New gaming monitors at CES2017 (VA, IPS, TN, 240 Hz, etc.)
- Thread starter Durante
- Start date
That's a bit of a silly thing to say.
When you like controlling fast-paced games with a mouse something with a minimum of 34ms of input latency at 60 Hz just isn't a value proposition at all.
And at the same time, a 55" screen simply isn't usable as a monitor in most PC/room arrangements.
If it was an actually valid option I'd have done it already.
Man people have really been conditioned to pay alot for this type of stuff now. Like the GTX 1080.
$1200 was the right price for this monitor, not great not bad.
If you're a loyal prime member and it's a prime cert item you can return absolutely anything within 30 days and get a full refund short of it being straight up damaged from extreme use. Camera equipment, tech, you name it.
....... Holy shit, the IQ mut be pristine. Would love to see one in person.
Also the design... mhhh.
HP Omen looks good too but only 100hz and 1440p
They sell. I mean sure they look like shit to most people. Yet there is a substantial PC gaming base that loves that shit. Big plastic edges, coloured fans and keyboards, led lights in their PC parts with a hideous case with clear panels, etc. Sad but true.
I think a large portion of it is "take the good with the bad."
I don't like those designs. But I care more about the monitor tech, than the monitor aesthetic, so its whatever.
It sells, and the messages comes across as 'people love these flashy designs' rather than 'people love this premium tech.'
RenegadeXV8
Banned
Not as fancy as the others mentioned here but Nixeus unveiled a new 27" 1440p 30-144Hz VRR (FreeSync) IPS monitor. Nixeus is generally quite affordable so it will be interesting to see how it stacks up against similar Asus and Acer models.
https://www.custompcreview.com/news...ng-monitor-32-inch-4k-freesync-monitor/36062/
https://www.custompcreview.com/news...ng-monitor-32-inch-4k-freesync-monitor/36062/
Tacklemacain
Member
That monitor looks promising. Freesync range from 30-144hz, 1440p, 27 inch and only 450$.
If i would get all that stuff, with HDR for around 600$ i would be super happy.
If i would get all that stuff, with HDR for around 600$ i would be super happy.
Aztechnology
Member
When you can get an IPS 144hz 1440p freesync monitor around $450-500 I just do not understand the value this adds that equates to 4x the cost. Gsync and HDR doesn't add that much cost to the display so it feels like absolute gouging. I have both a 55" KS8000 HDR 4k VA and a great gaming monitor that I paid $1200 to get both.
I guess it's just a thing of I don't have enough expandable income to get it. Seems like we've been seriously overcharged on monitors for a good while now though. Especially monitors that lock us into a particular ecosystem.
Unfortunately I can already confirm to you that it's not HDR. It's an 8bit display (says in the article 16.8 million colors) which is still fine. But it doesn't have the color gamut to support HDR.
Still that's a really solid value. Depending on how it reviews at places like tftcentral that will probably be my go to recommendation.
I guess it's just a thing of I don't have enough expandable income to get it. Seems like we've been seriously overcharged on monitors for a good while now though. Especially monitors that lock us into a particular ecosystem.
Unfortunately I can already confirm to you that it's not HDR. It's an 8bit display (says in the article 16.8 million colors) which is still fine. But it doesn't have the color gamut to support HDR.
Still that's a really solid value. Depending on how it reviews at places like tftcentral that will probably be my go to recommendation.
masterkajo
Member
I have been looking for a new gaming monitor for a while now. And I am really not liking this trend of freesync vs g-sync. I don't have a problem with paying 100-200 more if I get a better experience with g-sync for example but I don't want to be pushed in a single gpu manufacturer for my future purchases.
Is there really no way around this freesync vs g-sync debacle? What would you recommend? Pick freesync (would love to go this route if ryzen and vega turn out great) or g-sync (Usually the safer bet for the future but always comes with a premium cost even gpu as long as amd doesn't step up their game) or try to stay clear of both technologies and hope the future brings a new standard or one technology emerges victorious?
Is there really no way around this freesync vs g-sync debacle? What would you recommend? Pick freesync (would love to go this route if ryzen and vega turn out great) or g-sync (Usually the safer bet for the future but always comes with a premium cost even gpu as long as amd doesn't step up their game) or try to stay clear of both technologies and hope the future brings a new standard or one technology emerges victorious?
D
Deleted member 245925
Unconfirmed Member
Seems like 100 Hz is the most we'll get with ultra-wide 1440p for now, sadly.
RadioactiveLobster
Member
Holy shit, the IQ mut be pristine. Would love to see one in person.
Also the design... mhhh.
HP Omen looks good too but only 100hz and 1440p
Linus said on The WAN Show that it was incredible and he had to literally get close enough to the screen to touch it with his eyeball to see the pixels.
G-Sync with ULMB are also things you don't find in any TV. Both make a difference to motion smoothness and clarity that you won't find even in OLED TVs despite their very low response time. Higher refresh rates make for smoother motion and again, 60 Hz is not that great. You can even notice a big difference in desktop use.
The main thing that makes the ASUS 4K expensive is probably the local dimming backlight. It is a bit small for a 4K display IMO so I really hope we get a little bit larger models like a 30-32" one. We are at a point where monitors are a tad too small and TVs way too big to use comfortable as monitors for most. Overall there have been way too few options for displays sizes if you also want high refresh rate, G-Sync and all that.
copelandmaster
Member
That pricing update is an absolute hype killer.
So now we're left waiting on the Acer equivalent... that they have yet to actually announce :^/
While I want to get that price down, I have some reservations about the body (the 271hu body is being re-used, going on the picture released from the nvidia post, and has negative feedback from reviewers regarding problems with plastic flex and wobble) and the OSD (its worse than the ASUS equivalent).
So now we're left waiting on the Acer equivalent... that they have yet to actually announce :^/
While I want to get that price down, I have some reservations about the body (the 271hu body is being re-used, going on the picture released from the nvidia post, and has negative feedback from reviewers regarding problems with plastic flex and wobble) and the OSD (its worse than the ASUS equivalent).
Show me an OLED with g-sync. It makes a bigger difference in games than better color.
OLED TVs are less desirable for gaming in many regards compared to a monitor specifically designed for games.
LG 32UD99 preview page on the official LG website:
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32UD99-W-4k-uhd-led-monitor
Waiting for price and tftcentral review.
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32UD99-W-4k-uhd-led-monitor
Waiting for price and tftcentral review.
Freesync has significant technical limitations compared to Gsync. Freesync 2 looks to fix many of them (somewhat through drivers) and might be a bit more of a competitor. I definitely wouldn't buy a Freesync 1 over Gsync though if the budget allows.
This is nothing new for PC gaming. The top end stuff is many times better than a console, and it costs a lot more. The midrange stuff is still many times better than a console, and costs slightly more. The low end stuff is roughly equivalent to a console and comparable in price.
What's the problem?
Size is just one aspect of the product. That's like saying, who would buy an SSD when you can get way more gigs for your buck buying an HDD? Different needs, different priorities.
What are the limitations outside of HDR?
It has very poor handling of framerates under the minimum refresh of the display. Freesync 2 fixes this, and there are a couple Freesync 1 monitors but it wasn't standard. Gsync has properly supported low framerates since launch by simply doubling a higher framerate. Gsync does this in the hardware module, Freesync's Low Framerate Compensation does this in software which is sufficient but only works on monitors with at least 2.5:1 maximum:minimum refresh rate ratios. Luckily this is now a requirement in Freesync 2 as very few Freesync 1 monitors could do it.
In addition, not Freesync specific but many of the reviews I've seen for Freesync monitors mention issues with the overdrive correction not being properly tuned for the variable refresh rates, causing overdrive artifacts (trails or blurs behind fast moving objects). This is display specific but something that Nvidia handles during their certification so Gsync displays are free of it.
Oo thanks a lot
StereoVsn
Gold Member
Also, there is a significant difference between an ultrawide 1440p monitor and regular 1440p.
I think he was talking about the 8K Dell, not the Omen
AngmarsKing701
Member
I'm using a mediocre 24" BenQ 1080p monitor at the moment, which was fine when I had it hooked up to my Asus laptop and just wanted more real estate.
However, I bought a new PC with a 1070 in it, so I'm looking at this Dell 27" with G-SYNC. None of those in the OP suggest they'd be better than this one, but I gotta pay off the new PC first before I throw bucks at the upgraded monitor.
Anyone have this Dell and can recommend?
However, I bought a new PC with a 1070 in it, so I'm looking at this Dell 27" with G-SYNC. None of those in the OP suggest they'd be better than this one, but I gotta pay off the new PC first before I throw bucks at the upgraded monitor.
Anyone have this Dell and can recommend?
StereoVsn
Gold Member
This is a TN monitor. I'd stay away and throw in couple hundred $ more toward Acer/Asus.
Oh, I guess I misunderstood. I do like the Omen but just can't justify it and 8K Dell monitor? What video card can drive that sucker?
Edit: Actually, no, he was talking about the Omen. "HP Omen looks good too but only 100hz and 1440p
". It's not 1440p, it's 3440 x 1440, a big difference compared to 2560 x 1440.I have one. It's great and smooth in games.
Colors are a little weaker than my IPS, but the speed difference with g-sync is crazy. It does have a color shift if you go far enough, but has a much bigger sweet spot than other TN panels I've had. It's gamma is a bit off too. You can correct it in nVidia control panel but not all games will carry over the settings.
I had to return the first 2 because they had dead pixels, but I have terrible luck so I wouldn't count that as the standard experience.
Here is a look at it on YouTube, the dude shows the viewing angles off pretty good: https://youtu.be/IT6HOJzKj08
For the price, it really can't be beat. It was around $500 at the holidays
He was replying to the first part of that post about the Dell 8K panel, though. It's what Linus was talking about putting his eyeballs up to on the WAN show to make out the pixels. They said only a specific Quadro card could push it and it took two display port cablesOh, I guess I misunderstood. I do like the Omen but just can't justify it and 8K Dell monitor? What video card can drive that sucker?
Edit: Actually, no, he was talking about the Omen. "HP Omen looks good too but only 100hz and 1440p
mercenar1e
Member
yeah lol its awful.
Spartancarver
Member
Best monitor for its price range. Best TN panel I've seen, colors rival IPS after a calibration and the response time + GSync is wonderful.
I love mine ^_^
Also, it tends to go on sale a lot. I was able to snag mine for $450 or so from Best Buy.
You're underplaying the situation with HDR. The implementations with HDR vary wildly for gaming performance, cheaper TVs typically have ghosting or input lag issues. Heck even some high end ones don't get it right compared to their peers.
Besides we've already seen what happens when the exact same display is made with the only differences being gsync and freesync and it is consistently around $200 difference.
A freesync version would set you back 1800, 1700 at the lowest.
Quality control is important.
AngmarsKing701
Member
Thanks for the responses! I'll keep an eye out, and obviously consider the landscape when I'm ready to pull the trigger.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
60hz is ugly. They could be hot pink for all I care.
Aztechnology
Member
Oh I wasn't saying going freesync would magically halve the cost, I was just pointing out the value difference is really freaking skewed here. I'm just saying buying this at launch is completely foolish and the less people that do the more we show them the market will not bear these enormous prices. The only reason they're charging us this much is because people will buy it. There's no reason one of these should cost more than a top of the line OLED set.
Lol at you believing that it costs more for them to produce one of these monitors than a high end OLED or LCD set. I have a 1440hz 1440p IPS Freesync monitor. It still costs only a fraction of these sets. This is like a new Vive being released that's 2160p and 120hz instead of 1200p and 90hz and they charge you $3000-4000 instead of $800.
Freesync 1 vs 2 is kind of irrelevant for the informed consumer. You should look at the reviews and specs like you would for any monitor. You can't find a single 144 Hz Freesync monitor that doesn't support LFC so saying "very few" is misleading in this context. Also, the 2.5:1 requirement seems to have been dropped a little lower for some monitors such as Samsung's recent quantum dot displays.
Yeah Samsung's CFG70 line does not have this issue.
J_ToSaveTheDay
Member
Hmmm, yes. Priced at $800-900 and with reviews indicating good gaming performance (primarily looking for low input latency and fuss-free HDR10 compatibility from PS4Pro/XB1S/Pascal GPUs), I'd personally be willing to give up Gsync and high refresh rates in comparison to that new 27inch ASUS ROG monitor. I mean, that stuff is incredibly nice, but being primarily a PS4 Pro-based player that doesn't have enough room for a full sized TV and only has a GTX 1060 driven PC, pushing into those high frame rate ranges doesn't seem feasible in many titles, much less at anything higher than 1080p. Granted, the PS4 Pro isn't going to give me real 4K in a lot of cases, but since that's my primary platform and I'm pursuing a slightly stronger interest in HDR contrast and color gamut than raw 4K resolution at this time, the sacrifices don't seem too severe to me. Not planning on getting a 4K-ready PC any time soon.
Tarin02543
Member
I'm using a 1440p Acer and I can't believe there are monitors out there which provide an even better image than mine does.