• Now's your chance win big! Join our community and get entered to win a RTX 2060 GPU, plus more! Join here.

    Meet Stan Dmitriev of SurrogateTV on the Pi Cast TODAY! The show is live August 11th at 2:30 pm ET (7:30 PM BST). Watch live right here!

    Professional PC modder Mike Petereyns joins Scharon on the Tom's Hardware Show live on Thursday, August 13th at 3:00 pm ET (8:00 PM BST). Click here!

ViewSonic VX2475Smhl-4K 24-Inch UHD Monitor Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

JeanLuc

Distinguished
Oct 21, 2002
979
0
18,990
2
The pixel density of a 4K screen is about the same as a high end 1080p smart phone, the picture quality of this must be stunning.
 

xenol

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2008
216
0
18,680
0
The pixel density of a 4K screen is about the same as a high end 1080p smart phone, the picture quality of this must be stunning.
The monitor is half that, compared against a 6" phone. But at the viewing distances of a monitor, it may as well be effectively greater.
 

DisplayJunkie

Reputable
Mar 7, 2014
7
0
4,510
0
"nicely styled with a gloss-black bezel"

Are you kidding me? Nicely styled? NO. Glossy black plastics are COMPLETE CRAP. They REFLECT the damn displayed image! This is ESPECIALLY horrible when it's used on bezels, it is EXTREMELY annoying.

And glossy black plastics look terribly cheap.

Not to mention black bezels reduces the perceived contrast ratio. Matte grays are the correct choice.

Why do monitor manufacturers keep doing this?

"Just" because of that, this monitor is immediately disqualified from my consideration.

 

xenol

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2008
216
0
18,680
0
24" UHD monitor for gaming? Nope. Just nope. It's too small for me, I'm getting old.
You can think of it this way: you no longer have to deal with anti-aliasing of any kind!

But then again 4K with no AA may as well be the same as 1080p with 4xMSAA (only not since MSAA is much cheaper than 4K still)
 

nitrium

Distinguished
Jul 27, 2009
1,466
15
19,665
195
I often wonder what the scalers are like in these things, i.e. if you run a resolution lower than native - something you may potentially be forced to do to get a playable framerate in gaming for example. Does it look absolute rubbish? How does 1080p look on these screens compared to 1080p on a screen with that as native resolution? Does it generally look better, worse or roughly the same? Are all scalers created equal? Would be very interested to read about this in future articles.
 

picture_perfect

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2003
278
0
18,780
0
Here we go again.The best graphics card today will average 40 fps at this resolution. Check any current game. That means an awful gaming experience with judder, blur and lag. Scaling resolution down degrades picture / adds lag. So for gaming I will say NO.
 

Robert_V

Reputable
Sep 19, 2015
1
0
4,510
0
$400 US for the monitor and $1000+ US for video cards that can keep up with it. No thanks. Maybe at 32" or larger but 24"? You gotta be kidding.

Or for another $100 US you can pick up a Korean 40" 4k on EBAY.
 

rbarone69

Distinguished
Aug 16, 2006
241
0
18,690
3
You think with such a good monitor the OSD would look less like playing Wizardry on an EGA monitor and more like Minority Report.
 

epobirs

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2011
169
3
18,695
1
I often wonder what the scalers are like in these things, i.e. if you run a resolution lower than native - something you may potentially be forced to do to get a playable framerate in gaming for example. Does it look absolute rubbish? How does 1080p look on these screens compared to 1080p on a screen with that as native resolution? Does it generally look better, worse or roughly the same? Are all scalers created equal? Would be very interested to read about this in future articles.
1080p scaled should look fine because the 4K native res is perfectly divisible by the lower res. This is the primary reason those specific numbers were chosen in the first place, much like the relation between 720 and 1080 resolutions simplified scaling task for earlier generations, the higher mode being a 1.5 multiple of the lower. 4K being a simple doubling in each dimension makes it pretty straightforward.

A question for future product testing will be whether you can control which device handles the scaling. Scalers built into devices like game consoles tend to do a better job because the designer have more knowledge of what sort of image is being produced. There is a strong possibility that an engineering revision of current consoles will allow for 4K video playback, either streaming or from Blu-ray UHD disc, and gaming rendered at 1080p or less and scaled to 4K. (Actual 4K console gaming will need a much more major improvement and would almost certainly be sold as new platforms with backward compatibility.)
 

beetlejuicegr

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2011
350
0
18,810
17
1920x1080 with 4x antialiasing will it be heavier on gpu/cpu in games than a 3840x2160 and 2x or no antialiasing?

This is a very important question i would like tomshardware to answer.

I think that shadows and light reflections will be way more heavy on gpu at UHD than HD with 4x antialiasing.
What do you think guys, if we have a retina display, we don't need antialiasing, so will it be heavier on the gpu compared to an HD monitor wITH 4x antialiasing?
 

gudomlig

Honorable
Dec 19, 2013
10
0
10,510
0
4K gaming sucks. I have two GTX 970 in SLI and driver support seems to be pretty lame. For example I got no FPS difference at all in witcher 3 from ultra to low settings and struggled at ~26 FPS even on lowest settings. Taking one GTX 970 out Witcher 3 ran lowest settings at ~31 fps. Crysis 3 wouldn't even run in SLI mode at 4K. Crysis 2 ran max settings at ~40 FPS but jittery as hell. Far Cry 4 limped along medium settings at ~30fps, and like witcher 3 didn't see any fps difference between ultra and medium settings. Something is clearly not working right. When I scaled down to 1080p results were less impressive than a native 1080p screen. Gaming at 1080p with ultra settings frankly looks and runs better than 4K at mid to low settings. And at native 1080p, my Vizio E420d looked a hell of a lot better than scaled down 1080p on my Samsung 4K JU6500. In fact I ended up returning the Samsung because the lack of 4K content and crappy gaming experience made it a total waste of money.
 

xenol

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2008
216
0
18,680
0
1920x1080 with 4x antialiasing will it be heavier on gpu/cpu in games than a 3840x2160 and 2x or no antialiasing?

This is a very important question i would like tomshardware to answer.

I think that shadows and light reflections will be way more heavy on gpu at UHD than HD with 4x antialiasing.
What do you think guys, if we have a retina display, we don't need antialiasing, so will it be heavier on the gpu compared to an HD monitor wITH 4x antialiasing?
Yes. Compared to super sampling (Which rendering at 4K is the same as 1080p with 4xSSAA), every anti-aliasing method does less work.
 

Compuser10165

Reputable
Sep 12, 2015
1,017
1
5,965
210
24 inch is not enough for a 4K monitor. You need at least 30 inch to see the whole benefits of 4K (Maybe 27 inch would be a compromise, but I can't tell for sure as I don't have a 4K monitor yet).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS