Not really. The PPI is too small to use at 1:1 at typical monitor viewing distances, leaving the effective resolution somewhere between 2560x1440 and 4K. 4K is barely on the edge where 27" is just too small to comfortably read at typical monitor viewing distances.
It'd be going Nelson Muntz over someone who got a 1080p 5" smartphone and a 1440p 5" one came out.
No one in their right mind would use such a monitor in default scaling. I thought it was commonly understood that you're supposed to set dpi scaling at about 200%. That's why the dimensions are literally doubled as compared to the classic 1440p for this 27" size.
Of course not, but the point is that at typical monitor viewing distances, 27" 4K is pretty much "Retina" quality. Going any further is kind of pointless, as I was trying to point out in my 1080p vs. 1440p smartphone example.
It might be great for someone who does 4K video so they don't have to zoom in, and that's assuming the app is even usable at 1:1 scaling.
4K is close to "retina", but not quite. I have a 4K 28" monitor side-by-side with a 5K iMac, and there is a visible difference in some cases - text at certain sizes and weights is rendered more accurately at 5K.
But it's not a huge difference, and if you're not overly fussed about typography and don't need the exact 200% scaling, 4K is already very nice.
You can't say "a resolution is retina" without specifying the size of the display. 4K is normal on 40", and retina on 20". 4K on 28" is some awkward in between where you need something like 150% scaling, rather than Apple's retina/HiDPI 200%.
You also need to specify the distance - and the retina. And the type of detail being discussed, since there's an order of magnitude of difference between our visual acuity for colour in moving images and alignment of lines in a black and white image.
Technically, Apple's definition of "retina display" is 20/20 vision, unable to distinguish pixels, at typical viewing distance. (IIRC, they use 12" for the iPhone, 18" for the iPad, and probably 20" for the Macs.) That's 60 pixels per degree, or (as high as) 30 cycles per degree. But, you do need distance and pixels per inch to determine cycles per degree.
OSHA preferred viewing distance to a computer monitor is 20-40". A 28" 4k monitor reaches Apple's retina standard at 43.7" away or further - outside of the allowable range.
Depends how big someone likes text to be and how far away they prefer their monitor to be. I was given a 2560x1440 27" monitor and chose to run it at 125% scaling, so I guess I'd ask for 250% scaling on the 5K version! (Incidentally, even going from 100% to 125% makes text noticeably smoother)
200% is actually about right for a 27" 5K monitor. I haven't tried it with Windows, but that's exactly what my retina iMac does.
I have a 4K 28" monitor on my PC at 150%, and 5K is 1.33x the resolution of 4K.
I use 200% scaling on my 15" 4K notebook too (okay, yes, I'm a retina screen junkie) and that looks great, but you sit closer to a notebook screen than you do to a desktop screen.
I went from 1600p 30" to 4k 27" and finally settled on 4K 40", which I feel is the perfect PPI for 100% scaling. Incidentally, the 1600p 30" have very similiar PPI. I think 5K needs to be in the 50" range.
I have better than 20-20 vision and still thinks 125-175% scaling is a little wasteful on the overall effective real estate.
4k on 27" is -just- OK, works out at 163PPI. I have a 24" 4K which is 183DPI and that is too small; for me anyway, but I'm an old git, so I would imagine it's OK for the younger enthusiasts. But this thing is 215PPI, and I've tried DPI scaling and found it wanting.
Scaling is ok, everyone can set it to their liking (assuming it works). My concern is I'm not going to see pixels without closing in to ~4"/10cm. For pro-photo editing that may be ok, but for me, it's just more work for the video card, work that I won't see anyway.
27 inch is the minimum size for 4k resolution (Ideal at 36-40 inch). 5k at 27 inch monitor is like a 4k at 20 inch inch monitor, completely unusable at 1:1 dpi. Minimum size for 5k monitor should be close to 34 inches, if not there is no point in paying this amount for a resolution you cannot use.
I totally agree. There is no point in pushing technology any further beyond this point. In fact, I might take away all but 640k of your RAM, why would anyone need more than that?
Frankly, at ~24" viewing distance, 2560x1440 on 27" works pretty excellently for 1:1. I don't want to sit any closer to my monitors, not comfortable for the eyes. If I was going for 4K, I would want something like a 37". Which is huge. And 3 of them? I'll need a bigger desk. I guess with 4K I can make do with just 2 monitors, but once you go triple monitors, you don't go back ;)
Actually, even 32" is way below the confortable reading limit. Most users complain of the PPI on 24" 256x1440 screens, which have a PPI similar to an hypothetical 34" 4k screen. reading at 1:1 4k is impossible for most users even at the 32" monitors. you can not compare with smartphones screens, because the viewing diustance for smartphones is smaller.
It's almost double the price of a 4K display, connects via stopgap MST and doesn't bring much improvement in perceived details at arm's length viewing distance over 4K@27". We 4K display owners are still fine, thank you very much.
Problem is, can you even see 5k resolution at 27 inches and a normal viewing distance? You need to be only 21 inches away for a 4k pixel to take up 1 arc minute, nominally considered the limit of average human vision. At this distance, a 27" display takes up 58.5 degrees of you field of vision, which is very large. Even when editing pixel perfect 1:1 4k video, I'm not sure most people will actually be able to see the extra pixels. If you scoot in and look real close, for sure (which I'm sure many professionals do), but I would say 5k does not automatically mean better for most use cases.
What's the deal with the price of this monitor when Samsung can squeeze a 4k display into a 6 inch screen and sell it for far less?
Doesn't it take a higher level of specialized technology to cram a 4k resolution into such a small display? To me that would mean a phone display should be more expensive or in the case a 27" monitor should cost less.
