NVIDIA Big Format Gaming Display

R

realworld

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
484

bfgd-big-format-gaming-displays-input-latency-comparison.png


bfgd-big-format-gaming-displays-have-ultra-low-latency-cropped-640px.png


bfgd-big-format-gaming-displays-exploded-view-640px.jpg


BFGD is an NVIDIA standard. Other manufacturers will bring out their very own BFGD-certified displays to the market.

Specs:
65 inch.
4k resolution and 120hz refresh rate.
Uses Quantum Dots to support DCI P3 color space.
Up to 1000nits.
Direct Array Backlight aka Full Array Local Dimming.
Ultra Low Latency.
Built-in Nvidia Gsync.
Built-in Nvidia Shield aka the display's "Smart TV" component.

First BFGD screens that will reach the market comes from ACER, ASUS, and HP:
NVIDIA said:
The first BFGDs, coming later this year from ACER, ASUS and HP, are 65 inches, run at 4K at 120Hz, have G-SYNC technology, HDR with 1000 nit peak brightness, and an integrated NVIDIA SHIELD, giving you instant access to Netflix, Amazon Video and YouTube at 4K, NVIDIA GameStream, Android games and apps, and much more.

...General availability is expected this summer when pricing and further specifications will be announced.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bah 65 inches? I can't even use a 55 inch TV comfortably as a monitor...anything on smaller sizes like 40-46 inches?
 
MistaSparkul said:
Bah 65 inches? I can't even use a 55 inch TV comfortably as a monitor...anything on smaller sizes like 40-46 inches?
Click to expand...
BIG FORMAT GAME DISPLAYS, notice that it's plural, is just a standard Nvidia is trying to create. Display makers will have to follow these standards or exceed them in order to be BFGD-certified.
Nvidia said that Asus, Acer, and HP are creating their own displays under this standard. Screen size will obviously vary, and Nvidia just so happens to show off a 65" display on the Youtube video.
 
realworld said:
BIG FORMAT GAME DISPLAYS, notice that it's plural, is just a standard Nvidia is trying to create. Display makers will have to follow these standards or exceed them in order to be BFGD-certified.
Nvidia said that Asus, Acer, and HP are creating their own displays under this standard. Screen size will obviously vary, and Nvidia just so happens to show off a 65" display on the Youtube video.
Click to expand...

Yeah but what exactly defines "large"?
 
realworld said:

bfgd-big-format-gaming-displays-input-latency-comparison.png


bfgd-big-format-gaming-displays-have-ultra-low-latency-cropped-640px.png


bfgd-big-format-gaming-displays-exploded-view-640px.jpg


BFGD is an NVIDIA standard. Other manufacturers will bring out their very own BFGD-certified displays to the market.

Specs:
65 inch.
4k resolution and 120hz refresh rate.
Uses Quantum Dots to support DCI P3 color space.
Up to 1000nits.
Direct Array Backlight aka Full Array Local Dimming.
Ultra Low Latency.
Built-in Nvidia Gsync.
Built-in Nvidia Shield aka the display's "Smart TV" component.

First BFGD screens that will reach the market comes from ACER, ASUS, and HP:
Click to expand...

MistaSparkul said:
Bah 65 inches? I can't even use a 55 inch TV comfortably as a monitor...anything on smaller sizes like 40-46 inches?
Click to expand...
Moved from Eyefinity/Surround quite some time ago.
Glad to see this category moved forward since many of us have been in it for a couple years. 48" JS9000

View attachment 49199
 
Nintendo switch could possibly support g-sync on these? Would be pretty neat considering the switch's low framerate.
It's based on nvidia tegra x1 (maxwell gpu).
 
Damn, was trying to minimize my PC purchases this year...

Don’t think it will be carried at the BX, wonder what international shipping will cost....

Or buy off local economy, please be nice Japan.....
 
MistaSparkul said:
Bah 65 inches? I can't even use a 55 inch TV comfortably as a monitor...anything on smaller sizes like 40-46 inches?
Click to expand...


That would have been ideal, the problem is that they are taking the scraps from the tv world, where the only good HDR displays with full array local dimming are on the 55"+ sized displays. Still, not sure why they went 65" instead of 55" unless they meant this to be for people who want to have living room pc setups.
 
Hm. It'll be interesting to see if this new Nvidia standard will stick around for long. My other concern is what kind of panels they plan to use for this, and if there are other sizes the manufacturers will be introducing. A 32" to 50" would be my ideal size for 4K PC gaming due to room constraints. The BFGD TVs being glossy would be a huge win for me too.
 
Nice. More display vaporware from Nvidia, Asus and Acer.

Where the bets at? Summer 2020 on these?
 
While I like this, I don't see myself buying one. I am more interested in HDMI 2.1 VRR for console gaming and there is no guarantee Nvidia is going to support that.

I don't expect to see these in stores anytime soon when the desktop 27" 4K high refresh rate displays aren't even out yet.
 
Quite interesting news. So looks like NVIDIA is sticking to their G-Sync guns instead of adopting HDMI 2.1 VRR in the future...

I guess G-Sync does allow them to keep control over the signal for ultra low input lag. Even the fastest TV's have input lag you can notice ~(20 ms).

But IMO 65" size is a mistake. 65" is too big to go on desks, so this is relegated to the TV/living room. Not many people have PCs there or able to connect there. 55" is the max you could put on a desk practically, IMO.

Just like the 27 4K FALD being too small (should have been 32), this is too big. I don't think sales will be all that great on this and I think the price is going to be quite high.

Oh and "later this year" is NVIDIA/ASUS/AUOptronics code talk for summer 2019. 120 Hz 4K OLEDs will beat this to market.


MistaSparkul said:
Yeah but what exactly defines "large"?
Click to expand...

My previous girlfriend said 10 inches.
 
Cool idea and I like the way things are heading with this. It's basically the marriage between the monitor and tv that we have all been moving towards but with limitations on both sides. The catch and why I wouldn't buy one is the size. I, like others want a large monitor to efficiently use those 4k pixels. That's why we like 40" displays vs. 4k 27", but at 65" that concept is lost completely.

Make this in a 40" display with those stats and I'll purchase it day one for sure!
 
Vega said:
Quite interesting news. So looks like NVIDIA is sticking to their G-Sync guns instead of adopting HDMI 2.1 VRR in the future...

I guess G-Sync does allow them to keep control over the signal for ultra low input lag. Even the fastest TV's have input lag you can notice ~(20 ms).

But IMO 65" size is a mistake. 65" is too big to go on desks, so this is relegated to the TV/living room. Not many people have PCs there or able to connect there. 55" is the max you could put on a desk practically, IMO.

Just like the 27 4K FALD being too small (should have been 32), this is too big. I don't think sales will be all that great on this and I think the price is going to be quite high.

Oh and "later this year" is NVIDIA/ASUS/AUOptronics code talk for summer 2019. 120 Hz 4K OLEDs will beat this to market.




My previous girlfriend said 10 inches.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't choose gsync over oled for a tv, but at least we're one step closer to getting a gsync oled tv.
 
Yes , i want this size with the same specifications . From now I won't be confused about getting TV for Movies and PC Monitor for my PC . I can do everything whether Gaming or Movies in one size 65'' and we can use it for everything else .
Now the only thing i want to see with this monitor FALD 800-1000 zones .lol .
They gave the 35'' Ultrawide 512 zones , It would be fair to give 800-1000 zones for this 65'' size until we see 4K 120hz G-sync Micro-Led 65'' HDMI 2.1 .Give me these specifications and i won't upgrade for next 10 years .
 
I think they overdid it. 65" is too big for a desktop 4K monitor. The pixels will be too big, imagine a 32" 1080p. And you won't be able to fit it all in your field of view. You may as well have a smaller monitor and sit closer. I have an LG 43UD79 and I'm already using 125% scaling in Chrome. 43" is the perfect size for 4K I think if you want to take full advantage of the real estate.

But 120Hz + G-Sync + HDR... Amazing. But it'll probably cost $2500 or more. I hope they do a smaller version, maybe a 40-45" variant for $2K.
 
I can't see this being cheaper than $4k USD. I'd be surprised if it was cheaper.

Also, this will more than likely be a wall mounted display instead of on a desk.
 
sharknice said:
I wouldn't choose gsync over oled for a tv, but at least we're one step closer to getting a gsync oled tv.
Click to expand...

I made a post over on the amd reddit lamenting the fact that AMD has not already worked with a tv maker to release this very thing. I'm hoping they still will by talking to all the major display players to aggressively promote VRR implementations for tvs with hdmi 2.1 released in 2019, then across the board there will be enough bandwidth to drive 120+ Hz 4k gaming so why not toss in VRR with freesync support?

For special cases, AMD should partner with tv makers to have enhanced freesync 2 capable displays that do what nvidia is doing with these jumbo sets. My hope is that they will effectively court lg or some pc makers using lg oled panels to get some 40+ inch 4k oleds in 2019 with vrr and higher refresh rates. IF Amd can get that kind of partnership in place, with solid gaming tvs/monitors being over 40 inches and oled, even many of the nvidia fanboys will jump ship if there are no gsync variants. I sit about 3 feet away from my 43" 4k tv display on my desk, and it's almost too big, going bigger is just not easy unless you push it back a bit farther, and 65" is way too big for a desk, so those will be relegated to the living room or normal tv setups. There is still time and space for AMD to maneuver a credible gaming tv that is more reasonable sized before nvidia gets in.


In fact, AMD should work with microsoft to see about sponsoring support for VRR in some upcoming xbox title to showcase/drive sales for freesync variants of tvs with vrr for unlocked frames above 30fps on consoles while still looking smooth. This could be a boon for literally everyone.
 
tybert7 said:
I made a post over on the amd reddit lamenting the fact that AMD has not already worked with a tv maker to release this very thing. I'm hoping they still will by talking to all the major display players to aggressively promote VRR implementations for tvs with hdmi 2.1 released in 2019, then across the board there will be enough bandwidth to drive 120+ Hz 4k gaming so why not toss in VRR with freesync support?

For special cases, AMD should partner with tv makers to have enhanced freesync 2 capable displays that do what nvidia is doing with these jumbo sets. My hope is that they will effectively court lg or some pc makers using lg oled panels to get some 40+ inch 4k oleds in 2019 with vrr and higher refresh rates. IF Amd can get that kind of partnership in place, with solid gaming tvs/monitors being over 40 inches and oled, even many of the nvidia fanboys will jump ship if there are no gsync variants. I sit about 3 feet away from my 43" 4k tv display on my desk, and it's almost too big, going bigger is just not easy unless you push it back a bit farther, and 65" is way too big for a desk, so those will be relegated to the living room or normal tv setups. There is still time and space for AMD to maneuver a credible gaming tv that is more reasonable sized before nvidia gets in.


In fact, AMD should work with microsoft to see about sponsoring support for VRR in some upcoming xbox title to showcase/drive sales for freesync variants of tvs with vrr for unlocked frames above 30fps on consoles while still looking smooth. This could be a boon for literally everyone.
Click to expand...
All of this sounds good except AMD is terrible at doing that. Maybe it's their market share or something, but they have little to no credibility. The margins in the display industry are already pretty low without making big bets on runner-ups.
 
aeliusg said:
All of this sounds good except AMD is terrible at doing that. Maybe it's their market share or something, but they have little to no credibility. The margins in the display industry are already pretty low without making big bets on runner-ups.
Click to expand...


Except it would not be a big bet. It does not cost a lot of money to implement vrr at all, tv makers are already releasing higher end tv models that support higher refresh rates to 120Hz which is often used to smooth out motion for 24 frame video by a multiple of 7 to get an even 120 frames. It's almost all upside, there is no reason not to support this, all AMD needs to do is do the same thing they've done with monitors where adaptive sync is rampant. I still want them to be more aggressive on oled though, work with lg to get latency down as much as possible and give some of the more premium offerings the freesync 2 treatment to make sure the vrr windows are larger.
 
OHHHHH thats what the "BF" stands for. My guess was way off.

Edit: well the F part anyways.
 
Looks like Nvidia is doubling down into not supporting VRR and instead are releasing their own brand of overpriced "gaming TV" monitors, instead of supporting regular VRR TVs. Awesome.
 
tybert7 said:
Except it would not be a big bet. It does not cost a lot of money to implement vrr at all, tv makers are already releasing higher end tv models that support higher refresh rates to 120Hz which is often used to smooth out motion for 24 frame video by a multiple of 7 to get an even 120 frames. It's almost all upside, there is no reason not to support this, all AMD needs to do is do the same thing they've done with monitors where adaptive sync is rampant. I still want them to be more aggressive on oled though, work with lg to get latency down as much as possible and give some of the more premium offerings the freesync 2 treatment to make sure the vrr windows are larger.
Click to expand...
Well, I'll take your word for it. Display manufacturers don't seem to be so flexible, though.
 
Where are the 40-48" 4K TVs/monitors?

Seriously, what PC gamer in their right mind would game on a 65" display? No room on the desk, doubtful they could position themselves or their desk far enough from the wall for a comfortable experience... where are they supposed to put it?

Seems these are more for the console gaming crowd, unless you're using an HTPC in the living room. C'mon already, give us 40" range options.
 
gan7114 said:
Where are the 40-48" 4K TVs/monitors?

Seriously, what PC gamer in their right mind would game on a 65" display? No room on the desk, doubtful they could position themselves or their desk far enough from the wall for a comfortable experience... where are they supposed to put it?

Seems these are more for the console gaming crowd, unless you're using an HTPC in the living room. C'mon already, give us 40" range options.
Click to expand...
For some situations it's perfect - can totally free up desk space in a proper office setup and mount monitor on wall 6' away if you want. With Shield built in, this will be a great game room TV as we should be able to use gamestream to it. Does gamestream support 120Hz?
 
When Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are supporting G-sync or some other framerate smoothing technology then we'll know it has caught on. I personally think this has been an untapped market for ages. Sony tried to do it with a Playstation TV/monitor thing years ago and it didn't work out. I think the issue there was the TVs were 27 inches or something really small.
 
Vega said:
Quite interesting news. So looks like NVIDIA is sticking to their G-Sync guns instead of adopting HDMI 2.1 VRR in the future...
Click to expand...

Yes I think this is literally an excuse for them not to support HDMI 2.1 VRR, and they will happily ignore complaints that their video cards can't use VRR with future 120hz OLED TVs, instead pointing to shitty Asus/Acer vaporware as their inferior replacement.

Really sad that Nvidia's decided market power is more important than product quality.
 
Sancus said:
Yes I think this is literally an excuse for them not to support HDMI 2.1 VRR, and they will happily ignore complaints that their video cards can't use VRR with future 120hz OLED TVs, instead pointing to shitty Asus/Acer vaporware as their inferior replacement.

Really sad that Nvidia's decided market power is more important than product quality.
Click to expand...

We haven't see them as having 'decided' anything; they may or may not yet support HDMI VRR.

And if this BFGD 'standard' is G-Sync 2.0-grade, then it'll certainly be a step up from HDMI VRR regardless.
 
gan7114 said:
Where are the 40-48" 4K TVs/monitors?

Seriously, what PC gamer in their right mind would game on a 65" display? No room on the desk, doubtful they could position themselves or their desk far enough from the wall for a comfortable experience... where are they supposed to put it?

Seems these are more for the console gaming crowd, unless you're using an HTPC in the living room. C'mon already, give us 40" range options.
Click to expand...

Agreed. 40-45" is ideal. I have a 43" LG and everything else seems phone-sized to me now. It's perfect and it fits on my desk. A monitor arm helps a lot by the way, you don't have to deal with a stand and you can put the screen almost all the way down on your desk surface and back to the wall. I have a small desk (47" by 24") that can hold my 43" no problem -- it does take up almost the entire length of the desk along the back side, but that's not a problem. So a slightly larger desk could accommodate a 65". In fact I could probably put it on my current desk, it would just overhang the sides but who cares -- again a beefy monitor arm is crucial, and frankly what's $150 for an arm when your monitor costs $4K.

So the issue isn't so much fitting it on your desk as fitting it in your field of vision. 65" 4K has terrible PPI for desktop use. 65" is more appropriate for 8K.

However, I am still really happy they did this, because they are finally bringing the focus to larger monitors. Honestly, anything under 40" isn't taking full advantage of 4K. I can't imagine going back to a 27" or even a 32" now. So I hope this will prompt more 40"+ monitors. My LG 43UD79 isn't the best, but the options at this size are very limited, so I had to settle. I hope this time next year there will be a lot more options and I can update to something with 120Hz and HDR that's not a TV.
 
Last edited:
65" is really stupid. People don't have their gaming PC's in their living rooms and use them sitting on the couch. 40" would have been a massive hit. This screen size literally eliminates like 99% of PC gamers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top