40" Samsung UN40KU6290 4K $290 at Best Buy (or $265 with $25/$200 Amex offer)

Lateralus said:
And, the shorter the better. Use the shortest length that you can get by with. Lots of the 6' ones work, but many of the 10-15' ones were giving people trouble achieving 4:4:4/60Hz.
Click to expand...

so it's not a HDMI ver x.x issue but a transfer spec then?
 
Damn Dirty Ape said:
so it's not a HDMI ver x.x issue but a transfer spec then?
Click to expand...

Well, there were a couple of different issues. Lots of cables labeled "HDMI 2.0" didn't work, and many assumed that some manufacturers had simply rebranded their existing cables without actually testing and certifying them for the higher speed/bandwidth requirements. I think that it just came down to cable construction because some "certified" cables didn't work while the better made, better shielded cables probably have a greater chance of working. In fact, I used a cheap generic HDMI cable that came with one of my old 1080p or 1440p monitors and it works great with my 48" JS9000 but gave me artifacting issues with my first Samsung 4K (UN40JU6700). So maybe part of it is how picky the TV's HDMI port is.
 
Lateralus said:
Well, there were a couple of different issues. Lots of cables labeled "HDMI 2.0" didn't work, and many assumed that some manufacturers had simply rebranded their existing cables without actually testing and certifying them for the higher speed/bandwidth requirements. I think that it just came down to cable construction because some "certified" cables didn't work while the better made, better shielded cables probably have a greater chance of working. In fact, I used a cheap generic HDMI cable that came with one of my old 1080p or 1440p monitors and it works great with my 48" JS9000 but gave me artifacting issues with my first Samsung 4K (UN40JU6700). So maybe part of it is how picky the TV's HDMI port is.
Click to expand...

ok I have about 5 newish cables, 6-10feet. I'll try those first to see if I might get lucky before purchasing another cable. thank you for clarifying. I can't wait to go from 27->40"!!!
 
If considering getting this TV as a monitor ... do it. After 2 days of ownership I am very happy with it ... and I still have a bit tuning left to do. Even without the adjustments it looks good out-of-the-box.

The only other recommendation that I can make is to try to pick up in-store if at all possible and to avoid shipping it. My TV came in a box that looked like it had been kicked, punched and dropped numerous times. The UPS deliverer was kind enough to note the damages just in case I had to return. Miraculously it survived and it appears to look/work nominally.

I was just thinking about my personal monitor purchases over the last dozen years. In 2005 I spent $300 on a 17" 4x3 monitor and used that until 2010 when I purchased a $200 27" Asus. That monitor still works and was just replaced with this unit. 17" to 27" to 40" ... how much larger can you go and still call it a "monitor"?
 
Damn Dirty Ape said:
ok I have about 5 newish cables, 6-10feet. I'll try those first to see if I might get lucky before purchasing another cable. thank you for clarifying. I can't wait to go from 27->40"!!!
Click to expand...
The cables can (and do) make a difference.
I need a better cable, since mine won't do 10 bit 4:4:4 at 4K.
If I bump it down to 4:2:2, it does 10 bit and then some.

(So at this point it's a cable bandwidth issue.)
 
Guarana [BAWLS] said:
The cables can (and do) make a difference.
I need a better cable, since mine won't do 10 bit 4:4:4 at 4K.
If I bump it down to 4:2:2, it does 10 bit and then some.

(So at this point it's a cable bandwidth issue.)
Click to expand...

With this in mind, has anyone found an HDMI cable yet that will support 4:4:4 at 10 bit?

I'm running things at 4:4:4 / 8 bit in PC mode at 60 Hz (like most others) and it's working quite well, but I did notice a gradient in a couple of my game visuals that didn't seem to be there before with the Dell Ultrasharp 34" widescreen. In the past two days of having the monitor, I've only noticed it very rarely, and it isn't anything that would prevent me from buying two more and another 1080 to go with a surround setup (which I am considering VERY hard right now ;) ).
 
Axdrenalin said:
With this in mind, has anyone found an HDMI cable yet that will support 4:4:4 at 10 bit?

I'm running things at 4:4:4 / 8 bit in PC mode at 60 Hz (like most others) and it's working quite well, but I did notice a gradient in a couple of my game visuals that didn't seem to be there before with the Dell Ultrasharp 34" widescreen. In the past two days of having the monitor, I've only noticed it very rarely, and it isn't anything that would prevent me from buying two more and another 1080 to go with a surround setup (which I am considering VERY hard right now ;) ).
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to know as well , as the xbox one ideally wants 4:4:4 10but with HDR.
 
