DarkStar02
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,144
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Seiki Announces 28", 32", 40" 4K Monitors with HDMI 2.0 and Displayport 1.3
- Thread starter Wag
- Start date
Yes, if you read the press release, they will be releasing them with dp1.3, which doesn't exist yet.
Do they have something 40 inch or smaller and designed to be a computer monitor?The new vizio's are supposed to be out this fall.
houkouonchi
RIP
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,622
I talked with people at seiki and they agreed I could be a beta tester, put the display through its paces/review/etc.
Hoping they are not just blowing smoke and come through.
Hoping they are not just blowing smoke and come through.
It's the least they can do considering the sales you helped drum up for them.
I might be wrong, but IIRC amd freesync should come in DP 1.2a. Thus i guess that in DP 1.3 as well. It is optional though, so vendor is not forced to add support for that to claim support for DP 1.3, so i wouldn't bet on all DP 1.3 displays having adaptive-sync.
Now this thread is getting better. Couldn't care less about the Rift and the Wii but really looking forward to the 40".
Will you please suggest to them to support AMD Freesync in the final product? it would be a waste not to since they feature DP 1.3
But first and foremost seiki is budget product. I somewhat doubt for that to be in high priority list, especially if it will require something extra from hardware side or extra manpower when developing firmwares. I'd rather ask Seiki to put gamma tuning not in engineering mode but in normal UI.
If they really cared about it being cheap they wouldn't wait for DP1.3, which hasn't even been completely finalized, or put a "Pro" tag on those display's name, they'd just use a dp1.2 board, which are fairly cheap and available now.
Just figured out my next monitor upgrade from 20 30 20 PLP!
dpoverlord
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,931
I have 4 30" 1600p monitors in portrait mode would be great to have one monitor encompassing everything. For games, programs, etc.
This. Is. Awesome!
I can't wait to see the monitor through your eyes, already I'm seeking this out as my new monitor. I don't care about 120Hz or G-Sync, VA is where it's at baby!
[X]eltic;1040971265 said:
Adaptive Sync is not a mandatory part of either 1.2a or 1.3, AFAIK. There is no mention of adaptive sync in the marketing materials for Seiki's upcoming Pro line, and given how much of a differentiator it would be, I doubt that they "forgot" to mention it. Hope to be wrong, but I wouldn't hold by breath.
Blade-Runner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 4,360
Any update on an ETA for these DP1.3 TVs?
i keep splashing money over my screen and nothign happens
BTW: do we even have DP 1.3 video cards?
DP1.3 in its entirety exists only on paper as of November 2014. When DP1.3 cards will come is anybody's guess but it might take one year. Good example in case is HDMI 2.0.TVs with it started appear in 2013 but first cards (GTX 980/970) appeared only recently. One should expect monitors with DP1.3 coming first though Q1/2015 claimed by Seiki would be rather fast. This raises question if the HDMI 2.0 ->DP1.3 can be realized with simple converter.
GNUse_the_force
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 535
i can dream, but a 40" 21:9 5k version of this with DP1.3 ( capable of 120hz @ full resolution ) would be the ultimate, same height as a 32" monitor but 40" wide for full perhipheral vision.
obviously a VA panel with low persistence, low input lag and PWM flicker free technology from the likes of BenQ would be essential.
non essential but nice would be a few HDMi 2.0's with the ability to play 4k blueray when its released
obviously a VA panel with low persistence, low input lag and PWM flicker free technology from the likes of BenQ would be essential.
non essential but nice would be a few HDMi 2.0's with the ability to play 4k blueray when its released
To each his own. I would delete from considered purchase list right away after noticing 21:9 . Actually .. same with 5K. If you need several most expensive top gpus to drive 4K, put even more load on them? (I wouldn't have brought up 2nd argument if you hadn't mentioned 120hz, which makes me think that your do care about gaming. But if you are currently already on tripple 980 gpu setup which you'll upgrade soon (as these don't support DP 1.3), my guess is that you would rather consider more major brand product then chinese Seiki, as triple 980 setup sounds as 'money no object' teritory (or H? ), rather then smart weighted price/performancy purchase decision.).
