Whats the hold up with a fresh batch of high end monitors?

NIVO

NIVO

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
1,253
Just wondering this segment seems to have stalled out or gone stale at the moment. How many Gsync enabled monitors of 28"-32" are out? 10? Less than 10? I've had money in hand to grab one for a long time, but am I the only one who feels disappointed in whats out right now? Ive seen a few good options but I havent been "wowed" just yet.
 
Last edited:
Hoping to see that 3440x1440 acer gsync/freesync variant soon
 
NIVO said:
Just wondering this segment seems to have stalled out or gone stale at the moment. How many Gsync enabled monitors of 28"-32" are out? 10? Less than 10? I've had money in hand to grab one for a long time, but am I the only one who feels disappointed in whats out right now? Ive seen a few good options but I havent been "wowed" just yet.
Click to expand...

What's there left to do in LCD world other than crank up the resolution? I think we're on the cusp of some newer and hopefully better panels coming out. But I think that LCD may have hit its visual quality plateau. The only way to go is with a newer panel technology and that's expensive. So I think that's probably the hold up.

But if I'm wrong and making a complete butt-fuckery of myself, then I acknowledge that I don't keep up with the industry trends.

Personally, I would love to see CRT's flat-panel brother, SED/FED come out. But that won't ever happen. And I would like to see OLED monitors come out. But it will be a long time before affordable models come out to play. Yep...
 
Gsync = "high end"? not really.

Look at it this way : gamer -> nvidia card -> G-sync nvidia card, that is hardly a large crowd. Add in manf have to paid nvidia?

High end - high profit margin. eizo/nec 4k wide gamut, Dell 5K screen. Try price a gaming monitor @ 2K USD.
 
If your definition of "high end" remains anchored about a greedy proposition called Gsync then I'm not surprised you're disappointed. I'm only surprised you weren't from the start.
 
I'm assuming you meant high end *gaming* monitors, for which high motion definition, high motion articulation, and crisp motion clarity would be very important rather than gushing over pretty still screenshots of games at higher and higher resolutions whose actual motion excellence is much much worse than other superior gaming monitor options out there.

We will need displayport 1.3 - 1.4a gpus and monitors in order for someone to make a 120hz input 4k monitor. Even then, it would have to be 1ms so likely TN in order to avoid blurring like a 60hz 1ms TN or worse which ips response times now do. That is, smearing blur "outside of the lines" of all onscreen objects, especially in 1st/3rd person gaming.


The next real step up for gaming will probably be high hz desktop oled (hopefully 120-hz) with screen blanking (blur elimination). Also the oculus rift VR with similar tech and mocap as well. They are starting to make 4k oled handheld screens already so the rift could even be 4k potentially at some point. (The current in house model is supposed to be 90hz 1080p oled with screen blanking).

As for why there aren't more of the currently best for motion excellence (outside of fw900 crt) 1440p and 1080p 1ms response time 120hz - 144hz g-sync monitors out yet, I'm not sure why other than the marketing of and focus on higher resolution (and static still shot galleries) instead to the uniformed masses in both monitors and tvs. That would be my guess. For g-sync, sites had usually said more models sometime in 2015 and it's only halfway through the 2nd month so you may have a wait ahead of you.
 
Last edited:
Has anything worth while come up? What happend to that acer 1440 g sync ips 27 inch?
 
It'll be another 10 years before we get a perfect monitor that might rival what sed would have been. Or maybe never.
 
Pivo504 said:
Has anything worth while come up? What happend to that acer 1440 g sync ips 27 inch?
Click to expand...

Last I saw, the Acer XB270HU is supposed to go into production in Feb, and may be available as early as March. Not sure about the price, but if the quality turns out to be fine, I'll be saving up for it however long it may take me

G-Sync, 27in, IPS, 144Hz, comes with HDMI port (for my consoles), I think I've found the true love of my life. :D
 
the bigger problem is manufacturers "announcing" products months and months and months before any realistic production/shipping/release date

it's rage inducing, which is why all this clammering and planning about the models shown off at CES just makes me laugh. The UM95 took 2 (almost 3) years since it made a first unveiling at a CES to actually release
 
Pivo504 said:
Has anything worth while come up? What happend to that acer 1440 g sync ips 27 inch?
Click to expand...
vapor...unless they're going to ramp up production, get some review models out, and then get them into retail channels in a week or two. how likely you believe that is probably hinges on a certain gullibility quotient I haven't yet calculated.
 
Its all about production runs. They need a certain yield to make manufacturing a few thousand of them worthwhile. If the yield of the panels isn't up to a certain quality then it just isn't worth it for them to have a high failure rate without charging a ton more at release. Which they can't do and will only serve to anger the user base.

Once that is taken care of you'll see these monitors. Remember that we , on this forum , are the very definition of "niche" and are not top priority since the sales of these monitors are not very profitable. They are much more concerned with tossing out whatever is cheap and well liked than whatever is cutting edge and in low demand.
 
R3MF said:
curved
21:9
3440x1440
Active/Free Sync

give...!
Click to expand...

Acer Predator XR341CK 34" 144Hz 21:9 Curved Gaming Screen with G-sync

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1849647

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/32.htm#acer_xr341ck

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/acer-predator-xr341ck-34-curved-gaming-screen-with-g-sync,2.html

More news from Acer today as later this year they will launch a large curved 34" size, and 21:9 ultra-wide format monitor with G-Sync. The XR341CK which will likely get a 3440 x 1440 resolution. There is apparently going to be a 144Hz + G-sync and a non-G-sync option available.

There is no word just yet on the panel technology being used, product specs are still being finalised. There is suggestion from the information that we've seen that there will be a lower res 2560 x 1080 version as well, but again we're not sure of the details yet. More on these as we get them, but we're sure the thought of a 34" curved ultra-wide screen with 3440 x 1440, 144Hz refresh rate and G-sync is bound to be of interest to a lot of readers.

These screens are expected to go in to mass production in Q2 2015 so availability is yet to be confirmed. Pricing is TBA, via TFT central.
Click to expand...
 
Give me 4K, 4:4:4, 120hz, freesync. Until then, I'm holding on to my 1080p display because I feel like everything in between is just a stopgap.
 
Well 21:9 aspect would still stand out vs 4k since 4k is 16:9, especially in regard to gaming. A "4k" height of 2160 in 21:9 would be something like 5300 wide.

GPU power required to shoot for a target average of 100fps (at high+ to ultra settings), and at any rate higher than 60fps I'd hope, in games in order to get a lot more out of a 120hz+ monitor, especially in motion articulation, is also a consideration just jumping to 2560x1400 (16:9), let alone 3440x1440 - and 4k is even more demanding.

Displayport 1.2 might be cutting it close at 144hz on the newer 3440x1440 panel(s) due out, and the newer displayport spec can do 4k at 120hz, so a 21:9 at 2160 height and at 120hz-144hz might not even be doable for awhile idk.

This image shows the differences in desktop real-estate, and area increases can be extrapolated to guess at gpu power demand increases. However, all of the 16:9 aspect ratios would have the same game scene shown basically, just with varying amounts of pixel detail while the 21:9 aspect obviously shows a lot more of a game scene. (I supposed you could run a wide aspect with bars on a 4k though technically).
4k_21x9_2560x-27in-and-30in_1080p_same-ppi.jpg


By the time enthusiast to lower end of extreme gpu budgets can power a 4k at high fps on a 120hz 4k panel off of dp 1.3/1.4a output gpus and input displays you may have been waiting quite a long while. In the future we also will have oled monitors and VR headsets. You can wait years if you want to , many of us don't even want to wait until the possible Q4 2015 - Q1 2016 for the 3440 x 1440 144hz acer or into 2016 for possible other mfg versions.
 
Last edited:
Don't think the Acer 27 g sync with 144 refresh is vapor. Supposedly coming out in March. Hope to see reviews of it compared to the rog
 
Black Octagon said:
I think you mean PPI, not resolution.

And indeed, LCD is near tapped-out in my view. We need OLED to come and to live up to the hype
Click to expand...

You're right. PPI is more closer to what I was referring to and for the most part, more PPI usually means higher resolutions. Glad someone else agrees with me.

As far as OLED living up to the hype. Sony's BVM's and PVM's already live up to the hype. Now all we need is for that technology to trickle down. Though frankly, if I had enough money, and if Sony built an OLED monitor to target enthusiast consumers, I'd buy one. $5000 OLED display from them with 2560x1440, 120hz, and some strobing (and zero input lag)... If Sony (or any other company) made one, I will start saving my pennies today.
 
G-Sync is worthless. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can't use G-Sync with strobing (ULMB/Lightboost), and elimination of sample-and-hold is much more important than eliminating barely-visible screen tears.
 
Maybe sales are hurting progress if not enough money is to be made with a new monitor which could hinder development of nicer screens. If 60HZ is still selling like Hotcakes =)
 
The thing in it's Flat Panels we are talking about which had to back engineer the technology just to compete with CRTs.
 
rabidz7 said:
G-Sync is worthless. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can't use G-Sync with strobing (ULMB/Lightboost), and elimination of sample-and-hold is much more important than eliminating barely-visible screen tears.
Click to expand...


It's not a worthless option to many of us that have experienced it and who still use it. What it is not is a fix for 30fps +/- that many seem to promote. G-sync provides much smoother gameplay and avoids suffering the tradeoffs of using v-sync. When I enable ulmb mode on some older games with very high frame rates, I have to keep it at 50 pulse width so that the screen doesn't get any darker than it already does at 50. I also need the osd brightness to be set at 100 in ulmb mode and I have to turn the brightness up in game as well. ulmb mutes color and brightness quite a lot even at 50 pulse width and 100 OSD brigthness. When I turn it off and go back to g-sync on the same games, they really pop with brightness, contrast and saturation and make ulmb look bland by comparison. It's not a horrible picture in ulmb at 50, and your eyes can adjust to it a bit but it's still a lot more dull by comparison. It runs really tight though, essentially no blur in L4D2, Darksiders, Dishonored, etc. that have very high frame rates. I'm still experimenting with both but on most games you don't have the overabundant fps to discard g-sync usage. V-sync is inferior and there's no going back to that for me and many others. By the way, 144hz on a 1ms TN with normal overdrive cuts the blur by around 60%, which is more of a "soften blur" at the highest FoV movement velocities - blurring more within the confines of the onscreen objects themselves, or within the "shadow mask" of onscreen objects if you will (as opposed to the smearing "outside of the lines" blur a 60hz or a higher than 1ms screen does). A lot of people with ulmb + g-sync monitors prefer to run 144hz g-sync mode after trying both modes.

I do agree that elimination of sample and hold blur is a big issue that should be championed. However do note that testing shows response times of 1ms are required for backlight strobing to be effective in eliminating that blur. In the future we will most likely end up with higher than 60hz oled with screen blanking rather than backlight strobing of lcds. The current in house version of the oculus rift is supposedly 90hz 1080p oled with screen blanking for blur elimination for example. Hopefully in the future that kind of tech will capable of be enabled without affecting the picture quality adversely like ulmb does. What we have now for the next few years is what it is though (hopefully the rift sometime in that period as well). I'll take whatever solid gaming display improvement options I can get after being stuck so long with greatly inferior 60hz, bad response time, and smearing blur LCD tech post crt.
 
Last edited:
just like flat panels, they was huge variability in quality

even for many people here quality CRT's cost thousands of dollars
and for those of us in our 40's we might remember when CRT's cost multiple thousands of dollars (like $6-10k)
 
rabidz7 said:
G-Sync is worthless. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can't use G-Sync with strobing (ULMB/Lightboost), and elimination of sample-and-hold is much more important than eliminating barely-visible screen tears.
Click to expand...

It is interesting how people see things differently.... Screen tearing in some games "barely visible" LOL more like "barely playable"... Small amount of motion blur vs the entire screen being ripped to pieces...
 
Last edited:
Nicholars said:
It is interesting how people see things differently.... Screen tearing in some games "barely visible" LOL more like "barely playable"... Small amount of motion blur vs the entire screen being ripped to pieces...
Click to expand...

Actually motion blur is what's going to affect the entire screen making everything smeared out while with tearing at least most of your screen is still viewable. Not saying G Sync is "worthless" though as both options are great just depending on the game you play you may favor one over the other.
 
To describe it fairly you would call smearing blur what happens on a 60hz 1ms panel or a higher than 1ms - 2ms response time lcd panel of any modern hz.

What a 120hz 1ms TN does is a soften blur more within the shadow mask or object limits, cutting that blur by 50%. A 144hz cuts it by 60% so keeps it even more within the "shadow mask" of onscreen objects.

So think "fuzzy" during highest velocity FoV movement vs. "smearing" outside of the lines. Imo you can't fairly describe a (1ms) 144hz as smearing like an ips or a 60hz tn does.

I can see the benefits of ulmb mode to motion clarity (I used to run a fw900 crt so I know what "zero" blur looks like). However even on those very high frame rate games that I am able to use ulmb on, I am currently preferring them running in g-sync mode at 144hz so I don't suffer the drab effects of the ulmb. On more demanding games I pretty much have no choice but to run g-sync mode. Maybe if you had dual high end cards that had 100fps average but you would still have a fps roller coaster above and below that 100fps so really strobing is only really good when you -maintain- a mode fps over the refresh rate, and current incarnations all suffer PQ dulling. 144hz g-sync mode runs glassy smooth motion-definition wise, especially on games that allow you to fill every hz with newer scene data because their framerate is so high. It's motion clarity is "good" but not zero blur (as I stated when I described it's blur at high speed as fuzz rather than smear).

