Samsung’s premium 2020 TVs to support 8K at 60Hz and 4k at 120Hz

M

Marees

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
2,075
Samsung states that the HDMI 2.1 connections on its premium 2020 TVs – down to and including the Q70T range – have enough data bandwidth to support 4K gaming up to 120Hz and, on Samsung’s 8K TVs, 8K at 60Hz

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...-partners-for-the-next-gen-game-consoles/amp/

For many gamers, though, the single most exciting gaming attraction of Samsung’s new premium 4K and 8K TVs will be their incredibly low levels of input lag.
... Samsung is hitting just 10ms of lag this year. That’s one of the lowest figures ever seen on a TV, and certainly the lowest such figure seen on a TV as rich in picture quality features and processing as Samsung’s latest premium models.

Samsung hasn’t just targeted ultra-low input lag and left it at that, though. In recognition of the fact that minimizing nput lag means sacrificing some picture quality features, Samsung also provides its premium 2020 TVs with a new Game Motion Plus mode that lets you retain a little motion smoothing processing in return for the input lag increasing to a still extremely usable 27ms. This can be helpful for RPG/adventure/exploration games such as Skyrim or the Uncharted series, where avoiding judder and stutter as you explore the rich gaming worlds is more important to your sense of immersion than a few extra milliseconds of response time.

You can even adjust manually the level of blur and judder reduction Samsung 2020 TVs apply to your gaming picture, allowing you to pick your preferred balanced between smoothness/clarity and potential unwanted processing artefacts.
Click to expand...
 
staknhalo said:
No Dolby Vision on Samsung TVs 👎
Click to expand...

Yeah. The movie industry seems to be moving more towards Dolby Vision. Samsung continuining to push it's proprietary HDR+ standard at this point is ridiculous. It's never going to take off. They need to drop it and adopt DV.
 
4k 120hz? Who's got a rig that can support that with settings that look better than 1080p? Have I been out of the loop that long?
 
staknhalo said:
Most Esport games don't take much, plus DLSS helps for other games
Click to expand...
Eh, most comp players are likely to use a higher response rate monitor to take full advantage of high refresh rates rather than a TV. Though, I'm not sure what the console Esport scene is like, I wouldn't doubt pros using monitors over TVs as well.

cybereality said:
I played Half Life 2 at 5K 166Hz, full max settings. If you enjoy older games this is possible today.
Click to expand...
This is completely understandable for games you can get to properly upscale.

Overall, it just feels gimmicky at ths point in time where there's a solution with no reasonable demand (I doubt even nextgen consoles are up to the task). I enjoy innovation, but would have preferred this be a proof of concept to help further develop display tech instead of a production model.
 
Skull_Angel said:
Eh, most comp players are likely to use a higher response rate monitor to take full advantage of high refresh rates rather than a TV. Though, I'm not sure what the console Esport scene is like, I wouldn't doubt pros using monitors over TVs as well.
Click to expand...

Hence, if they can handle 240Hz or 144Hz, they can handle 120Hz.... Pushing framerates is usually more demanding than resolution.

Your original question was:

Skull_Angel said:
4k 120hz? Who's got a rig that can support that with settings that look better than 1080p? Have I been out of the loop that long?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
staknhalo said:
Hence, if they can handle 240Hz or 144Hz, they can handle 120Hz....

Your original question was:
Click to expand...
Eh, most higher-end comp builds will hit those refresh rates at 1440p, but not at 4k. Even at 1440p the graphics aren't all set to high/ultra to maintain a high refresh rate. I haven't kept up with 2080 super capabilities, but doubt that jump is attainable without making any game look like a potato, and using a TV over a monitor is going to sacrifice [input] response time in most cases (including this one). Not saying that half a dozen MS is a deal breaker to most, but it is for many dedicated compies. With gaming concerned, these monitors seem to be aimed at "gamerz", the ones that want the flair, but don't care about the cost or usage. With that in mind, I don't really consider these TVs being properly supported by current or current-nextgen tech.
 
Skull_Angel said:
Eh, most comp players are likely to use a higher response rate monitor to take full advantage of high refresh rates rather than a TV. Though, I'm not sure what the console Esport scene is like, I wouldn't doubt pros using monitors over TVs as well.


This is completely understandable for games you can get to properly upscale.

Overall, it just feels gimmicky at ths point in time where there's a solution with no reasonable demand (I doubt even nextgen consoles are up to the task). I enjoy innovation, but would have preferred this be a proof of concept to help further develop display tech instead of a production model.
Click to expand...

I've had a 4k/120hz screen for some time now and I've been able to enjoy games like World of Warcraft and Elder Scrolls Online at above 100fps at 4k.
Now, those are not extremely demanding games, but being online games they do require demanding specs and I also had a 1080Ti. I don't see how this would not be possible with a 3080Ti.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Very nice.

Sadly the premium TV's are rarely small enough for Desktop use. If they make one in the 42-44" range, that would be awesome though.
Click to expand...
48" is fine if you can sit at the right distance it's no different to a 24" basically shoved up your urethra-distance.
This is [H] and most of us have 10k desks to go with the 10k rigs remember ;P

And those asking who has a rig to support those settings? Anyone with an HDMI2.1 card in future can. Right now you have to pull colour. Maybe some settings to increase FPS, depending on the game.

Either way I for one gladly welcome Samsung TV overlords for putting a beat down on the shitty, overpriced craptacular compromises involved in 'gaming' meme monitors with pathetic pricing/sizing/colour/compatibility/options or TN rubbish. Fuck gaming monitors and the horse they ran in on.
 
Watching the HDMI versions constantly tick incrementally upwards is getting pretty annoying, especially when it always seems like not even the latest cards support the current version. RTX 2080 only supports HDMI 2.0b. Which card exactly are you supposed to use for 2.1?
 
Skull_Angel said:
4k 120hz? Who's got a rig that can support that with settings that look better than 1080p? Have I been out of the loop that long?
Click to expand...

For your original question, yes, plenty of stuff out there which can do this. No, these aren't $300 builds. If you cared only about $300 builds, then you should have asked, "Are there any $300 builds out there which can do this?"

Now that you've moved the goalposts after getting an answer you weren't expecting, how about rigs that can do 4K 90fps? There are loads of them. If I had a rig which could do 4K 90fps, I sure as heck would pick the 120hz screen over the 60hz one, all else being equal.
 
My current TV (LG B9 OLED) can do 4k 120 Hz already with G-sync/VRR, so I'm good for a while. 8K is more of a gimmick at this point since there's no content for it yet and no one will be realistically gaming at that resolution for a few years at least. Maybe then it will be reasonable to go 8K, just as it took a few years for new resolutions to become ubiquitous for every other TV generation.

VRR is a much bigger deal for gamers though and with the next gen consoles utilizing it, will allow devs on them to utilize unlocked frame rates and have much more leeway with image quality without having to worry about tearing or jutter should the game dip below 60 FPS momentarily.
 
Last edited:
GotNoRice said:
Watching the HDMI versions constantly tick incrementally upwards is getting pretty annoying, especially when it always seems like not even the latest cards support the current version. RTX 2080 only supports HDMI 2.0b. Which card exactly are you supposed to use for 2.1?
Click to expand...

There's virtually nothing on the market yet that uses HDMI 2.1, video cards included. Next gen cards will most certainly have it though, I'm sure. With these newer 4K 120 Hz TVs, you're basically stuck at 1440p 120 Hz if you want to utilize that higher refresh rate with current video cards.
 
Last edited:
T4rd said:
My current TV (LG B9 OLED) can do 4k 120 Hz already with G-sync/VRR, so I'm good for a while. 8K is more of a gimmick at this point since there's no content for it yet and no one will be realistically gaming at that resolution for a few years at least. Maybe then it will be reasonable to go 8K, just as it took a few years for new resolutions to become ubiquitous for every other TV generation.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much always going to be a gimmick, at least for video. Already we are getting to the "does this matter" stage with rez. If you take a 65" TV and sit like 6-10 feet away, the difference between 1080 and 4k IS visible... but it's minor. It isn't like when you watch HD content you suddenly say "yuck, that just looks so low rez and blurry". You are just getting to the limits of what you can actually perceive. HDR is a much, MUCH bigger deal visually.

Thus 8k is going to be even smaller, if it is even visible at all. It may turn out that for video content, you just can't see the difference for normal TV sizes/viewing distances. That is even assuming that the "8k" content is actually made in 8k. You already see this with 4k, because of the minor visual upgrade, that plenty of it is not shot/processed in 4k, they just upscale it before putting it on disc or streaming it.

So for video I can't imagine 8k ever really mattering. It'll be the kind of thing where maybe in an A/B situation you can say "Ya, I guess that looks a little better," but if someone snuck in and set your display to 4k mode you'd never notice.

For games it could have a bit more of a benefit because of the aliasing inherent in computer graphics, the smaller pixels could be truly below the perceptible level and thus give a smoother look to things... but of course you could get basically the same visual effect with just doing 4x supersampling at 4k (for the same cost in rendering, of course). Be a lot longer to tell as well because 8k is going to be so hard to realistically push. Remember that if you have a GPU or console that can render a game at 4k60 that is 8k15. Unless we start to get new GPUs that just have more power than we know what to do with, I think developers are going to choose to do higher visual quality and/or better framerates rather than cutting things back to support real 8k rendering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this
So does 4k 120hz include the smallest 55" of the Q70T?? Cause Samsung has been known to exclude any of the good features from the smallest size of TV in a series :(


Actually, I guess I dont really care because LG is releasing their CX 48" OLED TV soon which is a way better TV for use as a monitor and it does 4k 120hz.
 
Last edited:
N4CR said:
48" is fine if you can sit at the right distance it's no different to a 24" basically shoved up your urethra-distance.
This is [H] and most of us have 10k desks to go with the 10k rigs remember ;P

And those asking who has a rig to support those settings? Anyone with an HDMI2.1 card in future can. Right now you have to pull colour. Maybe some settings to increase FPS, depending on the game.

Either way I for one gladly welcome Samsung TV overlords for putting a beat down on the shitty, overpriced craptacular compromises involved in 'gaming' meme monitors with pathetic pricing/sizing/colour/compatibility/options or TN rubbish. Fuck gaming monitors and the horse they ran in on.
Click to expand...

I used a 48" Samsung TV as a monitor for 4 and a half years. It was a good screen, but I never quite got used to the size.

I think it could work if you hang it from a wall behind your desk and use it at a little further distance, but for normal desktop distances it was just a bit too large.

I now hvae that Asus 43" FreeSync screen, and it is a much better size.
 
Yeah, I used a 43" Samsung 4K curved TV as a monitor for a couple years and it was great for the most part. Pretty much the perfect/maximum size to sit at comfortably at a normal monitor distance and mostly fill your visible area.and the curve is nice too at that short distance, so there's no way I'd want to go larger as a monitor. If I could get the same size OLED with 4k 120Hz and VRR, I would buy it ASAP and be set for a while. For now I'm settling with a 34" 3440x1440 ultrawide at 120 Hz with G-Sync since I wanted something with a wider FOV in games and higher refresh rate with VRR.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I used a 48" Samsung TV as a monitor for 4 and a half years. It was a good screen, but I never quite got used to the size.

I think it could work if you hang it from a wall behind your desk and use it at a little further distance, but for normal desktop distances it was just a bit too large.

I now hvae that Asus 43" FreeSync screen, and it is a much better size.
Click to expand...

I know which TV you used because I followed your guide to get my picture better on the same Samsung TV ;)
Now, don't tell me you're also using Asus XG438Q...

I, however, have no complaints about that 48", even 55" I used after. Now I have a 43" and I think they are all fine. I'm talking about TVs.
It's like photography, most of the interesting stuff is in the middle. My friend even complained I cheat in games like Counter-Strike because I see enemies that he can't see them on his 24" screen because they are too small.
 
Nebell said:
My friend even complained I cheat in games like Counter-Strike because I see enemies that he can't see them on his 24" screen because they are too small.
Click to expand...

That is funny, because traditional wisdom would have it that large screens are a disadvantage, not an advantage in fast twitchy competetive shooters.

I started worrying I had given myself an unfair advantage when I was playing Red Orchestra though, but that's a completely different type of game.
 
The glare on TVs didn't bother you guys? Even with Samsung's anti-reflective coating (which is deemed the best), its still more reflection-y than a matte monitor IMO.
 
This is planning for the future as much as it's taking advantage of current hardware. Most people don't buy a new TV very often.
4K/60 is reality right now with a GTX2080 Ti. That's with settings set pretty high or even maxed, too. If you lower the details to medium, 4K/120 would be feasible if the card supported HDMI 2.1. You have to imagine Ampere will.

One of the neatest things about HDMI 2.1 is that it brings higher framerates and (more importantly) adaptive sync to television sets. That's something I've long wanted and gives basically everything an FPS boost and more precise controls with no screen tearing.

I'm excited about this. The lack of Dolby Vision I can overlook as I do a lot more HDR gaming than watching movies. Streaming services tend to go for the lowest common denominator anyway. It's an oversight, but a mild one. Lower lag levels is way more important.

Not sure I'm ready to hop on this train quite yet (especially with other OEMs still to come), but this is a great sign. Trick is, I'll have to get a new HDMI 2.1 amp, too. That'll tack on at least another $400 to whatever this thing runs.
 
Thunderdolt said:
For your original question, yes, plenty of stuff out there which can do this. No, these aren't $300 builds. If you cared only about $300 builds, then you should have asked, "Are there any $300 builds out there which can do this?"

