4k 32 120+hz ips?

[Ergroilnin]

Hello,

 

is there any particular reason for why there basically aren't any 4k 120-165hz 32" IPS monitors around?

There is decent amount of 4k 144 hz ips 27", but that is too small for me (and the other extreme like 40-65" is too big), is there a good reason for that? 

 

Because I can't see it... There are tons of 32" of different combinations of 1440p, 144hz, ips/qled etc.

[BobVonBob]

Because nobody makes that panel right now. Maybe the market just isn't there, who knows?

[Action_Johnson]

 Maybe something in the manufacturing pipeline?

[Ergroilnin]

5 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

Because nobody makes that panel right now. Maybe the market just isn't there, who knows?

But is there like any technical reason why not to?

 

It just does not make sense to me since there are plenty of both 27" and 55-65" of such panels and 1440p 32" as well.

 

I don't get why there is so many 32" 1440p panels but close to non 32" 4k panels, obviously making 32" panel is not a problem and a lot of people are complaining, that 4k is actually too high of a resolution for 27" so there should definitely be a market for that.

[BobVonBob]

8 minutes ago, Ergroilnin said:

But is there like any technical reason why not to?

 

It just does not make sense to me since there are plenty of both 27" and 55-65" of such panels and 1440p 32" as well.

 

I don't get why there is so many 32" 1440p panels but close to non 32" 4k panels, obviously making 32" panel is not a problem and a lot of people are complaining, that 4k is actually too high of a resolution for 27" so there should definitely be a market for that.

No technical reason as far as I know, but the most likely explanation is 4K 120+ Hz being incredibly niche right now, like 1440p 120+ Hz was a few years ago. I only know of ASUS and Acer having that combination at all, let alone in 32 inches.

 

Edit: And HP's BFGD, but that one is a bit out there.

[Senzelian]

Pretty easy to explain:
Let's say you're manufacturing displays and you have a certain amount of customers that are interested in 120/144Hz, 4K displays.

When you start manufacturing them in 27", you might already cover 70% of that customerbase.

Producing the same display in 32" for just 30% of the remaining customerbase might not be worth it.

 

Once the interest and therefor the market grows for those displays, manufacturers will produce them.

[Doobeedoo]

Well Asus and Acer have those but extremely expensive like thousands of dollars. Reasons also being that they are higher quality too and better HDR so not just size difference. 

[MadPistol]

The reason: Economies of Scale.

 

The market for high-end PC monitors in that size just isn't there at the moment. There's a cost associated with 4k high refresh rate monitors.On top of that, the ecosystem of graphics cards just isn't there yet. I will readily admit that my 2070 Super is an excellent 1440p120+ GPU, but 4k120 is difficult without significantly reducing details.

The other issue you're running into is TVs. LG currently has 55" and 65" OLED models that are about the same price or cheaper than comparable PC monitors. On top of this, the picture quality on the OLED TVs is significantly better than any PC monitor currently on the market, especially ones designed for gaming. We have to accept the reality that TVs sell significantly better than PC Monitors, and when current high-end LG OLED TVs make better computer monitors at a lower price than actual computer monitors, well... that sort of kills the market.

LG has a 48" CX OLED that is rolling out. It's a few hundred dollars cheaper than the 55" model. For a large, high-end PC monitor for gaming, the 48" CX ticks all the boxes. When you factor in cost, a 32" 4k/120 monitor is dead before it even gets started.

[tarsius]

On 5/31/2020 at 12:27 AM, Action_Johnson said:

 Maybe something in the manufacturing pipeline?

ASUS PA32UCG and Acer X32

[Ergroilnin]

On 5/31/2020 at 5:37 PM, MadPistol said:

LG has a 48" CX OLED that is rolling out. It's a few hundred dollars cheaper than the 55" model. For a large, high-end PC monitor for gaming, the 48" CX ticks all the boxes. When you factor in cost, a 32" 4k/120 monitor is dead before it even gets started.

 

Thanks for the post, but when it comes to OLED...

 

Idk, I am just way too scared of burn in and I am the kind of person, that can play one game for thousands of hours, so static HUDs become a problem.

 

I actually do have OLED 65" TV and it is a masterpiece but I am very careful about using anything with static elements for longer periods of time because of the fear of burn in.

[MadPistol]

5 hours ago, Ergroilnin said:

 

Thanks for the post, but when it comes to OLED...

 

Idk, I am just way too scared of burn in and I am the kind of person, that can play one game for thousands of hours, so static HUDs become a problem.

 

I actually do have OLED 65" TV and it is a masterpiece but I am very careful about using anything with static elements for longer periods of time because of the fear of burn in.

Do what I did and get a 2 year warranty (or however long you want). That way, if burn-in does occur, it gets replaced.

[Ergroilnin]

6 hours ago, MadPistol said:

Do what I did and get a 2 year warranty (or however long you want). That way, if burn-in does occur, it gets replaced.

Not in my country, Burn in gets counted as user error and thus not covered by it.