NVIDIA Big Format Gaming Display

[FrgMstr]

Are you making fun of me ?

I am laughing at the statement you posted.

 

[pendragon1]

no I think he was laughing at your comment. but even if he was, its his site, he gets that privilege….

 

[mms]

no I think he was laughing at your comment. but even if he was, its his site, he gets that privilege….

He , his site and his privilege above my head . Lol

 

[geok1ng]

what is the problem with using a big screen more than 3' away?

i apologize if my post was not clear enough: curent cable techs struggle to deliver 4k 120hz over 1m spam. DP cables capable of this are few and far between, if they exist at all. This is one of points behind Zisworks dual Dp solution .

 

[elvn]

yes, you'd keep the pc at the display like other media devices, and run a usb 3 cable to a usb3 hub at the couch gaming surface.

You'd keep the computer near the screen (like consoles and other media devices are) and run the usb cable around the back wall.
You could alternately deploy a no-trip floor cabling strip directly across to your seating position (at least pulling it out from under entertainment center when switching to wired gaming peripherals for gaming sessions).

In this type of scenario you could either dedicate your gaming pc to the living room or go a modular route with a mini itx, portable small case, or matx box and swap it between desk and living room. Nvidia shield/steam streaming games might be another option.

I can run usb cables around the back wall in conduit or even down to basement ceiling and back up. The couch master couch desk setup comes with usb3 cables and a usb3 hub too.

Other than that, what is the problem with using a big screen more than 3' away? Visually it would work a lot better further away. At 8' away, my 70" is bordering on requiring me to tilt head to focus on the extremes. Unless you mean the video cables?

You'd keep the computer near the screen (like consoles and other media devices are) and run the usb cable around the back wall.
You could alternately deploy a no-trip floor cabling strip directly across to your seating position (at least pulling it out from under entertainment center when switching to wired gaming peripherals for gaming sessions).

8' viewing distance to your eyeballs means you could prob run a 16' usb cable run, (maybe a bit more if not using no-trip strip directly across), and feed it around the back wall in some conduit or some sort of wire-management shielding through to under the couch. Or you could feed it down behind the wall behind entertainment center, through basement rafters and back up behind couch drilled through the moulding at the wall's bases or via a wall plate if you want to get fancy.

You can run another usb cable or utilize the hub for a g29 steering wheel and use one of those metal pop up stands they mount on .. You could also use a xboxone controller wired or unwired for a lot of fun games.

Not every game is extremely demanding on gpus, and some can dial down a bit without losing too much. I agree 4k is gpu crushing on demanding games though. See my previous posts about the 100hz @ 100fps average as a minimum target for gaming on high hz displays. In fact, for people with moderate gpu budgets, a high hz 1080p where you can crank up all the graphics settings is probably a much better idea. You could alternately run a lower rez on a high hz monitor like this for the most demanding games and rely on scaling if you had to, or even letterboxing depending how much smaller you go.

 

[AORUS]

If u ask me , i'll tell u that gtx 1070 will be enough for many games at 4k 120hz and not just 1080 ti . You can play with the settings and turn some down until get the best fps and fast motion for your eyes .

What would be the point of buying GTX 1080 TI in first place if you have turn down the settings @120hz? LoI


But if you like big screen here is a 4K OLED 85"

 

[elvn]

You might ask why buy a 4k gaming monitor with high hz if you aren't going to be utilizing high hz.
If you don't fill the hz with new frames of action by configuring for high frame rates, you aren't getting anything out of the high hz.

If you want to get appreciable improvement from a (high resolution) high hz monitor, you have to make tradeoffs on the most demanding games... dialing in or turning down graphics complexity, whose ceiling is quite arbitrary by devs to begin with, in order to "turn up" the operating fps and hz for greater blur reduction and motion definition~smoothness (what you bought a high hz monitor for).

