Big monitors
Hi team
I'm currently running 3x HP ZR2740w monitors, and swapping between a PPP setup for games where I want/can use the crazy display size (D3, DA:Inq, similar games), and a PHP setup for when I can't use the giant size and/or have the bezels in the way (LoL, SC2, CS:GO). I don't really like this setup, as I have to dick with all the settings and sometimes forget. I also don't like the bars when I want to watch a stream or whatever.
What I think I'd like is a single large, high res monitor to have in horizontal (and maybe play windowed when I don't want a giant display). And then a second monitor (probably keep one of the 2740ws) to have in vertical to have whatever other windows open.
What's the current "best" large monitor with a high res (4k?). Are there cool things on the horizon?
Comments
What GPU do you have?
bookmarks this thread...
bookmarks this thread...
I've been on the fence about a proper 3x monitor all display port setup forever and I keep abandoning it because I know in a few years stuff like this:
Neat
will be cheaper and thinner.
Until then, awkward 2x displayport 1x dvi , 2 different types of monitor prevails.
It's unlikely that ultra wide displays are ever going to get much cheaper. LG is the only one that makes them, the panels are very expensive, and they're targeted at the lucrative prosumer market.
I'd take that bet.
Asus, AOC, Dell, Philips .. probably more. I see ultra wides from all of them, and I also see a market for these. Where there is a market and there is competition, price becomes one of the Ps. My guess is these cost half as much in 2-3 years and I'll buy one then if I am right.
All of them buy the panels from LG.
I wondered if that was what you meant, but you said displays. Are you sure Samsung's ultra wide panels aren't made by Samsung? Is AMD making product dev. decisions based on the notion that people will go for multiple monitors vs a single wide monitor? That scares me.
I'd also be curious as to what the barrier to entry is for other panel makers to ultra wide that makes it an LG only game for the foreseeable future.
AMD products support one, two or three 5K (5128x2880) displays, the biggest size, highest resolution and highest pixel density of any company in the graphics industry.
Anything that fits in the bandwidth offered by DisplayPort 1.2, we can support it.
//EDIT:
LG is going ultrawide because that's a differentiator for them. Samsung is focused on 4K UltraHD, with something like 12 monitors coming between now and June. Dell and ASUS use ODMs, and don't make their own monitors, so whatever the market has available they'll use. ASUS is primarily focused on 4K and HFR monitors, whereas Dell just seems to want to appeal to every segment their PC business also appeals to, so they have wide, not wide, 4K, TN, IPS, etc.
So Samsung makes their own ultra wide panels? LG does the same. AMD supports the format no matter what, I assume green does the same. Then there are all the wrap around brands. Why would there not be a price war? Why would we assume this wouldn't be the next thing?
Frankly I was kind of counting on it. I hate the idea of maintaining 3 displays. I just want one big ass wide one. My grand assumption is that I am not alone.
The ultrawide market is a vanishing segment of the overall display shipments in the market. Time and time again, this market has proven that there's only price pressure in the biggest economies of scale: 4K monitors. Those have dropped from $3000 to $500 in 24 months.
But Ultra Wides? Same price as always in the same time frame. Plus there's the prosumer tax slapped on top.
//EDIT: Please don't confuse UltraHD and ultrawide. Samsung is invested in UltraHD (16:9 4K), whereas LG is differentiating with UltraWide (21:9, varied res).
tl;dr:
If you want an affordable big monitor, find an UltraHD 4K (3840x2160) at 28-32" with an IPS, AHVA, MVA, or PVA panel. It'll run about $500 in 2015.
Samsung has their own Ultra wide displays, that's why I mentioned them specifically. I assumed they didn't use LG's panels given my very limited knowledge of the industry. I assumed the other companies I mentioned don't use their own panels.
http://camelcamelcamel.com/LG-34UC97-Cineview-Ultrawide-3440x1440/product/B00NTQHIUM?context=browse
http://camelcamelcamel.com/LG-Electronics-34UM65-34-Inch-LED-Lit/product/B00JR6GBHO?context=browse
http://camelcamelcamel.com/MX299Q-29-Inch-Ultra-LED-Lit-Monitor/product/B00ENCTVDS?context=browse
I'm going to leave my end of this discussion at: I have no insider knowledge. If you say so Thrax, you have to know better than me. But this somewhat reminds me of Clif Forester telling me 2 years ago that nobody would ever buy 4k.
Of course all I have to go on are industry trends, but there has never been a point in time in the monitor market's history when a resolution that doesn't have broad industry backing comes down down rapidly in price. UltraWide displays have been around for many years, and have hovered around their current price for the entire duration.
4K on the other hand, that has _huge _economy of scale. Every panel vendor out there is making several models for each panel tech out there. The TV industry is behind it. The content industry is behind it. That's a market growing 36% YoY through 2020, to a $365bn industry.
Niche doesn't come cheap in the PC market. I'll be surprised if 21:9 ever comes out of its niche.
