Cheap 4k monitors

[Random Guy]

...I think the extra graphics power required to drive 4K screens isn't quite as much as others are saying...

Some popular tech sites have already run benches at 4K for gaming - and yep, you need a monster card setup to run at reasonable frames on them...

 

[andybird123]

There are some TV manufacturers that claim a BIOS update is all that is required to go from HDMI 1.4 >>HDMI 2.0 (of course this depends on what electronics are inside to start with)

Could go either way, but as DisplayPort is already on this model and works at 60Hz Dell would have to be petty (which I dont think they are) to say this is not upgradable in a similar fashion

it has already been confirmed - nothing to do with hdmi restrictions, the controller that Dell are using on this cheap 4k simply doesn't support anything higher than 30hz, regardless of what port it is using

 

[Baboonanza]

yeah will be interesting, just have to wait and see. £1k is a good introductory price for this tech.

I think the extra graphics power required to drive 4K screens isn't quite as much as others are saying. Here is some reasons I can think of:

* font-smoothing is no longer required (HiDPI mode on Mac; 200% font size on Windows).
* Anti-aliasing is no longer required in games, since the screen resolution is likely higher than the texture themselves.
* The same textures are loaded in memory
* lighting and shading effects remain the same
* in cases where the above is still not enough, it will encourage games developers to write efficient code again.

It's a bit like the change from 1024x768 to 1920x1080 - not as much as people thought it would be. If you think about the reverse effect - you have a game running at fullHD and getting poor fps, how many more frames per second do you gain from dropping the resolution? Very little in all the tests i've done, guild wars 2 is a good example for that.

The simple fact is that a lot more grunt is required to draw 4 times as many pixels. You only have to look at the difference between 1440p and 1080p to see that there is a pronounced performance drop-off, and given that GPU performance is increasing at slower rates than in the past and I think it's going to be a while before a single GPU can handle 4K resolution comfortably.

 

[PoliticallyCorrect]

it has already been confirmed - nothing to do with hdmi restrictions, the controller that Dell are using on this cheap 4k simply doesn't support anything higher than 30hz, regardless of what port it is using

wrong; it says on the dell website that you can get 60hz via DisplayPort 1.2 if you had followed the thread.

 

[andybird123]

wrong; it says on the dell website that you can get 60hz via DisplayPort 1.2 if you had followed the thread.

Do you have a link? Because the Forbes article says 30Hz and this psge says nothing about refresh
http://search.dell.com/searchcom_re...px&redpe=608c54d5-983e-6c03-e84f-66cb767e2d59


Display port supports 60Hz, however this monitor only supports 30Hz max according to people who have asked Dell what the max refresh is... Displayport supports 144Hz at 1080p but that doesnt mean that all 1080p monitors support 144Hz if they have DP

 

[JediFragger]

If the Dell supports 60Hz I think I'd jump on it, but as stated it looks like they've cheaped out on the controller

Looking like the 34" LG for me, dependant on price really...

 

[Purgatory]

The Dell supports 30Hz at the 4K res on every input that supports 4K and will only do 60Hz at 1080p res. That's why they are cheap and they are TN panels. All these cheap 4K panels coming out are 30Hz and I read somewhere that they might get a firmware update as previous 4K monitors did to allow them to do 60Hz at 4K which I doubt happening on the cheap 4K's.

The cheap 4K's are only aimed at people wanting larger desktop space for apps at the moment and not gaming clearly by their terrible refresh rates at full 4K.

I was very disappointment to see this because I was up for updating my monitor to 4K at a sensible price these offered but they are cheap for a reason as we see and not what a gamer or anyone who hates slow refresh rates like 30Hz. So I'm going to avoid them like the plague until "REAL" 4K monitors with sensible refresh rates come out.

 

[mjones1]

The cheap 4K's are only aimed at people wanting larger desktop space for apps at the moment and not gaming clearly by their terrible refresh rates at full 4K.

The $800 Lenovo 4k monitor does 60hz.

 

[Purgatory]

The $800 Lenovo 4k monitor does 60hz.

The specs don't say it is 60Hz too. Actually the spec sheet is terrible and clearly avoids the disadvantages of the monitor.

http://news.lenovo.com/images/20034/ThinkVision Spec Sheets.pdf


So far the only one I can find which "claims" to have 60Hz native resolution is Asus's PB287Q.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/08/-new-crop-of-4k-monitors-debut-at-ces

Asus's PB287Q mirrors its competition with a 28-inch, 3840 x 2160 panel. The display does boast the quickest response time of any other sub-$1,000 unit released thus far at just 1ms, and sports a native 60Hz refresh rate.

Taipei, Taiwan-based Asus says the PB287Q will ship in the second quarter of 2014 for $799.

 

[mjones1]

The specs don't say it is 60Hz too. Actually the spec sheet is terrible and clearly avoids the disadvantages of the monitor.

http://news.lenovo.com/images/20034/ThinkVision Spec Sheets.pdf


So far the only one I can find which "claims" to have 60Hz native resolution is Asus's PB287Q.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/08/-new-crop-of-4k-monitors-debut-at-ces

Asus's PB287Q mirrors its competition with a 28-inch, 3840 x 2160 panel. The display does boast the quickest response time of any other sub-$1,000 unit released thus far at just 1ms, and sports a native 60Hz refresh rate.

Taipei, Taiwan-based Asus says the PB287Q will ship in the second quarter of 2014 for $799.

Pc perspective said it in one of their recent podcasts while they were at CES, currently away form home so will dig it up later.