I find 100hz at 100fps average (a graph of 70fps - 100fps- 130fps for the most part) the sweet spot between graphics complexity settings and resultant frame rate ranges/graphs on the more demanding games. I could dial the graphic settings down a little more to get 120 but the range +/- 100 average still gets a lot out of a high hz monitor's capability. There are some moderately demanding games that would require less dialing in or none at all on the less demanding games.

On a monitor like this one you could probably use scaling from 1080p or 1440p if you had to and see how it looks, or even 1:1 letterboxing (maybe to a 21:9 rez) the most demanding games depending how small you go.

 

[elvn]

But if you like big screen here is a 4K OLED 85"

That LG OLED is probably not 120hz native at 4k (though they are supposed to come out this year , not sure on price), and doesn't have G-SYNC Variable Refresh Rate technology (nor displayport) with game oriented input lag numbers. (It also can't hit 1000nit for HDR if that matters to you, but the black depth would be phenomenal). It could suffer the other OrganicLED trade-offs which make them questionable as monitors. Still pretty neat.

I'd be interested to see if they ever make a g-sync/variable refresh rate, 4k 120hz native HDR oled at 65" - 70" , and what the price would be compared to this nvidia 4k 120hz native g-sync 1000nit P3 color high density FALD VA HDR one. Also some burn in/fade out, static imagery, maintaining of color calibration testing but that takes time.

 

[AORUS]

That LG OLED is probably not 120hz native at 4k (though they are supposed to come out this year , not sure on price), and doesn't have G-SYNC Variable Refresh Rate technology (nor displayport) with game oriented input lag numbers. (It also can't hit 1000nit for HDR if that matters to you, but the black depth would be phenomenal). It could suffer the other OrganicLED trade-offs which make them questionable as monitors. Still pretty neat..

I did not say it has G-sync or 120hz all I said was if you like big screens?

 

[AORUS]

Oops something has gone wrong

 

[AdamK47]

I'm excited about the Corsair K63 wireless mechanical keyboard and lapboard unveiled at CES. It would go well with this display.

 

[Revenant_Knight]

Yes it does.

Already addressed. I had contacted NVIDIA about this when setting up my receiver. I was told, wrongly, that GSYNC wouldn't work with a second monitor through HDMI for just audio. A few other members advised it does work. I haven't tried it yet, but I'm happy to know it does work.

 

[mms]

Does custom resolution will be a good idea on this 65'' giant monitor ?
Did someone try to do custom resolution like 3840x1600p on his TV whether 55'' or 65'' ? And how you find this vs the native 4K 16:9 ?

 

[Armenius]

I think gamers are missing the point on this new Nivida Big format thinking 120hz on a single GTX 1080 TI card is not going to cut it, I think this 120hz is for a two cards or more setup not one because the 1080 ti @4k can only run 60hz even titan V but we will see when it comes out this summer.

Don't build up too much hope it all look very good on paper & with video graphics made by their marketing team.

Also I am all for the new technology only then they get it right or support it, But True 4K is 4,096 by 2,160 not 3840x 2160 Nividia

You don't need to be able to hit 120 FPS with G-Sync.

DCI 4K is 4096x2160. UHD 4K is 3840x2160.

i apologize if my post was not clear enough: curent cable techs struggle to deliver 4k 120hz over 1m spam. DP cables capable of this are few and far between, if they exist at all. This is one of points behind Zisworks dual Dp solution .

What is the issue with putting your PC near the display?

 

[mms]

I found this post on overclockers.co.uk /
What would you guys say ?

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]

 

[Enhanced Interrogator]

Everybody in this thread needs to watch this and expand their horizons.



This display will be amazing, especially when used more as a TV than desktop monitor.

 

[elvn]

He lost me when he said set the refresh rate to 60hz
But seriously, interesting stuff. Never hurts to have more options in the tool box.

