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

[B1gbeard]

Interesting to read the comments from a year and more ago where people were asserting that monitors were in most people's homes etc.

These days I can think of very few people I know that have a desktop PC at home, unless they game, and even those people tend to use consoles these days.

It's easy to forget on here that for the most part people can get their internet fix via tablets and laptops and very rarely need to have a PC unless they need the additional grunt for work or gaming.

I can only see the monitor market shrinking further compared to TVs and therefore the disparity in perceived value increasing.

I think if you have a PC at home for gaming you won't just be using it for that because you also do other things while gaming whether it is streaming, watching Youtube or listening to Spotify. When I switch my PC on in the morning it is my base for everything unless I am watching movies.

I think we could all give a different view on popularity of platforms. Most everyone I know games on a PC because like me, going from a PC to a console shows the huge performance difference between the platforms, even with the Xbox One X. Consoles would need to be doing 100+hz, allow you to turn off all of the motion and processing crap in games and use at least Freesync and have TV's that take advantage of it well. PC's are also home to games that you just don't see as widely on consoles.

 

[4K8KW10]

Of course, the desktop PCs are the most powerful computers that one can get - they are more powerful than any laptop, more powerful than any phone or tablet, or a console.
The most natural thing is to use them for all purposes - they can do everything, even things that the smaller devices cannot.

4K 27" IPS Monitor - Under $250 - Epic Deal

 

[4K8KW10]

Do you like the prices of some popular 3840x2160 UltraHD monitors?

Swedx SM28K1-01-PP2 €176
LG 24UD58 €259
AOC U2879VF €272
Acer KG281K €278
Acer RT280HK €279
Samsung U28E590D €289
LG 27UD58-B €299
Samsung U28E570D €299
Samsung U28D590D €309
V7 L28TN4K-2E €310
Asus VP28UQG €315
LG 27UD59-W €334
LG 27UD58P-B €337
Acer CB281HK €342
BenQ EL2870U €349
Philips 288P6LJEB €352
Dell S2817Q €352
Iiyama ProLite B2875UHSU-B1 €354

Acer K242HQKbmjdp €399
AOC U2477PWQ €492

There is also a single 22" offer from LG but its price is extremely steep at more than €700.

 

[Phixsator]

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 the main reason is since most people(my assumption) gets their channels these days through a tv box provided by the cable company all you need is a screen with 1 HDMI input. Therefore it would cannibalize their tv sales to offer these stripped down screens to consumers for less than their tv counterparts.

 

[4K8KW10]

Do you like the prices of some popular 3840x2160 UltraHD monitors?

Swedx SM28K1-01-PP2 €176
LG 24UD58 €259
AOC U2879VF €272
Acer KG281K €278
Acer RT280HK €279
Samsung U28E590D €289
LG 27UD58-B €299
Samsung U28E570D €299
Samsung U28D590D €309
V7 L28TN4K-2E €310
Asus VP28UQG €315
LG 27UD59-W €334
LG 27UD58P-B €337
Acer CB281HK €342
BenQ EL2870U €349
Philips 288P6LJEB €352
Dell S2817Q €352
Iiyama ProLite B2875UHSU-B1 €354

Acer K242HQKbmjdp €399
AOC U2477PWQ €492

There is also a single 22" offer from LG but its price is extremely steep at more than €700.

^^^^
From the last time, things have steadily improved. Prices drop but still considerable way to go to see sub €100 prices and absolute consumers popularity.

Samsung U28E590D €190
BenQ EL2870U €220
Acer KG281K €229
Asus VP28UQG €230
BenQ EL2870UE €236
Philips 276E8VJSB €239
LG 27UD58-B €240

 

[Legend]

Most people (gamers anyway) don't want 4K @ 60Hz though... sure, you'd shift a fair few 4K monitors at sub-£100, but it doesn't work the way you seem to think. We are not heading towards an era of super cheap monitors... by the time the type of monitors you mention are £100, they will be rather undesirable. 4K is dying a death at 60Hz, and within a couple of GPU generations it will be as ridiculous as gaming at 1080p @ 60Hz. High refresh 4K has been VERY slow coming, but it's precisely because GPUs have not pushed the boundaries... namely because of lack of competition at the top end, but this is changing.

 

[adrichardson81]

Most people (gamers anyway) don't want 4K @ 60Hz though... sure, you'd shift a fair few 4K monitors at sub-£100, but it doesn't work the way you seem to think. We are not heading towards an era of super cheap monitors... by the time the type of monitors you mention are £100, they will be rather undesirable. 4K is dying a death at 60Hz, and within a couple of GPU generations it will be as ridiculous as gaming at 1080p @ 60Hz. High refresh 4K has been VERY slow coming, but it's precisely because GPUs have not pushed the boundaries... namely because of lack of competition at the top end, but this is changing.

