Support NeoGAF

[Jonboy]

It seems to me that monitors, HDR, 4k, and TVs are in a very strange place at the moment. Essentially, if you aren't gaming on a 42in or larger TV, you're mostly out of luck when it comes to 4k and HDR. And for those like me who prefer gaming on a smaller setup, that's rather unfortunate.

When you look at the pricing breakdown of monitors and TVs currently on the market, there's a huge disparity. Size doesn't seem to matter when you consider you can find a 55in OLED LG on sale for roughly the same price of the only true 4k/HDR monitor currently on the market, the 27in Dell UP2718Q, which is $1549. The much hyped Acer and Asus 4k HDR monitors have now been delayed to 2018. They're expected to be priced closely to the Dell monitor.

So to the folks out there who still prefer gaming on a monitor, does the current landscape have you rethinking that decision? For years, the major trump card for monitors was their ridiculously low input lag. But now, TVs are catching up in that area as well. According to rtings, the LG C7 has an input lag of a mere 21 ms using game mode. Their TCL budget recommendation is even better with an input lag around 14ms. Sure, they're not going to be used in any pro gaming tournaments yet...but for 95% of gamers, they would be more than sufficient.

I love my intimate desk setup of having a 27in monitor so close...but with PS4 Pro already out and Xbox One X on the way, I'm really starting to wish I had a proper 4k/hdr setup to use them to their full potential.

 

[Krappadizzle]

It's relatively new tech, it'll take a while before it comes down in price.

Just like 720p, 1080p, 4k. These things take time.

 

[Massicot]

Oh, I didn't realize Dells monitor had come out. I just mentally lumped it in with the Acer/Asus ones that we're waiting on.

Doesn't seem like that Dell has GSync though

 

[nubbe]

new tech is always for better people first

 

[Jonboy]

Oh, I didn't realize Dells monitor had come out. I just mentally lumped it in with the Acer/Asus ones that we're waiting on.

Doesn't seem like that Dell has GSync though

Yeah, doesn't sound like it's really even a consideration for gamers, unfortunately.

"As far as gaming is concerned, the Dell UP2718Q 4K HDR display will certainly provide an otherworldly image quality in video games although due to the low refresh rate, no adaptive-sync, and most likely slow response time, the performance would greatly suffer which is unacceptable considering the price."

http://www.144hzmonitors.com/reviews/dell-up2718q-preview/

 

[El Sabroso]

I was feeling the same for 21:9 monitors, until I finally got my Predator X34, and for HDR really looking into the Predator X35

 

[moltonasty]

There's barely any hdr content available yet for PC so it kinda makes sense. It'll come in time, for now you're better off using an Hdr tv.

 

[Wulfram]

As someone on a tight budget for monitors it feels like the quality of monitor I can get for £100ish hasn't really budged in a decade or more, which is pretty discouraging.

 

[ClayKavalier]

It'd be nice if there were cheaper ones but it's still a very new technology. Most PC games don't even support HDR, right? Not sure how many people who are buying 4K BluRays and players are wanting to watch them on a monitor.

I was feeling the same for 21:9 monitors, until I finally got my Predator X34, and for HDR really looking into the Predator X35

You have a rare definition of "affordable."

 

[Tyraniboah]

Extremely disappointing for me. I built a PC capable of 4k (but really I just want 1440p) and I can't even afford a good monitor with gsync and 1440p. I'm deeply considering getting a 4k HDR TV set and streaming to it with using the Nvidia Shield. I could buy the TCL, a shield, and the Portal router I've been thinking about for less than the $1000+ that 4k HDR monitors with gsync will run me in the near future.

 

[Deleted member 20415]

I'm with you OP in that i'm a bit bummed out.

Was planning on a monitor upgrade this fall to go along with new Xbox One X - now with Acer/Asus delay that puts me into Q1 2018. I prefer to game on a monitor (shooters, you can see all details, just generally more comfortable in my setup vs. TV), and I didn't want to upgrade my TV to 4K just yet (waiting for price to drop next year on HDR OLED sets).

I thought the monitor would solve a lot of my setup issues, and allow me to delay a TV purchase for a bit.

 

[Huntersknoll]

The most affordable one is the Samsung CHG70. I either hear great things about it or terrible. The only thing is it only has 8 dimming zones.

 

[Jonboy]

It's relatively new tech, it'll take a while before it comes down in price.

Just like 720p, 1080p, 4k. These things take time.

You have a rare definition of "affordable."

Maybe affordable wasn't the best word for me to use. It's more about the crazy discrepancy between display sizes of a large tv vs a smaller monitor. With input lag improving everyday on tvs, the advantages of a monitor are diminishing.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Display technology is an absolute minefield. 8bit with FRC, 10bit, input lag. 4K HDR but not good 4K HDR, it makes picking the right TV a right headache.

I'm not surprised monitors are in the state they are.

 

[Horsemama1956]

Personally think HDR kinda blows. Might as well just throw your TV on Vivid.

 

[shira]

It seems to me that monitors, HDR, 4k, and TVs are in a very strange place at the moment. Essentially, if you aren't gaming on a 42in or larger TV, you're mostly out of luck when it comes to 4k and HDR. And for those like me who prefer gaming on a smaller setup, that's rather unfortunate.

When you look at the pricing breakdown of monitors and TVs currently on the market, there's a huge disparity. Size doesn't seem to matter when you consider you can find a 55in OLED LG on sale for roughly the same price of the only true 4k/HDR monitor currently on the market, the 27in Dell UP2718Q, which is $1549. The much hyped Acer and Asus 4k HDR monitors have now been delayed to 2018. They're expected to be priced closely to the Dell monitor.

So to the folks out there who still prefer gaming on a monitor, does the current landscape have you rethinking that decision? For years, the major trump card for monitors was their ridiculously low input lag. But now, TVs are catching up in that area as well. According to rtings, the LG C7 has an input lag of a mere 21 ms using game mode. Their TCL budget recommendation is even better with an input lag around 14ms. Sure, they're not going to be used in any pro gaming tournaments yet...but for 95% of gamers, they would be more than sufficient.

I love my intimate desk setup of having a 27in monitor so close...but with PS4 Pro already out and Xbox One X on the way, I'm really starting to wish I had a proper 4k/hdr setup to use them to their full potential.

Premium features cost more money.

4k and HDR are just marketing bulletpoints. You can enjoy the exact same games in 1080.

Half of GAF wants a fucking SNES Classic. What does that tell you about 4k and HDR??

 

[El Sabroso]

It'd be nice if there were cheaper ones but it's still a very new technology. Most PC games don't even support HDR, right? Not sure how many people who are buying 4K BluRays and players are wanting to watch them on a monitor.



You have a rare definition of "affordable."

I actually forgot that affordable was there, lol

 

[Decado]

More frustrated with MS and Nvidia and substandard HDR support on PC.

 

[Water]

The most affordable one is the Samsung CHG70. I either hear great things about it or terrible. The only thing is it only has 8 dimming zones.

I can't find an actual source that says it has any dimming zones, and 8 is a pointless amount to have. Surely dimming zones have to number in the hundreds before they are fine grained enough to provide real contrast benefits without destroying the image quality?

The only rationale I can think of to have a couple of zones would be tailored to disable parts of the backlight in a specific non-native aspect ratio scenario, eg. have separate zones for the black letterbox bars you get watching 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 movies on the 16:9 screen.

Or have the the zones split down the middle for when multitasking with windows that take exactly half the monitor, but the 2560x1440 res on the CHG70 isn't quite enough for that, you'd usually want an asymmetrical split for one of the windows to be large enough.

 

[ApharmdX]

It seems to me that monitors, HDR, 4k, and TVs are in a very strange place at the moment. Essentially, if you aren't gaming on a 42in or larger TV, you're mostly out of luck when it comes to 4k and HDR. And for those like me who prefer gaming on a smaller setup, that's rather unfortunate.

When you look at the pricing breakdown of monitors and TVs currently on the market, there's a huge disparity. Size doesn't seem to matter when you consider you can find a 55in OLED LG on sale for roughly the same price of the only true 4k/HDR monitor currently on the market, the 27in Dell UP2718Q, which is $1549. The much hyped Acer and Asus 4k HDR monitors have now been delayed to 2018. They're expected to be priced closely to the Dell monitor.

So to the folks out there who still prefer gaming on a monitor, does the current landscape have you rethinking that decision? For years, the major trump card for monitors was their ridiculously low input lag. But now, TVs are catching up in that area as well. According to rtings, the LG C7 has an input lag of a mere 21 ms using game mode. Their TCL budget recommendation is even better with an input lag around 14ms. Sure, they're not going to be used in any pro gaming tournaments yet...but for 95% of gamers, they would be more than sufficient.

I love my intimate desk setup of having a 27in monitor so close...but with PS4 Pro already out and Xbox One X on the way, I'm really starting to wish I had a proper 4k/hdr setup to use them to their full potential.

The computer monitor market is just dire in general. It's all LCDs, so you pick between ugly (TN), light gray blacks (IPS), or smeary motion (VA). There are HDR monitors, but some, like the Samsung, aren't full-array backlit. Others that are FALD are IPS, which is totally undesirable because of the low contrast ratio. Then you have Gsync, available in a limited selection of grossly overpriced/underperforming IPS/TN monitors, versus FreeSync, reasonably priced but with extremely variable quality.

4K/HDR are much more "settled in" for the TV market. There's no monitor counterpart to something like the LG C7 or Sony Z9D as far as perceived contrast ratio, which is ideal for HDR. I went that route myself, just switched to doing most of my gaming on TVs... the extra frame of input lag isn't a dealbreaker for most of us. Just need LG and Sony to add variable refresh rate to their 2018 sets and the TV will be the perfect gaming display.

 

[Colossal Moo]

new tech is always for better people first

Nope - It's for people who are willing to pay the price. Willingness to spend more does not make you a better person. It just means you have enough money to buy something and that you bought it. That's it. Nothing else.

 

[Cookie Dough]

Display technology always seems to be getting better but at the same time the state of the market never seems to improve. It'll never be possible to buy the perfect monitor for the day, at least not for a reasonable amount of money. It's always pick which flaw you're willing to live with.

 

[Jonboy]

The computer monitor market is just dire in general. It's all LCDs, so you pick between ugly (TN), light gray blacks (IPS), or smeary motion (VA). There are HDR monitors, but some, like the Samsung, aren't full-array backlit. Others that are FALD are IPS, which is totally undesirable because of the low contrast ratio. Then you have Gsync, available in a limited selection of grossly overpriced/underperforming IPS/TN monitors, versus FreeSync, reasonably priced but with extremely variable quality.

4K/HDR are much more "settled in" for the TV market. There's no monitor counterpart to something like the LG C7 or Sony Z9D as far as perceived contrast ratio, which is ideal for HDR. I went that route myself, just switched to doing most of my gaming on TVs... the extra frame of input lag isn't a dealbreaker for most of us. Just need LG and Sony to add variable refresh rate to their 2018 sets and the TV will be the perfect gaming display.

I'm strongly considering going back to TV as well. My wife may kill me if I start rearranging the office again though, lol.

Even with the improved input lag on a TV, there's still just something that feels better to me about sitting closer and having a smaller screen. Can't really put my finger on it, but feel like I noticed more details that way.

Display technology always seems to be getting better but at the same time the state of the market never seems to improve. It'll never be possible to buy the perfect monitor for the day, at least not for a reasonable amount of money. It's always pick which flaw you're willing to live with.

It's frustrating. #FirstWorldProblems, I suppose. I remember back when I was a teenager and first started learning about calibrating displays. I couldn't believe how much you could improve the picture. I would say most people never even touch the settings other than changing it to the generic vivid, movie, etc.

 

[LogicStep]

What upsets me is that all of these monitors look to be going for 4k. What happened to 1440p? Can't I get a 27-32 inch monitor 1440p with gsync and hdr?