New Monitor Panels Coming This Year: 3840 x 1600 coming

Neo Cyrus

2016-01-25 10:23

Resolutions high enough that 2x $1K cards can't max out games at 60fps on them, awww yeahhhhh. I love having two companies control entire markets.

#5222838

perche24

2016-01-25 10:33

that monitors have policy of 0 dead pixels? :bonk:. 4k is not enough we need 8k at 144 fps.

#5222840

BlueRay

2016-01-25 10:44

R.I.P. graphics cards and wallets.

#5222848

Prometheus336

2016-01-25 11:15

14 ms response time, basically is a led tv instead of a monitor XD

#5222849

vg24a3

2016-01-25 11:16

Thanks but I'm gonna wait for graphic cards to catch up first, I just recently started to be able to game at my old 2560x1600 monitor with one card on 60+fps, that's not to say there won't be soon a game which again changes it back but it took 4 years of painful performance

#5222853

Toss3

2016-01-25 11:27

That 3820x1600 panel definitely looks interesting. Doubt any of these will be under 1k$*though, which is too much when you can get a decent IPS 1440p 144hz freesync monitor for under 500€ right now. Looking forward to seeing more SVA and MVA panels! Been considering the Philips 40" just because of its awesome contrast ratio and blacks, but don't want to take the plunge because I really want 10-bit support and higher frequency rate than 60hz.

#5222874

Neo Cyrus

2016-01-25 12:05

It's honestly too wide IMO. 8:5 was a pretty sweet spot. More surface area for the same diagonal measurement as 16:9 and I think the extra height is ideal. Too bad most media is 16:9. Who decided on making that a standard anyway?

#5222886

alanm

2016-01-25 12:35

It's honestly too wide IMO. 8:5 was a pretty sweet spot. More surface area for the same diagonal measurement as 16:9 and I think the extra height is ideal. Too bad most media is 16:9. Who decided on making that a standard anyway?

2.40:1 is "exact aspect ratio of Blu-ray content". This appeals to me and likely many other potential buyers.

#5222921

drac

2016-01-25 13:37

4k 120hz... all I care about. 🙂 Bring on the infos!

#5222938

GALTARAUJO

2016-01-25 14:26

Resolutions high enough that 2x $1K cards can't max out games at 60fps on them, awww yeahhhhh. I love having two companies control entire markets.

Are you complaining about nVidia/AMD control of the market, or about LG/Samsung? If it is the former, then you are wrong: nVidia controls the market and AMD is just a bystander. If it is the later, then I understand you would like Samsung/LG to stop improving their products, right? :bang:

#5222946

fantaskarsef

2016-01-25 14:36

Simply not interested, thanks.

#5222957

Solfaur

2016-01-25 15:18

Yeah, even though I'd love one of the 30"+ panels with this resolution, it is always a good reminder the sheer amount of GPU horsepower such beasts require. It can get expensive, FAST. 🙂

#5222962

vazup

2016-01-25 15:30

This year there will be a number of new LCD / LED panels released by giants like LG, Samsung and AU. After the break a short overview, the dates are loose of course, but see it as an indication of of ... New Monitor Panels Coming This Year: 3840 x 1600 coming

Thankfully not all of us are elitists and dont give a crap about turning down some particle effects.

#5222968

vbetts

Moderator

2016-01-25 15:46

My wallet shed a tear.

#5222973

RavenMaster

2016-01-25 16:06

If the new monitors aren't 4K @120hz+ then my money is staying firmly in my wallet.

#5222996

Noisiv

2016-01-25 17:02

Q3. OK, now what about HDR? HDR + 144Hz + 4k + 32'' + IPS/VA = Q3 2017

#5222998

Chess

2016-01-25 17:11

How about more IPS 29:1 1440p screens with G-sync? That's what I'm after ^^

#5223000

holler

2016-01-25 17:14

Well, 4:3 was only a standard because of the limitations of CRT at the time that TV standards were made, otherwise 16:9 probably would have been the TV standard. This makes for a wider field of view so you can see a lot more of the scene that you do at 4:3. Computer monitors were 4:3 for the same reason, limitations of CRT. Also since TV's were at 4:3 it just made sense for computer monitors to be 4:3 as well. The added bonus was that 4:3 made more sense for doing documents at the time also. I agree though, 8:5 (16:10) is pretty good for gaming use, 16:9 is probably more because TV's are 16:9 now. A lot of people use their computer monitors to watch videos so in that sense 16:9 makes more sense. Out of the three monitors in the article, I would say the LG one is the least useful (sorry LG). The response time is just too slow, IPS probably isn't suited for such a high resolution. The Samsung and AU Optronics are both using variations of modern VA technology, so the response times should be respectful and the native contrast ratios exceptional also.

uh, 4:3 was monitor standard for a very long time but that had nothing to do with constraints of CRT technology but more to align to the standard TV specs of the era. this widescreen CRT would put many modern day LCDs to shame: 16:10 2304x1440 resolution! and this was back in 2002! [URL="http://www.pcworld.com/product/1409006/sony-premierpro-series-gdm-fw900-crt-monitor.html"] http://www.pcworld.com/product/1409006/sony-premierpro-series-gdm-fw900-crt-monitor.html[/URL] CRTs died because of size and cost to produce. Their color reproduction and input latancy (basically 0) is still unmatched by LCDs. It did have weaknesses of course, like power consumption, geometry and Linearity to name a few...

#5223002

Noisiv

2016-01-25 17:15

How about more IPS 29:1 1440p screens with G-sync? That's what I'm after ^^

Well that's even smaller subset of monitors. At least for me, because while Gsync/Freesync is welcomed, I need 144MHz to fall on; just in case.

#5223010

Koniakki

2016-01-25 17:45

I heard rumors of an even better monitor coming out with an even more impressive 25:2 Aspect Ratio and an unprecedented resolution of 10000 x 800P! They say you can have a 4 co-op match on the same screen while sitting side by side!! Can you believe that!!? [spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/ZSNKrYK.png[/spoiler]