I went for VRR on mine. I'll get for more benefit out of smooth gameplay at 40-60fps now, and I don't really see the situation changing much in the next 2 generations (the 380 will be more capable than my 2080 Super, but I suspect it'll only be borderline 4K/60fps in games like cyberpunk).

 

[4K8KW10]

Most people (gamers anyway) don't want 4K @ 60Hz though... sure, you'd shift a fair few 4K monitors at sub-£100, but it doesn't work the way you seem to think. We are not heading towards an era of super cheap monitors... by the time the type of monitors you mention are £100, they will be rather undesirable. 4K is dying a death at 60Hz, and within a couple of GPU generations it will be as ridiculous as gaming at 1080p @ 60Hz. High refresh 4K has been VERY slow coming, but it's precisely because GPUs have not pushed the boundaries... namely because of lack of competition at the top end, but this is changing.

It is about to educate people that they can have the quality of their smartphone screen (that they prefer millions times more and hate PC desktop) on their PC desktop monitor, without getting those harmful big pixels aka pixel graining.

 

[james.miller]

Oh sweet, where can we find 27" calibrated OLED panels capable of ~1000nit brightness, 100% dci-p3 coverage and HDR for 200 euros? Sign me up!

 

[Legend]

It is about to educate people that they can have the quality of their smartphone screen (that they prefer millions times more and hate PC desktop) on their PC desktop monitor, without getting those harmful big pixels aka pixel graining.

Eh?! Good luck finding a monitor at ANY price that doesn't suffer from one or all of the following... backlight bleed, glow, dirt/dust under the panel, ghosting, smearing, pixel inversion, text legibility, stuck/dead pixels, flickering, poor G2G response times, bad screen uniformity, gamma shift... the list goes on...

I have no idea what planet you're living on if you think we'll be enjoying OLED mobile phone screen monitor quality for sub £100, but it sure ain't Earth, that's for sure!

 

[4K8KW10]

Eh?! Good luck finding a monitor at ANY price that doesn't suffer from one or all of the following... backlight bleed, glow, dirt/dust under the panel, ghosting, smearing, pixel inversion, text legibility, stuck/dead pixels, flickering, poor G2G response times, bad screen uniformity, gamma shift... the list goes on...

I have no idea what planet you're living on if you think we'll be enjoying OLED mobile phone screen monitor quality for sub £100, but it sure ain't Earth, that's for sure!

My LG 24UD58-B doesn't suffer from any of them

And OLED is not OK for monitors because of image burn.

 

[Legend]

My LG 24UD58-B doesn't suffer from any of them

And OLED is not OK for monitors because of image burn.

Well you are very lucky... many people are not. Besides, smaller monitors are always more forgiving. 24" 4K is just silly anyway... even 27" requires 150% scaling.

You mention "quality of smartphones", and the best smartphone displays have OLEDs. So to achieve the quality of a mobile phone display in a monitor, using LCD would be impossible.

 

[Vincent Boyd]

Of course, the desktop PCs are the most powerful computers that one can get - they are more powerful than any laptop, more powerful than any phone or tablet, or a console.
The most natural thing is to use them for all purposes - they can do everything, even things that the smaller devices cannot.

4K 27" IPS Monitor - Under $250 - Epic Deal

year 2020 you can't get a 27" 4k under $200 American dollars unless it's at 60hz but then good luck. If it has more than 60Hz, like the 144-200 it's near $700. They make 50" tv with 75-144Hz 4K just around $500-600 range. What I have been noticing is that monitor has a serious resolution and refresh problem. Most 43" monitors are 4k at 60Hz nothing higher and also don't have a lower resolution market. Say you need only a 2k. Good luck finding one that's a 43". However you can with a Tv. Most people play games on console not pc so there is more demand for Tv because the consoles only at 60Hz. So, the less demand could be the issue and that monitors over 27"s are really tv's not monitors say like if used a 70" plasma tv for a PC monitor. When you get to desktop there's an issue with size, resolution, and refresh rates synching with the computer GPU's and CPU's. Tv's all in one to fit with the console and because of the refresh rate @ standard 60Hz it can synch fine with the consoles. People say Monitor over tv for pc, but it depends on size. Now, I'm mostly graphic arts and I like big space area to look at when I'm designing, so I'm almost tended to go with the tv, but then there's this text thing and HDR which also adds to dollar amount on monitors. I believe monitors are getting obsolete due to the fact more people play on console for gaming and specific people only need monitors. That's the way it's looking. I've been to China and other places that manufacture this crap and to say the cost is higher is absolute hogwash!

 

[Vincent Boyd]

I believe now in 2020 that the PC monitor is obsolete. Most people who play games are on console and watch more tv than they are on actual PC. The problem is that monitors above the 27" mark seem to be tv's not monitors. Most people aren't going to fit or use a 43-50 inch monitor on there desk at two feet away. People don't understand pixel ratio view point. 1080p 50" will look good probably around 10ft, but you won't have the sharpness say a 2160p. Most console players are 5ft and more away from the tv which the tv and console are synched at 60Hz. Monitors were intended to be closer of 1ft to 2ft away on a desk. A 27" 4k is going to look outstanding and fit more in a little box, and one at 144Hz or above will cost you, because only certain kinds of people need it really. You're not going to benefit playing a 4K 27" monitor at 5ft or more away to play games whether at 60Hz or 300Hz. Anything above the 27" mark I believe the manufactures are saying that it's no longer a monitor it's a tv. Why the high price? I believe it's because it's more now a scam, using HDR, Resolution, Refresh Rates and size to buy a monitor that is going obsolete. How many people use a 34-75" monitor on their desk? I mean to it to be beneficial you would have to sit 5ft or more to see the whole thing or you could actually see the pixels even at 4k. You would have to get into the 5k and 8k to really benefit at a close range. So, I think it's like gasoline. The less practical use the higher the price, till it's gone. Most monitors I've seen at 34 and above almost look like thin tv's which could be the other problem. Trying to make a monitor fit on a desk at large size where the technology isn't there yet to make these large size monitors for actual desktop. For gaming I use my 34" 4K monitor at 75Hz @ the price of $600. But, for my graphic arts I'm probably going to go with a tv just due to the fact it has more area and scaling will be less a hassle.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Still enjoy my Acer X34A but if a ultra wide OLED 120+hz monitor comes out I'll be all over it. Burn in doesn't bother me as I only use it for gaming, it just won't be on a still image long enough for it to be a problem.

 

[Vincent Boyd]

I realized too, that a year ago there is over kill in PC unless you're doing like 3D animation filming or if you're actually creating a video game. I understand the competition aspect where color lighting and speed give you an advantage, but if all competitors are going to buy the same crap for an advantage no one really has the advantage and comes down player skill. I like my ultra wide gaming monitor too, but not for graphic arts or 3D designing, because it seems too narrow not enough height on the monitor. that's like my nephew realizing all his newest products were just overkill even for coding and I mean he has all the new intel cpu, and Nvidia graphics card which he now is down scaling. Most people desktop, stream and watch tv, play games sometimes, but not for competition in which we will probably see even a more increase in price during the 2020. But, I believe if you want a monitor 34" and bigger, you might as well pay for a tv. Don't buy a 27" 4K 200Hz unless you're competing. As for me and my graphic design dilemma a 32" 4K @ 60Hz seems fine at $300 and that's QHD not Ultra wide, that is just to narrow.

 

[Vincent Boyd]

yet still people don't realize resolution pixel ratio to distance which is a big factor.

 

[Nexus18]

^^

Couldn't agree more!



If anyone who owns an OLED wants a real good laugh at just how bad monitors are now, get the latest call of modern warfare and go from monitor to oled tv with hdr, out of my 2/3 years of using oled now, I have never seen such a difference, it is literally like a completely new generation of graphics just going from normal monitor to oled hdr, crazy......

There was me looking at monitors over the last week but nope, I just can't bring myself to buy one until there is 29/30" 1080/1440 100+HZ freesync ultrawide OLED for <£800.....

 

[Vincent Boyd]

^^

Couldn't agree more!



If anyone wants a real good laugh at just how bad monitors are now, get the latest call of modern warfare and go from monitor to oled tv with hdr, out of my 2/3 years of using oled now, I have never seen such a difference, it is literally like a completely new generation of graphics just going from normal monitor to oled hdr, crazy......

True. There are a lot of games you could use as an example for me it would probably be Doom. Even for photography and 3D animation Tv's are getting so much better that even a 4k@60Hz would be fantastic up close in the 2 1/2 ft range. You might need to move your head a little bit, but it's better than squinting I suppose. Now, I've seen 5K and higher up monitors, but they're so little they wouldn't make sense, because the text and even in photography everything would be too condensed. So, to me in some instances it is a sham for like bragging rights on monitors, but I do believe the tv will replace todays monitor. I've noticed the price going up and up on monitors and prices down on Tv's that have more or same capabilities, due to demand and console game playing and tv streaming.

 

[Nexus18]

Yup most games in hdr are noticeably superior to the sdr on oled but COD really jumped out, it's almost liked they gimped SDR

I must fire up doom again to see how it looks.

One of my personal favourites for oled gaming is batman arkham knight, although it is only SDR but I bet it would look absolutely stunning in HDR with all the neon lighting in the rain.

As for res. etc., for me it goes like this:

OLED >>>> HDR >>>>> refresh rate (I'm still happy with 60HZ though) >>>>>>>> resolution (obviously within reason i.e. a suitable PPI of at least 95 and at the appropriate/recommended distance for viewing said display size)