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.
0
Posts
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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
- 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You mean Cyberpunk? You've got some time, I imagine that game will be coming out around 2020 or so.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.