Does Jow Forums know if there are any better monitors just round the corner? Before I drop $2000...

don't come back here to bitch and moan when you get this in the mail

Just around the corner? No, but AUO will be producing a Mini LED-backlit 32" panel next year, which should (at least on paper) be better in every way than these 27".

chroma drops at 90
80 Hz is more than enough

invest in a 120/144hz Oled with freesync (only works on AMDGPU-PRO on Linux or on Windows so you'll need to wait till 4.18 to get the libre driver.)

>paying $1000-1500 more for a panel that can do 20hz more than a 60hz 4k.

uhhhh, okay...

>spending 2k on a monitor
You can get an top tier gaming rig for that or do something better like go on holiday somewhere nice.

Exactly.

That's why it needs to be a display port v1. 4 monitor.

poorfag detected

>i'm irresponsible with my income because thinking about and planning for the future isn't as fun as wasting every paycheck on new toys
oh okay

Could I theoretically do either of those things instead.
>Yes
Do I want to?
>No
Why?
>Because I'm disabled and can barely leave my house as it is.

Attached: 17005538.jpg (458x408, 36K)

> i filled out multiple captures to tell another user he's wasting his money on the internet, meanwhile i'm wasting my life and the oxygen from those around me

Even if we get 20gflop gpus 4k 100hz+ will be hard especially as vr ramps up to 8k making that the new standard

When you're balling as hard as I am. That's not a huge amount of money.

I'm sorry you're poor, and that this isn't going to be affordable for you for another four years. But get gud at life.

>Who needs to play every game at 4k maxed out at 144hz?

It's more about having the headroom available for less demanding games.

Get a 1440p 120Hz+ monitor you shithead.
Drop g-sync too, fucking kikes.

Even games from 5 years ago struggled with 4k right now on a 1080ti oc

>he fills out captchas

wew lad

Lol, I bet you make less than I do, you just aren't fiscally responsible.

You know you should be saving 40%+ of each paycheck...right?

That depends on how fucked you think your future is likely to be. I'm guessing thing's aren't looking great for you.

Lmao are you joking? Do you think you're gonna be able to work into your 70s to pay for your retirement?

Or do you just plan on offing yourself by 40 and not have to worry about such pesky things like retirement?

That's blatantly untrue. Unless you've got a cpu bottleneck. Or you've turned up some settings insanely high.
Like some ridiculous anti-aliasing or something.

Attached: giphy (6).gif (347x226, 625K)

>4k/144Hz/HDR
>DisplayPort 1.2
Literal overpriced first gen trash. Wait for 1.4. DP 1.2 only supports 120Hz SDR, and 90Hz HDR.

OK go run crysis 3 at 4k 60fps+ 144hz and get back to me.
You have a 1080ti oc right?

You say 40% of your paycheck but you don't say how much you make, what property you own. What bills and debt you have to pay, what your wife makes (guessing you don't have one) what pre-existing health conditions you have. Things that are likely go wrong in the future.

In short, you know nothing. Let's get back to the topic at hand.

>A 4k, HDR10, G-sync monitor is heavy duty future proofing.

Gsync might be a $200 tax but AMD GPUs are overpriced anyway. Call me when Navi comes out.

It's basically out now
Navi is polaris 2.0 expecting 7nm meh 1080 perf for 200bucks

>Crysis 3 at 4k 60fps +144hz
>Picks literally the worst example of gameplay and optimization, along with being one of the most disappointing and irrelevant games of the last five years
>Basically only used for benchmarking.

You know you're wrong don't you?

>A 4k, HDR10, G-sync monitor is heavy duty future proofing.
all I see here is
>I enjoy wasting money on new toys every year or two

You'll just replace it when a better 4k 144hz actually comes out (like one that actually supports DP1.4 or HDMI 2.1 so you can actually fucking use 4:4:4 at 144hz)

Buying this monitor is simply retarded, it's far too late to market, it was originally supposed to come out in Q2 or Q3 2017.

DP V1. 4 can do 4:4:4 though.

...that's what I said.

>like one that actually supports DP1.4 or HDMI 2.1

This monitor in the OP only supports DP 1.2 and HDMI 2.0

Neither of which can do 4:4:4 beyond ~80-90Hz

well it's not like im going to pay hiroshimoot like a cuck

>Wrong again retard.

Attached: p5oLrcL.png (685x957, 51K)

But I bet you complain about the image servers taking forever to load your images, and when the site goes down for a few hours.

bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1015238-REG/sony_pvma250_25_professional_oled.html

get a 2019 HDMI 2.1 OLED tv which will have 4k 120 Hz real HDR and hopefully a good implementation of freesync

those shitty gaming panels are 4k 98 Hz fake HDR (8bit-FRC) complete with halos and IPS glow

I don't see your point.

