Not likely. Tranformation matrix for vertices would leave small gaps between geometry edges that would be unsightly. The technique used for vr reduces visual quality or requires alot more processing power. Combine this with the fact the developers dont like to develop features like this and you have a trifecta of this shit never getting supported.
Ah, right, because the projected triangles are no longer triangular! Still, they could do it for raytracing I guess, since that treats each pixel separately.
The cheapest 144hz displays are actually curved VAs now. The only 1080p 144hz non TN displays are those curved VAs.
Curved VAs are basically extremely price competitive across the spectrum. If you want a VA at all they're curved.
At least anecdotally see a lot of the times people are buying those displays despite the curve due to the other characteristics of the display (no flat equivalent) as opposed to because of the curve.
Next year will supposedly finally bring in more high refresh IPS options with LG entering the field including to cheaper 24 inch class 1080p options from both AUO and LG. If that means lower prices there will be more mass market choices outside of the current expensive higher resolution only options.
I hate IPS crappy contrast, backlight bleed and even worse, IPS GLOW at night. Displaying any kind of dark content with the lights off is basically EYE CANCER.
32" is fine for 1440P. Puts it in the same ballpark as 24-24" 1080P monitors in terms of pixel density if I a remember correctly. It's perfectly fine.
Either way. It is about what -I- want, not you.
I don't want 4k due to how expensive on hardware it is to drive those resolution... And 1080P is terrible at larger display sizes. 1440P is perfect and I just want an increase in refresh rates.
Because you made mutually contradictory requests. A 32" IPS panel will be pricey, and probably 4K as that's more useful for content creators.
Moderately priced 1440p VA displays with high refresh rates are all over the place. So you're fine if you accept the fundamental limitations of your situation (i.e. that it's VA or a higher price).
No TN, No VA, largest common desktop size, fast refresh. Lol you want every premium feature for a low price. Easier to just state what you want since you basically don't want anything that coincides with low prices. You want an expensive panel type which has no mass market 144hz options for budget conscious monitors - that alone already rules out any good prices. Kinda like saying I want a cheap laptop but my only requirement is it has to be a brand new MBP.
Except thats not really true. I picked up an acer 27" IPS 144hz 1440p monitor last year for under 300$. This BF I saw a 1440p 32" 144hz for slightly more (though its possible that model was a VA). A good VA panel has colors good enough for most editing work. If your doing major color correction as your job you should probably just use a multi monitor setup and use a nice 4k IPS as your work panel and something else as your gaming panel.
Personally the next monitor I get will probably be an ultrawide. 4K is just to "costly" in framerates. Not that 3440x1440 is really that much "cheaper" but man does it look good.
I do want a flat 27" 1440p 144hz monitor that doesn't break the bank. Don't really care if it is VA or IPS, but there doesn't seem to be much choices still.
Yea if you want a VA gaming panel, all you can get are curved. Personally I don't want curved, but it's all you can get. I don't why anyone would want geometric distortion on a display.
I tried one and went away from that after two days, either there was something broken with the screen I haven't been able to figure out or the geometric distortion was the cause I was getting mild nausea after just half hour playing (about same I get after full length movie in IMAX 3D).
First sight the deformation isn't really noticeable though, but guess it's enough for brain to expect something else than is being seen.
Thinking back I should have done some testing (for example try multi-view rendering, if I remember well you can do up to 4 planar views at different angles so instead of bending one big rectangle on curved area there would be 4 of them, reducing the geometric error alot), but I was just way too disappointed at that point to think properly.
Then if you had a 22-26 inch Sony Trinitron CRT Monitor they were pretty much flat so maybe they were ahead of their time...:) I remember the most annoying thing with any Sony Trinitron or if any other company used Sony's tubes there were those 2 lines that showed up about a 3rd of the screen top and bottom I think they were some kind of guides of sorts but annoying just the same once you spotted them the first time your eyes would always go to either of the spots every time you used the monitor. Well at least mine did and I think most people did not even notice they were there. But the good was they almost always had a much sharper picture than most other CRT's of the time and looked good no matter what res you ran them in unlike the LCD's of today where they only look good in their native res. Then again I would rather pack around a 32 inch LCD monitor of today than a Sony Trinitron CRT 24 inch like I had back in the day because OMG the thing was heavy and the tube/back panel went on forever behind the screen...lol
The Trinitron displays tried to increase the active light emitting surface of the display by reducing the area taken up by the shadow mask required for color separation, essentially removing all horizontal barriers and using vertical slits instead. So first you have hundreds of vertial wires to split the hundreds of dots on each line into RGB.
But when the display gets to be a little bigger, it's far to easy for these vertical wires to go out of alignment which is why they were then fixed with one or two vertical Tungsten wires (depending on display size), which essentially replaced the hundreds of vertical bridges a shadow mask would have used and covered up.
You were just sitting to close or "holding it wrong" and I guess you're also the type that complains about pentile dots on OLED screens: Please just use the shadow mask TV or LCD panel and stop bothering those of us who simply enjoy bright things!
the technical part of your comment was great, but why the judgement? Some of us see things others don't. I love my OnePlus 6 but I notice the Pentile layout frequently, especially with black text on a white display. It's notably inferior to a standard RGB layout but for the money, I can deal.