Now that you've moved the goalposts after getting an answer you weren't expecting, how about rigs that can do 4K 90fps? There are loads of them. If I had a rig which could do 4K 90fps, I sure as heck would pick the 120hz screen over the 60hz one, all else being equal.
Click to expand...
Who mentioned low-end builds? I wasn't aware upper-end builds were pushing over 100fps at 4k these days with settings that surpassed what you'd get out of 1080p (aside the res increases, reaching that is what I would consider support), so that was the extent of my original question which was pretty much answered with enjoying older or less demanding games. Then esports was mentioned, which kind of blew things out; pro comp players aren't going to care about TVs or resolution if they can't reach fps and input response goals they know they can get out of something else.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
for normal desktop distances it was just a bit too large.

I now hvae that Asus 43" FreeSync screen, and it is a much better size.
Click to expand...
Agreed. My dream screen would be 43" but I'll gladly compromise for 48" as my setup allows it, plus it's slightly better if I want to drag it into the bedroom one day. An above-bed/vertical screen bed-surfing/movie/gaming setup is my dream.
 
I want the largest of the large. 70" or more if possible. My TV is where I work, game, watch movies, etc. and I'm roughly 8-9 feet away.
Just looking at the Samsung website, 85" models aren't that crazy expensive (relative, I know) as long as you go with 4K rather than 8K. The kind of hardware you'd need to drive 8K at 60FPS seems to be a pretty long way out, and it's not like there's much of a push for 8K video content coming down the pike. I'm going to keep my eye on things now. With no real vacation options this year, I have the means.
 
Except that not so long ago in technical terms, 2-3k were the big things and 4k was years off. Now were looking at 8k and in a few years (Or more) that will be the normal. Was reading a PC gamer magazine from 2008 and seeing the top of the line GPU's were 8800's and the like makes you think how far we've come. A 2080Ti or better level of GPU back then probably would have been unthinkable. :coffee:
 
Am I the only one that prefers slightly higher than 1080p (1440p actually) at 144hz+ with all the details up? On my 1080Ti/i5-8400 (not the greatest, but not a slouch rig for gaming) I still have trouble hitting 144fps in stuff like Gears 5 or No Man's sky.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Very nice.

Sadly the premium TV's are rarely small enough for Desktop use. If they make one in the 42-44" range, that would be awesome though.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but this is good news for console players since even the current Xbox One X has a variable refresh rate option and the new consoles will be way more powerful and support up to 120hz.
 
/dev/null said:
Am I the only one that prefers slightly higher than 1080p (1440p actually) at 144hz+ with all the details up?
Click to expand...
I'm actually happy with 1080p ultrawide at 166Hz. Outside of ray tracing, I can run pretty much all games at max settings.
 
1080p with details cranked at high framerates is still fantastic. For me, my appreciation for higher FPS tends to go down after 60. 120Hz looks unmistakably better than 60Hz, but the jump from 30-60 feels 100x bigger. Ditto with the jump from 1080p to 4K. 4K looks better, but the jump from 720p to 1080p feels way more extreme.
I've never experienced 4K at anything greater than 60fps, so I'm a little curious what kind of diminishing returns there are. Ditto with playing anything at 8K.
 
Marees said:
... Samsung is hitting just 10ms of lag this year. That’s one of the lowest figures ever seen on a TV, and certainly the lowest such figure seen on a TV as rich in picture quality features and processing as Samsung’s latest premium models.
Click to expand...

Nope, LG OLED's have less input lag. And OLED does it way better by keeping its superior picture quality at 100% with the 6.6ms 120 Hz input lag. Samsung TV's FALD goes to hell when you turn on the low input lag features and you are left with crap picture quality. Samsung is always full of shit.
 
What's LG's situation with HDMI 2.1 functionality right now? Because most people don't know what that even means, details tend to be sparse.
 
Domingo said:
What's LG's situation with HDMI 2.1 functionality right now? Because most people don't know what that even means, details tend to be sparse.
Click to expand...
Eh? All 2019 and newer OLEDs have full support for HDMI 2.1. They will be able to do 4k/120.
There is just a issue with the eARC not sending uncompressed audio.
 
Vega said:
Nope, LG OLED's have less input lag. And OLED does it way better by keeping its superior picture quality at 100% with the 6.6ms 120 Hz input lag. Samsung TV's FALD goes to hell when you turn on the low input lag features and you are left with crap picture quality. Samsung is always full of shit.
Click to expand...
Source? I've heard OLED latency input lag was terrible but last I looked into it was a few years ago.
 
T4rd said:
With these newer 4K 120 Hz TVs, you're basically stuck at 1440p 120 Hz if you want to utilize that higher refresh rate with current video cards.
Click to expand...

Well that's pretty lame, since Displayport can already do more than that. Why is HDMI so far behind?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top