Top of the range 1080P

Relentless81

Relentless81

Relentless81

Soldato
Joined
18 May 2010
Posts
12,832
I was wondering, why are 1080P monitors not advancing further?

There are OLED TV's for example but not monitors surely at this stage manufacturers can release an OLED monitor in 1080P with all the other bells and whistles rather than just focusing on the super high resolutions.

Not everyone wants 1440P or 4K or whatever is next, most gamers are happy with 1080P and a lot prefer speed, response times etc but manufacturers seem to be chasing resolution, why?

A 200HZ, OLED 1MS response time 1080P monitor sounds good to me, I cant be the only one.
 
you know nothing about tv's or monitors.

200hz OLED? give over

plasma was the superior tech but the majority didn't care they wanted thin tv's so it died.

the fact is the majority don't care. so long as it does a good job and looks good they don't care if it's the best.
 
@Relentless81:
You're not alone. Plenty of people are content with 1080p. I wouldn't mind 4k, though, as long as the 2:1 downscaling works as it should. Because in that case, I could always use it as a 1080p monitor for gaming, as well.

The main reason for the "resolution chase" is most likely the general increase in monitor sizes. And even I would personally prefer it to be around 30-40". For majority of people, that's apparently too big for 1080p, with computer usage in mind. So manufacturers are inclined to increase the resolution alongside the size increase.

Nevertheless, I think 200Hz is excess, even 120Hz is enough. With a wide-range Freesync, optimally.

As for OLED in general, that's still a fairly expensive and new technology. Try searching for an OLED TV, and you'll quickly find that the cheapest are around £1300. I wouldn't expect them to reach the mass consumer market (nor wallets) for at least another year or two. Also, if the current results are of any indication, then the OLED technology isn't necessarily the Holy Grail for gamers, like originally hailed. Indeed, while OLED does provide excellent pixel response times, the input lag is still an issue. Not sure if it's a real technological obstacle for OLED, or just a lack of interest, for now. From what I've seen, 20ms seems to be the lowest input lag for OLED TVs, currently. Though I haven't paid THAT much attention.

@Psycho Sonny:
No, I think the main issue with plasma was that it was very challenging to physically decrease the size of the cells to achieve anything better than 1080p in any reasonable size. Not to mention power draw and looming energy regulations from EU. Plasma was thin enough, that wasn't an issue.

As for 200Hz OLED:
The superior pixel response times are precisely the reason why OLED should be a strong contender to reach that. But indeed, we won't see that for quite a few years, as they will first milk the lower specs of the tech.
 
just about to get a 4k tv and will game at 1440 on it if possible.
1080 is dead because of all the supper cheap crap thats about, 90% of ppl will not pay £500 for a 1080 tv when you can pay £200 at your local super market. so they definitely will not pay £1000 for new tech 1080
 
Psycho Sonny said:
you know nothing about tv's or monitors.

200hz OLED? give over

plasma was the superior tech but the majority didn't care they wanted thin tv's so it died.

the fact is the majority don't care. so long as it does a good job and looks good they don't care if it's the best.
Click to expand...

Where did I claim to know anything about TVs or monitors? Thanks for the crap response

aatu said:
@Relentless81:
You're not alone. Plenty of people are content with 1080p. I wouldn't mind 4k, though, as long as the 2:1 downscaling works as it should. Because in that case, I could always use it as a 1080p monitor for gaming, as well.

The main reason for the "resolution chase" is most likely the general increase in monitor sizes. And even I would personally prefer it to be around 30-40". For majority of people, that's apparently too big for 1080p, with computer usage in mind. So manufacturers are inclined to increase the resolution alongside the size increase.

Nevertheless, I think 200Hz is excess, even 120Hz is enough. With a wide-range Freesync, optimally.

As for OLED in general, that's still a fairly expensive and new technology. Try searching for an OLED TV, and you'll quickly find that the cheapest are around £1300. I wouldn't expect them to reach the mass consumer market (nor wallets) for at least another year or two. Also, if the current results are of any indication, then the OLED technology isn't necessarily the Holy Grail for gamers, like originally hailed. Indeed, while OLED does provide excellent pixel response times, the input lag is still an issue. Not sure if it's a real technological obstacle for OLED, or just a lack of interest, for now. From what I've seen, 20ms seems to be the lowest input lag for OLED TVs, currently. Though I haven't paid THAT much attention.

@Psycho Sonny:
No, I think the main issue with plasma was that it was very challenging to physically decrease the size of the cells to achieve anything better than 1080p in any reasonable size. Not to mention power draw and looming energy regulations from EU. Plasma was thin enough, that wasn't an issue.

