4K, 144Hz G-Sync HDR Monitors May be Coming Next Month

Accursed said:
I currently game on a 27", 1440p 144hz g-sync. Briefly went to a 35" ultrawide but didn't care for it so back to my 27". I sit about two feet away from my monitor, I cant imagine anything bigger than even a 32" on a desk without it just being too big. I assume your sitting across the room? Or not at a desk?

And as other have pointed out, their Big Format Gaming TVs will be out soon, 4k 140hz 65" g-sync, etc etc. Cant imagine how much those are gonna be.
Click to expand...


I sit about 3 feet from my 40". I wouldn't' want anything bigger that's for sure. Great perceived viewing area coverage from this distance.
I looked at the 42" 4K Korean displays(Wasabi Mango, etc) before choosing the Samsung because 40" was the perfect size and I got it from Best Buy so exchange/return was just a 30 minute drive if there was any issues with it.
 
I doubt we'll see any 4K 144hz monitors this year. call me a pessimist. others call me a prophet.
 
Great...more hungry mouths to eat all the pixels I can generate, and then some
 
Accursed said:
I currently game on a 27", 1440p 144hz g-sync. Briefly went to a 35" ultrawide but didn't care for it so back to my 27". I sit about two feet away from my monitor, I cant imagine anything bigger than even a 32" on a desk without it just being too big. I assume your sitting across the room? Or not at a desk?
Click to expand...

I don't care for ultrawide monitors either. It gives me this experience:

4384216032_e9a2e7e228_b.jpg


Current setup:

107275_upload_2018-3-4_22-18-40.png


It's quite enjoyable. 48" is a tiny bit on the large side. If I had to do it all over again, I'd go just a few inches smaller. at 40" 4k has approximately the same pixel density as your 1440p screen at 27". That would be a little small for me at 4k I think. The perfect size, as mentioned above would be 44". That will give you the same pixel density as a 24" 1920x1200 screen, which is about ideal for desktop use.

The large screen u close is great. Really gives you that immersive feeling in games, unlike most almost anything else.
 

Attachments

  • 107275_upload_2018-3-4_22-18-40.png
    107275_upload_2018-3-4_22-18-40.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 6
Accursed said:
I currently game on a 27", 1440p 144hz g-sync. Briefly went to a 35" ultrawide but didn't care for it so back to my 27". I sit about two feet away from my monitor, I cant imagine anything bigger than even a 32" on a desk without it just being too big. I assume your sitting across the room? Or not at a desk?

And as other have pointed out, their Big Format Gaming TVs will be out soon, 4k 140hz 65" g-sync, etc etc. Cant imagine how much those are gonna be.
Click to expand...

This was my question as well. I'm on a 27" 4k (72hz) and anything bigger feels like I've got my face pressed up to a light bulb. I sit about 3' back at what I'd call a standard desk setup.

What is your guy's seating setup with larger screens?
 
NickJames said:
ASUS is supposed to be coming out with 4K 200Hz HDR Ultrawide panels this year. This is what I am waiting for.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about the 4k part? The only 200hz upcoming panels I'm aware of are 3440x1440. Did I miss something (haven't seen any 3840x1600 panels mentioned in upcoming tech discussions), or are you making a similar mistake to the one commentator on Anandtech's article who got confused by an old article mentioning both these 4k panels and the 200hz 1440p ultra wide (a quarter farther down the queue in AUOs production pipeline) and was convinced there was supposed to be a 4k 200hz monitor but they had to slash prices to get it out.
 
Dan_D said:
Exactly. If they aren't 40" or larger I'm not interested.
Click to expand...

After moving to a 43" X800E last week I have to agree. 40-43" is perfect for a 4k desktop.

27" 1080p = 81.59 PPI
27" 1440p = 108.79 PPI
43" 4k = 102.46 PPI

27" 4k = 163.18 PPI. 163 PPI is a little excessive imo.
30" 4k = 146.86 PPI More optimal than 163 PPI, but still probably just a bit much imo.

Sometimes I think monitor manufacturers hold back on us, as if they don't want to give us too much too fast because they don't want to reach the end game too soon.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Well, it hasn't been. FreeSync is still inferior to G-Sync, and FreeSync 2 which purports to mostly close the gap will require G-Sync-like hardware to do so.

Nvidia solved this problem from the beginning, and FreeSync was a halfassed attempt to do 'something'. It also happens to be cheap, but that's really all that FreeSync 1 has going for it.


[Now, in theory, Nvidia could support DP Adaptive Sync and the additional signaling features that AMD has added, but then they'd have to put up with the wide range of poor FreeSync implementations...]
Click to expand...


They've been doing this for years and years already with their mobile parts with good panels prior to gysnc. Their drivers already support the Freesync spec, just isn't activated on desktop parts.
 
At some point you absolutely have to blame retailers. Best Buy has just about killed off all of the small brick and mortor electronics stores in my area, they stock 1 32" display, 1 29" wide screen, and the rest are 27" or below.

Even if they did, they only have 1 vega 56 ($839) and 1 1070 ti ($749) in stock. And it's not like they have any interest in supporting PC gaming, they just about kicked it to the curb when consoles went mainstream. It went from an entire section, to a portion of one shelf. That's pretty typical of my entire state. Bottom line, the gen pub doesn't typically buy items they aren't exposed to.

By contrast I can drive 35-40 minutes to the Microcenter in St.Davids, PA, and get virtually anything I'm looking for. Multiple 1080ti's from diff mans, multiple Vega 64's, numerous 40 inch class monitors, high end MB's and ram, etc.




​
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Couldn't agree more (though I paid WAY more for my 48" Samsung JS9000)

The fact that th eonly models available at least at launch are 27" completely kills it for me.

IMHO, my 48" is a little bit on the large side. I think it would be absolutely perfect if it were between 42" and 44"

Make either of these two screens with the identical specs, but in the 42-44" range, and I'll buy one immediately at launch. Make one anywhere else in the 40-48" range, and I'll consider it very carefully, and probably buy it./
Click to expand...

It of course depends on exactly how far away the monitor is, but for me 40" is absolutely perfect in 4K. It also then matches up reasonably closely with the 27" I have in portrait mode next to it :D
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
This is a great development, and hopefully it will drive more models.

I won't be buying these though.

Both the Asus and Acer models are only 27", and IMHO that is WAY too small for 4k.

4k only starts making sense over 40"

If someone makes one of these in the 40"-44" range, I'll replace my 48" Samsung JS9000 immediately.
Click to expand...
4K only makes sense with scaling, as anything beyond 32" doesn't make sense for desktop. I've tried 4K on 43" and it was still uncomfortably small I mean the fonts, while the screen was uncomfortably large. So it's a double fail for me.
Call me when they're selling a 32" model under $600 and I'm in.
 
M76 said:
Call me when they're selling a 32" model under $600 and I'm in.
Click to expand...

Assuming you would want some good quality as well (which we all want)...sadly we will be waiting a long time for this I suspect.
 
Elf_Boy said:
Like so many other things in life I need to know how many inches before I am interested.

Monitors really are (for me anyways) all about size.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet they are 27 inch or thereabout. No large format.
 
24"-27" is the perfect size some games scale like ass on 40"+ Try reading the text on a RPG on a 40"
 
M76 said:
4K only makes sense with scaling, as anything beyond 32" doesn't make sense for desktop. I've tried 4K on 43" and it was still uncomfortably small I mean the fonts, while the screen was uncomfortably large. So it's a double fail for me.
Call me when they're selling a 32" model under $600 and I'm in.
Click to expand...

If you just need 60hz no Gsync they're several options available today. If you need higher specs on both of those fronts check back in a few years.
 
This is pretty much the monitor that I'm after. As far as size, I don't want anything bigger. Desktop usage, I'll just scale stuff. But for gaming, I'm after a higher pixel density.
 
Can the GTX 1080ti run every game at 4k with 120+ fps? I'm sure lowering the graphics would get you there with every game.. just curious?
 
I've gone from 40" 4K -> 32" 4K -> 27" 1440p 144hz FSync -> 34" 1440p UW 120hz GSync -> 27" 1440p 165hz GSync. I now also have a 34" UltraWide as a side monitor.

What I've learned:
Anything above 32" 16:9 or ~34" 21:9 is too big (I think 34" ultrawide is the perfect combo of width and height)
High refresh + IPS is the only way to go (for gamers, otherwise just IPS is fine :))
*sync not that critical if GPU can hit 120hz +

I ultimately want a high refresh 34" Ultrawide that runs at LEAST 120hz. I tried the Alienware (which is the one in my list) but the colors were not as impressive as my previous IPS and it had BLB etc so I'm back to a 27" format until they release a good ultrawide 34" or 32" 16:9 IPS high refresh.
 
