• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Q4 2017: Monitors are a solved problem (Computex announcements)

P

Paragon

Member
Do we have confirmation of a panel type yet?
Lots of people in here are saying IPS, but AUO's 35" panels are typically VA.

If it is IPS, I have impeccable timing by buying a PG348Q a couple of months ago.
If it's a VA panel, I have near-zero interest in it.
My HDTV is a 5000:1 VA panel with, I think, 96-zone local dimming (state of the art 7 years ago) and I don't miss it at all when using the PG348Q.
Even the latest high refresh rate VA panels still have response times an order of magnitude worse than IPS near black, and awful viewing angles.
Black crush is a problem that has never been solved.

Sure, it would be nice if it was OLED/µLED, but I think we're years away from anything like that.

For anyone saying that they "don't like the curve" - you clearly haven't used an ultrawide monitor this size before.
It needs the curve. You can't sit nearly as close to a flat screen as a curved one.
That's why most/all of the 34/35" panels are curved, and you only see flat models at 25".
Frankly, after having the PG348Q for a few months it makes me wish that they still made curved OLED TVs because I sit up close to my TV as well.
 
G

General Lee

Member
Can't wait to test out the new HDR panels to see how well the FALD implementation works to create good contrast. I'd still prefer OLED though, but getting any of this for any reasonable price seems like a pipe dream for the next few years at least.
 
H

HooYaH

Member
Guess the 27" 4K HDR comes out this summer according to the article. I mean, if people are speculating $2k for those monitors, these new wide screen are probably closer to $3k.
 
D

Durante

Member
Paragon said:
My HDTV is a 5000:1 VA panel with, I think, 96-zone local dimming (state of the art 7 years ago) and I don't miss it at all when using the PG348Q.
Click to expand...
I wish I could be happy with plain IPS contrast / black levels.
I mean, I'm using a IPS monitor right now, but I don't like it :p

CaptainSmirnov said:
This is nice but isn't HDR still broken with the creator's update?
Click to expand...
Nvidia has been correctly producing HDR output in any Windows from 7 onwards since last year.
 
P

Paragon

Member
Durante said:
I wish I could be happy with plain IPS contrast / black levels.
I mean, I'm using a IPS monitor right now, but I don't like it :p
Click to expand...
I am not unhappy with the contrast of current IPS panels, though I certainly would prefer that it was better.
I obviously spent a large premium buying the highest contrast TV available at the time - which still competes with most LCDs today - because I greatly value high contrast displays.
However all the other advantages of IPS panels are more important to me than the sacrifices you have to make for VA's contrast. It's the only thing those panels do really well.

And VA's contrast never really looks quite as good as the numbers suggest when you factor in the viewing angle limitations.
You only get the rated contrast in a small spot in the center of the display - you never see it across the entire panel at once.
And AUO's VA panels are typically around 3000:1 native which is still noticeably less than my HDTV, and nothing compared to OLED or those new 1,000,000:1 IPS panels from Panasonic.

If the difference in contrast between AUO's current IPS and VA panels was much larger, I could see an argument being made in favor of VA panels, but when you're talking 1000:1 vs 3000:1 the compromises you have to make just aren't worthwhile in my opinion.
And don't forget that this has a 512-zone local dimming backlight.
Though native contrast is still very important with a local dimming system to prevent "haloing" - which is severely overstated on sites like AVS Forum - it's not like you're going to be seeing a 1000:1 image even if they use an IPS panel.
 
D

Durante

Member
Paragon said:
And don't forget that this has a 512-zone local dimming backlight.
Though native contrast is still very important with a local dimming system to prevent "haloing" - which is severely overstated on sites like AVS Forum - it's not like you're going to be seeing a 1000:1 image even if they use an IPS panel.
Click to expand...
Yes, I said as much earlier in the thread :p

I wouldn't mind IPS on this, but I wouldn't personally buy another IPS monitor without local dimming (or that crazy Panasonic tech of course).
 
The Hermit

The Hermit

Member
I really hope 21:9 becomes standard. I mean there's​ still black bars for christ sake.


Also I would drop G-sync and curve because it's making the monitor more expensive than it already is.
 
T

tearsintherain

Member
I mean its still IPS not OLED and the price is unknown and likely to be $2-3k+ so I don't think its "solved" yet. Also the issue of gSync vs freeSync vs whatever the new HDMI spec is (for mass produced TVs coming out in 2018) is still a big issue.

4k 27" monitor that is OLED @ $800 or less, then I'd say its solved.
 
A

AU Tiger

Member
Yjynx said:
For now just buy a 4K HDR TV then.....
Click to expand...

Kinda the boat I'm in. As much as I'd like to replace my 60hz 27" IPS panels with one ultrawide screen, for what these new beasts are going to cost, I could get something like the Sony X900E and enjoy not only PC games at 40 but also PS4 pro and eventually scorpio stuff in 4k /HDR and obviously TV/movies.

I've used high refresh rate screens for gaming and while they're great and all, I can't use that as the only benefit to dumping an extra $700+ into a big monitor right now vs the Sony or something equivalent.
 
N

Nezacant

Member
CaptainSmirnov said:
This is nice but isn't HDR still broken with the creator's update?
Click to expand...

It's still broken. :( This issue is maddening... I haven't been able to update my nvidia driver for several months now.

Durante said:
Nvidia has been correctly producing HDR output in any Windows from 7 onwards since last year.
Click to expand...

"Correctly" is probably true... but the current "correct" method does not work for HDR games in Windows 10 w/ creator update and any Nvidia driver past 378.92. It's a known issue that Nvidia addressed once back when they released 381.65 but have been pretty quiet about it since. See below (a few responses from Manuel Guzman of Nvidia via their driver support forum.)

-Games may appear washed out in Windows 10 Creators Update with HDR enabled. Windows 10 Creators Update manages HDR controls overriding NVIDIA HDR.

-With the Windows 10 Creators Update, Windows now maintains control over HDR. Before the game was using our HDR API. We are looking at different options. Once I have more information I will update everyone.
Click to expand...

My (uneducated) guess is that the ball is in Microsoft's court since the Nvidia driver works for Windows HDR but the implementation of HDR in Windows flat out doesn't seem to work in games. (It also looks terrible in general and is practically useless.)

EDIT: Durante I already love you for dsfix, I'd love you even more if you fixed our HDR issues in Shadow Warrior 2, Resident Evil 7 and Mass Effect Andromeda. :D
 
d00d3n

d00d3n

Member
Tain said:
I can buy that curved is good with 21:9 but I don't think I want 21:9.
Click to expand...

It is probably a good idea to think through the decision to get a 21:9 display. Do you enjoy tinkering with custom settings to get a good experience in games? You will have to do that pretty often as a 21:9 owner. Do you mainly play first person games (in which case 21:9 is widely supported these days, but you will still have issues with legacy games), or do you play a lot of games from other genres (in which case 21:9 support will be hit and miss)? I currently own a Z35, but I think I will abandon 21:9 for 16:9 the next time around. The custom setting hell is not as bad as what I went through with multi GPU setups in the past, but it is bad enough to create a clear incentive to switch.
 
S

Sciz

Member
This thing is going to be hideously expensive and that still might not dissuade me from picking it up. It's everything I wanted out of the omnimonitor and then some.
 
Danny Dudekisser

Danny Dudekisser

I paid good money for this Dynex!
Sounds cool, but I want 16:9. I'm down to buy a decked out gsync, though. I've been completely enamored with the IPS one I got a couple years ago.
 
L

laxu

Member
Chacranajxy said:
Sounds cool, but I want 16:9. I'm down to buy a decked out gsync, though. I've been completely enamored with the IPS one I got a couple years ago.
Click to expand...

Me too. While ASUS and Acer have both announced 4K 144 Hz displays, at 27" and really high prices those don't seem like great deals. Give me those at 30-32" and I'd pony up the money.
 
A

Akronis

Member
More manufacturers need to step up their build quality before I'll say "monitors are solved" unless we're specifically talking about features.

I can't remember a monitor I've bought recently that didn't have backlight bleed. In addition to that, the last VA panel I bought had horrible ghosting issues or overdrive artifacts. I'm still stuck with my VG248QE G-SYNC from years ago.
 
Stiler

Stiler

Member
For most average users it's not going to work until you can get reasonably priced monitors.

Pay 2k for a 27-32" HDR monitor vs paying around 1.2k for a 65" 4k HDR tv with low input lag...

Huge price vs size difference there.

A $400'ish price for a good 27" HDR monitor is where the mainstream will start adopting it en masse.

For now it's going to be an extremely niche group that can even think about affording one.
 
D

Durante

Member
Akronis said:
More manufacturers need to step up their build quality before I'll say "monitors are solved" unless we're specifically talking about features.

I can't remember a monitor I've bought recently that didn't have backlight bleed.
Click to expand...
I think it's very unlikely that you'll see any backlight bleed on a FALD screen.

Stiler said:
Pay 2k for a 27-32" HDR monitor vs paying around 1.2k for a 65" 4k HDR tv with low input lag...

Huge price vs size difference there.
Click to expand...
Larger size isn't necessarily an advantage in all scenarios (if it was, I'd have bought an OLED TV), and what constitutes "low input lag" for a TV is pretty different from a friggin' 200 Hz G-sync monitor.

I mean sure it's not a mass market product, but from where I'm standing that's not a bad thing -- if it was, it would be worse at fulfilling my requirements :p
 
T

terencecah

Member
I got an acer x34 the first week it came out in America and it cost me 1400ish

This monitor is my only upgrade path

2k is a maybe, 3k usd is a definite wait
 
J

jim2point0

Banned
StaticJam said:
So $1200 USD?
Click to expand...

You realize that curved monitors with half these features are already OVER $1200?

I'm thinking.... $2000 minimum.

KHlover said:
>curved

eww
Click to expand...

Clearly you've never seen one of these up close. I absolutely would not want to use a 35" ultrawide FLAT panel. No way.

Tathanen said:
1440 ain't gonna cut it for me, 4k or bust. Even 2x scaling for applications is ideal, and is the basis of most "retina" screens.
Click to expand...

What does that even be? I guess 3840x1600ish? That's not a whole lot more pixels over 3440x1440.
 
S

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Tathanen said:
1440 ain't gonna cut it for me, 4k or bust. Even 2x scaling for applications is ideal, and is the basis of most "retina" screens.
Click to expand...
I'm in the opposite boat. I don't think the performance cost of 4k over 1440p is proportional to the visual improvement. HDR is a big plus, but PC support is spotty right now.
 
dr_rus

dr_rus

Member
While both look awesome they are both not for me unfortunately. Curved means no buy and I would very much prefer a 4K 40" 16:9/10 instead of a 35" 21:9. So still waiting.

kuYuri said:
I was reading this earlier and was like holy shit, these are the monitors I wanted.

My only question is are these VA, IPS, or some other type of panel?
Click to expand...

My bet is on some sort of xVA tech as IPS is unlikely to be able to hit 200Hz refresh.

tuxfool said:
Still uses proprietary VRR solutions.

Therefore this isn't a solved problem.
Click to expand...

Monitors will continue to use proprietary VRR solutions for years to come.
 
dcx4610

dcx4610

Member
Curved monitors are up there with terrorism to me. STOP IT.

34" inch, 4k, HDR and well under $1k should be the goal.
 
J

jim2point0

Banned
There's clearly some misconceptions in this thread about curved ultrawide monitors. I've only seen 34" ultrawides in flat panels and I absolutely would not ever want to use one after seeing the curved variants right next to it (thank you, Microcenter).

If you're sitting in front of these things, the edges are pretty far from you. The curve allows the screen edges to face you more directly. And for that reason, curved ultrawides are the standard. I rarely see flat ones anymore. And most of them have subtle enough curves that you don't even notice it (as you shouldn't). But you WOULD notice the lack of a curve.

Now if you sit farther from the screen, I agree, curved screens are pointless.
 
A

antibolo

Banned
35 inch is still not big enough to replace my current TV.

I hope that some day I'll be able to replace my TV with a big-ass computer monitor. TVs have shitty lag and bloated "smart TV" firmwares are now inevitable on the higher end sets.

Until then they're not a solved problem for me.

EDIT: wait it's not even 4K. I wouldn't buy any less even for actual PC usage. It doesn't solve anything.
 
T

terencecah

Member
jim2point0 said:
There's clearly some misconceptions in this thread about curved ultrawide monitors. I've only seen 34" ultrawides in flat panels and I absolutely would not ever want to use one after seeing the curved variants right next to it (thank you, Microcenter).

If you're sitting in front of these things, the edges are pretty far from you. The curve allows the screen edges to face you more directly. And for that reason, curved ultrawides are the standard. I rarely see flat ones anymore. And most of them have subtle enough curves that you don't even notice it (as you shouldn't). But you WOULD notice the lack of a curve.

Now if you sit farther from the screen, I agree, curved screens are pointless.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true for me as well

curved is excellent on my monitor
 
Shrike Alvaron

Shrike Alvaron

Member
I just bought an Acer X34 a few weeks ago, still within the return window but while these look nice I'm just going to keep this. It already cost more than I should've spent, and even my also new 1080 Ti can't really push much more than 100 FPS in newer games maxed out. Witcher 3 for instance gets around 85FPS, with hairworks off at that. Considering how much more expensive these will be and that I won't even get much benefit from their higher refresh rate until stronger cards are out, I think the X34 still is a good... "Value proposition". As much value as you can get from a $1200 monitor anyway. (But hey, I got mine for $1100, savings!)
 
J

jim2point0

Banned
Shrike Alvaron said:
I just bought an Acer X34 a few weeks ago, still within the return window but while these look nice I'm just going to keep this. It already cost more than I should've spent, and even my also new 1080 Ti can't really push much more than 100 FPS in newer games maxed out. Witcher 3 for instance gets around 85FPS, with hairworks off at that. Considering how much more expensive these will be and that I won't even get much benefit from their higher refresh rate until stronger cards are out, I think the X34 still is a good... "Value proposition". As much value as you can get from a $1200 monitor anyway. (But hey, I got mine for $1100, savings!)
Click to expand...

I have a nowinstock alert for refurbished X34s. They go for $700, but they sell-out quickly. Last time I was a few minutes late...

But yeah, the benefits of the Asus monitor would be:
1" bigger (could also be a disadvantage... I like 34")
Local backlight dimming
HDR

I fear the 200hz will only inflate the asking price. I won't need more than 100hz at this resolution for a whiiiiile.

FearlessBelgian said:
and the 21:9 are ALWAYS more expansive than 16:9 monitors...
Click to expand...

The curve adds to the price as well. But it's oh so necessary.
 
D

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
I want all of that at 40" 3840x2160.

Do that and I'll easily drop a couple grand or more on it.
 
T

Tagyhag

Member
Not a fan of curved screens at all. But I'm happy with just how much monitors are improving.

Shame price takes a while to settle down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Introducing G-SYNC Pulsar tech
2
51
4K
TrebleShot replied
The first 'bendable' OLED 240 Hz gaming monitor from LG ships end of this month. $2000 / €2400 / £2100
4
639
hinch7 replied
MSI to unveil the worlds first 4K-Mini LED 144Hz gaming laptop at CES 2023, the 'TITAN GT77 HX 13V'.
26
2K
hybrid_birth replied
LG unveils the world’s first 240Hz OLED gaming monitors under the UltraGear brand. $1699.99(45"in), $999.99(27"in)
13
1K
Silver Wattle replied
Monitor OLED Panel Roadmap Updates – March 2023 - TFTCentral
13
2K
DemonGamerTTT replied
Top Bottom