![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
From my understanding, FreeSync over DisplayPort is using the DP VRR standard, which is what Nvidia now supports.
Thanks for the incredibly detailed summation. I just wanted a few words since I won’t be able to watch until tonight, but it’s appreciated regardless.
No, not exactly. HDMI 2.1 VRR didn't exist when FreeSync came out (and barely even exists today) so AMD came up with their own proprietary solution, just like GSync is proprietary to Nvidia.
Would it matter wether or not it would have an HDMI 2.1 port or not? After all, the panel itself is limited to 60Hz regardless. This is the monitor I'm looking at right now, because despite being overpriced (it really is when there are $1.5K 55" versions of it with high refresh and G-sync), it's the only monitor that can actually fit on my desk that seems worth buying right now. Everything else is a gross compromise. If I don't end up getting it, picking up a $500 4K TV for my desktop use would be the only other justifiable purchase. It's a time when I really want to upgrade because my current monitor is a 2009 Apple Thunderbolt Display, but can't seem to find anything worth upgrading to. I suppose there's also Apple's own successor, their upcoming 6K Pro Display XDR, which comes as close to OLED quality as we're ever going to get with non-microLED, but that's not really for the market I inhabit. That's why it's price is so high.
No. This doesn't HAVE to be true. Look at Samsung's Serif and Frame TVs. Their 40-43" models are over $1000, which is considered ridiculous for a TV of that size. But Samsung still put them out, and people still buy them, because their physical design (and to a lesser extent, image quality) are beyond anything else in the category. But, for only around a hundred more, you can get the 48" Frame. And I think for only a few hundred more than that, around $1500, you can get the 55" version. Do you see what I'm getting at here? The difference between price is minimal. I can EASILY see the 48" LG OLED being only a hundred or so cheaper than the 55", and I doubt it would even remotely affect their sales. And a potential 43" model would be only a hundred or so less than that, still over a thousand. If Samsung is smart enough to figure out that just because people want a small TV, it doesn't necessarily mean they want a shit TV, then LG should be able to understand it to. A 43" OLED would not be much cheaper to make, but they wouldn't have to sell it much cheaper, and it would STILL not undercut any 43" TV. It would only match the price of the 43" monitors and the Samsung Frame. There is no reason this isn't feasible.
This was hyperbole to show how bad I want one.
Do you think I haven't considered this? I'll deal with it. I swipe between different virtual desktops ever few minutes. I'll set the computer to launch a screensaver after 30 seconds. It's worth it for me, and for many others too.
That's the whole problem.
The rumors out there put it in $5k ball park.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I mentioned switching between multiple virtual desktops, I wasn’t talking about switching wallpapers or anything like that. See, I don’t work by having my applications open in multiple floating windows like most other users. I maximize one application (say, and IDE), and then use virtual desktops to gesture back and forth between different applications. This is a central feature on macOS, and I’m pretty sure it’s one Windows now too. Each of these applications is maximized in its own desktop. My point is, I don’t stare at one screen, interacting with the contents in each application. Because I work this way, the screen is changing ever 2-8 minutes while I’m at it. I’m not arguing that I’m in the niche minority, but I think you just misunderstood what I meant by that snippet.
I really hope this ends up being the case. 48” is a big step forward. It’s exponentially easier to use as a monitor as compared to a 55”, but still way too big for most people (including me). A 43” isn’t too nuts to hope for, but it’s just that: a hope.