. Actually .. same with 5K. If you need several most expensive top gpus to drive 4K, put even more load on them? (I wouldn't have brought up 2nd argument if you hadn't mentioned 120hz, which makes me think that your do care about gaming. But if you are currently already on tripple 980 gpu setup which you'll upgrade soon (as these don't support DP 1.3), my guess is that you would rather consider more major brand product then chinese Seiki, as triple 980 setup sounds as 'money no object' teritory (or H? ), rather then smart weighted price/performancy purchase decision.).display tech is finally frogleaping GPUs afetr a decade of lagging behind.
4k finally replaced 1600p as high end desk resolution. it took less than 2 years from 30Hz to be replaced by 60Hz g-Sync displays.
Now we are having not one, but 2 5k monitors to buy. granted they are still tiled, but as soon as DP 1.3 hits the GPU market we will finally see 5k dispalys for gaming. i would probably hold my upgraditis until we have DP 1.3 VGA and true 5k@60Hz displays without tiling.
4k finally replaced 1600p as high end desk resolution. it took less than 2 years from 30Hz to be replaced by 60Hz g-Sync displays.
Now we are having not one, but 2 5k monitors to buy. granted they are still tiled, but as soon as DP 1.3 hits the GPU market we will finally see 5k dispalys for gaming. i would probably hold my upgraditis until we have DP 1.3 VGA and true 5k@60Hz displays without tiling.
40" 21:9 would be ultimate if curved.
To each his own. I would delete from considered purchase list right away after noticing 21:9
Note how fast GPU power will be growing in the near future. Driving 4K or 5K will not be a problem.
8K monitors are not excluded starting sometime in 2016 since then first 8K TVs should be showing up in Japan. 8K can be driven using dual DP1.3 inputs.
What is still awaiting reality are curved displays substituting multimonitor setups e.g. single 48:9 display instead of 3 x 16:9. But since first curved 21:9 monitors are available there is hope more of them will be coming.
GNUse_the_force
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 535
100% Correct.
When the 390x hits and the 980Ti is released it should give another 25% power ontop of what we have now so in SLI/Crossfire ( 50% more power) UHD gaming shouldnt be a problem.
Many people play older games or lower requirement games, the top 10 most played games on steam could run @ 4k 90/144+ fps with 2 x 980Ti's im sure and those games can benefit from UHD just as much as a new game and look amazing.
So your right, with some tweaking of the game settings right now 4k/5k is possible and by the end of next year when the new cards are out ( 10 series Nvidia , 4xx series AMD ? ) they will be pushing 60fps on a single card no problem @ 4k/5k
120HZ 5k with DP1.3 is definatley something to look out for, even pushing beyond 60 upto 90 is going to be a serious improvement and effectively gives your eyes even more resolution every second than 60fps 4k.
So yea 40" 120hz 5k please in VA format with flicker free technology and some HDMi 2.0's ( and curved if the image remains consistently good with no bleed )
There are estimates Titan XXL will be 50%+ comparing to 980. Then dual SLI will solve all 4K problems though not above 60Hz. But chips in 14nm technology coming 2016 will eliminate above the 60Hz too, just at the time 4K above 60Hz might get established. However, the quest never ends: 8K technology is looming, it looks there will always be problems to solve
.GNUse_the_force
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 535
There are estimates Titan XXL will be 50%+ comparing to 980. Then dual SLI will solve all 4K problems though not above 60Hz. But chips in 14nm technology coming 2016 will eliminate above the 60Hz too, just at the time 4K above 60Hz might get established. However, the quest never ends: 8K technology is looming, it looks there will always be problems to solve
You say that but at 8k we are reaching the limit of the human eye for useful purposes. I cant remember where i read it but recently i think there was an article just about this that 8k would be the final resting point of displays for a VERY long time.
the fact that you need to be over 60" TV in a living room to notice too much of a difference with 4k oer 1080p speaks volumes, then again a 5" phones pixels are not visible at arms lengh at 720p unless you have amazing eye sight, even then 1080p makes it impossible.
