ViewSonic's VX2475Smhl-4K Ultra HD Panel Ships For $611

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SirKnobsworth

Reputable
Mar 31, 2014
43
0
4,530
Recommended for gaming? It's only 60Hz...
Click to expand...

1) 4k at anything above 60 Hz is not supported by DP 1.2 of HDMI 2.0. It requires too much bandwidth

2) The graphics hardware you'd need to run 4k at anything more than 60 Hz for gaming is rather insane.
 
hannibal

hannibal

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,880
251
21,190
Well i play games at 60Hz at this moment, and it is just fine. 90Hz would be the sweet spot for me though. Anything above that 90Hz, I would consider better spent would be image quality IMHO, but this is somewhat too small for my taste. It all depends on what kind of games do you play.

24" 4K monitors at very close distance can give you an incredible sharp picture, if there is very hefty GPU horsepower behind it. Even TitanX or 980ti are not powerful enough to run most games at 60fps, so a monitor with faster refreshing screen, is just waiting draw commands... But in future, there will be GPUs that can do it, so "Future proof" has some merit in here.

But I would wait to that future and see if there are good PLS or IPS screen that can do at least 90Hz or better. And I am so old that at least 32" for 4K monitors is about a good size, but my vision is getting so poor compared to young players that those with better eye sight can do fine with 24" or even smaller screens...
 
F

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
$600+ for a 24" with a 60hz refresh rate is ridiculous, i wouldn't even pay $250 for this.
hdmi can't even support more than 1080p if i recall correctly?
 
Bondfc11

Bondfc11

Honorable
Sep 3, 2013
232
0
10,680
Yawn - future proof if we never see another new GPU or more demanding games AND you like to play games in the 25-40FPS range.

Move on nothing to see here . . .
 
Optimus_Toaster

Optimus_Toaster

Honorable
Jul 22, 2012
458
0
10,960
It's marketed as future proof but anyone with windows will find that it isn't even present proof as text scaling sucks balls in many many applications.

$600+ for a 24" with a 60hz refresh rate is ridiculous, i wouldn't even pay $250 for this.
hdmi can't even support more than 1080p if i recall correctly?
Click to expand...

You do not.
 
Little Lost Linden

Little Lost Linden

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2010
26
0
18,530
Luke Skywalker said it best: "What a hunk a junk!" Good to see Viewsonic is still rockin the bezel like it's 2003. $600 for 24 baby inches? Holy Moly... I think I hear BlackBerry calling.
 
K

Kazairl

Reputable
Jun 10, 2015
1
0
4,510
Contrary to the article and some of the comments, the price on ViewSonic's website is $469.99. Newegg is currently $434.99 plus $16.82 shipping. The monitor does 3840 x 2160 at 60 Hz, so that price is in line with 4K monitors from other manufacturers. As mentioned before, hardware to play modern games at that resolution at more that 60 fps is currently VERY expensive, so the whole "only" 60 Hz complaint is really a non-issue, especially since most connections aren't capable of more than 60Hz at 4K. The bezel could be a little smaller, but the black finish would let it fade into the background. The only real negatives is that the color is 8-bit instead of 10-bit like some of the more expensive 4K monitors and that the only adjustment is limited tilting back and forth instead of height and pivoting adjustments like some other monitors.
 
H

Haloaddict44

Honorable
Jan 13, 2014
83
0
10,660
Not impressed.... My Dell p2415q is a 23.8" IPS UHD monitor, and it was only $450... Sure it doesn't have HDMI 2.0, but DP 1.2 is fine by me.

Edit: My Dell also has full stand adjustment, and covers 99% sRGB. Bit more on the professional side, which I like.
 
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015
Gaming confusion...

You can CHOOSE the resolution you wish to game at. Have a 3840x2160 but want to game at 1920x1080? Go ahead. It will simply be SCALED to fit the screen.

Have a few games that run fine at 4K resolution? Fine, choose that resolution.

The problem with 4K currently is it's being pushed as the ultimate experience for gaming but GSYNC at higher refresh rates makes more sense and that's really working best at 2560x1440 (there's even a good Acer IPS 144Hz 1440p monitor with GSYNC).

*At 4K the monitor can only drive at 60Hz, even though you may be outputting 1080p or 1440p to the monitor. So again, you can get a 4K monitor for desktop use and game at lower resolutions, however you can't do any of this higher than 60Hz (60FPS).

That's why 2560x1440 144Hz remains the sweet spot (and it's smoother for desktop usage as well).
 
W

wtfxxxgp

Honorable
Nov 14, 2012
173
0
10,680
$600+ for a 24" with a 60hz refresh rate is ridiculous, i wouldn't even pay $250 for this.
hdmi can't even support more than 1080p if i recall correctly?
Click to expand...

You really ought to read the articles before commenting. HDMI 2.0

I agree with Photonboy about changing the resolution - but only to a point. In a way, you're still supporting what they say when they call the monitor future-proof because the fact remains that if you want all the eye-candy at full native resolution then you'll need to earn one insane salary to do it at a constant 60fps (in other words, minimum fps will need to be 60). For right now, it just is not a reality on a large scale and won't be for some time. There are NO "4k" monitors available that offers better than this one does on that front. 60hz over HDMI :) That is the max right now.

By turning the resolution DOWN, you're not using it for it's intended purpose - to use the native resolution and enjoy the benefit of not needing all the eye-candy to be on as a result. AA for example - almost pointless at native "4k" on such a small monitor especially, isn't it?
 
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,815
5,265
108,890

At a reasonable price, I would still call UHD on 24" screen a win: no more scrawny 1px-wide font strokes for stuff that scales with resolution. Many UI elements like title, status and tab bars are too big for my taste at 1080p on a 22" display, UHD on a 24" display would waste half as much space on them if I did not scale them. Four times the pixel density would also spell goodbye for scrawny 1px-wide font strokes at my typical reading font size.
 
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,815
5,265
108,890

There is no "bottleneck" when the display does not support the additional features that require newer interfaces. DP1.2 is capable of driving a 4k display at 60Hz, anything faster is unnecessary since it would be limited by the display itself.
 
warmon6

warmon6

Splendid
Jul 24, 2009
4,169
5
22,965
Futureproof 4k, without DP1.3 or sMHL.. it's already introducing a bottleneck.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a monitor that goes up to 4k resolution @ 60Hz (and not higher).....
DP1.2 and HDMI 2.0 can do 4K @ 60Hz....
No other features like 3D or anything else like that take additional bandwidth of the connections...

You mind telling us where the bottleneck might be with the monitor?

As currently as it stands, this monitor and the connections it uses all complement each other.

The only bottleneck I do see with this is the SYSTEM that would run this monitor. All that gpu horse power needed too turn on all the eye candy people would like to see.... and that out of the reach for most of us....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom