I don't know about you, but don't you hate where we are with gaming monitors in 2018?

Let's look at this from my perspective.

• Do you want a 4K high refresh rate monitor in 2018? G-sync? HDR? That will be $2000 or more. And they’re only 27"
• Want a 1440p high refresh rate ultrawide? G-sync? That will be $1000. Same price as a year ago if you ask me.
• I saw HDR in person, HDR is a letdown on PC in large part to Windows 10 and Microsoft.....just a disaster right now.
• Freesync is a great tech that’s cheaper than G-sync....but you need an AMD card, which are still to this day inferior to Nvidia.
• It's been 2 years and there hasn't been no new high-end graphics cards and we don’t know exactly when that’s going to change.

I mean what the hell is going on here? The 4KTV market is exploding with amazing tech and plummeting prices and we get all this disappointments on the monitors side of things, depressing is what I'm seeing on a monitors side of things.

To be fair, I think almost every 4k TV is only putting out 60 Hz at 4k resolution.

But yeah, monitor prices suck for what you get.

I know what you're referring to. I purchased my first ultrawide 1440p monitor only to discover that all ultrawides with adaptive sync have this problem where the brightness changes abruptly. It is very annoying, but it is a problem with the currently existing technology and fabrication techniques.

The technology to push the needle forward exists, but it is still very expensive. This year we are supposed to see changes in the market. We'll see.

I think is kinda early for 4K gaming massive adaptation and thats because not many be bothered in worldwide scale about 4K gaming yet. Its super expensive to have a super PC to be able to play 60fps let alone above that all games at high settings or better.

I think with next-gen tech and when 4K gaming will be easier and cheaper to handle at high and stable fps, 4K gaming monitors will boom.

https://www.pcgamer.com/the-first-4k-120hz-monitor-arrives-with-a-dollar1400-price-tag/

I guess there are now high refresh rate 4k monitors. It may have some other issue, just like ultrawides with adaptive sync technology do.

im holding out for a Screen with freesync 2 and HDR at the moment. At the moment i have my PC hooked up to my 1080P TV (which is getting on a bit, bless). I want a 45-50" freesync panel that is good quality with fast response times and a good few ports. It looks like i will need 1 display port and 4 HDMI ports or 5 HDMI ports (a port for my PC, PS3, switch, wiiu and a possible PS4/5 in the future). monitors seem to skimp on the number of ports (i suppose for most people they will only have a PC connected) so a TV is making more sense.

A TV is only something i get once in a blue moon. my current screen is going on 10 years old. so i dont mind splashing out on it a bit as its something i will use a lot and keep for a long time. like a good power supply or PC case. But i just cant find quite the right screen that fits all my requirements (though i havent looked in a while in fairness).

A 55" 4K 120 Hz TV is about 600 dollars on Amazon, tho.

I imagine the demand for 4k TVs is much higher than the demand for high-end gaming monitors, so there is more incentive for technological innovation and reduced manufacturing costs in that market.

but that is just wild speculation

I did just get my first gaming monitor a few months ago, a Acer Predator with 1440p/144hz/Gsync and it was like $700 Canadian which didn't seem too unreasonable

Agree! All I want is a shrunk down lg OLED at 1440p resolution.

LCD tech is garbage and hasn’t evolved. Blacks a shit, backlight bleed and ridiculously priced for what you get

@rafaelmsoares: Those are fake 120 hz tho. It will only accept an input of 60 hz, and then use an algorithm to create additional “in between” frames.

Makes movies and tv shows look smoother, but introduces even more input lag in gaming.

that means very little without 2.1 hdmi as there's not enough bandwidth to drive 4k 120hz so currently to get that you need to use Displayport, not available on tv's

• Freesync is a great tech that’s cheaper than G-sync....but you need an AMD card, which are still to this day inferior to Nvidia.

How are they inferior to NVIDIA cards? Pls don't say drivers.

550 = 1050

560 = 1050 Ti

570 = 1060 3GB

580 = 1060 6GB

Vega 56 = 1070/1070 Ti

Vega 64 = 1080

The only place where AMD can't compete is the 1080 Ti, which is pretty niche due to being so expensive.

