Will we see a 4K, GSYNC, FALD HDR monitor, 60Hz at human price?

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,759
as title.
I don't need 144Hz, will we ever see a 4K, GSYNC, FALD HDR monitor, 60Hz at human price?
 
I doubt it, the fald seems to be what's causing the huge price tag. The jump from 60 to 144hz probably doesn't cost anything for the manufacturer.
 
$1299 it says. They should have called it the XB274K lol. It has HDR 400 vs the $1999 X27 w/HDR 1000. Just gonna guess XB273K doesn't get the ambient lighting.

Yeah I wouldn't expect FALD on anything but the top models for quite a while.
 
hope so.
I would be down for 25-27" 1080p, good fald and colors, 120hz or more gsync though (even 240 if possible)
Or just 4k 60 as you say but gsync is a must then
 
$1299 it says. They should have called it the XB274K lol. It has HDR 400 vs the $1999 X27 w/HDR 1000. Just gonna guess XB273K doesn't get the ambient lighting.

Yeah I wouldn't expect FALD on anything but the top models for quite a while.

1750 dollars for europe.
they are completely idiot
 
As long as you have the space and are ok with rearranging your pc desk to be further away from the screen (or even for couchmaster style couch gaming) - in 2019 there should be LG 4k HDR OLED with HDMI 2.1 for 4k at 120Hz native input, VRR (hdmi variable refresh rate tech standard), QFT (quick frame transport for low input lag gaming).

I don't imagine the first generation of those oleds would be cheap but it seems like a lot more for your money at least. It could be a longer wait for pc gpus that support hdmi vrr though, especially nvidia since they market gsync. Xbox consoles already support vrr however .
 
1750 dollars for europe.
they are completely idiot
$1,749 USD is with VAT. $1,299 is without any tax. It would only be $1,383 USD with tax for me. Putting it into perspective, the Acer X27 and ASUS PG27UQ both go for about €1.000 more than this XB273K will.
As long as you have the space and are ok with rearranging your pc desk to be further away from the screen (or even for couchmaster style couch gaming) - in 2019 there should be LG 4k HDR OLED with HDMI 2.1 for 4k at 120Hz native input, VRR (hdmi variable refresh rate tech standard), QFT (quick frame transport for low input lag gaming).

I don't imagine the first generation of those oleds would be cheap but it seems like a lot more for your money at least. It could be a longer wait for pc gpus that support hdmi vrr though, especially nvidia since they market gsync. Xbox consoles already support vrr however .
I think it is going to be just a little more expensive than "human price." LG's OLED are usually in the $2,500-$3,000 USD range when released.
 
As long as you have the space and are ok with rearranging your
I don't imagine the first generation of those oleds would be cheap but it seems like a lot more for your money at least. It could be a longer wait for pc gpus that support hdmi vrr though, especially nvidia since they market gsync. Xbox consoles already support vrr however .

The S27A950D 27" 1080p 120Hz monitor was $650 dollars in 2011 dollars. That is $744 today. 60hz 2560x1440 and x1600 ips screens were $1100 - $1400 or more back before korean b grade knockoffs, more in todays dollars. pg278q was $800 at release. That is $862 today. The pg279q was $800 at release and is now $677.
I think these true HDR monitors are getting more into non budget, true hdr tv prices but they are relatively small sizes.

Its still early. They should come down over the years. When new 55" LG OLED models were released they were$3500 or more. The 2018 models are more like $2500 and you can get the older models for $1200. So in the following years prices can come down a lot. Early adoption is usually a high price tag.
 
Last edited:
Meh,

4k at 27in will never be something I am interested in. Give me a TV sized monitor at 4k with these specs and we can talk. Although it's unlikely as hell - pretty happy with my Samsung TV @ 60hz and way more screen real estate on a curved display.
 
Why don't they just release a middle finger, because that's all 4k 27" monitors are.

32" or get the fuck out of the market. Man the display manufacturing industry BLOWS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elios
like this
27" is good size for 4K
ridiculously high price and lack of availability of larger models is the issue

good we are seeing more 4K 144Hz (or rather 120Hz as only brain dead idiots would use 144Hz mode) with G-Sync
 
why they are continuing to give us 4K 144Hz, who want it, who need it?
now that we have even raytracing 4K 144Hz is simply unuseful...

I want a good 4K FALD HDR1000 GSYNC 60Hz monitor for 1000€/1200€ + tax, is this possible? will we ever see it?
 
why they are continuing to give us 4K 144Hz, who want it, who need it?
now that we have even raytracing 4K 144Hz is simply unuseful...

I want a good 4K FALD HDR1000 GSYNC 60Hz monitor for 1000€/1200€ + tax, is this possible? will we ever see it?

Nobody needs 144Hz or anything. But there are plenty of people who WANT it. Not everyone only plays AAA games at ultra settings.
 
I think we still have several years for this tech to develop beyond early adopter state/high prices - especially for truer HDR implementations.

This sounds promising in the long run though:

https://www.oled-info.com/johua-printing-developed-ink-jet-printed-31-4k-oled-panel

https://www.oled-info.com/oled-inkjet-printing

As for high hz, I'd rather dial my settings in (down) to get better motion definition and motion clarity (up).

OLED will never arrive on PCs, at least not as it is now. Burn in problem is a no go for PC use.
In any case no need for OLED, I would like to have a decent IPS/VA with 60Hz, 4K, HDR1000 FALD, 60Hz, is this too much?
 
fald arrays, as nive as they are , are still too big. per pixel emissive is likely the only way to get true HDR without haloing and glow. 4k content's bright edges and highlights on dark backgrounds, space scenes among a million other scene scenarios. Why buy a fald when tvs will have hdmi 2.1 oled with vrr and qft fornthe same cost essentially.
 
fald arrays, as nive as they are , are still too big. per pixel emissive is likely the only way to get true HDR without haloing and glow. 4k content's bright edges and highlights on dark backgrounds, space scenes among a million other scene scenarios. Why buy a fald when tvs will have hdmi 2.1 oled with vrr and qft fornthe same cost essentially.

because OLED is not a technology meant for PC use, why there are nearly no OLED monitors?
because OLED is not a technology meant for PC use.

repeat with me:
"OLED is not a technology meant for PC use".

not at this stage at least.

Burn in is a problem that can't be avoided with PC with the current state of technology
 
I’m surprised LG hasn’t jumped into the 30”-49” arena yet with OLED. Maybe they just don’t see the profit since it would require allocating fab space.

It’s a shame because I bet LG could make OLED work for monitors if they used their pixel shift and pixel refresh functions that they use in their TVs.

Same goes for Sony with their expertise in FALD. They should enter the monitor market. If people are willing to pay thousands to Acer and ASUS for their FALD implementations, I’m willing to bet people would put down major money if Sony knocked it out of the park. After all, they’ve only made one of the most legendary monitors ever, the FW900.
 

https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/del...17q/apd/210-aiei/monitors-monitor-accessories

Ya the Dell OLED monitor I owned must have been a figment of my imagination.

Oh and OLED monitors have completely taken over reference work.

https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/oled-monitors

The best display in the world is also a figment of Vincent's imagination!

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESzWY0hW85Y

And even more OLED monitor coming down the pipe:

https://www.oled-info.com/digitimes-joled-supplies-216-4k-oleds-used-asus-its-new-oled-monitor

......end Quote.....
...

https://www.oled-info.com/johua-printing-developed-ink-jet-printed-31-4k-oled-panel

https://www.oled-info.com/oled-inkjet-printing


https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/by-usage/video-gaming-august-2018
The best TV for gaming that we have tested is the LG C8 OLED TV. It offers unrivaled picture quality thanks to the impressive OLED panel. This TV is perfect for a variety of gamers


https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test/discussions

https://www.rtings.com/tv/discussio...-3-and-infinite-warfare-on-an-lg-e6-purchased
I have about ~1000 hours in Call of Duty (Black Ops 3 and Infinite Warfare) on an LG E6 purchased in Aug 2016, no permanent burn in. I'd be surprised if your tests results in any.


https://www.rtings.com/tv/discussio...-my-gaming-and-watching-habits-haven-t-really
While burn-in is present on some of our Real Life OLED Burn In Test TVs, it only appeared so far on the ones displaying very static logos or imagery. Our OLEDs have been running for 20h/day for the last several months so are at approx 3500 hours of use. We have not experienced the same rapid burn-in you seem to have, however the effect is cumulative. Had you displayed this static UI for a long period of time over the previous two years?



https://www.techradar.com/news/television/tv/tr-top-10-best-tvs-for-gaming-2015-1289344

https://www.monitornerds.com/best-oled-tvs-for-xbox-one-x-and-ps4-pro/

https://www.gamesradar.com/best-gaming-tvs/
 
Last edited:
As an alternative to OLED this samsung FALD VA HDR 1000 Q-led 4k tv has a ~8000:1 contrast ratio. It has 10ms input lag in game mode. It already supports vsync/vrr on xbox and pc and can do 120Hz input freesync at 1440p or 1080p. In 2019 tvs we will start seeing hdmi 2.1 for 120hz native input at 4k with vrr and qft.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q8fn-q8f-q8-2018
Update 06/08/2018: FreeSync has been tested and the score has been updated. FreeSync was supported from our Xbox One S and our Radeon RX 580 GPU, in 1080p, 1440p and 4k resolutions. FreeSync is activated by enabling the TV's Game mode and FreeSync settings; PC mode is not required.

While 55" and over $1700 arre considerations, the size gives a lot of options if you have the room to be sitting far enough away from the screen. You could also run 21:9 or 21:10 or a smaller 16:9 resolution on larger 4k screens on more demanding games to get higher frame rates while still getting a pretty large screen size. The upcoming hdmi 2.1 versions of these qleds and oled screens are much more appealing to me than a 27" fald 4k for over $2000.

These are all top end new HDR fald qled or oled tech though so while $1700 or so and not $3500 and up, are still not in the realm of budget priced tv and monitors. Perhaps in the next 3 years prices will come down as newer models come out and TCL ups their game.

edit: In reference to oled and fald qled prices dropping as newer models come out over time, I noticed there is a 2018 LG B8 OLED on sale for $1300 currently and a higher tier 65 inch (65B8PUA) available at $2099.96. " B8P has the A7 processor (which is a rebrand of the 2016-2017 M16+ processor in the C7P), not the new 2018 A9 processor. ". -- So they are definitely coming down in price eventually as new tech comes out.
 
Last edited:
$400 markup for gync over freesync, /facepalm. Its supposed to get cheaper to implement over time, what the fuck is wrong with nvidia?

Over a year delay on the >60hz 4k monitors.

Ridiculous markups compared to similar TV panels, and a lot of too damn small screens to boot.

BFGD, lol, need I say more?

The monitor market is a shitshow and has been for years, only because the TV market has its head up its butt does it get away with this.

There are a lot of amazingly good TV panels that just need a no-bullshit controller board and full bandwidth inputs (with LESS or NO processing, aka CHEAPER) and they could shit all over these "premium" "gaming" monitor farces. Or at least put in a fucking bypass input on the flagship models.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elios
like this
$400 markup for gync over freesync, /facepalm. Its supposed to get cheaper to implement over time, what the fuck is wrong with nvidia?

Over a year delay on the >60hz 4k monitors.

Ridiculous markups compared to similar TV panels, and a lot of too damn small screens to boot.

BFGD, lol, need I say more?

The monitor market is a shitshow and has been for years, only because the TV market has its head up its butt does it get away with this.

There are a lot of amazingly good TV panels that just need a no-bullshit controller board and full bandwidth inputs (with LESS or NO processing, aka CHEAPER) and they could shit all over these "premium" "gaming" monitor farces. Or at least put in a fucking bypass input on the flagship models.