Is anyone else using this with an AMD Rx 200 series card? As I mentioned in a previous post I'm having to use an HDMI 2.0 adapter instead of native HDMI, so I can't apply one of the recommendations that DPI makes in this post:

DPI said:
1. Make sure you use HDMI 1 input
2. Set HDMI 1 input to PC. On Remote: Home > Up > HDMI 1 > Up > Edit > PC
3. enable "UHD Color" (in the TV settings menu: Picture > Expert Settings > HDMI UHD Color > HDMI1 > On)
4. Make sure video card is set to 60Hz. (most GPUs default to 30Hz for some reason)
5. Set 4:4:4 color output in your GPU settings (NVIDIA Control Panel, etc)
6. Scale text to a comfortable level (I like it at native - 100% - which means no scaling)
Click to expand...

Specifically step 5, changing the color output to 4:4:4. According to Google, the option to do this with a Radeon card is only available if you're using native HDMI. Is there any way to know what color output is being used? The Radeon Settings control panel has no information or options for that.
 
That's the choice you make, but IMO the difference is minor. The kind of games I'm playing on the TV don't feel different, or look different, between game mode or 4:4:4

To get game mode to be available you need to edit the source to something other than PC. I'm not in front of my TV, but IIRC you hit home on the remote, select the input, then hit the up arrow and select something else from the list. I really don't feel the difference between the 30ish milliseconds of PC mode, and the 20ish milliseconds of game mode. It's still a 60hz panel that, while it looks fantastic, is not fast.

Twitchy/competitive stuff I play on my 144hz 24inch screen. The TV is great for single player, story driven games. My Asus VG248QE is better for CS...
 
Decibel said:
That's the choice you make, but IMO the difference is minor. The kind of games I'm playing on the TV don't feel different, or look different, between game mode or 4:4:4

To get game mode to be available you need to edit the source to something other than PC. I'm not in front of my TV, but IIRC you hit home on the remote, select the input, then hit the up arrow and select something else from the list. I really don't feel the difference between the 30ish milliseconds of PC mode, and the 20ish milliseconds of game mode. It's still a 60hz panel that, while it looks fantastic, is not fast.

Twitchy/competitive stuff I play on my 144hz 24inch screen. The TV is great for single player, story driven games. My Asus VG248QE is better for CS...
Click to expand...

Yes thats my current issue.. figure it wouldnt be ideal for fps multiplayer games.. and coming from a asus rog swift 27" gsync 165hz 2560x1440 monitor i figure it would be best to use the 4k screen for single player games and desktop only and use the other 27" for multiplayer..

It just the issue of having both monitors in front to use them on and off.. how does one do that??haha


I only tested cod iw and doom last night.. and doom was better as it was runing 80-100 fps in 4k. Didnt notice what cod was runing but didnt seem good enough so id have to play with the settings.. dont think its using sli... but it is nice that in the game i can select which monitor.

First experiance gaming at 4k so no idea if its the lag or low frame rate thats bugging me yet.. but i need to try game mode first to figure that out.
 
Yea but to game on it is rediculously awesome! In doom i felt like i was in the middle of the game! Screen is so large the emersion fealing is large! Felt like i was playing a 3d game.

Edit: just wanted to add that its not often if ever i felt the strong love for something i just opened and i havent even turned it on yet, yet alone seen it! Haha.

I have the thing laying on its face while putting the stand on it and seeing all the connections thinking this thing is crazy! After reading everything that i have on it and carring it over to the desk i had a strong urge to buy another one, yet ive still yet to even see the front let alone see it operate! Haha. Nuts! Never felt that before!

Sad its totally out of stock! :/

Would love another for the bedroom to replace the 32" 1080 tv.

Let me add that i already own a sony 940c from last year and thats a 75" uhd 4k screen of sexyness!

This screen is huge!! Laughable as a pc monitor and ya better have some space for it and some good distance from your chair. 2-3 feet id say. Totally will swallow up my former 27" monitor! No picture will give you a real idea of just how large this thing is to sit in front of on your desk.
 
Last edited:
Just fired up witcher 3 in 4k on my 1070 and although the game looks amazing, performance is abysmal as expected. I dropped it down to 1440 and the game looks pretty fuzzy in comparison. Does anyone else find this display looks terrible in non-native resolutions or is this to be expected?
 
DrewRosenHouse said:
Just fired up witcher 3 in 4k on my 1070 and although the game looks amazing, performance is abysmal as expected. I dropped it down to 1440 and the game looks pretty fuzzy in comparison. Does anyone else find this display looks terrible in non-native resolutions or is this to be expected?
Click to expand...