As for 200Hz OLED:
The superior pixel response times are precisely the reason why OLED should be a strong contender to reach that. But indeed, we won't see that for quite a few years, as they will first milk the lower specs of the tech.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed response, I thought OLED was close than that. I have a 3 year old 120hz 1080p monitor currently and have to use frame rate cap in some games. I would be interested in a high quality 1080p monitor thats all about performance rather than resolution

I tried a 75hz 1440P monitor and hated it, luckily it had issues so I sent it back and got a refund, much prefer my current monitor
 
Psycho Sonny said:
you know nothing about tv's or monitors.

200hz OLED? give over

plasma was the superior tech but the majority didn't care they wanted thin tv's so it died.

the fact is the majority don't care. so long as it does a good job and looks good they don't care if it's the best.
Click to expand...

You ok mate?
 
Orangey said:
This Dell looks good.

https://pcmonitors.info/dell/dell-up3017q-4k-uhd-oled-monitor/
Click to expand...

Indeed, but the pricing doesn't look good at all...

"The monitor should be released at the tail end of March with an initial price of $4999."
Oh, dear. :rolleyes:

But another thing that struck me:
"According to Dell a pixel-shifting algorithm (pixel orbiting, by another name) is included to try to prevent image retention ..."
Wait, what? Is OLED actually vulnerable to image retention? And after a bit of browsing, it does indeed seem that there is a possibility for image burn, like in plasmas. Well, that lowered my enthusiasm a little bit. Quite possible that it will be only achievable with less-common conditions, but still...

Ps. It also lacks Freesync. Which is understandable, as the monitor is apparently directed to graphic-related tasks, and not for gaming. But as such, I'm not expecting a good input lag figure, either.
 
Fairly well-known that OLED lifespan is not as long, not a problem for people who upgrade frequently though. But that is the first, I'm sure cheaper and better-specced models will follow soonish after.
 
Relentless81 said:
I was wondering, why are 1080P monitors not advancing further?

There are OLED TV's for example but not monitors surely at this stage manufacturers can release an OLED monitor in 1080P with all the other bells and whistles rather than just focusing on the super high resolutions.

Not everyone wants 1440P or 4K or whatever is next, most gamers are happy with 1080P and a lot prefer speed, response times etc but manufacturers seem to be chasing resolution, why?

A 200HZ, OLED 1MS response time 1080P monitor sounds good to me, I cant be the only one.
Click to expand...

Well, we already have 1ms 144Hz monitors. You don't need more than that, or at least the vast majority of people gaming at 1080p don't, and also don't want to pay crazy money for a monitor, so the market dictates itself to a large degree. Sure, most of these monitors are all TN (and some VA) panels, but 1080p gamers generally don't care about that, as you say they just want speed and response times. OLED is way off, so forget that for a couple of years.

If you want something premium 1080p, check out some of the ultrawides... probably the closest thing to what you're asking for in terms of 'experience' with the added immersion.
 
Last edited:
As someone who has tasted 4K I can definitely say 1080p is not "good enough" so within a few years everyone will have moved on I think. The momentum is behind it because manuf's want to drive mass-upgrading, 4K is just the easiest route for them. People don't need educating on more rez = more better tbh, they will believe it without much work. Try and convince the masses that ultrawides or "low persistence" screens are worth upgrading for... lot harder. Nowhere near as intuitive.
 
Went from 1080, to 1440, to 34" Ultrawide LG34UC97 - will never look back.

Only thing that can be annoying is some games don't support the res, but the main ones seem fine.
 
I've been at 1440p for a couple of years now, recently 1440P UW and for me 1080p is dead and buried. Never ever would I go back now, no matter how amazing a 1080p monitor was released. I am quite sure the industry knows many people feel the same, which is why their focus is going big on resolution, with response times having to catch up. The premium price the higher resolution monitors go for makes it a no brainer from a business point of view.

Ultimately, what you seek is simply not available, and nor will it be. There are some very solid 1080p monitors out there, but it seems you may be in a rather unique category of consumer that has the budget for more, where the market simple has no product for you. I understand your frustration, but it seems you are a low resolution man stuck in a high resolution world. ;)
 
Nothing wrong with 1080p if you don't mind sticking to monitors under 24".

Both nvidia and AMD need to step up their game imo, we don't have the hardware for these resolutions yet.

I'm using a 1440p monitor with GTX980 SLI and performance in most new games is horrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom