Acer's New UHD Monitor is a Little More Affordable

Status
Not open for further replies.

IInuyasha74

Splendid
Moderator
I'm hoping as these new 4K monitors come out and get cheaper that 1080p monitors will also get cheaper . I would love to game at 4K, but I'm not going to kid myself and say my GPU is up to it without major quality drops.
 

IInuyasha74

Splendid
Moderator
Lol even then chances are your CPU would be the hold back. They tested with the R9 295 in crossfire and it didn't work better than having one by itself so something else holds the system back.

4k 60hz, maybe. 4k 120hz, we are all dreaming a bit too much now :p
 

Bondfc11

Honorable
Sep 3, 2013
232
0
10,680
0
4K at 120Hz is still a ways off. Heck we don't even have any GPUs that could do that - not to mention the proper specs (no GPU with say HDMI 2.0).

Cheaper 4K panels are great, but a quality 1440 at 120Hz is still the sweet spot for me and my gaming rig for at least another year (well maybe the 3440x1440 monster from LG!)
 

SirKnobsworth

Reputable
Mar 31, 2014
43
0
4,530
0
4K at 120Hz is still a ways off. Heck we don't even have any GPUs that could do that - not to mention the proper specs (no GPU with say HDMI 2.0).
HDMI 2.0 won't even do 4k@120Hz - it's only about as fast as DisplayPort 1.2. DP1.3 will do it, but the spec isn't even finalized yet.
 
^ Guys, look at what my wishlist was for.

The reason I want 120hz is so that it supports G-Sync, meaning I would have a 4K monitor that I wouldn't have to worry too much about graphics power with. Because of the G-Sync, I could grow into running 4K, 120hz, as GPUs came around that could do that in a single card.
 


That's a fair point, but my wish was for long term.

If this thing were to happen short term, it would have to use the same thing that early 4k displays did and stitch the picture together with a pair of DP 1.2 connections. Though that would probably wreak havoc with the G-sync module, unless they used two of them and were left with a monitor more expensive than the average gaming computer.
 
4k on anything smaller than 50-52" is just stupid. What a waste of money. The ones yelling loudest for this have no idea what they are screaming for. They just like to hear their heads rattle, I suppose.
 

WRXSTIGuy

Reputable
Jul 8, 2014
47
0
4,540
1
Don't get a TN panel. I bought the Samsung 4K 28" and returned it. I'm spoiled by IPS, no washed out colors or color shift. Save your money for an IPS 4K monitor. I just bought the NEC 24" EA244UHD. Simply amazing. Now I need a magnifying glass to read the text, even while scaling to 150%.
 

childofthekorn

Honorable
Jan 31, 2013
359
0
10,780
0
4k on 50-52"
*heavy breathing*

I'm just excited to see 4k resolution starting to pick up a tad bit of momentum to push the GPU makers to strive to create more powerful hardware. Even though their pretty powerful now, how long did it take for an 8800 GTX to become obsolete?
 

soldier44

Honorable
May 30, 2013
443
0
10,810
6
So many haters on 4K. Stick with your lame 1080p crap regardless of 120-144hz no one cares about those tiny displays but you handful of morons squinting at 22-24" lol.
 


You will also be in the squinting crowd with a 30" 4k display. Scale all you want.... you will have a headache after 45 minutes. You need to be over 50" @ 4k, minimum.

The idea of planting yourself in front of a 50", 4k display to game on is a little crazy and probably won't happen in any meaningful numbers. I'd much rather have an Oculus Rift with full integration into game AND web development, going forward.
 

woodscrews

Honorable
Jan 14, 2013
81
0
10,630
0
its nice, but id take a nice, 24" IPS 1440p screen over this any day, TN is no good to me whatsoever

4k on anything smaller than 50-52" is just stupid. What a waste of money. The ones yelling loudest for this have no idea what they are screaming for. They just like to hear their heads rattle, I suppose.
ever hear of DPI scaling, retard?

You will also be in the squinting crowd with a 30" 4k display. Scale all you want.... you will have a headache after 45 minutes. You need to be over 50" @ 4k, minimum.
not all of us are running <mod edit> operating systems
 


You quoted my scaling comment.... But I guess you didn't read it. Here it is one more time for you. Scale all you want.... you will have a headache after 45 minutes. You need to be over 50" @ 4k, minimum

Your sensitivity on this issue is rather alarming..... I hope you're not a gun nut.

I would guess you're naming Windows 7 as the <mod edit> OS because Win 8.1 will let you scale away the resolution you just bought?
 

woodscrews

Honorable
Jan 14, 2013
81
0
10,630
0

>Scale all you want.... you will have a headache after 45 minutes. You need to be over 50" @ 4k, minimum
well, guess id best ditch my smartphone then

>Your sensitivity on this issue is rather alarming..... I hope you're not a gun nut.
mocking retards like you who genuinely believe that high PPI displays are bad is fun

>I would guess you're naming Windows 7 as the shit OS because Win 8.1 will let you scale away the resolution you just bought?
nah
you see, less <mod edit> OS' use vector graphics for their interface elements, which means we get a nice, crisper image :^)

sent from my ~145 PPI SXGA+ x61t
 


Except that we aren't talking about watching movies, this is a monitor - a high end one, made to be paired with either a graphic design workstation, or a gaming computer.

When you're gaming, having a super high resolution on a small screen is just about the best thing you could have... and claiming it's bad because you have to sit close, well... that's just laughable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS