Has the gaming monitor market become stagnant ?

Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
647
I feel like the PC monitor market has hit a point of diminishing returns lately. The last 3-4 years have been insane with monitor tech advancing so fast. As of the last year things have become stale and tech has slowed. Every body and there mom made an ultrawide and thats about it. Hopefully will see advances with DP 1.5? ;\
 

Bandalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
2,660
Monitor tech moves much slower than CPU or GPU tech.

I think the DDR4 market is stagnant...only thing that's really moved there in years is the addition of RGBs.
 

chenw

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
3,977
I don't think it's JUST gaming monitors, but monitors in general.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,012
Display manufacturers seem to be at mercy of panel manufacturers. Most gaming monitors use the same panels so there are quite few size options. Even the upcoming 4K displays will be only 27" which to me is a bit too small for 4K. Seems like the "big" monitors section is completely taken by ultrawide displays which to me are not that great for gaming. I'd rather have a 16:9 4K at 30-32" with high refresh rate but so far no manufacturer has announced one. I really hope we can get one next year.

I am hoping that the "gaming" tech would start trickling down to other monitors as well to the point where even cheaper displays support at least Freesync or HDMI VRR at high refresh rates. At least Apple is paving way for high refresh rate panels in mobile devices with the 120 Hz iPad Pro.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
958
It's a complete fucking joke that you can't buy a low input lag 30"+ 4k monitor with variable refresh. Fuck this stupid, shitty industry.

The HP ZR30W came out in like 2009 and it's still better than 99% of the monitors available today. What a goddamned farce.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
647
Display manufacturers seem to be at mercy of panel manufacturers. Most gaming monitors use the same panels so there are quite few size options. Even the upcoming 4K displays will be only 27" which to me is a bit too small for 4K. Seems like the "big" monitors section is completely taken by ultrawide displays which to me are not that great for gaming. I'd rather have a 16:9 4K at 30-32" with high refresh rate but so far no manufacturer has announced one. I really hope we can get one next year.

I am hoping that the "gaming" tech would start trickling down to other monitors as well to the point where even cheaper displays support at least Freesync or HDMI VRR at high refresh rates. At least Apple is paving way for high refresh rate panels in mobile devices with the 120 Hz iPad Pro.


yep, it seems as if every manufacture put out the same Ultrawide panel with different packaging. Where in hell are the 4k 120hz Gsync monitors ? Where are the OLED monitors ? Where are the HDR monitors? Where are the 5k-8k monitors ? etc..
 

geok1ng

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,129
Where in hell are the 4k 120hz Gsync monitors ?
https://hardforum.com/threads/seiki-se50uy04-3840x2160-50-tv-1300.1756171/page-52#post-1042785962
https://hardforum.com/threads/seiki-se50uy04-3840x2160-50-tv-1300.1756171/page-53#post-1043067325

4k 120hz, just like 5k and 8k, requires very high end Tcons and controls boards. And DP cables very thick ( and expensive) to handle the massive amount of signal that travels the copper, over short distances. The usual solutions to both problems is to use two cables and 2 control boards, like Dell did with the 5k monitor, or like cirthix did with the 4k 120hz panel linked above.

Where are the OLED monitors ?
https://hardforum.com/threads/oled-4k-30-60-hz-dell-up3017q.1929730/

they are on sale and they are amazing. just sell a kidney.

Where are the HDR monitors?
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32UD99-W-4k-uhd-led-monitor

its an IPS PoS, but it is sold as HDR...i am too lazy to look for OLED or quantum dot VA HDR monitors, but there are many TVs using these techs.

Where are the 5k-8k monitors ?
https://hardforum.com/threads/dell-27-5k-monitor-5120x2880.1832555/
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell...18k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories

5k is old tech now.
for 8k, i heard a rumor about some potential buyers setting up a tinder account and make arrangements for a date with an AB- organ donor in the middle of the desert.
 

ijozic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
213
It's a complete fucking joke that you can't buy a low input lag 30"+ 4k monitor with variable refresh. Fuck this stupid, shitty industry.

Well, there's the XB321HK (with G.Sync) or even the BL3201PT (with limited Freesync range) which have a low input lag IIRC.

Perhaps not enough people bought 4K monitors so it's still a niche market.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,012
Well, there's the XB321HK (with G.Sync) or even the BL3201PT (with limited Freesync range) which have a low input lag IIRC.

