The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Size matters - why do so few use big 4K computer monitors despite all the advantages?

It is not a new thing that for some reason that using big monitors is rare, but I wonder why it is that way?

It used to be that the big monitors was really expensive. In fact if we go back far enough it was even so that running a big high resolution monitor required fancy graphics hardware, but now all but the most basic graphics card will support high resolutions and a an average one even support gaming in high resolution. So it is that until somewhat recent the costs was high and therefore the perception is that it is still so causing no one to consider going big.

I have been using a 40" 4K monitor as my main unit for 1½ year now and I can not imagine going back to say 2x27" or 2x24". The 40" 4K offers a pixel size similar to to a 1440p 27"so there is no issue with objects being too small like there can be with a 32" 4K and compared to running two monitors there is much freedom not having to work around the bezels. A 40" 4K computer monitor can be had for $600 or so.

Really I only see one reason to hold back and that is there is not many models to choose from, so one in you favorite brand may not be available but that will change since the 4K TV's which are now the norm means 4K panels are becoming ever cheaper.

Have you considered making your next computer monitor a 40"?

Bones heal, glory is forever.

Posts

  • NEO|PhyteNEO|Phyte They follow the stars, bound together. Strands in a braid till the end.Registered User regular
    I suspect at least part of it is that we aren't quite at the point where you can reliably get 60+ FPS at 4k

    With stars above/below the pyres burn.
    Who shall remain/whose freedom shall be earned?
    Warframe/Steam: NFyt
    ٩๏̯͡๏)۶
    Apogee
  • JesDerJesDer Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    aside from FPS issues when gaming, eye strain is my biggest issue. A 40" display at 3'-4' for many hours can get painful.

    JesDer on
    Gnome-InterruptusZilla360Elimination
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    NEO|Phyte wrote: »
    I suspect at least part of it is that we aren't quite at the point where you can reliably get 60+ FPS at 4k

    This. I could spend a lot of money on a new computer and new monitor that supports 4k and get less than 60fps, or I can spend considerably less on a computer that will run everything on ultra at 1080 and love every second.

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    webguy20chrishallett83Elvenshae
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    I considered going with a 40" HDTV as a monitor for my new GTX 1080--for prices comparable to a high-end monitor (and about half the price of something with G-Sync), I could afford a Samsung UN40KU6300--a well-received 4K screen with HDR 10 that people are raving about (even if very, very few applications actually make use of HDR).

    Personally, I was deterred by two things: first, 40" is...really big. Probably too big for my desk. I'd have to put it at close to twice the distance my monitor sits at currently.

    Second, and this applies more to using any type of HDTV as a display--you're not going to get the same response time as a monitor, and you'll see a lot more ghosting and bleeding. 4K televisions actually come the closest to bridging that particular gap, as I understand it, but they're not exactly the same. It'd be infuriating to be scrolling through text on a dark background and see white after-images--a lot more than it'd be nice to enjoy the HDR in a scant few PC games currently.

    My solution is I use a 27" 4K monitor at "normal" distances. I'm more than capable of seeing the resolution bump from 1080p or 1440p--in fact, I could probably see it at twice the distance--and my GTX 1080 reliably gets me 40 to 50 FPS in even the least efficient games like Hitman pretty consistently (provided I lower supersampling, which I can do at 4K). Not for everyone necessarily--an overclocked GTX 1080 FTW is a pretty high-end card--but without G-Sync consistent of framerate and visual fidelity are most important to me personally. And to borrow from above, I love every second of it. It's very hard going back now.

    That being said, my LG isn't perfect either. Compromises.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • BlindZenDriverBlindZenDriver Registered User regular
    Thank you for response all of you.

    No question that if 60 fps is a must the 4K resolution requires plenty of graphics horsepower. However if the 60 is not an absolute must or the games being played aren't FPS type the immersion the big screen brings really does bring something.

    Do note however that what I am talking about are computer monitors and not TV's, because with maybe one or two exceptions even TV's with "gaming mode" aren't really good monitors. But there are real 40" 4K monitors out there which have fast response times, no ghosting issues and so on ie. real monitors.

    As for having to put the monitor further away than normal this isn't the case. That is sort of the point of combining 40" and 4K. What you get is the same pixel size as a 27" 2560x1440 there is just much more screen real estate - with which you can do all sorts.

    Bones heal, glory is forever.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    When I last checked, excluding ultrawide displays (which certainly have a point) Amazon didn't have very many 40" UHD monitors--which is kind of a shame. Most of them seemed to be televisions labeled as monitors.

    If you actually sort by category, you only get...one monitor. Which is a TV pretty clearly. The categorization sucks I suppose.

    On the other hand, you wouldn't have HDR 10--I'm still waiting for an HDR-capable monitor you can actually purchase--but again, not something many games use presently.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Zilla360
  • ErlkönigErlkönig Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    When I last checked, excluding ultrawide displays (which certainly have a point) Amazon didn't have very many 40" UHD monitors--which is kind of a shame. Most of them seemed to be televisions labeled as monitors.

    If you actually sort by category, you only get...one monitor. Which is a TV pretty clearly. The categorization sucks I suppose.

    On the other hand, you wouldn't have HDR 10--I'm still waiting for an HDR-capable monitor you can actually purchase--but again, not something many games use presently.

    After searching Newegg a bit, I have the same result as Synthesis here: there's one definite 4k monitor (as opposed to TV-that-can-double-as-a-monitor). That one monitor is a Dell with a response time a little higher than I'd be comfortable with...but it's not like there's an abundance of choices in this field: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6BM47N4426

    | Origin/R*SC/Steam: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum |
    Zilla360
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    I bought the cheapest used monitor I could find that didn't seem cursed.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    When I last checked, excluding ultrawide displays (which certainly have a point) Amazon didn't have very many 40" UHD monitors--which is kind of a shame. Most of them seemed to be televisions labeled as monitors.

    If you actually sort by category, you only get...one monitor. Which is a TV pretty clearly. The categorization sucks I suppose.

    On the other hand, you wouldn't have HDR 10--I'm still waiting for an HDR-capable monitor you can actually purchase--but again, not something many games use presently.

    After searching Newegg a bit, I have the same result as Synthesis here: there's one definite 4k monitor (as opposed to TV-that-can-double-as-a-monitor). That one monitor is a Dell with a response time a little higher than I'd be comfortable with...but it's not like there's an abundance of choices in this field: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6BM47N4426

    And again, I can spend a grand on a great computer that will run everything I throw at it in 1080. The pricing on 4k monitors is silly.

    I have a 4k tv, but I would never have bought it if I didn't get a great deal on it.

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited December 2016
    I would take 100hz+ @ 1440p over 60hz @ 4k any day of the week. High refresh rate looks much better than high resolution. I can't tell the difference between a 4k monitor and a 1440p monitor at typical desk distances (half a metre or so) unless you put them side by side, but I absolutely can tell the difference between 144hz and 60hz.

    And yes, you do have to put a 40" monitor further away than a 27" one. I've got no interest in having to physically turn my head far left or right to see what's on the sides of the screen, I want everything to be in my field of vision at the same time.

    Dhalphir on
    Erlkönigchrishallett83Elvenshae
  • BlindZenDriverBlindZenDriver Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Not sure how to search on Amazon and only find one 40" 4K monitor. Maybe it's because I am located outside the US, but still if I search for the term 40" monitor on Amazon.com and select to see just computer monitor I find 7 or 8 different 4K models and this is computer monitors meaning they all come with.
    - DisplayPort(s)
    - 4:4:4 ChromaKey
    - USB hub
    And really all the other stuff you'll expect from monitors except the stands seems to all be non-adjustable (but there are VESA mounts). One even comes with AMD FreeSeync and there is also a couple that are curved.

    Now apart from one model being Philips, like the one I have, they do all carry rather exotic brand names and all are VA-panels which is traditional found on TV's rather than computer monitors however that display type is in my experience a great merge between IPS and TA - as in it is fast, good viewing angels and really great contrast ratio (5000:1 or more). The contrast is big enough that one can game in 21:9 and just leave the unused screen part black and it is back rather than washed out semi dark as with IPS panels.

