![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
NVIDIA Big Format Gaming Display
- Thread starter realworld
- Start date
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
If they're not using OLED, VA it is...
And that's probably a good choice for something hooked up to a PC.
And that's probably a good choice for something hooked up to a PC.
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 9,453
I don't know about you, but I've been wanting a proper gaming TV for a long time. I ain't rich, but I'd drop the cash to play 120hz 4K games on my couch.
I personally don't get why someone would trade OLED true blacks and pixel response time for 120hz 4K gsync. If literally all you do with that TV is game, great, but when it comes time to watch TV and movies on it.... it's not competitive.
Especially not if the price is something completely uncompetitive like $5K. Especially if LG releases 4K 120hz this year(their CURRENT TVs do 1080p 120hz, anyway...), are you really going to pay thousands of dollars extra for gsync on an inferior panel? You'd have to be crazy.
Especially not if the price is something completely uncompetitive like $5K. Especially if LG releases 4K 120hz this year(their CURRENT TVs do 1080p 120hz, anyway...), are you really going to pay thousands of dollars extra for gsync on an inferior panel? You'd have to be crazy.
It bodes well for what will eventually come (40 inchers), but going with 65” and marketing specifically to PC gamers is a real head-scratcher. I could maybe see if they went with 55”. But 65”?
As others have said, the size limits it to a very specific subset of gamers who PC game in their living rooms. Even more so for an office, as you’re talking a specific furniture set up with wall mounting as the physical size would just overwhelm you if closer than 6ft. That and I’d say your average office is smaller than your typical living room.
And if that Linus vid is in the right ballpark, $5K for these TVs will be a hard sell for many I think.
QuantumBraced
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 594
Well if they'd marketed it as a living room gaming TV or a 65" HDR TV with built-in monitor features, like fast response time, low input lag, DP 1.4, G-Sync, etc. and a $4-5K price tag, then I could kind of see a very small number of very rich people buying it for their living rooms -- so it's more of a proof of concept than anything.
And that will still happen, but that's not its intended purpose. It's strictly a monitor. Linus incorrectly kept calling it a TV in his video, he kept saying "like a monitor...". It IS a monitor, that's kind of the whole point. And that was confirmed in nVidia's marketing video which showed the screen on a PC desk at the end. I guess at 100% global scaling you could use it with a deeper desk. On my 43", I have 125% scaling in Chrome and 100% scaling everywhere else in Windows and I am sitting as close to the monitor as I did to my old 24". I just move my head around to see the different parts of the screen, so it's like a multi-monitor setup, but it's just one monitor. So this could work at 100% global scaling and sitting another 10-15" back. Could actually improve your posture as you'll be sitting back and not leaning into the screen, and again, with a monitor arm you could use a smaller desk.
I mean, I don't know... I thought 43" was absolutely gigantic when I got it, but now it seems pretty normal and I think I can go bigger haha. 21" blew my mind when I was a kid and used to 15" CRTs. Humans are very adaptable. The problem is that whenever I've gone bigger in the past, it's always been with more resolution. That 4K @ 65" PPI will be bad. Awesome for movies though, like IMAX on your desk. I think ultimately the price tag will be what kills it, not the size. But it will be a proof of concept that will pave the way for more mainstream gigantic screens, and I am all for that.
And that will still happen, but that's not its intended purpose. It's strictly a monitor. Linus incorrectly kept calling it a TV in his video, he kept saying "like a monitor...". It IS a monitor, that's kind of the whole point. And that was confirmed in nVidia's marketing video which showed the screen on a PC desk at the end. I guess at 100% global scaling you could use it with a deeper desk. On my 43", I have 125% scaling in Chrome and 100% scaling everywhere else in Windows and I am sitting as close to the monitor as I did to my old 24". I just move my head around to see the different parts of the screen, so it's like a multi-monitor setup, but it's just one monitor. So this could work at 100% global scaling and sitting another 10-15" back. Could actually improve your posture as you'll be sitting back and not leaning into the screen, and again, with a monitor arm you could use a smaller desk.
I mean, I don't know... I thought 43" was absolutely gigantic when I got it, but now it seems pretty normal and I think I can go bigger haha. 21" blew my mind when I was a kid and used to 15" CRTs. Humans are very adaptable. The problem is that whenever I've gone bigger in the past, it's always been with more resolution. That 4K @ 65" PPI will be bad. Awesome for movies though, like IMAX on your desk. I think ultimately the price tag will be what kills it, not the size. But it will be a proof of concept that will pave the way for more mainstream gigantic screens, and I am all for that.
This effect sucks for full screen gaming. You want to be able to see the whole screen with the very edges starting to get into your peripheral vision. For me, this is about 3.5-4 feet away from my 60 inch TV. For 65 inch, it would be a little further than that, but call it 4 feet. Most desks are 24-30" deep, so you're looking at mounting this thing 1-2 feet behind the average desk. That's really impractical unless you have a ridiculous amount of space, and tbh even if you have the space I'm not sure it wouldn't feel weird to have your display mounted that far away from you. And all that is ignoring the PPI issue, which is pretty big, because this thing would have 68 ppi which is starting to get to the point where PC-sized text looks really bad and becomes difficult to read. It's similar to 1080P on a 32" monitor which is not something any of us would accept, I don't think.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,460
If you have a mini-itx (or even a compact matx with handle) you could swap it between tv and pc desk from time to time if you didn't want to dedicate your gaming rig to living room for good.
I've gamed on a low input lag 70" 4k VA with FALD (vizio M) at 60hz, and it can do 1080p at 120hz native. The witcher 3 looks pretty damn good on it from about 8' away. I can definitely see the draw for living room gaming. I've gone back to my proper desk setup with my new rig though.
However , I did get one of these for xmas and it works great. Mostly using it as a roomy laptop + tablet lap desk (which doesn't have to smother my crotch like other ones) atm however .
-----------------------------
I have to agree about the ppi. However to get anything out of higher hz capability you have to run 100fps-hz average or better really so higher rez is out of bounds at the highest settings if you want to get high hz gains even for sli setups. 4k is even too high vs gpu power for 120hz for the most demanding games at very high+ settings.
3840x2160 at 65" 4k is 67.78 ppi.. .. 67.7 ppi if you letterboxed 3440 x 1440 would be around 55" diagonal 21:9, and higher fps.
65" diagonal 16:9 = 65.7 W x 31.9 H ... 55" diagonal 21:9 = 50.6 W x 21.7 H .. 35" diag. 21:9 = 32.2 W x 13.8 H ... 27" 16:9 = 23.5 W x 13.2 H
Could definitely game 21:9 at 50" wide, that's like two 27" monitors side by side, but gain 8.5" height and no bezels. ( -200px each side.. - 360px each tip and bottom --> 21:9 3440 x 1440 rez 1:1 scale on that 65")
But then you are still at the same ppi as a 32.5" 1080p monitor ~ 67 ppi.
These are obviously made to be further away since perceived pixel density (and perceived screen size) is relative to viewing distance.
At a desk, a 40" 4k would prob be perfect for desktop/apps and low to high gpu demand, high hz gaming with strong gpu(s), maybe some really demanding games/ultra high hz gaming letter-boxed 1:1 at a lower rez like 3440 x 1440 (or less) as necessary.
The 4k in this graphic comes out to be around 40.3 inches:
I've gamed on a low input lag 70" 4k VA with FALD (vizio M) at 60hz, and it can do 1080p at 120hz native. The witcher 3 looks pretty damn good on it from about 8' away. I can definitely see the draw for living room gaming. I've gone back to my proper desk setup with my new rig though.
However , I did get one of these for xmas and it works great. Mostly using it as a roomy laptop + tablet lap desk (which doesn't have to smother my crotch like other ones) atm however .
-----------------------------
I have to agree about the ppi. However to get anything out of higher hz capability you have to run 100fps-hz average or better really so higher rez is out of bounds at the highest settings if you want to get high hz gains even for sli setups. 4k is even too high vs gpu power for 120hz for the most demanding games at very high+ settings.
3840x2160 at 65" 4k is 67.78 ppi.. .. 67.7 ppi if you letterboxed 3440 x 1440 would be around 55" diagonal 21:9, and higher fps.
65" diagonal 16:9 = 65.7 W x 31.9 H ... 55" diagonal 21:9 = 50.6 W x 21.7 H .. 35" diag. 21:9 = 32.2 W x 13.8 H ... 27" 16:9 = 23.5 W x 13.2 H
Could definitely game 21:9 at 50" wide, that's like two 27" monitors side by side, but gain 8.5" height and no bezels. ( -200px each side.. - 360px each tip and bottom --> 21:9 3440 x 1440 rez 1:1 scale on that 65")
But then you are still at the same ppi as a 32.5" 1080p monitor ~ 67 ppi.
These are obviously made to be further away since perceived pixel density (and perceived screen size) is relative to viewing distance.
At a desk, a 40" 4k would prob be perfect for desktop/apps and low to high gpu demand, high hz gaming with strong gpu(s), maybe some really demanding games/ultra high hz gaming letter-boxed 1:1 at a lower rez like 3440 x 1440 (or less) as necessary.
The 4k in this graphic comes out to be around 40.3 inches:
Last edited:
I can't see it being more than around 4k (get it?). 5 grand for a VA monitor when you can buy OLEDs for 2500 is pretty ridiculous. The G-Sync tax doesn't make up for that. Really, if LG wasn't stupid, they'd be slapping G-Sync on an OLED panel and selling a display for like 3k.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
If Nvidia had wanted OLED, they could probably have it.
Burn-in is a very real concern for static elements on these, still.
QuantumBraced
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 594
Can you do that for hours on end? No back support, no forearm support, legs for desk. I never understood this. This isn't your main PC or your main monitor I'm guessing. If I drop $4K on this monitor, it's going to be my main monitor.
I too sit in my couch (though i use a 27" monitor vesa mounted on an arm from the wall that i fold out), and I can sit there forever, more comfy than any chair.
I use this for arm support and mousepad etc: https://www.nerdytec.com/slidea/img/templates/base/cycon.png (its not a great product overall but the pillows are quite perfect, it has cable management with a usb3 hub, but its glitchy so i simpy connect the cables straight to the computer for mouse+keyboard).
My couch has neck support though, and full leg support. Comfort level is of course 100% depending on your couch model.
A 65" could not replace my monitor, though. Too small, and it would have to replace my tv which is not an option ( i would roughly need a 140" screen at 4m distance to get the same field of view as my current 27" at roughly 55cm distance).
Images for reference. as you can see 50" is tiny for a living room. 65" is still really tiny for computer use. (I am personally looking forward trying the new 4k 27" and 3440x1440 35" wide, as it is the perfect size/ppi for my usage).
Last edited:
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,202
I hope more sizes become available, I would be in for a 50"
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 46,590
My ballpark estimate is around $5k, as well, considering the extra tech in it. An OLED doesn't need full array backlighting to do HDR, for one. But I'd honestly take a BFGD over an OLED at this point.
I left open the 1%.
Just curious, you like using a keyboard and mouse like that for hours on your lap?
In my testing, for 4K resolution you want your eyes to be about the same distance from your screen as the diagonal of the screen. IE: 32 inches away for a 32" 4K monitor. 65" display is in a bad position. 65" is too far away for a desk scenario and too close in for a living room/couch setup. So in reality sitting that far away from a 65" display is less immersive.
The extra tech is a gsync module which isn't terribly expensive (should be identical to the one used in x27), and some extra leds. Creating a production line to make FALD is tricky and expensive. Once its up, the extra cost of extra leds is next to nothing in this context. The cost of producing this is almost identical to the x27 + the extra shield hardware on top which realistically does not cost much more than a chromecast to produce.
This tv will compete against LD OLEDs etc in the living room. The cheapest 65" LG OLED i can buy today is roughly $2200 including tax. As a living room tv, i would never consider this for over $2k.
VA with local dimming is nowhere near OLED in quality for general use. I have seen samsungs flagship vs LG oled in a showroom, even with lights on oled is way ahead, lights dimmed not even comparable.
For a pure gaming setup this is an ok product, but why not just buy the x27 or x35 or asus equivalents and sit closer for the same exact experience it there is any price difference at all, and you won't have to tailor a room for it.
I think there are so few people who can fit a 65" on their desk or dedicate a room to just gaming that if it is priced much higher than $2k, it will simply fail (too niche, way too expensive, tiny potential market).
I think it will release at around $2900 with marketing hype and very rapidly drop to $2k or less.
Last edited:
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,202
Current 4k 65" HDR 120hz units are what, $1200-$1600? so its $3400-$3800 extra for a gSync module ? lol
ok add another $150 for Shield
I thought Linus was saying that as a joke, or it sounded like it was meant to be a jab at how gsync mark up is a rip.
ok add another $150 for Shield
I thought Linus was saying that as a joke, or it sounded like it was meant to be a jab at how gsync mark up is a rip.
Native 120Hz 4K TV's exist prior to these? I don't think so. At least not ones you can readily buy.
Native 4k 120hz 40-77" _panels_ exist yes. Plenty of tvs capable of 120hz at lower resolutions or in 3d mode. Slap a gsync module on them and they would work perfectly (The ONLY new thing here is the FALD controlled by gsync module with no input lag, everything else is old tech, although this panel will probably also have faster response time/overdrive).
Do you mind linking to one? I'm curious what native 4K displays could do a true 120Hz (no interpolation) at that resolution. I honestly wasn't aware of any you could buy.
If they can only do 120Hz at a lower than native resolution.. well that kind of defeats the purpose.
This is a true 120Hz 4K native display.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,202
https://www.samsung.com/us/televisi...vs/65--class-mu8000-4k-uhd-tv-un65mu8000fxza/
120hz is what the screen refreshes at, though I'm pretty sure, like most TVs it only takes a 60hz input.
I still don't think having a controller that can do 120hz, is going to make the price 3-4x higher, the panel should be the most expensive part of the TV.
That's not the same thing. These new displays accept and display at 120Hz signal all the way through. No different than lower resolution PC monitors we have now. Only difference is this is at 4K.
This is all new.
TVs can't take 120hz 4K input because HDMI 2.0 doesn't have the bandwidth. The 2017 LG OLEDs can do 1080p 120hz, and AFAIK the only barrier to them doing 120hz 4K is that connector standard and its associated electronics being updated to HDMI 2.1. But I've also heard that HDMI 2.1 features probably won't be on 2018 TVs, so who knows, this thing might have a 1-year-long niche as the only 4K 120hz TV. Still not worth it even if that is the case, imo.
It is the same thing. The input you can send to the controller has no relation to the properties of the panel whatsoever. More or less any 4k 3d TV panel would work in 4k 120Hz if you slapped this new gsync module on it.
There is really nothing new about this product at all. Capable panels have existed for at least 4 years and even the gsync module is 1 year old as it was first shown at CES 2017.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,202
So in your view, a displayport connector, gsync module and shield, are worth $2500?
Whoa, I don't think any of this is worth the price. I was arguing over the technology used. I'm not sure how that was twisted into what it was worth.
I left open the 1%.
Just curious, you like using a keyboard and mouse like that for hours on your lap?
In my testing, for 4K resolution you want your eyes to be about the same distance from your screen as the diagonal of the screen. IE: 32 inches away for a 32" 4K monitor. 65" display is in a bad position. 65" is too far away for a desk scenario and too close in for a living room/couch setup. So in reality sitting that far away from a 65" display is less immersive.
The Razer Turret isn't all too comfortable at first. I had to learn to relax my arm muscles. I also had to learn how to grip the mouse and use higher DPI settings. After that it has been comfortable after hours of gaming. I actually bought the Turret in March of last year. Didn't use it much at that time. I brought it out again since I love the compact size, convenience, and the looks of it. Got very much use to it after using it again for a month.
I was using this setup until the beginning of December.
Corsair Lapdog + K70 keyboard + G900 mouse.
That's what I thought. Thanks.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,460
Some 4k tv's can do 120hz native at 1080p though, in case anyone wasn't aware. I'll say again that unless you are getting at least 100fps average or so, high hz is pretty meaningless. So it would depend on how demanding a game was and what settings you dial in to vs your gpu power to hope to get 100fps-hz average or more at 4k on some games.
About living room pc use comfort. I highly recommend the couchmaster that my gf got me for xmas this year. With the right couch/cushion setup to support your head and neck , and even feet.. it's like you are floating practically.
more couch master photos here
About living room pc use comfort. I highly recommend the couchmaster that my gf got me for xmas this year. With the right couch/cushion setup to support your head and neck , and even feet.. it's like you are floating practically.
more couch master photos here
Last edited:
Uh, how about the TVs this thread is about?
Note previous discussion about how this isn't a TV, it's a 65" monitor. It won't include a tuner(the thing that makes a TV a TV, legally) and is made by Acer/Asus/HP using an AUO panel, not any of the TV manufacturers.
So far no TV manufacturer has displayed interest in doing something like this nor in adding DP to any of their TVs.
Also, we're making the wild assumption this will actually come out on schedule. If it's anything like the 27/34" HDR 4K 120z products, it will be delayed indefinitely and AUO will have all kinds of problems actually making usable panels.
But this isn't a TV , it is a giant pc monitor so i think display port 1.4 will be enough to run 4K at 120hz at least for me without having to HDMI 2.1 .