theblackangus
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2019
- Messages
- 36
So when is the next round of panels that hopefully dont suck as bad due?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Funny people say these monitors suck. They still deliver the best images on the market right now.So when is the next round of panels that hopefully dont suck as bad due?
Next year probably.So when is the next round of panels that hopefully dont suck as bad due?
People have some weird expectations from LCD technology.Funny people say these monitors suck.
Monitors are harder to make. It's funny every time people who don't have or know monitors compare a TV to a monitor.People have some weird expectations from LCD technology.
Also it would probably help with perceived value if these would cost 1/2 of their current price.
For the cost of any Ferrari (performance models) if it cornered badly that would be a huge flaw based on it's purpose. It would be a terrible value proposition vs a mclaren, lambo, or even porsche.They just have quirks like you buy a Ferrari and blame it bad at corners.
This one really have me believe you belong to the discord group who still use CRTs from 2000 while judging 2020 monitor reviews without having any of them.They dont look significantly better from a color, clarity, or motion handling than my 7 year old dell, not enough to think I would spend that much money.
I'd say that it's enough if you're upgrading from a 60Hz display without adaptive sync. Adaptive sync with 120Hz+ refresh totally worth $900+ even if the picture quality remains similar (which it kinda doesn't either because modern panels have a much higher color range).Freesync is nice but not enough to justify the 900$ + prices.
Most LCD monitors aren't capable of HDR though. FALD ones do cost too much.The HDR monitor doesn't even exist in 2015.
I feel like you are putting HDR performance above basically everything else based on your posts. With a lot of these monitors costing anywhere between 1500-3000 euros depending on the make and model, you start to want it to perform at a top tier level in all aspects but instead they have problems like:Funny people say these monitors suck. They still deliver the best images on the market right now.
They just have quirks like you buy a Ferrari and blame it bad at corners.
After I see the HDR 1400 Dolby Bright mode, I cannot go back to HDR 1000. It makes PG27UQ looks like a SDR monitor.
I feel HDR brings very little over all. It doesnt make a night an day difference to me, its a nice to have at best.This one really have me believe you belong to the discord group who still use CRTs from 2000 while judging 2020 monitor reviews without having any of them.
First, whatever a 7 year old Dell is not comparable to the current monitors. The HDR monitor doesn't even exist in 2015.
Second, $1500 is not much.
That' just it, I tried one but it just wasn't really. I mean was is better, sure... but again it really didn't feel that much smoother. Maybe my eyes just top out early on the HFR scale, I dunno.I'd say that it's enough if you're upgrading from a 60Hz display without adaptive sync. Adaptive sync with 120Hz+ refresh totally worth $900+ even if the picture quality remains similar (which it kinda doesn't either because modern panels have a much higher color range).
I went from 60 to 144 and then back to 60 (cause the new monitor died, thanks, Asus), and it took me ~2 months to adjust back to 60. HFR is incredibly useful everywhere. Gsync is also a huge bonus.That' just it, I tried one but it just wasn't really. I mean was is better, sure... but again it really didn't feel that much smoother. Maybe my eyes just top out early on the HFR scale, I dunno.
I was all excited to final get a HFR monitor a while back got the FI27Q-P, but the difference was so minimal I just couldn't internally justify the spend and sent it back.
Dont get me wrong, I wouldnt settle for a 60hz again, but 4k (Higher pixel density) was a much better visual value to me than HFR even in old games that were easily pegged at 144hz.I went from 60 to 144 and then back to 60 (cause the new monitor died, thanks, Asus), and it took me ~2 months to adjust back to 60. HFR is incredibly useful everywhere. Gsync is also a huge bonus.
HDR is the best but also the hardest part of a monitor right now. Most of my posts are focused on HDR. It needs technology from other territories.I feel like you are putting HDR performance above basically everything else based on your posts. With a lot of these monitors costing anywhere between 1500-3000 euros depending on the make and model, you start to want it to perform at a top tier level in all aspects but instead they have problems like:
While it would be unreasonable to expect these to be perfect, at their cost they should be better. Or they just need to be cheaper so it balances out.
- Crappy input selection with DP and HDMI 2.0 where you have basically one port that can do the full capabilities of the display so plugging in two computers to switch between is a no go. (Anything with G-Sync Ultimate)
- Scanline problems (Samsung Neo G7/G8)
- Issues with the way they handle the local dimming where it might be crushing blacks or causing blooming problems.
- Sluggish pixel response time even for gaming LCDs.
- Overshoot problems.
- Worse pixel response/overshoot problems at specific refresh rates on screens without variable overdrive. Since hitting above 60 fps consistently on 4K is difficult in the first place this can be more of a problem.
- Low contrast ratio in SDR content (IPS panels).
At this point I have pretty much given up on finding a 32" 4K high refresh rate screen that I want to buy and am now just separating my gaming and do-everything-else setups. It doesn't look like we are getting any significant improvements next year based on panel roadmaps from various panel vendors.
I feel HDR brings very little over all. It doesnt make a night an day difference to me, its a nice to have at best.
Better color and saturation would be great a much bigger win IMHO, as well as better contrast (but that I have given up on with IPS)
The problem is the 7 year old Dell is about 85% of the current monitors that are which I feel are egregiously over priced, and I certainly don't throw away money for little percived value.
If one of those 1500-2000$ monitors was 900-1000$ that would make me have a much harder look.
IPS will probably last the longest. What you said only applies to the native contrast.IPS is dead for me, while my Dell 34" does have good SDR colors, the contrast just plain sucks next to the VA panels I have that make such a difference in the impact of anything visual.
But HDR doesnt absolutely mean better colors, look at the DCI-P3 coverage these IPS panels are around 86% for the best of them around 1000$. My projector for instance has ~97% DCI-P3.I can't believe I have to say this on this forum, but HDR is how that color, saturation and contrast is expressed. Content mastered at a max of 100 nits (IE, SDR) can only convey so much color gamut and volume. HDR is how that's increase. Hence the sudden boost of FALD displays and why they cost so much. Or why LG OLEDs, with infinite contrast but still middling brightness (which, for WOLEDs at least, effects the color volume negatively but it is still far above non-HDR monitors,) are so hyped for their HDR performance.
Tbh I'm not that impressed with HDR either, and I've used it on both OLED and FALD LCD. It can be good sometimes but for the majority of (HDR) content it doesn't bring that much of a benefit. This may be an issue with how said content is mastered but still I personally don't even consider HDR that important. HFR and good blacks are way more visible IMO.I can't believe I have to say this on this forum, but HDR is how that color, saturation and contrast is expressed. Content mastered at a max of 100 nits (IE, SDR) can only convey so much color gamut and volume. HDR is how that's increase. Hence the sudden boost of FALD displays and why they cost so much. Or why LG OLEDs, with infinite contrast but still middling brightness (which, for WOLEDs at least, effects the color volume negatively but it is still far above non-HDR monitors,) are so hyped for their HDR performance.
But HDR doesnt absolutely mean better colors, look at the DCI-P3 coverage these IPS panels are around 86% for the best of them around 1000$. My projector for instance has ~97% DCI-P3.
Sure the super expensive monitors have better DCI-P3 coverage, but those are are nearly as much as my whole computer.
So for me the value prop just isnt there yet.
Hence my question... as Im hoping we get some new panels that are more cost effective and better performance.
For work? PG32UQ, MPG321UR-QD.So let's recap this thread a bit.
What do you think are the current best 32", 4K high refresh rate displays on the market?
What about if you ignore HDR performance and focus more on the desktop usage side?
Probably the gigabyte m32u. It's dipped as low as $600 to 650 before but often hangs around 700.So let's recap this thread a bit.
What do you think are the current best 32", 4K high refresh rate displays on the market?
What about if you ignore HDR performance and focus more on the desktop usage side?
Probably the gigabyte m32u. It's dipped as low as $600 to 650 before but often hangs around 700.
Yeah over here in Finland it's been under 800 euros once and that started to be an appealing deal even with the drawbacks it has.Probably the gigabyte m32u. It's dipped as low as $600 to 650 before but often hangs around 700.
Why PG32UQ or the MPG for work over e.g the M32U?For work? PG32UQ, MPG321UR-QD.
For gaming? M32U/FI32U or similar maybe? Depends on how susceptible you are to LCD panel motion blur.
I haven't seen any proper review of the 32GQ950-B thus far so I dunno where this one falls but considering that it's an edge lit LCD panel for $1500 I'd say its value is unlikely to be high.
Then there are also FALD options like PG32UQX if you're okay with spending that much money on what would still be a somewhat compromised HDR experience.
Absolute best is the PG32UQX/Viewsonic equivalent, the Neo G7, or the M32U. Unfortunately, those all have compromises (though the M32U is the least amount of compromises but also has no quality HDR.)So let's recap this thread a bit.
What do you think are the current best 32", 4K high refresh rate displays on the market?
What about if you ignore HDR performance and focus more on the desktop usage side?
Higher color gamut.Why PG32UQ or the MPG for work over e.g the M32U?
This is a misconception. If you just use 80 nits sRGB, any 32" 4K hrr, IPS or not, will probably do.What do you think are the current best 32", 4K high refresh rate displays on the market?
What about if you ignore HDR performance and focus more on the desktop usage side?
Damn it Jim, I'm a programmer, not a graphics artist! When most content I work with is made for the sRGB color space, wide gamut etc will just result in oversaturated colors. I have always calibrated my displays for sRGB at around 120 nits. That is a comfortable brightness level for me to use day and night for desktop use.This is a misconception. If you just use 80 nits sRGB, any 32" 4K hrr, IPS or not, will probably do.
But 80 nits sRGB is a dull paper compared to 400 nits wide-gamut RGB. Some movies might be mastered in sRGB but games are not. And a vibrant desktop is better.
IPS is meant for higher image quality. HDR cannot be ignored.
The monitor won't simply look good in SDR if you ignore the HDR capability carried with colorspace, brightness, and contrast.
The best image quality is still on the PG32UQX or PA32UCG with the most vibrant color, high brightness, and enough contrast. When they display SDR in wide-gamut or Rec 2020 color space, the SDR images already look similar to HDR.
PG32UQ looks a lot inferior due to contrast compared to FALD UQX/UCG in SDR. The same applies to Sony M9.
VA G8/G7 is washed out because it lacks color. OLED 32EP950 lacks brightness, it is only meant for sRGB mode. Both of them are far away from displaying wide-gamut color space in SDR.
It's hardly "garbage tier". People are quick to call something which isn't ideal "garbage" while it's not, it just has a couple of issues - but guess what, ALL monitors have a couple of issues.Which brings us to the "IPS panel, 4K, high refresh rate, garbage tier HDR" options like the M32U.
The only device where this will matter is PS5 which seemingly can't use DSC over HDMI. (Xbox Series can I believe?)The lack of proper HDMI 2.1 bandwidth sucks
Yup.The big reason to buy this is that it's starting to get low enough in price that it might be worth picking up and just wait a few years for better options, whether they are OLED or mini-LEDs with less issues.
Well, there are several 32" 4K panels upcoming including a 32" WRGB OLED from LGD supposedly and a 240Hz IPS (which should at the very least be fast enough to run 120-160Hz 100% inside the pixel response range). But anyone expecting these to end up in "ideal" products without any issues will be disappointed again, 100%.I feel we are in that limbo period where all the 32" 4K high refresh rate options have their own drawbacks and you gamble on buying something more expensive that could get just superceded by something more refined coming out next year. The panel roadmaps for 32" 4K high refresh rate panels seems pretty barren though so we will see.
It is garbage tier when a lot of other displays are moving towards having some form of FALD, even if it's low zone counts like 32-96. Those just haven't fallen in price yet so the M32U hold a good value proposition. If it was 1100 euros like the PG32UQ I certainly would not buy it.It's hardly "garbage tier". People are quick to call something which isn't ideal "garbage" while it's not, it just has a couple of issues - but guess what, ALL monitors have a couple of issues.
The only device where this will matter is PS5 which seemingly can't use DSC over HDMI. (Xbox Series can I believe?)
Well, there are several 32" 4K panels upcoming including a 32" WRGB OLED from LGD supposedly and a 240Hz IPS (which should at the very least be fast enough to run 120-160Hz 100% inside the pixel response range). But anyone expecting these to end up in "ideal" products without any issues will be disappointed again, 100%.
Me myself are thinking on getting a M32U for a while and waiting on how things will evolve. Another option is 42C2 but I don't like its TV nature, it will certainly give me headaches with the need to switch it on/off manually all the time, etc.
What's "a lot"? There are no such displays besides the delayed-for-a-year now X32 FP and Gsync 1152 LED models for $2500+.It is garbage tier when a lot of other displays are moving towards having some form of FALD, even if it's low zone counts like 32-96.
PG32UQ was $1000 at launch, it's likely less now. The price gap between all these first generation 32" 4K 144Hz displays isn't THAT big really.Those just haven't fallen in price yet so the M32U hold a good value proposition. If it was 1100 euros like the PG32UQ I certainly would not buy it.
It will likely go in opposite direction - there will be less and less compatibility issues with new devices as more and more of them will be able to use DSC over 24Gbps HDMI 2.1 connection of M32U/FI32U.HDMI 2.1 bandwidth limits to me mean potential compatibility issues in the future as more and more HDMI 2.1 devices come to market.
I maybe got a bit mixed with the 27" models coming out with low zone count backlights. Still, 16 edge lit zones seems like very low at this point.What's "a lot"? There are no such displays besides the delayed-for-a-year now X32 FP and Gsync 1152 LED models for $2500+.
There are some 27" ones and there are some in the roadmap for next year but that's about it.
PG32UQ was $1000 at launch, it's likely less now. The price gap between all these first generation 32" 4K 144Hz displays isn't THAT big really.
It will likely go in opposite direction - there will be less and less compatibility issues with new devices as more and more of them will be able to use DSC over 24Gbps HDMI 2.1 connection of M32U/FI32U.
In fact as I've said I kinda struggle to think of many issues besides those with PS5 even now. And using a gaming console with a desktop monitor is a weird use case anyway.
I haven't seen any proper review of the 32GQ950-B thus far so I dunno where this one falls but considering that it's an edge lit LCD panel for $1500 I'd say its value is unlikely to be high.