    By exotic I do mean exotic :D
    - WASABI MANGO UHD400 REAL
    - Seiki Pro SM40UNP
    - QX-UHD4020R
    - YAMAKASI O40USUT
    - CrossLCD 405K UHD
    - QNIX UHD4020R
    - AMH A409U
    - Philips BDM4065UC (I have the previous version of this)

    OK. The last one may not sound that exotic, but actually monitors by Philips are not made in the Netherlands as they once was an instead they are now made in South Korea.

    Like mentioned I have been using a 40" 4K for 1½ year by now. When I bought it I did expect I would need a monitor arm for it, but as it happens the height is just perfect for me just as the whole experience have been. As I have been running two or even at times three monitors since for ever there is actually also a 27" one hooked up to my computer, but it only gets turned on like once every other month since the 40" has room for most things on its own.


    PS. I gotta disagree with not using a 40" at normal monitor distance as that is really the point of 4K in that setting. When gaming it is much more immersive like that and for desktop use it then can replace a multi-monitor setup where there is much freedom to arrange ones windows since there aren't nay bezels.

    BlindZenDriver on
    Bones heal, glory is forever.
  • BlazeFireBlazeFire Registered User regular
    You're sitting a meter away from a 40" screen?

    chrishallett83
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Amazon's categorization for monitors, as I mentioned, kind of sucks.

    The Philips BDM4065UC is a robust monitor, at least from a cursory glance, though...it also costs more than $1000US (more in the area of $1300). To be fair, there are also G-Sync UHD and QHD monitors that cost that much and are 27", so it's not the most horrible deal imaginable, but it's a good bit out of my budget. In my case, I basically can't justify spending more on my monitor than I did on my GTX 1080.

    Stellaris--ironically a game that launched with crap GUI support over 1080p--reminded me why I play in 4K an update somehow autoconfigured my visual settings yesterday and sent me back to 1440p. I thought I was either nuts or something was wrong with my Nvidia drivers and turning everything into a grainy mess. Then again, that game actually has extremely comprehensive GUI settings that make even subtle graphics shifts noticeable.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • BlindZenDriverBlindZenDriver Registered User regular
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    You're sitting a meter away from a 40" screen?

    More like 0.7 meter - same distance that I did with a 27" and a 24" before that and so on.
    The 40", or 39.5" to be exact, with the 3840x2160 brings a pixel size very close to that of a 27" 2560x1440, so when keeping the same distance once has the same fine picture it there is just a bigger area. It is no different that when using two or three monitors on one computer - the idea is not sitting further from the monitors but allowing for more screen space. Using the 40" for productivity you can have a very big spreadsheet, edit FullHD video with plenty of space around for the tools used and so on - with gaming it is either viewing a lot more in games like Civ or in FPS you can immerse yourself more since the game takes up more of your view.

    Here is some numbers for comparison:

    Size Resolution PPI Dot pitch(mm)
    24"* 1920x1200 94.34 0.2692
    27" 2560x1440 108.79 0.2335
    28" 3840x2160 157.35 0.1614
    30"* 2560x1600 100.63 0.2524
    31.5" 3840x2160 139.87 0.1816
    39.5" 3840x2160 111.54 0.2277
    *Those are 16:10 format the rest are 16:9

    Bones heal, glory is forever.
  • BlindZenDriverBlindZenDriver Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    <snip>
    The Philips BDM4065UC is a robust monitor, at least from a cursory glance, though...it also costs more than $1000US (more in the area of $1300). To be fair, there are also G-Sync UHD and QHD monitors that cost that much and are 27", so it's not the most horrible deal imaginable, but it's a good bit out of my budget. In my case, I basically can't justify spending more on my monitor than I did on my GTX 1080.
    <snip>
    Odd - the price I see listed for the Philips is $673.

    The Philips and several of its alternatives has been discussed at lengths on HardForum.com and there are also many reviews to be found if you look. On the Philips alone there is 87 page forum thread, but there are also people discussing and relaying their experience with the even cheaper alternatives.

    Now on what one can spend on a monitor vs. the other computer parts I must say that monitor, speakers + keyboard and mouse are something I think one should really prioritize. Not only will those things usually outlast at least a couple of generations of graphics cards, but ones interface with the computer really matters 100% of the time.


    Bones heal, glory is forever.
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    I had a 4k monitor and replaced it with a 2560 freesync monitor. Yet to find a satisfactory gfx solution that supports max detail at acceptable frame rates at 4k. For games that did run OK, their UIs were abysmal at 4k.

    fwKS7.png?1
  • BlindZenDriverBlindZenDriver Registered User regular
    kaliyama wrote: »
    I had a 4k monitor and replaced it with a 2560 freesync monitor. Yet to find a satisfactory gfx solution that supports max detail at acceptable frame rates at 4k. For games that did run OK, their UIs were abysmal at 4k.
    Let me guess your 4K monitor was a smaller model. With the 40" 4K the UI elements in games that doesn't scale their UI the elements has the same size as on a 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

    Of course that doesn't change that 4K requires graphics power, but each to his own with regards to what is acceptable with regards to frame rate. I game with a FuryX, but before that it was a 7970 and it did actually run Farcry 4 in 4K with a mostly playable frame rate - something I did not expect at all.

    Bones heal, glory is forever.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    As I said, my EVGA GTX 1080 FTW gets 40 to 50 in the most punishing games at max detail at 3840x2160. Older games hit 60 FPS pretty easily. Unoptimized trainwrecks like Skyrim do not, but that's because I've got multiple gigabytes in RAM of mods and ENB on top of it, so I don't hold it against it.

    Depending on my finances, I'm actually considering giving my (still new) LG 27UD68 as a gift to someone else, but I have to figure out what to replace it with (aside from another monitor of the same make), so this thread is pretty useful. Granted, if there are no good deals on monitors before the end of the year, I'll scrap the idea.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    Because a 40" 4K monitor costs like $800 rather than $250?

    steam_sig.png
    jjae2123shrykejungleroomxCasualiTunesIsEvil
  • BlindZenDriverBlindZenDriver Registered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Because a 40" 4K monitor costs like $800 rather than $250?

    Sure, but it used to be that big monitors cost a lot more and I think many people still expect them to do so.

    Last time I looked a good 4K monitor wasn't free and when looking at value for money I think a 40" is worth a lot more than a 32". Also as mentioned a monitor doesn't become obsolete nearly as fast as say a graphics card so the extra money brings a long time benefit compared to may other computer purchases.

    Bones heal, glory is forever.
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Allergic to whimsy Registered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Because a 40" 4K monitor costs like $800 rather than $250?

    Sure, but it used to be that big monitors cost a lot more and I think many people still expect them to do so.

    Last time I looked a good 4K monitor wasn't free and when looking at value for money I think a 40" is worth a lot more than a 32". Also as mentioned a monitor doesn't become obsolete nearly as fast as say a graphics card so the extra money brings a long time benefit compared to may other computer purchases.

    Look, I have a decent wage job plus VA benefits and I'd be hard pressed to justify $6-800 bucks on a monitor that big.

    Bama wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    complacency sucks.
    It's not so bad once you get used to it.
    iTunesIsEviljjae2123
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Because a 40" 4K monitor costs like $800 rather than $250?

    This.

    They're still a toy for early adopter tech nerds with hoards of disposable income. Sure the price has dropped but "cheap" is still a relative term here. Not to mention as others have said, you need a top of the line GPU to make use of it. Honkin big 4k monitor plus top end GPU is more than a lot of people want to spend on their entire set up. There's your reason why it's not been widly adopted.

    Casual on
    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
    jungleroomxZilla360iTunesIsEvil
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Allergic to whimsy Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Because a 40" 4K monitor costs like $800 rather than $250?

    This.

    They're still a toy for early adopter tech nerds with hoards of disposable income. Sure the price has dropped but "cheap" is still a relative term here. Not to mention as others have said, you need a top of the line GPU to make use of it. Honkin big 4k monitor plus top end GPU is more than a lot of people want to spend on their entire set up. There's your reason why it's not been widly adopted.

    I'm not even going to make the jump on the next round of video cards.

    I'm going to upgrade my monitor and video card when the Nvidia 11XX models come out so I can rock 1440p at 144hz and have it be solid for years, regardless of the game.

    And it'll still be cheaper than just purchasing that single monitor.

    Bama wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    complacency sucks.
    It's not so bad once you get used to it.
    CasualiTunesIsEvilDusda
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Allergic to whimsy Registered User regular
    I will admit my upgrading desires are focused mainly around that little CD Projekt Red title thats coming out roughly around the same time.

    Bama wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    complacency sucks.
    It's not so bad once you get used to it.
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    I will admit my upgrading desires are focused mainly around that little CD Projekt Red title thats coming out roughly around the same time.

    You mean Cyberpunk? You've got some time, I imagine that game will be coming out around 2020 or so.

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    a5ehrenjungleroomx
  • BasarBasar IstanbulRegistered User regular
    I have a 24" Samsung LCD that's been good for almost 10 years now. I paid over a thousand dollars when I got it. It has caused me zero trouble, never had any ghosting, color fading, etc. I'll probably get something in the range of 29-32" when the Samsung dies but 40+ is just not necessary for my needs (browsing, emailing and occasional 720p video watching.

    i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language

  • BlindZenDriverBlindZenDriver Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Because a 40" 4K monitor costs like $800 rather than $250?

    This.

    They're still a toy for early adopter tech nerds with hoards of disposable income. Sure the price has dropped but "cheap" is still a relative term here. Not to mention as others have said, you need a top of the line GPU to make use of it. Honkin big 4k monitor plus top end GPU is more than a lot of people want to spend on their entire set up. There's your reason why it's not been widly adopted.

    Thank you all for offering views and opinions.

    I know that in some areas I is likely one of those early adopters and for monitors it has been like that forever so perhaps my perspective is a bit off. However I still think that with 4K becoming more the norm for TV's it then means TV panels can now be paired with monitor electronics to make "affordable" big monitors. This is something new in the monitor world - just look back to how for like a decade the best one you buy was a 30" 2560x1600 and those were not even close to affordable.

    I am not saying the 40" monitors will ever be mainstream, but there are a good deal of people which buy small 4K monitors that should consider the 40" size and this also goes for the few which consider the wide screen monitors.

    Bones heal, glory is forever.
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Allergic to whimsy Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Because a 40" 4K monitor costs like $800 rather than $250?

    This.

    They're still a toy for early adopter tech nerds with hoards of disposable income. Sure the price has dropped but "cheap" is still a relative term here. Not to mention as others have said, you need a top of the line GPU to make use of it. Honkin big 4k monitor plus top end GPU is more than a lot of people want to spend on their entire set up. There's your reason why it's not been widly adopted.

    Thank you all for offering views and opinions.

    I know that in some areas I is likely one of those early adopters and for monitors it has been like that forever so perhaps my perspective is a bit off. However I still think that with 4K becoming more the norm for TV's it then means TV panels can now be paired with monitor electronics to make "affordable" big monitors. This is something new in the monitor world - just look back to how for like a decade the best one you buy was a 30" 2560x1600 and those were not even close to affordable.

    I am not saying the 40" monitors will ever be mainstream, but there are a good deal of people which buy small 4K monitors that should consider the 40" size and this also goes for the few which consider the wide screen monitors.

    You gotta remember, there's a lot more to monitor purchasing.

    I know most people here would look at response time, panel type, color depth, refresh rate, and brand/reliability before size (to a certain degree, of course).

    Most of us would want a 1ms IPS (oh the dream).

    Bama wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    complacency sucks.
    It's not so bad once you get used to it.
    chrishallett83Synthesis
  • chrishallett83chrishallett83 Hi! Registered User regular
    I'm happy enough with my 27 inch 1080p monitor that when I eventually need to upgrade (it's only 4 years old and was the top of the line Samsung, so not for a long time yet), I will likely be buying a 32 inch 1440p monitor. I sit too close for a monitor any bigger than that, and I honestly feel that 4k resolutions are totally unnecessary at a 32 inch screen size.

    jungleroomxSynthesis
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited January 2
    I'm happy enough with my 27 inch 1080p monitor that when I eventually need to upgrade (it's only 4 years old and was the top of the line Samsung, so not for a long time yet), I will likely be buying a 32 inch 1440p monitor. I sit too close for a monitor any bigger than that, and I honestly feel that 4k resolutions are totally unnecessary at a 32 inch screen size.

    In the end of the day, it's really what works in your vision--I know too many people who hate wearing their glasses to suggest any real standard (and I think anyone who thinks they know the standard that works for everyone is woefully shortsighted). That's why I eventually turned around on 1440p (after years of that being my goal)--it sounded brilliant on paper, but every time I actually sat down and looked at one in the 26 to 32 in range size, I realized it wasn't enough of an improvement from 1080p I'd had for more than a half decade to actually justify spending that much money on (it doesn't hurt that compared to TVs monitor prices are notoriously inflexible).

    I can't advocate enough the importance of actually sitting down and looking at a monitor if you have the opportunity, unless you've got some workplace guideline (I have to get x resolution because my other three monitors/three neighbors have it too). Which is increasingly difficult in an industry that has utterly forsaken brick-and-mortal locations in the face of all the advantages of online marketplaces. It's the same for IPS: I swear by it and wouldn't ever go back, but what does that mean for someone who looks at an IPS panel and realizes they can't tell the difference? Fuck.

    Fry's is an hour and a half away from where I live. I guess there's Tiger Direct about 30 minutes away....

    EDIT: Also, puns are evil.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    BlindZenDriver
  • BlindZenDriverBlindZenDriver Registered User regular
    You gotta remember, there's a lot more to monitor purchasing.

    I know most people here would look at response time, panel type, color depth, refresh rate, and brand/reliability before size (to a certain degree, of course).
    For sure all those things can't be forgotten, but I will however claim than most people are monitor shopping with a size in their mind and then look at what options are available. I could be wrong of course, but given that traditionally the big monitors have been either really expensive or low resolution ones not meant for desktop use I would suggest many people don't even consider a 40".
    Most of us would want a 1ms IPS (oh the dream).

    I can related to that dream as TN-panels have never been for me - especially since at times I would use the 24" monitors in portrait orientation and that is horrible with a TN panel. However I gotta say that I have come to find VA panels to be a much better choice. response time is good, colours are almost as good as IPS and the contrast is so much better IPS it is almost crazy.

    Of course the real dream these days is a OLED monitor where the burn-in issues have been solved and it should also have FreeSync 2. Maybe next year they'll make such a thing. For now I am happy with my 40" 4K VA panel type - I hold that to be one of my better computer purchases.

    Bones heal, glory is forever.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Of course, I really don't have any motivation to go over to AMD--speaking as someone who bought the X800PRO, X1900XT, and loved both of them--Freesync included. If you're already aiming for a consistent framerate (45 to 60, which is where I shoot), the effects aren't anywhere as apparent as someone who's jerking back and forth between 40 and 120.

    My ideal monitor would have G-Sync--which would probably add roughly $300 to the price. Geeze. Well, at least game actually make use of it, unlike HDR.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    I like my 4K monitor but something no one tells you is that text is really tiny (like 8 pt font tiny) unless the game you're playing supports display scaling. If it doesn't, then in Sim City (for example) the interface is roughly the size of the desktop taskbar with loads and loads of space above it.

    ISIS delenda est
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited January 5
    I like my 4K monitor but something no one tells you is that text is really tiny (like 8 pt font tiny) unless the game you're playing supports display scaling. If it doesn't, then in Sim City (for example) the interface is roughly the size of the desktop taskbar with loads and loads of space above it.

    Indeed it is (unless you have a huge screen--than it's normal size, but you have to move your neck more).

    I rarely find it to be an issue now, because any game that actually supports 3840x2160--which is not every game--is extremely likely to have a scaling UI. Your Dark Souls-type console ports just won't give you any higher resolution than 1080p (along with old games like Hitman Blood Money, etc.).

    Of course, there are plenty of games that don't support that resolution. And for those that do and have no UI scaling, the solution is same: running it at 1080p (or whatever resolution).

    You do run into Indie titles that support that resolution, but don't have a scaling UI--that's irritating. And some games--Blizzard's come to mind--scale the UI perfect, but don't give you any option to make it a little smaller, which is annoying. Still solutions in any case. You could potentially run into the same issue at 1440p and 1600p, no resolution can fix a bad UI setup.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Captain Marcus
  • EliminationElimination Registered User regular
    edited January 11
    I went in the middle, got a 27", 2k monitor to go with my 1070. I see pretty much zero performance difference between my old 1080 and this new 2k with that card. But image clarity is definitely there. Both hit 60 FPS pretty comfortably on ultra in 99% of current titles. So it really depends on what you want to do imo. I feel like the middle ground is usually best without dropping too much $$$. 4k feels more like a TV thing than a monitor thing.

    Elimination on
    PSN: PA_Elimination 3DS: 4399-2012-1711 Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/TheElimination/
    banner.png
    Ketarschuss
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    It really does vary from person to person. On a desktop, 1440p just isn't acceptable to me any more--it's barely an improvement over 1080p in any sort of slow-pace game, I might as well have stuck with it in the first place and put that money elsewhere. A few months at higher resolutions, and I can't go back--which was definitely not something I expected.

    Hence my spiel about the value in seeing any monitor in person.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Allergic to whimsy Registered User regular
    edited January 14
    Synthesis wrote: »
    It really does vary from person to person. On a desktop, 1440p just isn't acceptable to me any more--it's barely an improvement over 1080p in any sort of slow-pace game, I might as well have stuck with it in the first place and put that money elsewhere. A few months at higher resolutions, and I can't go back--which was definitely not something I expected.

    Hence my spiel about the value in seeing any monitor in person.

    Is it even possible to perceive the resolution difference in a monitor that's in the 27-32" range?

    I'm not asking to be a smartass, I'm just asking in general. The common knowledge is no, but it was also common knowledge that we can't perceive more than 60 fps not too long ago... but the dot resolution difference between the two is .09mm on a 32".

    jungleroomx on
    Bama wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    complacency sucks.
    It's not so bad once you get used to it.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited January 14
    Synthesis wrote: »
    It really does vary from person to person. On a desktop, 1440p just isn't acceptable to me any more--it's barely an improvement over 1080p in any sort of slow-pace game, I might as well have stuck with it in the first place and put that money elsewhere. A few months at higher resolutions, and I can't go back--which was definitely not something I expected.

    Hence my spiel about the value in seeing any monitor in person.

    Is it even possible to perceive the resolution difference in a monitor that's in the 27-32" range?

    I'm not asking to be a smartass, I'm just asking in general. The common knowledge is no, but it was also common knowledge that we can't perceive more than 60 fps not too long ago... but the dot resolution difference between the two is .09mm on a 32".

    For me? Absolutely, without a moment of doubt. I can do it at Best Buy with the rather rudimentary monitor settings on the display shelves--though I'm not an eagle. I can't do it on the move, for example. I've been wearing glasses for coming on 24 years, and seldom take them off. But if I stand still, I can absolutely tell the difference. Naturally, I can tell the difference even more so in a normal home environment with a properly calibrated monitor that actually has 60 hz-capable input.

    Since it's somewhat relevant, I took a tape measure and determined the upper limit of what is "ideal visual range" for a LG 27UD68P 27" IPS. It's ~64 cm--more than I would've though. I would be happy at 54 cm too, but 64 cm is workable (and perhaps better for my eyes?), and that leaves room for my HOTAS. I'm think 64 cm might be "rather close" for a lot of people on this thread, though I would point out it's probably less stressful on my eyes than using an Occulus Rift (which I have) or a Vive (which I haven't). And I take periodic breaks (when I remember anyway).

    Swapping over to other resolutions--1080p, most obviously--the difference is immediately apparent. Of course, this is a "natural" 3840x2160 monitor, so it's not surprising. I still have access to a 27" LG monitor in 1080p (though not 1440p since I was laid off), so I can do the comparison fairly consistently (within limits--my 27UD68P is a marginally better monitor, and not all of them were IPS). I also have a 1440p display in my Surface Pro 3, which I sometimes use pretty close to my face (but not nearly close enough for the purposes of this example). And that's the rub of it--when someone claims that "No one see over x resolution, 4K is clearly a scam," they don't even always bother to add the caveat "Within this particular viewing range....". They might cite a website that even acknowledges that it is not in any way a scientific determination, but a general guideline for what the original writer prefers. Television viewing ranges haven't changed radically since flatscreen panels became the norm (or rather, they were always too varied to begin with)--the entire 4K standard, LED/OLED, etc., is a giant scam to make us buy pixels we don't need? The entire UHD blu ray disc marketplace (which is actually at a healthier place than blu ray was originally in the same period of its lifespan)? It's all just a gigantic con game? The immediate problems is that, yes, there is absolutely a distance that I certainly couldn't distinguish between 3840x2160 and lower resolutions (I haven't done a study myself to determine what that is). But ten years ago, there was absolutely a distance where I couldn't distinguish between 1080p and 480p wide. And there were absolutely people claiming that 1080p was also a scam (caveat: at ranges any sane person would enjoy their television).

    This is ignoring the issue of element and UI sizing (which as anyone who uses a 1440p monitor can attest comes with both problems--with older software--and opportunities). On your desktop (and in productivity software) 1440p does give you a wider range for element scaling to what you're comfortable with than 1080p (in the sense that you'll hit the bottom a lot faster at the lower resolution). At 2160p, you'll have wider options further--but that says more about desktop productivity than gaming. My first exposure to 2160p screens came at an IT office of a community college where they were almost a requirement because of sheer real estate (and also very large monitors--somewhat relevant to the topic).

    So, common knowledge says "No"--not exactly sure who determined what is common knowledge or common sense. A very similar understanding also says you can't see over 60 FPS (or if you can, your experience is overwhelmingly likely to be negative rather than positive due to motion sickness). I know, from direct first hand experience, that I personally cannot visual improvement perceive over ~90 FPS. It does vary by genre, but there's basically a range--roughly 85 FPS to infinity (let's say 144 FPS for convenience reasons) that in essence all looks the same to me. What I can notice are the shifts from 85 to 144 (or more realistically, 85 to 120 for reasons I'll get to), much less the in-real-life variations of 50 or 60 to 90 or 100 FPS, which I find annoying. Annoying is certainly preferable to motion sickness though. But there're people on these boards that believe anything below 65 FPS, in their words, is unacceptable. That's fine--it's their decision to make with their eyeballs--though they do so with the caveat that 1) the majority of PC games have fluctuations even with modest graphical settings, or are "capped" 30 FPS prior to modification or patching or 2) 100% of console games will not capture this particular experience at this time. I could say that anything below 3840x2160 is similarly unacceptable to me (after all, I can see that visual distinction as outlined above), but I'd have to prepare myself for a lot of disappointing unacceptability. That's why I go with 3840x2160 and 50 to 60 FPS--it's the compromise of all my personal concerns. You could argue for 2560x1440 at a different (but as variable if not more so) framerate just as easily, but it wouldn't be as good a visual experience. That same compromise is what would keep me from going with a very big 3840x2160 screen (when combined with the issue of response times) on a desk, but not in front of a couch. And it's why I'm always carnival-barking about the importance of seeing a monitor for yourself if you have that opportunity--a tricky thing in the consumer electronics space where so many purchases are done based on others diagnosis and no direct observation by the consumer (monitors included). "Seeing my new (thing) in person before I buy it? What is that, grandpa shopping?" But with monitors specifically it has some merits.

    There you go--another short answer made unnecessary long from Synthesis.

    EDIT: I should add, "64 cm from the front of my face"--not the back of my head.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    jungleroomx
Sign In or Register to comment.