Well the "judgement" was meant to be somewhat "tounge-in-cheek" or ironical: True miracles are really just very hard to achieve...
So engineers do try their best to deliver more lux per square millimeter and it just means that something has got to give, when you push things beyond normal.
For Trinitron it required the stabilizing wires and for the OLEDs it meant giving blue dots extra surface area to compensate for their relative weakness and early degradation, which the engineers could not fix, only compensate in a way the vast majority of people wouldn't notice.... unless they are extra sensitive, or concentrate hard on discovering the imperfection.
As in your case it really becomes a matter of accepting or not the compromise that needed to be made.
I am surprise Samsung and LG are low on the list. But I think Dell and HP are high on list because of business and some customer related purposes.
Also don't think that all external monitors go to desktop monitor. I personal almost all the time use external monitors - and for development - I use 2 externals on laptop.
Same here. One HDMI, one DisplayLink USB for chat (pro tip: raise its user-mode driver process to Realtime priority). My Surface Pro has a separate one too, via DisplayPort - good for multiple streams.
We are supposed to have Mini-LED panels in 2019 from AUO(Not to be confused with Micro-LED). Should have over 1,000 dedicated backlight zones in 27 and 32 inch monitors.
My Philips 144Hz LCD (a TN panel obviously) is probably the lowest quality LCD I've seen since dual scan LCD's from early 90's laptops. It's useless for anything but gaming, which is its purpose, but I still regret not just getting a 100hz IPS\PVA panel. Sadly, 144Hz applications span more than just gaming. Once you use this thing you appreciate it's response time in even basic windows tasks. The mouse cursor moves butter smooth and scrolling is superbly natural.
That said, I plan on holding on to it until high quality 144Hz panels become a thing.
I just bought one of the Acer Predator G-sync IPS displays. It is 144 Hz, overdrivable to 165, 27", 1440P, and a flat screen. I think it is awesome. Very happy with how it looks and running @ the high refresh is very nice on the eyes. No idea how accurate the colors are, but it looks very good.
I think a big reason curved displays are selling so much is because it is difficult to find a non-curved display in the larger sizes. ASUS has basically the same monitor, but it is ~$50 more expensive.
I'd consider both the Acer and the ASUS as high quality in everything except perhaps color accuracy (just don't have data for that).
its because finally they have VA panels that go above 60hz. that has been the limiting factor. most ppl who know. Will tell TN panels to suck DEEZ... and then up till this year VA panels have only gone to 60hz. This has now changed. and its a win for everyone.
That's not correct. The Eizo Foris was the first VA display commercially available with a 120hz refresh rate, and that was back in 2013 (I have one on my desk). The tech isn't new, but reaching these lower price points is definitely new.
All I want is Gsync + HDR1000 + not Kiddie size of 35inch MINIMUM Where are all GsyncHDR monitors? The only ones out are 27inch Asus/Acer 4K models, 27inch? in 2018??? SERIOUSLY! Right now im using 55inc 4K OLED with HDR and its GREAT, but i want Gsync and lower refresh rate, 4K is great but one step below 4K will give my 2080Ti more headroom running Ray traced games. Asus and Acer announced VA+HDR100+Gsync + 200Hz monitors early 2017, Predator x35 and ROG SWIFT PG35VQ, what happened to them? WHERE ARE MY MONITORS?!
Your 2080ti is already obsolete for ray trace, it barely handles BFV, and it's the 1st attempt on a 1st gen product.
I would not care much about RTX till the dedicated computing for that task gets 10-20x uplift. You basically payed for RTX, a 1st gen that will be on the dust pretty fast, 2070 was the smart choice.
With a 55" OLED I think "smart money" choices are the least of his concerns...
I only got a 43" 4K IPS and all I can say is that the GTX1080ti didn't cut it for ARK Evolved, while the RTX2080ti seems above lag. Its raytracing capabilities may be for naught, but those 30% extra power made it all worthwhile for 4k.
Assuming he bought the OLED on sale/clearance, it's very easy to find 55" LG 4K OLED displays under $1200 over the course of a given year, which isn't that ridiculous. I'm not one to talk though, I'm using my 1080Ti with both a 65X930E and GDM-C520K (depending on the application).
Curved displays are just another backwards fad. Just like 3D displays, but this is even more retarded as 3D was optional, but here you're paying for a bent distorted screen, where even if you sit in literally the ideal position it's still going to be distorted. It's the inverse of a 90's CRT. People are such utterly pathetic sheep and never learn.
Spotted the poster who has never actually compared large curved and flat monitors.
At a certain size, flat monitors appear to be curved *away* from you, because their edges are noticeably more distant than their center. Curved monitors solve (or at least reduce) this problem because the curve helps keep the edges (relatively) as close to you as the center.
Go compare curved vs. flat 34" ultrawide monitors if you want to see this effect at such an obvious scale that it's impossible to ignore.
If by "close distance" you mean regular desk viewing distances, sure. I have a 27" 1440p monitor, which to me is perfect when sitting at my desk. When it eventually dies, I'm thinking I'll get a ~35" 1440p ultrawide, which is the same height, but wider. As such, it's obviously going to be used at the same distance, as moving away from it would be entirely counterproductive. A curved panel would then be a must, as it would make the edges of the panel more easily visible. At my optimal viewing distance the 27" panel already fills the entire in-focus area of my vision, so going wider and not getting a curved panel would be asking of eye strain both due to having to move my eyes more (panel edges further away from the eyes) and having to refocus to see the edges of the panel properly. I don't think curved panels make sense at 16:9, at least not below ~32", but at 21:9 it's a must.
"If you use the display just for you" - these are PC monitors we're discussing, not TVs.
I've compared them and they're gimmicks. They're also 100% useless for any sort of design/art work. A flat panel, even when quite large and close to you, still gives a vastly better impression of basic things like straight lines and perspectives when compared to a curved display.
The fact they also only curve in just one direction - horizontally - is also unnatural and doesn't work well with how the human brain visually interprets things in comparison to something that is simply flat.
Until we have something like VR with 8K+ res for each eye, 200+ degrees field of view, that's also light, wireless, has no lens distortion and is extremely comfortable, then flat panels remain the best option for accurate viewing.
I think there is a certain amount of validity to the argument that a curvature helps with the view angle problem introduced by means of large and wide display panels. I haven't done more than play around with a couple of curved displays for a few hours and my computing usage is fine with low resolution, small laptop panels so the problem the curve is designed to overcome doesn't apply to my personal situation. Despite the justification for them, I think that curved screens are ultimately somewhat impractical and we'll see them follow suit behind 3D monitors, VR headsets, and tablet computers where they'll sooner or later fade from fashion. In the meantime, there are profits to be reaped and sales to generate so companies are rightfully pumping out products and that benefits all of us that are going to reap a reward from our share price and/or dividends.
Why are all the 144hz monitors with G-sync and HDR only 27"?!? Its 2018, you'd think we can finally make the jump to a bigger monitor size. My Dell 27" IPS monitor from 2010 is still kicking, but i'd like to upgrade to a bigger monitor size instead of a side grade.:p
Monitor size isn't something that necessarily has to increase just because we move forward in time. There is a certain sweet spot the majority of people like, and 27" is IMHO in that area.
Personally I wouldn't consider bigger an "upgrade". I'm on 27" now, and I had a 30" for a time, and for me it was too big. I literally couldn't use some parts of the screen while gaming (ie. had to move UI elements out of it), or my eyes would tire quite a bit faster. Or I would have to move further away, but whats the point of a bigger screen then?
Gaming on huge screens is even more of a niche then 144Hz GSYNC HDR already is.
I am just waiting for HDMI 2.1 to become standard on 4K televisions. Right now I am using a 43-inch Sony XBR43800D 43" 4K with a VA panel and triluminos (quantum dot lighting). It is a great display and the color and contrast is amazing but I do wish it had a higher refresh rate. I don't want any of the current offerings that include g-sync because it is hard to downgrade in size after having such a large, beautiful display on my desktop. I am really hoping that the next generation of televisions will have similar displays but higher refresh rates and I hope that the next generation of graphics cards will support HDMI 2.1 as well as variable refresh rate. That is when I will be upgrading.
ROFL...So <5% of sales are this stuff that's up 100%. Ah, so 2.5 to 5% now. Ok, so nobody cares...LOL
This is like claiming 4K is now mainstream, and everybody loves it...ER, UH, 1.5% according to steam hardware survey...ROFLMAO. Oh, and for those that think 1440p is mainstream, well, NOPE, sorry..That's a meager 3.52% of steam hardware survey, which for those that don't know, is 126MILLION gamers. So again, if you think either of these resolutions is mainstream, you're...wait for it...STUPID.
As I've said MANY times before to anandtech (er, since 660ti at least, see review section where they name called me etc - Jared walton and Ryan Smith...LOL), 1080p is what everyone is using. Again, today 67% according to 126 million steam users. That's a freaking huge sample size!
So unlike your headline that is FAKE NEWS (TM Trump...ROFL), NOBODY CARES. Wake me in 4-5yrs, you've been claiming 1440p was norm since 660ti...Who pays you guys to do FAKE NEWS? Monitor makers sending you checks trying to push this crap, or just pushing it for AMD as they keep claiming 4k crap? They might win a few GPU contests if they'd CONCENTRATE on what people actually do...You know, that 1080p crap :)
It's true enough, for now - and even more so outside of gaming. I run a large art hosting site and 1440p has gone up 15% in the last year. But it's still only 1.3% of visits. Here's the full rundown:
The "odd" resolutions are likely to be browsers reducing apparent resolution to improve scaling. 1536x864 is 1920x1080 / 1.25 (hence Full HD is over 25% of visitors); iPhone 6-8 (750x1334) shows up as 375x667. Mobiles may actually be the highest-resolution device a user has - if they're not their *only* device, although whether that's true of a "gamer" depends on your definition.
I've got an idea, how about you concentrate on 1080p and quit 1440p-4k crap testing except for maybe once a year, but instead DOUBLE 1080p games tested so people get a better idea of what they will actually be using and how their gpu/cpu might act in the real world.
One more point, tons of people (according to steam again) buy Titans/1080/1080ti etc for ...1080P. Myself, 1070ti for 1920x1200 (1200p). :) No plans for a new monitor until my 24in 1200p dies, well unless Dell puts the $1050 30in 1600p on sale for oh, 1/2 off :) ZERO 4k plans (don't even have a 4k tv). 3 HTPC's running 1080p in my family now too. Who are you guys writing for? 1.5% 4k people? Nobody cares. 3.52% 1440p? AGain...You should get the point by now. This is why I come here once a month, or just to check news headlines real quick...LOL. Same with toms, well, duh, you are both owned by the same joint. So many other review sites with far more games tested etc.
You answered your own question. 5% of Steam users run 1440p or above - that's more than 6 million people. Seems a reasonable target market for an online publication aimed at hardware enthusiasts; not the average gamer but someone who actually wants to tinker at the boundaries of technology. You're also talking about what people *actually have*, which is not the same as what they want (or want to read about).
Honestly, nothing you said brings any analytical value to this discussion. Yes, most people play at 1080p, but even at high refresh rates there's virtually no point in them buying anything above a GTX 1060 / RX 580. That some people choose to spend more on their graphics card than their monitor doesn't really tell us much about what is a good idea, just that lots of people have different ideas about what is good.
Very happy with the LG32GK850G. The PPI is identical to 24" 1080P bur 1080P would be too grainy for this size screen. I'm old, so it nice lean back in my chair and still read emails. Being a flat panel it takes up less room on the desk than the Samsung CHG70. The LG is way more responsive the Samsung has better color. I'm driving it with 1070TI which is only getting me FPS in the 70's but the Gsync is really impressive technology.
The trouble with HDR screens is twofold. The HDR standard is embedded in the adaptive sync standard so to drive it in a game you really do have to have the matching card and monitor set or you get nadda. You need freesync GPU and monitor or a nvidia gpu and gync monitor which locks you into a gpu brand for several cards since we don't buy monitors as often as we do cards. Also HDR requires a wider color gamut (arguably 10 bit color or 8 bit +frc), 1000 nits of brightness, and local dimming which really haven't been common features on monitors. This makes the screens bulky and slower in response. As far as I'm aware 144hz and HDR are mutually exclusive you have to drop to 60hz two run HDR games or turn it off for higher frame rates. So its still pretty early in the development of HDR PC Gaming to be buying a screen that will last you 10 years. Samsungs CH70 is pretty good but hard to find and it looks very shoddily made on the back at least. display ports were crooked and its got to be like 4 inches thick. the 10 bit color was really lovely though.
one more thing. all these VA panels are really only good to about 120hz then they start to smear GTG even if they can be driven faster. 120hz is plenty fast though. find me a video card that can hold 120hz or better at 1440p in every title.
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
75 Comments
Back to Article
prophet001 - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
I guess for FPS to have a wider field on vision?stephenbrooks - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
I wonder if they'll add features to graphics drivers to adjust the 3D projection to be correct for a curved monitor?Opencg - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
Not likely. Tranformation matrix for vertices would leave small gaps between geometry edges that would be unsightly. The technique used for vr reduces visual quality or requires alot more processing power. Combine this with the fact the developers dont like to develop features like this and you have a trifecta of this shit never getting supported.stephenbrooks - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
Ah, right, because the projected triangles are no longer triangular! Still, they could do it for raytracing I guess, since that treats each pixel separately.limitedaccess - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
Is it causation or correlation though?The cheapest 144hz displays are actually curved VAs now. The only 1080p 144hz non TN displays are those curved VAs.
Curved VAs are basically extremely price competitive across the spectrum. If you want a VA at all they're curved.
At least anecdotally see a lot of the times people are buying those displays despite the curve due to the other characteristics of the display (no flat equivalent) as opposed to because of the curve.
Next year will supposedly finally bring in more high refresh IPS options with LG entering the field including to cheaper 24 inch class 1080p options from both AUO and LG. If that means lower prices there will be more mass market choices outside of the current expensive higher resolution only options.
Lolimaster - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
I hate IPS crappy contrast, backlight bleed and even worse, IPS GLOW at night. Displaying any kind of dark content with the lights off is basically EYE CANCER.Matthmaroo - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
Wow that’s a bit dramaticGreenReaper - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
Just wait until you get it. Then your eyes won't stop glowing from all the radiotherapy!Vayra - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link
Its true though, for gaming, IPS makes absolutely no sense.Lolimaster - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
I just want a nice 3000-5000:1 28" 1440p glossy VA.Lolimaster - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
FLATIronchef3500 - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
exactly, DEATH to all glossy displays :)Vayra - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link
Glossy? WhatStevoLincolnite - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
All I want is: 32" - 1440P - 120hz/144hz - For a decent price. - No curve. No TN... And I would prefer no VA.Why does it seem so hard?
bubblyboo - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
Because 32" is 4K territory. 27" is for 1440.StevoLincolnite - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
I have a 32" 1440P IPS panel right now though? It's just not 120/144hz.bubblyboo - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
I meant 32" is awful for 1440 hence why barely anyone makes those.StevoLincolnite - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
32" is fine for 1440P.Puts it in the same ballpark as 24-24" 1080P monitors in terms of pixel density if I a remember correctly. It's perfectly fine.