He says, "You, the user, can choose the balance points in terms of quality vs performance tailoring it to your own preferences..". That is a good way to word it. In my posts I like to similarly say "dialing in the settings" to get higher frame rates. Saying "lowering" the settings is not really accurate overall since while you are turning some things down from some arbitrarily set by devs graphics ceiling, you are turning the frame rate range (your average+/-) and visible hz up which turn up the motion clarity (blur reduction) and motion definition/smoothness. Both of these qualities affect the whole experience aesthetically. The trick is to balance getting a lot out of the high hz benefits considering your chosen native resolution's demands and your game's demands (at high, very high, very high+/custom, and ultra) considering your gpu power/budget limitations.

What I am thinking about dynamic resolution is that non-native resolution looks soft and muddied, less crisp,clear and vibrant. Muted and muddy. That would happen during action and FX events when keeping a frame rate target with dynamic resolution - which is a lot of the time in 1st/3rd person adventure/rpgs and first person shooters. Your frame rate would also normally drop when hitting vast view distances in game, so for example, scenic vistas when you crest that hill with your view distance very high or maxed would probably drop the resolution as well.

What it might come down to, at least for demanding games, in that kind of scenario where you have several options is deciding:
Which would hurt your visual aesthetics more? (your view of the dynamic virtual world elements as well as roving viewport movement of the entire virtual world's on screen elements).
----------------------------------------------------------------

1---Losing the blur reduction and motion definition by letting your average fps sink way below a really appreciable high hz benefit range
..(beneath 100 average's 70-100-130 ~> 10% - 40% - 55% blur reduction range I'd say) resulting in smearing blur instead of a soften blur and missing out on higher motion definition.

2--- The soft/blurred and muted muddiness of a using a lower non-native resolution (either all of the time or dynamically during action/FX and/or long view distances, and when displaying large populations of entities)

3--- lowering/balancing your graphics settings/dialing them in enough to get 100fps average on your chosen (perhaps too high of a) resoltuion monitor with your gpu power/budget.

4--- choosing a lower resolution high hz monitor perhaps more suitable to your gpu power for high fps+hz which would be running the crisp native resolution and a much tighter 50%+ blur reduction (more of a soften blur 'inside the lines' or shadow masks) with a lot more motion definition/smoothness the majority of the time.

and I suppose for large format, high resolution screens this might be an option too...
5-- Running a smaller resolution 1:1 pixel. letterboxed with bars or framed, or windowed.

 

[Armenius]

Everybody in this thread needs to watch this and expand their horizons.



This display will be amazing, especially when used more as a TV than desktop monitor.

Old news. I have no issue with these so long as they're transparent and descriptive. As far as I know, it's impossible to completely disable dynamic settings in Forza 7. Further, in their attempt to take ownership of the technique some companies are coming up with confusing names for their scaling options where you're not sure what it actually does. I have no idea why obfuscation is being utilized here when it's not necessary. If people want to turn everything up and framerate be damned, then they should be able to.

 

[QuantumBraced]

So what's the advantage of having a 65" and putting it farther away vs. having a 43" at normal viewing distance? You're still seeing the same thing.

 

[portalgun]

The only advantage of the 65 is that it sounds like they are going to produce it. I'm sure if they announced a 40, 43, or even 55 more people would be gravitating to that over a 65.

nVidia most likely thinks that they can capture both the living room market and desktop who are willing to adapt to that size with one product. Whereas if they were to launch a 40 it would have very little shot of capturing the living room display market.

 

[Armenius]

So what's the advantage of having a 65" and putting it farther away vs. having a 43" at normal viewing distance? You're still seeing the same thing.

 

[QuantumBraced]

The only advantage of the 65 is that it sounds like they are going to produce it. I'm sure if they announced a 40, 43, or even 55 more people would be gravitating to that over a 65.

nVidia most likely thinks that they can capture both the living room market and desktop who are willing to adapt to that size with one product. Whereas if they were to launch a 40 it would have very little shot of capturing the living room display market.

Maybe they should have done a 55" then. 65" just doesn't work for a desk. Maybe for gaming if you have a very deep desk, but not for productivity. Maybe at 8K, but not at 4K. I don't get it... the market desperately needed good 4K monitors over 32", so they decided to go with a 65"? Who asked for that? We all asked for 40-45".

They can still add a 45", I'm sure they've gotten a sense not too many people are into the 65". A 45" would be cheaper too, and more practical. They can capture both markets this way, the way Apple and Google make 2 differently sized phones.

 

[elvn]

Anything over 40" 4k at desk distances is over 108.8 ppi of 27" 2560 x 1440.


The 4k in this graphic should be about 40.3"

 

[mms]

Do u think guys we can achieve hardcore high ranks in shooter games like csgo , doom and overwatch perfectly on this size 65'' at 6 feet away ?

 

[MistaSparkul]

Do u think guys we can achieve hardcore high ranks in shooter games like csgo , doom and overwatch perfectly on this size 65'' at 6 feet away ?

Well if that's what you want then you'd be better off with one of the 24 inch 240Hz monitors probably.

 

[mms]

Well if that's what you want then you'd be better off with one of the 24 inch 240Hz monitors probably.

Lol what i want is RPG games and shooter games too but i prefer big size with much better clearity detail . I think 2m will be enough for this size 65'' whether for PC Gaming or Consoles and as a TV for movies .

 

[Skott]

I'm sure all the manufacturers know there is a craving by some of us for a 43"-49" version but I think they see us as a small minority. Obviously if they believed there was serious money to be made they'd do it. Apparently their research says there is more money to be made with a 65" model. Not that I'm agreeing with them nor defending them..

 

[AORUS]

Lol what i want is RPG games and shooter games too but i prefer big size with much better clearity detail . I think 2m will be enough for this size 65'' whether for PC Gaming or Consoles and as a TV for movies .

2.4/4.1m for a 65" that's if you got a big room to view/play games in peace.

I read the DisplayPort connection despite the fact that it uses variable refresh rate. But the new HDMI 2.1 specification, the HDMI inputs on the BFGD are version 2.0b, not 2.1.

 

[mms]

2.4/4.1m for a 65" that's if you got a big room to view/play games in peace.

I read the DisplayPort connection despite the fact that it uses variable refresh rate. But the new HDMI 2.1 specification, the HDMI inputs on the BFGD are version 2.0b, not 2.1.

I think u don't need HDMI 2.1 in this BFGD because display port 1.4 can do 4K at 120hz .

 

[AORUS]

Just for fun

 

[elvn]

I'm sure all the manufacturers know there is a craving by some of us for a 43"-49" version but I think they see us as a small minority. Obviously if they believed there was serious money to be made they'd do it. Apparently their research says there is more money to be made with a 65" model. Not that I'm agreeing with them nor defending them..

This monitor is for the living room where people have been pc gaming on tvs or would like to if they had a monitor such as this one so they wouldn't have to suffer the 60hz, no variable refresh rate, etc tradeoffs.



As for 40", a 40" 16:9 is the same width as a 38" 21:9 ultrawide. so that would be good for a desk if they made a 40" 4k 120hz FALD HDR g-sync since it would allow you to run a non-standard 38" ultrawide resolution like 3840x1440 or x 1600 1:1 pixel letter-boxed with bars top/bottom. This would allow you to view the monitor closer when gaming and you'd get higher frame rates to fill the higher hz, so you'd get more of the higher hz benefits. You could also run 3440 x 1440 with a letterbox "frame" border/windowed. The ultrawide resolutions would allow you to sit closer,using the ends of the wide aspect more for immersion and added game world real-estate. You could also run a smaller 16:9 rez letter-boxed/windowed 1:1, like 2560 x 1600.

So an option on larger, high resolution monitors could be to sort of downsize the game window more depending on how demanding the game is vs your chosen balance of graphics settings and gpu power. In any case, you would switch back to 4k for easy to render games and for desktop/app use of course.

 

[elvn]

I think this kind of tech would be a better resolution err.. resolution. Better than lowering the entire screen resolution.

https://www.google.com/patents/US20160267716

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...ing-tech-could-revolutionize-virtual-reality/


There have been other articles about similar technologies. The idea is that you use eye-tracking and have a special display that only renders full 1:1 pixel resolution in your focal circle. All of the peripheral extents where your eyes aren't focusing are rendered at a lower resolution and/or lower scene complexity in the game world engine.

This works best when the screen is large to your perspective, with it's extents peripheral for immersion. A simpler example would be sitting up close to a triple monitor setup where the side monitors were rendered at a lower resolution and/or at a lower scene complexity. Whichever screen you turned to look at with eye tracking, the other two would drop down. This kind of tech with large screens (to your perspective in the case of VR), does a similar thing with the peripheral vision zone (periphery outside of your focal circle/cone) centrally or in relation to wherever you look around physically on the single screen.

 

[NamelessPFG]

So what's the advantage of having a 65" and putting it farther away vs. having a 43" at normal viewing distance? You're still seeing the same thing.

Local multiplayer with friends sitting next to you feels more comfortable that way. Everyone gets a good view of the action.

And before you ask why anyone would do that on PC instead of consoles, I'll just point to stuff like Duck Game, Stick Fight: The Game and Screencheat. Ridiculously fun with the right friends... perhaps too much so when someone else in the house barges in and yells at everyone to quiet down.

If that's not AAA for your tastes, there's also CoD:BO3 (albeit sadly only two-player even if you have three or four gamepads). One of the few cases I can think of where split-screen doesn't just get axed on PC for no reason like with Halo and Borderlands, never mind that one gaming-grade PC is expensive enough and I can't just rebuy a bunch of games for my little bro's Steam account so we can just LAN up instead.

I also suspect that having more space allows for surround sound speaker systems to not suck should one opt to go in that direction. I've been thinking about branching out in that direction for the PC room ever since I picked up a TX-SR806 for all of $20 in working order, but I need speakers that work effectively in a roughly 15'x15' room and don't take up too much space; not quite nearfield, roughly bookshelf size (though vintage Smaller Advents are pushing the size constraints).

In turn, that also raises the question of how these new BFGD things handle audio. A/V receivers sure as hell aren't packing DisplayPort, and if someone wants to take advantage of surround speakers, it's likely that these displays will need to leverage the HDMI Audio Return Channel for PCs connected through DisplayPort to save the hassle of having to run an additional HDMI cable from the PC to the receiver.

 

[Armenius]

Local multiplayer with friends sitting next to you feels more comfortable that way. Everyone gets a good view of the action.

And before you ask why anyone would do that on PC instead of consoles, I'll just point to stuff like Duck Game, Stick Fight: The Game and Screencheat. Ridiculously fun with the right friends... perhaps too much so when someone else in the house barges in and yells at everyone to quiet down.

If that's not AAA for your tastes, there's also CoD:BO3 (albeit sadly only two-player even if you have three or four gamepads). One of the few cases I can think of where split-screen doesn't just get axed on PC for no reason like with Halo and Borderlands, never mind that one gaming-grade PC is expensive enough and I can't just rebuy a bunch of games for my little bro's Steam account so we can just LAN up instead.

I also suspect that having more space allows for surround sound speaker systems to not suck should one opt to go in that direction. I've been thinking about branching out in that direction for the PC room ever since I picked up a TX-SR806 for all of $20 in working order, but I need speakers that work effectively in a roughly 15'x15' room and don't take up too much space; not quite nearfield, roughly bookshelf size (though vintage Smaller Advents are pushing the size constraints).

In turn, that also raises the question of how these new BFGD things handle audio. A/V receivers sure as hell aren't packing DisplayPort, and if someone wants to take advantage of surround speakers, it's likely that these displays will need to leverage the HDMI Audio Return Channel for PCs connected through DisplayPort to save the hassle of having to run an additional HDMI cable from the PC to the receiver.