But on the topic, yes, the PC monitor market is a disgrace, and has been for years, and will continue to be until we can replace common IPS panels with something better. Mini LED is coming in Q4, so probably new panels in 2019, not a massive jump but better than the garbage we have now.

This one I've seen claims to have a 120 Hz actual refresh rate with 240 using tru motion (the fake refresh rate)

And do those 4K TV's (let's say at $600 and less) come with Gsync/Freesync, HDR, 21:9 aspect ratio, response time less than 5 ms, or any refresh rate above 60 Hz (real not interpolated)? PC monitors that don't have those features (though most will still be < 5 ms) also won't cost $1000-2000. But if you do want those extra advantages, of course it's going to cost you. There's a reason those premium monitors actually cost more then most 4K TV's... they actually come with those premiums not found in the TV market.

This is like saying, "I can't believe a Jaguar with leather seats, power everything, satellite radio, built in GPS, windshield HUD, backseat TV and blu ray player costs a fortune!!! How can they justify this when a Honda Civic costs wayyyyyy less."

Do you even know how to economy, dude? ??

Oh, I thought HDMI 2.1 was only necessary to display 8k 120 Hz...

I have a 32" Samsung curved HDR 1440p monitor at 144Hz 1ms response time. Colours are brilliant i have my PS4 pro and Switch hooked up to it. Even though its not classed has "real HDR" cause its 800 nits Horizon zero dawn looks incredible. And G-sync is a con if you have a high Hz monitor with a low response time, mine cost around $750 in yank money.

Nope. Most of those are "Fake" 120 Hz.

https://www.cnet.com/news/fake-refresh-rates-is-your-tv-really-120hz/

LOL I'm not a salesman nor a businessman.

But overall, I was merely talking about the situation with monitors itself.

Funny, I been eyeballing the same monitor Acer 1440p/144hz/G-sync for awhile now, the price is still steep, but I'm gonna wait. My strategy was to buy the best deal (features/price) I could find and be happy with for now until I upgrade.

Do you even need to be a salesman/business man to understand that products with extra advantages cost more than those without? is this not a simple enough principle?

I got myself a BenQ 35" 1440 ultrawide (3440x1440) with 100 Hz and Freesync, which doesn't do me much good with my GTX 1070. And it cost me $1000 CDN. Even though it's not as fast as that Acer and Freesync costs less than Gsync, it's the ultrawide aspect that drives the cost up.

And let me tell you, once you've gone to ultrawide you won't want to go back to 16:9. It's so much more immersive with that extra panoramic landscape of the game world occupying the full peripheral of your field of view. Just imagine going from 16:9 back to 4:3, lol. Also awesome to watch movies on it, and great desktop/application real estate.

As far as the refresh rate goes, 100 Hz is suitable for the resolution that's the next closest to 4K. Not many AAA games I get above 85 fps (Warframe I get close to 200 fps fully maxed out), but when I get the opportunity to upgrade my graphics card, I can get the fuller benefit of the display.

Have you thought about it before making this post? These monitors pack GSync, 144Hz, HDR, low response time, low input lag and 4K. Can you point me to the TV that does that? All TV's have to worry about is 4K and HDR.

As for the price, yes it is outrageous but comparing TV's to monitors is pretty stupid in this context because TV's need to do a lot less.

They are in a weird place. That coupled with GPU bitcoin mining and the SSD price hike led to a weird year for people looking to buy a PC.

yea thats more or less what I did, that screen seemed like the best ratio of features/price at the time I was looking to get one, though certainly still a good deal of money.

I upgraded from a 10ish year old Dell 1080p 23" screen with 10ms response time so it was a pretty drastic improvement over that obviously but not sure how it stacks up to other gaming screens

This may sound like a stupid question, but now that every screen is flat and HD, what's the difference between a TV and a monitor other than size? Can't you use a computer with a TV, or a console with a monitor?

Reminds me of the battle of plasma vs LCD for refresh rates..."but my plasma is 600hz"

TVs generally have much higher input lag and more motion blur problems with refresh rates and the like. It's not as bad when you're using thumbsticks, but a mouse can make it extremely annoying to play games with.