Either way. It is about what -I- want, not you.
I don't want 4k due to how expensive on hardware it is to drive those resolution... And 1080P is terrible at larger display sizes. 1440P is perfect and I just want an increase in refresh rates.
bubblyboo - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
I meant that 32" is awful for 1440.Spunjji - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
Because you made mutually contradictory requests. A 32" IPS panel will be pricey, and probably 4K as that's more useful for content creators.Moderately priced 1440p VA displays with high refresh rates are all over the place. So you're fine if you accept the fundamental limitations of your situation (i.e. that it's VA or a higher price).
StevoLincolnite - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
My current display is 32", IPS, 1440P and wasn't pricey though.Spunjji - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
Right, but it's not high refresh rate. My comment still stands.Jad77 - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
LG 32GK650 or 32GK850, either in Freesync or G-sync, the latter is (low grade) HDR.gglaw - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
No TN, No VA, largest common desktop size, fast refresh. Lol you want every premium feature for a low price. Easier to just state what you want since you basically don't want anything that coincides with low prices. You want an expensive panel type which has no mass market 144hz options for budget conscious monitors - that alone already rules out any good prices. Kinda like saying I want a cheap laptop but my only requirement is it has to be a brand new MBP.Bp_968 - Tuesday, December 11, 2018 - link
Except thats not really true. I picked up an acer 27" IPS 144hz 1440p monitor last year for under 300$. This BF I saw a 1440p 32" 144hz for slightly more (though its possible that model was a VA). A good VA panel has colors good enough for most editing work. If your doing major color correction as your job you should probably just use a multi monitor setup and use a nice 4k IPS as your work panel and something else as your gaming panel.Personally the next monitor I get will probably be an ultrawide. 4K is just to "costly" in framerates. Not that 3440x1440 is really that much "cheaper" but man does it look good.
Average Joe - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
LG 32GK850G - G for Gynsc there is a Freesync Variant, which is cheaper but AMD doesn't really have a card to drive it.hanselltc - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
I do want a flat 27" 1440p 144hz monitor that doesn't break the bank. Don't really care if it is VA or IPS, but there doesn't seem to be much choices still.Hixbot - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
Yea if you want a VA gaming panel, all you can get are curved. Personally I don't want curved, but it's all you can get. I don't why anyone would want geometric distortion on a display.HollyDOL - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
I tried one and went away from that after two days, either there was something broken with the screen I haven't been able to figure out or the geometric distortion was the cause I was getting mild nausea after just half hour playing (about same I get after full length movie in IMAX 3D).First sight the deformation isn't really noticeable though, but guess it's enough for brain to expect something else than is being seen.
Thinking back I should have done some testing (for example try multi-view rendering, if I remember well you can do up to 4 planar views at different angles so instead of bending one big rectangle on curved area there would be 4 of them, reducing the geometric error alot), but I was just way too disappointed at that point to think properly.
Flunk - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
I can't wait for everything to go back to the level of curve we had with CRTs, that's totally the way forward.GreenReaper - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
Well, the trend is clear: eventually it'll just be a circle around your head. VR was just ahead of its time.Opencg - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
Probably not due to issues with rendering techniquesrocky12345 - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
Then if you had a 22-26 inch Sony Trinitron CRT Monitor they were pretty much flat so maybe they were ahead of their time...:) I remember the most annoying thing with any Sony Trinitron or if any other company used Sony's tubes there were those 2 lines that showed up about a 3rd of the screen top and bottom I think they were some kind of guides of sorts but annoying just the same once you spotted them the first time your eyes would always go to either of the spots every time you used the monitor. Well at least mine did and I think most people did not even notice they were there. But the good was they almost always had a much sharper picture than most other CRT's of the time and looked good no matter what res you ran them in unlike the LCD's of today where they only look good in their native res. Then again I would rather pack around a 32 inch LCD monitor of today than a Sony Trinitron CRT 24 inch like I had back in the day because OMG the thing was heavy and the tube/back panel went on forever behind the screen...lolabufrejoval - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
The Trinitron displays tried to increase the active light emitting surface of the display by reducing the area taken up by the shadow mask required for color separation, essentially removing all horizontal barriers and using vertical slits instead. So first you have hundreds of vertial wires to split the hundreds of dots on each line into RGB.But when the display gets to be a little bigger, it's far to easy for these vertical wires to go out of alignment which is why they were then fixed with one or two vertical Tungsten wires (depending on display size), which essentially replaced the hundreds of vertical bridges a shadow mask would have used and covered up.
You were just sitting to close or "holding it wrong" and I guess you're also the type that complains about pentile dots on OLED screens: Please just use the shadow mask TV or LCD panel and stop bothering those of us who simply enjoy bright things!
Spunjji - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
the technical part of your comment was great, but why the judgement? Some of us see things others don't. I love my OnePlus 6 but I notice the Pentile layout frequently, especially with black text on a white display. It's notably inferior to a standard RGB layout but for the money, I can deal.abufrejoval - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
Thank you!Well the "judgement" was meant to be somewhat "tounge-in-cheek" or ironical: True miracles are really just very hard to achieve...
So engineers do try their best to deliver more lux per square millimeter and it just means that something has got to give, when you push things beyond normal.