These thumbnail sized screenshots would look a lot more blurry at fullscreen size and resolution (shrinking images makes them look more defined). The game it is showing doesn't have extremely detailed textures either but at least you can get some idea of what it is trying to show with this simulation. They are simulated effects so this isn't showing the dulling effects of the strobing apparently.
60hz 1ms or ips response times vs. 120hz 1ms 50% blur reduction... 144hz 60% reduction is not pictured and the 240hz example is actually 120hz + backlight strobing.
60hz-120hz-vs-turbo240hz-backlightstrobing-lg.jpg


Maybe when we are on oled there will be a high hz gaming panel that uses screen blanking with a bright enough screen to counteract the blanking effect on PQ. The oculus rift is supposedly shooting for 90hz oled with screen blanking so might be the first incarnation of it.
 
Last edited:
Again, that chart doesn't show the dulling effect of ulmb mode even on the simple cartoon ufo so it is giving a false impression of the overall PQ.
If they wanted to be transparent about it, the ulmb images would be a lot darker, less contrasted,and with muted color.
I'd also recommend you don't push lightboost past 50% because it will get way too dark and the gains aren't worth it. You are already less than 2ms at 50% at 120hz.

blurbusters-motion-blur-graph.png

.


The effects are more visible in larger images taken by pursuit camera on blurbusters.

60hz 1ms or ips response times
60Hz-1024x341.jpg


120hz 1ms (50% blur reduction)
120Hz-1024x341.jpg


144hz 1ms (60% blur reduction) -- NOT SHOWN--

120hz lightboost
LightBoost50-1024x341.jpg
 
Last edited:
I know, I played some games with Lightboost hack on 144hz TN and the image-dulling was intense. (not that it looked any good in the first place)
Motion clarity on the other hand - amazing
But I'm now back to a 13ms persistence display (75hz), after a while the brain can get used to anything.

Whats interesting is that according to tftcentral review the FG2421 in Turbo240 can retain a peak brightness of 250cd/m² at a contrast >4000:1, as far as I know its the only one that can be so bright while strobing.
The Swift drops to 120cd/m² in ULMB.
 
yeah the (cs:go ?) screenshot simulation of blur amounts was taken from the eizo advertisement so maybe their "240hz" simulated screenshot is more accurately bright than any of the ulmb ones showing their strobe mode examples.

For me there is no going back from 120hz-144hz 1ms gaming, g-sync is an added feature I would be reluctant to trade off now either.. ulmb mode is fun to experiment with but I currently feel the PQ effect tradeoff isn't worth it considering that 144hz 1ms's 60% blur reduction keeps the blur fairly tightly reigned to the objects/scene elements.

I'll continue to dabble with ulmb and see what I can squeeze out of it with settings though.
 
Last edited:
igluk said:
The Swift drops to 120cd/m² in ULMB.
Click to expand...
What do you guys play at? I calibrate to 120 anyway. I had to drop my ULMB settings to like 20% in order to get it down to the dimness of my calibrated desktop.
 
mope54 said:
What do you guys play at? I calibrate to 120 anyway. I had to drop my ULMB settings to like 20% in order to get it down to the dimness of my calibrated desktop.
Click to expand...

I was going as low as 90-100cd/m² for Alien Isolation, very atmospheric. Anything between 120 and 200 nits for games that are less dark.
Desktop is at 110-120.
I never had other screens that low, its possible the high VA contrast >3500 helps with retaining enough punch to the image at dimmer brightness settings.
 
Im really hoping the Acer XR341CK turns out to be true.

The thing about going 3440 x 1440 34".....

....once you do it, you cant get used to anything smaller (at least I couldn't). I tried gaming on the 27" Asus 2560 x1440 ROG swift, and while the smoothness of g-sycn and 144hz was AMAZING (I paired it with a single GTX 980), it literally felt tiny after gaming on my LG 34". I actually had to get a tape measure and check the diagonal width because when I unboxed it, i thought maybe they accidentally sent me a 24" version ;) The PG278Q went on eBay shortly thereafter.

I think 2015 will be a good year for monitor enthusiasts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top