I've been waiting for more news on these monitors for a while so I'm happy to hear that they may be coming out soon. I hope the quality control on these are good because that seems to be a sore spot for a lot of the gaming monitors out there now. If these are $2000+ and have wide spread quality control issues that would just suck.
 
DanNeely said:
If you just need 60hz no Gsync they're several options available today. If you need higher specs on both of those fronts check back in a few years.
Click to expand...
I'm not going back to 60hz, 120hz at least. Gsync I'm not interested in, I'll take it, if it's there, but it won't affect my choice.
 
M76 said:
4K only makes sense with scaling, as anything beyond 32" doesn't make sense for desktop. I've tried 4K on 43" and it was still uncomfortably small I mean the fonts, while the screen was uncomfortably large. So it's a double fail for me.
Call me when they're selling a 32" model under $600 and I'm in.
Click to expand...


I'm curious.

If the fonts on 43" 4k are too small for you, what do you normally use that you are accustomed to.

Doing the math, 44" is where 4k has almost exactly 100ppi, which is pretty much the desktop standard. 43" should be slightly smaller but not much. Probably still larger than on a 27" 1440p screen (though I'd have to get back to my desk and rub the numbers)

As far as the screen being too large goes, I hear you. It took me a couple of weeks to get used to my 48" Samsung.

I mean, in games I found it immersive and awesome right off the bat, but the desktop productivity felt really awkward at first. Once I got used to it though, it is lovely and tough to go back. (I feel really restricted with my dual 24" 1920x1200 screens at work)

That being said, this is how I've felt every time I've gone up in screen size, starting with my Iiyama vision master Pro 22" CRT in 2001.
 
Comixbooks said:
24"-27" is the perfect size some games scale like ass on 40"+ Try reading the text on a RPG on a 40"
Click to expand...

Font size comfort is at 4k is really a function of PPI, which ~40 inches is perfect at 4k. 4k on a 27 inch screen won't have easier to read font size, if anything, it will be more difficult if the game does not properly scale at those levels.
 
SilverSliver said:
Font size comfort is at 4k is really a function of PPI, which ~40 inches is perfect at 4k. 4k on a 27 inch screen won't have easier to read font size, if anything, it will be more difficult if the game does not properly scale at those levels.
Click to expand...

Proper scaling is the main reason I avoid higher DPIs on the desktop. The freedom of not living in a walled garden brings with it the freedom to misbehave ;).
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It's quite enjoyable. 48" is a tiny bit on the large side. If I had to do it all over again, I'd go just a few inches smaller. at 40" 4k has approximately the same pixel density as your 1440p screen at 27". That would be a little small for me at 4k I think. The perfect size, as mentioned above would be 44". That will give you the same pixel density as a 24" 1920x1200 screen, which is about ideal for desktop use.

The large screen u close is great. Really gives you that immersive feeling in games, unlike most almost anything else.
Click to expand...

I don't think I could play like that. Going from cross hairs to minimap or ammo count would be disorienting. Would feel kinda like sitting at the front at a movie theater. If it works for you, and make you feel more immersed in the game, that's awesome! But I guess some of us are wired differently. Thanks for the pics tho.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I don't care for ultrawide monitors either. It gives me this experience:
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Until games out there fully support this resolution (Which is never) this ultrawide thing is, in my opinion, just an inbetween thing until we have enough GPU power to run the whole 4k.




It's quite enjoyable. 48" is a tiny bit on the large side. If I had to do it all over again, I'd go just a few inches smaller. at 40" 4k has approximately the same pixel density as your 1440p screen at 27". Tha[t would be a little small for me at 4k I think. The perfect size, as mentioned above would be 44". That will give you the same pixel density as a 24" 1920x1200 screen, which is about ideal for desktop use.

The large screen u close is great. Really gives you that immersive feeling in games, unlike most almost anything else.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely massive, I think I agree with 40" max too.
 
Lith1um said:
After moving to a 43" X800E last week I have to agree. 40-43" is perfect for a 4k desktop.

27" 1080p = 81.59 PPI
27" 1440p = 108.79 PPI
43" 4k = 102.46 PPI

27" 4k = 163.18 PPI. 163 PPI is a little excessive imo.
30" 4k = 146.86 PPI More optimal than 163 PPI, but still probably just a bit much imo.

Sometimes I think monitor manufacturers hold back on us, as if they don't want to give us too much too fast because they don't want to reach the end game too soon.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If they put out my vision of the perfect monitor, I wouldn't buy another one until it physically failed and was beyond any kind of repair.
 
