Acer Expects 4K to go Mainstream

AlphaAtlas

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
Digitimes reports that Acer expects Ultra HD gaming monitors to go mainstream in the second half of 2018 and all of 2019. In addition to recent 4k monitor releases, the company plans to launch several new Ultra HD monitors under its Predator and Nitro brands targeting the $2200, $1350, and $900 price brackets this year. Interestingly, many of the displays Digitimes points out feature 144hz refresh rates. Acer's own Predator X27 barely squeezes all that over DisplayPort 1.4, having to use 4:2:2 Chroma subsampling at 144hz with HDR, so I wonder if Acer expects new HDMI or Displayport standards to play a role.

Chien noted that the monitor market is in decline, but Acer managed to maintain double-digit revenue and shipment growths in the first half of 2018 and is looking to keep the momentum for the second half. However, the trade tensions between the US and China remain the biggest concern for the monitor industry.
 
GMcDougal said:
Im sorry, but 4k monitors will not go mainstream with those prices.
Click to expand...

My thoughts too. Mainstream pricing for monitors is in the ~$100 to ~$300 range. Anything above that is decidedly premium and not mainstream.

I'm still of the opinion that 4k makes absolutely no sense under 40". I don't need 144hz. I'd be happy with some sort of adaptive refresh rate going up to 100hz-120hz somewhere. The hardware just isn't there to get up to 144hz anyway. I'd prefer true 4:4:4 chroma, but I don't know what the max capabilities for DP are here.

If they can make a 120hz adaptive refresh 43" 4k screen, for under $1k, I'm in. Otherwise I'll just keep using my 2015 Samsung JS9000 TV
 
I love my $175 1440p 75hz monitor. Not only does 4k carry a price premium it also requires very high end hardware that carries a even larger premium.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
My thoughts too. Mainstream pricing for monitors is in the ~$100 to ~$300 range. Anything above that is decidedly premium and not mainstream.

I'm still of the opinion that 4k makes absolutely no sense under 40". I don't need 144hz. I'd be happy with some sort of adaptive refresh rate going up to 100hz-120hz somewhere. The hardware just isn't there to get up to 144hz anyway. I'd prefer true 4:4:4 chroma, but I don't know what the max capabilities for DP are here.

If they can make a 120hz adaptive refresh 43" 4k screen, for under $1k, I'm in. Otherwise I'll just keep using my 2015 Samsung JS9000 TV
Click to expand...

I'm rocking a 40" 4k Sammy. Darn good image quality. Doesn't meet competative Fps needs, but I don't play that. Some single player fps now and then. Mostly stratagy and tactical games. Having lots of pixels is more important than fast pixels to me. That I can hit 4 4 4 chroma at 4k, is great. I get lots of pretty pixels.

It does take some beastly horsepower to drive it though.
 
striker444 said:
My experience with the mighty $2k monitor

Click to expand...


My Acer Predator XB252 had several dead pixels but thankfully I bought it at a Microcenter so the exchange was easy. But still... I never dealt with dead pixels and it made me hesitant on buying Acer again.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm still of the opinion that 4k makes absolutely no sense under 40".
Click to expand...

Have you ever used 4K below 40 inches to even make this statement? My 28 inch 4K monitor looks AMAZING. I really don't get how one could even say this. Even on much smaller screens the higher the resolution the higher the detail and crispness and less need for AA.

The higher the resolution (like 40 inches) the less detail and more aliasing...especially for desktop/close range use.

Yeah, I see comments like these a lot and never really understand the thought process. Like I said, even at 28 inches 4K is a huge benefit and the PPI makes it like looking out a window.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
My thoughts too. Mainstream pricing for monitors is in the ~$100 to ~$300 range. Anything above that is decidedly premium and not mainstream.

I'm still of the opinion that 4k makes absolutely no sense under 40". I don't need 144hz. I'd be happy with some sort of adaptive refresh rate going up to 100hz-120hz somewhere. The hardware just isn't there to get up to 144hz anyway. I'd prefer true 4:4:4 chroma, but I don't know what the max capabilities for DP are here.

If they can make a 120hz adaptive refresh 43" 4k screen, for under $1k, I'm in. Otherwise I'll just keep using my 2015 Samsung JS9000 TV
Click to expand...

Regarding the sizing of a 4k monitor, probably depends on how far away your face is from the screen. I have a 32' 4k monitor that I absolutely love, and when gaming I sit between 24 and 30 inches away from the screen which is about perfect to fill all of my peripheral vision.

Also, a 4k 32" monitor has the exact same PPI as a 16" 1080p screen. I doubt many people would be saying that a 16" 1080p screen makes no sense when there are certainly many laptops with the same resolution yet smaller form factor.
 
Showbiz said:
Regarding the sizing of a 4k monitor, probably depends on how far away your face is from the screen. I have a 32' 4k monitor that I absolutely love, and when gaming I sit between 24 and 30 inches away from the screen which is about perfect to fill all of my peripheral vision.

Also, a 4k 32" monitor has the exact same PPI as a 16" 1080p screen. I doubt many people would be saying that a 16" 1080p screen makes no sense when there are certainly many laptops with the same resolution yet smaller form factor.
Click to expand...

I tend to think of the ideal 1080p screen size as 23"-24"

I sit about an arms length from my 48" Samsung, and I love it. Fills my peripheral vision.

IMG_20180304_220555.jpg


Ideally it would be just a couple of inches smaller though. 43" would be perfect!
 
Mut1ny said:
Have you ever used 4K below 40 inches to even make this statement? My 28 inch 4K monitor looks AMAZING. I really don't get how one could even say this. Even on much smaller screens the higher the resolution the higher the detail and crispness and less need for AA.

The higher the resolution (like 40 inches) the less detail and more aliasing...especially for desktop/close range use.

Yeah, I see comments like these a lot and never really understand the thought process. Like I said, even at 28 inches 4K is a huge benefit and the PPI makes it like looking out a window.
Click to expand...
At 28" I found 4k to be unusable for anything but games (and yes it looked great when gaming). If windows scaling works better 28" might be "ok" at this point, but when I was using my 28" samsung monitor I had to set the scaling so high (to be able to read text) that it felt like a big step down from a 28" 1440p. After moving to 4k @ 40" I don't think I'll ever go smaller than 32" again.
 
Showbiz said:
Regarding the sizing of a 4k monitor, probably depends on how far away your face is from the screen. I have a 32' 4k monitor that I absolutely love, and when gaming I sit between 24 and 30 inches away from the screen which is about perfect to fill all of my peripheral vision.

Also, a 4k 32" monitor has the exact same PPI as a 16" 1080p screen. I doubt many people would be saying that a 16" 1080p screen makes no sense when there are certainly many laptops with the same resolution yet smaller form factor.
Click to expand...
I got a 8" 1080p tablet and a 11" 1080p tablet and a phone that is higer resolution than that is a 5.3" screen
 
4K won't be "mainstream" for likely at least another couple of years. Until we start seeing 4K monitors at current 1080p prices - it won't happen.
 
My first 4k monitor was around $00. It was a Seiki 39 inch that did 4k @ 30hz. Not a gaming monitor, but an amazing display for a developer. My second 4k monitor was another identical Seiki, for $300, running dual head. Again, bad for gaming, great for productivity. My third 4k display was a $1200 Asus high spec laptop, and my 4th 4k display is a 17" HP high spec laptop. Once you go 4k, you don't go back. If you don't need those extra gaming features, you can get a good 60hz 4k screen for a couple hundred dollars.
 
Paid $300 for the Acer 31.5" 4k "HDR" monitor I have on my desk*. I'd say 4k is more or less approaching mainstream, but the utility isn't there for a lot of entry-level and mainstream consumer uses yet.

*[I have a 31.5" 1440p gaming monitor next to it for gaming]
 
Mut1ny said:
Have you ever used 4K below 40 inches to even make this statement? My 28 inch 4K monitor looks AMAZING. I really don't get how one could even say this. Even on much smaller screens the higher the resolution the higher the detail and crispness and less need for AA.

The higher the resolution (like 40 inches) the less detail and more aliasing...especially for desktop/close range use.

Yeah, I see comments like these a lot and never really understand the thought process. Like I said, even at 28 inches 4K is a huge benefit and the PPI makes it like looking out a window.
Click to expand...

I find screens over ~110dpi max to be mostly useless.

My work laptop has a 14" 2560x1440 screen, which works out to be ~210 PPI, and I absolutely hate it. I usually just wind up using it at 1920x1080, and putting up with the resultant blurriness just to make it useable.

I'd try scaling, but I'm stuck on Windows 7 at work, so scaling is uniform across all screens, so if I scale up the screen on the laptop, when I got to dock it everything is HUGE. In general I find scaling to be nothing but a huge waste though. A waste of pixels, a waste of processing power and a waste of power.

Resolution is not an alternative to AA. Aliasing is still there, and even if it weren't, it would be the most computationally expensive AA ever.

~ 100dpi is the perfect pixel density for desktop use, which is why I want a 43" 3840x2160 screen.
 
I think 4K tvs as monitors have a better chance to become mainstream. More so once Freesync becomes more common.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I find screens over ~110dpi max to be mostly useless.

My work laptop has a 14" 2560x1440 screen, which works out to be ~210 PPI, and I absolutely hate it. I usually just wind up using it at 1920x1080, and putting up with the resultant blurriness just to make it useable.