I have 5.1 speakers, so direct channel or TOSLINK from my sound card is good enough for me.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

I have 5.1 speakers, so direct channel or TOSLINK from my sound card is good enough for me.

Remember the lag necessary for encoding the lossy DD5.1/DTS5.1 signals for transport over TOSLINK...

 

[elvn]

I also suspect that having more space allows for surround sound speaker systems to not suck should one opt to go in that direction. I've been thinking about branching out in that direction for the PC room ever since I picked up a TX-SR806 for all of $20 in working order, but I need speakers that work effectively in a roughly 15'x15' room and don't take up too much space; not quite nearfield, roughly bookshelf size (though vintage Smaller Advents are pushing the size constraints).

This all started out with radio broadcasts in the living room, then televisions.. then a console with pong and later an atari 2600 (or others) dragged onto the floor of the living room or rec room, and maybe a pc desk (amiga, c64, 386.. etc) tucked away somewhere in a bedroom or front hall nook like a tiny bookshelf against a wall. A lot of people would stick a pc on a pre-existing table or a cabinet and didn't think it worth buying a desk or a desk chair, or a 2nd phone line. Even now there is a wide spectrum of pc/gaming setups. Some include a dedicated office room setup, some have their own computer room where the computer/desk is facing out from the wall or is away from walls giving a lot more space to the aesthetic. Some have a pc or their main pc on their TV in the living room.

I'm guessing that in the future some people who have the room and budget will set up a VR / AR capable computer room like some people dedicate a room to home theater with surround sound now, a room to music instruments and DAW with a pc, or how people dedicate a room to being a work-out/exercise room. For people who don't have the space or don't want/don't have the budget for having that, there will probably be places they can go to experience it just like going to the movies instead of building a home theater, or getting a gym membership instead of building a work-out room, or in the old days, arcades instead of lower quality home consoles.

In the case of this monitor, if you had the room you could do the "open floor plan" version of a pc desk, with properly positioned 5.1, 7.2, or 9.2 (7.2 + 2 atmos in ceiling) speaker placement, or you could do something like the couchmaster couch desk at a couch either in a dedicated pc room or taking over the living room TV space for dual duty display use. In the latter case you might run into problems with other people wanting to watch video content though. In the old days this was a problem with single tv homes with consoles, and single phone line homes with pc+internet/bbs.. MUDS, etc.

 

[Murzilka]

Big Fucking God Damn

 

[NamelessPFG]

I have 5.1 speakers, so direct channel or TOSLINK from my sound card is good enough for me.

I could do that already with my X-Fi Titanium HD, but I figure it's one less cable I have to worry about - and besides, LPCM 5.1/7.1 is preferred when available. DisplayPort can handle that, it's just that AVRs are HDMI-only.

Also, half the reason I want a BFGD in the first place, as mentioned before, is that it would do wonders for console gaming too (huge screen, low input lag, decent image quality), and the Wii U and Switch both require HDMI if you want anything more than stereo simply because Nintendo can't be arsed to license Dolby Digital or DTS like the others; LPCM only. (Never mind how many of their older games utilized Dolby Pro Logic II...) S/PDIF passthrough would just downmix to stereo PCM, if my family's Vizio E420i-A0 is any indication. Utterly pointless.

My original Xbox and PS3 are far more straightforward with their TOSLINK S/PDIF ports and Dolby Digital encoding; I actually use my SU-DH1 to get Dolby Headphone surround out of 'em without issue, but doing the same with more recent Nintendo hardware basically requires a Smyth Realiser. I'm not that rich, and if I was, I'd already have a decent set of 7.1 speakers surrounding me. (Well, that or dedicate the space to a better AVR with Dolby Headphone at a fraction of the cost, perhaps an older Marantz or Harmon/Kardon model.)

Finally, there's the matter of wanting to give sound equal importance to the visuals. Driving a 5.1 speaker setup with lossy Dolby Digital/AC-3 or DTS is kinda like buying a fancy G-SYNC monitor and only feeding it 60 Hz video over HDMI. (And on that note, far too many retail stores do this with their G-SYNC display setups; I keep having to tell the reps to get it right and use DisplayPort if they want to show it off properly.)

 

[jdempsey]

This monitor is for the living room where people have been pc gaming on tvs or would like to if they had a monitor such as this one so they wouldn't have to suffer the 60hz, no variable refresh rate, etc tradeoffs.



As for 40", a 40" 16:9 is the same width as a 38" 21:9 ultrawide. so that would be good for a desk if they made a 40" 4k 120hz FALD HDR g-sync since it would allow you to run a non-standard 38" ultrawide resolution like 3840x1440 or x 1600 1:1 pixel letter-boxed with bars top/bottom. This would allow you to view the monitor closer when gaming and you'd get higher frame rates to fill the higher hz, so you'd get more of the higher hz benefits. You could also run 3440 x 1440 with a letterbox "frame" border/windowed. The ultrawide resolutions would allow you to sit closer,using the ends of the wide aspect more for immersion and added game world real-estate. You could also run a smaller 16:9 rez letter-boxed/windowed 1:1, like 2560 x 1600.

So an option on larger, high resolution monitors could be to sort of downsize the game window more depending on how demanding the game is vs your chosen balance of graphics settings and gpu power. In any case, you would switch back to 4k for easy to render games and for desktop/app use of course.

Yep. I have and love gaming on a 65" 4k TV in my living room, except even with a pretty nice 4k, 60hz (Samsung KS8000) tv, after getting a 120hz g-sync display, I can't stand playing FPS's on it. However, pretty much *ANYTHING* else, I can play with a controller, I play on the TV, and even sitting 10 ft away, which is comfortable, my 34" ultrawide looks tiny on the desk, it's immersive, and I love g-sync and the refresh, but I can't help but feel like neither option is optimal.


If I had a 120hz HDR 4k g-sync tv that was fast, I'd be more than content, and I doubt I'd bother with anything else. Maybe a cheapo IPS for web browsing in portrait on the desk, but there'd be no reason to not do all my gaming in the living room at that point.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

If they come out with a 42-44" version I'll definitely be on top of one of these to replace my 48" JS9000.

Right now though, these appear to be the specs:

- 65 inches in size
- Full-array LED panel with Quantum Dot Enhancement
- 4K resolution for high-resolution gaming
- HDR 10 support (but with HDR 10, not necessarily Dolby Vision)
- 120Hz refresh rate
- Nvidia G-Sync for dynamic refresh rate
- DisplayPort 1.4 support
- Built-in Nvidia Shield TV set-top box

Most of these I am fine with. 65" is just too large though, and I hate the fact that I'd be forced to pay for a built in Nvidia shield I do not want.

I also cringe at buying anything that uses a proprietary standard, and would be much happier buying one of the 2018 TV's that use the variable refresh standard and is supposedly compatible with AMD's Freesync, but since AMD doesn't have a high end GPU worth shit on the horizon, this sadly just isn't an option.

I'm looking to upgrade my Pascal Titan in 2018, and get a 42-44" variable refresh 4k screen when available, but my minimum requirements are for a single GPU (no crossfire or SLI) capable of having minimum frame rates never dropping below 60fps in every single title I am interested in, when set to 4k Ultra settings.

My Pascal Titan, overclocked on water is like 80% of the way there, but I'll need something a bit faster, and I just don't see AMD delivering a GPU that can pull this off, which means for my next screen I will be forced to go with this proprietary BFGD nonsense. That is - unless - Nvidia decides to open up compatibility with variable refresh TV's. This would be great, but I highly doubt they'll do it. They are a shitty company looking to leverage their performance crown to force you to pay extra for accessories they collect license fees on, and have no incentive what so ever to change their ways. I cant believe they get away with that.