It's a professional display, not a gaming display. 60 Hz is the standard for everything but gaming. You're not the target market for it, and you should know it, so no need to complain about it.
Why should it? If 60 Hz is satisfactory for most users, what's the point in doing away with it? A higher refresh rate would simply drive up prices needlessly for most users. There are very few non-gaming use cases I can imagine for >60 Hz refresh rates, and all of them are because 60 isn't a multiple of the standard frame rate for movies.
Because most work was still done on pen and paper. The 60's was before even pocket calculators were a thing. Computers weren't used for most things we use computers for today, so a basic display was wholly sufficient.
We all understand that higher refresh rates are better than lower refresh rates, but this monitor doesn't *need* high refresh rates, and a high refresh rate panel and the controller to drive it would needlessly add to the cost of an already expensive monitor.
Video professionals are staring at a static image 95% of the time they're working. Most videos are still at 30 or 24 fps, so technically even 60Hz is an unnecessary luxury for playback in most video workflows. Higher refresh rates only benefit gamers. For years now, Anandtech has been featuring writeups for monitors aimed at video professionals, and gamers have to complain that the refresh rate is too low and there's no G-Sync.
You don't see video professionals complaining that gaming monitors don't allow for hardware calibration.
Okay, but you're not a colorist, an editor, or a motion graphics artist. For coding and browsing, you'd probably be much better served by a nice gaming panel with a high refresh rate -- that way you could play games on it when you're not coding or browsing. Colorists can't use a gaming panel for work.
Please point us all to a monitor that can do 4k at more than 60 Hz. Let alone a connector/pipeline on a video card that can supply the bandwidth required. It's 2018 and neither of those things exist yet, so keep waiting.
The first 4k 144 monitors were supposed to be out last summer, but AUO's been struggling to get them into production. If nothing else has slipped since November they should be out in the next month or two.
OTOH AUO historically hasn't produced panels with colors and backlight levels as consistent across the panel as their competition; so those panels probably wouldn't make it to anything aimed at graphics professionals anyway.
Is that surprising you? AUO is even struggling with production of established products. From own experience, their usable percentage of panels is maybe 1-10%. The rest is just garbage, but they still throw them on the market, because there are enough uncritical people who wont even notice a dozen dead pixels or backlight bleeding that would bother Stevie Wonder.
>insert meme about the human eye can't see past 720p @ 24hz from regular desk viewing system >insert meme about why technology is progressing and why this product needs to exist when black and white televisions were just fine >insert meme about anyone buying into new technology is just a sheep because fox-and-grapes-syndrome >insert meme about new technology not being good enough with 8k @240hz OLED with 0 burn in and .1ms response time and <1ms total input lag and glasses-free 3D support and touchscreen and built in webcam and built in reach around.
Yeah compared to my 23" 1080p monitor they've made it about sqrt(2) larger with sqrt(2) times the pixel density. Not a bad idea but it's going to irk people in the comments who either wanted 2x the density or 2x the size...
No, but if I had a 15" laptop I'd want at least a 1080p panel to make text/etc sharper and easier to read.
It's the same reason I have a 42" 4k monitor on my gaming desktop. 16:9 5k appears to be a moribund standard; if it was looking healthy and a gsync option was available I'd've probably gotten it instead; but 4k was the best available and is still a nice upgrade from 30" 2560x1600. (Now I just need a bigger desk so I can use the old screen as a side display.)
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
29 Comments
Back to Article
abrowne1993 - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
3840x1920? You sure about that?alexvoda - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Was about to ask about that too. That sounds like a very weird resolution.WinterCharm - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Fixed now. It's saying 3840 x 2160bubblyboo - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Response time of 16ms? That's pretty slow even for a "professional" monitor.Unless Lenovo is reporting actual response times now.
StevoLincolnite - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Almost. But no thanks at only a paltry 60hz.CharonPDX - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
It's a professional display, not a gaming display. 60 Hz is the standard for everything but gaming. You're not the target market for it, and you should know it, so no need to complain about it.p1esk - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
It's 2018. 60Hz should die, period.boeush - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
60 Hz at 4k is the equivalent of 240 Hz at FHD, in terms of the number of pixels refreshed per second...Inteli - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Why should it? If 60 Hz is satisfactory for most users, what's the point in doing away with it? A higher refresh rate would simply drive up prices needlessly for most users. There are very few non-gaming use cases I can imagine for >60 Hz refresh rates, and all of them are because 60 isn't a multiple of the standard frame rate for movies.p1esk - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
I bet when they had those tiny monochrome displays with 1Hz refresh rate back in the 60s, most "professional" users were satisfied.Inteli - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Because most work was still done on pen and paper. The 60's was before even pocket calculators were a thing. Computers weren't used for most things we use computers for today, so a basic display was wholly sufficient.We all understand that higher refresh rates are better than lower refresh rates, but this monitor doesn't *need* high refresh rates, and a high refresh rate panel and the controller to drive it would needlessly add to the cost of an already expensive monitor.