So where does the cost come from? Or is this simply another example of setting the price for something 'because they can'. We expect it to be expensive so it is expensive?
I'd love to see a teardown and bill of goods for a monitor such as this.
I imagine it has something to do with the economies of scale. Whoever is making this panel for HP, they're probably looking at less than 100,000 sales (especially if it is NOT the same panel that's in the 27" iMac). Samsung is going to sell tens of millions of their phone displays.
Yes and no. It's very much about paying extra to be an early adopter. In many cases small scale means higher price because it requires a lot more manufacturing accuracy. Prices of these 4 and 5 k displays will plummet in a couple of years. Though, to be fair, it's no rush as GPU's really aren't able to display much else than static images, text and video on this resolution today.
less material used, plus higher output capability, plus a more reliable process. It all adds up to far less cost, and far FAR less waste, so the product costs much less. Think of it this way... a 6" 16:9 display has 15.37 square inches of material. A 27" display with the same aspect ratio has an area of 311.53 square inches. Lets say that the phone display costs ~$50 (just for the sake of nice round numbers... I have no idea what a high end cell phone display costs). That would break down to $3.25 per square inch... extrapolating that to the larger display it would scale up to $1,012.50.
But there is a difference between a cell phone display and a computer monitor. A cell display is merely the display, and the backlight with minimal controllers and other electronics, and no housing... the monitor has a USB3 hub ($), a stand ($$), a housing ($), a controller supporting multiple inputs, resolutions, frequencies, and scaling ($$$), a power supply ($), higher shipping costs per unit ($), higher storage costs per unit ($) etc.
Plus, lets not forget about issues of manufacturing. Lets say that for every 1000sq" there is a defect that makes a device unusable. That means that for every ~67 cell phone displays, there is one bad apple, so the average cost of each display rises ~1/67th, or 75 cents per unit. But if that same kind of manufacturing ratio is applied to the larger screen, then that means that one out of every 4 displays is going to be bad, which means a 25% increase in screen price (+$253 per unit! way more than 75 cents!).
Could you possibly have taken worse photos? Bland, poorly lighted in intensity and color, and at really unflattering angles. The first pic looks crooked because of the angled countertop back. The second IS crooked.
This doesn't look like a professional review of a $1000 monitor, it looks like a Craigslist ad for a $15 one.
It's clear that the photography is subpar, but it might be helpful to provide some explanations to fix the noted issues.
Anandtech is all about learning stuff that you didn't previously know, so I'm sure the reviewer would appreciate some learning in the "opposite" direction under these circumstances.
Agreed! Helpful feedback goes a long way: 1) intense flash photography tends to create harsh shadow and poor exposure of the background. Use a DIY or cheap soft box (or point flash toward a WHITE ceiling). You can manually reduce flash power or simply stand back more. 2) Use a virtual grid in the optical view finder. By default intensely geometrical shapes like the first picture will likely bring out all the faults in the lens designs (definite barrel distortion in the first picture). Simple correction in LR. Lots of freebie tools do a similar job if you are not Adobe inclined. 3) Use a white background; this will also help create a reference point for white balance.
In the last year I see comments regarding the photography in nearly every article, to the point where someone pointed out Josh's lack of arm hair (weird thing to notice). I don't expect a technical journalist to also be a professional photographer. It's the review that's important, not the photos....
Except there is nothing professional about the tips above (mind you the OP was a bit harsh). It's at best a bit of tidying up. Good presentation never hurt's anyone. Certainly the review is important and in Brett's defence these pix are still better than some of the shots you get in TFT central and I wouldn't fault their reviews either.
I'd almost prefer they'd err on the side of having photos like this rather than the alternative. Sometimes reviewers go overboard with the slickness of the photos to where I wonder if they'd be better off just working for the marketing department of the manufacturer. I find it nice to see frank, no-nonsense, non-shopped photos of hardware in-situ. That monitor sure as hell isn't going to look nice and new after a month or two sitting on MY desk.
I agree -- the cover photo is so unflattering that it is easily the strongest impression I am taking away from this review, and what I will remember most / the longest. Despite all the text that follows what this article has communicated most forcefully is that "this monitor is a piece of junk." It appears it arrived warped. Unless this is actually the case it is very unfair to the manufacturer.
You should try out the new MadVR build with HDR LUT as part of your monitor reviews. 300 nits is a bit better than the standard 150/200nits of other monitors.
So are those extra 1000 pixels of height enough to cram in all of your UI in Adobe so you can edit 4K content while looking at native resolution? Heck at 4K 27" can you even see individual pixels when sitting a normal distance away from the monitor? I am sure that you can't with 5K! That's just ridiculous pixel density. I'm looking at moving to 4K myself and with my own measurements and distance from the screen I am looking at a 48" TV to get slightly higher pixel density without having the scaling issues of Windows... can't imaging how bad scaling would be on such a high res display!
On my 25" DELL with 2560x1440 I can't see individual pixels, whereas at work my 24" 1920x1200 looks a bit gross in comparison, because verything is so large. From my point of view my DELL has pretty much the perfect resolution to (mostly) work without scaling.
I can't see the pixels on my 30" 2560x1600 monitor; but the text the 3200x1800 screen of my XPS13 is noticeably sharper due to the higher DPI. Next year's big tech buy for me will probably be a 31.5" 5k monitor.
Has there been any news about LGs 31.5" 5k panel (same height as 30" 1600p models) since the initial announcement in January. At that time, they were expecting panel production in Q3 of this year and initial retail availability around now, but I haven't seen anything since then.
It's pretty, but also pretty impractical. I just got an 18.5 inch replacement for my 15 inch monitor and it was hard to find one in that size at 1366x768 which is annoying since high resolutions just require scaling and end up only able to display the same amount of information at a cost of additional computation making the entire higher resolution thing a bit of an exercise in pointlessness. But aside from that, 27 inch screens are far too large for personal computing at a desk, forcing the user to push the screen away from their eyes in order to make effective use of it, once again defeating the purpose of scaling up the display. I'm already experiencing this moving up to an 18.5 inch screen. It's uncomfortable to use at the same distance so it had to move further away until it appears effectively the same size as my previous screen. The larger panel is therefore something of a waste as it's also too small to effectively serve as a conference room display. Overall, I'd say it's a very niche market and highly impractical screen. I'd be surprised if it makes many sales.
You're not on the side of the average consumer with your comments there, but this is definitely intended to be a niche product.
Scaling is still useful, too. Text at the same size but rendered with more pixels is a lot more legible and pictures treated in the same manner look much more natural.
5K is essentially for photo or high resolution video work. I have 15inch notebook with 1366x768 resolution and the pixels are pretty big and obvious. I can see it right now in this blue border of this Post your comment box. I have seen a 5K Mac display at close distance and the it reminds me of looking at a smartphone display in terms of PPI/sharpness.
Is there a technical reason we aren't seeing the 5k equivalent of 30" monitors (5120x3200)? 27" 5k is nice, but this is a computer monitor, not a TV. Until monitors start seriously going beyond 27" (while maintaining pixel density), 16:9 really isn't an ideal aspect ratio for most work.
16:10 is dead, just as 4:3 died years prior. Being the same resolution as TVs certainly helped; that a 16:9 screen took less material and was therefor cheaper than a 16:10 one with the same diagonal size was probably the final nail in the coffin.
Watch my lips: all that standard traditional PC monitor crap is dead. Monitors must be 4K 50+ inch size, period. I can not even look at that old junk after using for 6 months Samsung 50" 7100 4K TV. Despite it formally is a TV it's light years better then anything else called "PC monitor". The only defect -- it has no PnP functionality so that your PC can not switch it ON. As a result if your PC is ON and TV is off the PnP functionality of Windows may think that you changed monitor to standard resolution and move your open windows to the upper left corner. There exist software which can restore windows positions. It has one of the best latencies ~20ms so with GTX980TI class graphics card it is great for gamers too.
I wouldn't say regular monitors are dead. I do agree that 50" 4K screens are amazing. It is exactly like having four 24" 1080p monitors in front of you without the obnoxious screen borders.
The only where this could be unacceptable is fast gaming for which there specially exist Game mode which halves the lag. Additional ms you get from high end graphics. Aside from games, in PC mode the 44 ms is still more then twice the human reaction time, I personally do not feel any lag at all, repeating, AT ALL. Monitor quality just overwhelms you, the wow factor is incredible. Do not look at any smaller regular monitors even 4k 28", like Samdung or ASUS, even for free, they are unacceptable in PC text use without scaling
Reaction time is different than observing feedback from your moved hand. The former requires you to interpret a stimulus and respond. The latter involves consciously moving and looking for the result. The difference is probably about a factor of 10: ~200ms reaction time, ~20ms threshold for seeing a result.
You still live with impressions of old TVs 50-100 ms lags playing games but things changed a lot. The 44ms lag for standard PC usage (browsing and programming) is absolutely great and not noticeable. For games you have Game Mode with 20-25ms lags which is not noticeable too unless you are a champion of the Republic of Gamers. No other TV monitors beat that (may be only Sammys JS7500 and the Vizio's with 18ms lag) while all Sonys, LGs etc TVs are in 33-55ms and longer range and still are used with for example Playstation for ages.
I repeat that the only where 44 ms is potentially niticeable is fast gaming, but for that exists game mode whete no one motice any lag as it is way below the human threshold. When I move mouse with as fast as possible circular motion for example I don't see any delay in position of mouse on the screen and on the table een recording this comparison on 30fps video (means it is below 33ms)
Who trust your compilation from unknown sources obtained with unknown measurement methodology? Who would use unknown unrated brands? Who needs a monitor unusable for text and browsing because the monitor size MUST be 48 inch minimum to be comfortable for texts without DPI scaling, some people even claim 53 inch minimum? Those monitors you have mentioned are too small for multiple use. For gaming they are OK, for office use not, for use as a 4k TV - way too small, plus their quality is questionable.
Go to the best place which assesses all 4K monitors thoroughly for multiple use calles Rtings www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-usage/pc-monitor/best
I just told you, I NOTICE 30ms! But you still foolishly repeat 44ms can only be noticed in fast gaming. And 26ms game mode is beyond human detection. It's beyond YOUR detection, not everyone's! (is that not obvious yet?)
> Who trust your compilation from unknown sources obtained with unknown measurement methodology? Do you have better data? Even if there's +-5ms of error, the data is immensely useful.
> Who would use unknown unrated brands? They still use AH-IPS LG panels, and that's arguably _better_ than Samsung's VA.
> MUST be 48 inch minimum to be comfortable for texts without DPI scaling Nope. 43" is only 103 PPI. And anything bigger is a lot less comfortable (with a normal viewing distance) since the screen is too big and you have to move your head around. Or, you get a 55" and push it farther back to prevent moving your head around, and then have an even higher effective PPI due to further viewing distance.
I am surprized that you have started arguing having no slightest clue in the main basic thing of monitors. It is not the screen 103PPI what matters but perceived PPI based on resolved angular dimensions of the pixels. This and other factors also define optimal viewing distance. The optimal distances are set by the TXH and SMPTE standards and not the length of your legs. For 4K monitors perceived PPI are almost whopping 600 and head turning 717 respectively. This makes 43" TV too small for normal PC use and you have to put it closer to your nose to utilize this excessive PPI. That in turn what causes discomfort, and that is why you need larger size TV. Where Anandtech finds such technodumbos like you? If you will start scaling PPI to be able see the small fonts clearly that means trashing all 100% of spent money on your "arguably better quality IPS panel" because those small scaled fonts look uglier then on even 1080 one.
