuff wasn't adequate.

Plus, several major issues not tied to hardware inadequacy in VR STILL haven't been solved.

As such, commitment to the platform could be charitably described as "VR enthusiast only". It's industry-speak for "No industry commitment."
 
Truth. I love the VR concept and the headset but I hate fucking wearing it. Smooshing my glasses and getting my face sweat and wet.

The resolution is a nightmare too.

That being said, I'm crossing my fingers for advancement outside of gaming.

There's also something about VR that is just kind of awesome. The porn, I think.
 
You boys go on believing the Earth is still flat, that's fine with me.

But here is a quote from Kyle;

I got asked this week if HardOCP had "given up" on VR gaming since they saw a lack of content for a while. Oh hell no! VR is the next big thing and is going to change the world. You can quote me on that. We will be back into it very soon as a lot of great VR game titles have launched in the last 60 days.

I'd consider that the last word on it here..
 
StormClaw said:
I got an Asus 34" widescreen Gsync 100Hz and i find it too fuckign small for me.

Thinking of grabbing a 4k 49X800D. Altho i do have 2 titans to drive it.

So, there you go.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm settled on the sets. It's just between the x850D and the KS8500 now. Curve and input lag vs 120hz versatility and color accuracy I guess.
 
JMFitzy85 said:
Yeah, I'm settled on the sets. It's just between the x850D and the KS8500 now. Curve and input lag vs 120hz versatility and color accuracy I guess.
Click to expand...
If I may ask (and I'm genuinely not trying to be rude here), how exactly do you plan on practically using a 55"? At that size, wouldn't it make more sense to save a bit more and wait a few months (for prices to come down) to buy an LG OLED?
 
Panel said:
If I may ask (and I'm genuinely not trying to be rude here), how exactly do you plan on practically using a 55"? At that size, wouldn't it make more sense to save a bit more and wait a few months (for prices to come down) to buy an LG OLED?
Click to expand...

I was just thinking of trying to stretch for an OLED. I also had worries about the size, too.

It seems like it's being done enough and that I can stand or mount it deep enough for it to work. Think I should consider 49?
 
JMFitzy85 said:
According to rtings.com they say the x850D accepts 120hz true from a PC, it's the only panel that does. At 1080p of course.

Is this wrong?
Click to expand...

what's the point of getting a 4K tv for PC use and running it at 1080p ?
 
StormClaw said:
what's the point of getting a 4K tv for PC use and running it at 1080p ?
Click to expand...

In the event I was in a situation where I wanted to have fluidity over resolution. A shooter, for example.

It's still a great set and it just adds a layer of versatility that the other sets don't have.
 
JMFitzy85 said:
I was just thinking of trying to stretch for an OLED. I also had worries about the size, too.

It seems like it's being done enough and that I can stand or mount it deep enough for it to work. Think I should consider 49?
Click to expand...
Although I did criticize the 55" in my previous comment, I'm not all to sure. After all, I used to be against 49", and before that all TVs (for monitors) in general. So although I THINK that 55" is too big, that may not be the case.

But 55" and the price is why people aren't using OLEDs. You're already ok with 55", which is why I think you should stretch the price.

If yo can't stretch the price, then I'd say 49" all the way.
StormClaw said:
what's the point of getting a 4K tv for PC use and running it at 1080p ?
Click to expand...
For video games! For monitor use, it'll still be at 60Hz. I'm seriously considering waiting a few more months for Sony to release new, HDMI 2.1 TVs. Those should be able to do 120Hz 4K, sense the only thing holding it back is the fact that the HDMI 2 ports these TVs use don't have the bandwidth to push 4k120.
 
Panel said:
For video games!
Click to expand...
Why would you game in 1080p on a 49" monitor? Everything would be so huge. I thought the whole point want to get a big enough monitor to game in 4K. Am I wrong? What's the correct logic here?


Panel said:
I'm seriously considering waiting a few more months for Sony to release new, HDMI 2.1 TVs. Those should be able to do 120Hz 4K, sense the only thing holding it back is the fact that the HDMI 2 ports these TVs use don't have the bandwidth to push 4k120.
Click to expand...
Do you know for a fact that they are coming? Was there some kind of announcement?

I went through the CES 2017 cliff notes on TVs, and everyone seems to be dead set on OLEDs. Even Sony are releasing a line up.
 