For Trinitron it required the stabilizing wires and for the OLEDs it meant giving blue dots extra surface area to compensate for their relative weakness and early degradation, which the engineers could not fix, only compensate in a way the vast majority of people wouldn't notice.... unless they are extra sensitive, or concentrate hard on discovering the imperfection.
As in your case it really becomes a matter of accepting or not the compromise that needed to be made.
Lord of the Bored - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
Gone from curved away to flat to curved forward. Next up the screen wraps around itself into a ball.nathanddrews - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
You mean wrap it around your head? Like a VR helmet? Or maybe a holodeck?HStewart - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
I am surprise Samsung and LG are low on the list. But I think Dell and HP are high on list because of business and some customer related purposes.Also don't think that all external monitors go to desktop monitor. I personal almost all the time use
external monitors - and for development - I use 2 externals on laptop.
I love my curved LG34U88
GreenReaper - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
Same here. One HDMI, one DisplayLink USB for chat (pro tip: raise its user-mode driver process to Realtime priority). My Surface Pro has a separate one too, via DisplayPort - good for multiple streams.SquarePeg - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
The price of 4k monitors is ridiculous. I already know that my next "monitor" will be a 4k HDR 4:4:4 television with Freesync.FreckledTrout - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
We are supposed to have Mini-LED panels in 2019 from AUO(Not to be confused with Micro-LED). Should have over 1,000 dedicated backlight zones in 27 and 32 inch monitors.Lolimaster - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
For monitors with mini LED the minimum should be 2000 and 5000-10000 for the high end.For TV's from 5000 all the way to 50000
Samus - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
My Philips 144Hz LCD (a TN panel obviously) is probably the lowest quality LCD I've seen since dual scan LCD's from early 90's laptops. It's useless for anything but gaming, which is its purpose, but I still regret not just getting a 100hz IPS\PVA panel. Sadly, 144Hz applications span more than just gaming. Once you use this thing you appreciate it's response time in even basic windows tasks. The mouse cursor moves butter smooth and scrolling is superbly natural.That said, I plan on holding on to it until high quality 144Hz panels become a thing.
AnnoyedGrunt - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
I just bought one of the Acer Predator G-sync IPS displays. It is 144 Hz, overdrivable to 165, 27", 1440P, and a flat screen. I think it is awesome. Very happy with how it looks and running @ the high refresh is very nice on the eyes. No idea how accurate the colors are, but it looks very good.I think a big reason curved displays are selling so much is because it is difficult to find a non-curved display in the larger sizes. ASUS has basically the same monitor, but it is ~$50 more expensive.
I'd consider both the Acer and the ASUS as high quality in everything except perhaps color accuracy (just don't have data for that).
-AG
nunya112 - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
its because finally they have VA panels that go above 60hz. that has been the limiting factor. most ppl who know. Will tell TN panels to suck DEEZ... and then up till this year VA panels have only gone to 60hz. This has now changed. and its a win for everyone.Spunjji - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
That's not correct. The Eizo Foris was the first VA display commercially available with a 120hz refresh rate, and that was back in 2013 (I have one on my desk). The tech isn't new, but reaching these lower price points is definitely new.Mr.Vegas - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
All I want is Gsync + HDR1000 + not Kiddie size of 35inch MINIMUMWhere are all GsyncHDR monitors? The only ones out are 27inch Asus/Acer 4K models, 27inch? in 2018??? SERIOUSLY!
Right now im using 55inc 4K OLED with HDR and its GREAT, but i want Gsync and lower refresh rate, 4K is great but one step below 4K will give my 2080Ti more headroom running Ray traced games.
Asus and Acer announced VA+HDR100+Gsync + 200Hz monitors early 2017, Predator x35 and ROG SWIFT PG35VQ, what happened to them?
WHERE ARE MY MONITORS?!
Mr.Vegas - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link
No edit button?I meant to say Lower resolution, not lower refresh rate
Lolimaster - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
Your 2080ti is already obsolete for ray trace, it barely handles BFV, and it's the 1st attempt on a 1st gen product.I would not care much about RTX till the dedicated computing for that task gets 10-20x uplift. You basically payed for RTX, a 1st gen that will be on the dust pretty fast, 2070 was the smart choice.
abufrejoval - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
With a 55" OLED I think "smart money" choices are the least of his concerns...I only got a 43" 4K IPS and all I can say is that the GTX1080ti didn't cut it for ARK Evolved, while the RTX2080ti seems above lag. Its raytracing capabilities may be for naught, but those 30% extra power made it all worthwhile for 4k.
nathanddrews - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
Assuming he bought the OLED on sale/clearance, it's very easy to find 55" LG 4K OLED displays under $1200 over the course of a given year, which isn't that ridiculous. I'm not one to talk though, I'm using my 1080Ti with both a 65X930E and GDM-C520K (depending on the application).B3an - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
Curved displays are just another backwards fad. Just like 3D displays, but this is even more retarded as 3D was optional, but here you're paying for a bent distorted screen, where even if you sit in literally the ideal position it's still going to be distorted. It's the inverse of a 90's CRT. People are such utterly pathetic sheep and never learn.Black Obsidian - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
Spotted the poster who has never actually compared large curved and flat monitors.At a certain size, flat monitors appear to be curved *away* from you, because their edges are noticeably more distant than their center. Curved monitors solve (or at least reduce) this problem because the curve helps keep the edges (relatively) as close to you as the center.
Go compare curved vs. flat 34" ultrawide monitors if you want to see this effect at such an obvious scale that it's impossible to ignore.
Lolimaster - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
Ultrawide obviously exaggerate the "curve" effect on a big display, not really a common case. And you need to be close to the screen.So if you use the display just for you at a close distance then a curved display on a big ultrawide "makes sense".
Valantar - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
If by "close distance" you mean regular desk viewing distances, sure. I have a 27" 1440p monitor, which to me is perfect when sitting at my desk. When it eventually dies, I'm thinking I'll get a ~35" 1440p ultrawide, which is the same height, but wider. As such, it's obviously going to be used at the same distance, as moving away from it would be entirely counterproductive. A curved panel would then be a must, as it would make the edges of the panel more easily visible. At my optimal viewing distance the 27" panel already fills the entire in-focus area of my vision, so going wider and not getting a curved panel would be asking of eye strain both due to having to move my eyes more (panel edges further away from the eyes) and having to refocus to see the edges of the panel properly. I don't think curved panels make sense at 16:9, at least not below ~32", but at 21:9 it's a must."If you use the display just for you" - these are PC monitors we're discussing, not TVs.
B3an - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
I've compared them and they're gimmicks. They're also 100% useless for any sort of design/art work. A flat panel, even when quite large and close to you, still gives a vastly better impression of basic things like straight lines and perspectives when compared to a curved display.The fact they also only curve in just one direction - horizontally - is also unnatural and doesn't work well with how the human brain visually interprets things in comparison to something that is simply flat.
Until we have something like VR with 8K+ res for each eye, 200+ degrees field of view, that's also light, wireless, has no lens distortion and is extremely comfortable, then flat panels remain the best option for accurate viewing.
nathanddrews - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
If only Rembrandt had known to use curved canvas...Beaver M. - Tuesday, December 11, 2018 - link
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ytbvAidUzVw/Urj8CSyFU9I/...Not Rembrandt, but you get the... picture.
YES, pun intended!
nathanddrews - Tuesday, December 11, 2018 - link
LOL that's so funny.PeachNCream - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
I think there is a certain amount of validity to the argument that a curvature helps with the view angle problem introduced by means of large and wide display panels. I haven't done more than play around with a couple of curved displays for a few hours and my computing usage is fine with low resolution, small laptop panels so the problem the curve is designed to overcome doesn't apply to my personal situation. Despite the justification for them, I think that curved screens are ultimately somewhat impractical and we'll see them follow suit behind 3D monitors, VR headsets, and tablet computers where they'll sooner or later fade from fashion. In the meantime, there are profits to be reaped and sales to generate so companies are rightfully pumping out products and that benefits all of us that are going to reap a reward from our share price and/or dividends.poohbear - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
Why are all the 144hz monitors with G-sync and HDR only 27"?!? Its 2018, you'd think we can finally make the jump to a bigger monitor size. My Dell 27" IPS monitor from 2010 is still kicking, but i'd like to upgrade to a bigger monitor size instead of a side grade.:pnevcairiel - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
Monitor size isn't something that necessarily has to increase just because we move forward in time. There is a certain sweet spot the majority of people like, and 27" is IMHO in that area.Personally I wouldn't consider bigger an "upgrade". I'm on 27" now, and I had a 30" for a time, and for me it was too big. I literally couldn't use some parts of the screen while gaming (ie. had to move UI elements out of it), or my eyes would tire quite a bit faster. Or I would have to move further away, but whats the point of a bigger screen then?
Gaming on huge screens is even more of a niche then 144Hz GSYNC HDR already is.
Spunjji - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
Agreed here. Even 27" is a bit large under certain circumstances.Beaver M. - Tuesday, December 11, 2018 - link
Depends on a lot of things. Someone wearing glasses and is slightly short sighted, probably likes something more close to 30", for example.Lolimaster - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
Maybe because they're FORCING users to only buy curved gimmicks. Pretty much 4 of 5 high refresj monitors is a curved sht.oRAirwolf - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
I am just waiting for HDMI 2.1 to become standard on 4K televisions. Right now I am using a 43-inch Sony XBR43800D 43" 4K with a VA panel and triluminos (quantum dot lighting). It is a great display and the color and contrast is amazing but I do wish it had a higher refresh rate. I don't want any of the current offerings that include g-sync because it is hard to downgrade in size after having such a large, beautiful display on my desktop. I am really hoping that the next generation of televisions will have similar displays but higher refresh rates and I hope that the next generation of graphics cards will support HDMI 2.1 as well as variable refresh rate. That is when I will be upgrading.TheJian - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
ROFL...So <5% of sales are this stuff that's up 100%. Ah, so 2.5 to 5% now. Ok, so nobody cares...LOLThis is like claiming 4K is now mainstream, and everybody loves it...ER, UH, 1.5% according to steam hardware survey...ROFLMAO. Oh, and for those that think 1440p is mainstream, well, NOPE, sorry..That's a meager 3.52% of steam hardware survey, which for those that don't know, is 126MILLION gamers. So again, if you think either of these resolutions is mainstream, you're...wait for it...STUPID.
