4k display with 16:9 resolution, Gsync and and 34"+ ? Does such a thing exist?

StormClaw

StormClaw

Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
565
I want a big 4k display, 34"+ but I want it in normal aspec 16:9

I also want a gsyc and 100Hz

Am I asking too much?

I like the Acer Predator, but the wide screen puts me off because I also need productivity.


Alternatively, are there any 16:9 + Gsync + 100Hz+ but at 2560x1600p ?
 
Okay. Lets get some things cleared up:

16:9 is an aspect ratio not a resolution. 4K is a resolution.

You won't get 100+ Hz on 4K probably this decade. Yes I'm being serious to all those people who will point out some sort of prototype HP/LG concept thing seen at CES. I'm talking retail availability from Amazon or Newegg.

21:9 is fine for productivity, but it really depends on the type of productivity. What sort of applications do you need to run?

2560x1600 is not a 16:9 aspect ratio. it is a 16:10 aspect ratio. So no, by nature it can't exist.
 
KazeoHin said:
Okay. Lets get some things cleared up:

16:9 is an aspect ratio not a resolution. 4K is a resolution.

You won't get 100+ Hz on 4K probably this decade. Yes I'm being serious to all those people who will point out some sort of prototype HP/LG concept thing seen at CES. I'm talking retail availability from Amazon or Newegg.

21:9 is fine for productivity, but it really depends on the type of productivity. What sort of applications do you need to run?

2560x1600 is not a 16:9 aspect ratio. it is a 16:10 aspect ratio. So no, by nature it can't exist.
Click to expand...
Don't see why you think that, I'm sure some will be out at the end of the year. 120hz 4k displays can already be bought, new displays only need to include the latest version of displayport. Along with the GPU having one.
 
KazeoHin said:
2560x1600 is not a 16:9 aspect ratio. it is a 16:10 aspect ratio. So no, by nature it can't exist.
Click to expand...
Ok, my bad.

How about 2560x1600 with 100Hz and gsync? Do they exist?

If i go with 2 modern cards for SLI, would 1 display port on the display be enough?
 
StormClaw said:
Ok, my bad.

How about 2560x1600 with 100Hz and gsync? Do they exist?

If i go with 2 modern cards for SLI, would 1 display port on the display be enough?
Click to expand...

There are some 2560x1440 144hz GSYNC displays and even some at 160hz. I think they're all 28" though.
 
KazeoHin said:
Okay. Lets get some things cleared up:
You won't get 100+ Hz on 4K probably this decade. Yes I'm being serious to all those people who will point out some sort of prototype HP/LG concept thing seen at CES. I'm talking retail availability from Amazon or Newegg.
Click to expand...

Not really,
144hz 4k panels will be mass produced for consumers in 2017 and we can also expect to see some 240hz QHD prototypes by then.
 
OP, I know what you're asking for and im here to tell you it does not exist, I know because im looking for the same thing...

16:9
4k or 1440p
100hz
32"+
low input lag

At this point in time, you're not going to find a screen that checks all these boxes.
One day though.

BenQ BL3200PT Black 32" 4ms (GTG) HDMI WQHD Widescreen LCD/LED Monitor, 300 cd/m2 DCR 20,000,000:1 (3000:1), CAD/CAM Mode, Animation Mode, Built-in Speakers, VESA Mountable, Height Adjustment, USB Hub - Newegg.ca
It is the size, format, and resolution that we want, but its 60hz and VA (im looking for IPS)
The first 16:9 32" ,1440p, IPS screen that ships will have my money.
 
Last edited:
Gatecrasher3000 said:
The first 16:9 32" ,1440p, IPS screen that ships will have my money.
Click to expand...

The Viewsonic VX3218-shdw, pretty sure it's going to use that ADSDS (IPS) panel by BOE.
Max. 75hz though, with FreeSync. It's listed on the AMD page for over 3 months now, but the Viewsonic page is still saying "coming soon"
 
Last edited:
igluk said:
with FreeSync. It's listed on the AMD page for over 3 months now, but the Viewsonic page is still saying "coming soon"
Click to expand...

Yeah I hear they will be releasing a g-sync model too.
F'it, I think im going to wait for the x34p. I cant wait for a 16:9 anymore...
 
igluk said:
Not really,
144hz 4k panels will be mass produced for consumers in 2017 and we can also expect to see some 240hz QHD prototypes by then.
Click to expand...
Damn near pointless unless games decide to stop moving forward with graphics. Even with a Pascal Titan new games that have come out this year many can't hit the 100 frame threshold on a 3440x1440 100hz Asus/Acer monitor. If you want to talk about availability versus realistic usability those are different things. If a 4k 144hz monitor comes out next year GL getting the best out of the higher refresh rates. People are juuuust starting to get acceptable framerates with 4k at 60hz.
 
If you can live with 27" and slightly lower res, the Asus ROG Swift is pretty nice with 144Hz and G-Sync at 1440P.
 
KazeoHin said:
You won't get 100+ Hz on 4K probably this decade. Yes I'm being serious to all those people who will point out some sort of prototype HP/LG concept thing seen at CES. I'm talking retail availability from Amazon or Newegg.
Click to expand...

KazeoHin said:
I'll stand corrected once I see it.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with speculation. I do it all the time. However, you try to present your speculation as fact. I don't go there. I try to look at the facts and make my guesses based off those.

What do we need for 4k at or greater than 100hz?

  • We need 4k panels (check, out in volume and affordable)
  • We need high-refresh 4k panels (demoed this year, should reach availability by 2017, affordability by 2018)
  • We need standards that support it (DP 1.3/1.4 support it, are in current generation GPUs shipping now)
Everything is on track for 2017 availability and 2018 affordability. To to say "not this decade" is wild speculation with no factual basis. To present it as fact is just irresponsible. I'd bet by Fall 2018 at the latest, we'll see 4k 120hz panels hitting below $500. They may be TNs, but it will be something.

Anyway, here's the connector support for 4K as of now.

  • 4k30 = DisplayPort 1.0+, HDMI 1.4+
  • 4k60 = DisplayPort 1.2+, HDMI 2.0+ (Nvidia has a work around allowing some GPUs to output limited 4k60 over HDMI 1.4)
  • 4k120 = DisplayPort 1.3+, HDMI NO (might have a 4:2:2 wokaround for 4k120, but not yet officially supported)
  • 4k144 = DisplayPort 1.4+, HDMI NO
 
Gatecrasher3000 said:
Yeah I hear they will be releasing a g-sync model too.
F'it, I think im going to wait for the x34p. I cant wait for a 16:9 anymore...
Click to expand...

This might be worth looking into. Anyone have a site that has more details on the Viewsonic VX3218-shdw gsync version?
 
Quartz-1 said:
This is simply incorrect. You can scale up text and it looks much better thanks to the higher PPI.
Click to expand...

Same way you can scale it up on a 40" screen and the effect will be even better. Or you wouldn't need to scale it up in the first place because of the screen size.
 
StormClaw said:
27" is too small for a 4k resolution. Even 32" is.

Gonna strain your eyes.
Click to expand...

False.

The effect is noticeable and appreciable even at 27". I have a 27" IPS 1440p and a 27" IPS 4k. There's a noticeable difference even in gaming. And yes, even at 4k, I can still see individual pixels in some cases.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
False.

The effect is noticeable and appreciable even at 27". I have a 27" IPS 1440p and a 27" IPS 4k. There's a noticeable difference even in gaming. And yes, even at 4k, I can still see individual pixels in some cases.
Click to expand...
I wasn't questioning the extra pixels effect.

I was saying that 4k on a 27" screen is gonna fuck your eyes up because you have to strain to see smaller content. And Windows scaling is still shit.

If you wanna go for 4k res then get it on a 40" panel.
 
StormClaw said:
I wasn't questioning the extra pixels effect.

I was saying that 4k on a 27" screen is gonna fuck your eyes up because you have to strain to see smaller content. And Windows scaling is still shit.

If you wanna go for 4k res then get it on a 40" panel.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see something be smaller after scaling that would cause eye strain. Windows scaling isn't perfect but it's effective enough for this. My desktop looks roughly the same on 4k at 150% as it does on my 1440p.

The problem is inconsistency with scaling. Most things look sharper (text looks amazing), but some things look slightly worse (Steam program, anything in the legacy control panel). But it doesn't get small or cause eye strain.
 
StormClaw said:
Same way you can scale it up on a 40" screen and the effect will be even better.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you've never used a high PPI monitor. It's not better on a 40" screen. High PPI text simply looks much nicer. Take a printout at 300 dpi and another at 600 dpi: the latter is immediately noticeable as being nicer. It's the same with text on screens.
 
StormClaw said:
You can't see shit with a high ppi on a small screen. Gonna wrek your eyes.
Click to expand...

I see now. Your assuming that high ppi = everything shrunk down. That's not the case. You are mistaken.

Everything is still the same size, just better detail and sharper edges due to less pixelation after scaling.
 
StormClaw said:
I was saying that 4k on a 27" screen is gonna fuck your eyes up because you have to strain to see smaller content.
Click to expand...

No, you don't.

And Windows scaling is still shit.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. That some applications don't make proper use of it is indisputable, but the scaling works fine. You might try actually using one before criticising them.

Daniel_Chang said:
Everything is still the same size, just better detail and sharper edges due to less pixelation after scaling.
Click to expand...

This.
 
StormClaw said:
You can't see shit with a high ppi on a small screen. Gonna wrek your eyes.
Click to expand...