Perhaps not enough people bought 4K monitors so it's still a niche market.

Before 4K gaming has pretty much required SLI so it was niche. It didn't help that the displays on the market don't have more than DP 1.2 and not even HDMI 2.0. I really hope the situation gets better next year and we are not stuck with those really expensive 4K @ 144 Hz 27" displays that are coming out.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
I'd rather have a 16:9 4K at 30-32" with high refresh rate but so far no manufacturer has announced one. I really hope we can get one next year.

This, plus HDR and the various flavors of variable v-sync.

27" is just about right for 1440p, 4k would be a waste of rendering power.
 

Halc

n00b
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
8
Yes, there is stagnation for now.

Most people are waiting for some of the following or combination of thereof:
- True HDR with 1000 nits peak brightness with quantum dots or 500+ local dimming zones
- Full REC.2020 color space and nice calibration out of the box
- True 120Hz+ refresh rates
- FreeSync 2 and/or next-gen G-Sync (with HDR)
- 4k or UW 4K display resolution
- Sizes bigger than 27-28" (personally 32"-35" minimum, depending on screen ratio)
- A good, true 8-bit (hopefully true 10-bit) panel
- very fast response rate at pixel level, very low full display lag
- Priced below $1000/1000€/£1000
- Crummy QC issues solved and a true zero-pixel warranty
- A selection of glossy (urgh) or professional/ergonomic/matte coating to choose from

We will get some nice HDR displays this year with Acer predator X35 and Asus Swift PG35VQ (3440x1440, 1000nits peak, HDR10, DCI-P3, Quantum dot, low input latency, DP 1.4, 200Hz), yet this is just the beginning and will not tick boxes for everyone. Esp. at $1500 a pop.

I'm still waiting, cash at hand, ready to burn...
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
958
Well, there's the XB321HK (with G.Sync) or even the BL3201PT (with limited Freesync range) which have a low input lag IIRC.

Perhaps not enough people bought 4K monitors so it's still a niche market.

The Acer 32" is a piece of shit. Has some kind of firmware bug that makes the panel flicker. It's a paperweight. The BL3021PT has a useless variable refresh range. Like I said, this industry is a fucking joke.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
958
4k 120hz, just like 5k and 8k, requires very high end Tcons and controls boards. And DP cables very thick ( and expensive) to handle the massive amount of signal that travels the copper, over short distances. The usual solutions to both problems is to use two cables and 2 control boards, like Dell did with the 5k monitor, or like cirthix did with the 4k 120hz panel linked above.

Can't help but roll my eyes at statements like this. Requires high end control boards? You mean more sophisticated than my $700 video card? Give me a break dude. These shit 27-34" monitors are selling for like $1300. They SHOULD have "high end" control boards in them. You're telling me that we have CPUs and GPUs as powerful as the cheap ass ones you can buy for $300-$500 and these crap companies can't put hardware in monitors fast enough to drive 4k @ 120hz? BULLSHIT.

Expensive display port cables? Uh, display port cables cost like $10. Even if the cable was 5x more expensive than an average one, it would be $50. Hi. They're selling these monitors for $1300+, but they can't bundle a $50 cable with them. I repeat: BULLSHIT.

There is NO excuse for monitors being shit. People should just stop buying monitors completely. I'd like to see the current group of companies just go out of business. They don't deserve to survive after what they've done. It's obvious that this shitty industry will try to sell products as awful as they can possibly get away with for as much as they possibly can. There's no quality control. The rate of technological advancement is GLACIAL.

They need to be sent a message that they can't get away with this garbage anymore.
 

zone74

Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
621
Expensive display port cables? Uh, display port cables cost like $10.
If you need long cable runs, DisplayPort gets very expensive.
I've currently spent about $150 trying to get anything longer than 2m which works reliably at 3440x1440@100Hz (equal to 3840x2160@60Hz).
Anything 3m or longer either doesn't work at all, or causes the screen to black out for a second at random.
Expensive cables rated for 4K60, active cables, signal repeaters... nothing has worked for a 10m run - despite buying cables and a repeater specified to handle it. (5 in/5 out)
The best I've managed so far is 5m (2 in / 3 out) which means the cables are stretched out everywhere instead of being run through the wall.
It's a terrible standard. I can't wait until HDMI has comparable bandwidth. That's never given me problems.

The only thing I can think which may work is an optical Thunderbolt cable.
Not only are those stupidly expensive, I bought the G-Sync monitor to go with my new AM4 rig...

I do agree with the rest of your points though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halc
like this

geok1ng

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,129
Can't help but roll my eyes at statements like this. Requires high end control boards? You mean more sophisticated than my $700 video card? Give me a break dude. These shit 27-34" monitors are selling for like $1300. They SHOULD have "high end" control boards in them. You're telling me that we have CPUs and GPUs as powerful as the cheap ass ones you can buy for $300-$500 and these crap companies can't put hardware in monitors fast enough to drive 4k @ 120hz? BULLSHIT.

Expensive display port cables? Uh, display port cables cost like $10. Even if the cable was 5x more expensive than an average one, it would be $50. Hi. They're selling these monitors for $1300+, but they can't bundle a $50 cable with them. I repeat: BULLSHIT.

There is NO excuse for monitors being shit. People should just stop buying monitors completely. I'd like to see the current group of companies just go out of business. They don't deserve to survive after what they've done. It's obvious that this shitty industry will try to sell products as awful as they can possibly get away with for as much as they possibly can. There's no quality control. The rate of technological advancement is GLACIAL.

They need to be sent a message that they can't get away with this garbage anymore.

please go help Cirthix become rich selling 4k 120Hz control boards, because last time i checked , he needed 5 figures to order a small lot of FPGA boards. also tell him how to run 4k 120Hz over 10ft with a single $10 displayport cable. and while you are at it, please kindly point to the supplier of single board/ single cable solution for 4k 120hz. 5k and 8k on the market today.

i am sure that someone who you can not tell a tcon from a gpu will certainly have the knowledge to help Cirthix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halc
like this

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
958
please go help Cirthix become rich selling 4k 120Hz control boards, because last time i checked , he needed 5 figures to order a small lot of FPGA boards. also tell him how to run 4k 120Hz over 10ft with a single $10 displayport cable. and while you are at it, please kindly point to the supplier of single board/ single cable solution for 4k 120hz. 5k and 8k on the market today.

i am sure that someone who you can not tell a tcon from a gpu will certainly have the knowledge to help Cirthix.

If you think that costs are the same for some dude in his garage and Samsung, then I have a bridge to sell you. Geezus.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
958
If you need long cable runs, DisplayPort gets very expensive.
I've currently spent about $150 trying to get anything longer than 2m which works reliably at 3440x1440@100Hz (equal to 3840x2160@60Hz).
Anything 3m or longer either doesn't work at all, or causes the screen to black out for a second at random.
Expensive cables rated for 4K60, active cables, signal repeaters... nothing has worked for a 10m run - despite buying cables and a repeater specified to handle it. (5 in/5 out)
The best I've managed so far is 5m (2 in / 3 out) which means the cables are stretched out everywhere instead of being run through the wall.
It's a terrible standard. I can't wait until HDMI has comparable bandwidth. That's never given me problems.

The only thing I can think which may work is an optical Thunderbolt cable.
Not only are those stupidly expensive, I bought the G-Sync monitor to go with my new AM4 rig...

I do agree with the rest of your points though.

That's the thing, though. You don't need a long cable for this. Like I said, it's obviously bullshit since the the Asus/Acer 4k/120hz+ that's coming out this year is just one cable, so anyone pretending that it's such a hard problem is obviously full of crap.
 

Q-BZ

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
18,844
Having the market split over the two -sync techs has not done it any favors IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halc
like this

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
958
Having the market split over the two -sync techs has not done it any favors IMO.

To be fair, AMD wouldn't have even got into it if Nvidia hadn't embarrassed everyone in the first place. Nvidia is basically the only one driving technological advancement right now. That's how pathetic this is. We need Nvidia, who shouldn't even be responsible for display tech, to kick the whole industry's ass into not completely sucking.

I'm fed up and disgusted with the whole thing. The display manufacturing industry sucks cock.
 

zone74

Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
621
That's the thing, though. You don't need a long cable for this. Like I said, it's obviously bullshit since the the Asus/Acer 4k/120hz+ that's coming out this year is just one cable, so anyone pretending that it's such a hard problem is obviously full of crap.
My PC is not in the same room as the rest of my setup to keep that heat/noise away. I do need a long cable.
Long cables were clearly never a real consideration for DisplayPort, like they are with HDMI, and they cost significantly more too, due to how uncommon they are.
 

zerogg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Messages
211
It is frustrating that when we finally are getting gsync 144hz 4k monitors, they are only at 27 inch, wtf?
 

zone74

Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
621
It is frustrating that when we finally are getting gsync 144hz 4k monitors, they are only at 27 inch, wtf?
It's been seven years since high DPI displays went mainstream with the iPhone 4. It's about time that desktop displays started catching up.
Monitors should really be moving to 8K rather than 4K.
4K is only ~165 PPI, while 8K is ~330 PPI.
8K also supports integer scaling of 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160, while 4K is limited to 1920x1080.
Imagine having a display that enabled you to render 1080p, 1440p, 2160p, or 4320p without any compromise, and the ability to use integer scales to set your workspace.
The problem with DPI scaling on 4K displays is that you have to use non-integer values which blurs legacy apps.
 

zerogg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Messages
211
It's been seven years since high DPI displays went mainstream with the iPhone 4. It's about time that desktop displays started catching up.
Monitors should really be moving to 8K rather than 4K.
4K is only ~165 PPI, while 8K is ~330 PPI.
8K also supports integer scaling of 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160, while 4K is limited to 1920x1080.
Imagine having a display that enabled you to render 1080p, 1440p, 2160p, or 4320p without any compromise, and the ability to use integer scales to set your workspace.
The problem with DPI scaling on 4K displays is that you have to use non-integer values which blurs legacy apps.


Interesting, I didn't know about the scaling issues. Too bad 8k seems pretty far off.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,844
It's a complete fucking joke that you can't buy a low input lag 30"+ 4k monitor with variable refresh. Fuck this stupid, shitty industry.

The HP ZR30W came out in like 2009 and it's still better than 99% of the monitors available today. What a goddamned farce.
Acer xb321hk sir. EDIT, whoops someone said it already.
 

insoc123

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
279
Let's see if the announced OLED monitors from LG are going to be a reality next year. Now that I have my Dell OLED monitor I'm most convinced than ever that OLED should be the only way to go for a real premium productivity/gaming monitor.
 

delita

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
1,666
Acer xb321hk sir. EDIT, whoops someone said it already.

almost zero reason to get that monitor though. gsync @ 60hz.....if you're just going to do 60hz, much better off with a good TV because the color will blow that acer away.
 

MagnaMagicBtu

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
96
What pisses me off is the lack of glossy monitors aside from low-end budget TN panels. I cannot find a high-end 144hz 2K/4K glossy monitor ANYWHERE. It is so frustrating. Can't they use that purplish AR coating like what you see on eyeglasses to reduce glare to reasonable levels? That 5K dell and new Apple computers use glossy finish with AR coating to absorb ambient light without diffusing the light from the monitor.
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
2,913
To be fair, AMD wouldn't have even got into it if Nvidia hadn't embarrassed everyone in the first place. Nvidia is basically the only one driving technological advancement right now. That's how pathetic this is. We need Nvidia, who shouldn't even be responsible for display tech, to kick the whole industry's ass into not completely sucking.

I'm fed up and disgusted with the whole thing. The display manufacturing industry sucks cock.

I totally agree.....the current crop of gaming displays is absolute shit. In fact displays have been shit since the FW900 got discontinued. I have been on a boycot of gaming displays....I rented all of the latest ones from Amazon and sent them all back....I would have kept the CF791 if it supported 120hz, Gsync & strobing though.

I don't understand what is so hard about making a 32"-36" version of the 27" 4K 144hz FALD....with a glossy screen.....and I don't understand why Joe public accepts these shit screens which are complete trash compared to the average mobile phone screen picture quality now.

Yes...the current display companies blow dick....but the 27" 144hz FALD 4k does show promise...not OLED...but it will do for now.
 

Odellus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
1,696
Let's see if the announced OLED monitors from LG are going to be a reality next year. Now that I have my Dell OLED monitor I'm most convinced than ever that OLED should be the only way to go for a real premium productivity/gaming monitor.
link? i can't seem to find what you're talking about.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
OLED is certainly not a panacea. Even if they get all the current variables under control (decay, refresh rate), they still have to solve brightness and calibration over time, assuming that fixing decay doesn't fix relative decay. The tech holds more promise than current LCDs, but it hasn't realized its potential yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this

insoc123

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
279
Don't be expecting miracles just because it is OLED. Dell released an OLED a few months ago, it was promptly found to be terrible by the few people who ordered it on monitor forums, and was almost immediately discontinued by Dell.

Well, I bought one and I kept it. I use it every day and I love it.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
565
Let me put it this way: I spent a little over $240 on an Eizo FG2421 a while back simply because anything that's a significant improvement over this monitor is more than twice the price. (Well, that and I checked eBay at just the right time.)

Even then, I only bought it because my GDM-FW900 was long dead and I was having some serious widescreen withdrawal with modern games, on top of my GDM-5410 having signs of impending failure as well. It took this long for me to find a high-refresh-rate flat panel that doesn't look like complete garbage next to top-tier CRTs, and even then, they're still few and far between. It certainly didn't help that for the longest time, the only high-refresh rate LCDs were TN crap.

For 4K panels, I'd say that 42" should realistically be the minimum from a DPI standpoint (to hell with DPI virtualization, I run too many old apps to warrant using 100% scaling in Windows), and going up into 50" or more would be ideal, if not for that whole thing about HDTVs being laggy, overpriced crap with no G-SYNC or FreeSync. I will admit to having seen a pretty nice Samsung QLED set in a store recently, but the price tag was $3,000 - too rich for my blood, especially for something that most likely won't have native 120+ video input and variable refresh.
 

zone74

Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
621
For 4K panels, I'd say that 42" should realistically be the minimum from a DPI standpoint (to hell with DPI virtualization, I run too many old apps to warrant using 100% scaling in Windows)
You have things backwards.
The problem is not that DPI scaling is bad, it's that screens are too big, and resolution is too low for the sizes they're being sold at.

The main issue with DPI scaling right now is that 4K is not enough resolution.
Using integer scaling (2x) 4K only leaves you with a 1080p workspace - which means that a 4K monitor should be 23" in size.
At 27" or 32" a 4K panel requires 1.75x or 1.50x scaling which means that legacy applications are blurred.
Technically it should be 1.70x / 1.43x, but custom DPI scaling does not work well.

Integer scaling is required to keep legacy applications sharp.
Windows will use nearest neighbor scaling (sharp) rather than bilinear scaling (blurry) when you stick to integer scales, making legacy applications appear as though you are using a display whose native resolution matches the scale; i.e. 1080p for 4K@2x.

1.75x blurry scaling:


2x razor-sharp scaling:



To fix this, these screens should be higher resolution.
Personally I dislike this recent trend of monitors targeting 110 PPI. Windows uses 96 PPI as its base, and so should displays.
It's a way for manufacturers to cheap out and sell displays that are 15% smaller.

This means 5K panels at 30.6" for a 2560x1440 workspace with 2x scaling, rather than 4K at 32".
But 5K was never mainstream, they made 27" panels instead, and no-one seems to sell them anymore except Apple.

That leaves us waiting for 8K at either 30.6" for 2560x1440@3x or 46" for 3840x2160@2x.

[…] going up into 50" or more would be ideal, if not for that whole thing about HDTVs being laggy, overpriced crap with no G-SYNC or FreeSync. I will admit to having seen a pretty nice Samsung QLED set in a store recently, but the price tag was $3,000 - too rich for my blood, especially for something that most likely won't have native 120+ video input and variable refresh.
Fortunately 2018 or 2019 TVs with HDMI 2.1 should support 4K120 VRR. That means OLEDs.
The downside is that OLED is not ideal for being used as a monitor with its WRGB subpixels, and starting at 55". 8K OLEDs though…
The downside is that these will be expensive, but they should also last a very long time.
 

Lastan010

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
211
its all caused because companies still want to make shit load of profit with the 20 year old LCD tech.

I think greed is holding todays world by 1000 years, things could be so much more advanced and nicer today if greed and profit wasn't the key issue.
 

Gasaraki_

Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
617
I don't know what you are talking about. Monitor tech has moved so fast recently that my 34" ultra-wide 60Hz I got 3 years ago is now old. Back in the day LCDs lasts for years because tech was the same.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
958
Fortunately 2018 or 2019 TVs with HDMI 2.1 should support 4K120 VRR. That means OLEDs.
The downside is that OLED is not ideal for being used as a monitor with its WRGB subpixels, and starting at 55". 8K OLEDs though…
The downside is that these will be expensive, but they should also last a very long time.

I have no confidence in TV manufacturers to put out displays that don't have tons of input lag. They can't even release OLED monitors without embarrassing levels of input lag. It's a joke.
 
Top