I'd try scaling, but I'm stuck on Windows 7 at work, so scaling is uniform across all screens, so if I scale up the screen on the laptop, when I got to dock it everything is HUGE. In general I find scaling to be nothing but a huge waste though. A waste of pixels, a waste of processing power and a waste of power.

Resolution is not an alternative to AA. Aliasing is still there, and even if it weren't, it would be the most computationally expensive AA ever.

~ 100dpi is the perfect pixel density for desktop use, which is why I want a 43" 3840x2160 screen.
Click to expand...

Having setup and used Dell 43" monitor at work I have personally concluded it is way too big as a monitor unless you sit far away. It also is so wide, a curve would have helped a lot. Regarding smaller 4K monitors, I'd say below 30" it is definitely diminishing return as you won't make out all the detail but I suppose in some games with not so great 4K textures that may help. Personally I found that 32" 4K is roughly the ideal size, however I do see that someone with vision problems may want a bigger monitor. While I wouldn't say that me going from a 1600p 30" monitor to 4k 32" made an immense difference in games in terms of visual quality, it did improve things quite a lot (as long as you are not too much into old games and emulators).
 
zkostik said:
Having setup and used Dell 43" monitor at work I have personally concluded it is way too big as a monitor unless you sit far away. It also is so wide, a curve would have helped a lot. Regarding smaller 4K monitors, I'd say below 30" it is definitely diminishing return as you won't make out all the detail but I suppose in some games with not so great 4K textures that may help. Personally I found that 32" 4K is roughly the ideal size, however I do see that someone with vision problems may want a bigger monitor. While I wouldn't say that me going from a 1600p 30" monitor to 4k 32" made an immense difference in games in terms of visual quality, it did improve things quite a lot (as long as you are not too much into old games and emulators).
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong. The 48" screen felt awkward at first, and took some getting used to, but I've felt that way about every screen size upgrade I've ever done:

  • 2000: Generic 16" CRT -> 22" Iiyama Visionmaster Pro
  • 2005: -> Dell 2405FPW (24" 1920x1200)
  • 2010: -> Dell U3011 (30" 2560x1600)
  • 2015: -> Samsung JS9000 (48" 3840x2160)
So, it felt large and awkward at first, but I got used to it over time, just like I did with previous screens. It does have a slight curve to it though, but the curve is rather small, so I can't imagine it has a huge impact on how I view it. You just have to get used to having screen real estate outside the center of your field of view, and once you do it is great.

My biggest gripe is that the PPI is a tiny bit low, at 91.8 PPI. Dropping it down to 43" would make it just about perfect, both from a PPI and size perspective.

My vision is corrected to 20/20, so I don't have a problem there, but I really like the immersiveness of having my peripheral vision involved in the game as well, and the extra desktop real estate is a blessing!


I guess I'm inadvertently on a 5 year monitor cycle.

I wonder what I'll get in 2020? Maybe by then I'll finally be able to get my 43" 120hz adaptive refresh screen...
 
Last edited:
43” 4K Monitor

I picked up this bad boy for $499 out the door. They originally wanted $699 and I just wouldn’t pay that. So I agree with the above. Prices need to come down to be mainstream.

B69F123D-E16A-4F82-A9B0-5A6AD33B1BF5.jpeg
 
I am sitting at 1440p in a 32" monitor and see no reason to move to 4K. I am very happy with it.

It is the largest monitor I can put on my desk.
 
mainstream monitor price point is somewhere between 49.99 and 199 price point. Selling a few boutique monitors falls woefully short of the mainstream market.

All you gaming above 1080p are not mainstream.
 
Not a chance. Especially with video card prices increasing. The 1080ti can't even maintain 60 frame rates in every game out there. The majority of gamers don't spend $1600-2000 on GPU(s). I don't see it happening for a long time.

1440P is becoming much more mainstream as well as 1440P ultra wide.
 
Mut1ny said:
Have you ever used 4K below 40 inches to even make this statement? My 28 inch 4K monitor looks AMAZING. I really don't get how one could even say this. Even on much smaller screens the higher the resolution the higher the detail and crispness and less need for AA.

The higher the resolution (like 40 inches) the less detail and more aliasing...especially for desktop/close range use.

Yeah, I see comments like these a lot and never really understand the thought process. Like I said, even at 28 inches 4K is a huge benefit and the PPI makes it like looking out a window.
Click to expand...


My biggest issue with <40" 4k is mostly software, not the hardware. Scaling isn't handled well in windows for that. Hard to balance resolution and font size. Some games UI is all wonky at 4k on a smaller screen. Some are bad enough at 4k. My eyes are still pretty good, but when a games text is <5mm tall it's hard to read from 3 to 4 feet away while I'm gaming.
 
TangledThornz said:
Those aren't mainstream prices.
Click to expand...
Zarathustra[H] said:
If they can make a 120hz adaptive refresh 43" 4k screen, for under $1k, I'm in. Otherwise I'll just keep using my 2015 Samsung JS9000 TV
Click to expand...
heatlesssun said:
This is exactly what I'm looking for as well.
Click to expand...

Just so you guys understand, the FPGA to do that costs ~half a grand in low volumes already and we have not even built the circuit board or engineered anything else, or an LCD.
The chip to interface Dp 1.4 so you can get the signal there is a million dollar minimum order from RTL.
The barrier to entry is too high for a niche market, this is why no one is making them. This is why the BFGD whatever is some stupid car priced screen that almost no one will use.
 
N4CR said:
Just so you guys understand, the FPGA to do that costs ~half a grand in low volumes already and we have not even built the circuit board or engineered anything else, or an LCD.
The chip to interface Dp 1.4 so you can get the signal there is a million dollar minimum order from RTL.
The barrier to entry is too high for a niche market, this is why no one is making them. This is why the BFGD whatever is some stupid car priced screen that almost no one will use.
Click to expand...

This is true, if you were starting a brand new company just to market a screen like this, but for an establishedemonitor or TV manufacturer there are lots of opportunities for parts commonality that can bite into this cost significantly.

If you are already placing million dollar orders for DP chips, it's relatively inexpensive to use a small quantity of them for a niche product.

Furthermore, there are already 120hz panels on the market used in TV's that can be used in this regard.

The only places were excessive cost is added is where unique engineering needs to be done for a product like this, and I don't see a lot of that. It's just a matter of mixing and matching mostly plug and play components from across a large monitor/TV manufacturers portfolio.

(Panel and Plastic enclosure from a TV, DP hardware and G/Free-sync from a gaming monitor, etc. Etc.)

The only place real cost would actually be added here is the system integration and testing type of work. This isn't cheap, but it is nowhere near the cost of brand new development by a company with no similar products.
 
The release of new / good 4K monitors is about the only thing that may push me to upgrade my video cards before the schedule I currently have in mind, which is 3080ti or next gen AMD (depending on benchies).

I used to use my 40" 4K for my main monitor (Crossover 404K) and it was great. It still fit on my normal desktop without too many issues and gave good coverage to the edge of your peripheral vision for immersion. It wasn't too bad on scaling and ran all the apps I needed at okay frames per second on my Titan Xp. When I got my Dell 34" monitor I moved the 40" 4k to a secondary monitor mounted above my desktop and run games on the Dell. I find that 3440x1440 is a great balance between resolution and better frame rates than the 4k.

I also tried goofing around on my living room setup at 4K (LG E7 65" OLED TV) but playing games requires too much side to side head movement which is good for immersion I guess, but it does get kinda annoying since it requires a lot of neck craning or eye-darting.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
This is true, if you were starting a brand new company just to market a screen like this, but for an establishedemonitor or TV manufacturer there are lots of opportunities for parts commonality that can bite into this cost significantly.

If you are already placing million dollar orders for DP chips, it's relatively inexpensive to use a small quantity of them for a niche product.

Furthermore, there are already 120hz panels on the market used in TV's that can be used in this regard.

The only places were excessive cost is added is where unique engineering needs to be done for a product like this, and I don't see a lot of that. It's just a matter of mixing and matching mostly plug and play components from across a large monitor/TV manufacturers portfolio.

(Panel and Plastic enclosure from a TV, DP hardware and G/Free-sync from a gaming monitor, etc. Etc.)

The only place real cost would actually be added here is the system integration and testing type of work. This isn't cheap, but it is nowhere near the cost of brand new development by a company with no similar products.
Click to expand...

There are almost no true 120Hz 10bit or better screens on the market (i'm not meaning panels) but screens. The ones that are have fans to cool their FPGAs.. Nvidia has more money to throw at it than any of the others and they also used FPGA. The input chips are only used on these type of screens, practically nothing else is out that can do better than usual Dp 4k/60 10bit.
Yes screens can do it for years. There is even an 8k 65" 384 FALD panel that has been around for many years too.
Why has no one made a screen using it faster than 8k/15?
Because of interface.

And because of a lack of content, practically nothing is 4k120. Not even GPUs can run that yet unless you turn settings down considerably or run older titles. RT 4k/120? Lol give us another 6+ years. What sources are there besides some cameras? This is why adoption is low, there is a surprisingly small amount of content for it.

So this is why its still a 1.4-2k price point no matter how big your company is, because there is considerable cost to manufacturing due to high BOM cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top