30-35", IPS-style, 1.07B, 2K to 4K monitor... too many options! To early for proper HDR? Stopgap?

[RanceJustice]

Hello everyone. I've been using a Monoprice ZeroG 1440P IPS 60hz 27" monitor as my primary for awhile and it has overall been quite good. Great panel, the only disappointments are the lack of any ports aside from DVI, enormous (for today) bezels, and a crappy stand (not sure if this one is VESA compliant; can't remember if I can get a mount for it or not). Up until a few months back I had a bargain basement used monitor as a secondary - something I picked up for $25 and I don't think was even 1080p, but it gave me a little extra extended desktop space on my primary PC while I ran full screen applications, and acted as a monitor for when I was working on my server etc. Alas, after what was probably a very long office career followed by a year or so in my employ, the secondary monitor died. So I've been feeling the pains of being back to a single monitor with a single input, causing me to look elsewhere.

Originally, I was hoping to step up my main monitor in every way. Ideally, I would be looking for a 30"-35" 4K monitor w/ quality HDR10/local dimming/decent backlight brightness, a wide color gamut/DCI-P3 or whatever it might be, 10-bit /1.07 billion colors, IGZO / IPS or similar type panel, FreeSync (2?) or maybe GSync, 120hz refresh rate etc.... but it appears that few if anything in this space has arrived. I thought this was supposed to be the year for "proper" HDR monitors to start arriving but it seems even the announcements made earlier this year from Asus and/or Samsung have either not arrived and/or not been particularly worth it. Is this the case?

Thus I am trying to decide if it is worth it to pick up a "modest" upgrade - I'm not going to spend well over $1000 on a monitor that isn't worth it, just as a stopgap. So tempering my expectations a bit it seems there are lots of choices to make...

HDR - It seems there are quite a few monitors now advertising HDR but maybe don't have the backlight or quality to pull it off properly to HDR10 Should I bother looking for HDR at all or just treat it as an extra?

Resolution - I'd like to keep to 2K as a minimum, but I'm still open to either the Wide-2K 3440x1440P which seems to have quite a few options these days, as well as 4K which (without HDR) has gotten into the market finally at reasonable prices.

Size - I still figure I'd like to go from 27-35". I have the feeling that 27" may be a bit small for 4K, but certainly works at those below it, so at 4K ideally I'd like to see 30+".

Panel type - I still prefer IPS-type panels. This includes those like AHVA and whatnot which I am to understand are very similar yet just not without the trademark of IPS. IGZO seems to be a winner but rather limited and extremely expensive. Having a wide color gamut would be appreciated, along with 1.07 billion colors. Coating-wise, I'd rather not have a "blurry/grainy/colorshifting" antiglare coating, but a moderate one that doesn't mess with quality would be fine.

Refresh Rate + Adaptive Sync - Not sure where to go here. Sure, it would be nice to see something at over 60hz but I don't want to give up IPS type image quality in order to get it. I know I wish to avoid PWM backlighting if possible as I've heard that's nothing but trouble. Some sort of adaaptive sync would be nice. It seems that FreeSync is all over the place, at least. FreeSync 2 is great to see but aside from those few Samsung HDR types they haven't shown up on the market yet. GSync tends to be way, way overpriced (plus I dislike Nvidia not supporting common adaptive sync tech even though they could) so I don't know if it would be worth it if I wasn't buying an "ideal" monitor like i described above. However, I hear that Gsync does have a higher standard for HDR required for monitors with the feature and offers backlight strobing (ultra low motion blur). Then again, FreeSync 2 has similar specs and some monitors even without FreeSync2 offer some form of backlight strobing (I think Asus has their own name for it?).

Extras - VESA compliant mounting is nice, but not a requirement. Likewise, a good stand. I'm open to off-brand models and whatnot (ie Korean) if their features and quality are where they should be. Having multiple inputs is also a bonus, especially DisplayPort. All inputs - DisplayPort/Thunderbolt3, HDMI etc.. of the latest possible specs are helpful as well. Fantastic deals are of course always of interest.

TVs As Monitors - I've considered looking into 40-43" TVs as monitors. I was a bit disappointed that higher end features in the TV spectrum seem to be limited to only very large TVs, not those in the 40" range. I've owned a 40-ish inch TV as monitor before and I'd consider going back there perhaps if I could get a better 4K (+ HDR?) experience "as a monitor" for a reasonable price, but overall it seems disappointing that there may be issues.

So ultimately I figure there may be a decent compromise model in there somewhere, even if there isn't an ideal model available as of yet (or perhaps i've missed one?). Iv'e considered everything from LG's series of UW-2K and 4K monitors, to Samsung's FreeSync 2 range, to a whole host of Asus across the scale, and more. In any event, suggestions would be welcome across the board of solid models. Thanks.

 

[DanNeely]

I thought this was supposed to be the year for "proper" HDR monitors to start arriving but it seems even the announcements made earlier this year from Asus and/or Samsung have either not arrived and/or not been particularly worth it. Is this the case?

All the hopes on that front were with AU Optronics; unfortunately they've been struggling to their new panels into production and slipping release dates for products as a result. Assuming no more schedule slips in the last two months AUO's 27", 4k, 144hz, HDR w 384 zone dimming panel should be in production now with retail availability early next year. The equivalent 32" 4k panel is about 9 months behind that, so retail ETA late next year; a 60hz only varient should be out early next year. A somewhat similarly speced 35" 3440x1440 ultrawidescreen panel is expected in the middle of next year.

Besides the risk of farther schedule slippage, AUO has a reputation for more QA issues (eg backlight bleed, uneven colors) than rivals who either aren't working on anything similar; or are keeping their work behind closed doors. The other potential gotcha is that the rumor mill is expecting these panels to be stupidly expensive ($1500-2000 for the 27" model).

The combination of all of that, was enough that I bought Acer's 32" 4k GSync panel and expect to be using it as my main gaming screen for at least 2 or 3 more years.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/38.htm#auo_roadmap_oct17

 

[euskalzabe]

Here's my 2 cents:

I'm firmly in the TV as monitor camp, so take that as context.

HDR - don't bother. You're not going to find, in TV or monitor form, 10bit ~%90 DCI-P3 1000cd/m2 panels anywhere that's not a giant 55"+ TV. I've done the research, they don't exist. That's what you actually want, HDR Premium spec, anything lower may look a bit better but it's so subtle it's not worth the hassle/extra expense.

Resolution - 4K is only really useful/noticeable from 32" onwards. You can definitely get 1440p 32" panels, and 4K ones hover around $6-700. If you go TV, you can find decent 40" 4K panels for $300-500.

Size - from your options, go 32", no doubt. You won't look back. 27" will seem tiny about a week after using 32".

Panel type - there's no suggesting here. If you prefer IPS, that's that. I like IPS colors but those panels' blacks tend to annoy me (lots of black crush) so lately I'm going VA. Recent VAs have very good colors, but they're still not very fast at pixel switching - as long as you don't play super fast reflex shooters, it's not a problem. Pixel trailing (specially blacks) can definitely be noticeable, it's the one flaw I've found I can live with (other things bother me more).

Refresh rate - again depends. I use 60hz panels and I'm hapy with them. 120hz panels look great but I don't think the upgrade is worth paying a whole lot more, specially when it tends to mean you sacrifice IPS/VA colors/contrast. Same goes for adaptive sync. I've used it and it's fine, but it's not THAT amazing to me, specially for the cost. This also is affected by your GPU choice - brand, and performance. Personally, I get $200 cards that won't be able to go past 60+, much less 144hz in most games, so high refresh rate and adaptive sync would mostly be lost on me. Depends on your use case, value proposition and GPU spending habits. Example - currently playing Watch Dogs 2 on High settings with temporal AA on my GTX 1060 3GB and it runs great around 55fps. Not perfect, but it's good enough for me - your tolerance may vary.

MY RECOMMENDATION - Bad time to buy any display, has been for the past year. HDMI 2.1 brings real improvements that lock out anything previous. Actual HDR support (not just HDR10 signal, but being able to display it properly) is rare to non-existent. I got a decent 40" VA 4K panel in my Samsung KU6290 that only cost me $300 a year ago on Black Friday. It looks wonderfully detailed and smooth at this size, 20" away from my face. All the desktop space and more. Gaming at 1080p/1440p looks great too. Connecting my PS4 can look a bit better with HDR, not too great a difference. HDR on Windows 10 is useless - does not work, color is weird, contrast is screwed up... there's A LOT of work to be done to get HDR working well on PC. Last month I considered getting a higher up model with %89 DCI-P3, but while noticeable it just wasn't worth the extra $200 I'd spend after selling my KU6290 because the screen wasn't bright enough to make the most of those colors.

It is, however, a stop-gap until my next purchase. At this point, I'd consider nothing less than HDMI 2.1 (gets you adaptive sync standard VRR), 10bit panel, ~%90 DCI-P3, 4K and at least 600cd/m2 (sub HD Premium standard, but it'll be noticeable HDR benefit at least, as 1000cd/m2 panels may be another 2 years off or so, on anything under 55", unless they cost a LOT in 2018 - I'm talking $1500-2000 that personally I wouldn't buy). No monitors check all these boxes yet. TVs will in 2018, 40" being a nice size depending on your space - but 40" is the "smallest upgrade size" so it gets the least benefits from new generations. All the best stuff is at 55", impracticable as a monitor in most cases. Once 40" OLED panels are available and at a decent price, all these problems will go away. Meanwhile, you're going to make sacrifices. I chose a cheap 4K TV with decent color to make do for the next 2/3 years and I'll reevaluate in 2019/2020.

Good luck my friend. May you find something you enjoy.

UPDATE:

To illustrate, here's a few pictures of Watch Dogs 2 this morning and overall desktop space at %125 (%100 looks too small for my eyesight):

 

[geok1ng]

the closest thing i can imagine to fit your list of features are LG B7 OLEDs. but they start at 55" and started at $1400 on last black friday.

 

[vincentsixtysix]

I'd says 900e