As long as NVidia is using FPGA's for Gsync it's never going to be cheap, and will get progressively worse as resolution/refresh/etc requirements go up both in terms of cost and in terms of the amount of power/cooling needed. FPGA's are a way to throw money as the problem of not having enough time to design an ASIC and/or not expecting to have a high enough production volume to spread the cost of designing an ASIC for. FPGAs are far larger and thus far more expensive than an equivalently performing ASIC, they're intended for rapid prototyping and very low volume production, not mass market products. The one used in the 4k/144/FALD monitor had an aftermarket party price of several thousand dollars each, the "real" price is lower but not advertised and comes down to however much their sales people think they can get away with charging you, but is likely costing Nvidia/their OEMs hundreds/chip.
 
Resources to design gpu with rt tech, but just can't seem to decode a sequential bitstream onto a screen for less than $400. :rolleyes:
 
40 inches. Nothing less. Maybe 43 inches. But no more.

TVs are doing it right, monitors are not. I'll wait.
 
40 inches. Nothing less. Maybe 43 inches. But no more.

TVs are doing it right, monitors are not. I'll wait.
42" is the size for 8K as it would give comfortable for eyes 210ppi (y)
 
I have a 43" 4k set back aslant/cornered on a big ergotron arm. It looks great at the right distance. It would be too big if it were close up as my middle monitor at arms length or so but for desktop/apps and media playback set back a bit more it's great. 40.8" is equivalent size for 108.8ppi of 1440p 27". 32" physical size is probably best for closer viewing on a desk but a larger 21:9 at the same height would probably be great too.

I'm going to pick up another TCL or Vizio for the other "wing" to replace my 2013 2560x1440 ips cinema display. They are going for $270 on sale regularly. I bought the cinema display befre the koren knockoffs hit the scene for $1100 or more and in whatever that years dollars would be now :p
Perhaps in 2019 if i can get a good HDR 4k with hdmi 2.1 120hz 4k vrr qft at 55", I'll move desk out so the 55" is further away and rebuild my monitor setup. View size and ppi are relative to view distance after all. I'd rather a 43" next year but the features that I want will only exist in 55" or larger. I'll be able to run 21:9 or 21:10 or even a smaller 2560x1440 or x1600 resolution to get higher fps in more demanding games on a 55" 4k and still have quite a large gaming screen. Really it would be cool to someday just have a large wall of resolution and run games in windowed or letterboxed resolutions 1:1.
 
I have a 43" 4k set back aslant/cornered on a big ergotron arm. It looks great at the right distance. It would be too big if it were close up as my middle monitor at arms length or so but for desktop/apps and media playback set back a bit more it's great. 40.8" is equivalent size for 108.8ppi of 1440p 27". 32" physical size is probably best for closer viewing on a desk but a larger 21:9 at the same height would probably be great too.

I'm going to pick up another TCL or Vizio for the other "wing" to replace my 2013 2560x1440 ips cinema display. They are going for $270 on sale regularly. I bought the cinema display befre the koren knockoffs hit the scene for $1100 or more and in whatever that years dollars would be now :p
Perhaps in 2019 if i can get a good HDR 4k with hdmi 2.1 120hz 4k vrr qft at 55", I'll move desk out so the 55" is further away and rebuild my monitor setup. View size and ppi are relative to view distance after all. I'd rather a 43" next year but the features that I want will only exist in 55" or larger. I'll be able to run 21:9 or 21:10 or even a smaller 2560x1440 or x1600 resolution to get higher fps in more demanding games on a 55" 4k and still have quite a large gaming screen. Really it would be cool to someday just have a large wall of resolution and run games in windowed or letterboxed resolutions 1:1.

I keep hoping we will see 46” 4K, TV or monitor. I currently use a 27” 1440p for home, and while the PPI is okay, I prefer the unscaled UI and text size of a 23” 1080p desktop, which I use at work. 23” 1080p just so happens to be the same PPI (96) as 46” 4K. And with the slightly increased distance you’d have to sit away from a 46” 4K screen, it would look great while giving you excellent desktop real estate.

Although the ideal monitor for me would be 30.6”. Why? Because 1080p is out, and at 1440p that equates to 96PPI, which maintains that great UI scale for Windows. It also just happens to work out that at 30.6”, 4K would require 150% scaling (144PPI), and 5K would need 200% scaling (192PPI). It’s the magical and practical size for all resolutions up to 8K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this
Back
Top