Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, May 16, 2018.
The only sets using IPS other than LG's LCD sets (which are considered worse than pretty much every other LCD set in the industry) are the lower end Sony sets; Everything else is VA. All QLED's are VA as are previous years of Samsung sets, top to bottom. All Sony x9xx sets and the Z9D are VA. Vizio's sets are all VA as are TLC's. You have a few random IPS thrown in there (Vizio P55 is an example, which is the worst one) but they aren't common, and literally none of the best sets use IPS. The only FALD IPS i know of prior to this years LG SK9000 was the Vizio P55.
I'm misleading no-one, you are just misinformed.
Price is outrageous everyone can agree on that. Most of you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and complaining based off of being uninformed. There are a couple people in here who actually know what they're talking about, and its the ones who actually own such tech and aren't just talking out of their a$$.
I wouldn't worry fact is people with sense won't be buying at these prices regardless of what these heartless corporations believe and when the proverbial crap hits the fan that people won't pay these ludicrous prices guess what will happen,
Prices will take a huge nose dive!
then just dont post like this "they all use VA panels", since its not the case.
even if there is only one tv out there (i doubt you know all tvs from all brands) that doesnt use VA, makes it wrong.
and qled isnt even tech. like SUHD, just typical samsung marketing bs.
unless you meant quantum dot, which others are using for years already ..
And what planet are you on ? Name the game And I am talking about with all the bells and whistles on
I gotta ask why you even responded to me at all. With the exception of a FALD set that got released this month, literally every FALD sold has been a VA panel. My point is that VA's are saught after for high end televisions. LG uses IPS because IPS is what LG manufactures, not because it's the best option.
Also, I'm fully aware of what QLED is. Quantum dots didn't have a single thing in the world to do with anything I posted. What QLED is didn't have a single thing in the world to do with what I posted. Samsungs marketing didn't have a single thing in the world to do with what I posted.
You're that guy who just goes looking for an arguement to start aren't you? You thought you found something to be "right" about, even though you clearly know very little about consumer televisions, and now you're just grasping at straws.
The competitive shooter/RTS planet. I mostly play games like League, Overwatch, HOTS, SC2, CS:GO - all push over 100fps at 4K full settings, easily in most cases. R6 Siege - I do high/medium settings for better visibility, I average about 120fps at 4K.
Honestly even some of the single player AAA titles do go to 90-100fps. Rise of the Tomb Raider IIRC I was averaging about 80-85, Hitman similar. Battlefield 1 goes to around ~100 average, Dirty Rally (I played for a hot minute a few weeks ago) averaged about 95-100. Doom gets easily over 100fps at 4K in the latest patches. I'm sure there are others, I don't play many single player games.
But yeah.. some people don't play like Witcher 3/Farcry 5/etc.. I game with a group of friends and all of us solely play competitive shooters/mobas/RTS and the majority of games that fall under those categories can hit 4K 100fps on a 1080Ti at full settings. Fortnite/Siege may need a few setting tweaks but when you play competitive games you tend to turn down that stuff anyway in order to get an advantage and both run in 70-80's full settings 4K anyway, I just like more FPS in twitchy shooters and like I said it helps visibility when lots of crap is going on.
And before people start going "those aren't real games, or some of those are old" they are all still very relevant and have large userbases playing them. Especially Overwatch/Siege/Fortnite/League - so there is a pretty large amount of people playing video games where this monitor would be a benefit to them. Me included. For every other game, like Witcher 3/Farcry5/whateverpeopleplaynow - they all average about 60fps. So you still get a good 4K experience.
Also with 4k, but on larger screens (40"+), you can create custom 21:9 res (3840x1620), which is 25% less pixels yet maintains the same hi-res 4k experience @ 1:1 scaling. Good performance boost right there. So 4k does not have to be the exclusive club for only highest end gear anymore. Even with a lesser card (1070) fully enjoying virtually all games and no urge to go back to my 1440p monitor any time soon. Games still look better with few settings turned down (ie, low or no AA, motion blur, medium shadows, etc) on 4k than maxed out at 1440p or 1080p.
Was worried that my purchase of a z35p (on discount) was a mistake but glad i didn't wait,i do love all those juicy specs but this is way out of my budget. I dread what they'll charge for ultra wides,3000 bucks probably. And the BFGs? I can feel my credit card resonating when i think about it.
At that price it should be a 30 or 32" model not 27 inches.
2000 euro for some gsync nonsense no thanks lol.
I'll pass , thank you.
Point is that most of the gamers don't play competitive games, or at least not most of the time.
I have both 4k@60Hz and now 3440x1440@120fps monitors and I can tell you that 1080ti is still far from having stable 60+ in most of AAA titles (one of reasons I sidegraded to 3400x1440 monitor)
FC5 on 3440x1440 do 74 average but diping close to 60 (without OC)
At 4k it can do 60 average but still dips to 50 and thats with OC on both GPU and CPU.
You will need to oc and/or tune down setting a lot to keep steady 60+ in most of those high demanding games.
Same here, bought Alienware AW3418DW just few days ago after giving up on waiting for new monitors.
I just got a 144HZ curved Freesync va monitor few weeks ago, so think I'm good for a while as well.
Idk what's this bellow 144hz stutter/jitter with vsync, a lot keep talking about?
But I don't see it. Now it feels like I had gsync on all the time if vsync'd, always smooth and no lag, well until 60fps. Then I see the same stutter/jitter lag like by a 60HZ monitor and below 60fps.
In my personal opinion, I can see some some tearing occasionaly but at 120Hz its much harder to spot than on 60Hz screen (if you are not realy looking for it) but with G-syn on its gone.
Have AW3418DW just few days but I am pretty much impressed how much more fluid games feel and FPS acuracy increase due to higher refresh rate and much lower input lag (going from 16-20ms down to just 4ms)
I might gave this one to wife and switch to better screen (wide gamut + maybe HDR) next year, but for now I am fine especialy when it looks like I got pretty good screen:
- no bad pixels or subpixels
- can't realy see any darker spots so uniformity seems very good
- no yellowish tint on right side as some people reported to be often problem
- small backlight bleed in bottom right and left corner but hardly to see in game or movie
It have visible IPS glow, but thats normal for all IPS screens and I am actually impressed by mat antiglare finish as I am able see screen even on direct light which was not case on any previous screens I had.
Given it have 36 months next day on site replacement I am pretty happy and do not plan upgrade anytime soon.
I might gave this one to wife and switch to better screen (wide gamut + maybe HDR) next year (most likely nanoIPS from LG), but for now I am fine and after seeing few monitors with AUO screens I would be extremely carefull getting one of those as those 6 I had chance to see were all pretty bad.
AUO would need to work out hard on screen quality and QC to convince me to risk getting one, prefer better quality on Samsung or LG screens.
Vsync'd tearing, isn't it only if vsync off?
I played with triplebufferd vsync and when fps dropped to 80-120fps it still looked super smooth and no tearing,. I have this one
Actually no. There's IPS panels with anti-glow filters. However, I'm not sure if these filters can have a negative impact on image quality.
Yes it does have negative impact on contrast and brightness, but whats worse is that it also greatly effect collor acuracy as it introduce colour artefacts by colur shifting glow to green or magenta depending on angle.
I prefer stronger consistent white IPS glow rather than have it bit lower but with variable colour shifts.