why are 4k monitors so much more expensive than 4k TVs?

Porker · 30 Nov 2016 at 00:48

Seanspeed said:
Because it doesn't work like you're thinking it does.

A 27" IPS monitor may not have a significantly greater material cost than a 32" IPS TV of similar capability, but when that 32" TV is expected to sell 20x as many units, component costs can be reduced greatly through economy of scale.

I get that. I guess I just thought that competitive forces would negate it to some extend given that the monitor market must be pretty big in itself and true production cost would not have such a great disparity.

but then that doesn't stop most car manufacturers selling their 10% larger cars at nearly twice the price!

production cost and sales value are far from linked!

Greebo · 30 Nov 2016 at 09:05

Seanspeed said:
Because it doesn't work like you're thinking it does.

A 27" IPS monitor may not have a significantly greater material cost than a 32" IPS TV of similar capability, but when that 32" TV is expected to sell 20x as many units, component costs can be reduced greatly through economy of scale.

Oh I agree with oddball sizes that there wont be as many 27" panels made as bigger TV sizes but no excuse for 32" and 40" screens.

There are made in abundance both IPS and VA panels with lowish input lag and different quality to suit all wallets yet I doubt you can find a 40" 4k tv for over £500 and it will have all the bells and whistles on.

Removing the surround sound, digital tuner, operating system etc should more than cover the cost of stripping it down etc so in theory we should have 32" and 40" high quality 4k monitors for less than the equivalent TV.

In reality we dont.

Look my own screen, the Benq. Its a great screen but isnt HDR, doesnt offer the same colour gamut as the TVs yet costs £799. Ridiculous.

There should be a high choice of decent 32" and 40" IPS and VA monitors priced from £200 to £500 max but we just dont get them.

As soon as you put PC in front it becomes double the price.

If TV manufacturers could get better PC input settings that totally removed all the additional lag from the junk they put on and that applied to every TV, there wouldn't be the need for any 4k PC monitors to be produced except for the specialist ones.

Greebo · 30 Nov 2016 at 09:07

Daniel - LG said:
One thing you must take into consideration is that all 4k screens, whether 24" or 65" are 3840x2160

it is my understanding that it is more difficult, and therefore more expensive the higher the pixel density gets - i.e, easier to fit 8.3m pixels in a 65" space than it is to fit it into 24" or 27" space.

the smaller the screen gets the higher the pixel density as you know - this is why a 24" 4k is strangely more expensive than you would expect, but due to the higer pixel density compared to a 27" the image quality looks better side by side (albeit only slightly, but I have seen this in practice)

comments made about manufacturing are also true - if you picked a popular 55" LG 4K TV, and our 27" monitor, we might manufacture say 10,000 per month of the monitor, and 100,000+ of the TV for global shipment, obviously equating to the costs of business for that product being split over a larger volume.

believe me - I understand the frustrations, on the surface it doesn't seem to make sense - but when you take into consideration all the factors involved the picture becomes much clearer - much like 4K

dan

Thats all fine but please explain how any of that applies when comparing your 40" TV with the cost of a 40" Monitor? ALl the reasons you have stated doesnt apply.

Seanspeed · 30 Nov 2016 at 21:52

Greebo said:
Oh I agree with oddball sizes that there wont be as many 27" panels made as bigger TV sizes but no excuse for 32" and 40" screens.

There are made in abundance both IPS and VA panels with lowish input lag and different quality to suit all wallets yet I doubt you can find a 40" 4k tv for over £500 and it will have all the bells and whistles on.

Removing the surround sound, digital tuner, operating system etc should more than cover the cost of stripping it down etc so in theory we should have 32" and 40" high quality 4k monitors for less than the equivalent TV.

In reality we dont.

Look my own screen, the Benq. Its a great screen but isnt HDR, doesnt offer the same colour gamut as the TVs yet costs £799. Ridiculous.

There should be a high choice of decent 32" and 40" IPS and VA monitors priced from £200 to £500 max but we just dont get them.

As soon as you put PC in front it becomes double the price.

If TV manufacturers could get better PC input settings that totally removed all the additional lag from the junk they put on and that applied to every TV, there wouldn't be the need for any 4k PC monitors to be produced except for the specialist ones.

I think you're underestimating the benefits that come with economy of scale. It's incredibly crucial when it comes to lowering prices.

Greebo · 1 Dec 2016 at 13:27

Seanspeed said:
I think you're underestimating the benefits that come with economy of scale. It's incredibly crucial when it comes to lowering prices.

I agree there would be some difference but not in component costs as its the same panels, casing, stand etc.

ANything else would be wiped out by the removal of components such as sound processing, speakers, digital tuners etc.

This is making the assumption that its somebody like LG who makes both TVs and monitors.

So if each month the factory is making 10,000 tv's and 1000 monitors there is no justifiable reason why the monitor should be double the price of the TV except greed and profits and the fact the PC buyer will pay that price whereas the TV buyer wont.

beany_bot · 2 Dec 2016 at 07:37

Greebo said:
I agree there would be some difference but not in component costs as its the same panels, casing, stand etc.

ANything else would be wiped out by the removal of components such as sound processing, speakers, digital tuners etc.

This is making the assumption that its somebody like LG who makes both TVs and monitors.

So if each month the factory is making 10,000 tv's and 1000 monitors there is no justifiable reason why the monitor should be double the price of the TV except greed and profits and the fact the PC buyer will pay that price whereas the TV buyer wont.

Agreed.
Hardly surprising though is it. They need only look at what we are willing to pay for a GPU to see we are mugs for the picking.

pandem0nium · 2 Dec 2016 at 08:22

It wasn't always the case.

My 4k monitor - lg 27" UHD, freesync, IPS, 10 bit colour, 5ms response time. Was only about £350.

Whereas my tv - also lg uhd ips 40" cost about £600.

Monitor prices have really inflated over the last couple of years and tvs have come down.

beany_bot · 2 Dec 2016 at 09:03

pandem0nium said:
It wasn't always the case.

My 4k monitor - lg 27" UHD, freesync, IPS, 10 bit colour, 5ms response time. Was only about £350.

Whereas my tv - also lg uhd ips 40" cost about £600.

Monitor prices have really inflated over the last couple of years and tvs have come down.

So why have monitors inflated? can't be component costs because they use 99% the same stuff as TV's. Cant be labour costs because they are made in the same factories as TV's. Obviously they just think we can be mugged off.

Greebo · 2 Dec 2016 at 09:14

Yeah beany, I am starting to think the same.

Like I have said, I use to be fine paying a premium for a pc monitor as we got either better resolution and/or refresh rate but with 4k its a totally level playing field.

You can buy reasonable low input lag, 40 to 43" 4k HDR 60Hz extended gamut with speakers and digital tuner with either VA or IPS screens for under £500 now.

Yet I look at PC monitors and to get equivalence you end up have to pay up to £1000 and there is no digital tuner or speakers.

RidingTheFlow · 2 Dec 2016 at 09:30

beany_bot said:
So why have monitors inflated? can't be component costs because they use 99% the same stuff as TV's. Cant be labour costs because they are made in the same factories as TV's. Obviously they just think we can be mugged off.

Monitor panels cost more in 27-40" segment. Smaller order quantities result in higher prices. Higher pixel density and lower yields (esp. for 4K) also result in higher prices.
Also generally optical quality strictness is less for TV panels - esp. in regards with DSE (since TVs hardly ever display sheets of uniform colour).

Greebo · 2 Dec 2016 at 09:46

RidingTheFlow said:
Monitor panels cost more in 27-40" segment. Smaller order quantities result in higher prices. Higher pixel density and lower yields (esp. for 4K) also result in higher prices.
Also generally optical quality strictness is less for TV panels - esp. in regards with DSE (since TVs hardly ever display sheets of uniform colour).

Rubbish! How come?

32" and 40" 4k panel is the same one used in the TV and the monitor. There is no higher pixel density anymore.

That excuse worked when TVs were 1080P and monitors were 1440p and higher refresh but they are all 4k 60Hz.

As for optical quality I cant pass comment. Perhaps the best ones are used for the monitors and the lesser ones got to the TVs. Still doesnt justify double the price tag esp when you the quality of the PC monitors with poor uniformity and horrendous backlight bleed etc.

RidingTheFlow · 2 Dec 2016 at 21:01

Greebo said:
32" and 40" 4k panel is the same one used in the TV and the monitor.

If its so, can you give concrete examples of such TV and monitor which use same panel, but drastically differ in price without cutting on something else (like slow/cheap scaler with high lag)?

jigger · 3 Dec 2016 at 15:02

Just about all of the off brand Korean screens offer that.

RidingTheFlow · 3 Dec 2016 at 19:32

jigger said:
Just about all of the off brand Korean screens offer that.

Sorry, offer what? You mean using panels from TVs? But these Korean ones are not expensive - I thought it was about was monitors which are significantly more expensive than TVs. Also, you truly will get what you pay for with them.

jigger · 3 Dec 2016 at 20:14

RidingTheFlow said:
Sorry, offer what? You mean using panels from TVs? But these Korean ones are not expensive - I thought it was about was monitors which are significantly more expensive than TVs. Also, you truly will get what you pay for with them.

Why ask if you already know...

adrichardson81 · 3 Dec 2016 at 23:49

Something to bear in mind with 4k is backlighting. TVs rarely display fine, high contrast details, so they can go for less nuanced backlighting with fewer dimming zones. Monitors, on the other hand, demand more dimming zones to avoid haloing. Presumably this is part of the cost hit and is the main reason we haven't seen HDR friendly monitors yet.

I don't know if Sony's calibrated beam LED backlighting (which comes quite close OLED to OLED without the side effects) solves these problems though. Anyone tried a 2016 z-series?

4K8KW10 · 2 Sep 2017 at 07:56

Hi there,

I have just asked Google why 4K monitors are still so expensive and it gave me this thread in return. So, I have decided to join the discussion here.

Daniel - LG said:
One thing you must take into consideration is that all 4k screens, whether 24" or 65" are 3840x2160

it is my understanding that it is more difficult, and therefore more expensive the higher the pixel density gets - i.e, easier to fit 8.3m pixels in a 65" space than it is to fit it into 24" or 27" space.

the smaller the screen gets the higher the pixel density as you know - this is why a 24" 4k is strangely more expensive than you would expect, but due to the higer pixel density compared to a 27" the image quality looks better side by side (albeit only slightly, but I have seen this in practice)

comments made about manufacturing are also true - if you picked a popular 55" LG 4K TV, and our 27" monitor, we might manufacture say 10,000 per month of the monitor, and 100,000+ of the TV for global shipment, obviously equating to the costs of business for that product being split over a larger volume.

believe me - I understand the frustrations, on the surface it doesn't seem to make sense - but when you take into consideration all the factors involved the picture becomes much clearer - much like 4K

dan

Daniel,

I have one question directly to you because I see you are a representative of one of the bigger display manufacturers.
The high prices of the 4K monitors and their relatively low quantity of offered models (compared to the old technology of Full HD) have a negative influence on the demand.
That's why you ship lower quantity of the 4K monitors - because people like me will not pay the premium prices.
My question - do you have any plans for promotions and prices stabilisation in the near future?

I'm in the market for a 22-24" 4K monitor and I'd love to buy one with A class energy efficiency, for something like 200 euros. When will it be possible?

Thank you.

Hedge · 2 Sep 2017 at 08:59

I've ranted about the monitor market a lot on here. The price they demand is ridiculous. I have a 1440p Korean ips sitting alongside a 1440p Aoc agon g sync ips. One cost £200 5 years ago. One costs near £600 right now. In that 5 years they have developed G sync and a high refresh rate.

People were overclocking Korean Ips monitors to 100hz 5 years ago.

I have a Panasonic Dx902b TV in my living room. It's image quality is spectacular. It makes my monitors look like utter trash in comparison. More than double the size, multiple apps installed, multiple connections, a metal bezel, a great quality stand with brushed metal and leather accents. Bought for about the same price as what Asus ask for new high end gaming monitors.

It's time we should all get a good quality 1440p for £300 max and then 4k for £500. Monitor market has been relatively stagnant for years.

aoaaron · 2 Sep 2017 at 10:18

Hedge said:
I've ranted about the monitor market a lot on here. The price they demand is ridiculous. I have a 1440p Korean ips sitting alongside a 1440p Aoc agon g sync ips. One cost £200 5 years ago. One costs near £600 right now. In that 5 years they have developed G sync and a high refresh rate.

People were overclocking Korean Ips monitors to 100hz 5 years ago.

I have a Panasonic Dx902b TV in my living room. It's image quality is spectacular. It makes my monitors look like utter trash in comparison. More than double the size, multiple apps installed, multiple connections, a metal bezel, a great quality stand with brushed metal and leather accents. Bought for about the same price as what Asus ask for new high end gaming monitors.

It's time we should all get a good quality 1440p for £300 max and then 4k for £500. Monitor market has been relatively stagnant for years.

Exactly. I had the same dilemma of a, 58 inch 902b for around 1-1.2k, 65inch 902b for around £1700-1800 or an ultrawide monitor for around 1k.

Any high end LCD FALD panel just makes a mockery of the monitor market. At least with OLED Tvs, you can point out image retention and burn in.

4k is a real game changer for the pixel density argument and screen size. Before at least in 720p and 1080p, having too big of a screen could make stuff look quite ugly but now it just looks spectacular.

Sadly I don't want to be bent over for a 1080ti atm.

Greebo · 2 Sep 2017 at 11:03

And Daniel your comments about monitor size falls down when you looks at 32 and 40 inch 4K TVs which are vastly superior and a fraction of the price of monitors