need new (4K?) monitor

[akumajo]

Hello

Panic mode enabled !

Until now, I was playing on a projector (1080p) and was very happy with it.
However, "he" died !!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I need a new display, maybe it's time to upgrade to 4K too ?
Problem is that 4K projector is too much expensive for me so I may reconsider a monitor .

Main usage will be gaming (from NES to PC) with the help of OSSC scaler for retro stuff.

Important specs (i believe) :
resolution : 3840 x 2160
refresh rate : 60Hz (i dont need 120/144hz)
size : 30"+ (seems to be the sweet spot for 4k)
adaptive sync : gsync or freesync (I need to change my GPU so It doesnt matter which one).
panel : IPS

So far, the only monitor I found is Acer XB321HK.
I'm not sure how it will handle ps4@1080p (input lag fear).

What do you think ? Any other alternative (soon or later) ?

Regards.

[Fudoh]

The only other display is the Samsung U32E850R. It's slightly larger than the Acer, but cheaper. I personally would trust it a little more than the Acer. Everything else (with freesync or g-sync) in that size is 1440p in 21:9 instead.

Here's a review of the Samsung: https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/samsung-u32e850r/

EDIT: According to the same site the BenQ BL3201PT (also 4K at 32") supports freesync as well, but it's VA and its scaling isn't supposed to be great.

[akumajo]

The only other display is the Samsung U32E850R. It's slightly larger than the Acer, but cheaper. I personally would trust it a little more than the Acer. Everything else (with freesync or g-sync) in that size is 1440p in 21:9 instead.

Here's a review of the Samsung: https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/samsung-u32e850r/

EDIT: According to the same site the BenQ BL3201PT (also 4K at 32") supports freesync as well, but it's VA and its scaling isn't supposed to be great.

thank, now I have some choices

about 1440p 21:9, you are talking about curved screens right ? what is your opinion on such screens ?
I have bad feeling about them, not all games support that, and 1440p vs 2160p ...

[Fudoh]

about 1440p 21:9, you are talking about curved screens right ? what is your opinion on such screens ?

totally OK. I don't like it for big TVs, but a friend of mine has the curved 34" Dell and it's really good. 1440p is lighter on the video card. For desktop use the extended area is great. MOST modern games support the ratio without any problems.

[Xyga]

DIT: According to the same site the BenQ BL3201PT (also 4K at 32") supports freesync as well, but it's VA and its scaling isn't supposed to be great.

It's AHVA actually, misleading name since it's AUO's own IPS.

The BL3201PT is still one of the best 32" monitors and best 4K monitors in general, but as you say the built-in scaling is known to be bad.
Same with the Acer XB321HK, it's excellent but maybe less reliable indeed (people report bizarre issues with it) and the scaling sucks too.
The Samsung U32E850R has bad scaling too, an inferior PLS panel which is a bit less less responsive, has more glow, and poorer contrast. It also uses PWM for dimming (bad).

BTW, here's NCX's opinion on some of the monitors of the category inlcuding cheaper ones: http://youtu.be/LgzO42oI-V0
(don't mind his ranting about black bezels, I think he insists too much on that, but pretty much everything else he says is usually good observation and advice)

So the BenQ seems to still be #1, and it's still damn expensive...
There's really a lot more choice in 27" size, but when you know bigger exists, and big is your target, it's frustrating.

[akumajo]

Thanks guys.

After reading all of this i'm not sure if it's 4K time yet... so maybe 1440p is the better choice.
Also, 4K gaming still require 2xGPU (even 2xGTX1080 is not enough for everything) for constant 60fps and SLI means added lag (about 1 frame added per add gpu afaik), double cost, support is not great too.

the question is, 2560x1440 or 3840x1440 ? curved or not ?
scaling 720p/1080p is important to me and it seems that those 4k monitors are not great (interpolation), but is it better with 1440p monitors ?

[SNK-NEO-GEO]

With the release of the new video cards and DP 1.4, now might not be the right time to buy a monitor. I would think that the next generations of 32" monitors will be 4k/1440p 120hz plus gsync/free synch. If you can wait, buy something cheap to hold you over and wait and see how the monitor gaming industry react to the new video cards and DP 1.4...

P.S dreaming of a 32" OLED 120hz Gsync and under $2k:)

[broken harbour]

4K is overrated anyways, 1440p on a 21:9 monitor with a hefty amount of anti aliasing can produce a similar result in my opinion, plus you'll have playable frame rates on something like a single GTX1070.

Having said that 1440p 21:9 monitors are still really expensive.

[akumajo]

With the release of the new video cards and DP 1.4, now might not be the right time to buy a monitor. I would think that the next generations of 32" monitors will be 4k/1440p 120hz plus gsync/free synch. If you can wait, buy something cheap to hold you over and wait and see how the monitor gaming industry react to the new video cards and DP 1.4...

P.S dreaming of a 32" OLED 120hz Gsync and under $2k:)

i need something since my display is gameover
OLED : give it a couple of years before it's affordable for most gamers
4K@120Hz looks nice, but you will have to wait a couple of years for a powerfull enough GPU, I expect 1080ti to handle 4K@60fps

your dream is mine too, in 5 years maybe??? (i will quote myself in 5 years if that happens

[akumajo]

4K is overrated anyways, 1440p on a 21:9 monitor with a hefty amount of anti aliasing can produce a similar result in my opinion, plus you'll have playable frame rates on something like a single GTX1070.

Having said that 1440p 21:9 monitors are still really expensive.

yes, it seems to be the best current route, but which one

[Exidna]

If you're going to buy a new GPU anyway, I'd recommend G-Sync with an NVIDIA GPU.
You do pay a bit more, but you get a better experience for it in my opinion.
NVIDIA's hardware solution (G-Sync) works better than AMD's software solution. (FreeSync)

I'm not a fan of 4K monitors. At typical 27/32" sizes 4K requires that you use display scaling of around 150%.
A lot of applications don't work properly with display scaling enabled.
1440p at 27" works without the use of display scaling and is generally more compatible as a result.
It's also a lot less demanding to render at for PC games. 4K is 8.3 megapixels while 1440p is 3.7 megapixels.

I'd pick the XB271HU or PG279Q.
If you play PC games at all, why limit yourself to 60Hz?


It's also worth noting that ASUS just demonstrated 1080p240 and 4K144 monitors at Computex, but if you need a new monitor now I guess that's not an option. I wouldn't expect to see either until the end of the year.

[Guspaz]

I'm not sure that 1080p240 really serves any purpose: It's diminishing returns, and anything more than 120Hz for non-VR use is probably useless. DisplayPort can only push 4K at 120Hz, so 144Hz would seem to require their new lossy compression standard.

Given the choice between 120Hz uncompressed, or 144Hz using lossy compression, I think it's a no-brainer.

[Exidna]

I'm not sure that 1080p240 really serves any purpose: It's diminishing returns, and anything more than 120Hz for non-VR use is probably useless.

240Hz is definitely not at the point of diminishing returns for a sample and hold display - though it's maybe approaching the limits of what an typical LCD panel is capable of.
You would need at least 1000Hz sample and hold to approach CRT motion clarity.
NVIDIA demonstrated a prototype 1700Hz display earlier in the year.

DisplayPort can only push 4K at 120Hz, so 144Hz would seem to require their new lossy compression standard.

I'd guess that it's overclocked similar to the 165Hz displays on the market right now.

[ZellSF]

120hz vs 240hz is also 4ms of input lag difference... It's a small difference sure but it all adds up.

Personally would never go with a 60hz only computer monitor.

[Xyga]

20,000Hz now lololol ! :p
We don't really need that, they should spend more R&D on synced strobing and make OLED more affordable (btw I'm losing hope oled will really take off, LG seem to have fallen into the same trap plasma makers did)

[akumajo]

so there is no 4k monitor with good scaling for 1080p/1440p content ?

for PS4 gaming, is it better to go to 2160p or 1440p display ? dont tell me to stretch please lol

fudoh, do you know if is there any valid 4k scaler for gaming as of 2016 ???
i should ignore and continue with 1080p, even if 4K is fixed someday, then 5K will come, etc... neverending story

[Fudoh]

then 5K will come

there's already a dell display with 5K in 16:9.

[Fudoh]

fudoh, do you know if is there any valid 4k scaler for gaming as of 2016 ???

In various price ranges. There's only one 4K to 4K processor (Lumagen Pro), but that's not what you need anyway. Cheapest option would be the iScan Mini. Uses the typical "rough" DVDO scaling engine, but it's affordable. You won't get 4:4:4 from it though and remember that most PC monitors will only handle 4K through DP, while all the home theater gear has HDMI instead.

[Xyga]

so there is no 4k monitor with good scaling for 1080p/1440p content ?

Several TVs do a pretty good job with 1080p, some even with 720p and 480p.
Don't expect real integer scaling though, someone pointed high-end Panasonics have an option for it, but from practically all models, all brands, at best you'll get only decent-to-good interpolation (in the sense that it's barely visible with 1080p, and not too annoying with 720, nothing more exciting than that).
The Sony 4K are typically the best at the job, but they don't reach the lag and response performance of good monitors.
Also no adaptive sync, of course.

[Exidna]

20,000Hz now lololol ! :p
We don't really need that, they should spend more R&D on synced strobing and make OLED more affordable (btw I'm losing hope oled will really take off, LG seem to have fallen into the same trap plasma makers did)

CRTs have a persistence of around 1ms, less for faster models.
To achieve a persistence of 1ms with a sample and hold display that means you need at least 1000Hz with a 1000 FPS source. Yes, really.
Even 240Hz sample and hold will have a lot more motion blur than a CRT.

Variable Refresh Strobing is a difficult problem to solve, and not something I'm sure we're likely to see happen any time soon.
The largest benefit of variable refresh rates is when your framerate drops below 60 FPS. However strobing at rates lower than 60Hz will flicker terribly.
NVIDIA do not even allow ULMB to be activated below 85Hz.

The place where Variable Refresh Strobing makes the most sense is for emulation, where the framerate is fixed, and only varies between games/systems. But I don't see them implementing the feature just for that.

[Xyga]

To achieve a persistence of 1ms with a sample and hold display that means you need at least 1000Hz with a 1000 FPS source. Yes, really.
Even 240Hz sample and hold will have a lot more motion blur than a CRT.

I know, I was just pointing out we don't need to do it that way, but this is what people will expect and probably wha they'll do by whataver means because it will sell.

[BazookaBen]

Just because you don't have a GPU that does 4k@120hz doesn't mean 4k@120hz wouldn't be useful. That's what GPU scaling is for. Your 970, or 1080, or whatever, can upscale lower resolutions like 1080p and 1440p to 4k with a bilinear filter. Won't look as good as native, of course, but it will still look pretty great. The 120hz gives you a wide range of framerates to run those lower resolutions. Say with the new Doom or something you could hit 120 for 1080p, 90 for 1440p, 120 at 900p with all settings on Nightmare/Ultra etc.

[Guspaz]

All that assumes that motion blur is even a problem. I'd argue that it isn't. The amount of motion blur for non-VR use on 60Hz displays is already rather low, when you're talking about a 120Hz display with a strobed backlight, the motion blur is not even perceptible. Throwing an absurd amount of bandwidth and compute resources at a problem that most people can't even see is really a waste.

Besides that, why is there a perception that CRTs were somehow magical in this regard? The last CRT monitor that I had was much much worse for motion blur than a modern LCD panel. It took multiple frames for the image to change fully.

[akumajo]

fudoh, do you know if is there any valid 4k scaler for gaming as of 2016 ???

In various price ranges. There's only one 4K to 4K processor (Lumagen Pro), but that's not what you need anyway. Cheapest option would be the iScan Mini. Uses the typical "rough" DVDO scaling engine, but it's affordable. You won't get 4:4:4 from it though and remember that most PC monitors will only handle 4K through DP, while all the home theater gear has HDMI instead.

ok, then I will not force myself to move to something that is not yet ready ...
so unless a 4k (native) or external scaler with low input lag is released, I will not upgrade from 1080p ! i'm sure that 1440p is nice but i prefer to upgrade to 4k.

is it too hard to ask for an OLED 1080p Gsync 60Hz monitor ???

[Guspaz]

Yes, as OLED currently has too high of a price premium to be used in a 1080p display. There is only a single OLED computer monitor announced by anybody, and it's a 4K@120Hz 30" display from Dell, with an MSRP of $5000.

It's also late, as they said it would be out in March and it still isn't.

[Bahn Yuki]

I'm about to pick up a vizio 65" p series tv. Does 4k/60hz and 1080/120hz. Supports Dolby vision and will have hdr10 firmware upgrade this month. It can take the line triple mode from the ossc and has a rated 16ms of input delay. It's not too expensive, but I'd buy one of these for cheap(50" for p, or 43" for m).

[Xyga]

It's nice that you have Vizio in the US.
Their sets lack the mastery of Sony and the fanciness of Samsung, but they're clearly more affordable good-for-gaming options.

[SNK-NEO-GEO]

How is the picture on those Visio when you go to game mode? My Samsung loses about 35% of picture and color when it goes to game mode.. Also, maybe get the 2016 LG OLED 55" with 32ms. I heard good things about it from a fellow SHMUPS member.

I'm about to pick up a vizio 65" p series tv. Does 4k/60hz and 1080/120hz. Supports Dolby vision and will have hdr10 firmware upgrade this month. It can take the line triple mode from the ossc and has a rated 16ms of input delay. It's not too expensive, but I'd buy one of these for cheap(50" for p, or 43" for m).

[Bahn Yuki]

How is the picture on those Visio when you go to game mode? My Samsung loses about 35% of picture and color when it goes to game mode.. Also, maybe get the 2016 LG OLED 55" with 32ms. I heard good things about it from a fellow SHMUPS member.

I'm about to pick up a vizio 65" p series tv. Does 4k/60hz and 1080/120hz. Supports Dolby vision and will have hdr10 firmware upgrade this month. It can take the line triple mode from the ossc and has a rated 16ms of input delay. It's not too expensive, but I'd buy one of these for cheap(50" for p, or 43" for m).

no loss in image quality. I have three of the 2014 versions. 2 50" and a 70".

[Ed Oscuro]

CRTs have a persistence of around 1ms, less for faster models.

This is going to depend on the model, but colors on black backgrounds can persist notably longer than 16ms on a PVM-20L2.

Immediate response is the major strength of the CRT, but persistence is actually a weakness in most CRT models, especially as far as TV tubes are concerned. Probably computer monitors are somewhat better in this regard. And of course dynamic control of this aspect seems difficult; LCD lags further behind but OLED seems much better.