gerz1219 - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Video professionals are staring at a static image 95% of the time they're working. Most videos are still at 30 or 24 fps, so technically even 60Hz is an unnecessary luxury for playback in most video workflows. Higher refresh rates only benefit gamers. For years now, Anandtech has been featuring writeups for monitors aimed at video professionals, and gamers have to complain that the refresh rate is too low and there's no G-Sync.You don't see video professionals complaining that gaming monitors don't allow for hardware calibration.
p1esk - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
I'm not a gamer. I'm someone who tried using 120Hz monitor (for coding and browsing).gerz1219 - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Okay, but you're not a colorist, an editor, or a motion graphics artist. For coding and browsing, you'd probably be much better served by a nice gaming panel with a high refresh rate -- that way you could play games on it when you're not coding or browsing. Colorists can't use a gaming panel for work.billybeer321 - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Please point us all to a monitor that can do 4k at more than 60 Hz. Let alone a connector/pipeline on a video card that can supply the bandwidth required. It's 2018 and neither of those things exist yet, so keep waiting.DanNeely - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Displayport on the current generation of AMD/NVidia cards supports 4k 120hz without compression. 4k 144 requires compression.DanNeely - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
The first 4k 144 monitors were supposed to be out last summer, but AUO's been struggling to get them into production. If nothing else has slipped since November they should be out in the next month or two.OTOH AUO historically hasn't produced panels with colors and backlight levels as consistent across the panel as their competition; so those panels probably wouldn't make it to anything aimed at graphics professionals anyway.
Beaver M. - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
Is that surprising you? AUO is even struggling with production of established products. From own experience, their usable percentage of panels is maybe 1-10%. The rest is just garbage, but they still throw them on the market, because there are enough uncritical people who wont even notice a dozen dead pixels or backlight bleeding that would bother Stevie Wonder.neo_1221 - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Are there any monitors that can do 4K at >60hz?Pinn - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
wide color? So 10-bit without those funky nit specs? I have one of these that does 10-bit, but doesn't look much different. you need the nits, bro.Hurr Durr - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Color and brightness are separate things.nerd1 - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
I am pretty sure this one also supports adobe rgb.... havent seen any 4k panel without oneInteli - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
I'd be pretty sure too when the article says the monitor "covers 99.5% of the AdobeRGB color space".JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
>insert meme about the human eye can't see past 720p @ 24hz from regular desk viewing system>insert meme about why technology is progressing and why this product needs to exist when black and white televisions were just fine
>insert meme about anyone buying into new technology is just a sheep because fox-and-grapes-syndrome
>insert meme about new technology not being good enough with 8k @240hz OLED with 0 burn in and .1ms response time and <1ms total input lag and glasses-free 3D support and touchscreen and built in webcam and built in reach around.
SunnyNW - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
lolboeush - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Ok, but in all seriousness - would you buy a 16" FHD monitor for desktop use?This 32" 4k is like 4 of those 16" FHDs arranged in a grid...
stephenbrooks - Thursday, January 4, 2018 - link
Yeah compared to my 23" 1080p monitor they've made it about sqrt(2) larger with sqrt(2) times the pixel density. Not a bad idea but it's going to irk people in the comments who either wanted 2x the density or 2x the size...JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
Not really, since I'm not blind and my monitors sit ~30" away from me at most. I like 27", but I can go up to 30" and be OK.I'm currently using a 24" 4K at home and I like the pixel density.
DanNeely - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
No, but if I had a 15" laptop I'd want at least a 1080p panel to make text/etc sharper and easier to read.It's the same reason I have a 42" 4k monitor on my gaming desktop. 16:9 5k appears to be a moribund standard; if it was looking healthy and a gsync option was available I'd've probably gotten it instead; but 4k was the best available and is still a nice upgrade from 30" 2560x1600. (Now I just need a bigger desk so I can use the old screen as a side display.)