You ideally want to be playing at a multiple of 4, not ~2 as 1440p would be. Halving your res basically pixel doubles everything, which is always going to look like shit. 1/4 lets it blur out more naturally. This is true of basically any pixel-based display (not a CRT, pretty much) not exclusive to this particular display.
 
silent-circuit said:
You ideally want to be playing at a multiple of 4, not ~2 as 1440p would be. Halving your res basically pixel doubles everything, which is always going to look like shit. 1/4 lets it blur out more naturally. This is true of basically any pixel-based display (not a CRT, pretty much) not exclusive to this particular display.
Click to expand...
540p or 2160p? ouch

edit: ohh i get it, the overall resolution, thanks for the tip. Ill give 1080p a shot.
 
Last edited:
To clarify for anyone not getting the discussion:

3840 x 2160 doesn't evenly scale to 2560x1440 - It's a 1.5x scale, so like every other line would be duplicated to upscale. (which is really weird looking.)

1920 x 1080 is exactly 1/2 of 3840 x 2160 - so each pixel is doubled horizontally and vertically. So, everything scales linearly and looks better.
 
DrewRosenHouse said:
Just fired up witcher 3 in 4k on my 1070 and although the game looks amazing, performance is abysmal as expected. I dropped it down to 1440 and the game looks pretty fuzzy in comparison. Does anyone else find this display looks terrible in non-native resolutions or is this to be expected?
Click to expand...

1080p will look better
 
Nice info above which i did not know.. though seems to contradict what most say about a 4k screen which is 4x a 1080 screen?
 
Guarana [BAWLS] said:
The cables can (and do) make a difference.
I need a better cable, since mine won't do 10 bit 4:4:4 at 4K.
If I bump it down to 4:2:2, it does 10 bit and then some.

(So at this point it's a cable bandwidth issue.)
Click to expand...
No HDMI cable will allow 4:4:4 10bit 4k 60hz from my understanding. Currently HDMI does not have the bandwidth to support it. You can only get 4:4:4 8bit 4k 60hz or 4:2:2 10bit 4k 60hz.
 
Lender said:
No HDMI cable will allow 4:4:4 10bit 4k 60hz from my understanding. Currently HDMI does not have the bandwidth to support it. You can only get 4:4:4 8bit 4k 60hz or 4:2:2 10bit 4k 60hz.
Click to expand...

Xbox one supports hdr , 10 bit and 444 - so you can't have all of them at once?
 
Damn Dirty Ape said:
Xbox one supports hdr , 10 bit and 444 - so you can't have all of them at once?
Click to expand...
So the Xbox supports all of those specifications yes, but doesn't implement them them all concurrently. It will utilize some of those features depending on your current use case.

Keep in mind that the current Xbox One S also doesn't support playing video games at 4k, but only 1080. That functionality, 4k video games, will be coming in the next Xbox, code-name Scorpio.

The current Xbox One S supports 4k from UHD Blu-ray, but UHD Blu-ray, Blu-ray and DVD's from my understanding are encoded in 4:2:0 or maybe 4:2:2. Also, most movies are only ~24fps. This leaves plenty of bandwidth for 4k 10bit.

So the Xbox doesn't have any bandwidth limitations with the above use cases since they don't combine them all.

Now when we come to a PC, this is when you can start running into the bandwidth limitation of HDMI. When running 4k, 4:4:4, 60hz, 8bit, that is the limit of current HDMI spec. The new HDMI standard that was announced has a much higher bandwidth to overcome this limitation to accommodate 5k, 8k and higher bit color. This is also one of the reasons most "monitors" run Displayport. The current DP has more bandwidth than HDMI and can support 4k 4:4:4 60hz 10bit, maybe even more.

Once all the new standards are implemented into TVs, monitors, and graphics cards, we will be able to utilize 4k+ resolution, 120hz+, 4:4:4, 10bit+ all simultaneously.

A PC can usually do just about anything you want with the change of some settings so it can easily saturate the line.

Hope this helps.
 
Ok so I got it and set it on my desk (going on wall behind the desk though), good lord is it big (that's what she said).


I made the changes that were suggested here; what are you all using for brightness/backlight and contrast? I'm pretty sure it's drilling holes in my retinas as I type this.
 
Lender said:
So the Xbox supports all of those specifications yes, but doesn't implement them them all concurrently. It will utilize some of those features depending on your current use case.

Keep in mind that the current Xbox One S also doesn't support playing video games at 4k, but only 1080. That functionality, 4k video games, will be coming in the next Xbox, code-name Scorpio.

The current Xbox One S supports 4k from UHD Blu-ray, but UHD Blu-ray, Blu-ray and DVD's from my understanding are encoded in 4:2:0 or maybe 4:2:2. Also, most movies are only ~24fps. This leaves plenty of bandwidth for 4k 10bit.

So the Xbox doesn't have any bandwidth limitations with the above use cases since they don't combine them all.

Now when we come to a PC, this is when you can start running into the bandwidth limitation of HDMI. When running 4k, 4:4:4, 60hz, 8bit, that is the limit of current HDMI spec. The new HDMI standard that was announced has a much higher bandwidth to overcome this limitation to accommodate 5k, 8k and higher bit color. This is also one of the reasons most "monitors" run Displayport. The current DP has more bandwidth than HDMI and can support 4k 4:4:4 60hz 10bit, maybe even more.

Once all the new standards are implemented into TVs, monitors, and graphics cards, we will be able to utilize 4k+ resolution, 120hz+, 4:4:4, 10bit+ all simultaneously.

A PC can usually do just about anything you want with the change of some settings so it can easily saturate the line.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...


Yes, thank you for taking the time to explain the above.
 
Today i finally updated the nvidia drivers so i could play bf1.. have not played it since basicly it first came out! Haha... too many games released at once sucks.

Anyways at 4k with my 2 evga 1080 classifieds overclocked to 2190mhz was amazing!!! I first started out with the setting set at high cause i figured it would be slow.. was runing too fast so i set it all at ultra and hbo or whatecer it is on.. its still cranking over 80fps! Haha. Now this game is one i can see playing with 4k! Action just right for 4k.

Some screen tearing though.. dont have vertical sync enabled cause ive heard it adds mouse lag.

Anything else i can use??

Nice that sli works!


Now if i can find a few more games playable on 4k i can justify keeping it as my pc monitor.. haha if not it goes into the bedroom. :/
 
I hope that it isn't against the rules to post this here too:

HollandAmerica said:
Is anyone else suffering from this issue??
It makes using this TV as a monitor an unbearable experience; there's a big dark spot directly in front of wherever you choose to position your eyes. The solid gray behind the white text of posts looks gradient. I'm sitting around three feet away, maybe four. Moving back to six or so feet helps slightly, but not very much.
Is this a known thing that people learn to ignore? Are you all sitting 30 plus feet away from the display? Why haven't I seen anyone talk about it in the few dozen posts I've read so far?

I also have two or three light bars - only noticeable on a solid wall of gray - spanning vertically across the entire screen (photographed in X, Y, and Z), and motion also leaves a ridiculous amount of "burn" (ex. eyes on a moving face sometimes look bloodshot) but neither of those things matter very much in comparison to the first issue.
Click to expand...

I mostly just want to know if everyone else has A.jpg too or if it's just me.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    145.8 KB · Views: 29
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    177.9 KB · Views: 29
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    152.3 KB · Views: 32
  • A.jpg
    A.jpg
    120.3 KB · Views: 34
  • B.jpg
    B.jpg
    107.3 KB · Views: 28
  • C.jpg
    C.jpg
    117.1 KB · Views: 31
  • X.jpg
    X.jpg
    64.6 KB · Views: 29
  • Y.jpg
    Y.jpg
    62.4 KB · Views: 30
  • Z.jpg
    Z.jpg
    73.5 KB · Views: 32
I have three 6290s and none of them look anything like the images you posted. You probably have a bad unit and need to get it replaced as that looks abnormal.

Best of luck.
 
Agree with Lender and Doozer here. 2x 6290's and a 6300 and I don't see anything like what your pictures are showing. Never seen anything like that before anywhere.
 
Thanks, replies were very much appreciated. To clarify further before I have to return this thing, are all of you saying that three feet away, eyes dead center, you don't notice the middle area is darker?


Someone posted this image in another thread:

VApanel_2yu1btu8aq.jpg


Could you call this normal? Namely the edges being lighter than the center, not the vertical bars.
 
Pretty sure what you're seeing is the typical "viewing cone" or whatever that's inherent to the VA panel type and causes that color shift as you move your eyes/head. It's there on every VA panel but is more pronounced on a large screen like this. I don't even notice it in typical use TBH, but I don't spend a lot of time looking at solid backgrounds either. :D
 
Anyone using this TV as a monitor getting upgrade-itis for the curved 43" UN43KU7500 ? :D
 
TypeO said:
Not really. This panel was $299. I'm assuming that one is quite a bit more.
Click to expand...

$450 or so at the moment.

From what I've read, not worth the extra cash for what you get. Not if you have one of these already, anyway. Now, if you're in the market for a display now? Probably a good choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top