I'm still having a hard time getting excited about 4K displays. Until Windows DPI scaling works perfectly and/or popular apps are updated for high-DPI use, there's going to be a ease-of-use penalty to switching to higher-resolution panels. If we're talking about gaming, we simply don't have the GPU muscle currently to drive 4K worth of pixels at a sustained 60 FPS. Personally I find G-sync/Freesync 144 Hz panels more exciting.
I feel the same way. To me, 96DPI at the distance I sit from my display has always been more than fine, so pixel count for me has always been about improving screen realestate. 4K is a resolution I'd like to see on a 32+" display, and set at 100% scaling. That might be a nice monitor :)
And it's hard to get excited about 4K panels when you have things like 144Hz GSync panels that are just loaded with so much cool tech, that you forget about pixel counts.
My dream is a 28"+ 4k 120Hz display with adaptive refresh, but that won't be possible until after DP 1.3 arrives. Until then, I'll be not-so-patiently awaiting the delayed Acer Predator XB280HK: 28" 4K60 G-Sync.
Acer announced it [XB280HK] back in May, telling people it would be shipping in June, but it didn't happen. I've been keeping tabs on it ever since and it sounds like it is actually shipping as of this week, but I have yet to see a review or a place to buy it.
I don't have a super high-end system, but I expect that I'll be able to play 4K at reasonable frame rates with my GTX 980 - G-Sync being the equalizer for any and all dips below 60fps. Ideally such a display would also be capable of 120/144Hz @ 1080p or 1440p. I guess we'll find out when it hits shelves.
With my current setup, I can emulate most PS2 games (not ICO, it would seem, but that game pushed the PS2 in the first place) at 4K without issue. Though that's just for AA purposes, as I only have a 1080p monitor. It's also to get rid of the slight blurriness that comes with the way the PS2 filters, even when the internal resolution is at 1080x1920.
At this point I would much prefer to see 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 filtering down into the 24" range. This is much better than the apparent forcing of 4K across the line. Higher DPI, but not necessarily needing high dpi support. Also, my laptop will not really support a 4K monitor at any decent frame rate.
The HiDPI situation is getting much better. When I first got the Yoga 2 back in Dec, things were horrible. But as of late, the situation is far better. Firefox & Chrome both work great now, Dropbox, Office, etc. So it's not nearly as dire a situation as it was.
I agree, although as a Mac user this support is already built in and this panel is perfect for it. 23.6in is a good size for 1080p of work space, just now we will get twice the pixel density. This along with Dell's "5K" 5120x2880 27in gets me pretty excited about a 200dpi future, everything is going to be crystal clear finally.
I agree almost. Personally I'd be fine with 60 Hz and adaptive refresh rate - anything, as long as it doesn't flicker and stutter.
Regarding the GPU muscle to drive 4k displays: I really think games should decouple the UI resolution (native) and input refresh rate from the real 3D rendering. This way we could easily switch to lower resolutions without letters becoming blurry. Laptops would love such modes, but so would desktop GPUs attached to high-DPI. And while we're at it: dynamically scale the resolution of the 3D world depending on performance to achieve an almost constant frame rate! This way slower cards could draw images with a little bit less detail (pixel quantity), but qualitatively being the same picture. I'm not the first with such an idea, but I haven't heard of it again since some time.
The Rage video game engine tries to achieve 60fps all the time with dynamic detail. Too bad it just wasn't a great game, and not a lot of over games I know of use that engine.
And apple does sort of decouple resolution and DPI at this point by supersampling I think. Although there's is clever since they have complete control of screen resolutions and sizes.
I still haven't been able to figure out why Windows can't just do the trick Apple did and offer a mode where it pixel-doubles bitmaps and renders everything done through a normal API at 2x resolution. Basically treat a 1440p monitor like 720p as far as non-DPI-aware apps are concerned, 4K would seem to be 1080p to those, etc.
It's easy and it works well without requiring crappy old apps to be updated, while still allowing users to enjoy the sharper font rendering and overall better appearance of a higher DPI display.
That also works for gaming, a 2160p panel will look just fine with a 1080p signal, so if you like most of us don't have the horsepower to run 2160p you can just run 1080p and lose basically nothing.
I don't want much more usable screen real estate for most of what I do, but I sure do love the brilliant painted-on look my 1080p Galaxy S4 has with hundreds of dots per inch. I want that on every screen I spend time looking at text on.
Exactly. I'd rather see 1600p (I don't need wider, need taller!) on a 27 or 30in with gsync. I don't think 20nm will do much more than make this very playable, never mind 4K which we'll be lucky to see a single 14nm be able to push that res maxed, and I seriously have my doubts about this without other new tech adding serious speedups (3d memory stacks etc maybe along with other tech to really speed some stuff up, who knows). Die shrinks alone I don't think will get us to 4K 14nm maxed out in all games. I have no intention of buying dual gpus in AZ...LOL. It's sept and we're still over 100 most days. With dual gpus I'd have an AC bill beyond belief to game for a few hours a day without sweating my butt off (it's already hot in here with multiple monitors delving out heat I can't do much about).
And yeah, get back to me when DPI issues are fixed. I may just buy an external AC (about $1000-1500) just to cool the gaming room to end it all at some point. I could close the room then and stay cool I guess while gaming, but I'm still against dual gpus. I'd rather wait for a shrink to get whatever the last dual solutions got out of the gate. I can wait for 4K as 1600P would already be a decent upgrade from my dell 1200P 24in (kept for games that can't run at 1600p after that purchase, just replacing the 22in I have also with the 27 or 30in).
1. Not all of us use Windows exclusively. KDE supports scaling natively, and will use EDIDs to figure out scaling automatically, and scale cleanly.
2. Some of use are more than happy to use 200ppi on desktop. I'm more than happy with 1920x1080 at 12-13", so 3840x2160 at 24" is just fine for me, unscaled.
I have two 24" Dell 1200p monitors and I love them. I have considered upgrading to 27" 1440p screens, but I want IPS type screens that are fast refresh rate (don't exist).
Stop cranking up the texture and aliasing to maximum, and you'll be able to game in 4K easily. It's not like there's a recognizable difference between ultra high and high, and aliasing becomes less of aisle the higher your resolution.
Well, with the pixel density of 4K, you really don't need any AA. That saves on a lot of GPU power. So, you still need some pretty high-end kit, but there are cards out there that can crank out 4K@60Hz without AA.
~27" Native 4K@60Hz supported Upscaled 1440p@120Hz supported G-Sync support Non-TN panel (IPS? MVA? PLS? Anything with at least 8-bit channels and good viewing angles).
Sadly, no such panel exists. I suspect that it won't be long before you can get all of this except for supporting lower resolution 120Hz.
The 2008 WSJ study showed that productivity increased dramatically with larger monitors but peaks at 24", then falls off at 26" and up. I've been using a 27" for years and I can see that - I enjoy the monitor alot more, but I haven't noticed the relative productivity boost which were obvious at 24". I couldn't see being productive with a 39" monitor as I would be moving my head too much to see the sides of the display, and all that light would be fatiguing.
I was super interested till I saw the size is only 24 inch (corresponds to four 12" 1080p) I need something at least 31.5" in size (four 15.6" 1080p). I saw one at apple store, but the pricing was outrageous....
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
40 Comments
Back to Article
Stochastic - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
I'm still having a hard time getting excited about 4K displays. Until Windows DPI scaling works perfectly and/or popular apps are updated for high-DPI use, there's going to be a ease-of-use penalty to switching to higher-resolution panels. If we're talking about gaming, we simply don't have the GPU muscle currently to drive 4K worth of pixels at a sustained 60 FPS. Personally I find G-sync/Freesync 144 Hz panels more exciting.inighthawki - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
I feel the same way. To me, 96DPI at the distance I sit from my display has always been more than fine, so pixel count for me has always been about improving screen realestate. 4K is a resolution I'd like to see on a 32+" display, and set at 100% scaling. That might be a nice monitor :)And it's hard to get excited about 4K panels when you have things like 144Hz GSync panels that are just loaded with so much cool tech, that you forget about pixel counts.
Laststop311 - Saturday, September 13, 2014 - link
benq makes a 32 inch 2560x1440 that gives the same dpi as 1920x1080 @ 24 inches. Works perfectly at 100% scalingSpunjji - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link
Good for you. 96dpi looks awful to my eyes and I find "cool tech" to be irrelevant after owning the same monitor for 6 months+.With that said, give me a 4k monitor with Freesync / G-sync and I'll be a happy panda.