StormClaw said:
Why would you game in 1080p on a 49" monitor? Everything would be so huge. I thought the whole point want to get a big enough monitor to game in 4K. Am I wrong? What's the correct logic here?





Do you know for a fact that they are coming? Was there some kind of announcement?

I went through the CES 2017 cliff notes on TVs, and everyone seems to be dead set on OLEDs. Even Sony are releasing a line up.
Click to expand...

I think the logic is that 1080 can still be am acceptable resolution on a large panel display, especially considering console games don't really run at 4k even with the exception of the PS4 pro. That's upscaled, too.

You guys are still saying that you can only get 60Hz for monitor use with the x850D but the rtings review states specifically that it accepts 120Hz through a PC input. Does this just not work while browsing the desktop but will run the games at higher than 60? Or display it rather.

Either way, 1080 is a hit but in the event you want fluidity over beauty it's the only TV in that range that does it.

4K at 60HZ for single player RPGs and things of that nature. 1080 at 120Hz for multiplayer shooters or anything twitchy.

This was my logic.
 
Panel said:
Although I did criticize the 55" in my previous comment, I'm not all to sure. After all, I used to be against 49", and before that all TVs (for monitors) in general. So although I THINK that 55" is too big, that may not be the case.

But 55" and the price is why people aren't using OLEDs. You're already ok with 55", which is why I think you should stretch the price.

If yo can't stretch the price, then I'd say 49" all the way.

For video games! For monitor use, it'll still be at 60Hz. I'm seriously considering waiting a few more months for Sony to release new, HDMI 2.1 TVs. Those should be able to do 120Hz 4K, sense the only thing holding it back is the fact that the HDMI 2 ports these TVs use don't have the bandwidth to push 4k120.
Click to expand...


This was what I was currently thinking to make the 55 work. 55 on an Ikea style desk.

An Ikea style desk a couple of inches shorter underneath the same desk on the adjustable wheeled legs. Then I can just pull it out like a tray and slide it back under when I don't need it.

Kind of an convoluted plan instead of just getting a deeper desk but I think it can work!

Plus, like.. it hurts me that the 49 and the 55 are only 100 bucks apart.
 
JMFitzy85 said:
You guys are still saying that you can only get 60Hz for monitor use with the x850D but the rtings review states specifically that it accepts 120Hz through a PC input. Does this just not work while browsing the desktop but will run the games at higher than 60? Or display it rather.
Click to expand...

I assume that others are alluding to the bandwidth limitation imposed by HDMI 2.0. At a resolution of 4k, you'd be limited to 60 fps regardless of the display's native refresh rate. Strangely, Sony doesn't list 1080p@120hz as a supported resolution of the the X850D in their specifications published online, though the source you mention above claims that is supported. Who knows what to believe; TV manufacturers are so full of shit.
 
JMFitzy85 said:
You guys are still saying that you can only get 60Hz for monitor use with the x850D but the rtings review states specifically that it accepts 120Hz through a PC input. Does this just not work while browsing the desktop but will run the games at higher than 60? Or display it rather.
Click to expand...
A lot of people have said part of the complete truth, but only part:

1. The TV will accept a 120Hz 1080p signal, for both games and desktop usage, from a PC.

2. We don't know if the TV will take a 4K signal, because the current standard is HDMI 2.0, which CANNOT carry a 4K signal at 120Hz. This might change once TVs start being released with HDMI 2.1
 
Panel said:
A lot of people have said part of the complete truth, but only part:

1. The TV will accept a 120Hz 1080p signal, for both games and desktop usage, from a PC.

2. We don't know if the TV will take a 4K signal, because the current standard is HDMI 2.0, which CANNOT carry a 4K signal at 120Hz. This might change once TVs start being released with HDMI 2.1
Click to expand...


Right, got it.

Think I've settled on stretching to the OLED.
 
JMFitzy85 said:
I think the logic is that 1080 can still be am acceptable resolution on a large panel display.
Click to expand...
If i wanted to game (PC) at 1080p i wouldn't need such a huge display.

In fact, I could get an awesome sub-30" monitor with high refresh rate, gsynch and all that jazz - and the things on this small screen but at 1080p would be acceptable size.
I'm getting a huge TV just so that things don't look tiny when I run in solely at 4k.
Is that a failed logic? I'm not trolling here, just trying to understand if i'm thinking the right way.

(PS4 is a whole other matter. I got a 75 sony TV for that in the living room and a 65" LG OLED in the bedroom).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top