*VA panels are much closer to IPS than to TN. Their main advantage over IPS was higher contrast. Off axis viewing angles were IPS like, but looked at dead on they suffered from black crush (basically black and the darkest grays all looked the same). Their main historic liability was that they generally had the worst input lag (although a lot of this was due to the LCD controllers not the panel itelf); something I would assume isn't an issue with this one being marketed as a gaming display.
VA panels have come a long way. Samsung makes a 1920x1080 VA panel that is 144hz and has very good pixel response time and AMD freesync 35hz-144hz range. It also has quantum dots for 125% sRGB coverage. Me personally I like that its 27 inches and 1080p resolution. I do not have to use any DPI scaling so everything looks proper and i get faster smoother gaming with more frames to make use of the 144hz than i would get with 1440p. The Samsung doesn't crush the dark details either. It's total input lag including the controller and pixel time is only 7ms which tftcentral rates as excellant. It's 3000:1 contrast ratio is excellant and it does not suffer from backlight bleed on the edges and no dreaded IPS glow since it's not an ips. This VA panel is within 1ms of pixel response to the IPS asus rog swift. It's a really great monitor for 450 dollars. It will probably be my next choice.
That's a little unclear as panels with overdrive settings often (to my eyes) do quite well reducing ghosting. I personally think the cheap BenQ panels I have do almost as well as a recent Asus IPS I purchased (the BenQ were $100 21.5in FHD panels, the Asus is a $400 4k IPS).
Well VA TVs sure beat IPS. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more contrast and they're really fast too (although for a VA panel this doesn't have much contrast...though still like double what "good" IPS usually has).
VA's the only tech I want in any of my displays anymore, save, I guess, for my iPad, since you use that from different orientations.
I don't see the advancement either, but how is this a step behind? All the importan metrics seem identical to me (3440 x 1440 / 100Hz, G-Sync)....? Also, I don't see more competition or at least options as a bad thing.
I switch between a 10.1 inch netbook and a pair of laptops with a 14.1 and 15.4 inch display. When the 15.4 inch laptop is on my desk, I often feel like the screen is a bit too large and out of place for comfortable use. It was the same situation when I was dealing with the 15 inch Acer monitor before my desktop's motherboard failed. I don't think I'd want anything as absurdly huge as a 35 inch display. I'd need a new desk so I could shove it far enough away to actually see properly which would cause a lot of additional eye strain since I'm nearsighted and don't like to wear glasses or contacts while I'm at my computer. And that's all before even considering the price of this thing, the silly logo on the back that appears to be RGB lit, and the fact that it's intentionally curved which would annoy me to no end.
Are you trying to imply most people find 15" monitors to be "too large"? Because I think your average gamer would very much disagree with that assessment.
Look, I'm giving you the attention you've wanted by replying even though I haven't bothered with previous, similar comments. :D I'm sure this text-based conversation wherein I give you what you've been lusting after for months now will bring you significantly closer to self actualization.
Not at all. HP's may not be the most profitable company in the world, but it has enough people seeking to identify niches that are underserved or that might generate sales revenue. I'm talking strictly about my level of comfort with a monitor.
In all seriousness it sounds that you're simply used the small screen sizes. I use a 13" laptop and used a 21" monitor with my desktop.
When my 21" monitor broke I pulled out an unused 40" flatscreen. It felt way too big for the first week or so, but I actually became quite fond of the immersiveness and screen size.
After that my 13 inch just felt really small. Gaming when travelling was a lot harder after switching to that TV.
I'm sure it is a matter of taste. Laptops have been my primary means of computing starting with a Texas Instruments model that packed a 90MHz original Pentium chip (huge upgrade from the 386 I'd been using for years up to that point). But what I don't really get is that most larger monitors essentially require increased distance between the user and the screen which effectively shrinks the screen's relative size down. Its sort of the inverse of using very tiny screens in VR headsets and bringing them within a few inches in order to effectively enlarge them. Since there's going to be increased distance and a net similar viewable size, why bother with the expense of a larger monitor at all when there's ultimately nothing gained in the process?
So, let me get this straight, you're making the argument than all screens need to be cell phone sized so you can keep them 2 inches from your face?
Sounds legit, you wouldn't even need a desk anymore.
I for one love big screens. I had two 20" Sony CRTs back in the days and was so proud of that setup. Now my desktop has a 30" and a flipped 24" monitor setup. These large monitors are ideal solutions for people like me who use multi monitor setups. They're also very good in business/production settings.
If you actually mean, "intentionally misunderstanding the comment," then yes, you're doing great and should keep up the good work. If that's not what you mean, then you might want to read it again since reading comprehension failed you the first time around.
the ultrawides are uncomfortable as hell to use. Constantly moving your head, no thx. They suck for gaming, they are good for multitasking 2 programs side by side.
If you're constantly moving your head, either the monitor is incorrectly positioned (move it further away), or you have a disability that prevents you from just moving your eyes, in which case you have my sympathies.
Sitting here, reading this article from a 3440*1440@120hz display I'm scratching my head whats so new about this, then it turns out the writer of the article just straight up doesn't realize what already exists.
There isn't a single OLED desktop computer monitor on the market, so that's like responding to the announcement of a new car with "Not nuclear fission powered? No thanks..."
It's akin to Honda saying there's going to be 16" alloys on the Civic this year instead of 15" steelies, and an automatic with manual up/down shifting option. That's great and all, but it's not enough to upgrade from the current or even last 5 years 'they're all the same' Civic. Once dark environment OLED is experienced, it's REALLY difficult to go backwards.
Which is only applicable towards the retailer, not the manufacturer. And it usually translates into 6 months actual guarantee, because of the way the burden of proof works. :)
In my research for a new monitor, I've found that Acer, ASUS, Dell and Philips all offer 3 year warranties on their high end monitors. HP, LG and Samsung offer 1 year.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
Back to Article
Murloc - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
how does AMVA+ compare to TN and IPS?DanNeely - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
*VA panels are much closer to IPS than to TN. Their main advantage over IPS was higher contrast. Off axis viewing angles were IPS like, but looked at dead on they suffered from black crush (basically black and the darkest grays all looked the same). Their main historic liability was that they generally had the worst input lag (although a lot of this was due to the LCD controllers not the panel itelf); something I would assume isn't an issue with this one being marketed as a gaming display.Laststop311 - Sunday, January 8, 2017 - link
VA panels have come a long way. Samsung makes a 1920x1080 VA panel that is 144hz and has very good pixel response time and AMD freesync 35hz-144hz range. It also has quantum dots for 125% sRGB coverage. Me personally I like that its 27 inches and 1080p resolution. I do not have to use any DPI scaling so everything looks proper and i get faster smoother gaming with more frames to make use of the 144hz than i would get with 1440p. The Samsung doesn't crush the dark details either. It's total input lag including the controller and pixel time is only 7ms which tftcentral rates as excellant. It's 3000:1 contrast ratio is excellant and it does not suffer from backlight bleed on the edges and no dreaded IPS glow since it's not an ips. This VA panel is within 1ms of pixel response to the IPS asus rog swift. It's a really great monitor for 450 dollars. It will probably be my next choice.Laststop311 - Sunday, January 8, 2017 - link
I thnk samsung just released this panel only a few months ago. So it is the latest tech in VA panels.Laststop311 - Sunday, January 8, 2017 - link
acer also uses this panel for a g sync monitor if you have nvidia. It's an extra 130 dollars over the samsung and has no quantum dots tho.TristanSDX - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
some pixel transitions in VA panels are very slow, so there is noticeable trailing, and colors are somewhat pale than in IPSlmcd - Saturday, January 7, 2017 - link
That's a little unclear as panels with overdrive settings often (to my eyes) do quite well reducing ghosting. I personally think the cheap BenQ panels I have do almost as well as a recent Asus IPS I purchased (the BenQ were $100 21.5in FHD panels, the Asus is a $400 4k IPS).Michael Bay - Sunday, January 8, 2017 - link
Check it on some kind of dark violet/purple and you`ll see the difference clearly. I was completely happy with my Benq before I did, now not so much.Still much better than TN, of course.
Wolfpup - Monday, January 9, 2017 - link
Well VA TVs sure beat IPS. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more contrast and they're really fast too (although for a VA panel this doesn't have much contrast...though still like double what "good" IPS usually has).VA's the only tech I want in any of my displays anymore, save, I guess, for my iPad, since you use that from different orientations.
skypine27 - Sunday, January 8, 2017 - link
How is this an improvement (and in fact, a step behind!!) over the 34" 3440 x 1440 IPS, 100hz. G-sync Acer x34??I've been an x34 user since day one and this new HP seems like a step backwards.
Now if it was 120 or 144hz And still 3440 x1440, that would be a different story.
Death666Angel - Sunday, January 8, 2017 - link
I don't see the advancement either, but how is this a step behind? All the importan metrics seem identical to me (3440 x 1440 / 100Hz, G-Sync)....? Also, I don't see more competition or at least options as a bad thing.Wolfpup - Monday, January 9, 2017 - link
Well for one thing it's VA, so it'll have much better contrast. That alone would have me buying it over the model you mention...Though I wish these had more inputs, and I really want 16:9 (I think) and non-curved...
Scabies - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
Oh hey looks like nVidia gets to brag about something in 2017 CES after all>$1300
...maybe not
BrokenCrayons - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
I switch between a 10.1 inch netbook and a pair of laptops with a 14.1 and 15.4 inch display. When the 15.4 inch laptop is on my desk, I often feel like the screen is a bit too large and out of place for comfortable use. It was the same situation when I was dealing with the 15 inch Acer monitor before my desktop's motherboard failed. I don't think I'd want anything as absurdly huge as a 35 inch display. I'd need a new desk so I could shove it far enough away to actually see properly which would cause a lot of additional eye strain since I'm nearsighted and don't like to wear glasses or contacts while I'm at my computer. And that's all before even considering the price of this thing, the silly logo on the back that appears to be RGB lit, and the fact that it's intentionally curved which would annoy me to no end.erwos - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
Are you trying to imply most people find 15" monitors to be "too large"? Because I think your average gamer would very much disagree with that assessment.JeffFlanagan - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
I think he just wanted to tell a rambling story that has nothing to do with anyone else.JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
This sounds about right.BrokenCrayons - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
Look, I'm giving you the attention you've wanted by replying even though I haven't bothered with previous, similar comments. :D I'm sure this text-based conversation wherein I give you what you've been lusting after for months now will bring you significantly closer to self actualization.SaolDan - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
HeheheBrokenCrayons - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
Not at all. HP's may not be the most profitable company in the world, but it has enough people seeking to identify niches that are underserved or that might generate sales revenue. I'm talking strictly about my level of comfort with a monitor.negusp - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
In all seriousness it sounds that you're simply used the small screen sizes. I use a 13" laptop and used a 21" monitor with my desktop.When my 21" monitor broke I pulled out an unused 40" flatscreen. It felt way too big for the first week or so, but I actually became quite fond of the immersiveness and screen size.
After that my 13 inch just felt really small. Gaming when travelling was a lot harder after switching to that TV.
So all in all I call it a matter of taste.
Notmyusualid - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
That is sort of how I read it.I'm on 34" Acer X34 with G-sync, and I've never been happier with a monitor.
BrokenCrayons - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
I'm sure it is a matter of taste. Laptops have been my primary means of computing starting with a Texas Instruments model that packed a 90MHz original Pentium chip (huge upgrade from the 386 I'd been using for years up to that point). But what I don't really get is that most larger monitors essentially require increased distance between the user and the screen which effectively shrinks the screen's relative size down. Its sort of the inverse of using very tiny screens in VR headsets and bringing them within a few inches in order to effectively enlarge them. Since there's going to be increased distance and a net similar viewable size, why bother with the expense of a larger monitor at all when there's ultimately nothing gained in the process?niva - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
So, let me get this straight, you're making the argument than all screens need to be cell phone sized so you can keep them 2 inches from your face?Sounds legit, you wouldn't even need a desk anymore.
I for one love big screens. I had two 20" Sony CRTs back in the days and was so proud of that setup. Now my desktop has a 30" and a flipped 24" monitor setup. These large monitors are ideal solutions for people like me who use multi monitor setups. They're also very good in business/production settings.
BrokenCrayons - Sunday, January 8, 2017 - link
"So, let me get this straight..."If you actually mean, "intentionally misunderstanding the comment," then yes, you're doing great and should keep up the good work. If that's not what you mean, then you might want to read it again since reading comprehension failed you the first time around.
thefivetheory - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
Better intentionally curved than unintentionally...BrokenCrayons - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
Hah! Yes, that's probably true.Notmyusualid - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
Funny.Laststop311 - Sunday, January 8, 2017 - link
the ultrawides are uncomfortable as hell to use. Constantly moving your head, no thx. They suck for gaming, they are good for multitasking 2 programs side by side.Black Obsidian - Monday, January 9, 2017 - link
If you're constantly moving your head, either the monitor is incorrectly positioned (move it further away), or you have a disability that prevents you from just moving your eyes, in which case you have my sympathies.Wolfpup - Monday, January 9, 2017 - link
15"?!? 24" has been bog standard for years, and is okay, but hardly big. There's no way in heck I'm doing anything serious on a 15" monitor.I mean I had larger than that in the 90s!
thefivetheory - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
>At present, there is only one competing display with 3440×1440 resolution and similar features (the ASUS ROG SWIFT PG348Q)...What about the Predator?
squngy - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
Sitting here, reading this article from a 3440*1440@120hz display I'm scratching my head whats so new about this, then it turns out the writer of the article just straight up doesn't realize what already exists.YourUglyExGirlfriend - Thursday, January 12, 2017 - link
What monitor is this? I've heard of no 3440*1440 monitor existing that runs at 120hz, just overclocked to 100hz. If one exists I'd love to buy it...r3loaded - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
Almost there, just needs open standards adaptive sync instead of proprietary G-Sync.chucky2 - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
Not OLED? No thanks...Guspaz - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
There isn't a single OLED desktop computer monitor on the market, so that's like responding to the announcement of a new car with "Not nuclear fission powered? No thanks..."chucky2 - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
It's akin to Honda saying there's going to be 16" alloys on the Civic this year instead of 15" steelies, and an automatic with manual up/down shifting option. That's great and all, but it's not enough to upgrade from the current or even last 5 years 'they're all the same' Civic. Once dark environment OLED is experienced, it's REALLY difficult to go backwards.Morawka - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
yeah i'm gonna pay $1300 for a screen that's only guaranteed to work for 1 year. HP GTFO with that short warrantylinster - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
The Asus and the Predator both have 1 year warranties as well. HP is just following suit.Agent Smith - Saturday, January 7, 2017 - link
EU Warranty is two years.Agent Smith - Saturday, January 7, 2017 - link
Two-Year Legal Guaranteehttp://www.eccbelgium.be/themes/guarantee-and-warr...
Death666Angel - Sunday, January 8, 2017 - link
Which is only applicable towards the retailer, not the manufacturer. And it usually translates into 6 months actual guarantee, because of the way the burden of proof works. :)MoonDogg - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
In my research for a new monitor, I've found that Acer, ASUS, Dell and Philips all offer 3 year warranties on their high end monitors. HP, LG and Samsung offer 1 year.