![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Who's going to release the first large G-Sync monitor?
- Thread starter bigbluefe
- Start date
Its really quite amazing just how good the ZR30W is holding up as a primary screen. I freaking still love mine.
Nitemare3219
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2015
- Messages
- 206
Ultra-wide... not any different than a 27" in terms of vertical size.
But that's a 21:9 screen, so it's still tiny. Those things are short.
Absolutely. Having 32"@4K BenQ from some time I know what would the ultimate monitor be. The height of the 32" is about the maximum one can reasonably have on the desktop, I am using BenQ lowered so that it touches the desk and it fills then the visual field nicely without the need to rise head. Horizontally though there is still place for expansion to the 21:9 curved[/I ]format, it would make the 32" a Kim Kardashian of monitors
. Such monitor would have 5120x2160 pixels but it would not harm if the number of vertical lines is increased a little making manipulations of full 4K windows possible, e.g. to 5376x2304 pixels. That would be then a 5K monitor but much better in my opinion from the current 16:9 5Kmonitors.
Not sure if serious, did sitting closer cross your mind? The ZR30W is a 1st class piece of super glowy+grainy wide gamut trash which is inferior to the XB270HU in every way except size, unless one mistakes the inaccurate and over-saturated wide gamut colours for 'quality.' The Samsung U32E850R is the only upcoming 32" with Sync tech which has been announced.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,295
Yeah I agree, the perceived size and ppi are relative to your viewing distance.
The 2560x examples and the text explanation regarding them in this graphic I made applies.
There is also the fact that you are better off running 16:9 (even on a 16:10 panel) for the vast majority of games since they use HOR+, virtual cinematography and virtual cameras/lenses, and g-sync monitors are made for gaming.
Personally I'm hoping someone will manage to make a 21:9 3440x1440 at 144hz with g-sync eventually. Hopefully it won't be as a long a wait as dp 1.3 - 1.4a output gpus and input monitor generation.
The 2560x examples and the text explanation regarding them in this graphic I made applies.
There is also the fact that you are better off running 16:9 (even on a 16:10 panel) for the vast majority of games since they use HOR+, virtual cinematography and virtual cameras/lenses, and g-sync monitors are made for gaming.
Personally I'm hoping someone will manage to make a 21:9 3440x1440 at 144hz with g-sync eventually. Hopefully it won't be as a long a wait as dp 1.3 - 1.4a output gpus and input monitor generation.
Last edited:
Im a 34" 21:9, 3440 x 1440 guy (see sig) and I love it. I tired the ROG swift (27", 2560 x 1440) briefly. It seemed so small after getting used to my 34" LG that I had to pull out the tape measure and confirm its diagonal width actually was 27". I thought maybe I had been accidentally shipped an unknown 24" version
Im really hopefully about the new acer 34" w/ g-sync coming out. Im a bit bummed out it turned out to be 75hz instead of 120-144, but I think it will be a good stop-gap monitor until we see big 4Ks w/ g-sync (and also >60 hz I hope)
Always keep your original box in good shape and you can recover a surprisingly large amount of $$ from selling your old monitors on Ebay. I recently (in under a year I believe) went from my Dell 27" 2560 x 1440 ---> LG 34" flat screen 3440 x 1440 ---> Asus 27" ROG Swift ----> LG 34" curved 3440 x 1440, and I wasn't out an arm and a leg because each time I bought a new screen, afterwards I got a pretty decent price for my previous one on Ebay. The day that 34" 75hz Acer drops, Im ordering one, and the day it shows up, (assuming I like the colors and gaming on it), the curved LG 34" will be listed on Ebay,
Im really hopefully about the new acer 34" w/ g-sync coming out. Im a bit bummed out it turned out to be 75hz instead of 120-144, but I think it will be a good stop-gap monitor until we see big 4Ks w/ g-sync (and also >60 hz I hope)
Always keep your original box in good shape and you can recover a surprisingly large amount of $$ from selling your old monitors on Ebay. I recently (in under a year I believe) went from my Dell 27" 2560 x 1440 ---> LG 34" flat screen 3440 x 1440 ---> Asus 27" ROG Swift ----> LG 34" curved 3440 x 1440, and I wasn't out an arm and a leg because each time I bought a new screen, afterwards I got a pretty decent price for my previous one on Ebay. The day that 34" 75hz Acer drops, Im ordering one, and the day it shows up, (assuming I like the colors and gaming on it), the curved LG 34" will be listed on Ebay,
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,295
At the same perceived ppi and screen width (moving the 16:9 monitor a little closer) until the 2560x and 2560x widths match, a 30" and a 27" are a much slimmer difference in size. The 30" 's pixels are just a lot larger which can give a false impression of a larger difference in resolution and desktop real-estate.
With virtual lenses/virtual cinematography and the same expressed in HOR+ gaming, you are seeing the same scene height in any given 16:9 vs 16:10 at the same virtual camera distance. A wider lens, and a wider virtual lens, i.e. 16:9 (or wider, like 21:9) aspect ratio will always show more scene.
There are much larger 4k screens available if you are stuck on having a big screen, but they still show the exact same 16:9 scene, just with greater pixel density. Outside of gaming, a large 4k screen (34", 38" , 40") at a desk would give a ton more desktop real-estate and physical screen size (while still being 16:9). Unfortunately there won't be 120hz input 4k screens for gaming until they have dp 1.3 - 1.4a inputs and 120hz circuitry, and we have dp 1.3 - 1.4a output gpus.
With virtual lenses/virtual cinematography and the same expressed in HOR+ gaming, you are seeing the same scene height in any given 16:9 vs 16:10 at the same virtual camera distance. A wider lens, and a wider virtual lens, i.e. 16:9 (or wider, like 21:9) aspect ratio will always show more scene.
There are much larger 4k screens available if you are stuck on having a big screen, but they still show the exact same 16:9 scene, just with greater pixel density. Outside of gaming, a large 4k screen (34", 38" , 40") at a desk would give a ton more desktop real-estate and physical screen size (while still being 16:9). Unfortunately there won't be 120hz input 4k screens for gaming until they have dp 1.3 - 1.4a inputs and 120hz circuitry, and we have dp 1.3 - 1.4a output gpus.
Last edited:
chineseman
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,218
I can't believe I've been using this ZR30W since 2010. I've been dying to upgrade to something more current and have been eyeing the Acer XB270HU...not sure if I should pull the trigger.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,473
It's unfortunate but there's probably no large 40+ inch 4k display with g/freesync in the works. Our best bet would be to hope that Acer or BenQ slap a gsync module on their 32 inch 4k displays and that'll be as large as gsync monitors get for a while. Even Asus's 4k gsync monitor is only going to be 27 inches.