How far away for 4K PC monitors, and affordable ?

Snowdog said:
Monitors are a different thing, but 4K TV is all but pointless.

A little perspective on the NEED for a 4K for home video watching.

The majority of all normal Digital Projector at your local movie theaters are only 1080p.

Think about that 50 foot screen, 1080p projector and it looks very good.

But we need more than 1080p for home movie watching?
Click to expand...

I have a PC connected to my TV and I play games on it - 1080p is a joke :p

but 4k on the TV is to much $$$... so i'm going to get a 4k 32" monitor next month (sharp) for my desktop PC. (I had saved up for a 4k or oled TV.. but oled is to small and 4k $$ - it is more than enough for a 4k monitor.)
 
Epxect threads like Skyrim looks mindblowing @ 4K pics inside 56k warning *smile* by the end of the year, I guess -)
 
MrBojangels said:
Apple has little reason to make a desktop display with that resolution.

A display being "Retina" is a function of the closest normal use case(distance eye->screen) and the pixel size at that display the human eye can distinguish.

A 27" 2560x1440 display is borderline "retina" already if you are sitting 30~inches away. If they did release a 5120x2880 display that would pretty much be game over, resolution would never need to increase again.
Click to expand...

They made a laptop display. all of you forget the primary reason for making hirez displays is to sell more shit, its not even about being useful. Apple will need a reason to hype up their next mac pro or imac. that will be a reason. High DPI starts out on phones, not because phones need it but because it allows display makers cant make high dpi reliably with high yield then the move up in display sizes. Thats one way to do it, the other is lower DPI but just larger displays.

High DPI is already here in phones and TVs are here and in the pipe at 4k, it is very surely coming to desktop sized monitors in the next 2 years.

None of it has anything to do with apple or anyone else, it has to do with display makers who make the displays and need to convince people to sell their last monitor and buy a new one.
 
If sharp can make a 4k 32 inch now for 5500 then in a year we will probably see them at 2000 or so and thats when they will hit premium large display makers like dell, HP, NEC etc... In 2 years I think we can see them at 1000.

The really exciting thing to me about 4k is that we can buy things like 32 to 42 inch TVs and just use them as monitors effectively creating eyefinity without bezels. All we need is eyefinity and nv surround to give use good drivers so we can make virtual monitors out of our one big monitor for efficient use of aero snap and having desktop visible while gaming.

The only other wild card is will any TV makers make a TV that does not SUCK, decent input lag, ability to actually input 120hz etc... Some small 1080p TVs look horrible up close even when they are no bigger than many Desktop monitors.
 
I think its perfectly doable to sell 4k-displays for $1500-2k this year.

If you just ballpark the price of the panels by comparing the price of a same config macbook pro with and without retina display, it seems the cost the consumer pays for the retina display is somewhere between 300-500$. Lets assume the higher price of $500.
Slap 4 of these together with cheap housing/circuitry (which we know can cost as little as $100-200, or less) and we have a 31" 16:10 5600x3600 for around 2200$, and thats the consumer price, and slightly exaggerated.
You could argue that one 5600x3600 panel is harder to make without pixel errors etc than 4x 2800x1800 (lower yield), but then again we don't need 5600x3600, we need the much lower 4k res, so it probably evens out.

If some company decides they want to sell 4kres monitors for $1500-2k this year, they probably can. Its all about if they think theres enough demand to bother.
 
Last edited:
In another thread someone linked to Westinghouse 4k that will be 2500 for a 50 inch TV. This is 88 DPI, which is where we were a couple years ago with 1680x1050 monitors, take that and push it to the back of your desk and the DPI would be acceptable, not saying anything about the input lag or other ares that are always problems for TVs. But point is 4K is here for 2500, no reason to think it cant be sub 2000 by the end of the year.
 
I think it's silly to want something so new and so much better than what we have now for cheap! I think it's going to be expensive as it should. I hope the "old" stuff get cheaper.
 
I dont think it is silly because the display makers have been holding out on us and screwing us over with lots of bullshit for a number of years. Its time they give us what we should have had a while ago now.
 
rudy said:
I dont think it is silly because the display makers have been holding out on us and screwing us over with lots of bullshit for a number of years. Its time they give us what we should have had a while ago now.
Click to expand...
They don't care. We are not part of their intended market.
 
i don't know why do we want 4k monitors at the moment because there's no GPU who can push that res in any game. just watch PcGamesHardware.de and you will see an Eizo 36'' with 4k res tested in all modern games.. what it would be nice is 1440p or 1600p in 24''.
 
3x 110" 4k 3D surround, wouldn't that be something in your favorite game/new game for PC. Pretty sure whoever could afford those displays could afford the hardware to drive them.
 
63jax said:
i don't know why do we want 4k monitors at the moment because there's no GPU who can push that res in any game. just watch PcGamesHardware.de and you will see an Eizo 36'' with 4k res tested in all modern games.. what it would be nice is 1440p or 1600p in 24''.
Click to expand...
Link.
 
63jax said:
i don't know why do we want 4k monitors at the moment because there's no GPU who can push that res in any game. just watch PcGamesHardware.de and you will see an Eizo 36'' with 4k res tested in all modern games.. what it would be nice is 1440p or 1600p in 24''.
Click to expand...

Tired of hearing this year after year after year. Only the very new games would have a problem. Older games would run just fine. Not everyone plays the newest/greatest/best games.
 
not only that we do have the GPU power, there are people running 3x 30 or 27 inch monitors and both of those cases you have a higher workload than a 4k monitor, not only are there more pixels but increased FOV means there is much more geometry and texturing to compute.
 
63jax said:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysi...arhead-auf-4K-Monitor-in-4096-x-2160-1043929/

Enjoy!
Click to expand...

I've had enjoyable experiences gaming on my ibm t221 with a 7950 3gb. I haven't played all the latest games but Hitman Absolution, Deus Ex HR, and Borderlands 2 are all fun and run well. With a high dpi display I can usually turn down or off AA settings to help with frame rates. One of the more important factors has been memory size on the graphics card; I recently went from a 6950 2gb to the 7950 3gb and noticed a substantial improvement.

TL;DR I've had good experiences with 4k gaming on a single 7950 3gb
 
One nice thing about 4K is that 1080p scaling would be the perfect 4:1 ratio. Assuming you don't have the GPU horsepower to run the most current games at 4K with all the eye candy turned up, you can drop down to 1080p, turn up the eye candy, and still enjoy the game without being a blurry, scaled mess, all while enjoying the older games at the higher 4k res.
 
rocket733 said:
I've had enjoyable experiences gaming on my ibm t221 with a 7950 3gb. I haven't played all the latest games but Hitman Absolution, Deus Ex HR, and Borderlands 2 are all fun and run well. With a high dpi display I can usually turn down or off AA settings to help with frame rates. One of the more important factors has been memory size on the graphics card; I recently went from a 6950 2gb to the 7950 3gb and noticed a substantial improvement.

TL;DR I've had good experiences with 4k gaming on a single 7950 3gb
Click to expand...

they seem to struggle with an Sapphire Radeon 7970 Toxic
 
Last edited:
It's fairly easy to extrapolate performance data for 4k resolution.

#1, since anti aliasing eats a ton of VRAM, VRAM will become a much bigger issue for 4k.

#2, since 4k resolution has around double the pixels of 2560x1600, it's not unreasonable to expect that performance will be 30-45% of what the same card will do at 2560x1600

With #2 in mind, many games will require graphical compromises to run properly at 4k resolution. Current graphics cards will likely struggle in cutting edge games, so hopefully new cards will be released soon to remedy this.
 
xoleras said:
It's fairly easy to extrapolate performance data for 4k resolution.

#1, since anti aliasing eats a ton of VRAM, VRAM will become a much bigger issue for 4k.

#2, since 4k resolution has around double the pixels of 2560x1600, it's not unreasonable to expect that performance will be 30-45% of what the same card will do at 2560x1600

With #2 in mind, many games will require graphical compromises to run properly at 4k resolution. Current graphics cards will likely struggle in cutting edge games, so hopefully new cards will be released soon to remedy this.
Click to expand...

i think 2 generations from now the gpus will be able to run 4k res decently on games
 
I haven't played wow in a long time, but on ultra with full shadows and effects and vast view distances it would be more demanding than most people would guess even on more common resolution monitors (also stereotypically towns with hundreds of players). Rift had way more detailed graphics and textures and was much more demanding though. Both are not optimized very well and like most RPG and RTS games, are also partly CPU dependent.
.
Personally I'd rather play with zero blur on a lightboost2 monitor when I am able to upgrade. I have a 120hz non lightboost2 TN now which has about 1/2 the blur of a 60hz tn. The resolution increases in newer high rez monitors is nice but they are all 60hz input which is a massive downgrade in motion tracking smoothness and more recent action data shown per fraction of a second in gaming to start with, and then their motion blur is bottom of the barrel.
60hz blur < 120hz ~50% of that blur(or worse) < zero blur (120hz LB2/crt)

At least until someday (if ever) they ever make fast response time + 120hz or higher input + a similar zero blur resultant backlight tech for higher res monitors.
 
Why are people so focused on games? I wonder how many people buy high PPI for games as compared to developers, graphic artists, video editors, etc.

I'll bet a lot of people (including me) would love to have these for work, especially in situations where multi-monitor setups do not make sense. Seems like most graphics cards (even Intel's HD4000) can already support 4K so this is already a non-issue for many.

Bring on the 4K screens ... for affordable prices!
 
It's about price. Once 30" 2560 x 1600's drop down to $500 and 27" 2560 x 1440's drop down to $300, yeah, maybe we'll be ready for 36" 3840 x 2160's. Which will probably cost in the $1.2k range, if that happens.
 
obug said:
Why are people so focused on games? I wonder how many people buy high PPI for games as compared to developers, graphic artists, video editors, etc.

I'll bet a lot of people (including me) would love to have these for work, especially in situations where multi-monitor setups do not make sense. Seems like most graphics cards (even Intel's HD4000) can already support 4K so this is already a non-issue for many.

Bring on the 4K screens ... for affordable prices!
Click to expand...

It's great for reading and photo editing as well but playing games is where I think high dpi monitors really shine since its (at least for me) a more immersize experience.
 
rocket733 said:
It's great for reading and photo editing as well but playing games is where I think high dpi monitors really shine since its (at least for me) a more immersize experience.
Click to expand...

I know a lot of people on [H] are interested in high PPI and multi-monitors setups (and the associated GPUs) for gaming, but I'm guessing the group is vastly overrepresented here.

Most people I know (even people who game a lot) are quite modest when spending on their gaming rigs. If given the choice between a 4K screen or a 1080P screen + some other gadget, I'm sure they'll pick the latter.

I'm curious to see which group drives 4K monitor adoption. My guess it will be businesses, but obviously we have a ways to go before that happens.
 
evilsofa said:
I predict that in mid-to-late 2013, Apple will release a 21.5" 3840x2160 iMac. Yes, that's right, a 21.5" 4K display. Futhermore, I anticipate that Apple will also release a 27" 5120x2880 display.
Click to expand...

All the components will be made by Samsung and LG. Apple will then turn around and sue the two companies when they release theirs.
 
Zorachus said:
LOL, then you woke up :p

A 21" monitor with a resolution of 3840 x 2160. Ha, yeah ok. And due out next year too, LOL.
Click to expand...


that's what i was saying when i heard of the rumors on the ipad 3's 2048x1536 resolution on a 10" display.

it's possible, and we should all have ultra high res monitors pretty soon. with the way windows does things now (i think), it's not that great. OSX scaling scaling is wonderful, though, but not perfect.

check out the 13" macbook pro with 2560x1600 resolution in stores. looks absolutely gorgeous. the hidpi scaling thing as it's called, shows elements as though it's a 1280x800 resolution monitor, but with high res UI elements, crisp text, and apps that can use the added pixel real estate.

I predict very soon, and apple will hook it up first..again.
 
Last edited:
mahdiy85 said:
that's what i was saying when i heard of the rumors on the ipad 3's 2048x1536 resolution on a 10" display.

it's possible, and we should all have ultra high res monitors pretty soon. with the way windows does things now (i think), it's not that great. OSX scaling scaling is wonderful, though, but not perfect.

check out the 13" macbook pro with 2560x1600 resolution in stores. looks absolutely gorgeous. the hidpi scaling thing as it's called, shows elements as though it's a 1280x800 resolution monitor, but with high res UI elements, crisp text, and apps that can use the added pixel real estate.
Click to expand...

OSX does nothing different than windows in terms of DPI - DPI for windows scales in .8 increments while it is 1.0 increments in OCX, and windows allows custom DPI and OSX does not. Most users are just oblivious on changing DPI settings within windows, it is easily adjusted: Applications not using the native windows UI elements require the developer to make changes to support the higher DPI, not all applications do this. This is applicable to both windows and OSX.

PPI alone is not the only metric when discussing monitors, viewing distance has to be taken into account. High PPI makes a lot of sense for handheld devices and phones because they're small screens held inches from the face. It matters much less with desktop monitors and bigscreen TVs because viewing distance is much farther away. There's also the fact that higher than 200 PPI on a 27 inch display would require 8k resolution. That is not reasonable or feasible. Like I said. PPI alone is not a valid metric, while mobile devices benefit from 300 PPI - that kind of PPI is not feasible or necessary for non mobile devices. I think you'll agree that a 220 PPI 27 inch 8k resolution monitor will never happen - and 8k resolution is required for higher than 200 DPI in a 27 inch formfactor.
 
Last edited:
xoleras said:
OSX does nothing different than windows in terms of DPI - DPI for windows scales in .8 increments while it is 1.0 increments in OCX, and windows allows custom DPI and OSX does not. Most users are just oblivious on changing DPI settings within windows, it is easily adjusted: Applications not using the native windows UI elements require the developer to make changes to support the higher DPI, not all applications do this. This is applicable to both windows and OSX.

PPI alone is not the only metric when discussing monitors, viewing distance has to be taken into account. High PPI makes a lot of sense for handheld devices and phones because they're small screens held inches from the face. It matters much less with desktop monitors and bigscreen TVs because viewing distance is much farther away. There's also the fact that higher than 200 PPI on a 27 inch display would require 8k resolution. That is not reasonable or feasible. Like I said. PPI alone is not a valid metric, while mobile devices benefit from 300 PPI - that kind of PPI is not feasible or necessary for non mobile devices. I think you'll agree that a 220 PPI 27 inch 8k resolution monitor will never happen - and 8k resolution is required for higher than 200 DPI in a 27 inch formfactor.
Click to expand...

you're right, a 5120x2880 27" monitor probably won't be made for a long time, if ever. But for sure they will release a "retina" variety of the iMacs, and I'm guessing it's soon.

Viewing distance is important, of course, but with 120PPI monitors, the text (browser, UI elements) doesn't look anywhere near as nice as text on the retina macbooks. From normal and far distance.

I didn't know about the custom scaling in windows. Makes it easy then!
 
In a store you cant see third party programs on a mac, which is the same as windows, most windows scaling works fine with MS programs, when you go outside of that things change, same with apple. blurry scaling. I run increased DPI on alot of windows machines for HTPCs / high resolution. Crap like steam is always bad but most MS programs work decent. Its funny because people constantly preach how crappy IE is but for my HTPC IE is the best browser because its the only one with a decent full screen mode that non tech people can understand and stays out of the way so there is no plasma burn in, it also scales right.

But the good thing is that as these high res displays start to become more common we will see more companies properly supporting DPI scaling in windows, its been there since at least windows XP and companies just dont work with it.
 
rudy said:
In a store you cant see third party programs on a mac, which is the same as windows, most windows scaling works fine with MS programs, when you go outside of that things change, same with apple. blurry scaling. I run increased DPI on alot of windows machines for HTPCs / high resolution. Crap like steam is always bad but most MS programs work decent. Its funny because people constantly preach how crappy IE is but for my HTPC IE is the best browser because its the only one with a decent full screen mode that non tech people can understand and stays out of the way so there is no plasma burn in, it also scales right.

But the good thing is that as these high res displays start to become more common we will see more companies properly supporting DPI scaling in windows, its been there since at least windows XP and companies just dont work with it.
Click to expand...

Opera web browser has a real full screen mode and zooms much nicer than IE. It is also easier to use in full screen mode because it has built in mouse gesture controls.
 
evilsofa said:
The IBM T221 from the early 2000s.
Click to expand...

Oh I remember researching that monitor. Although I really would'nt call it a very usable monitor, mainly just for static images or things that move very slowly. 60 hz painful, I could only imagine how bad 40 hz is. :eek:
 
Vega said:
Oh I remember researching that monitor. Although I really would'nt call it a very usable monitor, mainly just for static images or things that move very slowly. 60 hz painful, I could only imagine how bad 40 hz is. :eek:
Click to expand...

input lag is like 100ms :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top