Ultra HD monitors with G-Sync and HDR Should Arrive By Next Month

I am still missing point in those 24/27" 4k screens, its just too small to be able optimaly use it.
Would rather see UHD or WQHD in 34-40" range.

 

Sharper image. Also monitors are to be placed on desktop and usually within arm reaching distance.
Having huge screen is not optimal for gaming, since you probably will have to constantly move your head to see what on edge of the monitor.

I have 27inch 1440p and I don't really want a bigger panel for gaming. For production, maybe.

 

27inch is ideal for 1440p. 4k, on the other hand, should be used for larger screens. 4k on a small screen makes no sense as everything is tiny. To compensate that you need to use scaling, which sends us to the "retina tinfoil hat" domain.

Personally, I think 4k should be for 32+. As 27-32 is perfect for 1440p.

 

I have 29" Samsung UHD monitor 2 yrs old.And ya i can see the clear Difference of Sharpness and Lines around the edges in FHD,2K and in 4K.

 

More or less agree with just ultravide 1440p being rather in 32+ range.

 

The cool thing is, it's all about discussing resolution and screen size. Everybody knows what Gsync is for, but... HDR... nobody talks about HDR...
(Don't get me wrong, I don't fancy it, looks too cartoonish 90% of the time, no reason for me to upgrade my monitor at all, just my personal taste though.)

 

When I got a 27" 1440 screen a good few years back I too thought it had to be the optimal size and res for gaming. Now that I've used a 35" UWQHD screen for some time I realise how completely wrong I was. In strategy titles like Total War, 4X games and RPGs like Elder Scrolls and Fallout the vistas provided by an ultra wide monitor are almost priceless. The added immersion is very tangible indeed while the "having to move your head more" argument is utterly inconsequential. It might be valid for FPS games, but I wouldn't know since I never play any.

As for sharpness, 1440p on a 27" is already clear enough that 4K on the same size screen offers no particular benefit in games or casual use. I've tried both side by side and would be equally happy with either (actually I'd probably go with 1440p, given the horsepower provided by today's GPUs). Productivity may be a whole different ball game, but I don't do anything serious on my machine so again I wouldn't know.

The one thing I currently wish for is a little more vertical screen estate, so finger's crossed that industry and manufacturers come up with 35" 21:9 4200x1800 screens asap. With true HDR and G-Sync of course. Then I'd be set for many, many years to come.

 

Sure, but realy depend on use, watching video from up close or working with graphical programs is fine, but anything text related is just too little without big amount of scaling and scaling on windows pretty much does not work in most situations.

And having my desk 90cm deep with wall vesa mounted monitor you are about 100cm from screen for which UHD bellow 34" would be just too small.

 

Yeah, I too find 27" to be best for 1440p. 32" would be perfect for 4K and even if the size might be too big, I can just push the monitor a bit back and it's fine.

The problem will be the insane prices these puppies will have and I have a strong feeling that actual panel quality will be questionable at best again.

Got my Dell S2716DG so cheap last year, even though TN, I find it to be a fantastic gaming monitor. So these will have to do a lot of convincing to do, to make me buy them.

 

Agreed there. Personally, I spent a lot on my PG348Q, which is a 3440x1440 100hz screen. However the quality is amazing, and ticks all the boxes I need - Gsync, 60+hz, great colours, 21:9 aspect ratio. Don't need anything else. Hell, as you say, the build quality was all over the place. For instance on the same model as I do people had everything from dead pixels, inability to overclock, several backlight bleed e.t.c. I'm lucky as I had the only blacklight bleed slightly in the top right corner.

All this HDR stuff is just in its infancy and IMO will be mainstream only 4-6 years from now on.

Besides tools like Reshade allow you to fine-tune pretty much any game these days to achieve great picture if you have a decent screen.

 

Too cartoonish? HDR gives more colors and brightness for you to see, it doesnt make something more cartoonish.

 

It gives you more brightness and colors than there are by a generally equal level of lighting, so it makes dark stuff pop out while keeping it's color's shiney. That's cartoonish in my opinion.
Don't let me try to keep you from buying such a monitor, I just don't like how the pictures look, to each their own taste. And somebody has to spend extra money on that gimmick anyway

 

Have you seen HDR in real life actually? You cant just check some "HDR" picture on your typical monitor to see how it looks. If anything it makes games look less cartoony.

 

Yeah I've seen it with TVs and playing HDR material. Every big electronics store has it now as they are desperate to sell it. Didn't like it. Happy now or do you still need to convert me to love HDR just because you do?

Besides, I won't flash out a couple of hundred $ / € just to get a HDR update for my PC with little to no games yet supporting it when I got the same monitor just not with HDR ranges to play already. That wouldn't be very smart either. UHD for gaming is yet another thing I wouldn't touch with a pole, that needs some more time to mature.

 

Gimmick ?
Lets just for minute forget all nonvisible stuff related to HDR specification like metadata encoding etc, what you get left are:
- requirements for maximum brightness (affects contrast)
- minimum black levels (affect contrast)
- color bit depth (increase amount of steps for each color and reduce color banding)
- color gamut (increase color space->allow more vivid colors)
- luminance response time (how quickly display adjust from minimum to maximum brightness)

All of those are important on any monitor regardless if its SDR or HDR, HDR specification here only clearly define limits.
If I have to compare than difference between current average SDR monitors and HDR is about same as difference to 10 years old TN monitor which looks absolutely awful.

Only thing we can agree on is that content implmentation is lagging behind and inpropper implementation are whats making HDR looks as gimmick and lack of full HDR1000 capable monitors.
Only place where you can see HDR in its full glory arehighest end TVs and some HDR laser projectors but again with propper content and not some overblown demos intended to captivate you with over saturated colours which BTW is not specific just to HDR but to any TV you can see in presentation demos.

 

+1

4K, HDR and G-Sync. Get ready for some serious pricing. Freesync FTW.

 

If you have monitor you like, good for you, but I have to yet find monitor that combine good color reproduction together with gaming features as g-sync, high refresh rate and is even in decent 34"+ size.

 

Can you tell us GPU that support Freesync and is able to run games WQHD@144+ fps ?

Unless Hell freeze and Ngreedia starts supporting Freesync or AMD release some gpu at 1080ti+ range there is pretty much none which kind of limits selection for high refresh rate monitors you can use.