And yea, go and tell your mom that that you feel +5ms when there always exists the intrinsic 100ms lag in human reaction. It's not the difference between 21ms and 26ms which is 20-25% but the difference between 100+26ms vs 100+21ms or less then 4%, you genius. ROTFLMAO. Tell also mommy that 44 ms is unacceptable for the static content of the screens like text editing and browsing.
> This makes 43" TV too small for normal PC use Hilarious. Who could possibly take you seriously?
> this excessive [103] PPI Again, huh?
> the intrinsic 100ms lag in human reaction You're confusing reaction time with feedback lag. I score 240ms in online reaction tests but can sense 30ms of feedback lag. Reaction time includes the time to process stimulus and physically move something. Feedback is a different thing, since you're measuring the lag from what you already moved.
There are many thousands of others on the web who agree with what I'm saying. Take a look at the highly respected TFT Central: http://tinyurl.com/ngweqd9 They classify more than 32ms as "some noticeable lag in daily usage"! Whaduya know! 44ms is even off their chart.
Convinced yet? There's nothing wrong with being mistaken and learning, but staying in stubborn ignorance is foolish.
Comprehension problems? Funny, no single my point was gotten. How i know that? I intentionally made a mistake in my numbers and you did not catch that ROTFL. What i said about DPI and lags, can repeat with your own words?
This is 4th repeat that 44ms is for static contents use in PC mode. You will not notice the lag there, lag is noticeable if you move mouse fast. For fast games the Game mode exists with 20ms display lag in JU7500 and 26ms in JU7100, see Rtings "PC Monitor" and DisplayLag 2015 database which rate these monitors as excellent or very good. BTW, LG has even larger lag 55ms and i know people who still use it even in games. This is due to another point you did not get while - this is truly hilarious - trying to teach me what is what: in games the human reaction lag is more important than display lag and is always present. Think again about this if you actually can
You guys should take a look at the Asus PG279Q. 27", 1440p, IPS panel, 165Hz, G-Sync. I don't think I've seen any detailed reviews of it (the kind that actually benchmark it), although LinusTechTips did measure input lag at 12.5ms, which isn't bad.
To have a usable 5k monitor. Below is the spec that would have the same PPI as a 4k 27 inch monitor. Display size: 36 inch Screen curved. Given this is still the minimum size for 5k you will still be sitting very close to the monitor, a flat panel will make it very hard to view the edges. So a curved screen is a must. This is for any manufacturers if they are reading this. If not the above may be 2 27inch 4k monitors make more sense and is going to be cheaper too, and more convenient in terms of connectivity.
Sorry to say, but your "spec" of 5K 36" curved won't be of any use to any manufacturer. They don't choose resolution and size based on what 1 random dude on the internet posted.
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
92 Comments
Back to Article
ImSpartacus - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
And all those people look at their shiny 4k monitors and go, "well shit."It's good to see some 5k monitors hitting the market, even if there are some nagging issues like in this case.
xenol - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Not really. The PPI is too small to use at 1:1 at typical monitor viewing distances, leaving the effective resolution somewhere between 2560x1440 and 4K. 4K is barely on the edge where 27" is just too small to comfortably read at typical monitor viewing distances.It'd be going Nelson Muntz over someone who got a 1080p 5" smartphone and a 1440p 5" one came out.
ImSpartacus - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
No one in their right mind would use such a monitor in default scaling. I thought it was commonly understood that you're supposed to set dpi scaling at about 200%. That's why the dimensions are literally doubled as compared to the classic 1440p for this 27" size.xenol - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Of course not, but the point is that at typical monitor viewing distances, 27" 4K is pretty much "Retina" quality. Going any further is kind of pointless, as I was trying to point out in my 1080p vs. 1440p smartphone example.It might be great for someone who does 4K video so they don't have to zoom in, and that's assuming the app is even usable at 1:1 scaling.
PixyMisa - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
4K is close to "retina", but not quite. I have a 4K 28" monitor side-by-side with a 5K iMac, and there is a visible difference in some cases - text at certain sizes and weights is rendered more accurately at 5K.But it's not a huge difference, and if you're not overly fussed about typography and don't need the exact 200% scaling, 4K is already very nice.
Deelron - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Also if you're editing 4K video you can fit in on the screen at a 1:1 ratio and still have some room for tools on a 5k, which can be handy.hMunster - Wednesday, December 23, 2015 - link
You can't say "a resolution is retina" without specifying the size of the display. 4K is normal on 40", and retina on 20". 4K on 28" is some awkward in between where you need something like 150% scaling, rather than Apple's retina/HiDPI 200%.PixyMisa - Wednesday, December 23, 2015 - link
You also need to specify the distance - and the retina. And the type of detail being discussed, since there's an order of magnitude of difference between our visual acuity for colour in moving images and alignment of lines in a black and white image.bhtooefr - Saturday, December 26, 2015 - link
Technically, Apple's definition of "retina display" is 20/20 vision, unable to distinguish pixels, at typical viewing distance. (IIRC, they use 12" for the iPhone, 18" for the iPad, and probably 20" for the Macs.) That's 60 pixels per degree, or (as high as) 30 cycles per degree. But, you do need distance and pixels per inch to determine cycles per degree.OSHA preferred viewing distance to a computer monitor is 20-40". A 28" 4k monitor reaches Apple's retina standard at 43.7" away or further - outside of the allowable range.
Flunk - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
200% scaling on a 27" 5K monitor would make everything pretty damn big. I'm running 200% scaling on my 15" 4K notebook.usernametaken76 - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
It would look like native res 2560x1440. That's not really "pretty damn big" it's more along the lines of "just right."stephenbrooks - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
Depends how big someone likes text to be and how far away they prefer their monitor to be. I was given a 2560x1440 27" monitor and chose to run it at 125% scaling, so I guess I'd ask for 250% scaling on the 5K version! (Incidentally, even going from 100% to 125% makes text noticeably smoother)PixyMisa - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
200% is actually about right for a 27" 5K monitor. I haven't tried it with Windows, but that's exactly what my retina iMac does.I have a 4K 28" monitor on my PC at 150%, and 5K is 1.33x the resolution of 4K.
I use 200% scaling on my 15" 4K notebook too (okay, yes, I'm a retina screen junkie) and that looks great, but you sit closer to a notebook screen than you do to a desktop screen.
sharath.naik - Friday, January 1, 2016 - link
5k is actually 1.7x the resolution of 4k. That's nearly twice.PEJUman - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
I went from 1600p 30" to 4k 27" and finally settled on 4K 40", which I feel is the perfect PPI for 100% scaling. Incidentally, the 1600p 30" have very similiar PPI. I think 5K needs to be in the 50" range.I have better than 20-20 vision and still thinks 125-175% scaling is a little wasteful on the overall effective real estate.
bug77 - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
I have yet to see one, but I also have the feeling even 4k is too much for 27".timbotim - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
4k on 27" is -just- OK, works out at 163PPI. I have a 24" 4K which is 183DPI and that is too small; for me anyway, but I'm an old git, so I would imagine it's OK for the younger enthusiasts. But this thing is 215PPI, and I've tried DPI scaling and found it wanting.bug77 - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Scaling is ok, everyone can set it to their liking (assuming it works). My concern is I'm not going to see pixels without closing in to ~4"/10cm. For pro-photo editing that may be ok, but for me, it's just more work for the video card, work that I won't see anyway.sharath.naik - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
27 inch is the minimum size for 4k resolution (Ideal at 36-40 inch). 5k at 27 inch monitor is like a 4k at 20 inch inch monitor, completely unusable at 1:1 dpi. Minimum size for 5k monitor should be close to 34 inches, if not there is no point in paying this amount for a resolution you cannot use.SolMiester - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
+1.I struggle with my 28"4K, IMO 5K @ 27" is a waste of time and money!
jbrizz - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
I totally agree. There is no point in pushing technology any further beyond this point. In fact, I might take away all but 640k of your RAM, why would anyone need more than that?Spunjji - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
I don't know if you're using Windows 10 or not, but the DPI scaling is getting very good now.hammer256 - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Frankly, at ~24" viewing distance, 2560x1440 on 27" works pretty excellently for 1:1. I don't want to sit any closer to my monitors, not comfortable for the eyes. If I was going for 4K, I would want something like a 37". Which is huge. And 3 of them? I'll need a bigger desk. I guess with 4K I can make do with just 2 monitors, but once you go triple monitors, you don't go back ;)geok1ng - Thursday, January 7, 2016 - link
Actually, even 32" is way below the confortable reading limit. Most users complain of the PPI on 24" 256x1440 screens, which have a PPI similar to an hypothetical 34" 4k screen. reading at 1:1 4k is impossible for most users even at the 32" monitors. you can not compare with smartphones screens, because the viewing diustance for smartphones is smaller.MatthiasP - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
It's almost double the price of a 4K display, connects via stopgap MST and doesn't bring much improvement in perceived details at arm's length viewing distance over 4K@27".We 4K display owners are still fine, thank you very much.
quickbunnie - Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - link
Problem is, can you even see 5k resolution at 27 inches and a normal viewing distance? You need to be only 21 inches away for a 4k pixel to take up 1 arc minute, nominally considered the limit of average human vision. At this distance, a 27" display takes up 58.5 degrees of you field of vision, which is very large.Even when editing pixel perfect 1:1 4k video, I'm not sure most people will actually be able to see the extra pixels. If you scoot in and look real close, for sure (which I'm sure many professionals do), but I would say 5k does not automatically mean better for most use cases.
LisaValentin3 - Thursday, December 31, 2015 - link
Prima di poter determinare ciò che schermo è giusto per voi, dobbiamo sapere la vostra situazione. Che cosa hai intenzione di utilizzare il portatile per?<a href=http://schermiportatili.it/hp.html>schermo hp</a>
<a href=http://schermiportatili.it/samsung.html>schermo samsung</a>
gonzo98x - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
What's the deal with the price of this monitor when Samsung can squeeze a 4k display into a 6 inch screen and sell it for far less?Doesn't it take a higher level of specialized technology to cram a 4k resolution into such a small display? To me that would mean a phone display should be more expensive or in the case a 27" monitor should cost less.
So where does the cost come from? Or is this simply another example of setting the price for something 'because they can'. We expect it to be expensive so it is expensive?
I'd love to see a teardown and bill of goods for a monitor such as this.
Insert <thesepricesaretoodamnhigh.jpg>
TheStu - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
I imagine it has something to do with the economies of scale. Whoever is making this panel for HP, they're probably looking at less than 100,000 sales (especially if it is NOT the same panel that's in the 27" iMac). Samsung is going to sell tens of millions of their phone displays.bryanlarsen - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
A 6" display has an area of 15 in^2. A 27" display has an area of over 300 in^2. 20x in size, ~20x in cost, where's the disparity?theduckofdeath - Wednesday, December 23, 2015 - link
Yes and no. It's very much about paying extra to be an early adopter. In many cases small scale means higher price because it requires a lot more manufacturing accuracy.Prices of these 4 and 5 k displays will plummet in a couple of years. Though, to be fair, it's no rush as GPU's really aren't able to display much else than static images, text and video on this resolution today.
CaedenV - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
less material used, plus higher output capability, plus a more reliable process. It all adds up to far less cost, and far FAR less waste, so the product costs much less.Think of it this way... a 6" 16:9 display has 15.37 square inches of material. A 27" display with the same aspect ratio has an area of 311.53 square inches.
Lets say that the phone display costs ~$50 (just for the sake of nice round numbers... I have no idea what a high end cell phone display costs). That would break down to $3.25 per square inch... extrapolating that to the larger display it would scale up to $1,012.50.
But there is a difference between a cell phone display and a computer monitor. A cell display is merely the display, and the backlight with minimal controllers and other electronics, and no housing... the monitor has a USB3 hub ($), a stand ($$), a housing ($), a controller supporting multiple inputs, resolutions, frequencies, and scaling ($$$), a power supply ($), higher shipping costs per unit ($), higher storage costs per unit ($) etc.
Plus, lets not forget about issues of manufacturing. Lets say that for every 1000sq" there is a defect that makes a device unusable. That means that for every ~67 cell phone displays, there is one bad apple, so the average cost of each display rises ~1/67th, or 75 cents per unit.
But if that same kind of manufacturing ratio is applied to the larger screen, then that means that one out of every 4 displays is going to be bad, which means a 25% increase in screen price (+$253 per unit! way more than 75 cents!).
TL;DR... smaller things are going to cost less.
Frenetic Pony - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Size of the display matters more than PPI of the display in terms of cost.DominionSeraph - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Could you possibly have taken worse photos? Bland, poorly lighted in intensity and color, and at really unflattering angles.The first pic looks crooked because of the angled countertop back. The second IS crooked.
This doesn't look like a professional review of a $1000 monitor, it looks like a Craigslist ad for a $15 one.
ImSpartacus - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Whew, being a little toasty, eh?It's clear that the photography is subpar, but it might be helpful to provide some explanations to fix the noted issues.
Anandtech is all about learning stuff that you didn't previously know, so I'm sure the reviewer would appreciate some learning in the "opposite" direction under these circumstances.
K_Space - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Agreed! Helpful feedback goes a long way:1) intense flash photography tends to create harsh shadow and poor exposure of the background. Use a DIY or cheap soft box (or point flash toward a WHITE ceiling). You can manually reduce flash power or simply stand back more.
2) Use a virtual grid in the optical view finder. By default intensely geometrical shapes like the first picture will likely bring out all the faults in the lens designs (definite barrel distortion in the first picture). Simple correction in LR. Lots of freebie tools do a similar job if you are not Adobe inclined.
3) Use a white background; this will also help create a reference point for white balance.
fanofanand - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
In the last year I see comments regarding the photography in nearly every article, to the point where someone pointed out Josh's lack of arm hair (weird thing to notice). I don't expect a technical journalist to also be a professional photographer. It's the review that's important, not the photos....K_Space - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Except there is nothing professional about the tips above (mind you the OP was a bit harsh). It's at best a bit of tidying up. Good presentation never hurt's anyone. Certainly the review is important and in Brett's defence these pix are still better than some of the shots you get in TFT central and I wouldn't fault their reviews either.RT81 - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
I'd almost prefer they'd err on the side of having photos like this rather than the alternative. Sometimes reviewers go overboard with the slickness of the photos to where I wonder if they'd be better off just working for the marketing department of the manufacturer. I find it nice to see frank, no-nonsense, non-shopped photos of hardware in-situ. That monitor sure as hell isn't going to look nice and new after a month or two sitting on MY desk.damianrobertjones - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Totally agree. Someone there MUST be able to use a camera. It is a tech site after all.Murloc - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
I think they are not centralized in one HQ so it isn't enough to have "someone" who's good at photography.brucek2 - Thursday, December 24, 2015 - link
I agree -- the cover photo is so unflattering that it is easily the strongest impression I am taking away from this review, and what I will remember most / the longest. Despite all the text that follows what this article has communicated most forcefully is that "this monitor is a piece of junk." It appears it arrived warped. Unless this is actually the case it is very unfair to the manufacturer.nathanddrews - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
You should try out the new MadVR build with HDR LUT as part of your monitor reviews. 300 nits is a bit better than the standard 150/200nits of other monitors.CaedenV - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
So are those extra 1000 pixels of height enough to cram in all of your UI in Adobe so you can edit 4K content while looking at native resolution? Heck at 4K 27" can you even see individual pixels when sitting a normal distance away from the monitor? I am sure that you can't with 5K! That's just ridiculous pixel density. I'm looking at moving to 4K myself and with my own measurements and distance from the screen I am looking at a 48" TV to get slightly higher pixel density without having the scaling issues of Windows... can't imaging how bad scaling would be on such a high res display!MrSpadge - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
On my 25" DELL with 2560x1440 I can't see individual pixels, whereas at work my 24" 1920x1200 looks a bit gross in comparison, because verything is so large. From my point of view my DELL has pretty much the perfect resolution to (mostly) work without scaling.DanNeely - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
I can't see the pixels on my 30" 2560x1600 monitor; but the text the 3200x1800 screen of my XPS13 is noticeably sharper due to the higher DPI. Next year's big tech buy for me will probably be a 31.5" 5k monitor.zeeBomb - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Damn...a monitor review? By Brett? Is this a fake review!?petteyg359 - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Why must they keep pushing huge screens? Give me 4k and 5k in 24" or less so I can actually fit two of them on my desk.ImSpartacus - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
There are 24" 4k monitors, but you wouldn't want 5k at that size. You'd have to use non-integer scaling to make stuff readable.Murloc - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
what's the point? Just use windows management software if you can't deal with one big screen.petteyg359 - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Why use software to do what hardware should be doing by giving me multiple screens?DanNeely - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Has there been any news about LGs 31.5" 5k panel (same height as 30" 1600p models) since the initial announcement in January. At that time, they were expecting panel production in Q3 of this year and initial retail availability around now, but I haven't seen anything since then.http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/289516-lgdispl...
BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
It's pretty, but also pretty impractical. I just got an 18.5 inch replacement for my 15 inch monitor and it was hard to find one in that size at 1366x768 which is annoying since high resolutions just require scaling and end up only able to display the same amount of information at a cost of additional computation making the entire higher resolution thing a bit of an exercise in pointlessness. But aside from that, 27 inch screens are far too large for personal computing at a desk, forcing the user to push the screen away from their eyes in order to make effective use of it, once again defeating the purpose of scaling up the display. I'm already experiencing this moving up to an 18.5 inch screen. It's uncomfortable to use at the same distance so it had to move further away until it appears effectively the same size as my previous screen. The larger panel is therefore something of a waste as it's also too small to effectively serve as a conference room display. Overall, I'd say it's a very niche market and highly impractical screen. I'd be surprised if it makes many sales.Spunjji - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
You're not on the side of the average consumer with your comments there, but this is definitely intended to be a niche product.Scaling is still useful, too. Text at the same size but rendered with more pixels is a lot more legible and pictures treated in the same manner look much more natural.
zodiacfml - Thursday, December 24, 2015 - link
5K is essentially for photo or high resolution video work. I have 15inch notebook with 1366x768 resolution and the pixels are pretty big and obvious. I can see it right now in this blue border of this Post your comment box. I have seen a 5K Mac display at close distance and the it reminds me of looking at a smartphone display in terms of PPI/sharpness.chaos215bar2 - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
Is there a technical reason we aren't seeing the 5k equivalent of 30" monitors (5120x3200)? 27" 5k is nice, but this is a computer monitor, not a TV. Until monitors start seriously going beyond 27" (while maintaining pixel density), 16:9 really isn't an ideal aspect ratio for most work.DanNeely - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
16:10 is dead, just as 4:3 died years prior. Being the same resolution as TVs certainly helped; that a 16:9 screen took less material and was therefor cheaper than a 16:10 one with the same diagonal size was probably the final nail in the coffin.theduckofdeath - Wednesday, December 23, 2015 - link
Agreed, 19:10 is for people who still full-screen all their apps, I think. 16:9 is more practical for side by side windows.theduckofdeath - Wednesday, December 23, 2015 - link
-3:p
okashira - Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - link
16 watts in standby? What a POS.SanX - Wednesday, December 23, 2015 - link
Watch my lips: all that standard traditional PC monitor crap is dead. Monitors must be 4K 50+ inch size, period. I can not even look at that old junk after using for 6 months Samsung 50" 7100 4K TV. Despite it formally is a TV it's light years better then anything else called "PC monitor".The only defect -- it has no PnP functionality so that your PC can not switch it ON. As a result if your PC is ON and TV is off the PnP functionality of Windows may think that you changed monitor to standard resolution and move your open windows to the upper left corner. There exist software which can restore windows positions. It has one of the best latencies ~20ms so with GTX980TI class graphics card it is great for gamers too.
Zan Lynx - Wednesday, December 23, 2015 - link
I wouldn't say regular monitors are dead. I do agree that 50" 4K screens are amazing. It is exactly like having four 24" 1080p monitors in front of you without the obnoxious screen borders.AnnonymousCoward - Friday, December 25, 2015 - link
The Samsung 7100 lags 44ms in 4:4:4 mode, according to http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1853884 That's totally unacceptable.SanX - Friday, December 25, 2015 - link
The only where this could be unacceptable is fast gaming for which there specially exist Game mode which halves the lag. Additional ms you get from high end graphics. Aside from games, in PC mode the 44 ms is still more then twice the human reaction time, I personally do not feel any lag at all, repeating, AT ALL. Monitor quality just overwhelms you, the wow factor is incredible. Do not look at any smaller regular monitors even 4k 28", like Samdung or ASUS, even for free, they are unacceptable in PC text use without scalingSlyNine - Friday, December 25, 2015 - link
Which means you're increasing reaction time by 50%.This would, and has, drove me nuts with tv's used as monitors.
AnnonymousCoward - Monday, December 28, 2015 - link
> more then twice the human reaction timeReaction time is different than observing feedback from your moved hand. The former requires you to interpret a stimulus and respond. The latter involves consciously moving and looking for the result. The difference is probably about a factor of 10: ~200ms reaction time, ~20ms threshold for seeing a result.
SanX - Saturday, December 26, 2015 - link
You still live with impressions of old TVs 50-100 ms lags playing games but things changed a lot.The 44ms lag for standard PC usage (browsing and programming) is absolutely great and not noticeable. For games you have Game Mode with 20-25ms lags which is not noticeable too unless you are a champion of the Republic of Gamers. No other TV monitors beat that (may be only Sammys JS7500 and the Vizio's with 18ms lag) while all Sonys, LGs etc TVs are in 33-55ms and longer range and still are used with for example Playstation for ages.
AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, December 27, 2015 - link
I easily notice 30ms lag with any mouse usage. I'm also a fast user with high acuity. I consider 20ms to be the max acceptable.Using non-4:4:4 in games is clearly a compromise.
It's not true that no other "TV monitor" beats the JU7100. check out this thread: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1874753 The Crossovers and Wasabi only lag 20ms in 4:4:4.
But hey, if you're a slow user and don't notice 44ms, that's great.
SanX - Sunday, December 27, 2015 - link
I repeat that the only where 44 ms is potentially niticeable is fast gaming, but for that exists game mode whete no one motice any lag as it is way below the human threshold. When I move mouse with as fast as possible circular motion for example I don't see any delay in position of mouse on the screen and on the table een recording this comparison on 30fps video (means it is below 33ms)Who trust your compilation from unknown sources obtained with unknown measurement methodology? Who would use unknown unrated brands? Who needs a monitor unusable for text and browsing because the monitor size MUST be 48 inch minimum to be comfortable for texts without DPI scaling, some people even claim 53 inch minimum? Those monitors you have mentioned are too small for multiple use. For gaming they are OK, for office use not, for use as a 4k TV - way too small, plus their quality is questionable.
Go to the best place which assesses all 4K monitors thoroughly for multiple use calles Rtings www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-usage/pc-monitor/best
AnnonymousCoward - Monday, December 28, 2015 - link
Man, you're wrong on pretty much everything :)I just told you, I NOTICE 30ms! But you still foolishly repeat 44ms can only be noticed in fast gaming. And 26ms game mode is beyond human detection. It's beyond YOUR detection, not everyone's! (is that not obvious yet?)
> Who trust your compilation from unknown sources obtained with unknown measurement methodology?
Do you have better data? Even if there's +-5ms of error, the data is immensely useful.
> Who would use unknown unrated brands?
They still use AH-IPS LG panels, and that's arguably _better_ than Samsung's VA.
> MUST be 48 inch minimum to be comfortable for texts without DPI scaling
Nope. 43" is only 103 PPI. And anything bigger is a lot less comfortable (with a normal viewing distance) since the screen is too big and you have to move your head around. Or, you get a 55" and push it farther back to prevent moving your head around, and then have an even higher effective PPI due to further viewing distance.
SanX - Monday, December 28, 2015 - link
I am surprized that you have started arguing having no slightestclue in the main basic thing of monitors. It is not the screen 103PPI what
matters but perceived PPI based on resolved angular dimensions of the pixels.
This and other factors also define optimal viewing distance.
The optimal distances are set by the TXH and SMPTE standards
and not the length of your legs. For 4K monitors perceived PPI are
almost whopping 600 and head turning 717 respectively. This makes 43"
TV too small for normal PC use and you have to put it closer to your
nose to utilize this excessive PPI. That in turn what causes discomfort,
and that is why you need larger size TV. Where Anandtech finds such
technodumbos like you? If you will start scaling PPI to be able see
the small fonts clearly that means trashing all 100% of spent money
on your "arguably better quality IPS panel" because those small scaled
fonts look uglier then on even 1080 one.
And yea, go and tell your mom that that you feel +5ms when there always
exists the intrinsic 100ms lag in human reaction. It's not the difference
between 21ms and 26ms which is 20-25% but the difference between
100+26ms vs 100+21ms or less then 4%, you genius. ROTFLMAO.
Tell also mommy that 44 ms is unacceptable for the static content
of the screens like text editing and browsing.
AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, December 29, 2015 - link
> This makes 43" TV too small for normal PC useHilarious. Who could possibly take you seriously?
> this excessive [103] PPI
Again, huh?
> the intrinsic 100ms lag in human reaction
You're confusing reaction time with feedback lag. I score 240ms in online reaction tests but can sense 30ms of feedback lag. Reaction time includes the time to process stimulus and physically move something. Feedback is a different thing, since you're measuring the lag from what you already moved.
There are many thousands of others on the web who agree with what I'm saying. Take a look at the highly respected TFT Central: http://tinyurl.com/ngweqd9 They classify more than 32ms as "some noticeable lag in daily usage"! Whaduya know! 44ms is even off their chart.
Convinced yet? There's nothing wrong with being mistaken and learning, but staying in stubborn ignorance is foolish.
SanX - Tuesday, December 29, 2015 - link
Comprehension problems? Funny, no single my point was gotten. How i know that? I intentionally made a mistake in my numbers and you did not catch that ROTFL. What i said about DPI and lags, can repeat with your own words?This is 4th repeat that 44ms is for static contents use in PC mode. You will not notice the lag there, lag is noticeable if you move mouse fast. For fast games the Game mode exists with 20ms display lag in JU7500 and 26ms in JU7100, see Rtings "PC Monitor" and DisplayLag 2015 database which rate these monitors as excellent or very good. BTW, LG has even larger lag 55ms and i know people who still use it even in games. This is due to another point you did not get while - this is truly hilarious - trying to teach me what is what: in games the human reaction lag is more important than display lag and is always present. Think again about this if you actually can
AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, December 29, 2015 - link
I destroyed pretty much all your claims, and yet you stay in ignorance and say things like "go tell mommy".SanX - Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - link
ROTFL. You can not even repeat in your own words what I said, "destroyer". And yea i'd suggest your mommy to take your Gameboy off.Guspaz - Monday, December 28, 2015 - link
You guys should take a look at the Asus PG279Q. 27", 1440p, IPS panel, 165Hz, G-Sync. I don't think I've seen any detailed reviews of it (the kind that actually benchmark it), although LinusTechTips did measure input lag at 12.5ms, which isn't bad.SanX - Tuesday, December 29, 2015 - link
Minor typos:THX 492
SMPTE 597
sharath.naik - Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - link
To have a usable 5k monitor. Below is the spec that would have the same PPI as a 4k 27 inch monitor.Display size: 36 inch
Screen curved.
Given this is still the minimum size for 5k you will still be sitting very close to the monitor, a flat panel will make it very hard to view the edges. So a curved screen is a must. This is for any manufacturers if they are reading this.
If not the above may be 2 27inch 4k monitors make more sense and is going to be cheaper too, and more convenient in terms of connectivity.
AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - link
Sorry to say, but your "spec" of 5K 36" curved won't be of any use to any manufacturer. They don't choose resolution and size based on what 1 random dude on the internet posted.