MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2,973
I doubt it since VA panels offer superior contrast ratios for content viewing and most people aren't going to be using 4k TV's for color work.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
New Samsung 4k for everyone.
- Thread starter seanclayton
- Start date
I doubt it since VA panels offer superior contrast ratios for content viewing and most people aren't going to be using 4k TV's for color work.
6 series HDMI 1 only. 7 series all inputs.
coolhandm3
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 28, 2009
- Messages
- 386
Seriously doubt it... honestly PLS/ IPS have better coverage of SRGB but for me personally the contrast ruins it for me. Just for fun I hooked my pc up to my Apple Imac 27 inch 1440p and I was shocked at how much less sharp it is versus the Samsung 4k tv. 1440p is about 3.6 million pixels and 4k is 8.2 million pixels. Also the contrast on the IPS.... leaves soo much to be desired and I didn't feel the blur was any better on the IPS nor did the absence of PWM on the IPS bring any benefits for me as I couldnt tell the difference.
My Titan X played games just as smooth at 1440p and 4k. I am just shocked at the clarity difference 4K brings to games. I can see so much clearer further down like in Battlefield I can see guys running around that I cant even make out on the Apple IPS 1440p. I kinda feel like its cheating lol!!
Also I tried my pc on my Samsung S27c750p which is a MVA panel, 12.2ms via Leo Bodnar and compared to my Samsung 48ju7500.
To me the Game mode Samsung at 4k resolution felt about the same input lag wise versus the S27C750p... this tells me that if in game mode the Samsung at 4k is getting around 20ms like 1080p mode that would explain why I couldnt feel the 8ms difference between the S27c750p.
I truelly feel the input lag is not over mid 20's in game mode 4k. I would have felt a difference otherwise. Just putting this out there for those worrying about picking up the tv because of lag, those that have the display are not complaining.
I was actually very very surprised that the Samsung at 4k felt the same lag wise versus my Samsung s27c750p monitor...
Harder on 1080P or 4K? You may have a problem with 4K though...
Edit: What I meant was that 290x doesn't support HMDI 2.0
Last edited:
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,060
Thank you for pointing that out, Cyph. Perhaps I'm not crazy and "spreading nonsense" after all.
When I went from my U3011 to my Samsung 120hz monitor, I noticed a huge difference on games like Capsized where the screen scrolls past a static foreground. Like this:
Notice the ground that the character is walking on with all of those black lines. On the slower U3011, that entire area was a big ol' smeary mess and very visually unappealing. It was much crisper on the faster TN panel. I suspect that I might notice a difference between the 6700 and 7500 in a game like that.
Very very happy with it overall, though. I'm actually tempted to pick up the 40" model as well. That Newegg price is sweet...
Do you know if the 6 series can do 444 at 30 hz on hdmi 2-4 ports?
Gah. Damn, I knew this but brainfarted. Doesn't look like there's a viable DP > HDMI 2.0, so a Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming it is.
No 444 except HDMI 1. Are you planning to connect more than one PC?
I feel your pain. However, 30hz works fine for desktop. In the mean time, I'm playing 1080P until the 980Ti/390X comes out next month. If you want 4K gaming, you should wait another month or so. 1080P looks native on the Samsung so there's no rush to get a new card for gaming. Just make sure you change your desktop to 1080/60 first so that it doesn't get locked at 30hz when you launch the game.
Yeah, I guess if it comes to it I could use some kind of physical hdmi switcher. When looking into the 7100 I don't like that it uses that external hdmi box for all the inputs and I don't care about the extra smart features.
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,060
Looks like Newegg fixed the price of the 40" 7500. Congrats to those who snagged one at a $200 discount!
Man, I was thinking about it but it scared me that you couldn't return it unless the package wasn't open. At least that's what it said on their ebay page. 30 day free returns but only if it wasn't opened.
Yeah, I tried a couple too but they were rather shitty. And others weren't compatible with my phone.
For those curious, the VA panel on the Samsung blows away the VA panel on the BL3200PT that bought and used for a couple weeks. My biggest beef with that one was that the colors were dull. Not all VA panels are the same. Unless the Phillips is much better than the BenQ, the Samsung is the best one out there.
I own the BenQ BL3200PT, colors / black levels / contrast / are pretty good, but i want a bigger display for gaming.
Which Samsung are you talking about ?
If i do the upgrade, i'm not sure if 40" would be large enough for gaming. From 32 to 40 inches isn't a big deal, i guess
48" is maybe too big, so 43 inches would be great, but that's LG - IPS panel
Is there any VA panel with 42 / 43 / 44 inches ? Panasonic ? Philips ? Sony ?
The 6 and 7 series are both excellent. The 7 is a little better, but that's just my preference for the glossy screen. Panasonic and Sony should also have VA because of its superior contrast. If you're going to get one for gaming only, you might as well get a 48". Once you get up in the 44, what's another 4?
I believe Panasonic and Sony are both VA. However, the Sony does not support 444/60hz on their 2015 so they goofed. Not sure about the Panasonic as it's not out yet.
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,060
I too wish that there was a 42-44" size as I probably would have gone with that. But don't underestimate the 40". I had the BL3200PT. The 40" Samsung is quite a significant upgrade. Take a ruler and do the mock measurements; you might be surprised. Sometimes I still feel that the 48" is a hair too large for me, but I'm enjoying it very much nonetheless.
What game is that?
So, you did have the BenQ BL3200PT ? And upgraded to 48 inches, Samsung, right ?
How would you compare those two displays ? Colors / contrast / black levels / etc
Isn't 48" too big for everything else, except gaming ? How far do you sit away ?
I am in the market. Right now, I am staring at a 1080p TV which I purchased five years ago after personally testing dozens of TVs at Best Buy etc. for their latency and 4:4:4 support (and making a detailed post about my findings). Using a 42" TV as a monitor is still novel even today, but I'm glad to see that more people are seeing the light, because it means there can be more focus on figuring out the specifics that are important - and which the makers seem reticent to reveal themselves.
So I will cut to the chase: I already gather that 4:4:4 @ 60fps is much, much easier to find today. When I bought my TV, it was one of only four units total which could do this. Now it seems like most TVs can.
But what they don't seem to have gotten right is the latency. Game mode latency is generally good across the board. But according to what I've seen so far, 4:4:4 latency is inexplicably poor. I haven't seen a report of anything better than 36ms on a 4:4:4-capable TV (LG LF6000 according to www.rtings.com). That's over two frames. I'm staring at 16ms right now. I can tell it's there, but it's not excessive. Two frames would be pretty bad. All the Samsungs measured at www.rtings.com give 44ms in 4:4:4 mode. (They use the Leo Bodnar tool, so their results are basically incontrovertible.)
But they have not tested every TV - far from it. They have also decided to assume that every TV size of a given model performs the same as the other sizes, and I can tell you that this was not the case when I was performing my own tests. The 32" model of the TV I'm staring at had only 8ms of latency compared to the 16ms of my 42".
I guess what I'm saying is: What have people found? Is this the year to bite the bullet, or does there need to be more waiting for some better focus on 4:4:4 latency from the manufacturers? Perhaps even DisplayPort? I have hope. The "game mode" of many TVs gets quite respectable, with Vizio clocking in at about 18ms. It's not like 4:4:4 is doubling the required bandwidth vs. 4:2:2. Maybe some magic combination of maker, model and size will surface with a respectable latency result. (Or maybe it's buried in this thread already and I missed it.) Edit: Monitor suggestions would be good, too, as long as they're at least 42". Not looking to downgrade, as it were.
So I will cut to the chase: I already gather that 4:4:4 @ 60fps is much, much easier to find today. When I bought my TV, it was one of only four units total which could do this. Now it seems like most TVs can.
But what they don't seem to have gotten right is the latency. Game mode latency is generally good across the board. But according to what I've seen so far, 4:4:4 latency is inexplicably poor. I haven't seen a report of anything better than 36ms on a 4:4:4-capable TV (LG LF6000 according to www.rtings.com). That's over two frames. I'm staring at 16ms right now. I can tell it's there, but it's not excessive. Two frames would be pretty bad. All the Samsungs measured at www.rtings.com give 44ms in 4:4:4 mode. (They use the Leo Bodnar tool, so their results are basically incontrovertible.)
But they have not tested every TV - far from it. They have also decided to assume that every TV size of a given model performs the same as the other sizes, and I can tell you that this was not the case when I was performing my own tests. The 32" model of the TV I'm staring at had only 8ms of latency compared to the 16ms of my 42".
I guess what I'm saying is: What have people found? Is this the year to bite the bullet, or does there need to be more waiting for some better focus on 4:4:4 latency from the manufacturers? Perhaps even DisplayPort? I have hope. The "game mode" of many TVs gets quite respectable, with Vizio clocking in at about 18ms. It's not like 4:4:4 is doubling the required bandwidth vs. 4:2:2. Maybe some magic combination of maker, model and size will surface with a respectable latency result. (Or maybe it's buried in this thread already and I missed it.) Edit: Monitor suggestions would be good, too, as long as they're at least 42". Not looking to downgrade, as it were.
Last edited:
^^ So somebody offered advice to you when you asked this question and you say they shot you down. (Didn't see the thread, but know where this is going.)
Hmmm. Did you not read this thread? Do we really need to repeat everything that has been said?
You're already on the defense here. You're going to get "shot down" again.
You've got 4 options.
* Buy the set with a good return policy and find out for yourself - what a concept.
* Read this thread and make an informed decision - what a concept.
* Go away.
* Try again next year - in the meantime we'll be enjoying our 4K sets.
Hmmm. Did you not read this thread? Do we really need to repeat everything that has been said?
You're already on the defense here. You're going to get "shot down" again.
You've got 4 options.
* Buy the set with a good return policy and find out for yourself - what a concept.
* Read this thread and make an informed decision - what a concept.
* Go away.
* Try again next year - in the meantime we'll be enjoying our 4K sets.
I don't know if I would give the label "advice" to unambiguous effrontery. I guarantee you not everyone is a faceless jerk.
I'll offer the TL;DR: What's the lowest latency anyone's seen / heard of / experienced in a 4K 4:4:4 60fps display so far? If I were to narrow that down, I'd say anywhere between 42 and 48 inches.
I'll add monitors to that equation since it seems like the size of those has recently caught up to TVs without necessarily being exorbitantly priced.
I'll offer the TL;DR: What's the lowest latency anyone's seen / heard of / experienced in a 4K 4:4:4 60fps display so far? If I were to narrow that down, I'd say anywhere between 42 and 48 inches.
I'll add monitors to that equation since it seems like the size of those has recently caught up to TVs without necessarily being exorbitantly priced.
The 65in panasonic ax800 is around 37ms with 444 and pretty sweet for gaming, smallest size available in the us is the 55 though and it is expensive. Having displayport is nice since you can drive it with older 7970 ghz in crossfire which is much cheaper and faster than a single 980 last time I checked last year.
Good old Panasonic. From what I recall, they were actually the very first on the market with a 4:4:4 capable model. (Maybe this very one?) I didn't know it had displayport. 37ms is pretty much the same as the best TV I saw on rtings, with the added bonus of not having the drawbacks of being a low-end LG model.
Still, I've done the measurements and basically anything over say 50" would be just too uncomfortable to use as a monitor. Never mind not having room to scoot it back; past a certain point, I have to worry about my myopia. As for the GPU, I'm eyeing a 390x (currently have a 290x) but I'm not sold on AMD this time around. If Nvidia comes out with something 5% better within two months again, I may hop on that. Multi-GPU is off the plate until / unless split-frame rendering becomes transparently viable.
I find myself really wishing that Philips had gone ahead with 42 or 43" for their big monitor. But I'm glad there's a 40" out at least. Somebody will take the initiative sooner rather than later.
Yeah that's why I'm looking at the 6500 / 7100, as fun as a 65in 4k tv is for gaming from a recliner or couch, sometimes it's nice to be at a desk for things. Also have a 960 on the way and the hevc hw acceleration should be excellent for playing back 4k files off my Samsung NX1.
Last edited:
People who want 4:4:4 is because they need clear text for desktop work. People who look for low input lag is because they want to game. Gaming on the Samsung on game mode is indistinguishable to PC mode. Yet, we keep hearing people asking for 4:4:4 and game mode.
If you can tell the difference between 8 and 16ms lag, then you are hyper sensitive to lag. You really should look for gaming monitor. You have to know what type of gamer that you are. Are you an FPS player who needs low input lag and 144hz? Or are you a gamer who wants the best image quality at 4K? You're looking for the mythical 4K monitor with low input lag and have great image quality. It doesn't exist. Wait another year.
It's only indistinguishable when the display you're staring at is effectively at near-retina clarity. 4k at a decently wide field of view (such as a 42" monitor on the desktop) is manifestly not so sharp as that. I'm not talking about gaming with a PS4 or whatever where it literally doesn't matter. Besides, never heard of a TV that can detect 4:4:4 vs. 4:2:2 and seamlessly and automatically swap modes for optimal latency.
I don't need anything higher than 60fps, which is convenient since anything higher is effectively nonexistent. It's like you say: All about the image quality. 10-bit is not happening (unless it somehow does, such as by bypassing HDMI). I'm okay with that. But five years of using 16ms with decent image quality and viewing angle and 4:4:4 has resulted in a certain bar, and anything that doesn't meet that bar is going to be a quibble I'll have to live with if I buy it regardless.
Latency is the biggie, though. A TV either can or cannot pass 4:4:4. Then one can go check the unit on display somewhere and see whether or not it has hidden drawbacks. But latency has to be measured, within specific constraints, so that info has to be essentially begged for, and comes in piecemeal. Maybe a good TV / monitor with lower-than-two-frames latency exists already, maybe it doesn't. That's why I'm here asking. Before today, I didn't even know about the 40" Philips, for example. It's not well-regarded, by all accounts, but neither are LG TVs on the whole, and I like my LG. If the Philips was 42"+, I'd already be trying to find a way to see it in person.
6 vs 7 series. The 7 series is a 4K monitor that's capable of 120hz but does not accept a 120hz signal. When AMP is on, it runs at 120hz and uses interpolation for every other frame. A 120hz panel has to have superior response time than a 60hz panel. This is why owners see less ghosting. All LED tech, be it IPS, VA, TN ghost one way or another in various degrees. That's the nature of the technology. The biggest price difference between the 6 and 7 are the coating and the 60/120hz panel. There's also a faster CPU in the 7 series which probably contribute to the slightly lower input lag.
Now for my philosophical purchasing decision:
One cost 50% more than the other. It's quite a bit of money, but these are durable goods, so the cost should be divided by your days of usage to effectively calculate if it's worth it or not. For me, if I use it for 3-5 years, that's 3-5 years of gaming bliss. Same reason why I can't wait 3-5 years for the perfect panel to come out or buy something on Ebay that I'm not totally happy with but, hey, it's cheap! I make more money all the time, but 3-5 years of my life I will never get back.
Now for my philosophical purchasing decision:
One cost 50% more than the other. It's quite a bit of money, but these are durable goods, so the cost should be divided by your days of usage to effectively calculate if it's worth it or not. For me, if I use it for 3-5 years, that's 3-5 years of gaming bliss. Same reason why I can't wait 3-5 years for the perfect panel to come out or buy something on Ebay that I'm not totally happy with but, hey, it's cheap! I make more money all the time, but 3-5 years of my life I will never get back.
That's definitely one way to look at it. If you're gonna be using this monitor for lets say 5 years, that's $280/year or $23.3/month. 4k on a desktop is awesome and there is no turning back now.
This is relatively new tech since it's 60hz at 4k. Will better tech come out in 5 years? I'm pretty hopeful of it but I think the investment into this monitor is very justified. Can't wait until we see 120hz at 4k in a 40-44" sized monitor with low input lag =)
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,060
Yes.
greyx said:
Yes, first 40" and then 48".
greyx said:
It's hard to do a direct comparison because I sold the BL3200PT and can't compare them side by side. Some have said that the colors on the BenQ seemed dull or washed out, but it looked great to me. I really enjoyed the image quality. But, I also really enjoy the image quality of my Samsung. I do not get caught up in contrast ratios and nits and cd/m² measurements. As long as it's a VA or IPS panel of decent quality with good uniformity and without major flaws, I'm generally happy. Any decent VA is going to have great contrast and black levels. No one has complained about the colors on the Samsung as far as I know; rather, quite the opposite.
greyx said:
"Too big" is extremely subjective. As I have said, sometimes I feel as if the 40" is a better overall size for me in terms of practicality. I have to look up more on the 48" when using Windows and programs, but I've gotten used to that for the most part. I'd really like to research some options for lowering the display so that the top of it is not so high. The width isn't as much of an issue as the height. But since they don't make a 44", which would be just about the perfect compromise, I stuck with the 48" because of the immersion that it provides in games. There is no best size. It's entirely about personal preference and what your desk setup allows.
I sit roughly 2 feet away...maybe a little more than that.
All depends on what kind of work you do. If you need the 4K screen real estate to do a lot of reading (working on large spreadsheet, editing documents, photo editing etc) where you'll be looking all over the screen. You would probably want a 40" at 2.5ft distance so you won't be turning your head all the time. If you mostly watch videos and play games then a larger screen will give you a higher immersion factor. You just have to drag your active window towards the center of your screen when you do browsing and such to reduce strain on your neck.
Last edited:
Did you try adjusting the height of your chair. For proper sitting position, your eye should be level at between 1/3 to 1/2 from the top of the screen mark.
shredmonster
n00b
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56
Does anyone have the 40ju6500? Local best buy has 2 open box for 750ish and im about to snag one, but i was hoping someone might be able to comment on the text quality at 422 chroma at native res and how 1080p looks since i wont be able to run all games at 4k just yet. I'm torn between this and the vizio m series which doesn't do 444 but has better contrast and lower input lag. It also just might do 1080p at 120hz according to a few amazon reviews and its also cheaper. Tired of waiting for the philips to be available so I'm getting something this weekend.