Speak for yourselves. I, for one, can't wait to burn my eyes out sitting 4' away from one of those 65" BFGD.
 
Last edited:
M76 said:
4K only makes sense with scaling, as anything beyond 32" doesn't make sense for desktop. I've tried 4K on 43" and it was still uncomfortably small I mean the fonts, while the screen was uncomfortably large. So it's a double fail for me.
Call me when they're selling a 32" model under $600 and I'm in.
Click to expand...
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm curious.

If the fonts on 43" 4k are too small for you, what do you normally use that you are accustomed to.

Doing the math, 44" is where 4k has almost exactly 100ppi, which is pretty much the desktop standard. 43" should be slightly smaller but not much. Probably still larger than on a 27" 1440p screen (though I'd have to get back to my desk and rub the numbers)

As far as the screen being too large goes, I hear you. It took me a couple of weeks to get used to my 48" Samsung.

I mean, in games I found it immersive and awesome right off the bat, but the desktop productivity felt really awkward at first. Once I got used to it though, it is lovely and tough to go back. (I feel really restricted with my dual 24" 1920x1200 screens at work)

That being said, this is how I've felt every time I've gone up in screen size, starting with my Iiyama vision master Pro 22" CRT in 2001.
Click to expand...


I took the liberty to calculate the PPI for some current, historical and potential resolution and screen size combinations:

upload_2018-3-23_12-42-25.png


Typical ranges for the desktop tend to be from 90ppi up to 110ppi.

The 108.8ppi of 1440p at 27" was always a little high for me, and my 48" 4k screen at 91.8ppi is a little low for me.

I always found the pixel density of my 24" 1920x1200 and mt 30" 2560x1600 screens to be damned near perfect, which means I prefer 100ppi on the desktop.

Based on this, I'd like a 44" 4k screen.

The 163.2ppi of 4k @ 27" is just nuts, and will be unusable without significant scaling, which IMHO is just throwing pixels away.
 
Lith1um said:
Sometimes I think monitor manufacturers hold back on us, as if they don't want to give us too much too fast because they don't want to reach the end game too soon.
Click to expand...


I think it has more to do with panels.

Most monitor makers don't make their own panels, so they can only use whatever panels they can buy from panel manufacturers.

Developing a new panel process is expensive, so panel makers have to decide if the predicted sales volume is worth the investment.

Now, personally I'd love a 44" 3840x2160 144hz IPS capable of being hooked up to a G-Sync board, but I ahve to wonder how many more of me there are out there, and if we are worth the investment to develop a panel.

It's easier if there are alternate applications. A 44" panel could also be used in a TV. It might use up to 120hz to double expose 60hz content, but it wouldn't go above that.

In the end, panel manufacturing is very expensive, and manufactures don't want to risk putting a ton of money into something if they are only going to sell a handful.
 
The desktop scaling tool in Win 10 is pretty solid. I have no complaints or gripes with it at this time.
 
Elf_Boy said:
The desktop scaling tool in Win 10 is pretty solid. I have no complaints or gripes with it at this time.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I've seen it, and it works pretty well.

I just don't feel like buying all those extra pixels just to waste them by scaling.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I took the liberty to calculate the PPI for some current, historical and potential resolution and screen size combinations:

View attachment 61229
Click to expand...

Nice work, I think for me the next jump would be 32" 4k, in a couple of graphic card generations. When hopefully the GTX3080ti will be able to push 4k at 144hz. Don't really care about desktops apps (scaling) at all on my gaming PC.
 
I don't mind good scaling- and if it's good scaling, you're just getting higher resolution everything, so everything is just as readable as before but sharper.

My only problem is that not everything scales well due to lack of proper implementation by developers, and that's workflow-breaking. At that point I'll just lower the desktop resolution.
 
Accursed said:
Nice work, I think for me the next jump would be 32" 4k, in a couple of graphic card generations. When hopefully the GTX3080ti will be able to push 4k at 144hz. Don't really care about desktops apps (scaling) at all on my gaming PC.
Click to expand...

Ah, I've always taken the opposite approach. My PC is not a "gaming rig" and never has been since my first one in 1991.

I am a hardware and software enthusiast first. Playing the occasional game is just something I do because I happen to have the capable hardware. I haven't bought or built a system specifically for games ever. Only one I've ever owned was my NES I got in 1986, but I didn't do the buying on that one :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top