 

[Nightglow]

So far the only one I can find which "claims" to have 60Hz native resolution is Asus's PB287Q.

Asus's PB287Q mirrors its competition with a 28-inch, 3840 x 2160 panel. The display does boast the quickest response time of any other sub-$1,000 unit released thus far at just 1ms, and sports a native 60Hz refresh rate.

Taipei, Taiwan-based Asus says the PB287Q will ship in the second quarter of 2014 for $799.

Apparently I quote, Asus is using a newly developed panel that is lower in cost but not in quality it allows the new PB287Q to be aggressively priced with a projected $799 MSRP.

And it's a 28" screen, which I think is going to be the new sweet spot in monitor sizes, any larger & I would need a bigger desk for it to sit on, Asus will be on a winner with it, & it going to sell very well.

Link: http://pcdiy.asus.com/2014/01/pb287q-4k-for-the-masses/

 

[andybird123]

It will be the same panel as in all of the 28inch 4k's, the difference will be the controller used

 

[ndaar]

The dell P2815Q is supposed to get its world wide release on the 23rd so we should start to see reviews in the next couple of days.

If it really is only 30Hz @ 4K then it will obviously be a disappointment for gamers but still a cheap workstation options for business users.

I am looking forward to the lenova and asus versions in a few months.

 

[Nightglow]

The dell P2815Q is supposed to get its world wide release on the 23rd so we should start to see reviews in the next couple of days.

I am looking forward to the lenova and asus versions in a few months.

+1

Not long to go then, it will be interesting to see what the reviews have to say.

But, it's the Asus PB287Q I'm looking out for, if it's a 60Hz model as quoted, & at a sensible price, then it could be tempting.

 

[Kaynar]

According to people who review the super expensive 4k Asus and Dell monitor currently available, the issues plaguing these monitors are terrible. In fact the only thing that is nice on these is the image quality of a still picture.

Reviewers at techspot.com found that the Dell UP3214Q 4K screen runs at 30Hz and ANYTHING moving on that screen makes your eyes bleed from ghosting and frame lagging. These panels are also split in two internally and many applications don't work. Also, there is NO downscaling and upscaling system in those, everything runs 4K only - and 99% of stuff including GPU drivers don't run this resolution for 3D apps, only for desktop (2D).

I can only imagine that upcoming sub-1k gbp 4K screens will have even more issues. This is by far the worst thing you can buy if you like being an early adopter.

 

[Nightglow]

Asus PB287Q isn't available until April, I think I read somewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7FeazlKTU4

 

[Baddass]

According to people who review the super expensive 4k Asus and Dell monitor currently available, the issues plaguing these monitors are terrible. In fact the only thing that is nice on these is the image quality of a still picture.

Reviewers at techspot.com found that the Dell UP3214Q 4K screen runs at 30Hz and ANYTHING moving on that screen makes your eyes bleed from ghosting and frame lagging. These panels are also split in two internally and many applications don't work. Also, there is NO downscaling and upscaling system in those, everything runs 4K only - and 99% of stuff including GPU drivers don't run this resolution for 3D apps, only for desktop (2D).

I can only imagine that upcoming sub-1k gbp 4K screens will have even more issues. This is by far the worst thing you can buy if you like being an early adopter.

not quite right. You can certainly run the UP3214Q at 3840 x 2160 resolution at 60Hz refresh rate over DisplayPort, as long as your graphics card and drivers support it. While Windows detects it by default as dual screens (2x 1920 x 2160 res) you can easily set it up on NVIDIA or AMD cards to be seen as a single display and act as a single display too.

those early 4k models like the Dell UP3214Q and Asus PQ321QE are clearly not aimed at gamers anyway, and people buying them for gaming are not spending wisely. they are pro-grade screens for applications and work which would benefit from the higher res.

the upcoming lower cost 4k screens will at least be TN Film based to allow for a lower cost and more mainstream uptake if you want the higher res. they should also offer better response times than the IGZO Sharp panels used in the other 4k models so far which would make them better for gaming. Although there may be issues if some are limited to 30Hz only which they might be.

 

[spoffle]

With 680s in SLI at 2GB arguably at the edge of what is deemed "capable" at 2560x1440, I can imagine you need about 4 times the horsepower to run "acceptably" at 4K. So count me out for the next 3 or 4 graphic card release cycles

It's the 2GB RAM and 256 bit memory bus that hinders the kepler graphics cards, not the actual graphics chip.

You will absolutely not need 3-4 times the GPU horse power to run games well at 3840x2160.

 

[spoffle]

The simple fact is that a lot more grunt is required to draw 4 times as many pixels. You only have to look at the difference between 1440p and 1080p to see that there is a pronounced performance drop-off, and given that GPU performance is increasing at slower rates than in the past and I think it's going to be a while before a single GPU can handle 4K resolution comfortably.

The drop off between 1080p and 2560x1440 isn't as high as people like to claim.

2560x1440 has about 2x the pixels as 1920x1080, but you don't need 2x the power. The drop off isn't linear to the amount of pixels on screen.

The reason a lot of current graphics cards suffer with 4k is because of the amount of VRAM they have and too little memory bandwidth, which chokes the GPU and drags performance down.

 

[andybird123]

What nonsense, my cards have less memory bandwidth than a 780/ti but cope with 7680x1440 with no problems, the reason weve seen poor results at 4k is simply because we keep seeing reviews that insist on only using 2 cards, or unneccesary levels of AA

I also get the same fps on 1 screen 1 card as I get on 3 cards 3 screens, so it seems pretty linear to me

2560x1440 is about 65% more than 1080p, not double