Are 4k 60Hz panels that can do 1440p @ 120/144Hz a thing?

[Fuzzy_3D]

A coworker was complaining during lunch about his TV being advertised as both 4k and 120Hz, but really could only do one or the other at a time (4k @ 60Hz OR 2k @120Hz).

I figure if I could get my hands on a monitor like that it would be the perfect compromise, since my hardware can't do anything 4k @120 fps anyway (Single GTX 1080).

Search only gives me 4k 120Hz screens that aren't on the market yet, am I missing something?

 

[TroyTalksNoMore]

I'm confused...

You say you have: Single GTX 1080 ~ the best card currently available
You say you want: 4k @ 120Hz ~ but you also say that your card "can't do anything 4K @ 120Hz"

So why do you want a 4k @ 120Hz monitor if you "can't do anything" at those settings?

You also say - your coworker has : 4k @ 60Hz - OR - 2k @120Hz
Why not visit his house w/ your box & do some testing (if he's not a PC gamer - you might convert him)?

Can you see & feel a HUGE difference between - 4k @ 60Hz - OR - 2k @120Hz?

If you like it, buy the same TV / monitor.

If not.... well... IDK?

 

[chenw]

I believe the OP is currently asking if there are monitors that has two modes, a 4k @ 60hz and a 2k @ 120hz, in the same monitor.

The short answer is no. I do not believe even the Sony X series TV's can do it properly.

 

[elvn]

the vizio M series of 4k tvs can do 1080p at 120hz native input (not faked "tv 120hz" via interpolated frames or duplicated frames) on the 5th input that is capable of 4k 60hz. I think the P series can too. You need a 18gbps hdmi 2.0 cable though, and a hdmi 2.0 capable gpu , which the OP stated he has. The input lag on those tvs is very low for a tv in game mode. I believe anything over 49" on that line is VA, and they have local dimming direct backlights so the black levels are really good.

You are right about demanding games and 4k too.

I feel like you will never get gpu's powerful enough to outpace graphics settings because the graphics ceiling is really arbitrary to begin with. The challenge for devs is to whittle games down to fit real time, not the other way around. They could easily bump up the ultra setting 3x, 4x, 10x etc what it is now. You can also downsample from 8k or more and use mods to go way over ultra even now. Meshes and textures are downsized by devs using authoring software. View distances are limited, and animated objects viewable in distances, and view distance layout tricks are utilized. Shadows are limited too. There really is no ultra, at least not like the one you think you know on the slider, if you look at it that way, only what you are capped at artificially. The more powerful gpus get, the more graphics image and fx quality "limits" that devs artificially set as the ceiling (ultra) will go up.

For example, according to this benchmark , shadows of mordor with the hd texture pack on ultra gets only 50fps at 4k with a single 1080. Even with dual 1080's in sli, it gets 87fps. And that is a game from "last" generation in relation to these cards. At 2560 x 1440 a single 1080 almost gets 100fps though at 97fps. The htc vive is 2160x1200 at 90hz too btw.

So 4k will always be stuck in the mud frame rate wise. When we go to dp 1.3 and HDR monitors, 4k will be back down to the 60hz limit again too in HDR mode.
Personally I'm looking forward to 21:9 , 3440 x 1440 dp 1.3 monitors at 144hz+. I'll probably get dual 1080ti to feed one when available.

People are infatuated with graphics detail in still shots, but you don't play screen shots. If you are using a high hz display or high hz + variable hz to run low (sub 75fps-hz to 90fps-hz mode/most of the time in game, really should be like 100 at least imo), you are essentially running a low hz, low motion definition and motion articulation, smearing blur monitor and missing out on most of the gaming advancements modern gaming monitors provide outside of the judder/tearing/stops avoidance.

I miss variable hz on it when I'm not using my swift, the fact that the doesn't have gaming overdrive, and that I have to drop to 1080p resolution as compared to the swift's 2560x1440 if I want over 60hz native on the tv. It's a TV so is nice for the living room but I'd never use a huge 50" + tv at a desk/desk distances personally. My gaming monitor wishlist is a dp 1.3 , 21:9 3440x1440 144hz+ hopefully by end of the year, and 1080ti's early 2017 if out.

edit: note that there is some discussion as to whether these lines of tv can do 4:4:4 chroma properly or if relegated to 4:2:2.
2016 Vizio P Series
Personally I have no issues with my M series for what I use it for. Chroma sample pic from other thread.

4:4:4 Chroma really that important for TV as a Monitor?

 

[brainfried]

the vizio M series of 4k tvs can do 1080p at 120hz native input (not faked "tv 120hz" via interpolated frames or duplicated frames) on the 5th input that is capable of 4k 60hz. I think the P series can too. You need a 18gbps hdmi 2.0 cable though, and a hdmi 2.0 capable gpu , which the OP stated he has. The input lag on those tvs is very low for a tv in game mode. I believe anything over 49" on that line is VA, and they have local dimming direct backlights so the black levels are really good.

You are right about demanding games and 4k too.



I miss variable hz on it when I'm not using my swift, the fact that the doesn't have gaming overdrive, and that I have to drop to 1080p resolution as compared to the swift's 2560x1440 if I want over 60hz native on the tv. It's a TV so is nice for the living room but I'd never use a huge 50" + tv at a desk/desk distances personally. My gaming monitor wishlist is a dp 1.3 , 21:9 3440x1440 144hz+ hopefully by end of the year, and 1080ti's early 2017 if out.

edit: note that there is some discussion as to whether these lines of tv can do 4:4:4 chroma properly or if relegated to 4:2:2.
2016 Vizio P Series
Personally I have no issues with my M series for what I use it for. Chroma sample pic from other thread.

4:4:4 Chroma really that important for TV as a Monitor?

What's your source on the M series being able to do 120hz at 1080p?

 

[Odellus]

i think op's friend confused him. 2K is not 2560x1440, 2K is 1920x1080 (or 2048x1080) and there are televisions that can do that.

 

[Fuzzy_3D]

You also say - your coworker has : 4k @ 60Hz - OR - 2k @120Hz
Why not visit his house w/ your box & do some testing (if he's not a PC gamer - you might convert him)?

He's a few rungs and a few decades beyond me so it's not my place, but I asked him for the model number, still waiting on that one.

I believe the OP is currently asking if there are monitors that has two modes, a 4k @ 60hz and a 2k @ 120hz, in the same monitor.

The short answer is no. I do not believe even the Sony X series TV's can do it properly.

Exactly, and rats. Guessing that would require a 4K panel that can refresh at 120Hz anyway, just bandwidth holding 4K@120/144 back.

i think op's friend confused him. 2K is not 2560x1440, 2K is 1920x1080 (or 2048x1080) and there are televisions that can do that.

I know 1440p@144Hz is possible over DP 1.2, and if you have a 4K panel that can refresh at 144Hz then 1440p is on the table. I'd even take 1080p@120 if I could switch to 4K when I need it. Any model numbers on those?

I'm also pretty sure his TV isn't receiving 120fps, just interpolating at 2k.

 

[Armenius]

i think op's friend confused him. 2K is not 2560x1440, 2K is 1920x1080 (or 2048x1080) and there are televisions that can do that.

This is why I hate the marketing terms used in the display industry. Just tell us straight up what the resolution is...

 

[Odellus]

He's a few rungs and a few decades beyond me so it's not my place, but I asked him for the model number, still waiting on that one.



Exactly, and rats. Guessing that would require a 4K panel that can refresh at 120Hz anyway, just bandwidth holding 4K@120/144 back.



I know 1440p@144Hz is possible over DP 1.2, and if you have a 4K panel that can refresh at 144Hz then 1440p is on the table. I'd even take 1080p@120 if I could switch to 4K when I need it. Any model numbers on those?

I'm also pretty sure his TV isn't receiving 120fps, just interpolating at 2k.

the Seiki SE50UY04 can do it, and the 39" model of the same line can also do it when flashed with the 50" firmware.

 

[lcpiper]

I believe the OP is currently asking if there are monitors that has two modes, a 4k @ 60hz and a 2k @ 120hz, in the same monitor.

The short answer is no. I do not believe even the Sony X series TV's can do it properly.

Pretty much any monitor capable of 144Hz or 120Hz can do a lesser refresh rate meaning 85, 75, 60, etc.

Furthermore, the connection used has upper limits on what they support, HDMI, DVI, Thunderbolt, Display Port.

 

[chenw]

Pretty much any monitor capable of 144Hz or 120Hz can do a lesser refresh rate meaning 85, 75, 60, etc.

Furthermore, the connection used has upper limits on what they support, HDMI, DVI, Thunderbolt, Display Port.

Yeah, but currently no monitor can run 4k @ 120hz, not to mention that currently only 2 cards in the world that can support that kind of output.

 

[lcpiper]

Yeah, but currently no monitor can run 4k @ 120hz, not to mention that currently only 2 cards in the world that can support that kind of output.

Ahh but that is not what I was saying was it?

What I am saying is if you can run a given display resolution at a given refresh rate, that you can normally run that same resolution at a lower refresh rate as well, at least until you hit bottom for the refresh rate.

 

[Fuzzy_3D]

the Seiki SE50UY04 can do it, and the 39" model of the same line can also do it when flashed with the 50" firmware.

I can only find sources saying 4k @ 30Hz, and even at 1080p@120Hz people are reporting input lag. Otherwise I'd pick one up, really good price too.

 

[chenw]

Ahh but that is not what I was saying was it?

What I am saying is if you can run a given display resolution at a given refresh rate, that you can normally run that same resolution at a lower refresh rate as well, at least until you hit bottom for the refresh rate.

Not explicitly, but combining the point you made with OP's question would lead to the conclusion that a monitor capable of 4k @ 60hz and 2k @ 120hz would require a monitor that can do 4k @ 120hz (the monitor would then be capable of doing 4k @ 60hz by lowering refresh rate, and 2k @ 120hz by lowering resolution).

This is different from TV's (such as Sony's X series) that touts able to receive input in 2 modes: 4k @ 60hz and 1080p @ 120hz. That TV can't do 4k @ 120hz input.

Basically, my point was, that there currently no PC monitors on the market that can increase its refresh rate above its default value by lowering its input resolution, the best you can do is overclock the panel itself.

 

[KazeoHin]

Simply put, there does not exist a format that can handle the bandwidth of 4K@120Hz.

What's interesting is that if the panel can do 2K@120, the actual panel can handle 4K@120. The display interface simply can't.

 

[chenw]

Not even DP 1.4? Or did Pascal come with only DP 1.2?

 

[Odellus]

I can only find sources saying 4k @ 30Hz, and even at 1080p@120Hz people are reporting input lag. Otherwise I'd pick one up, really good price too.

there does not exist a television without significant input lag. the lowest you will find is still greater than 20 ms. i suggest you wait a couple of years, you might find what you're asking for then.

 

[Tych-0]

DisplayPort 1.4 allows for 4k 120Hz. The GTX 1080 has DP 1.4 ports.

"DP 1.4 further builds on the capabilities of the standard’s prior incarnations. The use of video transport compression enhances the ability to take advantage of the USB Type-C connector, enabling both high-definition video and SuperSpeed USB, while also facilitating High Dynamic Range (HDR) and 8K video across the DisplayPort or USB-C connector. Examples of increased display resolution with the new standard include 8Kp60Hz HDR deep color and 4Kp120Hz HDR deep color."

 

[Fuzzy_3D]

In a few years I'll be blowing my tech budget an 8k 120Hz VR head set so I can play virtual reality poker against Michael Jackson, Randy Marsh and Mr.T.

Probably still be rockin' my 2600k too.


EDIT: Using this chart it looks like what I really need is a panel that can do 1080p@120Hz and 4k@60Hz@4:4:4, which exist, but all have at least 34ms input lag =/

 

[elvn]

The vizio P series is 17.7 ms input lag in game mode , my M series is 18.5ms on the 5th input in game mode. They are prob 4:2:2 but I am having zero issues with that for my media and gaming usage and some browsing* . I have a swift and a 60hz 1440p ips at my desk if I want to do desktop apps, photo editing, better gaming sessions, etc.

The input lag list
The Best Gaming TVs - Spring 2016: Reviews

Both monitors do 4k 60hz and 1080p at 120hz native on a capable input using 18gbps hdmi 2.0 cable off a gpu that supports it. They are big tv displays though so aren't suitable for desk scenarios imo. Great for living room.
*Also have to consider that they lack variable hz like g-sync and modern gaming overdrive of course.

 

[elvn]

4k 120hz on dp 1.3 or higher would be good for movies since it's an even multiple of 24hz bluray movie rate x 5 = 120. So that would eliminate the judder problem tvs attempt to compensate for.

Like other's have said, other than older gen and un-demanding games, 4k at high hz is unreachable for most if not all people's gpu setups and budgets on demanding games. 4k has a lot more desktop/app real-estate, but it has the same 16:9 perspective in games at a frame-rate crushing cost for the pixel density. You aren't getting anything out of high hz if you are running at low frame rate.

100fps-hz/120fps-hz/144fps-hz:
~40/50/60% blur reduction (a "soften" blur rather than 60fps-hz and less smearing blur)
5:3/2:1/2.4:1 increase in motion definition and path articulation (often unmentioned, huge difference)
g-sync rides the fps graph +/- without screen aberrations.

Frame rate graph of 108fps-hz average on an sli setup vs graph of 60 fps-hz on a single card.

Shadows of mordor with the HD texture pack on ultra only gets 50fps at 4k with a single gtx 1080 gpu. Even with dual gtx 1080 in sli, it gets 87fps, which should allow you do dial down to very high or very high+ settings to get 100fps-hz average, but still that is some crazy demand.

Games like fallout 4 get 85fps-hz on ultra at 2560 x 1440 on a gtx 1070, which gives you a closer target to work from to reach 100fps-hz average or so by dialing down graphics settings.
A 1070 on witcher3 at 2560x 1440, on ultra, gets only 65fps. That's 65 fps-hz average , swinging/"vibrating" dynamically plus and minus something like 20 fps-hz on a frame rate graph.
65 fps-hz is grossly inadequate to feed a 144hz monitor.
Going forward, the graphics ceilings aren't going to be getting any lower on the more demanding games designed for these new card's gen obviously either.

People always seem to mention hz without the accompanying frame rates. You really need at least 100fps average with g-sync imo to get some of the improvements of modern high hz monitors outside of avoidance of screen aberrations provided by g-sync. Luckily you can do that with high end dual card sli on a 2560 x 1440 and still only have to dial down to very high or very high+ (custom)settings. At 1080p you have a lot less gpu demand obviously.

I feel like you will never get gpu's powerful enough to outpace graphics settings because the graphics ceiling is really arbitrary to begin with. The challenge for devs is to whittle games down to fit real time, not the other way around. They could easily bump up the ultra setting 3x, 4x, 10x etc what it is now. You can also downsample from 8k or more and use mods to go way over ultra even now. Meshes and textures are downsized by devs using authoring software. View distances are limited, and animated objects viewable in distances, and view distance layout tricks are utilized. Shadows are limited too. There really is no ultra, at least not like the one you think you know on the slider, if you look at it that way, only what you are capped at artificially. The more powerful gpus get, the more graphics image and fx quality "limits" that devs artificially set as the ceiling (ultra) will go up.
Personally I run a balance between still shot quality and motion excellence. At around 100fps-hz or 110fps-hz average you ride a frame rate graph that typically goes from 75-90 <----> 100 - 110ave <---> 130's or more dynamically and smoothly with g-sync.

100fps-hz/120fps-hz/144fps-hz:
~40/50/60% blur reduction (a "soften" blur rather than 60fps-hz and less smearing blur)
5:3/2:1/2.4:1 increase in motion definition and path articulation (often unmentioned, huge difference)
g-sync rides the fps graph +/- without screen aberrations .

Regardless of the monitor's hz, lower frame rates will be blurrier (outside of using strobe mode), and lower frame rates will be a lot less motion def and motion articulation. That is why I list my rates at fps-hz not fps and not hz alone. Without the frame rates, the hz is practically meaningless.

People are infatuated with graphics detail in still shots, but you don't play screen shots. If you are using variable hz at 1440p to run low (sub 75fps-hz to 90fps-hz mode/most of the time in game, really should be like 100 at least imo), you are essentially running a low hz, low motion definition and motion articulation, smearing blur monitor and missing out on most of the gaming advancements modern gaming monitors provide outside of the judder/tearing/stops avoidance.