Very carefully worded. I just linked to 3 Ultra Wide displays that came down rapidly in price. I didn't cherry pick, I picked at random. 4:3 ratio monitors lost their industry backing and came down rapidly in price anyway. 16:10 monitors were not the entertainment standard, but came down rapidly in price. Every mobile display aspect ratio came down rapidly in price in the last five years. I think to some extent you can forget aspect ratio's economy of scale as the primary impact on price and instead look at actual manufacturing technology and materials. Am I wrong?
2x 780s
probably can buy whatever is necessary to drive whatever display is the bestest :/
They came down in price from the "initial launch price gouge" to their standard price. That's all.
//EDIT:
I'll give another PC industry example. For the last 10 years, high-end GPUs have been $500-700 USD. Doesn't mean you can't buy an old one for a cheap price, but this price has been set in stone for the biggest and the baddest for quite a while.
Alright then, I'll check back on this thread later. Until then I'm open to wagers of any sort for the lulz.
Look into 4K Gsync monitors. A heavy premium, but you'll get a big monitor that eliminates vsync stuttering and non-vsync tearing. 30 FPS will be just as smooth as 60 FPS+. AMD's equivalent is a technology called FreeSync, but you have NV now, so no sense in buying new.
That's totally different. High end GPUs have specs that change. Ultra wide monitors are a commodity. You are comparing gold to the stock market.
Brightness nits, contrast, refresh rates, power consumption, resolutions, color accuracy and general panel tech get better every year. Most people in Icrontic just hold onto their monitor until the day it dies, so they do not see these developments.
//edit: And something unique to the display industry, they do not trickle down high-end technologies into lower-end products. When they have a replacement at the high end, they EOL the old model and bring in the new one at the same price. Across their segmentation, displays will incrementally improve but, if they get their way, at approximately the same price and only relative to the previous model
Is that not true of most consumers as well? And if all those things are improving every year, is that not part of marketing? Is price not part of marketing when there are multiple competitors? At somewhat of a dead end here, I'll mark this as I did my two year old thread with Clif as revisit. If I'm right in two years, and Ultra wides cost significantly less, I want you to post a picture of yourself in bra and panties. If I am wrong, I'll post a picture of myself in bra and panties. Deal?
I'm not a betting man, but I'll see you in two.
Do we know what FreeSync monitors will cost? For me, ideally I'm thinking about a 27" 1440P display. 4K might be a bonus if the price is right. How do 4K monitors scale down when gaming? Say I have enough hardware to drive 1080P on a specific game, do 4K monitors scale anything less than 4K like garbage (like most PC monitors scale their non native) or is 4K more forgiving in that aspect?
The idea of finally being able to turn off VSync is a huge turn on for me. I can't deal with screen tearing and I'll take the occasional stutter and input lag to reduce that. The idea of of butter smooth without tearing is something I'm willing to invest in asap.
FreeSync will be more expensive than a standard monitor of the exact same materials (there's extra manhours that must be invested in validating a dynamic refresh display). But it'll be cheaper than G-Sync, because the material cost is $0.
I will never in good conscience recommend people run their LCDs at any resolution except for native.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/benq-xl2730z-is-2560-x-1440-gets-adaptive-sync.html
That is what I am looking at. My issue with 4K native is not really wanting to re invest in graphics hardware. I got to be honest, the lack of crossfire support I'm seeing on newer titles has gimped my investment of two R9285's. I would have been better off buying a single R9290X or waiting until the generation. On paper a pair of 285's looks like the value king, but so many titles seem to be getting away from crossfire support that I can't really leverage the full power of the rig so I feel a little bottle-necked at resolutions past 1080P. 1440P seems a little more viable than 4K for me right now, especially if we get adaptive sync tech and can run at just over 30+ FPS without it looking like a choppy mess.
Can an ultra wide monitor easily substitute the multi-monitor experience? Can I display multiple full screen windows like I would with multiple monitors? Say a full screen game on one side and XBMC/Kodi on the other?
Not really.
At work, we have a brand new gaming lab that we put together so, you know, a PC gaming marketing team can actually play PC games. We've got new 4K Gsync monitors tied to flagship level Nvidia GPUs in the system.
After my time spent on it, I'm not sure where I sit with it all. The screen real estate on the desktop is insane, plenty of room to fit multiple browser windows on a single screen and operate almost as if you're using multi-monitor. Like Rob said though, it's a "Not really" kind of solution when compared to true multi-monitor.
Everything is so goddam tiny on a 4K display, though. I actually have issues reading text at default OS size. Granted I haven't taken much time to tweak stuff to make it better, but there are times where it feels excessive. Any resolution over 4K, and I'd imagine there'd be significant usability challenges.
Gaming on it is kind of a mess, though. BF4 looks phenomenal at 4K with no screen tearing, but the GPUs just aren't up to the task. Framerates are mediocre most of the time, I've yet to feel like I've had a fluid experience gaming at 4K at all yet.