Am I doomed to spend 4 grand to get 4k hdr?

F

FlamingTP01

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 27, 2018
Messages
81
So I'm building a dual RTX 2080 system, but finding a monitor with HDR is difficult.

I don't care about refresh above 60hz on both monitors, and I don't know if a monitor is only HDR if it says so in the advertising.

I just want 2 4k monitors with HDR. Is the acer x27 the only one? if so I might as well grab a shitty asus 4k cheapo and wait for the price to drop.

TP is a sad panda. usually monitor tech is years ahead of TV tech. I suppose I could just game on my 75 inch qled TV but other people are going to use that. grrr.
 
I hear you man. The problem I've seen is also the very "loose" interpretation of HDR when used to describe monitors. When they are pushing only 300 or so nits of brightness, there's not enough contrast to do HDR even if technically the hardware for HDR is there.

Right now, when I want to see HDR, I go watch my LG E7 OLED. IPS / VA / TN used in monitors just can't get there yet.
 
The Acer X27 is the only monitor that offers an HDR experience anywhere near OLED TVs or the highest end LCD TVs(Samsung Q9FN, etc), yep. Everything else, whether it says HDR on the box or not, does not have the brightness or black level control to do proper HDR.

There is the philips 436M6VBPAB but it has static dithering issues.
 
Very well, I shall by one of those unless the asus one is better, and a lesser 4k or 2 k display, I would like my second display to be larger, the purpose of the second display is movie watching and general utility (internet, map display if I'm playing escape from tarkov etc.) as the computer will be in a room without a television.

I would like the second display to be large, I'm not picky on resolution. Any recommendations in the $500 range give or take a couple hundred? I cant see a reason to splurge for 144hz or see 4k as an absolute much have for a second display. SIze on display 2 should be 32-40 inches.

I'll just watch 4k HDR content on the first monitor if I happen to want to view it.

any recommendations on VESA mounts? I want to try and make everything as eye level as possible.
 
Why dual RTX 2080 instead of single 2080 Ti tho? Considering so few games with good SLI scaling.

If high refresh rate is not a necessity and you want a big screen I would just buy a single 4K HDR TV and use that with games running windowed.
 
HDR's a joke on the PC anyway. Support is so bad. The sad thing is that the HDR experience is probably better on fucking shitty video game consoles than high end PCs right now.

Pretty dark times for high end gaming, honestly.
 
Been enjoying Horizon 4 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider with HDR on my PC. The experience is amazing.
 
This years Samsung Q9FN QLED TVs are worth a look if you can consider one larger screen. I have one and it is special.
HDR can hit close to 2000Nits!
And it has almost the widest colour spectrum of any display I know of.
There are so many features its worth reading articles to get a grip.
Its response times are stellar.
It even supports 1440p @ 120Hz.

The smallest size is 55" up to 75".
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q9fn-q9f-q9-2018
 
kasakka said:
Why dual RTX 2080 instead of single 2080 Ti tho? Considering so few games with good SLI scaling.

If high refresh rate is not a necessity and you want a big screen I would just buy a single 4K HDR TV and use that with games running windowed.
Click to expand...
I wanted an appropriately sized gaming monitor with HDR. mostly so I wouldn't have to turn my head while in the thick of the action. I was thinking a bigger second display would be suitable for other tasks off to the side.

support isn't much of an issue since I plan on keeping this beast going until it dies. hell we might have path tracing cards in the works by then.
 
It's honestly hard to recommend anyone do SLI these days. So many games simply don't support it, and of the ones that do, many have poor scaling. SLI also brings with it worse stability because there are graphics options that can simply BSOD you or that don't work properly with it. I would stay away from it unless you only plan to primarily play a few games that you already know work very well with it. IMO SLI is a mistake for a general purpose gaming machine. If you have money to burn and want to just have 2 of the best video card and are fine with not benefiting from the 2nd one at times, that's one thing, but the whole "I'll buy 2 weaker GPUs to get better price/performance!" plan has never, ever been a good one. The stronger single GPU will produce the better experience on average across all titles.
 
Sancus said:
If you have money to burn and want to just have 2 of the best video card and are fine with not benefiting from the 2nd one at times, that's one thing, but the whole "I'll buy 2 weaker GPUs to get better price/performance!" plan has never, ever been a good one. The stronger single GPU will produce the better experience on average across all titles.
Click to expand...

Amen. I had a 2x970 before the 980 Ti was out and sold those and got the 980 Ti. While there wasn't much difference in performance, there was a noticeable difference in responsiveness due to less input lag, smoother framerate due to no microstuttering and not having to deal with SLI bugs was nice. I'm not buying a dual GPU setup until those things are no longer an issue.
 
Sancus said:
It's honestly hard to recommend anyone do SLI these days. So many games simply don't support it, and of the ones that do, many have poor scaling. SLI also brings with it worse stability because there are graphics options that can simply BSOD you or that don't work properly with it. I would stay away from it unless you only plan to primarily play a few games that you already know work very well with it. IMO SLI is a mistake for a general purpose gaming machine. If you have money to burn and want to just have 2 of the best video card and are fine with not benefiting from the 2nd one at times, that's one thing, but the whole "I'll buy 2 weaker GPUs to get better price/performance!" plan has never, ever been a good one. The stronger single GPU will produce the better experience on average across all titles.
Click to expand...
I've never BSOD'd on my previous SLI machine, again bought for the 4k experience. I either notice a performance increase of about 30% above single card, or end up on a game made for it and get easily double the normal framerates I usually do.

Last time I checked, games that don't support it just see the two cards as one unit and I get small benefits anyway. The only reason I went with these two cards is so no matter what I play I can reliably get above 60 at 4k. Even if it's GTAV, which clocks in at 59 with a 2080ti at UHD resolutions.

Anyway, I noticed my monitor didn't have vents on it, so I was able to clean it and get any asbestos off of it from the house fire I dealt with. I will use it as my primary until the 4k hdr monitor arrives. Amazon still hasn't shipped me my 9900k yet though.
 
Just get normal 4k monitor like lg uk650. Low i put lag, nice colors and entry hdr. It will look great in bright games but that no dimming zones hdr looks like shit in dark games
 
Umm, you should wait. 2019 .. we are supposed to see some really nice things in the large display dept according to Linus Tech Tips. He had a few videos about this.

I just went from a 49" 60hz which I absolutely loved to a 32" 144hz and it ruined me. I can never game at 60hz again. Not only that, your Windows desktop, apps, etc are refreshed 144fps instead of 60fps .. you can see and feel the difference. Everything just pops and the mouse, omg, buttery smooth.

I've decided to set $2,000 aside for a 55" 120Hz nVidia display when they are released. Hopefully they are not much more expensive.

Also, Samsung has Varible Refresh Rate now on some 2018 displays up to 120hz at 1080p but, I also saw that 1440p is also supported so I'm a bit confused.
 
Well I'm used to my current 4k monitor. I guess I'll see what linus has to say. Honestly though a larger gaming screen makes target aquisition more difficult. On the other hand monitors with shrouds look like crap. I like the traditional flat panels.
 
CommandoSnake said:
Z9D or bust.

Z9D is literally the best 4K HDR display out on the market PERIOD.
Click to expand...
Rtings doesnt agree.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/z9d
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q9fn-q9f-q9-2018
While it is slightly brighter with HDR (and neither are a slouch) it doesnt have as good motion blur, response times and colour spectrum.
The Q9FN is rated higher overall and there are a few TVs rated even higher.
They trade places on a few things, maybe it depends what matters to you.
But what you said isnt true.

Also bear in mind the Z9D is a 2016 TV.
If it was reviewed today it wouldnt score as high.
Standard ratings improve, they dont reduce.

Latest review of the Q9FN.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/samsung-q9fn-qled
Note the price they quote is the 65" and is wrong, it can be bought cheaper.
My 55" is half the price.
 
Last edited:
Yeah the Q9FN is the best gaming TV, too bad the super aggressive bloom reduction[E: Thanks Nenu for correction, not noise reduction] that deletes stars from starfields makes it a less-than-optimal _television_. Personally I'm waiting for 120hz HDMI 2.1 OLEDs whether they come next year or 2020.
 
Last edited:
Sancus said:
Yeah the Q9FN is the best gaming TV, too bad the super aggressive noise reduction that deletes stars from starfields makes it a less-than-optimal _television_. Personally I'm waiting for 120hz HDMI 2.1 OLEDs whether they come next year or 2020.
Click to expand...
Do you mean dimming?
I dont run mine on max dimming, black levels are still great, as good as I need and I'm quite fussy.
 
Nenu said:
Do you mean dimming?
I dont run mine on max dimming, black levels are still great, as good as I need and I'm quite fussy.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, I mean bloom reduction built into the 'local dimming' setting, not noise. It's very aggressive even when it's set to low, it is known to delete stars from starfields. It's likely it deletes other low light detail as well. See comparison with the Z9D from rtings. Z9D is on the left, Q9FN on the right. HDTVTest commented on this issue as well.
 
bigbluefe said:
HDR's a joke on the PC anyway. Support is so bad. The sad thing is that the HDR experience is probably better on fucking shitty video game consoles than high end PCs right now.

Pretty dark times for high end gaming, honestly.
Click to expand...

The shit are you talking about? HDR works fine on PC assuming you have content to drive it properly. The games that support HDR look amazing on my X27.

As for the OP -

Not sure why you are going with 2080 SLI for 4k HDR gaming. It won't get you there in many titles. The only real option is a 2080ti. My single 1080ti was barely passable driving my X27, and given that a 2080 isn't much faster and that SLI only works in some titles while reducing performance in others - You really ought to just have gotten a single 2080ti.
 
Sancus said:
Yes, sorry, I mean bloom reduction built into the 'local dimming' setting, not noise. It's very aggressive even when it's set to low, it is known to delete stars from starfields. It's likely it deletes other low light detail as well. See comparison with the Z9D from rtings. Z9D is on the left, Q9FN on the right. HDTVTest commented on this issue as well.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
My Q9FN TV shows all the stars on max dimming and there are tons more than shown on the Z9D!
I compared it to a none dimming display to see if there are any differences and I cant see any.
I'll take a picture later.

Its likely a firmware update sorted it out.
 
Sancus said:
Yes, sorry, I mean bloom reduction built into the 'local dimming' setting, not noise. It's very aggressive even when it's set to low, it is known to delete stars from starfields. It's likely it deletes other low light detail as well. See comparison with the Z9D from rtings. Z9D is on the left, Q9FN on the right. HDTVTest commented on this issue as well.
Click to expand...
Here you go.
Not the best image, I havent got time to set it up, but it gets the point across.
The difference is stark.

StarWarsII 55Q9FN.jpg
 
Nenu said:
Rtings doesnt agree.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/z9d
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q9fn-q9f-q9-2018
While it is slightly brighter with HDR (and neither are a slouch) it doesnt have as good motion blur, response times and colour spectrum.
The Q9FN is rated higher overall and there are a few TVs rated even higher.
They trade places on a few things, maybe it depends what matters to you.
But what you said isnt true.

Also bear in mind the Z9D is a 2016 TV.
If it was reviewed today it wouldnt score as high.
Standard ratings improve, they dont reduce.

Latest review of the Q9FN.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/samsung-q9fn-qled
Note the price they quote is the 65" and is wrong, it can be bought cheaper.
My 55" is half the price.
Click to expand...

RTings is full of shit because they only reviewed the 65" model.

Anyway, I traded my Q9FN for the 75" Z9D and the Z9D was the superior set in almost every single way (except for input lag).

The black crush and processing on Q9FN is absolutely horrid.


Again, Z9D or bust.
 
CommandoSnake said:
RTings is full of shit because they only reviewed the 65" model.

Anyway, I traded my Q9FN for the 75" Z9D and the Z9D was the superior set in almost every single way (except for input lag).

The black crush and processing on Q9FN is absolutely horrid.


Again, Z9D or bust.
Click to expand...
The above image chooses to differ ;)
Like I said, it may have been fixed with an update before I bought mine, you may not have seen how good it is now.
I have not seen the black crush issues you describe.
It did have image processing artefacts when using interpolation but the latest firmware sorted those.
 
Nenu said:
The above image chooses to differ ;)
Like I said, it may have been fixed with an update before I bought mine, you may not have seen how good it is now.
I have not seen the black crush issues you describe.
It did have image processing artefacts when using interpolation but the latest firmware sorted those.
Click to expand...

Honestly your image is pretty much useless. You don't see black crush, but you don't really see anything pitch black do you? It looks your dimming isn't functioning correctly at all.
 
It's entirely possible they fixed the low setting in a firmware update so it turns off all the anti-bloom image processing they were doing or something, I dunno. Wonder if they fixed their broken luminance curve.
 
CommandoSnake said:
Honestly your image is pretty much useless. You don't see black crush, but you don't really see anything pitch black do you? It looks your dimming isn't functioning correctly at all.
Click to expand...
Lol wut?
The background is black, really black.

edit:
I put the image through an image editor and increased the brightness a lot.
There is a very dark blue haze around areas of the stars but I dont see that on screen. Probably due to the stars being very bright and masking it, but what does that matter when you cant see it.
The darkest parts dont change in brightness when it is boosted, they remain black.
Looks to me like the dimming is working perfectly.

Looking at the screen close up when the movie is playing I can see a very faint blue as well.
This is with dimming maxed out.
Reducing it to standard, its very hard to see the blue when close to the TV, certainly not from where I sit. Standard dimming is how I use it too.
This is great, its not an OLED, as good as I hoped for.
If you want perfection at 1 foot from the TV, good luck finding that without going OLED.

This TV does not suffer with black crush.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top