Kinda. I'm looking for a new screen and monitors are expensive for their size and feature.

TV's got more inputs, a remote, and ofc another function. As long as it supports 4:4:4 chroma at 4K and 60 hz, ~50 inches below $ 500 - $ 700. I'd rather save for that.

I'm not really gunning for 120+ hz displays anyway.

Plus you are sitting way closer to your monitor, making things like lower refresh rate or blur or ghosting way more noticable.

@DragonfireXZ95: Ok thanks man, makes sense.

Yeah, a 4k PC monitor is definitely out of the question, and TVs aren't that great due to input lag, but since I anyways play single player games I don't mind it, besides I doubt we will ever get 40 inch or above 4k PC monitors anyway, the largest monitor we will ever get a 34 ultra wide.

I was really hoping the price on nice 2k monitors would come down by now with all the attention on 4K. But if you want all the nice features it still will run you $750+

Yeah, I thought even paying for my Samsung 34" ultrawide 3440x1440 100Hz monitor was a bit much at $699. But after seeing those new monitors at 4k with hdr and 144 hz being $2k+, I feel like I got an okay deal on mine. Lol

I want to replace my 2560x1440/144hz G-Sync with a 3440x1440/200hz G-Sync HDR. However, the prices are going to be ridiculous when they come out. Also, they are limited to HDR 10 and no Dolby Vision. Worst.

There are few new budget ones that aren't so bad with the correct gaming setting. AFAIK since 2015 there have been pretty decent tvs for gaming.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/tcl/6-series-2018-r617

In fact my old TN has worse input lag at about 20-30ms delay (2333HD Samsung TV Monitor using DVI/HDMI/VGA). After all the people I've let my PC be used as no one's complained though non are professional pvpers but I'd say above average.

60ms delay with our 8 year old LG 1080p display, I can really feel the lag. Horrible on my old 42 inch plasma with 80-110 ms lag.

As I don't believe the "box numbers" and neither should most, I'll try looking into the actual input lag of some new monitors. I'm guessing closer to low 10s.

Fake edit nope I'm wrong, closer to high sub 10s.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag

I am so torn. My PS4 games look so much better on my PC monitor that it made me want to stick with that and say screw HDTV’s...

But I want 4K, HDR and a 40 Inch screen for $1000 Canadian max....

Which means I am playing the waiting game and forced to suffer.

HDMI 2.1 needs to become mainstream because with it, the processors in these displays will get much better. 2018 is a total gap year on display technology, even if you're not a savage and want a monitor that uses DisplayPort.

Hell yea... thats a sweet price for 34" ultraW

I'm still waiting for a cheap TV with freesync.

You have to accept the tech limits of GPUs, because displays hinge on their capabilities. The 4K HDR GSync line is still premature, and even if you own one you can’t play a contemporary game anywhere near ultra to push more than 60 frames.

1440p is still, in my mind, the sweet spot for players except the 0.1% but even that can be costly. It’s fair to blame Nvidia for causing the higher prices for its line, but you shouldn’t withhold blame for AMD for failing to capitalize on expanding its market share by pushing FreeSync with consoles.

The reality is they are enthusiast/niche products...

If it was only that simple for 3440 monitors. most of them are utterly bad on ghosting and input lag. Which completely ruin the whole screen. The lowest of lowest MS is need before you look at anything else really.

And yea i agree with basinboy

People with consoles here think that 4k is easy to render because there consoles cut all kinds of corners + dynamic resolutions to get close towards a 4k framebuffer or limit games entirely to push it.

4k for PC is absolute brutal as even the fastest card 1080ti can be pushed to its knee's with ultra settings and modding in 1080p resolutions. You will have to drop so much settings / modding to get anywhere near stable 4k resolutions at 100+ fps that it's either not feasable or not interesting anymore.

There is a reason why people in competitive shooters are still sitting with 1080p resolutions or even games as fortnite, with 1 ms screens 240hz screens and 1080p resolutions. Even then they need more gpu performance and CPU performance.

