The assumption seems to be that everyone wants to game on a 60hz OLED TV but I don't, at all. Picture quality is amazing but pretty much everything else is terrible. I tried it for an hour and hated it. I thought these big G-Sync TV's were going to be way more than 2k but if they hit at about that I'd consider it (unless there is a OLED 4k 120hz TV with G-sync planned).
New 144hz 4k monitor spotted, INSANE PRICES!!!
Just buy a HDR HDTV with HDMI 2.0 is all you need for the next few years just under £900 for a decent 55-60" model. PC monitor prices are a ripoff like most PC hardware pricing nowadays.
I get that its expensive tech for high refresh rates & all the local dimming zones cost a lot but in reality you will not notice much difference between a very good HDTV anymore.
I get that its expensive tech for high refresh rates & all the local dimming zones cost a lot but in reality you will not notice much difference between a very good HDTV anymore.
Assuming you aren't sitting 2 feet from the TV and aren't bothered about sync tech..... 1080P @ 120HZ on the 2017/2018 LG models is fantastic and should fix any of the issues with input lag etc. that most people always dislike about 60HZ displays.
Myself and a number of other friends have commented on how disappointing 4k is compared to 1080P in media and more so game related content (unless the media/game is specifically made for 4k or/and using proper 4k assets) when sat the appropriate distance of 7-8 feet from the TV, so much so that the only time my TV ever switches to 4k is when viewing content on netflix, although I might even start to limit the res. to just 1080P for that now as well) EDIT: And of course, UHD films, but I get these solely for the HDR part.
Also, the nvidia 65" display will be far more than £2k, the last price rumour was £5k iirc (especially when these 27" displays are going to be costing £2k)
So not many people then
That is one of the main reasons people don't go for TVs over monitors now though, the size so if they are willing to get a 65" nvidia display then size won't be an issue for them and chances are I imagine most would rather have a better display in most areas for far less.
Assuming you aren't sitting 2 feet from the TV and aren't bothered about sync tech..... 1080P @ 120HZ is fantastic and should fix any of the issues with input lag etc. that most people always dislike about 60HZ displays.
Myself and a number of other friends have commented on how disappointing 4k is compared to 1080P in media and more so game related content (unless the media/game is specifically made for 4k or/and using proper 4k assets) when sat the appropriate distance of 7-8 feet from the TV, so much so that the only time my TV ever switches to 4k is when viewing content on netflix, although I might even start to limit the res. to just 1080P for that now as well)
Also, the nvidia 65" display will be far more than £2k, the last price rumour was £5k iirc (especially when these 27" displays are going to be costing £2k)
So not many people then
That is one of the main reasons people don't go for TVs over monitors now though, the size so if they are willing to get a 65" nvidia display then size won't be an issue for them and chances are I imagine most would rather have a better display in most areas for far less.
For me 1080p was a no go as well. It's good, but nowhere a 4K gaming image, it's clearly scaled.
I think we generally don't buy a 4K/OLED TV for PC gaming because if you are using a 1440p or higher 100hz+ Sync screen it's a come down in most areas except image quality. These new FALD screens will give us better image quality than we are currently used to (although not quite OLED) with all the other bells and whistles. For me anyway it's a big attraction.
I'm sure those BFG TV's will be way over 2k as well. I'll wait for the 35" ultrawides.
Big OLED TVs are just not suitable for people that play a lot of online FPS... I can't imaging playing Overwatch from my sofa with my mouse and keyboard on a tray on my knees! I want to be sat at my desk, which means my screen is going to be max 2 feet away. Can we please all accept that a 40+ inch screen doesn't suit everyone, stop saying that everyone should just buy an LG OLED, and keep discussion primarily on these new monitors?
I do. It will happen as soon as TVs come with HDMI 2.1 VRR because otherwise they'll cede the entire mainstream market to AMD.
So far Nvidia hasn't stressed over Freesync monitors being significantly cheaper than GSync monitors, so why do we expect a shift? I assume Nvidia cards have to be programmed to work with VRR over HDMI, whether a monitor or TV... Nvidia simply won't do this. Until AMD release GFX cards that stand toe-to-toe with the Green Team, I don't expect things to change with HDMI 2.1.
Not noticed any issues with scaling on mine, even the HUD etc. is shown correctly without having to change in game settings. You sure you set the TV menu + graphics control panel up properly i.e. the aspect ratio settings and scaling to centre?
Will ultimately depend on the person and their needs/wants, I've tried 1440P/4k monitors + 144HZ and they are nice in their own ways but the IQ is just so poor on them (my main priority). Sync tech. is lovely though (more so for not having to faff about with different vsync implementations etc. although with 120+HZ displays, the screen tearing is less obvious anyway). Personally, I find my TV to actually be better than a 144HZ IPS monitor though in terms of motion clarity, just something about it looks so much clearer especially when looking at this test:
https://www.testufo.com/ghosting
Input lag wise, 144HZ monitor is better but I'm not overly sensitive to input lag as I even find my 60HZ monitor perfectly good here (although it is more responsive than most other 60HZ monitors)
The other problem with FALD HDR monitors (main concern is the brightness when sat only 2 feet from it....) is going to be the support, the OS + games, etc. will need to have the support enabled for it otherwise, from what I've seen of dell's FALD monitor, the monitor will essentially be the same as any other normal SDR monitor currently on the market and as we have seen so far, HDR support on the PC in general is pretty poor.
Oh I know.
As said, my point was just for those who are going to be looking at the 65" nvidia displays, I can't see many choosing that over an OLED TV (especially when they will get adaptive sync plus 144HZ @ 4k in 2019/2020 probably)
Regarding playing FPS online on a big TV, the other day, I tried this for the first time in BF 1 and it actually was pretty damn good, still topped the leader board with a 3+ k/d
I found I actually did better, probably due to the size and seeing people/things more clearly.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 979
How does FALD combat the inconsistent aging of LEDs? I can just imagine after 3 years of heavy use you'll be viewing 384 different and distinct shades of white blocks.
Because VRR will be standard. Gsync and Freesync are both niche products and Nvidia have no competition at the top end so are free to charge their gsync premium. But HDMI 2.1 will be on hundreds of millions of TVs as standard.
VRR may be standard, but Nvidia and AMD are still the only players in town making GFX cards, so it will still be Freesync/VRR vs GSync, with GSync being required for an Nvidia card and costing more, and Nvidia still not stressing because they have faster GFX cards, and you have to pay if you want to play!
Freesync monitors start at £99, so I wouldn't say that they are niche and premium. In contrast, GSync monitors start at £399. Much like GFX card prices over the past 5 years, if people continue to pay the Nvidia premium, why would they adopt HDMI VRR and lose royalties?
Last edited:
There's also Intel. But it will only be another generation before a mainstream graphics card is capable of running 4K video games at a decent quality. Consoles are already almost there. Your average consumer is going to take their HDMI 2.1 console (likely the XBox 1Y or PS5) and plug it into their HDMI 2.1 TV and get VRR. How is Nvidia going to cope with that?
Associate
It is IPS.
If none of the consoles used Nvidia chips, then Nvidia don't need to cope with it. Do Nvidia want their chips in consoles?
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/150892-nvidia-gave-amd-ps4-because-console-margins-are-terrible
Anyway, the current discussion is whether these current monitors (not TVs) have missed an opportunity by not including HDMI 2.1 and offering VRR. I know some people plug consoles into monitors, but I don't think the console market is going to influence what connections and standards are employed in PC monitors at the present. Nvidia are going to ensure that GSync monitors work best with Nvidia powered PCs, and that's it, IMHO.
I think this is an absolutely insane pricing to be honest. I don't think it can be justified in the market. It's pricing that has "must have latest and greatest" all over it. I doubt I will even go anywhere near this for at least 2-3 years for 2 reasons - I'm not stupid enough to pay that price that amount of money does matter to me. Second the GPU to drive such a screen to it's full potential doesn't exist and won't exist for 2-3 generations.
Interestingly the panels have been available for a year but nvidia had issues with the tech? If that is true then the panel is unlikely to warrant the price. Which makes me look squarely at nvidia tax because they spent a lot on testing and "qualifying the product" yeah.... as if gsync tax wasn't bad enough.
I have an nvidia gpu but gsync doesn't seem to warrant the £150-£200 premium over freesync but they get away with it because AMD can't out a similar performance GPU.
So I'm annoyed at nvidia for milking their market position but I suppose that's business. I think if AMD outed an identical performance GPU I know I for one would be jumping ship.
Would be interesting for someone to find out the panel cost vs the product cost to know if my theory is correct.
Interestingly the panels have been available for a year but nvidia had issues with the tech? If that is true then the panel is unlikely to warrant the price. Which makes me look squarely at nvidia tax because they spent a lot on testing and "qualifying the product" yeah.... as if gsync tax wasn't bad enough.
I have an nvidia gpu but gsync doesn't seem to warrant the £150-£200 premium over freesync but they get away with it because AMD can't out a similar performance GPU.
So I'm annoyed at nvidia for milking their market position but I suppose that's business. I think if AMD outed an identical performance GPU I know I for one would be jumping ship.
Would be interesting for someone to find out the panel cost vs the product cost to know if my theory is correct.
The actual panels have only gone in to mass production in last month or so. They’ve been in planning and development for a long time but it’s an incredibly complex development with variable refresh rate and a FALD. also not to mention the need for DP 1.4 to carry the bandwidth needed
what I meant was that Nvidia won't give up their Gsync module in Gsync branded screens and they will ignore/block the HDMI 2.1 standard in regards to VRR(my theory). So you would have a screen with HDMI 2.1 but it's going through the Gsync module unless it is a double scaler/module implementation which won't be cheap and most likely also blocked by Nvidia. So you will always end up with the tax as someone has to pay the extra for the module. I will happily eat some salt and an old hat if Nvidia ends up supporting the VRR standard(including Freesync branded screens) as I highly doubt that is ever going to happen.
Associate
Badass Asus or Acer going to send you one for review? I'd send you my X27 when I get it in if you weren't across the pond.
I'm expecting this to have better image quality than my current IPS even in games that don't support HDR. It's a much better spec screen on paper.