I wonder if smartphones have anything to do with the sudden influx of high resolution monitors...
Were we not stuck on 1080p/1200p or 1600p maximum for a good while before we even saw 4k? We are now seeing 4k smartphone screens...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Asus 4k @ 144hz at Computex
- Thread starter Martha Stewart
- Start date
I wonder if smartphones have anything to do with the sudden influx of high resolution monitors...
Were we not stuck on 1080p/1200p or 1600p maximum for a good while before we even saw 4k? We are now seeing 4k smartphone screens...
For a second I read that as "This thread needs more Sega."
Tup3x
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 1,942
This. 1080p 23" screen is just no where near sharp enough for text. Especially smallish kanji and kana characters are pain to read thanks to low PPI. 27" 4K screen would help a lot. The size sweet spot (IMO) is somewhere between 23" and 27".
I'd definitely use the scaling options. I want to benefit from higher PPI rather than gain more space.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,261
It's being used as a marketing checkbox, nothing more. If a panel's response time was truly 4ms then it could refresh the screen up to 250 times a second without motion side effects in a perfect world. But as we see with the Acer Z35 (advertised as a 200 Hz, 4ms panel), it has a real world average response time of around 11ms, making refresh rates above 85 Hz useless.
A TN panel can probably handle 240Hz.
VA panels, as used in the Z35, are the slowest type of LCD panel.
Not really. Laptops have been moving towards 4K or near 4K resolutions for quite a few years. It seems silly my Macbook Pro has a higher res display than what I use on the desktop.
It is only now that DisplayPort is capable of 144Hz 4K though. Cards supporting it are barely just out.
That said, 27" seems a tad small for 4K.
No specs or details in the OP, and video is in German, so from other sources:
AUO panel (AHVA), ROG line from ASUS, Displayport 1.3 (so Polaris or Pascal video cards needed?), and I expect it to be expensive, despite the 27" size. The monitor is a prototype, but I'd love details on the G-Sync module (if it is even G-Sync capable, maybe not) - is it a new one from nVidia or an reprogrammed version of the existing ASIC (actually FPGA)?
Note: You can't do 5k @ 120hz+ with DP 1.3
AUO panel (AHVA), ROG line from ASUS, Displayport 1.3 (so Polaris or Pascal video cards needed?), and I expect it to be expensive, despite the 27" size. The monitor is a prototype, but I'd love details on the G-Sync module (if it is even G-Sync capable, maybe not) - is it a new one from nVidia or an reprogrammed version of the existing ASIC (actually FPGA)?
How about a 32" 5k?
Note: You can't do 5k @ 120hz+ with DP 1.3
You could get a X34v2 @ 144hz, but the incremental improvement over 100hz would be worth it for new buyers, mostly. You couldn't do a 5160x2160 ultrawide @ 120hz with DP 1.3, but maybe they will come out with a sub-120hz version of a monitor like that, if AUO or Samsung puts out an AHVA panel at that size/res.
Yet, it is the second panel type, after TN, to break 144hz.
One of the Acer's monitors shown in computex, which I didn't see anyone else posting here, is a 2560x1080 @ 200hz, and it's a VA panel.
Which makes me wonder, does AUO control the monitors market? Because, for example, the 2560x1080 panels, they are ALL VA's (Acer's and BenQ's), and 28" 4k gaming monitors are ALL TN's, both of the 32" 1440p's I am aware of are VA's, etc etc.
The other panel makers basically left the segment to AUO. It's the consequence of their neglect.
LG.Display never really bothered with high refresh rate panels. The X34 panels are LG, but they are overclocked.
The Sharp UV2A effort was a one-off and they adjusted their priorities. (IGZO and big size panels)
Samsung and Innolux exited the game back in ~2012-2013. Samsung made such nice 120hz TN panels once.
Some monitors still use older Innolux panels, like the XG2401 and VG278H. The 28'' 4k TN are all Innolux as well, but not high refresh rate.
Judging from the roadmap, Samsung is slowly starting return to the 144hz game now to compete against AUO, at least in terms of VA tech.
LG.Display never really bothered with high refresh rate panels. The X34 panels are LG, but they are overclocked.
The Sharp UV2A effort was a one-off and they adjusted their priorities. (IGZO and big size panels)
Samsung and Innolux exited the game back in ~2012-2013. Samsung made such nice 120hz TN panels once.
Some monitors still use older Innolux panels, like the XG2401 and VG278H. The 28'' 4k TN are all Innolux as well, but not high refresh rate.
Judging from the roadmap, Samsung is slowly starting return to the 144hz game now to compete against AUO, at least in terms of VA tech.
Blade-Runner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 4,372
The X34v2 is still 100hz.
Yes, they've had a 200Hz panel for a while.
There's not much point to having the panel accept a 200Hz signal when the response time is too slow to update the image 200 times a second.
There is maybe some benefit to certain types of images that do have faster response times (reponse time varies wildly on VA panels depending on the color transitions) but overall there is little benefit to very high refresh rates on VA panels.
Last edited:
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,261
If the average response time isn't 5ms or less then 200 Hz is pointless. I have yet to see a VA panel do better than 8ms in the real world.
And that's gray-to-gray. Certain color transitions (typically darker colors) can be 10x worse than that on a VA panel.
Thank you for educating me on this subject. I'm not sure why it never dawned on me that a monitor's (effective) max Hz is the sum of it's average RT divided over 1 sec. This will certainly help me make an informed purchase in the coming year (after reading reviews of course), as I look for a new monitor.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,261
Well you can have a refresh rate as high as you want, so long as the scalar supports it. But if the liquid crystal cannot change colors as fast as the screen is being made to refresh then you get what looks like smearing and ghosting in moving images. You can see what that looks like if you go down to the Gaming section of TFT Central's review of the Acer Z35.
TFT Central
Barring any reviews looking at actual response times, the assumption I make is that real response times are going to be at least twice as slow as advertised in practice. While some manufacturers are more truthful than others, I think it saves a lot of grief when sweating the details over what monitor to purchase if refresh rate is a primary criterion.
RJ1892
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- Messages
- 1,347
Personally I'm done with 16x9. I'll wait for 3440x1440 at 144hz (200hz would be nice). I really don't need more pixels for what I do.
Martha Stewart
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2011
- Messages
- 668
bunch of new panels in production
LCD and TFT Monitor News
Looks like we will finally see a 2560x1440 144hz monitor bigger than 27" Thank God!
LCD and TFT Monitor News
Looks like we will finally see a 2560x1440 144hz monitor bigger than 27" Thank God!
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
This is exactly what I am looking foward to.
27" is perfect for 1440p but at 4K those are some pretty damn small pixels. Even though you do use DPI scaling to scale the UI so the actual desktop space is probably the same as a 1440p display, a few extra inches in size wouldn't hurt. I would like to see a 30" version of this as it should be a pretty good compromise on display size without being so large you have to move it back to keep it in your sights.