Next Gen Monitors?

[Peter Yacono]

Hi all-

 

A very simple question.

 

Would you buy a monitor right now? Or wait for the next generation monitors to come out?

4k 60hertz seems limiting. The promise of 4K 144hertz sounds amazing to me... but when will this be out? Is there an upcoming trade show I should watch with more announcements, etc? 

 

(Unfortunately my LG 31MU97 died on me and LG has issued me a 'store credit' to replace it. I'm sitting here looking at the current batch of monitors and thinking they might be quickly obsolete soon. Thoughts?) 

 

Thank you in advance for your time.

[Enderman]

There aren't even GPUs that can do 4k 144Hz at high settings.

[Peter Yacono]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

There aren't even GPUs that can do 4k 144Hz at high settings.

It's the flexibility of the panel that I desire.

 

To be able to scale down into 1920x1080 and run FPS games in high refresh rate. Then to be able to go back to the desktop @ 4K and not hurt my eyes @ 60hertz! 

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Peter Yacono said:

It's the flexibility of the panel that I desire.

 

To be able to scale down into 1920x1080 and run FPS games in high refresh rate. Then to be able to go back to the desktop @ 4K and not hurt my eyes @ 60hertz! 

Well it's gonna cost like $2000, so if you can afford it and want to wait that's up to you.

[Peter Yacono]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Well it's gonna cost like $2000, so if you can afford it and want to wait that's up to you.

Well I have a $1750 store credit for replacing my LG 31MU97 monitor, so it's something I'm definitely considering.. if someone can give me an answer to when they are expected to land.

 

There were articles posted early (Jan) 2017 about these types of monitors, and it just seems to have gone abit dead since then.. so I was just wondering.

Thanks for your time, @Enderman.

 

[Skanky Sylveon]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

There aren't even GPUs that can do 4k 144Hz at high settings.

4k runs at 1080p pretty well though, while it might seem a little silly, I can see the appeal of such a monitor.

1080p 144 fps for games, 4k 60 fps (or whatever your GPU maxes out at) for work.

 

17 minutes ago, Peter Yacono said:

I'm sitting here looking at the current batch of monitors and thinking they might be quickly obsolete soon. Thoughts?

Electronics in general become obsolete pretty quickly, I would say, if you really value 4k at high refresh rate, then perhaps you should wait, otherwise just go for whatever you can get for your store credit right now.

 

Also, keep in mind that a 4k monitor at 144 hz may be more expensive than previous 4k monitors, will your store credit be enough?

[Peter Yacono]

1 minute ago, Cinnabar Sonar said:

Also, keep in mind that a 4k monitor at 144 hz may be more expensive than previous 4k monitors, will your store credit be enough?

Understandable Happy to add a bit on to cover the extra cost (plus likely the GPU upgrade too). 

 

It's all down to timing, really. How long the expected wait might be. It sounds like it's still some time away. 

 

 

[Skanky Sylveon]

Just now, Peter Yacono said:

It's all down to timing, really. How long the expected wait might be. It sounds like it's still some time away. 

 

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/asus-now-delays-its-4k-swift-pg27uq-ultra-hd-g-sync-monitor.html

[Peter Yacono]

1 minute ago, Cinnabar Sonar said:

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/asus-now-delays-its-4k-swift-pg27uq-ultra-hd-g-sync-monitor.html

Good pickup! Thanks!

 

1 more question. Will these 4K/144herts implementations be run via displayport 1.3 or 1.4?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 1080/1080ti range rock displayport 1.3 and wouldn't even be capable of running this sort of 4K/144hertz panel? Is that correct? 

[CostcoSamples]

Monitors improve pretty slowly.  I'd say anything less than 18 months old is going to be current for a while yet.  1440p 165hz displays are still very excellent. 

 

Until 4k 144hz 40" is available, don't bother with 4k, IMO.

[Skanky Sylveon]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11014/asus-demonstrates-rog-swift-pg27uq-4k-144-hz-hdr-dcip3-and-gsync

 

According to this article, it will come with 2 displayport 1.4 ports.

 

 

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/graphics-cards/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-1321566/review

 

According to this article, the gtx 1080 supports displayport 1.4.

[Peter Yacono]

13 minutes ago, Cinnabar Sonar said:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11014/asus-demonstrates-rog-swift-pg27uq-4k-144-hz-hdr-dcip3-and-gsync

 

According to this article, it will come with 2 displayport 1.4 ports.

 

 

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/graphics-cards/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-1321566/review

 

According to this article, the gtx 1080 supports displayport 1.4.

Very helpful. Thanks a ton. 

[Glenwing]

39 minutes ago, Peter Yacono said:

Good pickup! Thanks!

 

1 more question. Will these 4K/144herts implementations be run via displayport 1.3 or 1.4?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 1080/1080ti range rock displayport 1.3 and wouldn't even be capable of running this sort of 4K/144hertz panel? Is that correct? 

DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 cap at 4K 120 Hz for uncompressed full color video, but can get 4K 144 Hz via DSC compression (ok) or chroma subsampling (no buy). We'll see what they do.

[Peter Yacono]

Just now, Glenwing said:

DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 cap at 4K 120 Hz for uncompressed full color video, but can get 4K 144 Hz via DSC compression (ok) or chroma subsampling (no buy). We'll see what they do.

Arh. I was reading that article wondering what DSC was. Very helpful and insightful. Thank you. 

 

Regardless, I'm super excited for this. I just wonder when it's all going to land. 

60herts @ 4K on the desktop hurts. 

As my 4K LG panel died, I went back to a 1080p panel doing 120hertz and I can definitely say that it's a much more 'pleasing to the eye' experience (minus the extra pixels, obviously). 

 

I figure as a video editor, a 'creative' and also a gamer... and the fact I stare at my monitor 12-14 hours a day .. it would be worth the investment (and I was hoping other people would be in the same boat too, asking the same questions!! ) 

[ShoshinUK]

For me, over the next few years something like this is my dream.

http://www.ebuyer.com/798342-samasung-c32hg70-31-5-wqhd-curved-gaming-monitor-lc32hg70qquxen?mkwid=sWA3N2WiH_dc&pcrid=51630194939&pkw=&pmt=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjK6JuZqk1gIVhL3tCh3xMAuKEAkYBCABEgLUq_D_BwE

 

But I have decided to wait for a gsync version before I upgrade.

I need 32 inch, 1440p, 144hz, 1ms, gsync, super low input lag and great screen quality in my life!

[CostcoSamples]

12 hours ago, Peter Yacono said:

Arh. I was reading that article wondering what DSC was. Very helpful and insightful. Thank you. 

 

Regardless, I'm super excited for this. I just wonder when it's all going to land. 

60herts @ 4K on the desktop hurts. 

As my 4K LG panel died, I went back to a 1080p panel doing 120hertz and I can definitely say that it's a much more 'pleasing to the eye' experience (minus the extra pixels, obviously). 

 

I figure as a video editor, a 'creative' and also a gamer... and the fact I stare at my monitor 12-14 hours a day .. it would be worth the investment (and I was hoping other people would be in the same boat too, asking the same questions!! ) 

I agree 100% that high refresh rate is the future.  It's not just for gaming, but for regular desktop use as well.

 

It might be hard to step down to 1440p if you are accustomed to 4k, and maybe you could really benefit from 4k as a content creator... But from my experience 1440p is a really good resolution for these reasons:

 

- Very nice pixel density at 27 inches

- Easy for mid range GPU to drive it, even at relatively high refresh rates (I consider the 1070 and 1080 as mid-range GPUs)

- Lots of high refresh rate models are available

- You don't have to worry about 4k scaling problems at that size 

 

I think 27 inches is much too small for 4k.  To me, the purpose of higher resolution is to allow larger monitors while keeping pixel density the same or a little better.  4k is best suited for larger sizes (34" minimum - I would prefer 40").

 

Consider this:  You could get TWO 1440p 165hz IPS Gsync displays for the price of ONE 27" 4k 144hz (which isn't even out yet and might still be a while).  For content creation, two identical displays would be awesome.  Hell, if you can find them on sale, you might even get THREE of those displays for around $2k.

[Skanky Sylveon]

18 hours ago, Peter Yacono said:

I figure as a video editor, a 'creative' and also a gamer... and the fact I stare at my monitor 12-14 hours a day .. it would be worth the investment (and I was hoping other people would be in the same boat too, asking the same questions!! ) 

I'm planning on getting this monitor.

https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG35VQ/

I don't really care about 4k, but I love ultra wide, for both work and gaming.  Also 200 hz.

A monitor (in my opinion) is one of the better things to splurge on.  So I would agree that a 4k high refresh rate monitor is worth it.

[JoostinOnline]

20 hours ago, Peter Yacono said:

It's the flexibility of the panel that I desire.

 

To be able to scale down into 1920x1080 and run FPS games in high refresh rate. Then to be able to go back to the desktop @ 4K and not hurt my eyes @ 60hertz! 

I've read that 1080p on a 4K monitor looks pretty terrible.  I've never seen it myself though.

[Darkseth]

can't look terrible, because it scales even. Every side halves.

Which means, 4 Pixel will be displaying 1 Pixel, if you run 1080p at UHD resolution.

That means, the Monitor doesn't have to do any "scaling" (like 1080p on a 1440p monitor).

 

But no reason to go down to 1080p^^

 

ALWAYS use full native resolution. If you don't have enough fps, don't use Ultra settings.Go down to High. or Medium.

Resolution should be the LAST thing, you turn down.

 

And if the Monitor has 144 Hz, with G-Sync / Freesync you don't "have" to get 144 fps permanently.

Some games feel already very good in 50-70 fps~. Witcher 3 for example.

 

Remember: There will always be games, where you can NOT get 144 fps on Ultra. Even if you have 1080 ti SLI, and 1440p, there WILL be some games where you can NOT hit 144 fps in Ultra.

You don't have to.

 

144 Hz simply give you the OPTION to go up to 144 fps, and "see" that too. Thanks to G-Sync of Freesync, even 80 fps will be perfectly fine. No stuttering, no Tearing.

Or 50 fps, if you like a graphic firework for your eyes in games, where fps isn't important.

While on the other hand, you play Overwatch in Medium, so you always have those 144 fps there for best input Lag, or CS:GO.

 

On every game, you can find your personal sweetspot, between Graphic quality, and fps.

 

Older games can run in 144 fps np. My GTX 1080 runs Bioshock 1 in 160~ fps, even in 5k DSR (4x 2560x1440 resolution), at least in that one savespot i'm in, at the beginning of the game.

 

And also don't forget: You don't buy the Monitor and expect to get 144 fps in everything TODAY.

This Monitor will last you 5 years, probably 10 years, and still be one of the best Monitors you can have by then (i know another user, who bought a 2560x1600 Monitor 10 years ago~, GPUs back then couldn't play games in that resolution smooth. He still enjoyed this resolution for all these years, now he uses 4k/60 Hz since 1-2 years).
If you can't squeeze 100% out of it, np. you will later.

 

But still: 2000 bucks is a real deal ^^

[TundraBF109]

I think my 1080ti and Titan SLI boxes with run 4k 144hz just fine at 27" based on running 1440p now on them, and running 4k on my 28" Acer Gsync, and so on. 

 

Quote

All of the 4K 144Hz monitors’ release dates have been delayed for Q1 2018 as AU Optronics won’t begin manufacturing these panels until December.

 

Acer and Asus both have Predator/ROG 144hz 4k IPS monitors coming, they've been announced since forever, but a recent press release they both stated they were coming out in Q1 2018 now, so 4 or 5 months still.  I'll be buying one of each, and selling my 2 ROG Swift 27" 1440p units and my Acer 28" 4k, if anyone wants a cheap monitor here in Canada then. 

 

I ran a PG348Q, 34" 100hz Gsync, the size was cool, and 100hz is close to 144/165, you can tell a bit that it's lower, but the jump from 60 to 100 is drastic, while the jump from 100 to 144/165 is far less so in terms of the improvement IMO.  The new VQ 200hz of this model should really kick ass.  I liked my 34", I just traded it for Rift/Vive stuff.  One thing to consider with this model, Acer has a z35 model similar coming out without the eye dot or HDR stuff, and is pre order priced at $1100 compared to the $1600 or more the PG348VQ will likely cost.  In fact Acer has a similar or identical capability monitor to match every Asus gaming monitor out there, and their screens are often made from the same place, and cost about 10% less.  Just another option if you don't hate Acer.  144hzmonitors is  a great site to read about monitor stuff too.

 

Last but not least, AOC will be jumping into the 144hz 4kGsync mix too, and making a version of the 200hz 1440p 35" curved LCD too.  http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/aoc-ag273ug-aoc-ag353ucg/

 

 

I still really like the 27" size, and the 144 4ks will be MINE the day I can order them.  If 2 1080ti or a Titan can't push them to 4k and 144fps, I'll hope and wait that the next Volta GPUs can.  They'll be "ok", as I can run 144/165 with a single 1080ti on both 27" I have, and 60 on my near 2 year old Acer 28"4k Gsync, so the new 4k 144hz monitors will be "at worst" in between there someplace.

[Glenwing]

32 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

can't look terrible, because it scales even. Every side halves.

Which means, 4 Pixel will be displaying 1 Pixel, if you run 1080p at UHD resolution.

That means, the Monitor doesn't have to do any "scaling" (like 1080p on a 1440p monitor).

It can if it doesn't use nearest-neighbor upscaling, which is what you're describing, and in practice displays don't, for the most part. Using groups of four pixels to represent one pixel of 1080p is a method of scaling that could be done in theory to display the image perfectly, but isn't actually used in the real world. 1080p will be blurred like any other non-native resolution.

[Darkseth]

Didn't knew, there were any differences there.. Thought, if it's UHD to 1080p, it scales perfectly well, since the Pixel counts is / 4

 

But yea.. that shows, that it's better to turn settings down to Medium or low first, and Resolution should stay at native as long as possible (or even, always)

[Glenwing]

4 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

Didn't knew, there were any differences there.. Thought, if it's UHD to 1080p, it scales perfectly well, since the Pixel counts is / 4

 

But yea.. that shows, that it's better to turn settings down to Medium or low first, and Resolution should stay at native as long as possible (or even, always)

Unfortunately not

Quote

It is a common misconception that running 1920 x 1080 on a ‘4K’ UHD monitor will automatically provide equivalent sharpness to a native 1920 x 1080 display. That belief is held because the UHD resolution has exactly twice as many pixels vertically and twice as many pixels horizontally as the Full HD resolution. In practice monitor interpolation processes aren’t perfect.

In the case of the Dell P2415Q, though, the interpolation process is surprisingly good. In fact we’d go as far as to say it’s excellent. If you run the monitor at 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) or 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) then you do lose a degree of sharpness compared to running that resolution on a 23.8” model that has a similar screen surface. This loss of sharpness is fairly minor, though, and is in fact one of the lowest losses of sharpness we’ve seen from an interpolation process on any monitor. On the desktop text looks a little soft but not really blurry as you’d usually observe from a normal viewing distance.

https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/dell-p2415q/

 

Quote

The image appears noticeably soft, much softer in fact than running 1920 x 1080 natively on your typical 27” Full HD LCD. Text appears to have a soft fringe and games look like they are being viewed through some sort of soft-focus lens. If you’re expecting things to look like they would on a native ‘1080p’ display, think again.

[...]

It is unfortunate to see that interpolation is handled so poorly by the monitor. It’s not entirely surprising, as we saw similar performance from the 28” ‘4K’ models. The Dell P2415Q, on the other hand, handled non-native resolutions surprisingly well.

https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/asus-pb279q/

 

[vanished]

Personally I'd like to see 10 bit get to the point that 8 bit is now, where it's just internationally standardized and common, rather than being a special thing that needs this or that support.  I'd also like to move up to 120 hz or something like it but definitely a multiple of 60 (ie, not 144)

[Glenwing]

34 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Personally I'd like to see 10 bit get to the point that 8 bit is now, where it's just internationally standardized and common, rather than being a special thing that needs this or that support.  I'd also like to move up to 120 hz or something like it but definitely a multiple of 60 (ie, not 144)

Pretty much this.