AOC Releases 32" 4K Display, $500 Launch Sale

Status
Not open for further replies.

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2010
2,152
10
20,465
277
It's <= 5ms on the gtg response time. It is usable as a gaming monitor.... albeit not as ideal as 1ms or 2ms.

Also a bare minimum of 60Hz... would be ideal if it was higher, but nobody seems to want to implement the interface monitor side that can do so... Is it because the 4K panels can't do better than 60Hz yet?
 

mrmez

Splendid
4K panels can easily do over 60hz. Every 4K TV has a min 100hz, most ~200.

Getting the gfx power to run that is the main problem. Even a 1080ti will have trouble getting 60fps @ 4K with a lot of new games at max settings. So few people can afford that card, let alone two, in addition to a 120hz 4K screen.
 

Dosflores

Reputable
Jul 8, 2014
147
0
4,710
6
I can live with 60 Hz, as well as with VA panels (not TN panels, though), so I'd find this monitor perfect for gaming, if only I had a GPU powerful enough for 4K gaming.
 

Diji1

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2012
32
0
18,530
0
"4K panels can easily do over 60hz. Every 4K TV has a min 100hz, most ~200."

Incorrect, all TVs are native 60 or 120.

"4k 144hz is coming. Expensive though. Just google 4k 144hz. Estimated 1k++."

Possibly but since 3440x1440 144Hz and higher is already here and costing I doubt it will be.
 

Diji1

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2012
32
0
18,530
0
"so I'd find this monitor perfect for gaming"

I don't think 4K is even worth considering for a gaming after using 3440x1440 @100Hz.

Higher FPS over 4K anyday.
 


You Obviously haven't gamed on an OLED 4k with HDR :p

 

Dosflores

Reputable
Jul 8, 2014
147
0
4,710
6


I agree, but I think such a monitor costs twice as much as this one. I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

Poozle

Reputable
May 9, 2015
328
0
4,810
21
TV's refresh rates are NOT the same as desktop monitor refresh rates. Not only are the refreshrates on Tv's "faked" in a way, they actually look worse doing so. 4k high HZ rates are not widely available yet.
 

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2010
2,152
10
20,465
277


At least in the past... LCD has had an impact on this I'm sure, especially when you see sets selling with 240Hz and 120Hz ratings (the faked refresh rates)...

and analog signals:
US: 60Hz refresh rate, 30 FPS due to interlacing.(NTSC standards)
UK: 50Hz refresh rate, 25 FPS due to interlacing (I believe PAL was interlaced.)

Theater Movies: 24 FPS,

Now, with digital broadcasting, I have to admit, I'm not up on all the changes. (Feel free to bring me up to speed and correct me on any of this.)
 


Thank you for saving me the time of writing that! I read that comment and I'm like whaaaaa? I am fine with a 5ms Dell 1440p IPS for gaming.



That is wrong. All UHD TV panels are either 60Hz or 120Hz native frequency frame response speed . The last panel tech that offered native speeds in oddball numbers was plasma like my 10-year old 600Hz Panasonic 1080p; Pioneer had one that did 840Hz. However, it was a different tech measured differently for refresh speed (subfield drive vs. LCD frame response).

When using as a computer monitor though, the TV no matter which it is will only be used at 60Hz through HDMI 2.0 as that's as high a Hz that it supports at 3840x2160. The next iteration of HDMI (2.1) due this summer will allow 120Hz native source input display use. Now when that makes it to HDTV production or a firmware update on current UHD TVs is anyone's guess. More info on 2.1 release here:

http://www.hdmi.org/press/press_release.aspx?prid=145

But I do agree that nobody seems to understand the massive GPU power necessary to game at 3840x2160 resolution keeping frames above 60fps (specifically the *minimum* fps even on a 60Hz panel to keep stutters away).
 

TheOtherOne

Honorable
Oct 19, 2013
52
0
10,530
0
I would rather game at 32" 1440p and not worry about those tiny 27" with 4K display.
What can you even see on those tiny panels? And then add 4k res, its just waste.
 

TJ Hooker

Glorious
Ambassador
I've had a 32" monitor for a month or two, personally find it a little bigger than I'd like. Although I do have a relatively shallow desk, at I guess I'd say the panel is only about 1.5-2 feet from the front of the desk. I feel like it might be a more comfortable size if I could push it back 0.5-1 foot. It does work pretty great as a small TV if I want to watch something in bed though.
 

Dosflores

Reputable
Jul 8, 2014
147
0
4,710
6


I guess Tom's reviewers were right when they said that curved panels are actually useful for big monitors. And if I were to buy a curved monitor, I'd certainly have 21:9 rather than 16:9. In the end, it seems that features that no one asked for are going to become what everybody wants.

 

alsam

Distinguished
Mar 22, 2005
4
0
18,510
0
I was looking at 28" 4K monitors when I saw this article. BH Photo has it back-ordered at $499. Amazon has at $699. Somehow, last week Amazon had posted at $449 (had to pay tax) and had two in stock. I just received and set up Friday. Man, I love this thing! Not a gamer, but using for work from home and watching videos. Big time post purchase satisfaction. Using 125% upscaling on Windows 10. I moved up from a 26"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY