31.5"

>31.5"
>VA
>1440p
>75hz
>48-75hz Freesync

>200€ preorder

Well ain't that just swell.
I know the HP Freesync ones are down to like 250$ on sale in the US, but here in Europe they rarely dip much below 400€

Other urls found in this thread:

rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-type/qled-vs-oled-vs-led
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>VA

Did you have a problem?

All panels are compromises until OLED. Large IPS panels on desktop monitors are glowy as fuck, 27" is already pushing it

>75hz
>48-75hz freesync

why bother?

Because it's still sometimes noticeable.

I get screen tearing on my fury x playing csgo because vsync locks my 60hz screen to 59hz.

It's very rarely noticeable but when it happens it's annoying.

My Freesync AOC is realy fucking bleedy, way more that a comparable benQ monitor from 6 years earlier which i have besides it. AOC are cheap as fuck. Never again.

>All panels are compromises until OLED
Let's not pretend OLED is some perfect technology - it has its own downsides. In terms of raw image quality, though, it certainly suffers the least compared to LCD. But the downsides might be significant depending on your use case (e.g. desktop PC use causing burn in).

>1440p
>not 1600p

w2c in america?

>31"
>1440p
you need 4k for that size.
>until OLED
No.
OLED is a dead meme.
QLED/Quantum Dot is the real deal
>cheap
>HDR capable
>good
>ALMOST perfect blacks
>noburn it
>did i mention its cheap?

word, oled is the next plasma

>QLED/Quantum Dot is the real deal
Samsung's QLED is marketing BS - same old LCD with a QD-enhanced backlight they've been peddling for a few years now.

If/when QDCF (quantum dot color filter) LCDs and/or QD-LED (true emissive QD) displays happen, then we can talk about QD being better. Until then, it's still the same old IPS/VA/TN LCD shit.

Do they sell the land cruiser in the US? When I was in the UAE they gave me one to drive around and they're comfy AF, I should buy one.

QLED is a VA panel with new backlight technology.
the trick is
>backlighting is capable of blasting 1000cd of very clear pure white
>VA has 3000 if not 5000 contrast
>purity of backlight allows great color representation
>contrast of VA allows HDR
OLED will never get cheap, QLED can give you a great experience at a reasonable price

It's still VA LCD though, so you get:
>poor viewing angles
>gamma shift
>smearing

Also QLED isn't new, unless you count 2+ years old as "new." Before Samsung renamed it QLED, their SUHD TVs were using QD-enhanced backlighting. Those came out back in 2015.

>you need 4k for that size.

scale ppi 4K FHD 1440p
-----------------------------------
1x 96 45.8" 22.9" 30.5"
1.25x 120 36.7" 18" 24.4"
1.5x 144 30.5" 15.2" 20.3"
1.75x 168 26.2" 13.1" 17.4"
1.875x 180 24.4" 12.2" 16.3"
2x 192 22.9" 11.4" 15.2"


dumbass

32" needs 4K. I've been using 1440 on 27" for years now and it's getting annoying.
>QLED is a VA panel with new backlight technology.
Which is why Samsung makes QLED TN monitors?

2 years is very new.
And they started marketing them as HDR capable monitors very recently.
>i dont know what Im talking about
VA are great.
their viewing angles are very close to those of IPS like above 160°
The "smearing" is way better than on IPS.
Gamma shift isnt any worse than on IPS.

VA is here to kill the IPS, its equal or better to IPS in anything.

>32" needs 4K
>why can't this de scale 1.5
>REEEEEEEEE
>LINUX SUCKS

I LOVE my 140 PPI Monitor, its fucking amazing.

140 PPI is an optimal value for viewing from your arm's lenght, any smaller getd meaningless, any larger and you can clearly see the dots.

before that i had a 24" 1080 display and I could see not only the individual pixels bit even the black lines between them.
Now i have a 32" 4k and i love it.

it got 1 semi-dead pixel (it glows but dim) and when I think about it I can find it only after some time looking for it, if it was larger it would be jarring, but as it is I can barely see it only if I really look for it.

