Which 4k monitor do I get? The Acer XB271HK or the Asus PG27AQ? Both have pretty much the same specs, as far as I can tell. The same size, IPS, refresh rate, and G-Sync.
But why is the Acer monitor £100 cheaper? I can barely find any user reviews, and no comparisons. The TFTcentral review is good, though.
Other urls found in this thread:
tftcentral.co.uk
newegg.com
twitter.com
>not waiting for 8k
This is just a stopgap measure until next year, when 120hz 4k monitors with hdr will be commonplace.
...
bullshit
>next year, when 120hz 4k monitors with hdr will be commonplace.
seeing as we basically *just* formalized the DP spec that would allow for it, we can safely assume we won't see any hardware supporting it until ~6 months from now.
"commonplace" is at least 5 years away. we might be able to find 4k 120Hz monitors at "affordable for enthusiasts" prices next year.
Yeah, user was spewing shit about "commonplace", but UHD@120Hz displays actually are slated for Q4'16, which is a lot sooner than many expected.
links?
if you're talking about 40" monitors, nobody's going to buy them. most users top out at 24", which is in fact the ideal size for 4k, but my hunch is that the first UHD 120Hz monitors are going to be expensive, what with being the first and all. and this is saying nothing of the fact that all the GPUs supporting DP 1.4 (the spec required to achieve 4k at 120Hz) are still in the pipeline.
We need to wait until at least the second generation of each batch of tech before we can arguably say that we have affordable versions of these things. That means that we shouldn't expect to see usable implementations of UHD@120Hz until H2 2017, and probably the same of GPUs.
Remember that when we first started seeing 4k monitors we were dealing with MST and shit. that first generation was an absolute mess.
>Goy-Sync
the only think seen so far was a 27" Asus prototype.
> tftcentral.co.uk
I'm waiting on next year's Philips 43" monitor, assuming it continues using the LG IPS panel.
Get Ultra-Wide 3440x1440 34'' curved monitor, fall in love with it, forget the 4K meme
If Apple is going to release a monitor with an integrated video card to drive the thing (as has bene rumored), my hunch is that this will turn into a somewhat pernicious trend that'll be hard to break away from. DP 1.3 (or 1.4, or whatever) would have to be at feature parity *and* be pretty much launching at the same time as whatever Apple announces. Otherwise it'll be DOA because Apple can send a few black people to dance in front of colored backgrounds and sell a few million units, thus cementing a de facto standard.
I'm not sure which outcome I would want. On the one hand, an integrated video card just to drive the monitor would alleviate a lot of the burden currently on GPUs; a laptop couldn't drive a few external 4k monitors, for instance, and it's not really fair to expect everyday non-gaming consumers to need discrete GPUs in their laptops just to have an external. It would be a nice solution to resolve the bandwidth issue.
On the other hand, I can't think of any way to implement this that wouldn't be severely OS-dependent or otherwise locked in.
>get the 21:9 curved monitor; 4k is the meme
lol, good one
You can use a dp 1.3 GPU for 120hz 4k without hdr
oh shit, I didn't realize. thanks for the correction.
who cares about resolution when the colors are going to be shit
wait for oled
are there any 4k 120hz ips g-sync monitors?
must be nice being rich
Actually it is. 4k was introduced way too soon and by following the good old rule of 60 fps you still can't play in 4K on a single GPU, 1080 Ti/Titan XXXL might change it but 4K right now means either sacrificing details or playing in meme 30 fps cinematic experience mode. From what I've seen 1080 gtx is perfect for UW 1440p.
>who cares about resolution when the colors are going to be shit
basically everyone who didn't mind TN panels empirically doesn't care that much about color accuracy.
The people that care about color accuracy are the professional and enthusiast photographers. Even avid consumers of movies and anime are somewhat divided on whether it's worth investing in a highly color-accurate monitor. Certainly the more serious you get, the less controversy there is, but lots of normal users don't care.
The priorities tend to go:
1. resolution (because ~retina~)
2. refresh rate (TV makers have done a great job convincing consumers that football doesn't look as good at 60Hz vs 120Hz; who cares what display rate the signal comes through at)
3. color accuracy
your best bet is Apple releasing some bullshit new upgrade to iPhone/MBP monitors that promises better colors, which will spur other monitor manufacturers to compete on that dimension. That's what happened with the rMBP and display resolutions.
most consumers aren't playing video games.
Ultrawides are the fedora of monitors. In a few years, with luck, you'll look back and be embarrassed that you bought such a strong signal of you being out of touch with the rest of us.
this is so retarded.
there will be enough canned 16:9 4k content in the future that getting a gimpy cropped resolution is extremely short sighted.
if you want to game and don't have enough GPU horsepower to drive 4k@whatever Hz, just use a letterboxed screen resolution or even just windowed mode for now.
24' is too low for 4K. I have a 27' and I wouldn't go any lower, I already have to set UI scaling to 150%
Actually UW was created for content creators and people who multitask alot on their desktop. UW gaming is just a nice bonus cuz of immersion and lower requirements. Please don't tell me you buy a 4k monitor for movies.
or get a ~24" 4k monitor and make it render at 1920x1080. There'll still be scaling, but it'll be at a relatively clean 2x, so there shouldn't be any intensive interpolation to do.
I think we've had this exact 4k@24" discussion a dozen times now, so I'll just fast track:
>But details!
>you get equivalent detail, just sharper elements when your OS recognizes it can. Look up Fitts' Law.
>But working space!
>you're only going to look at so much at one time; are you seriously using more than the equivalent of 1920x1080?
>But 40" is so epic!
>that's basically a TV. nobody has space for that at their work desk. This isn't Minority Report.
>Pay for a 4k monitor
>Have it render at a lower resolution
Why.
The point is exactly to get to 200% so that everything scales without crazy shit going on like 1.5x scaling. see crappy image
see also see rMBP.
and for real if you're going to revive that fucking trope where Sup Forums didn't understand scaling then give me a minute to find that collage of all the retards who didn't understand it 4 years ago.
Really, like, one minute.
> 40"+ is too big
yeah, that's bullshit.
I have a 30" 2560x1600 flanked by a pair of 20" portrait modes, and 40" would actually be a little smaller.
I bought a 4K monitor mostly for the extra workspace but for gayming I play most stuff at 1440p because there isn't a good single card solution for 4K yet. Works fine for my needs.
>yeah, that's bullshit.
bullshit in what sense? it's too big for work desks. i don't discount your ability to fit one in a basement.
I understand your point but I can't say I've run into weird scaling issues at 1.5x though it's possible you could chalk that up to ignorance.
>I can't say I've run into weird scaling issues at 1.5x
I suspect that at the density we're talking about, scaling issues would be mitigated (keep in mind that telling OS X to do 150% scaling with the rMBP is similarly "breaking", and nobody complains about the 1920x1080 setting there), but it adds a relatively significant load on the processor (whether GPU or CPU) that, at 4k, is probably the last thing your computer wants.
At 27" I'd probably rather see 5k, but just as there were people cheaping out and getting 27" 1080p monitors, there will be people getting 27" 4k monitors.
my desk is 48"x24", and there is a tiny bit of overhang on the edges.
A 4' wide desk could probably fit a 50" diagonal 16:9 display and still not go past the edges.
Do you would in some SEA sweatshop with 3' wide desks?
also 5k is WAY harder to drive, absolutely requiring DP 1.3 or better, whereas 4k is at least logistically possible with 1.2
so how high does this monitor go, again?
A 50" monitor would be ~26" high, and a 40" monitor would be ~21", plus maybe an inch or two for stand height.
If you're worried about craning your neck, consider trying not being a manlet.
None
They don't have any 120hz 4k monitors
I'm in a similar position, but I'm looking for a 2k monitor to upgrade to for when I get a 480. Should I go for newegg.com
Asus already has a 144Hz 4K IPS prototype. It was shown at a recent computer show. No model name yet.
Meanwhile in Australia, you can't find good quality 114hz monitors as they're rate. While 60hz monitors are expensive and outdated.
pls respond
>it's better to have everything on hypermegaultra settings than going to 4k
I love this meme. like the literally unnoticable jump from high to ultra shadow details is worth more to people than a significantly higher resolution.
>2x
ayyyy, let's try it with some EU math and say 4, shall we?
Ausfag here, I have a 114hz monitor, I dunno where the fuck you buy your computer components from if you can't find a good quality 114hz monitor
>114hz
straya cunts shitposting again
>24" 4k monitor
How retarded can you be. 40" or bust
I think he meant 2x in both directions
Wait for OLED.
What about an ultrawide? Like the X34A. That at 100hz is roughly equal to a 4k monitor at 60 in terms of pixels per second. But it's 30% wider, and dropping down from 100 fps is more bearable than going below 60.
here's your (You), but if you honestly need an answer then read the thread before impulsively posting your retarded questions.
Wallpaper? Anybody?
>you're only going to look at so much at one time; are you seriously using more than the equivalent of 1920x1080?
There are actually people who only use 1080 vertical?
I rarely use my full 2160 vertical now, but back on my 2560x1600 and 1440s, I always used the full vertical.
show us a screenshot of the results you got when you did reverse image search.
i use my monitors in portrait orientation because 90% of the content i look at flows vertically. but given that, i'd rather have sharper text than... well, anything else.
...
do you want the wallpaper or do you want more of the picture of the monitor?
crop the section of the wallpaper and image search that. don't act like a retard. you're the one who wants the wallpaper.
Oh, I get ya now. Don't be such a bully. Thank you. :D
Yeah, I do that with my old 1440s.
Primary 4k in landscape, peripheral 1440s in portrait.
Using 16:9 in portrait really shows how thin they are, though. I wish 16:10 wasn't dead
found it.