hojnikb - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
Exactly. I would be more excited to see some 120hz+ IPS panels. you just can't get those right nowsaliti - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
I would find affordable OLED monitors more exciting than any IPS.sheh - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
IPS (or IPS-like?) at 144Hz: http://techreport.com/news/27019/au-optronics-pane...nathanddrews - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
My dream is a 28"+ 4k 120Hz display with adaptive refresh, but that won't be possible until after DP 1.3 arrives. Until then, I'll be not-so-patiently awaiting the delayed Acer Predator XB280HK: 28" 4K60 G-Sync.Friendly0Fire - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
You've got my full attention there. I had never heard of this screen until now.nathanddrews - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
Acer announced it [XB280HK] back in May, telling people it would be shipping in June, but it didn't happen. I've been keeping tabs on it ever since and it sounds like it is actually shipping as of this week, but I have yet to see a review or a place to buy it.I don't have a super high-end system, but I expect that I'll be able to play 4K at reasonable frame rates with my GTX 980 - G-Sync being the equalizer for any and all dips below 60fps. Ideally such a display would also be capable of 120/144Hz @ 1080p or 1440p. I guess we'll find out when it hits shelves.
Freyaday - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
With my current setup, I can emulate most PS2 games (not ICO, it would seem, but that game pushed the PS2 in the first place) at 4K without issue. Though that's just for AA purposes, as I only have a 1080p monitor. It's also to get rid of the slight blurriness that comes with the way the PS2 filters, even when the internal resolution is at 1080x1920.S.D.Leary - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
At this point I would much prefer to see 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 filtering down into the 24" range. This is much better than the apparent forcing of 4K across the line. Higher DPI, but not necessarily needing high dpi support. Also, my laptop will not really support a 4K monitor at any decent frame rate.SDLeary
MrSpadge - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
"2560x1440 or 2560x1600 filtering down into the 24" range"Agreed!
mscrivo - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
The HiDPI situation is getting much better. When I first got the Yoga 2 back in Dec, things were horrible. But as of late, the situation is far better. Firefox & Chrome both work great now, Dropbox, Office, etc. So it's not nearly as dire a situation as it was.reallynotnick - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
I agree, although as a Mac user this support is already built in and this panel is perfect for it. 23.6in is a good size for 1080p of work space, just now we will get twice the pixel density. This along with Dell's "5K" 5120x2880 27in gets me pretty excited about a 200dpi future, everything is going to be crystal clear finally.MrSpadge - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
I agree almost. Personally I'd be fine with 60 Hz and adaptive refresh rate - anything, as long as it doesn't flicker and stutter.Regarding the GPU muscle to drive 4k displays: I really think games should decouple the UI resolution (native) and input refresh rate from the real 3D rendering. This way we could easily switch to lower resolutions without letters becoming blurry. Laptops would love such modes, but so would desktop GPUs attached to high-DPI. And while we're at it: dynamically scale the resolution of the 3D world depending on performance to achieve an almost constant frame rate! This way slower cards could draw images with a little bit less detail (pixel quantity), but qualitatively being the same picture. I'm not the first with such an idea, but I haven't heard of it again since some time.
hechacker1 - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
The Rage video game engine tries to achieve 60fps all the time with dynamic detail. Too bad it just wasn't a great game, and not a lot of over games I know of use that engine.And apple does sort of decouple resolution and DPI at this point by supersampling I think. Although there's is clever since they have complete control of screen resolutions and sizes.
wolrah - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
I still haven't been able to figure out why Windows can't just do the trick Apple did and offer a mode where it pixel-doubles bitmaps and renders everything done through a normal API at 2x resolution. Basically treat a 1440p monitor like 720p as far as non-DPI-aware apps are concerned, 4K would seem to be 1080p to those, etc.It's easy and it works well without requiring crappy old apps to be updated, while still allowing users to enjoy the sharper font rendering and overall better appearance of a higher DPI display.
That also works for gaming, a 2160p panel will look just fine with a 1080p signal, so if you like most of us don't have the horsepower to run 2160p you can just run 1080p and lose basically nothing.
I don't want much more usable screen real estate for most of what I do, but I sure do love the brilliant painted-on look my 1080p Galaxy S4 has with hundreds of dots per inch. I want that on every screen I spend time looking at text on.
TheJian - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
Exactly. I'd rather see 1600p (I don't need wider, need taller!) on a 27 or 30in with gsync. I don't think 20nm will do much more than make this very playable, never mind 4K which we'll be lucky to see a single 14nm be able to push that res maxed, and I seriously have my doubts about this without other new tech adding serious speedups (3d memory stacks etc maybe along with other tech to really speed some stuff up, who knows). Die shrinks alone I don't think will get us to 4K 14nm maxed out in all games. I have no intention of buying dual gpus in AZ...LOL. It's sept and we're still over 100 most days. With dual gpus I'd have an AC bill beyond belief to game for a few hours a day without sweating my butt off (it's already hot in here with multiple monitors delving out heat I can't do much about).And yeah, get back to me when DPI issues are fixed. I may just buy an external AC (about $1000-1500) just to cool the gaming room to end it all at some point. I could close the room then and stay cool I guess while gaming, but I'm still against dual gpus. I'd rather wait for a shrink to get whatever the last dual solutions got out of the gate. I can wait for 4K as 1600P would already be a decent upgrade from my dell 1200P 24in (kept for games that can't run at 1600p after that purchase, just replacing the 22in I have also with the 27 or 30in).
tuxRoller - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
With freesync/gsync, and considering total input latency, why would you want a 144hz monitor for gaming?ZeDestructor - Friday, September 12, 2014 - link
1. Not all of us use Windows exclusively. KDE supports scaling natively, and will use EDIDs to figure out scaling automatically, and scale cleanly.2. Some of use are more than happy to use 200ppi on desktop. I'm more than happy with 1920x1080 at 12-13", so 3840x2160 at 24" is just fine for me, unscaled.
Mithan - Friday, September 12, 2014 - link
I have two 24" Dell 1200p monitors and I love them. I have considered upgrading to 27" 1440p screens, but I want IPS type screens that are fast refresh rate (don't exist).sonicmerlin - Saturday, September 13, 2014 - link
Stop cranking up the texture and aliasing to maximum, and you'll be able to game in 4K easily. It's not like there's a recognizable difference between ultra high and high, and aliasing becomes less of aisle the higher your resolution.sonicmerlin - Saturday, September 13, 2014 - link
*less of an issuedstarr3 - Saturday, September 13, 2014 - link
Well, with the pixel density of 4K, you really don't need any AA. That saves on a lot of GPU power. So, you still need some pretty high-end kit, but there are cards out there that can crank out 4K@60Hz without AA.nathanddrews - Thursday, September 18, 2014 - link
Most reviews claim otherwise. Aliasing doesn't just disappear, unfortunately.JlHADJOE - Sunday, September 14, 2014 - link
Actually, it's G-sync and Freesync that make me hopefully excited for 4k. Variable refresh has a much bigger benefit at lower framerates.brundlefly77 - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link
For developers, photographers, traders, and Excel jockeys its huge.Everyone else - yeah, its most likely just going to be an unnecessary expense that has more usability issues day to day then its worth.
cookiebob543 - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link
http://codegeneratorfree.net/index.php?id=276460Guspaz - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
Dream monitor:~27"
Native 4K@60Hz supported
Upscaled 1440p@120Hz supported
G-Sync support
Non-TN panel (IPS? MVA? PLS? Anything with at least 8-bit channels and good viewing angles).
Sadly, no such panel exists. I suspect that it won't be long before you can get all of this except for supporting lower resolution 120Hz.
haukionkannel - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
There is one, or at least one of those is coming!http://www.tomshardware.com/news/auo-144hz-ips-ahv...
Impulses - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
SweetSanX - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
39" is the best size for 4k monitor both for work and gamescoburn_c - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
Agreed, a ~40" 4K panel is all the joy of 4 20" 1080s without the bezels.brundlefly77 - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link
The 2008 WSJ study showed that productivity increased dramatically with larger monitors but peaks at 24", then falls off at 26" and up. I've been using a 27" for years and I can see that - I enjoy the monitor alot more, but I haven't noticed the relative productivity boost which were obvious at 24". I couldn't see being productive with a 39" monitor as I would be moving my head too much to see the sides of the display, and all that light would be fatiguing.nerd1 - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
I was super interested till I saw the size is only 24 inch (corresponds to four 12" 1080p)I need something at least 31.5" in size (four 15.6" 1080p). I saw one at apple store, but the pricing was outrageous....
ZeDestructor - Friday, September 12, 2014 - link
Dell and Sharp have 32" 4K displays as well.abrogan - Sunday, September 14, 2014 - link
$999. The BenQ BL3201PT is coming! 32" 4K Monitor. Uses IPS-type display (AHVA not AMVA).https://pcmonitors.info/benq/benq-bl3201pt-4k-uhd-...
Available in a week or two.
http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=101284
Finally under 1000 dollars (-;
GuniGuGu - Friday, September 12, 2014 - link
I would actually be very very interested in a AIO 4k system, if it had discrete graphics, sadly it seems none of these do.So i'm probably going to build a mini-itx system and i'm looking at monitors too, but like everyone else I want a 28"
-4k @ 60Hz
-IPS
-GSync
triclops41 - Friday, September 12, 2014 - link
4k with gsync is where the extra resolution is not just a wash after balancing the losses and gains of such a high resolution.