PC display conundrum!

[PHeeNIxx]

I'm rocking an 11 year old 24" BENQ LCD that is still chugging along fine, and have been waiting patiently for the holy grail of displays. I'm itching to upgrade, but it (always?) seems like an especially bad time.

On the one hand, you have high refresh rates and VRR.
On the other, you have HDR, which seems pretty cool when properly implemented (and I get the impression it is only implemented properly in high end TVs these days, with most HDR monitors being a joke).

Having a single monitor with high refresh, VRR, and HDR is not really practical or affordable today (I know asus and acer have their new 27" unicorns for $$$$$, but I have no intention of paying $3000CAN for a 27" display).

With HDMI 2.1 coming down the pipe, affordable 120Hz 4K TVs with VRR will soon be a reality, which makes them interesting candidates for monitor use if you can find something < 50", but who knows when this will actually happen - 2019 maybe but possibly not until 2020.

Everybody raves about high refresh rates, but I'm not spoiled by it yet so I don't know what I'm missing. HDR looks like the future, but content is limited, and the standards are annoying and confusing.

So I can
A) keep old faithful for another couple years and pray for the unicorn to soon arrive
B) upgrade to a new 1440p (possibly ultrawide) high refresh GSYNC monitor and sacrifice HDR for now
C) try to find a decent 4K HDR TV to use as a monitor, but be stuck at 60Hz with no VRR

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?!

 

[euskalzabe]

I'll give you my own experience as an example: I went from a 22" 1080p monitor to a 40" 4K display. The extra resolution was wonderful for work, but useless for gaming. Yes it's greatly detailed but unless you spend your days looking at static images, you don't notice much improvement while in motion vs 1440p. Faced with your same dilemma, HDR vs adaptive sync, I considered getting an expensive non hdr display now a waste of money. So, I bought a 29" 1080p ultrawide to hold me over for about another year, a bargain at $200 that pairs well with my old 22 incher as a dual monitor setup, and I'll spend actual money in a year or two when hdr is worth a damm on PC. You shouldn't spend more than $400 on anything that's not DisplayHDR 600, at a minimum. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Brian_B]

I am in a similar boat.

One of my ancient 24”’Dell displays was turning noticeably yellow tinted. I ended up buying a pair of inexpensive Dell 27” IPS 4K.

They don’t have high refresh. They don’t have VRR, they don’t have HDR. But it was still a huge inprovement over my old monitors, and if/when that holy grail finally comes out, I won’t feel bad about upgrading sooner than later because I didn’t break the bank getting these monitors.

I have a GTX980. Yes, I have to turn down settings to game at 4K. Or I can just run at 1080 and let it upscale, which also works well enough for me. I don’t really mind either one right now.

I will also agree - 4K is useless for gaming. But the higher DPI is very nice for reading text and web pages, I do notice a marked improvement there.

I still want HDR - it’s very nice on consoles on my LG OLED, and Id like to have it on my PC

 

[kasakka]

1440p high refresh rate is the sweet spot for performance at the moment. I am not a fan of ultrawides for gaming but like them for working on the desktop.

I think 1440p to 4K is still noticeable but it's not as big a jump as 1080p to 1440p. I'm considering going from 27" 1440p display to 32" 4K next year if they manage to get a high refresh rate model out.

 

[N4CR]

I think it's a case of you can't get one monitor that does it all.
I would get a high hz gaming screen for gaming faster games, and a good 10 bit/accurate colour for creation if not the same screen a 4k/40" or bigger for TV/monitor/productivity general use. HDR and VRR is coming/here in TVs already as a bonus on top and what I'm really waiting for before pulling trigger.
I'm very interested in the scalable Samsung wall, it's what is used at commercial events for LCD screens but in a much smaller, lighter and more user friendly package. The big LED walls at events have so many cables and weigh many tonnes... takes 20+ people to rig one lol.
Existing stuff is pretty limited for big 4k too;
ZW 4k/120 doesn't have active sync but ticks most other boxes for high hz 4k use, just lower bitrate for high hz.
Or you get an IPS 4k60 wasabi mango from korea with freesync...

I personally have seen high hz back in CRT days, sure it was better but not worth it for me as I don't play many fast twitch FPS games. When I do they do fine on 60Hz for now but would like something in the 80-90Hz+ range as I find that's where I notice the biggest jump. 120 would be great as I find beyond there it falls off in benefit IMO. Sure it's there but the hardware/graphics penalty isn't worth it yet for most titles.

 

[PHeeNIxx]

Is the high refresh stuff even worth it if you rarely get your fps higher than 60? Historically, I'm the kind of person who will crank the graphics as high as they can go (within reason) as long as I can hit a consistent 60fps-ish, and I will also favor a consistent fps over one that swings wildly from one extreme to another. It feels like 120Hz/144Hz only makes sense if you can hit those framerates consistently, which is really only possible if you play games that aren't graphically demanding, or if you sacrifice visual fidelity by turning down a bunch of graphics settings in games.

 

[Nenu]

Option 3) but with high Hz and VRR!
I bought one of this years Samsung TVs because it ticks all the boxes and the prices have dropped a lot.

They use QLEDs, very close to OLED performance without burn in problems and in some ways are better than OLED.
Have very wide colour gamut and colour volume (spread of colours throughout the whole brightness), great for HDR.
Get near 2000nits with HDR, most media is specced for 1000nits, it easily copes and then some.
(this is the Q9FN model, Q8FN and Q7FN are 1500 nits, Q6 is 1000nits)

Response times are very low, way under 20ms or a bit above depending on mode and if you use interpolation.
ie 1440p 120Hz is 11ms, 4K 60Hz interpolated to 120Hz is 27ms.
You read right, it supports 1440p 120Hz! Strangely not 60Hz and it must use RGB to prevent colour problems.
1440p mode almost looks native in Windows, its very good.

HDR works when set to RGB, no need to change to ycbcr 4:2:2 or 4:2:0.
Motion handling is very good.
It supports VRR with a good spread of frequencies. 60Hz refresh minimum is 20Hz, 120Hz minimum is 48Hz.
Anti reflection tech works very well.

And its great for TV/movies!

More stuff
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q6fn-q6f-q6-2018
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q7fn-q7f-q7-2018
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q8fn-q8f-q8-2018
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q9fn-q9f-q9-2018
The dimming loss of detail and interpolation artefacts have improved greatly with firmware updates, beyond that mentioned in the article. The article is not up to date.
The cheaper Q6, Q7 and Q8 series all have the above features. They lose out on local dimming in the UK, in the US the Q8 also has local dimming.
Any 49" versions do not have a 120Hz panel, they are 60Hz max.
The minimum size for 120Hz is 55"


I bought a Club 3D CAC-1080 DP to HDMI adapter to feed UHD 60Hz etc from my 1080ti into the AV amp and TV at the same time.
The TV works great through the AV amp for everything without the adapter except it doesnt allow 1440p 120Hz.
For high Hz 1440p gaming it needs a direct input to the TV.
You can use a cheaper 1080p DP adapter to feed audio to the amp (using the gfx cards HDMI out direct to the TV) but my adapter is already in use.
I figured I'd get the best adapter for convenience.

edit
I just found the CAC-1080 doesnt allow HDR to pass, I'm in touch with support.

 

[N4CR]

Is the high refresh stuff even worth it if you rarely get your fps higher than 60? Historically, I'm the kind of person who will crank the graphics as high as they can go (within reason) as long as I can hit a consistent 60fps-ish, and I will also favor a consistent fps over one that swings wildly from one extreme to another. It feels like 120Hz/144Hz only makes sense if you can hit those framerates consistently, which is really only possible if you play games that aren't graphically demanding, or if you sacrifice visual fidelity by turning down a bunch of graphics settings in games.

Yeah if it's CS, Doom etc easier FPS sure high Hz is useful.
If it's Ori and the Blind forest I don't care, or No Mans Sky you'd be lucky to get over 70-100fps anyway... that's not even 4k lol.

I do want to see native true 4K/120 from a camera I'm working on though.. that would be very cool.

 

[N4CR]

Option 3) but with high Hz and VRR!
I bought one of this years Samsung TVs because it ticks all the boxes and the prices have dropped a lot.

They use QLEDs, very close to OLED performance without burn in problems and in some ways are better than OLED.
Have very wide colour gamut and colour volume (spread of colours throughout the whole brightness), great for HDR.
Get near 2000nits with HDR, most media is specced for 1000nits, it easily copes and then some.
(this is the Q9FN model, Q8FN and Q7FN are 1500 nits, Q6 is 1000nits)

Response times are very low, way under 20ms or a bit above depending on mode and if you use interpolation.
ie 1440p 120Hz is 11ms, 4K 60Hz interpolated to 120Hz is 27ms.
You read right, it supports 1440p 120Hz! Strangely not 60Hz and it must use RGB to prevent colour problems.
1440p mode almost looks native in Windows, its very good.

HDR works when set to RGB, no need to change to ycbcr 4:2:2 or 4:2:0.
Motion handling is very good.
It supports VRR with a good spread of frequencies. 60Hz refresh minimum is 20Hz, 120Hz minimum is 48Hz.
Anti reflection tech works very well.

And its great for TV/movies!

More stuff
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q6fn-q6f-q6-2018
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q7fn-q7f-q7-2018
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q8fn-q8f-q8-2018
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q9fn-q9f-q9-2018
The dimming loss of detail and interpolation artefacts have improved greatly with firmware updates, beyond that mentioned in the article. The article is not up to date.
The cheaper Q6, Q7 and Q8 series all have the above features. They lose out on local dimming in the UK, in the US the Q8 also has local dimming.
Any 49" versions do not have a 120Hz panel, they are 60Hz max.
The minimum size for 120Hz is 55"


I bought a Club 3D CAC-1080 DP to HDMI adapter to feed UHD 60Hz etc from my 1080ti into the AV amp and TV at the same time.
The TV works great through the AV amp for everything without the adapter except it doesnt allow 1440p 120Hz.
For high Hz 1440p gaming it needs a direct input to the TV.
You can use a cheaper 1080p DP adapter to feed audio to the amp (using the gfx cards HDMI out direct to the TV) but my adapter is already in use.
I figured I'd get the best adapter for convenience.

Damn, those VRR ranges are better than I thought they'd be. Thanks so much for posting that it's great to hear how good the 1st gen is already!
Pity they don't do a 40" range 120Hz panel. yet..

 

[PHeeNIxx]

Thanks Nenu, this is the kind of thing that has me intrigued about the idea of a TV as a monitor. I was

Damn, those VRR ranges are better than I thought they'd be. Thanks so much for posting that it's great to hear how good the 1st gen is already!
Pity they don't do a 40" range 120Hz panel. yet..

The 'TV as a monitor' path definitely seems more viable today than it ever has been, which really makes me pause when considering the more expensive PC monitors. It's too bad most of the 'premium' features are reserved for larger sets (i.e 55" and up). I was trying to keep it below 50", but as Nenu pointed out, there are usually compromises in quality for the smaller ones when it comes to HDR peak brighness, refresh rates, etc. Hopefully this will improve in 2019 as these features become more ubiquitous.

 

[AngeloBJ]

I'm in the same boat. 2 old ass monitors that barely do 1920x1080.

The reality is there is ALWAYS going to be something new coming out. At Infocom last year they were talking about 8k, 16k, and super crazy refresh rates. Bottom line is eventually you gotta draw a line in the sand. TV prices are as low as they've been in a long time. But there's something to be said about a pair of nice 1440p 144 monitors.

It really comes down to your use case (Gaming, Productivity, Video, etc) and when you think you might be ready to upgrade again. Are you going to wait 10 more years?

I'm curious to see which way you go.

 

[Nenu]

Thanks Nenu, this is the kind of thing that has me intrigued about the idea of a TV as a monitor. I was


The 'TV as a monitor' path definitely seems more viable today than it ever has been, which really makes me pause when considering the more expensive PC monitors. It's too bad most of the 'premium' features are reserved for larger sets (i.e 55" and up). I was trying to keep it below 50", but as Nenu pointed out, there are usually compromises in quality for the smaller ones when it comes to HDR peak brighness, refresh rates, etc. Hopefully this will improve in 2019 as these features become more ubiquitous.

The compromise with 49": this years versions are 60Hz not 120Hz and some ranges dont have a 49" version.

55" upward have exactly the same features as the larger TVs in the same range.
The only exception being the number of dimming zones on backlit versions (not side lit). The larger the TV the more dimming zones it has.
The range number doesnt define how large they are.
Premium features are included in the higher range numbers.

N4CR mentioned these are 1st gen, QLEDs are Samsungs version of Quantum Dots.
Samsung TVs using them were called SUHD prior to 2017 and were renamed QLED for last years QxF TVs. (QxFN is this years)
These are at least 2nd gen.
Be aware, some reviews call this years models the QxF despite that being last years designation. 2018 reviews are the new versions.

btw Kyle uses a Q9FN for gaming.