Would you buy if this was a reality? The No Compromise monitor

[Mortis Angelus]

Just playing in my head with how I would want my personal, as close to a no compromise monitor; and would there be a market for it, or is it just me:

 

- 35" Ultra wide

- Curved at R3600-3800 (I do not like how curved the current gen of monitors are with the R2800 curve, I prefer curvature of the Predator X34)

- 3440x1440 pxl

- 160+ hz

- QDot display (because OLED will suffer from burn-in, and in my world, nothing that can suffer from burn-in should be on a desktop/gaming device)

- 1 - 4 ms GTG response time

- QDot also enables HDR-capability, and extreme color gamuts and color spaces. (just look at the Asus PG35VQ)

- Have both digital and analogue input options; low demand for analogue, but it is always nice to have (I have old consoles and stuff that I want to use)

- Audio pass-through

- Thunderbolt 3 input, USB hub + SD-card reader

- Standard model come with FreeSync

- Have an optional 150 - 200 USD (hopefully cheaper) add-on module that will enable G-Sync (input via DisplayPort only). This to keep the monitor available for everyone, and those who want freesync only, won't have to pay extra.

- Should be as bezel-less as possible, but would probably be rather thick with all the modules and input options

 

All this for max 1200 USD (+200 for G-sync module). Would you buy, or is this a stupid idea?

[samcool55]

I wouldn't get it.

1) it's too big for me

2) I don't like curved screens.

3) I don't like ultrawide, 16:9 or 16:10 is what i would get. I do more than just gaming so it's not ideal.

[Ashleyyyy]

me personally, no. i'm more of a multi monitor person with crappy eyesight, so this wouldn't work for me. 

 

but as a display purely for gaming, hell yes. but i woudn't spend $1200 on a display that i'm only gonna use for gaming, and not for anything else. 

[Mortis Angelus]

2 minutes ago, L.Lawliet said:

I dont think this is possible well maybe in the future who knows cause HDR means nothing its not a trademark or anything.

No monitor can truly support HDR instead they only trying to achieve it.

Imo any monitor could do HDR, but lack the color range for it. But the most important thing for proper HDR is the source material itself. If the source material has not implemented HDR properly, it will look shit. Much like slammed on "3D" and those "wannabe frames" on 600 hz TVs and stuff.

 

4 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

but as a display purely for gaming, hell yes. but i woudn't spend $1200 on a display that i'm only gonna use for gaming, and not for anything else. 

That is part why I would like it to be less curved; content creation on the R2800 monitors is impossible. On the older R3800 it is challenging but possible.

 

 

But what do you guys think about my idea of having an optional G-Sync module?

[Ashleyyyy]

Just now, Mortis Angelus said:

But what do you guys think about my idea of having an optional G-Sync module?

for the price, it should support it out of the box really. 

[Mortis Angelus]

3 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

for the price, it should support it out of the box really. 

Q-Dot HDR 1440p with high refresh-rate and low latency. Would be impossible to go much lower in price. Nvidia charges royalties for G-sync, which is the reason for the price increase.

 

Remember, the Asus PG35VQ is expected to be around 2000 dollars when released, so charging "only" 1200 for a beast of a monitor like this would be a steal. Even with IPS-technology, it would be expensive. If you look at all current budget friendly ultra wides, they all sport VA-panels to keep down the price. Having Q-Dot will really push the price.

[chiller15]

I wouldn't get it. It's almost the same size as my TV (37"). I don't need a monitor that big.

Also, considering you're making those specs up, why did you limit yourself to 1440p, rather than 4K?

[Bananasplit_00]

no, i dont want that shit. not even if it was a flat panel that didnt make me feel sick i wouldent want to pay $1200 for a monitor, beyond the fact that computers that handle the specs would be expensive as fuck to begin with, i could just get a 25" 144Hz monitor for $200 or something. the 144Hz to 160Hz jump isnt major, 1440p is nice but takes a fuckload of GPU to get to 160Hz and the FreeSync is basically useless unless you also want to run a rig with two PSUs

[mariushm]

I don't care for ultrawide. I want my vertical space, since I do programming and browsing, i'm not just watching 2.35:1 movies on the monitor.

 

Ideally, I'd want something 16:10 and "Real 4K"-ish , like 4096 x 2560 and I'd be fine with 40-42"   10 bit per color panel and everything.

 

I realize this amount of pixels would be a pain in the ass so I don't care for 160 hz, I'd be fine with 75 to 100 Hz but 120 hz would be great since it's multiple of both 24 fps and 30fps so it would be better for watching movies.  (though monitor could lock itself at 90 or 96 Hz just as well, to reduce jitter and added/dropped frames.

 

I'd prefer IPS but if VA means the difference between 60fps and 75fps+, VA would be OK.

 

QDot is just a technique of making backlight better, a wider color spectrum. You can do good backlight without qdot, just the leds would be more expensive. No, you don't need qdot for HDR, qdot just helps achieve higher color spectrum... it does nothing for the light intensity which is required for HDR. You need more powerful leds for that, and that means more heat is produced and that's why it's hard to get monitors with HDR and lots of brightness 

 

I'd like to have HDR but it wouldn't bother me if it doesn't. I'd prefer more accurate color reproduction to HDR.

 

Don't care about audio. Sure, have some included speakers just in case i connect something through a hdmi port and want something to run in PIP mode (picture-in-picture) using the integrated speakers. Analogue audio out (for headphones) would be fine. Yeah, i can see an analogue audio line in for some game consoles as a useful feature.

Don't care about digital out since they'd only be required for DRM'ed content, and that i'd route directly into some home cinema setup from the computer, i wouldn't route the audio to the monitor only to have the monitor route it to something else.

Don't care about digital in, since monitor speakers are lousy anyway (things may change in future with speakers behind the lcd panel and bass chambers and other things)

 

Fuck Thunderbolt 3 and proprietary / restrictive (in this case Intel/Apple only) standards. DisplayPort for main input, hdmi 2.0 as alternative and 1-3 HDMI 2.0 ( to have up to 4 x 1080p displays on screen). But i'd be happy with just 2 on screen at any time (one input "full screen" and one PIP)

 

Don't care about card reader , just one more thing to be placed in some inconvenient spot (corners on a monitor that's far away from you when you sit down at your desk due to its size, because i want 40-42").

It could also break and then piss you off because you can't use it, or it could end up not being compatible with your preferred brand of cards or you end up liking a faster external reader anyway.

 

USB 3 hub ... an optional, would be nice but not necessary. Would like some KVM feature, meaning have two special usb ports in which you plug the mouse and keyboard and then if you have the monitor connected to two computers, at a button press switch the main view between systems along with connecting keyboard and mouse to that system that's now the main display.

 

Fuck Gsync and nVidia's proprietary crap. Freesync is fine.

 

I don't mind bezels as long as they're relatively small height.  Don't care about bezel free, and also don't really care much about thickness.

 

Don't care about wall mount, but wouldn't mind having the VESA mount in the back if the default stand is too simple  (for saving costs reasons)

 

If something like this would come up at $1500 I'd consider it in a very serious way.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Mortis Angelus said:

Just playing in my head with how I would want my personal, as close to a no compromise monitor; and would there be a market for it, or is it just me:

 

- 35" Ultra wide

- Curved at R3600-3800 (I do not like how curved the current gen of monitors are with the R2800 curve, I prefer curvature of the Predator X34)

- 3440x1440 pxl

- 160+ hz

- QDot display (because OLED will suffer from burn-in, and in my world, nothing that can suffer from burn-in should be on a desktop/gaming device)

- 1 - 4 ms GTG response time

- QDot also enables HDR-capability, and extreme color gamuts and color spaces. (just look at the Asus PG35VQ)

- Have both digital and analogue input options; low demand for analogue, but it is always nice to have (I have old consoles and stuff that I want to use)

- Audio pass-through

- Thunderbolt 3 input, USB hub + SD-card reader

- Standard model come with FreeSync

- Have an optional 150 - 200 USD (hopefully cheaper) add-on module that will enable G-Sync (input via DisplayPort only). This to keep the monitor available for everyone, and those who want freesync only, won't have to pay extra.

- Should be as bezel-less as possible, but would probably be rather thick with all the modules and input options

 

All this for max 1200 USD (+200 for G-sync module). Would you buy, or is this a stupid idea?

 

[Mortis Angelus]

54 minutes ago, mariushm said:

I don't care for ultrawide. I want my vertical space, since I do programming and browsing, i'm not just watching 2.35:1 movies on the monitor.

 

Ideally, I'd want something 16:10 and "Real 4K"-ish , like 4096 x 2560 and I'd be fine with 40-42"   10 bit per color panel and everything.

 

I realize this amount of pixels would be a pain in the ass so I don't care for 160 hz, I'd be fine with 75 to 100 Hz but 120 hz would be great since it's multiple of both 24 fps and 30fps so it would be better for watching movies.  (though monitor could lock itself at 90 or 96 Hz just as well, to reduce jitter and added/dropped frames.

 

I'd prefer IPS but if VA means the difference between 60fps and 75fps+, VA would be OK.

 

QDot is just a technique of making backlight better, a wider color spectrum. You can do good backlight without qdot, just the leds would be more expensive. No, you don't need qdot for HDR, qdot just helps achieve higher color spectrum... it does nothing for the light intensity which is required for HDR. You need more powerful leds for that, and that means more heat is produced and that's why it's hard to get monitors with HDR and lots of brightness 

 

I'd like to have HDR but it wouldn't bother me if it doesn't. I'd prefer more accurate color reproduction to HDR.

 

Don't care about audio. Sure, have some included speakers just in case i connect something through a hdmi port and want something to run in PIP mode (picture-in-picture) using the integrated speakers. Analogue audio out (for headphones) would be fine. Yeah, i can see an analogue audio line in for some game consoles as a useful feature.

Don't care about digital out since they'd only be required for DRM'ed content, and that i'd route directly into some home cinema setup from the computer, i wouldn't route the audio to the monitor only to have the monitor route it to something else.

Don't care about digital in, since monitor speakers are lousy anyway (things may change in future with speakers behind the lcd panel and bass chambers and other things)

 

Fuck Thunderbolt 3 and proprietary / restrictive (in this case Intel/Apple only) standards. DisplayPort for main input, hdmi 2.0 as alternative and 1-3 HDMI 2.0 ( to have up to 4 x 1080p displays on screen). But i'd be happy with just 2 on screen at any time (one input "full screen" and one PIP)

 

Don't care about card reader , just one more thing to be placed in some inconvenient spot (corners on a monitor that's far away from you when you sit down at your desk due to its size, because i want 40-42").

It could also break and then piss you off because you can't use it, or it could end up not being compatible with your preferred brand of cards or you end up liking a faster external reader anyway.

 

USB 3 hub ... an optional, would be nice but not necessary. Would like some KVM feature, meaning have two special usb ports in which you plug the mouse and keyboard and then if you have the monitor connected to two computers, at a button press switch the main view between systems along with connecting keyboard and mouse to that system that's now the main display.

 

Fuck Gsync and nVidia's proprietary crap. Freesync is fine.

 

I don't mind bezels as long as they're relatively small height.  Don't care about bezel free, and also don't really care much about thickness.

 

Don't care about wall mount, but wouldn't mind having the VESA mount in the back if the default stand is too simple  (for saving costs reasons)

 

If something like this would come up at $1500 I'd consider it in a very serious way.

 

 

 

You seem to believe that it would be thunderbolt 3 only.

 

I meant it should have BOTH all digital and most older analogue video inputs to be as compatible as possible. I currently have an old U2711 monitor from Dell. But I love the fact that it has old analogue video-in, which enables me to hook up my Xbox to it without any annoying adapters.

 

Of course it should have DisplayPort, HDMI and all those goodies. But it should also have Thunderbolt 3. I am so sick of today's techworld where there is either thunderbolt 3 or DisplayPort.

 

Well, the "fuck Gsync" was unnecessary in this comment. If you read the specs properly, there was the entire point of having the separate add-on module for Gsync. If you don't want/need it, then don't buy it.

 

And to everyone: JUST BECAUSE THE MONITOR CAN DO 160+ Hz, doesn't mean you have to run it at that speed. But the option/possibility is there.

 

And no, 4K is unnecessary here. 4K for productivity only-monitors. 1440p is a nice balance for gaming and productivity. Albeit, I could probably see it as a 3840x1600 pxl as well, which then is 4K (yes, the width is then 4K, stop arguing about that).

 

 

 

Perhaps the USB-hub and sd-card reader is unnecessary, but at least I would like to see the SD-card reader, as so few computer cases support that today; especially due to the lack of 5.25 inch front bays.

 

[Andrewtst]

35" Ultrawide is not really big, it is just a 27" longer edition. the longer is like one 27" + another half 27" that long. Is it very big, it is not.

 

The spec is possible and I do want HDR. That is the only thing I missing now in my monitor.

 

As for some suggest 4K, in Ultrawide it is more than and it will much much more GPU hunger.

[cluelessgenius]

yeah wouldnt it be nice if... 

the thing is and please correct me i think you cant even drive those pixels. i mean not only gpu wise but cable wise too im not sure what the most current displayport does but i think at 160+ hz thats gonna be tough.

also me personally i wouldnt buy it anyway since i pay aournd 800 for my 3440x1440 and thats the most ive ever payed for a monitor and was honestly a bit more than i was comfortable with

[Glenwing]

7 hours ago, Mortis Angelus said:

Imo any monitor could do HDR, but lack the color range for it. But the most important thing for proper HDR is the source material itself. If the source material has not implemented HDR properly, it will look shit. Much like slammed on "3D" and those "wannabe frames" on 600 hz TVs and stuff.

 

That is part why I would like it to be less curved; content creation on the R2800 monitors is impossible. On the older R3800 it is challenging but possible.

 

 

But what do you guys think about my idea of having an optional G-Sync module?

 

7 hours ago, L.Lawliet said:

Again HDR is nothing...its just there's no standard on HDR besides of that must have  1000 cd/m2 or nits of brightness crap..

if u read, our eyes only had 1000:1 static contrast ratio if u take it as a digital camera and that is not enough for HDR..but our eyes doesnt work like that instead they work as a video camera that can change sensitivity, direction and focus very quickly like when u look at the bright windows from a dark room in that situation ur eyes is like having 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio..

 

So the terms HDR is a bit confusing than just have a high dynamic range..

@Glenwing can explain it better to u if u ask him *sorry for calling u sir

 

oh that 1000hz refresh rate on TV is called motion interpolation sometimes they use black frames insertion or interpolate motion and use motion blur to trick your brain.

HDR has actually nothing to do with color. If you have a wide color gamut then you have a wide color gamut. Any tone mapping can be done in software.

 

Various HDR standards like HDR10 require wide color gamut and high color depth in addition to the actual HDR part, but they aren't integral to what HDR is.