Somewhere in the middle we have large screens and are still sat close, thats where the monitor comes in and at 4k 28" its pretty hard to see the pixels at a normal seating distance some say even a 32" is a bit too high ppi...
8k = 32million pixels ( as im sure you know ! ) so at that point your going to need a 120" + screen or even 160" or more !? to tell from standard room distances (not even cinema distances ) and as for a monitor .... lets just say 16k would litterally be going past what the human eye could discern from the varying formats of TV,Projector,Monitor size to distance ratio.
but yea, VR might benefit with 4k per eye but 8k is going to be the sensible limit for decades to come id imagine
You say that but at 8k we are reaching the limit of the human eye for useful purposes. I cant remember where i read it but recently i think there was an article just about this that 8k would be the final resting point of displays for a VERY long time. the fact that you need to be over 60" TV in a living room to notice too much of a difference with 4k oer 1080p speaks volumes, then again a 5" phones pixels are not visible at arms lengh at 720p unless you have amazing eye sight, even then 1080p makes it impossible. somewhere in the middle we have large screens and are still sat close, thats where the monitor comes in and at 4k 28" its pretty hard to see the pixels at a normal seating distance some say even a 32" is a bit too high ppi...
8k = 32million pixels ( as im sure you know ! ) so at that point your going to need a 120" + screen or even 160" or more !? to tell from standard room distances (not even cinema distances ) and as for a monitor .... lets just say 16k would litterally be going past what the human eye could discern from the varying formats of TV,Projector,Monitor size to distance ratio.but yea, VR might benefit with 4k per eye but 8k is going to be the sensible limit for decades to come id imagine
What you say regarding the 4k and 8k for TV is right. The problem is even more serious since detailed considerations show that in typical living room 4k TV would have to be 100" to see the detail. But pixels are very cheap now so one can mak 4K and 8K TVs without much additional cost and those numbers are used as marketing arguments.
That said, the talk here is about computer monitors where the need for pixels is much higher than in TV. It is just enough to look at multimonitor systems people use. Just three 4K monitors is 12K pixels which is even much higher than 8K.
I agree - a number of sub 40" 4k monitors that were supposed to have been released already have not been.
You are absolutely right, viewing static content is entirely different. Take as example the ultimate of quality: glossy magazine pages. To achieve perfect visual quality the print has extremely high contrast and print dot density up to 2400 dots per inch. Then, even after detailed inspection from a very close distances pictures looks absolutely perfect. Television viewing is entirely different, it is moving pictures in living room conditions. HDTV has been designed by looking at perceived detail at 3-4 picture heights, then it was tested that resolution needed is 1080p. For 4K the distance is around 2-2.5 picture heights and thus 4K TV makes sense for big displays in the range of 100".
In turn, computer monitor viewing is different from TV, the viewing distance is much closer than TV in terms of picture heights and pictures are often static. 4K is definitely justified then for bigger displays especially if the contrast is high.
8K and more is absolutely needed for computer monitors in wide vieiwing scenarios substituting mulitmonitor setups. Just one look at professional desks with many monitors or gaming sets is a proof of this. One can find multimonitor set ups in which guys stacked 3 or 5 4K monitors in portrait mode.
GNUse_the_force
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 535
Wirk i dont mean to be picky or rude here but 3 x 4k = 3 x 8.3 = 24million pixels and they are spread around your wide FOV seen as its eyefinity and not concentrated around one 16:9 / 21:9
8k is 32million pixels concentrated on a Single 16:9 or 34-35mpixel 21:9 !
so no 3 x 4k is not higher than even 1 8k monitor. Thats my point, at 8k we dont need anymore, litterally the human eye ( unless were talking VR which is different as i said) wont be able to appreciate enough i.e not medical studying of images up close but normal viewing even on a monitor as small as 32" from a typical 70 - 90 cm away.
so 8K maybe not the resting point because of marketing but for a normal screen it really should be for common sense purposes. Perhaps then we can concentrate on actual game graphics quality rather than just more pixels