75hz 4K monitors over display port. Why not?

jigger · 5 Sep 2017 at 15:45

Seems the bandwidth is enough to run at these settings. Why is no-one offering it.

jigger · 6 Sep 2017 at 13:22

Seems everyone is happy with 60Hz

Gerard · 6 Sep 2017 at 18:41

Doesn't the current dp top out at 60hz? I cant even overclock my benq screen to anything over 60hz.

jigger · 6 Sep 2017 at 20:59

I can do 85Hz over DP. 1.2 and plenty of other monitors are well past 120. DP has enough bandwidth to run 4k well over 60Hz.

Gerard · 6 Sep 2017 at 21:05

Surprised that 60 seems to be the current limit then if 100+ is an option.

jigger · 6 Sep 2017 at 21:07

100Hz at 4k wouldnt be possible yet.

Gerard · 6 Sep 2017 at 21:17

jigger said:
100Hz at 4k wouldnt be possible yet.

They're probably waiting for 100hz to be a baseline for 4k then if thats the case. 60-100 sounds better than 60-75\85.

jigger · 7 Sep 2017 at 14:19

35-75Hz VVR would sell like hot cakes.

jigger · 8 Sep 2017 at 17:34

So why has no manufacture made one?

Undesirable · 9 Sep 2017 at 03:21

Because the market for it would be very small. You'd need 2x 1080s to drive it; SLI is already a very niche market let alone the pricey graphics cards necessary to run 4K > 60Hz at a consistent framerate to get the benefit of it. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the development of new monitor technology has slowed to a crawl. We don't even have proper HDR screens yet and are even behind TVs in terms of value for money, tech and QC. If a 4K monitor with 75Hz+ did come to market, you can bet your bottom dollar that it'd be... top dollar. Another niche price tag for niche tech. £750+ when really even new 4K monitors should only be £350 considering their size in relation to TVs available.

If they really ask £1500-2K for the new monitors with QLED and proper HDR, it'll be a complete joke.

jigger · 9 Sep 2017 at 16:10

Why would you need a pair of graphics cards? The bandwidth is avalible and lot of cards have enough power to run 4K at reasonable settings.

iBSOD · 9 Sep 2017 at 17:26

Undesirable said:
Because the market for it would be very small. You'd need 2x 1080s to drive it; SLI is already a very niche market let alone the pricey graphics cards necessary to run 4K > 60Hz at a consistent framerate to get the benefit of it. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the development of new monitor technology has slowed to a crawl. We don't even have proper HDR screens yet and are even behind TVs in terms of value for money, tech and QC. If a 4K monitor with 75Hz+ did come to market, you can bet your bottom dollar that it'd be... top dollar. Another niche price tag for niche tech. £750+ when really even new 4K monitors should only be £350 considering their size in relation to TVs available.

If they really ask £1500-2K for the new monitors with QLED and proper HDR, it'll be a complete joke.

the main market for a monitor like this would probably be competitive fps gamers. csgo can easily be run at 4k 100fp+ with low settings, which many compet players play with anyway

chaparral · 9 Sep 2017 at 20:57

iBSOD said:
the main market for a monitor like this would probably be competitive fps gamers. csgo can easily be run at 4k 100fp+ with low settings, which many compet players play with anyway

What the point in buying a 4k monitor to run games at low settings.... :confused:

Games would look far better at 1440p with high settings

iBSOD · 9 Sep 2017 at 22:02

chaparral said:
What the point in buying a 4k monitor to run games at low settings....

Games would look far better at 1440p with high settings

competitive gamers aren't concerned with fancy gfx settings, they could however benefit from higher res as they can discern more detail

Undesirable · 11 Sep 2017 at 00:12

They're also an even smaller market than people who want to run 4K with fancy graphics. So there's even less reason to hastily design or bring to market a whole new panel that supports slightly higher refresh rates which would cost manufacturers more than they'd get in returns.

jigger · 16 Sep 2017 at 09:30

I'm not sure it would take much work. Overclock the screen and fit a scaler that can run with a high frequency input.

xFlynnx · 13 Oct 2017 at 19:34

iBSOD said:
the main market for a monitor like this would probably be competitive fps gamers. csgo can easily be run at 4k 100fp+ with low settings, which many compet players play with anyway

Just read this and had a good old laugh.

Most pro cs:go players play at resolution lower than 1080p

In fact the most popular is 1024x768 so not even 16:9 either. 4:3 with black bars, or stretched

silversurfer · 18 Oct 2017 at 13:13

I see 250hz screens that would be relevant to CSGO or similar. Will this work over DP at 1080p, I presume thats how its connected not dvi as thats an old standard and cards dont even come with dvi anymore.

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/counterstrike/Shroud

chaparral said:
What the point in buying a 4k monitor to run games at low settings....

Games would look far better at 1440p with high settings

I'm thinking also of old games that have the gameplay people still want and 4K would improve it, having a monitor that can do everything would be good

w1ze1 · 18 Oct 2017 at 13:19

If the games textures support the RES or even Nvidia DSR (aka Supersampling) some will not as they are that old so did not need the textures to be that high to keep game size small (1or 2 CD's).

Quartz · 18 Oct 2017 at 16:58

Undesirable said:
Because the market for it would be very small. You'd need 2x 1080s to drive it;

A 1080 Ti will handily exceed 60 fps in many modern games with quality cranked.