So when is HDMI 2.1 going to hit the market for monitors? Because 2019 is a long time to wait, especially as they could delay it any time they want.

Yassss m8 just wait for those 8k gaymur oled screens and pay for them with bitcoin hahahahaheheheh so based lololereeeee

Attached: 1528220101326.jpg (202x249, 30K)

Those FALD halos are so bad i can't believe people are buying this tech. I think a lot of preorders are having buyers remorse.

youtube.com/watch?v=8ZCGRjb3fQc

So what do you use, monitor guru?

Attached: 1517492977521.jpg (240x210, 16K)

>he'd have to go with an AMD Vega 7nm 32GB that's dropping in Q3 2018
This is a G-sync monitor you fucking imbecile. Not that I expected any better from your brainlet post but at least educate yourself on shit you are trying to discuss.

DP 1.4 supports 144hz 4k 4:4:4 if they use DSC, since they're saying it maxes out at 98Hz, then it most likely ISN'T using DSC, which is retarded considering it should be technically possible to have 144hz 4:4:4

Wait for HDMI 2.1

4k 144hz with HDR10 and no compression needed.

>tfw no 3840x1600 G-sync monitor
I can't stand bugman 16:9 aspect ratio, 21:9 even more though.

>3840x1600
Why would you want 12:5 aspect ratio?

That literally is ultrawide.

LG makes one
amazon.com/dp/B01MDK43N0

With my undervolted Vega 64 in Crysis 3 I'm getting about 15-25fps. So not great, but of course 8xMSAA is pointless at 4k. You could easily play at 2160p/30 with a 1080, 1080Ti or Vega.

Attached: crysis3_2018_06_06_13_41_36_372.jpg (3840x2160, 1.73M)

It doesn't have G-Sync. 24:10 is native 4k movies resolution (no black bars) and it seems like a good progression from my favourite 16:10 aspect ratio.

>no black bars
maybe if movies we released in their theatrical aspect ratios this would be accurate.

Too bad movies are mastered for bluray and released in 16:9 95% of the time.

Wait for widescreen 4k 100hz and gtx 1180-1180ti

Jesus man.

Thats wrong on so many levels. I can't wait for 4k 144hz. But I want 32" and that piece of Shit is 27" which is too small for 150% scaling.

That guy is retarded but so are you. Many of us have money to spend but us sane people would never spend 3k on a gaming monitor.

Evento with that, text is garbage

Hmm, this is interesting. It appears AMD's VSR and Wattman don't work together well. I was wondering why my framerates kept dropping at 4k, I've been downsampling to 1440p and apparently AMD voltage control settings don't work with VSR, causing throttling issues. Any benchmarks I run at 4k are inaccurate, I should be getting slightly better results than I am. Tried it with Crysis 3, TW3 and DOOM, at 1440p they work fine but at 4k Wattman shits the bed.

Pretty sure I've read somewhere that these monitors indeed do not support DSC, for whatever reason. It was a while ago so I don't have a source. It seems like a pretty serious flaw for such an expensive product, these have the same stink as those early UHD 60Hz monitors which needed 2 DP connections. Too early to be worth buying, better to wait for models without such serious drawbacks and with less exaggerated pricing.

Monitor tech is moving at an increased pace right now so whatever you buy is gonna be beat out by something better next year. There is no end in sight right now.

What's the technical reason this costs so much other than g-sync?

My old Pioneer had a scan rate of about 1800hz and cost less than this back in 2008, tighter motion, better contrast, perfect uniformity, a single board on that display probably cost more than that entire monitor

There is nothing special involved in driving an LCD at high refresh rates, every TV with interpolation already does this

That happens with every piece of technology though. There's always something better on the horizon. Except battery technology, which is going nowhere.

>My old Pioneer had a scan rate of about 1800hz
No it didnt, even 800hz was rare.

And for plasma screens, the scan rate isn't the same thing as an LCDs refresh rate.

60hz LCD is roughly the same as 600hz plasma.

>Goy-sync

Attached: 1527685817775.png (378x357, 81K)

Okay, what is DSC and why does it matter?

Display stream compression

It is real time visually lossless compression for the data stream, it allows you to use a higher bitrate than the cable would normally support

So for example, HDMI 2.1, ~42gbps, with DSC it can push ~100gbps for 8k res at 120hz.

Without DSC it would max out at ~4k 144hz, or 8k 30hz.

There is nothing close. The 1440p IPS monitors have terrible light bleed and then color space isn't good enough to justify the response rate of an IPS
Kill yourself, retard

>The 1440p IPS monitors have terrible light bleed
yeah, the 4k IPS TOTALLY wont have that issue.