WTF? I wonder what kind of smart phone you have... Most of them these days are 300+ ppi on a small screen which is almost double (more than in some cases) 4K @ 27".
 
jedolley said:
WTF? I wonder what kind of smart phone you have... Most of them these days are 300+ ppi on a small screen which is almost double (more than in some cases) 4K @ 27".
Click to expand...
The difference being everything scales perfectly on your phone.
 
delita said:
Damn near pointless unless games decide to stop moving forward with graphics. Even with a Pascal Titan new games that have come out this year many can't hit the 100 frame threshold on a 3440x1440 100hz Asus/Acer monitor. If you want to talk about availability versus realistic usability those are different things.
Click to expand...
Dude. Your logic is, because some new games from this year can't run at that res/fps, it's pointless. Ever consider older games? My GTX1070 drives Diablo3 at 4k 140Hz. Unreal Tournament 3 also runs very fast. And nowdays older games sell for cheap on Steam, giving more incentive than ever to play older games; one of these days I still need to get Black Ops 2.
 
zzz said:
Dude. Your logic is, because some new games from this year can't run at that res/fps, it's pointless. Ever consider older games? My GTX1070 drives Diablo3 at 4k 140Hz. Unreal Tournament 3 also runs very fast. And nowdays older games sell for cheap on Steam, giving more incentive than ever to play older games; one of these days I still need to get Black Ops 2.
Click to expand...

A lot of people don't understand just how little you need to run older titles at 4k (or ultrawide 1440p, which is less demanding). I have a 1060, a far cry from your 1070, and Diablo 3 runs 110-120fps for me at 4k.
 
This thread needs OLED added. inky blacks is more exciting to me than refresh rate and resolution.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
A lot of people don't understand just how little you need to run older titles at 4k (or ultrawide 1440p, which is less demanding). I have a 1060, a far cry from your 1070, and Diablo 3 runs 110-120fps for me at 4k.
Click to expand...


Indeed. I started off my 4K gaming with a 780 Ti.
 
zzz said:
Dude. Your logic is, because some new games from this year can't run at that res/fps, it's pointless. Ever consider older games? My GTX1070 drives Diablo3 at 4k 140Hz. Unreal Tournament 3 also runs very fast. And nowdays older games sell for cheap on Steam, giving more incentive than ever to play older games; one of these days I still need to get Black Ops 2.
Click to expand...

no, sorry. i don't spend all of this money on computer hardware to play old ass games with shit graphics, but to each his own.

diablo in 4k is not impressive looking. the game wasn't impressive looking the day it came out, maybe that was a poor example.

i'll use the opposite of your scenario for comparison. you wouldn't even be able to run the menu screen of deus ex mankind divded with acceptable framerates.

i'm running an X34 now 100hz and there are PLENTY of games that i can't get anywhere near 100 frames. Bumped up to 4k, it'll be a while before people are enjoying new titles to the FULLEST -- and that's what I want, personally. I want the full experience.
 
delita said:
i'm running an X34 now 100hz and there are PLENTY of games that i can't get anywhere near 100 frames. Bumped up to 4k, it'll be a while before people are enjoying new titles to the FULLEST -- and that's what I want, personally. I want the full experience.
Click to expand...

You're asking the impossible: game writers will always write in advance of available hardware. It's a good way to give the game longevity.
 
Quartz-1 said:
You're asking the impossible: game writers will always write in advance of available hardware. It's a good way to give the game longevity.
Click to expand...

People can do what they want to do. I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm just saying that I bought this monitor over a year ago with the best hardware available and even then it wasn't possible. Jump up to 4k 144hz and it puts you even further from the mark. To me it just doesn't justify spending the money on something that will work at it's best with games that are 4-5 years old. But as I said, to each his own. I love my X34, but I don't think I would push any further than 3440x1440 100hz for a good while personally.
 
I'm having some luck playing older games at 4K with a GTX 970. Right now I'm on the original Mirror's Edge and DMC (Devil May Cry). I have them on mostly high settings at 4K resolution and they look great.

Honestly, I'm not sure I realized how good 4K was before getting this TV. It's practically the difference between SD and HD. Really quite amazing.
 
delita said:
all of this money on computer hardware to play old ass games with shit graphics
Click to expand...
If we were here making the argument, "4K 140Hz is totally doable on Quake 1 from 1996" then your response would actually make sense.

So, if you missed playing a game because you were busy playing a different one, do you simply refuse to go back and play it because it's a couple years old? Time alone doesn't make a game any worse. What if you were curious about Skyrim and it's on sale for $5; would you say "nooo, it's from 2011!" Well, regardless of what you would do, many people still play these and would welcome 4K @ >100Hz.

new titles to the FULLEST -- and that's what I want, personally. I want the full experience.
Click to expand...
A 43" 4K or Rift give an arguably fuller experience than your 34" 21:9.
 
Playing old games on new expensive hardware is not a waste of hardware, unless you only use it to play old games, then it's subjective.

On a display, that's not a waste either IMO.

Playing only new games on new expensive hardware, on the otherhand, is a waste of good old games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top