4k isn't much of a factor really for PC at this day of age. If you want a better resolution and can deal with cutbacks on settings and performance 1440p is the sweet spot.

*shrug* I only upgrade monitors like once a decade. I'm happy playing at 1080p 60fps. My old monitor is a good size, has good vibrant and accurate colors, good black levels...

I might upgrade to a 1440p 144hz setup in a few years when I upgrade from my GTX970, but I don't feel much urgency here.

I am pulling this completely out of my ass, but imo (or, my guess is) the money is not in fancy monitors, but basic TV's. You can get everyone to buy a 50+ inch 4K TV with this and that feature, but not everyone needs/wants a fancy monitor.

As such, not a lot of resources go to developing these things, resulting in lack of choice; and not a lot of manufacturing (which needs to be specialized for this specific item) is done, either, which results in high cost.

Just give it some time.

Yeah I had a 1680x1050 monitor for about 8 years. Loved it.

Then I got a 144 hz monitor and it blew mind mind how much better it was haha (than a 60 hz monitor, that is)

Then I got a VR headset, and that blew my mind even more :D

I still like monitors more, but I feel like an addict at this point in terms of displays; I'm looking for more, the next best thing. As soon as the next line of Nvidia cards come out, I'm dropping 2-3k on a sweet 4K monitor and a new video card.

Simply put : No one gives a shit about the 1440p

G-Sync is definitely a better implementation of variable refresh rate that freesync, but it comes with a hefty licencing fee and requires extra hardware inside the monitor.

That said, a 144Hz monitor with a nice panel and G-Sync is an absolutely amazing gaming experience. I have trouble imagining gaming without one at this point. Nothing else comes close to how buttery smooth it feels.

I am looking forward to buying a 4K, HDR, G-Sync, LED Array back-lit display once there are a few more options on the market. From everything I've watched the Predator x27 or whatever (the $2000 one) is an epic gaming display. I hoping there are a few more options and the prices come down in a few years. I neeeed it. Maybe we'll even have micro-LEDs then.

I wouldn't know. I still use a 1680x1050 viewsonic monitor from 2010 that was made for then new nvidia 3dvision.

Can you explain what the difference is between a TV and a Monitor? Maybe you're looking at this wrong.

Read the thread. A few people already went back and forth on that.

Given that 4k adoption (I'm talking content, not TVs) is still abysmal all over the world outside of some Netflix/Prime content and a handful of UHD Bluray, and a small percentage of console games... 4k isn't exactly loved either yet.

But saying nobody cares about 1440p? best balance, amazing for computers for more than just gaming, and excellent performance for gaming.

Chasing 4k because "herp derp its higher than 1440p" is a moronic choice currently.

You can find 4k tvs for less than 300 bucks ( France ) three time lower than the 1440p monitor!!!

Take your pick, but most people will surely go with the "moronic" choice.

Your missing the point.

These are 2 different streams of people , and yes monitors outside of the workplace and pc gaming are more niche, and sell less, therefore less variations will be developed and at a slower rate and more expensive. compared to the home TV market that can churn out a 4k panel with very little consequence - That 4k TV actually providing a full 4k experience however is still 3-5 years off...

But strictly speaking, for what is available on the market TODAY and probably for the next 5 years (since 4k content adaption is abysmally slow for many reasons) what PC Games can achieve with a 1440p ultrawide, GSync, higher refresh rates etc ... is a far more sensible choice than "Herp derp, but my screen 3 feet infront of my face has 4k pixels!

The sacrifices you make for 4k and the lack of 4k adoption (even to this day, after 4-5 years of marketing) is still abysmally small.

A PC Gamer with the capable hardware can go out and get the full butter smooth experience and the increased pixel density of a 1440p monitor, and even the advantages of ultrawide... you can't do that with 4k.

Console gamers can buy a cheap 4k TV, but the majority of games won't run at that, corners are cut, the experience is worse, and you have none of the advantages mentioned above.

4k's slow adoption outside of TV makers marketing just goes to show, that diminishing returns have hit resolution hard.