Promise :^)

He's just buying the best monitor on the market. Not a single monitors beats it in image quality for SDR or HDR

Different panel, I dont see why you would assume it would. Not all IPS displays have light bleed, same as how not all VA panels have bad motion handling and not all TN panels have a low colorspace

>Hitler time traveled in the future and used the
FX -9590 to burn the jews.

yeah, increasing to 4k from 1440p is surely going to REDUCE backlight bleed issues.

Sure kid. Just look around, there are already people with their hands on these monitors and the BLB and FALD haloing is fucking disgusting.

It simply isn't worth $2000, I wouldn't even say it's worth $1500.

>pixel density having anything at all to do with lightbleed
What

>HDR
if you're worried about high quality HDR, you should be waiting until windows has a decent way to treat HDR. It's current state is abysmal.

HDR only really matters currently on TVs since at least you can stream HDR content, or watch UHD HDR blurays.

Lmao, again nigga. Just look around. Pic related

Look at this disgusting thing, $2000+ for this shit?

Attached: 1528286246301.jpg (2048x1536, 250K)

generally if you increase resolution, you increase production complexity AND decrease the number of usable panels you get from your production batch.

Sure, maybe it's better, but I wouldn't count on it. As he said, there are already people with these two monitors in their hands (the Asus and the Acer), and they both have some pretty bad issues from what i've seen.

Maybe there are some units that are worse than others, but on a $2000 monitor, having to play the panel lottery is pretty shameful.

Plasmas were advertised based off the subpixel refresh, not the overall scan rate.Almost all plasmas were "actually" 60Hz. But yeah, these are only $2000 because they're first gen, they're not worth it considering the rumors that it's only using DP 1.2 instead of DP 1.4.

Yeah fuck that

Waste of money. By the time you could utilize the full potential of 4k @ 144hz you could get an equal or better display for probably 1/4 the cost.

pioneer refreshed at 840/1680hz (write,display cycle), panasonic was even faster because they did the whole write-display-erase cycle with one chip

but yeah the price does not make sense, it makes no sense that you have to pay a premium for silicon that was in plasmas over a decade ago, asus/acer/benq are just milking idiots with endless segmentation at this point

wish some serious display companies would enter the monitor market and slap the onions out of this shit

Who cares? They still only accepted 60hz signal input.

Not like you could hook it up to a PC and get 144hz or more out of it. It was limited to 60hz.

you miss the point, the lsi data drivers are availible since ten years, samsung sdi bought drivers from panasonic for many of their monitor/tvs but asus/acer/whoever just milks you with some el cheapo chips and yearly "upgrades"

plasma displays can accept a range of input rates from 24 to 150hz~ and 15-120khz horizontal, even models from 2001 sync up to 125hz just fine, thats off topic anyway

Lmao, no they don't.

Show me any Plasma TV running native 1920x1080 at more than 60hz on PC.

If they had the tech to make higher end monitors for crazy high prices, they would.

It's why we see the current $1000+ 34-49" massive monitors coming out.

People are obviously willing to pay a LOT more fore higher refersh rate. And samsung is just sitting on it for a little bit of extra through yearly updates? Come the fuck on kid, you've gotta be kidding, or just retarded.

Samsung t260 1920x1200x60

I didn't say tv... most televisions of all types are stuck at ASTC resolutions because the HDCP chips disallow other resolutions. Mark rehjohn said the vt50 3d plasma works at 1080p/120 through hdmi 1.3 but I only have experience with ED and HD plasmas at 100/120/125hz

4K/144hz is equivalent to a draw rate of 960hz at 1080p, plasma TVs surpassed this in 2011 with a single chip and a good number of 4K TVs were running 240hz internally in 2014, this is not new tech it's incrementalism

Buy the 1440p 35" ultrawides.

>plasma TVs surpassed this in 2011 with a single chip
STOP. For the millionth time, plasma refresh rates are just marketing. They run at 60Hz, but have 8-10 or even more subpixels which alternate, giving """600""" Hz or whatever. The reason plasma needs lots of subpixels is because the brightness is so much lower than LCD. There were no plasmas capable of higher than 60Hz total, unless there was some rare one that I haven't heard of.
> 4K TVs were running 240hz internally in 2014
Who cares if the display panel can't dispaly 240hz? My computer can run Quake Live at 1000fps but that doesn't affect how the game looks on my 144Hz monitor. Also 240 is advertising usually as well, it's 120 for interpolation, then they double it because of black frame insertion.

m8 I got 45fps@1080 on crysis 3 with a 760. I think that's pretty decent optimisation

For that kind of money you can almost buy a GOAT sony oled reference monitor... almost.