As I've said MANY times before to anandtech (er, since 660ti at least, see review section where they name called me etc - Jared walton and Ryan Smith...LOL), 1080p is what everyone is using. Again, today 67% according to 126 million steam users. That's a freaking huge sample size!
So unlike your headline that is FAKE NEWS (TM Trump...ROFL), NOBODY CARES. Wake me in 4-5yrs, you've been claiming 1440p was norm since 660ti...Who pays you guys to do FAKE NEWS? Monitor makers sending you checks trying to push this crap, or just pushing it for AMD as they keep claiming 4k crap? They might win a few GPU contests if they'd CONCENTRATE on what people actually do...You know, that 1080p crap :)
GreenReaper - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
It's true enough, for now - and even more so outside of gaming. I run a large art hosting site and 1440p has gone up 15% in the last year. But it's still only 1.3% of visits. Here's the full rundown:1920x1080 21.1%
360x640 14.6%
1366x768 10.7%
1536x864 5%
375x667 3.7%
1600x900 3.4%
412x846 2.8%
768x1024 2.7%
360x740 2.3%
1440x900 2.1%
320x568 1.8%
1280x800 1.7%
414x736 1.6%
1280x720 1.5%
412x732 1.4%
1680x1050 1.3%
2560x1440 1.3%
640x360 1.3%
1360x768 1.1%
1280x1024 1%
360x720 1%
1024x768 1%
The "odd" resolutions are likely to be browsers reducing apparent resolution to improve scaling. 1536x864 is 1920x1080 / 1.25 (hence Full HD is over 25% of visitors); iPhone 6-8 (750x1334) shows up as 375x667. Mobiles may actually be the highest-resolution device a user has - if they're not their *only* device, although whether that's true of a "gamer" depends on your definition.
TheJian - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link
I've got an idea, how about you concentrate on 1080p and quit 1440p-4k crap testing except for maybe once a year, but instead DOUBLE 1080p games tested so people get a better idea of what they will actually be using and how their gpu/cpu might act in the real world.One more point, tons of people (according to steam again) buy Titans/1080/1080ti etc for ...1080P. Myself, 1070ti for 1920x1200 (1200p). :) No plans for a new monitor until my 24in 1200p dies, well unless Dell puts the $1050 30in 1600p on sale for oh, 1/2 off :) ZERO 4k plans (don't even have a 4k tv). 3 HTPC's running 1080p in my family now too. Who are you guys writing for? 1.5% 4k people? Nobody cares. 3.52% 1440p? AGain...You should get the point by now. This is why I come here once a month, or just to check news headlines real quick...LOL. Same with toms, well, duh, you are both owned by the same joint. So many other review sites with far more games tested etc.
Spunjji - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
"Who are you guys writing for?"You answered your own question. 5% of Steam users run 1440p or above - that's more than 6 million people. Seems a reasonable target market for an online publication aimed at hardware enthusiasts; not the average gamer but someone who actually wants to tinker at the boundaries of technology. You're also talking about what people *actually have*, which is not the same as what they want (or want to read about).
Honestly, nothing you said brings any analytical value to this discussion. Yes, most people play at 1080p, but even at high refresh rates there's virtually no point in them buying anything above a GTX 1060 / RX 580. That some people choose to spend more on their graphics card than their monitor doesn't really tell us much about what is a good idea, just that lots of people have different ideas about what is good.
ads295 - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link
It would be great to have a breakup of whether these high refresh rate monitors are G-SYNC or FreeSync or neither...Average Joe - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
Very happy with the LG32GK850G. The PPI is identical to 24" 1080P bur 1080P would be too grainy for this size screen. I'm old, so it nice lean back in my chair and still read emails. Being a flat panel it takes up less room on the desk than the Samsung CHG70. The LG is way more responsive the Samsung has better color. I'm driving it with 1070TI which is only getting me FPS in the 70's but the Gsync is really impressive technology.Average Joe - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
The trouble with HDR screens is twofold. The HDR standard is embedded in the adaptive sync standard so to drive it in a game you really do have to have the matching card and monitor set or you get nadda. You need freesync GPU and monitor or a nvidia gpu and gync monitor which locks you into a gpu brand for several cards since we don't buy monitors as often as we do cards. Also HDR requires a wider color gamut (arguably 10 bit color or 8 bit +frc), 1000 nits of brightness, and local dimming which really haven't been common features on monitors. This makes the screens bulky and slower in response. As far as I'm aware 144hz and HDR are mutually exclusive you have to drop to 60hz two run HDR games or turn it off for higher frame rates. So its still pretty early in the development of HDR PC Gaming to be buying a screen that will last you 10 years. Samsungs CH70 is pretty good but hard to find and it looks very shoddily made on the back at least. display ports were crooked and its got to be like 4 inches thick. the 10 bit color was really lovely though.Average Joe - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link
one more thing. all these VA panels are really only good to about 120hz then they start to smear GTG even if they can be driven faster. 120hz is plenty fast though. find me a video card that can hold 120hz or better at 1440p in every title.