>VA are great.
>their viewing angles are very close to those of IPS like above 160°
Yeah, nah:
>When it comes to viewing angle, Samsung touted QLED as being a significant upgrade compared to other LED TVs. Unfortunately, we have not measured any improvement on that matter. Samsung's QLED TVs perform almost the same as their predecessors, and that's in the low-end of most LCD TVs. Now, not all LED TVs have the same small viewing angles, IPS type TVs will usually do quite good. Either way, though, neither QLED nor the best LED TVs will match the viewing angle of OLED screens.
rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-type/qled-vs-oled-vs-led

Also, VA panels are well known to have poor pixel response times that manifests as purple trails. Worse than IPS, and much worse than TN.

i find 125% to be the perfect scaling ratio for a 32" 4k panel.

Also I heard KDE has got great scaling featured.

IPS with A-TW is the superiorest

This is true, I have 4k 27" display, it's 10 times better for reading and such, and icons actually doesn't look like garbage.

Too bad almost no one actually makes them, and the ones that do charge $2.5k+ .

>article about TVs
>while discussing monitors

Samsung Quantum dot MONITORS use VA panels and they do have much better viewing angles than TN.

When is it coming out?

Are you really claiming that Samsung uses better panels on their monitors than on their TVs? Go look at the Samsung monitor threads on various forums and you'll see how great they aren't.

And yes VA has better viewing angles than TN, but they still suck compared to IPS and especially OLED

>OLED
>pretty much CRT response time
>potentially high refresh rate
>infinite contrast
>Better color reproduction
It's like a better version of plasma and it even shares the fatal flaw. Burn ins

and just like plasma, it will share the same fate

4k or 144hz?

which one will benefit me more? (currently have a 1080p 60hz monitor i5 7600kcpu gtx 1060 6gpu 32gb RAM)

do you do any work?
if yes 4K
If you only play games, dont do anything and dont watch movies then perhaps 144hz could be an option

if you work with text, 4k at some scale that your operating system can handle smoothly (usually 2x). i have a pair of 4k 24" monitors in portrait orientation and coding, looking up docs, reading, etc... is fucking delicious.

higher refresh rates are nice, but not more important than pixel density when you're staring at a relatively static screen (text updates are not very active updates) for hours and hours per day

>do you do any work?
no

i do watch movies and anime but i feel that the way the game plays is better than the way it looks.

i just want to be somewhat setup for the future as the next pc i build (in 3-5 years) will have a bigger budget and i'll be aiming for really high end with it.

wait for the next displayport that will allow faster 4k and MCM gpus that will run games at 80fps 4k

not him, but you'll probably be frustrated with 4k if your primary interest is gaming.

i'll consider that. it depends if its out in 3-5 years

why?

>why?
the best 4k monitors are 60hz which is pretty much the baseline for most other monitors. if you're setting up a desktop and you don't have graphics stuff set up yet, sometimes native 4k support won't work quite right (i've never ever had a problem with a 1080p display, and i keep one of those monitors around just in case i need to set my computer up from scratch or do something that might leave me operating on integrated components only).

this won't be a problem in a year or two and we're making swift progress in general, but if your main thing is gaming, 4k won't offer you anything _and_ it'll occasionally give you little quirks, which won't be easy to tolerate since the display's not doing anything special for you (like sharper text, etc...)

alright thanks, i appreciate the info.

>why?
Currently the top GPUs are strughling to achieve even 60 in AAA games (although dropping insignificant sliders like shading, lighting and ditching AA helps without dramatically affecting quality)

I personally LOVE visual cparity and crisp sharp image over smoothness and some invisible but taxing "ultra" fluff but your mileage may vary, some people only care about FPS, not me though.

>I love my 140 PPI
Not everyone here is borderline underage college child. 140 PPI is a fucking eye rape without some serious scaling. Once you get a job and end up staring at monitor for most of the day, you will understand what I'm talking about.

not him but
>without some serious scaling
high density displays have been in mainstream laptops for more than 5 years now and somehow only on Sup Forums do people not intuitively understand that. can you help me understand why that solution doesn't come naturally to you? is your operating system garbage when it comes to scaling?

>Also I heard KDE has got great scaling featured.
i seriously doubt that

>i find 125% to be the perfect scaling ratio for a 32" 4k panel.
i fucking hate zooming every other web page so fucking much

>before that i had a 24" 1080 display and I could see not only the individual pixels bit even the black lines between them.
get a 4k 24" dumass

it's like this board is stunted

So where can I buy it?

this is why they sell us stupid displays

>buying barely mainstream tech
>future proof
GOY!

125% is terrible. have you given any consideration to interpolation penalties? no matter how good GPUs get you still want everything to divide (or scale) cleanly.

200% means that every single pixel on a normal display becomes 4 - a 2x2 grid. if it was black before, then it's just 4 black pixels now. if that pixel was handling a vector object, then you can be more specific, but the fallback is a clean 2x2 matrix. even still, it's not perfect. it's just not godawful.

150% means that 2 pixels across become 3 pixels across. that means that if you had a black pixel adjacent to a white pixel, then now you have 3 pixels where each one has to represent about 2/3 of the previous layout (that's on one dimension. obviously in 2 dimensions it scales in the same way).

125% scaling means you're turning 4 pixels into 5. there's no clean way to perfectly map any single pixel as a fallback except as 16x16 blocks, which means a fuckload of interpolation calculations and ultimately a dissatisfying outcome.

guys, don't do this half-measure bullshit. this is why USB 1.1 persisted for so fucking long. make the leap to proper 2x or 3x or 10x for all i care. but don't fuck yourself by going with 1.25x

>you need 4k for that size.
You don't.
t. a 32'' VA 2560x1440 monitor owner

isnt the implication that 4k/144hz will eventually become mainstream in 3-5 years?

it doesnt work like that.

it renders all boxes and objects llarger, it does not upscale it as a raster, it renders bigger.

as for icons and buttons most of them are significantly larger than displayed resolution.

It just works quite fine, no blur and no shit is visible you cwn set it to any value and it will be OK.

well the displayports are going to arrive soon.

I cant imagine GPUs capable to run PBR 4k games at 140fps though

you're thinking of vector objects. in those cases, yes it'll render everything fine. all of the interpolation issues emerge when you're dealing with raster objects, which many visual assets still are.

i'm confident that video cards (integrated and dedicated) can handle the calculations necessary to provide some workable scaling. the problem is that it's not ideal. compromises have to be made, and a more complex calculation has to be done to achieve a result that approaches a perfect 2x scale).

FOR FUCKS SAKE

THE MOST ICONS ARE ACTUALLY 1000*1000 PNGs or at least 500*500 and to be displayed at 125% they are being downscaled to a slightly lower factor.

DP 1.4 will give us 4k at 120Hz but it's only in the highest end cards right now so lol. also i don't know of any monitors at all that do 4k at 120Hz under any circumstances (so it's hard to envision the commoditization of that).

but really to get to 144hz you'd need to be looking at dp 1.5, which isn't even on the wikipedia page yet, so it basically isn't on anyone's mind.

who knows meanwhile you'll pay premium for test bed technology

you need to calm down. you're either being intentionally obtuse or looking for a reason to have a fucking meltdown. i'm talking about the failure scenarios of raster objects that need to be scaled. they scale much, much better when the scale is a clean integer.

even in the case you're screaming about, the designers who make high resolution raster assets are making regular and "2x" assets specifically because 2x scaling is the norm they're anticipating. opting to take the 2x and scale down is better than scaling up from 1x, but it's still not what you should want. you want to take the 2x assets and map them 1:1 on a 2x display.

but seriously, you need to go for a walk or drink some water or something. if you're going to keep freaking out then i'll just patronizingly agree with you in an effort to make sure you don't go shoot up a nearby school or something.

so far i have not encountered any noticeble blur or errors while constantly working with a 4k monitor at 125%.

and as a hobby artist i know pretty much about scaling factors.

if the error exists it is within 1 pixel size which is nearly invisible with such density

Because when you are scaling your display then there is basically no point in even having resolution this high, you dumb goy. And if you are not then you are killing your eyes. I don't give 2 fucks about having muh smooth letters and """"snappy"""" experience or whatever buzzwords you love to eat out of merchant ass. It brings no functional benefit at all, which is why it was always so popular in iToddler facebook machines, commonly used by people who do jack shit all day.
If you are going to get 4k then get 42" one and make use of it. Problem is, you are too poor for one.

do you honestly not understand that there's a relationship between the density of pixels and the quality of reading text of otherwise similar size?

they've literally done studies on this. what kind of termite or worm or whatever has gotten into your brain?

what samsung is calling qled is edge lit shit.
oled, fun fact, oled is expensive up front but the cheapest panel material wise once you have the upfront cost handled.

>they've literally done studies on this
I'm sure they did. I wonder who sponsored them, LG or Samsung. Maybe both. Again, I don't give a shit, when I buy higher resolution monitor I want to be able to have more work space out of it. I have different things to do in my life than chatting on fagbook and obsessing over smoothness of my artisan fonts.
You don't need to press enter 2 times for a newline on Sup Forums.

>I wonder who sponsored them, LG or Samsung. Maybe both.
lol okay i thought you were serious but now i feel silly for taking the bait all along. not bad trolling. in retrospect it was pretty obvious, but hey, who am i to say your trolling was obvious if i fell for it?

you are in stupid denial.
you get a 50% bigger panel with 4 times the pixels
Then everything is 50% smaller
Then you ypscale it to a comfortable size and end up with tripple the workspace you had before.

A 32" 4k is virtually 4 16" displays seamlessly glued together, which is considered large for laptops.
if you find it too small you can bump it up a bit and enjoy an equivalent of 3 20" displays

>high density displays have been in mainstream laptops for more than 5 years now
bleach has also been in mainstream shops for more than 50 years now
you should drink some

all monitors outside of oled have shit viewing angles.

tn color shifts to inverted
ips has black level shifts that wash everything the fuck out
va has the sameish issue.

here is my logic
I went to best buy near us, looked at every fucking pc there, each and every one was more shit the last in image quality. I went over to the tvs and my god... even the cheap shit is better than the best monitor they have, the only advantage monitors have is display port bandwidth and 60+hz

While I would love a 4k monitor at 120-144hz, its just not happening

so my option is a fucking shit monitor that is a downgrade or at best a side grade from my fucking t240hd (as viewing angles on all monitors share the same fucking can't look at it at off angles problem so ips is not an upgrade to me) or the tv im going to get, tcl p605/607 55inch

I looked at it from a viewing angle of at least 140 degrees and the shift in black and color was less then looking at my current monitor straight on and looking at corners from arms length away.

Ill get a 4k 6500 contrast (7500 with local dimming, not sure if I will use till I test it myself, out tv in the living room has a half second delay in its dynamic contrast and that's my fear for this) a 4:4:4 chroma 4k display that is little under 4 of my current monitors screen real estate that I can also shift down to watch video at 4k with hdr.

The only part of the monitor that isn't perfect is it doesn't have display port or the yet to be released hdmi standard.

fuck I hate pc monitors, every fucking thing is shit and a massive compromise, while tv's nearly everything is good and the only compromise you make is how much you are willing to pay.

120hz 1440p is what you want.
what is your budget?

>>Sup Forums

i'm not even making that argument. get a pair of 24" displays. get one that's 4k and one that's 1080p. sit down and read from them for a few hours. you'll find that the higher density display is easier to read on.

the studies bear this out. go read "Effects of Display Resolution on Visual Performance". the discussion breaks it down into basically long soundbites:
>the higher the display resolution is, the better the search efficiency is characterized by, on average, faster search RTs and shorter fixation durations and a tendency to make less fixations to scan one line in the letter matrix.

this was 20 years ago when they were just working with CRTs. the only way to come up with higher visual density was by going to paper, so they did that and it basically became their control condition (and even that only gave them 255 dots per inch, which we can beat both with digital and analog displays).

wow that was so edgy and randum lol *holds up spork* i'm random 2!

could you explain yourself?
i'll wait

144hz is noticeable in everything you do and 60hz feels stuttery even in desktop use after having 144hz.

lets go this way,

you don't have a gpu that can push 4k
so you are either going to use 4k as productivity/screen real estate, or you are going to upscale everything and shit away 4k's benefit

but your gpu is powerful enough to be a half way between 60 and 144hz depending on the game

personally i'm getting a 55 inch tcl p605/607 for screen real estate and just not dealing with the overall shittiness of monitors.

the 7nm node is coming, if nvidia jumps on it or amd really did alleviate bottlenecks and the drivers are just shit, the 7nm node will likely see 400~mm gpus that can do 4k 120 with current graphics.

>obviously missing the point
the fact that it's available does not mean you should take it

>144hz is noticeable in everything you do and 60hz feels stuttery even in desktop use after having 144hz.

this doesn't make sense in the context of looking at text and stuff. refresh rates on static elements don't matter on an LCD. maybe you're thinking of CRTs, which had headache-inducing qualities if you didn't use an appropriate refresh rate, but if you're coding, reading, writing, etc... then you'll basically only notice refresh rate when you're mousing around, the exact duration of scrolling, and when you're moving stuff around on your desktop.

these are all worthy of getting higher refresh rates. but if you work (which is the caveat provided earlier), then the higher order bit is display density. refresh rate is more important if moving objects are a large part of your use (games, videos, etc...).

i briefly had to work with a 30Hz display and it was bad, but the misery was contained to movement. when i was reading text already on the screen it looked exactly the same as a 60 or 120Hz LCD display would have.

If you are only reading sure, refresh doesn't matter and the movement speed doesn't either, at that point a e paper display would be the best case scenario for anyone.

However I assume anyone here isn't using the display for only reading.

the 144 would likely be better in most scenarios unless you are going for screen real estate.

How to freesync/gsync work with video playback issues?

Interpolation on mpv tries to fix the mismatch between video playback speed and monitor refresh rate. Does that mean with freesync you dont need interpolation?

oh i see. you genuinely misunderstood me. you should quote the whole sentence next time.

you misquoted me. or "someone else" misquoted me. there was a sentence which had a period at the end, and that whole sentence contained the point. the point was that these things have been around for more than 5 years and it's become obvious that the primary application of high pixel density displays is to scale things - not to make everything teeny tiny. if your text is ~1cm tall, it'll be 1cm tall on a 4k 24" display. the difference is that it'll be dramatically sharper. because of scaling.

that whole post was asking how, after 5 fucking years on desktops (and like... what, 10? on smartphones) you guys still don't understand that.

>75Hz

For what purpose. Why not go for at least 100 or 120?

>t. own a 144Hz monitor

I honestly agree with his points, maybe not the conspiracy theory ones but his points of screen real estate are why i'm getting a 55inch tv instead of a monitor.

because that would now be a 400-600 euro product.

that's fine if you're just playing games and stuff. if text is involved, it's demonstrably true that your reading speed and acuity will suffer on a lower density display.

before someone pitches a fit about CRTs vs LCDs, this study was conducted in 1998. LCD displays at the time were garbage, but more importantly that aspect wasn't the dimension they were measuring on (as evidenced by the use of paper as a control)

>the primary application of high pixel density displays is to scale things -
yes and they are mostly doing it wrong with the majority of them being ~ 1.5

yep. but if you can believe it, it's still a step in the right direction. 5 years ago people here were losing their fucking minds over the rMBP, completely unwilling to entertain the notion of scaling the DE. it was like landing on an island where all the adults had to endure severe head trauma as a rite of passage.

crts were fucking painful and compared to my t240hd, my old crt was a fucking blurry mess, even if it did have 120 dpi, the move to my 94dpi monitor was so fucking much better in terms of sharpness its almost not comparable.

I would like to see this one with a control

1 paper test, that has shit printed from 72dpi up to 1200dpi

monitors from 61dpi (720 at 24 inch) up to 183dpi (4k at 24 inch) and have everything calibrated to the same contrast and color accuracy to try to keep out any kind of bias and see what the difference is. because I will be shocked if the results look even similar to this, well... reading may be about the same, but that's probably more inherent to the nature of backlighting then it is about dpi difference.

also, these graphs are misleading at best

180 wpm compared to 200 in a way to make 180 look like its nearly 2.5 times worse

and accuracy in spellchecking being 69, 75, and 78% making it look like it's orders of magnitude.

basicly, what I draw from this

crts are shit for reading, making you want to hurry up and be fucking done opposed to paper, the input on a computer is more of a pain in the ass to use, so unless you grew up with one, the correcting would be easier in the format you did your whole life opposed to the new tech, along with non backlit media being easier on the eyes lont term.

>before people pitch a fit about CRT vs LCD
>immediately bitches about CRT technology
jesus christ man.

you have a lot of questions. that's good. go read the paper to see if the paper answers those questions in a non-chart format. i'm not going to go fetch every answer for you (find something interesting that's not explained in the paper and i'll happily lend a hand google scholar-ing stuff)

Basically this And to add, dpi should be used in regards to printers, not monitors. Monitors have pixels, not dots. But either way, assuming ppi and dpi are more or less the same thing, 60 and 120 is a big fucking difference because you actually see everything pixelated. 90 and up, not so much, because you are not going to see pixels from normal, healthy, seating distance. Going up you will notice (certain) fonts being more curved, but that's about it.
Point being, your study is fucking stupid, outdated, and worthless regarding today's monitors.

the dpi/ppi naming convention sounds like an error on their part (or the naming convention has changed in the last 20 years), but it should be pretty obvious to a native english speaker that dpi (dots per inch) and ppi (pixels per inch) are reasonably analogous. maybe this is new to you or something.

i don't know what point you're trying to make by highlighting that a bigger difference (60 vs 120) will be a bigger difference than 90 vs 120. it's like you didn't stop to recognize that you were typing out a tautology. yes, bigger differences will be bigger. this is like saying that the difference between 30hz and 60hz is more noticeable than the difference between 60hz and 120hz. duh?

the differences taper off as you approach the paper group, but that's the nature of marginal returns. a 24" 1080p monitor is ~91ppi. a similarly sized 4k monitor is ~180ppi. these are pretty much in the ballpark of the mid-resolution (89) and paper (255) cases.

the other guy at least laid out what sounded like some sort of wish list for what methodology he wants to see. it was still totally unreasonable, but it was generative. you're just taking a shit and saying you don't care what someone else says. the problem is that nobody really cares what you care about. the study i pointed you to, and scholarship in general, is the canon that everyone else uses. if you have a problem with it, engage with it on that level or not at all.

Its not a fit, it's an observation between my move from crt to lcd, even if the lcd is a lower ppi, the quality and sharpness far outstrips the crt that it make the point they are making almost if not invalid in a modern context.

the difference between 60 and 120 in a crt is big, and possibly the lower end crt would have been better but as the person said, its 1998, ill be generous and assume one resolution was 1280x1024 and the other was 640x480 on a 13 inch display. at that low of a resolution, other factors besides ppi will start coming into play, not the least blurriness and general pain in the eye crts were to work with, then the refresh making scanning a document difficult, hell, even now depending on how shit is backlit it can be hard to read fast on a display even if it has a high ppi just because we may not perceive it moment to moment, even high strobing displays can make quickly scanning hard.

There is also the question of scaling, if scaling was used and how much scaling was used, was it just to equalize the text across the 3 mediums or did they scale the low dpiu monitor down to compensate for the 120 one...

there are tons of questions on the study and even then, its likely invalidated with modern lcds as they eliminate so much of what made crts undesirable once color shifting and ghosting were taken care of.

>the study i pointed you to, and scholarship in general, is the canon that everyone else uses. if you have a problem with it, engage with it on that level or not at all.
The study that you pointed me to is in no way related to technology we use today. It's useless and doesn't back up any points that you made. Understand or too hard?
I will give you an analogy. Try finding safety related papers on cars 30 years ago and now. For instance comparison between cars of different weights and their relative safety. Do you think shit that was written about cars 30 years ago is going to be relevant to today's cars with all the safety mechanisms that we came up during this time? Because this is exactly what you are trying to push as a """proof""" and """canon that everyone uses""".

on the topic of cars, its very well possible.

think of it this way, if a car today was able to do 100mph safely, that doesn't matter as people are still using cars from up to 40 years ago.

a paper on cars from 30 years ago as it relates to safety today may actually be very relevant compared to displays of a crt or an lcd, granted I get your point.

32" 4k or fuck off.

Is VA better on the eyes than others? Currently looking for something decent for learning.

>32" 4k
43" is the perfect size for a 4k display