Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,850
New 144hz 4k monitor spotted, INSANE PRICES!!!
I think they guessed the $500 figure, but anyway yes it is a nice monitor but just not worth the price IMO.
Associate
Ya some guesswork in bulk buys. Consumer market the chip is $2600!
What would that achieve?
4GB of DDR2400mhz RAM is 30-40 so its not really something to say "but this has 3GB of RAM therefore it is expensive."
But from googling the FPGA thing they have used that is expensive, so this does not look like any of the new Gsync screens using this module are going to be cheap.
Last edited:
If you have one of these monitors then clearly you do not really care about the price or value etc. But just a bit worrying the way these higher end monitors are going with the pricing, does not look very good for any of these newer Gsync screens coming out.
Except it's not really the "best".....
People want different things from their displays.
So for me and my needs/wants, nothing bests my OLED TV.
Also, why do people not learn..... The reason this monitor is so costly is because of the niche sector. TVs can sell for WAAAAAAAAY cheaper because of the sheer size of the consumer base, monitors on the other hand have a very small market, especially "gaming" monitors and this is only going to get worse with time, not better.......
Thankfully TV tech. is moving far quicker now and when HDMI 2.1 becomes common in TVs, monitors will be even more of a distant memory and only the most dedicated of hardware enthusiasts will be left paying over the odds for old tech.
People want different things from their displays.
So for me and my needs/wants, nothing bests my OLED TV.
Also, why do people not learn..... The reason this monitor is so costly is because of the niche sector. TVs can sell for WAAAAAAAAY cheaper because of the sheer size of the consumer base, monitors on the other hand have a very small market, especially "gaming" monitors and this is only going to get worse with time, not better.......
Thankfully TV tech. is moving far quicker now and when HDMI 2.1 becomes common in TVs, monitors will be even more of a distant memory and only the most dedicated of hardware enthusiasts will be left paying over the odds for old tech.
I was going to say the same thing about OLED.
I wonder if we will still have this situation in for example 3 years when there are a lot of HDMI 2.1 VRR TV's. Will Nvidia finally decide to allow VRR or will they continue with the Gsync. I would think at this point they would lose a lot of customers by not supporting VRR.
I wonder if we will still have this situation in for example 3 years when there are a lot of HDMI 2.1 VRR TV's. Will Nvidia finally decide to allow VRR or will they continue with the Gsync. I would think at this point they would lose a lot of customers by not supporting VRR.
They are going to have to support it at some point.
When they do start supporting it, it doesn't mean they have to give up with gsync, they can still keep it on and just market it as the more "premium" option.
Probably future price trends when the R and D doesn't matter as much since it was all done already
Associate
I have a C8 OLED; 60 Hz is 60 Hz. No one is playing at any decent level in fast online games on an OLED TV. I do love it for single player dark/HDR games, but the X27 beats it for most gaming.
I've used mine for bf 1 online and still come top of leaderboards with 3+ k/d.....
And with 120hz mode, it's even better.
May not be in the same league as cs:go, quake but then if you're all about competitive play and being the absolute best in those games then you will be doing what most of the pros do i.e. playing at low resolutions and in some cases even using a 4:3 aspect ratio and you certainly don't need this hdr display for that....
Associate
1080p for 120 Hz on a 55" looks terrible and blurry. The clarity of 4K in games with a lot of detail and long distance shots like PUBG makes a big difference. Just something you would have to see in person to appreciate.
When you sit the appropriate distance i.e. 7/8 feet, the difference between 4k and 1080p is very little.
As per rtings advice:
Several people have been extremely underwhelmed by 4k on my e7, all have much preferred 120hz @ 1080p than 4k.
Only area where I notice a significant improvement with 4k is text.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,850
Have to agree, X34P buries it. 120hz wasn't bad though at all on my B7, albeit 1080p.
Associate
Pushing a 55" TV 8 feet back is half the viewing angle of a 27" at 2 feet. Running a 27" 4K at 2 feet is going to have WAY more clarity and immersion than a 55" TV 8 feet away running 1080p. Not even in the same ballpark.
The thing is is that its all subjective regardless of what rtings say.
I sit optimally from my C7 and as an example when I picked up 4K Blade Runner 2049 I put in the blu-ray disc first by accident and it was so obvious that it was the blu-ray (resolution wise, not talking HDR). Same with Mad Max. Night and day. Some films not so much but that is more on the transfer that the TV.
Monitors will never be a distant memory. Many people's PC setups can't accommodate a 55" screen and for all that TV tech is supposed to be progressing quicker, there is nothing on the TV front that touches this for tech aside from OLED.
As I have always said before, if you're someone who wants to sit close to a display for PC gaming and desktop usage then a monitor is the way to go.
Personally I prefer sitting further back chilling on the couch playing games than having to sit in a chair at a desk a couple feet from a screen.
Also, I have found the complete opposite, I see WAY more detail and things on my TV than I do on my monitor despite me sitting closer to the monitor as well as it having a much larger PPI and when you throw in dark areas, there is just no contest, OLED brings out far more detail, not really a fair comparison though as 2 completely different panels.
I probably find my TV far more immersive too due to it being like a "window" i.e. the image is so clear and perfect for colours, it looks like I am looking out a window with games like far cry 5.
Yup you could say it is subjective, still, sites recommending 7/8 feet is for good reason. Personally I find it weird wanting to buy a big screen and then sit a few feet from it though, for me that is the whole point of a bigger display so that you can sit comfortably back and still see what is going on easily.
And believe me, I am an IQ whore i.e. the guy who notices a difference between MPC HC with madvr and different algorithms etc. on various sources but at my distance, 4k just hasn't be worth while, the only real noticeable difference I've noticed with 4k over 1080P is "true" 4k nature clips. Films, tv shows, games.... meh. Even with netflix, when you see the res. bumping up from 480 to 720P to 1080P to 4k, the difference between 1080P and 4k is nada to me.
There will come a point where they will be imo, more and more people are moving towards TVs now, just look at overclock.net to see how many use TVs, and when I say TVs, I don't mean 55"+, there are many who have 40-50". I just don't see why people will spend £1000+ on a monitor when they will be able to get a better display in the form of a TV for much cheaper, atm the only advantage to monitors (not talking about size here) is g/free sync and lower input lag, when those 2 things get sorted/improved then literally the only reason people will be wanting to buy a monitor is to have a <32" screen, well actually 1 thing........... as TVs are now adding free/adaptive sync even without HDMI 2.1.
Also, LG's vision of OLED is to have TVs being rollable so in the future, you will be able to choose your size of display.
I would say that quite a few of the LCD TVs with local dimming are a lot better than this monitor too, especially if you are factoring in price.
That chart is very wrong I wouldn't recommend anyone use it. Especially don't setup a TV watching room based on it. I made that mistake and soon undid it just like a lot of people. Where it says 1080p is max/worth it I found most people still benefit and see a noticeable difference with UHD.When you sit the appropriate distance i.e. 7/8 feet, the difference between 4k and 1080p is very little.
As per rtings advice:
Several people have been extremely underwhelmed by 4k on my e7, all have much preferred 120hz @ 1080p than 4k.
Only area where I notice a significant improvement with 4k is text.
Last edited:
I don't see how you can be someone who notices MADVR algorithms, but think that 4k does not look better than 1080p, sorry but 4k looks MILES better than 1080p!