Anyone have a 4k or 8k Ultra Monitor for their PC?

Discussion in 'Geek Cave: Computers, Tablets, HT, Phones, Games' started by The Alchemist, Sep 27, 2015.

  1. Riotvan

    Riotvan Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    True but TV's are generally cheaper for any given panel size vs pc monitors. I think i read some where they are adding a freesync kind of deal to the hdmi standard but i'm not sure.
     

  2. jdmasters

    jdmasters Rando

    Contributor
    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    NC, USA
    Riotvan likes this.
  3. SineDave

    SineDave Almost "Made"

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2016
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Home Page:
    The other issue with many TV's is that they do not natively support 4:4:4 input, you have to play in menus to make it work. Usually, turning this on adds more input lag. I don't game on this screen often, so it doesn't bother me.

    For gaming, I either use a 27" IPS gaming monitor, or my Sony 4K projector in the home theater, which has much better input lag.
     
  4. TMRaven

    TMRaven Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Most TVs have lower pixel response time as well, leading to blurring during fast-moving scenes. I had the Sony X800D, which was said to handle motion incredibly well compared to most every other TV, and it still doesn't compare at all to a monitor in this regard.

    4:4:4 is an absolute most for monitor usage. Without it, any sort of text will be all rainbowy like on old composite video feeds.
     
  5. Galm

    Galm Facebook Friend

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    East U.S.
    While I read up before posting in an audio section again I thought I at least could contribute here where my knowledge is much more well versed.

    I own an Acer XB271HK 4K monitor that I really enjoy. As someone who gets migraines one of the aspects of high res displays I find under rated is that they decrease eyestrain. The larger density greatly reduces the screen door effect and makes it much easier to stare at the display for long periods. I noticed my first "retina display" phone and first 4K monitor both coincided with noticeable decreases in how often I got migraines!

    On another note, has anyone here been looking at the 4k144Hz HDR IPS displays? One is the Acer XB272-HDR, and the other is the Asus PG27UQ.

    I hadn't seen HDR in person until recently, but man did it impress me. And 4K along with 144Hz sounds like a dream.

    Here's a link to the Asus one from 144Hzmonitors: http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/asus-computex-2016-27-inch-4k-144hz-gaming-monitor/
     
    elwappo99, a44100Hz and MrButchi like this.
  6. Cspirou

    Cspirou Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Irvine,CA
    Can someone clear up something for me?

    I always understood resolution as the number of horizontal lines on display. So 480, 720 and 1080 the lines from top to bottom. I assumed 4K meant the same thing, but after looking at specs for multiple monitors it seems like they are using the number of vertical lines now.

    Is this correct? Seems like they just went with a bigger number for marketing reasons.
     
  7. Grahad2

    Grahad2 Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2017
    Likes Received:
    692
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Singapore
    Yeah, they went with bigger the better. 4K is typically 3840 by 2160, or with the 1440p or 1080p parlance, 2160p.

    Some have now taken to calling 1080p 2k...... ok
     
    Cspirou and Daveheart like this.
  8. Galm

    Galm Facebook Friend

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    East U.S.
    Well it's a little bit confusing because a resolution with a p at the end (like 1080p, 720p etc...) is the number of vertical pixels. But the K resolutions are referring to horizontal. So 1080p is kind of 2K because 1920 is close to 2,000. People often call 1440p 2K for some reason though which also doesn't make sense as it's 2560 which is closest to 2.5K. 4K is referring to 3840 being close to 4,000. But if they said the resolution the more traditional way it's 2160p.

    Confusing and annoying but 4K stuck as a marketing buzzword and to be fair is easier to say than 2160p.
     
  9. jdmasters

    jdmasters Rando

    Contributor
    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    NC, USA
    1440p is "2k"
     
  10. Galm

    Galm Facebook Friend

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    East U.S.
    2K resolution is defined as a resolution with a horizontal resolution of 2000 pixels. So technically basically nothing is, but 1920 is way way closer to 2K than 2560 which is closer to 3k than 2k.

    In fact the laptop resellers were advertising the 17" 1440p 120Hz displays as 3k on their sites, never 2k. (Example here)

    And here's the wiki page on the 2k resolution cinematic standard.

    Calling 1440p 2k is basically just wrong by any actual definition standard.
     
  11. jdmasters

    jdmasters Rando

    Contributor
    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    NC, USA
  12. jdmasters

    jdmasters Rando

    Contributor
    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    NC, USA
    or get Jude to measure it for me in his super box.
     
  13. TMRaven

    TMRaven Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I quite liked the hd, fhd, qhd, uhd terminology.


    2560x1440 is qhd, or quad-hd, meaning 4 1280x720 resolution stitched together in a 2x2 grid.


    2k and 4k are wrongly named, as they are not traditional 16:9 aspect ratio resolutions. But they're so ubiquitous now in marketing lingos, that they're common-place for what is really UHD and QHD.

    Also, if you want to get real technical, this page will solve all your questions:


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Vector_Video_Standards8.svg
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2017
    Abhishek Chowdhary, Galm and cskippy like this.
  14. jdmasters

    jdmasters Rando

    Contributor
    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    NC, USA
    I just don't get the point of all those acronyms when they save you a whole 4 letters of typing.
     
  15. loki993

    loki993 Rando

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    Michigan
    Which is exactly the point...that you don't get it. Its intentionally confusing so salesman can sell more TVs to people
     
  16. Galm

    Galm Facebook Friend

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    East U.S.
    Yep.

    There are a lot of "4K" displays on the market as well that are not even actually 4K.

    For example if you've seen any 4K GSync 15.6" gaming laptops not a single one is 3840x2160p with RGB as the pixels. They are Samsung pentile displays that are RGBW matrices. This means you lose a lot of pixels due to having white ones thrown into the mix and it makes the effective resolution closer to 1500p, but it still looks kinda less sharp as the pixels are farther apart and worse the display is still just as hard to drive as a real 4K display.

    So screw that marketing.

    Here's an illustration
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
    Abhishek Chowdhary likes this.
  17. loki993

    loki993 Rando

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    Michigan
    I recently got a 1080 for my PC and went to 1440p....I did consider 4k but the fact that I could get high framerates, over 100FPS, with the 1440p swayed my decision. I play a ton of FPS games so the extra frames help. That said the jump even from 1080p to 1440 was instantly noticeable...more so that going from 60 FPS to 144. So I can see the appeal of a 4k monitor for someone that doesnt require high frames.
     
  18. Galm

    Galm Facebook Friend

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    East U.S.
    I actually own both with a 1080 Ti.

    165Hz 1440p and a 60Hz 4K IPS. The 4K was the only one I had in the past and I really enjoyed it but... After you get high hz you can't go back. First person shooters in particular are so much nicer at a really high refresh rate, it's like the ultimate pay to win.

    The Dell S2417DG is what I'd recommend to anyone reading this who wants to get into this type of monitor on a more reasonable budget. It is a TN panel but one of the best on the market. This means that the contrast, colors, and viewing angles aren't like the image of just god awful displays that most people think of when they imagine a TN panel. You can get it for like 350 or less if you wait for a good sale and it's a GSync 1440p 165Hz 24" panel.

    My other recommendation is that if you've never seen a high refresh rate panel before go to an Apple Store. Compare the new 120Hz iPad Pros to the normal iPads, particularly in scrolling around on stuff. You should notice the extra smoothness and it converts very well to games. This is now the easiest way to go see one in person besides like a Microcenter (if its nearby) or if you know someone that has one.

    Make sure if you want a high refresh rate monitor that you have a decent cpu. For example if you have a 1080 Ti and a 6 core i7 you'll get a great frame rate in Battefield 1, but pair it with an i5 the cpu will bottleneck the 1080 Ti at that kind of refresh rate. But the i5 will be fine for like CSGO (and a 1080 Ti is way overkill for that).
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
    cskippy likes this.
  19. loki993

    loki993 Rando

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    Michigan
    Yeah unfortunately they dropped the ti what six months after the 1080 so I wasn't about to spend that money again. I do admit about being a bit miffed the ti was so cheap though... relatively anyway.

    I did look at the Dell but Best buy was blowing out last year's Acer 144 ips for 400 dollars and that was the monitor I really wanted anyway. I'm not sensitive to nor do I really care about screen tearing so giving up g sync for ips was fine by me.

    I have an i5 and yes it bottlenecks a bit but not as much as people make it seem. Well at least until the last update. Seriously I fired up bf1 a couple weeks ago after not playing it for a few months and it was unplayable...I was dropping to 30 fps at times where before I was averaging 80 plus

    For overwatch I'm over a hundred all the time and that's running at ultra with no AA. It will still run over a hundred with AA on even though.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017

Share This Page