42" 4k display with freesync ~ 800 dollars - the korean off brands are coming and gsync won't be able to play

[TheConverter]

And that one looks even cheaper.

 

This monitor nerd over on hard forums ordered one, and intends to review it.  But he does not have an amd card to test freesync.

 

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1869702

 

I still don't understand why we should get a no-name brand when you can get a 49 inch LG 4K TV for like 650$

 

My LG 55UB850V with WebOs was 1049, and is really awesome for some casual games.

[Sammael]

I still don't understand why we should get a no-name brand when you can get a 49 inch LG 4K TV for like 650$

 

My LG 55UB850V with WebOs was 1049, and is really awesome for some casual games.

 

 

Does it have displayport?

adaptive sync support?

PWM flicker free or not?

 

excessive input lag?

 

If it has all of those on top of being name brand then it is absolutely the thing to get.

[Sauron]

Not really, to get consistent 60fps results you need more than a single card with some games.  That need will greatly diminish with next years cards.

 

no, you just need to lower settings a little.

[TheConverter]

Does it have displayport?

adaptive sync support?

PWM flicker free or not?

 

excessive input lag?

 

If it has all of those on top of being name brand then it is absolutely the thing to get.

 

Why do I need Displayport on a TV when I got a 980Ti with HDMI 2.0?

Why do I need Freesync or G-sync on a TV when I can just use V-Sync?

The inputlag is actually fine, compared to my old LG 1080P IPS monitor I can't even notice a difference.

 

Which serious PC Gamer wants to play their games on a TV?

[Sauron]

I still don't understand why we should get a no-name brand when you can get a 49 inch LG 4K TV for like 650$

 

My LG 55UB850V with WebOs was 1049, and is really awesome for some casual games.

 

a tv is not equivalent to a monitor, especially one with freesync

[TheConverter]

a tv is not equivalent to a monitor, especially one with freesync

 

4K monitors are vastly overpriced compared to 4K TV's which are double the size and have Smart TV+3D features.

 

I still think 4K is overhyped... it's not that great... because they are max 60hz.

Can't wait for Computex 2016 to see the first 4K 120hz monitor and 8K 60hz ones.

 

I'll glady pay 1000-1500$ for a Rog Swift 4K 120hz with O-LED.

[Sammael]

Why do I need Displayport on a TV when I got a 980Ti with HDMI 2.0?

Why do I need Freesync or G-sync on a TV when I can just use V-Sync?

The inputlag is actually fine, compared to my old LG 1080P IPS monitor I can't even notice a difference.

 

Which serious PC Gamer wants to play their games on a TV?

 

 

variable refresh rate is currently only supported through displayport, that's why.  The reason vrr is useful on a tv at 4k is it's easier to have games that dip below 60fps there during many scenes, even on really high end hardware.  So you are left with turning the settings down, sometimes quite a bit to hit high enough fps, or deal with the drop to 30fps with vsync sub 60fps.  

 

 

If input lag is fine then it's fine.

 

 

As for why someone would want to game on a tv, tvs are larger.  Why would someone use multiple monitors for more screen real estate?  Because they wanted more screen real estate.

 

 

1080p on a 27" monitor is way too low res, 1440p is great, 4k on a 27/28" is a FAR less impactful visual jump compared to going from 1080p to 1440p at that size.  So the real perk of 4k on computers is for LARGER screen sizes, not some gimped ass teensy weensy little 28" screen.  Why would someone want a larger screen at all?  If you don't know that I don't know what to tell you.  If they made one large enough, I'd buy a tv that started from the corner of a living room ceiling that stretched all the way to the floor.  There is no size that is too large.  The PRIMARY check on ever larger screen has always been the fidelity loss of being too close at too low a resolution where you can actually SEE the damn pixels (i.e. a 27" screen at 1080p on a desk.)

 

I don't know if a 40" screen is too large even at 4k, but I know a larger size than 27/28" is better than those sizes.

[TheConverter]

variable refresh rate is currently only supported through displayport, that's why.  The reason vrr is useful on a tv at 4k is it's easier to have games that dip below 60fps there during many scenes, even on really high end hardware.  So you are left with turning the settings down, sometimes quite a bit to hit high enough fps, or deal with the drop to 30fps with vsync sub 60fps.  

 

 

If input lag is fine then it's fine.

 

 

As for why someone would want to game on a tv, tvs are larger.  Why would someone use multiple monitors for more screen real estate?  Because they wanted more screen real estate.

 

 

1080p on a 27" monitor is way too low res, 1440p is great, 4k on a 27/28" is a FAR less impactful visual jump compared to going from 1080p to 1440p at that size.  So the real perk of 4k on computers is for LARGER screen sizes, not some gimped ass teensy weensy little 28" screen.  Why would someone want a larger screen at all?  If you don't know that I don't know what to tell you.  If they made one large enough, I'd buy a tv that started from the corner of a living room ceiling that stretched all the way to the floor.  There is no size that is too large.  The PRIMARY check on ever larger screen has always been the fidelity loss of being too close at too low a resolution where you can actually SEE the damn pixels (i.e. a 27" screen at 1080p on a desk.)

 

I don't know if a 40" screen is too large even at 4k, but I know a larger size than 27/28" is better than those sizes.

I like how people on the internet always try to be experts based only on theory.

 

I've had my 55 inch 4K TV almost for one year now. I used it to play all singleplayer games on it, with all the other games like Battlefield 4 on my LG IPS 1080P 60hz monitor. Which by the way, unlike you say 1080P on 27 inch was fine, I even had eyefinity setup for 2 weeks before sending 2 monitors back.

 

Now that I got my Acer XB270HU for a absurdly low price of 390€ I can't watch normal TV anymore, everything feels so choppy.  The only games I now play on my TV are splitscreen/local-coop games when somebody comes over.

 

Why would anyone in this world choose 4K 60hz over 1440P 144hz with G-SYNC?

Also goodluck with 4GB of HBM for 4K. The Fury X is probably the worst GPU in AMD history.

[TheConverter]

I'll be waiting until at least 120Hz IPS large panels. 32"+ would be great.

 

I've heard rumours that some LG tv can do 120hz at 1080P only on HDMI 2.0 cards . I have one myself, will try it tommorow.

[Sauron]

4K monitors are vastly overpriced compared to 4K TV's which are double the size and have Smart TV+3D features.

 

I still think 4K is overhyped... it's not that great... because they are max 60hz.

Can't wait for Computex 2016 to see the first 4K 120hz monitor and 8K 60hz ones.

 

I'll glady pay 1000-1500$ for a Rog Swift 4K 120hz with O-LED.

 

The 3d is not at 4k, there is significant input lag in tvs, smart tv features are almost always terrible and a 35$ raspberry pi 2 can do everything they do much better.

 

4k IS that great, from both a productivity standpoint and from a gaming one. You may prefer a higher refresh rate and there's nothing wrong with that, but personally I couldn't go back on my desktop. For programming it's absolutely amazing to be able to see twice (or 4 times if you have different files open) as much code on screen.

 

Why would anyone in this world choose 4K 60hz over 1440P 144hz with G-SYNC?

Also goodluck with 4GB of HBM for 4K. The Fury X is probably the worst GPU in AMD history.

 

Because different people have different needs and tastes. For me 60hz is good enough and I wouldn't get a lower resolution display for a higher refresh rate. And quite honestly, 4gb IS enough for 4k gaming. I don't know what graphics card(s) you're using, but the only way to really go over is using tons of filters and anti-aliasing that are frankly pointless at such a high resolution. And don't give me the "in the future" argument, people willing to spend 650$ on a graphics card will have upgraded already when more than 4gb become a necessity.

[Sammael]

I like how people on the internet always try to be experts based only on theory.

 

I've had my 55 inch 4K TV almost for one year now. I used it to play all singleplayer games on it, with all the other games like Battlefield 4 on my LG IPS 1080P 60hz monitor. Which by the way, unlike you say 1080P on 27 inch was fine, I even had eyefinity setup for 2 weeks before sending 2 monitors back.

 

Now that I got my Acer XB270HU for a absurdly low price of 390€ I can't watch normal TV anymore, everything feels so choppy.  The only games I now play on my TV are splitscreen/local-coop games when somebody comes over.

 

Why would anyone in this world choose 4K 60hz over 1440P 144hz with G-SYNC?

Also goodluck with 4GB of HBM for 4K. The Fury X is probably the worst GPU in AMD history.

 

 

Of course it's more fluid, it has gsync and only needs to drive 1440p content and can go up to 144Hz.

 

It's harder to get fps as high on 4k res in the first place and not having vrr support means the lower framerates look noticeably less fluid.

 

 

I do think that for the most fluid experience you can get TODAY, sticking with 1440p vrr screens is your best bet.  But the key word is TODAY.  Not tomorrow.

 

Displayport 1.3 is coming, supermhl is coming, and eventually we WILL have vrr 4k screens that can do 120Hz from the gpu.  Then you can have that same fluidity, WITH hardware strong enough to give better results at 4k, on TOP of the size advantage.  There is no island left to stand and DIE on.... unless you just enjoy the teensy weensy little screens.  More power to you if you do.  But my ultimate screen quest won't end until I have a real or virtual display capable of filling my field of view, I want more immersion not less.

 

 

For the sake of all that is just and holy in this world people, stop dreaming so small, desire MORE !!!!!!  Don't be forever content in that small screen ghetto.

[TheConverter]

The 3d is not at 4k, there is significant input lag in tvs, smart tv features are almost always terrible and a 35$ raspberry pi 2 can do everything they do much better.

 

4k IS that great, from both a productivity standpoint and from a gaming one. You may prefer a higher refresh rate and there's nothing wrong with that, but personally I couldn't go back on my desktop. For programming it's absolutely amazing to be able to see twice (or 4 times if you have different files open) as much code on screen.

 

 

Because different people have different needs and tastes. For me 60hz is good enough and I wouldn't get a lower resolution display for a higher refresh rate. And quite honestly, 4gb IS enough for 4k gaming. I don't know what graphics card(s) you're using, but the only way to really go over is using tons of filters and anti-aliasing that are frankly pointless at such a high resolution. And don't give me the "in the future" argument, people willing to spend 650$ on a graphics card will have upgraded already when more than 4gb become a necessity.

 

Is it for people so hard to read signatures? I had a R9 290 and 4GB was clearly not enough.

[TheConverter]

Of course it's more fluid, it has gsync and only needs to drive 1440p content and can go up to 144Hz.

 

It's harder to get fps as high on 4k res in the first place and not having vrr support means the lower framerates look noticeably less fluid.

 

 

I do think that for the most fluid experience you can get TODAY, sticking with 1440p vrr screens is your best bet.  But the key word is TODAY.  Not tomorrow.

 

Displayport 1.3 is coming, supermhl is coming, and eventually we WILL have vrr 4k screens that can do 120Hz from the gpu.  Then you can have that same fluidity, WITH hardware strong enough to give better results at 4k, on TOP of the size advantage.  There is no island left to stand and DIE on.... unless you just enjoy the teensy weensy little screens.  More power to you if you do.  But my ultimate screen quest won't end until I have a real or virtual display capable of filling my field of view, I want more immersion not less.

 

 

For the sake of all that is just and holy in this world people, stop dreaming so small, desire MORE !!!!!!  Don't be forever content in that small screen ghetto.

 

Damn, you are not just a AMD fanboy you are also ignorant and make fun of people with their 27 or 28 inch screens.

Typical Murican who thinks "Bigger is better". You don't seem to notice that 4K on 32 inch has almost the same ppi as 1440P on 27 inch.

 

Rather focus on getting O-LED finally to monitors, because why the F*ck does it take so long? I have a o-led smartphone and even a freaking o-led smartwatch but a proper monitor is to much to ask from the panel industry? Not even LG wants to take the step, and instead just released a "Gaming monitor" with a IPS 4K 60hz screen with Freesync.

 

 

I would like to see what you are using right NOW. I bet it's a 23 inch 1080P 60hz TN display.

[Sammael]

Damn, you are not just a AMD fanboy you are also ignorant and make fun of people with their 27 or 28 inch screens.

 

I would like to see what you are using right NOW.

 

 

I'm using a 27" korean off brand panel from a few years ago.  No vrr.  I want to go larger though and a 40" screen seems like a nice upgrade.  I'm planning a major system upgrade next year.

 

My current core system =

 

8350

290

8GB ram

256GB ssd system drive

 

27" 1440p ips display

 

 

Next year several things are expected to hit all at once.

 

amd zen cpus (amd fan/advocate - the unicorns do exist we few against the nvidia hordes)

arctic islands gpus on a smaller process

 

500 GB ssd system drive at an even cheaper price point than the ALREADY crazy cheap prices

 

hopefully more 4k vrr displays at above 35" in size, not sure if we'll have 120Hz screens by then, but hope springs eternal.

[Sauron]

Is it for people so hard to read signatures? I had a R9 290 and 4GB was clearly not enough.

 

Well, I still HAVE an r9 290 and frankly I'm not getting any vram related problems at all. Besides, since an r9 290 isn't exactly capable of maxing out recent stuff at 4k, even less memory should be required. By the way, how can I be sure you're using the 980ti for the TV? A lot of people here have multiple desktops, it wouldn't be strange at all if you had a 980ti rig hooked to the Acer and something else to your tv.

[TheConverter]

I'm using a 27" korean off brand panel from a few years ago.  No vrr.  I want to go larger though and a 40" screen seems like a nice upgrade.  I'm planning a major system upgrade next year.

 

My current core system =

 

8350

290

8GB ram

256GB ssd system drive

 

27" 1440p ips display

 

 

Next year several things are expected to hit all at once.

 

amd zen cpus (amd fan/advocate - the unicorns do exist we few against the nvidia hordes)

arctic islands gpus on a smaller process

 

500 GB ssd system drive at an even cheaper price point than the ALREADY crazy cheap prices

 

hopefully more 4k vrr displays at above 35" in size, not sure if we'll have 120Hz screens by then, but hope springs eternal.

 

So in 2016 you will still be a AMD fanboy instead of choosing what's the best then? M'kay.

[TheConverter]

Well, I still HAVE an r9 290 and frankly I'm not getting any vram related problems at all. Besides, since an r9 290 isn't exactly capable of maxing out recent stuff at 4k, even less memory should be required. By the way, how can I be sure you're using the 980ti for the TV? A lot of people here have multiple desktops, it wouldn't be strange at all if you had a 980ti rig hooked to the Acer and something else to your tv.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and my TV&PC&Monitor is in the living room. I'm not even living on my self yet. 

I haved moved with my mom to a smaller 1 story house (my mom&father divorced) and I don't have enough space in my own room for a proper battlestation, so I just use a part of the living room since nobody uses the living anyway  

 

Will put a c

[Sammael]

So in 2016 you will still be a AMD fanboy instead of choosing what's the best then? M'kay.

 

 

Yes.  The difference between myself and most of the people who favor nvidia, is that I admit my inclinations and don't try to pass it off as some sterile analysis of what is better hardware/software.  

[TheConverter]

Yes.  The difference between myself and most of the people who favor nvidia, is that I admit my inclinations and don't try to pass it off as some sterile analysis of what is better hardware/software.  

 

Then in my eyes, you are on the same level with console players, who praise either Sony or Microsoft.

 

You can't to admit that the Fury X just plain sucks compared to the 980Ti and AMD got us hyped and waiting over a year for plain nothing.

 

What's more interesting is the R9 390 with 8GB of vram, but that's in another pricelevel.

[Sauron]

 

Oh and my TV&PC&Monitor is in the living room. I'm not even living on my self yet. 

I haved moved with my mom to a smaller 1 story house (my mom&father divorced) and I don't have enough space in my own room for a proper battlestation, so I just use a part of the living room since nobody uses the living anyway  

 

Games will use more vram for caching if you have it, doesn't mean it's required to run it well and the proof is in all the fury x benchmarks that aren't tanking the framerate on the same settings as the 980ti. If vram is insufficient, your framerate will not just get a bit lower, it will go straight downt the pit to have tea with ubisoft.

[TheConverter]

Games will use more vram for caching if you have it, doesn't mean it's required to run it well and the proof is in all the fury x benchmarks that aren't tanking the framerate on the same settings as the 980ti. If vram is insufficient, your framerate will not just get a bit lower, it will go straight downt the pit to have tea with ubisoft.

 

The Fury X is louder, nowhere available, more expensive, the core itself performs about 10% worse then my overclocked 980Ti. Also AMD features suck like VSR which only goes up to 3200x1800 while I can game in 5k and 8K on my 980Ti. Let's not forget that I wouldn't be able to use G-Sync and even 144hz on my monitor with my R9 290. I was limited to 120hz 1440P with no G-Sync and even some weird bugs when using my R9 290 with the ACER 

[Sammael]

Then in my eyes, you are on the same level with console players, who praise either Sony or Microsoft.

 

You can't to admit that the Fury X just plain sucks compared to the 980Ti and AMD got us hyped and waiting over a year for plain nothing.

 

What's more interesting is the R9 390 with 8GB of vram, but that's in another pricelevel.

 

 

I can admit that for the money the 980 ti is a better card overall as far as performance goes.  I don't have to lie about reality to favor a brand.  Saying it sucks is a bit extreme though, if it was priced a bit lower no one would look down on it.  Except for the amd haters, which are legion.  See 90% of Patricks posts here and criss crossed around the web.  Or chizow, or prime over on hardforums.  

 

It's like sales in a way, where people take whatever advantage they have and focus on that, blinded by the whole.  People are not sterile arbiters and judges when it comes to products, that is a LIE people tell themselves.

[Sauron]

The Fury X is louder, nowhere available, more expensive, the core itself performs about 10% worse then my overclocked 980Ti. Also AMD features suck like VSR which only goes up to 3200x1800 while I can game in 5k and 8K on my 980Ti. Let's not forget that I wouldn't be able to use G-Sync and even 144hz on my monitor with my R9 290. I was limited to 120hz 1440P with no G-Sync and even some weird bugs when using my R9 290 with the ACER 

 

That's another matter entirely, all I was saying is that 4gb of vram are enough even for 4k. For your setup the 980ti was definitely a better choice. In fact I'm pretty disappointed at the pricing of the fury x, I was hoping it would deliver similar performance for the price of a 980. Well, at least the "vanilla" fury is a good deal.

[TheConverter]

That's another matter entirely, all I was saying is that 4gb of vram are enough even for 4k. For your setup the 980ti was definitely a better choice. In fact I'm pretty disappointed at the pricing of the fury x, I was hoping it would deliver similar performance for the price of a 980. Well, at least the "vanilla" fury is a good deal.

 

Lol for the vanilla fury you can get three used R9 290 or almost two new R9 390's which would wreck it 

[Sauron]

Lol for the vanilla fury you can get three used R9 290 or almost two new R9 390's which would wreck it 

 

well sure, but for that matter 3 r9 290s would wreck a 980ti as well and so would two r9 390s. At least it performs better than the 980 which is literally a waste of money.