LOL "monitor". I already have a TV, I do not need a second one. And what's realistic lifespan of this so called "monitor" if used as actual PC monitor: wallpaper on, taskbar on, desktop and static apps open 10 hours+ a day? My current Asus monitor is 6 years old and still looks like the day I bought it. 0 image retention or burn in, 0 worries. Wake me up when there's 27" QD-OLED model, which is supposed to have lesser burn in.
I'm still waiting for a 27"-34" OLED (or other true black supporting) monitor that costs less than a damn OLED TV.
And what's with going straight from 1440p to 2160? Would it kill to have a middle ground like 3200x1800? I know they cut specific panel sizes for efficiency/cost savings/max profit, but they can definitely fit in more resolutions with what they already have set up.
Honestly, I think 27" is the absolute maximum for 1440p. On my 27" Samdung G7 I can see the pixels way too clearly and easily, and on my 27" Acer fn01q3498rtynu0q49nfgjq2304r or whatever it was called before that, it was almost as bad.
I'm still waiting for a 27"-34" OLED (or other true black supporting) monitor that costs less than a damn OLED TV.
And what's with going straight from 1440p to 2160? Would it kill to have a middle ground like 3200x1800? I know they cut specific panel sizes for efficiency/cost savings/max profit, but they can definitely fit in more resolutions with what they already have set up.
Honestly, I think 27" is the absolute maximum for 1440p. On my 27" Samdung G7 I can see the pixels way too clearly and easily, and on my 27" Acer fn01q3498rtynu0q49nfgjq2304r or whatever it was called before that, it was almost as bad.
Ignoring this monitor for a second - you have issues with resolutions above 1440p ?
We are very, very close to a daily usable OLED monitor display, not sure if this one is the one, but close indeed.
For the high-end the price is actually quite good... I remember paying 1200€ for a 34" ultrawide LCD with horrible backlight bleed (but good colors on bright images) just 5 years ago. I still use it today. By the time it gets to around 7-8 years usage time (which I consider good for a monitor), OLEDs might be commonplace. We'll see.
In the mean time, good job LG for producing these wonderful panels !
Ignoring this monitor for a second - you have issues with resolutions above 1440p ?
4K is simply too difficult to power if you want 100+ fps. And 3200x1800 should look perfectly sharp up to 30-something inches. The jump from 1440p to 4K is too much.
I don't think even the next gen of GPUs is going to change what a struggle 4K is, it's going to be at minimum another generation after that before 4K isn't so difficult to deal with, and I doubt it'll be that early.
4K is simply too difficult to power if you want 100+ fps. And 3200x1800 should look perfectly sharp up to 30-something inches. The jump from 1440p to 4K is too much.
I don't think even the next gen of GPUs is going to change what a struggle 4K is, it's going to be at minimum another generation after that before 4K isn't so difficult to deal with, and I doubt it'll be that early.
And here i am playing 8k... but yeah, not possible... !
4K is simply too difficult to power if you want 100+ fps. And 3200x1800 should look perfectly sharp up to 30-something inches. The jump from 1440p to 4K is too much.
I don't think even the next gen of GPUs is going to change what a struggle 4K is, it's going to be at minimum another generation after that before 4K isn't so difficult to deal with, and I doubt it'll be that early.
Scaling works just fine if you have any titles which are too demanding, but, I run a desktop with a 3060 @2160p just fine, and in games, most are fine for that res, and if any have issues, I use scaling, or, downscale manually if I want to push to 144Hz.
It's fine for me
Good point about DCI P3 being really quite different to Adobe, and also as you say I can see that this monitor is not far off DCI P3. Perhaps @Hilbert Hagedoorn would find it useful to overlay DCI P3 colour space on his results in future if monitor manufacturer mentions compliance to DCI P3........I'm aware datacolor doesn't offer that option, but perhaps there is a way in a photoshop type program to overlay DCI-P3 on his existing datacolor graphs for future reviews.
I agree with you on the Grey Ramp, and I pointed out the same thing in my last post in this thread. My Viewsonic XG270, a fast IPS screen which is a fraction of the price, manages to be ruler flat on the Grey Ramp apart from the lowest datapoint measurement on the far left (according to my Spyder datacolor measurements) and that's even after manually calibrating it a little using the RGB sliders built into the monitor.
And here i am playing 8k... but yeah, not possible... !
Loobyluggs:
Scaling works just fine if you have any titles which are too demanding, but, I run a desktop with a 3060 @2160p just fine, and in games, most are fine for that res, and if any have issues, I use scaling, or, downscale manually if I want to push to 144Hz.
It's fine for me
Is it that hard to believe we play different games and have different standards? Trying to run shit at 8K would be completely intolerable for me, you do you.
Is it that hard to believe we play different games and have different standards? Trying to run crap at 8K would be completely intolerable for me, you do you.
58 fps with a 3090, almost the fastest consumer GPU in the world... while using DLSS at what setting? I don't know if you've noticed, but most games don't have DLSS. Turn it off and tell me what your results are.
And yes, to me 58 fps is well within crap territory, depending on the art style, speed of the game, etc, it can cause motion sickness for me. I use a 240Hz monitor for a reason, not for the hell of it. I wish I could play games at low fps and just enjoy them like most people can, but I can't.
So tell me, why is it so hard for you to understand that people have different standards? Somehow, I don't think you'd be playing games at sub 60 fps (with .1%s probably in the 30s or below) if it made you feel sick.
Honestly, even in the cases where it isn't sickening to look at, 60 fps just looks terrible to me and I'd never put up with it if I had an option.
Side question: Isn't your gaming area a boiling hell with that thing sucking down 440W+? My card can take up to 375W and will often hold at 340+ and I have to turn on the AC and open the room door to make it tolerable.
DLSS/FSR is crutch, till GPU catch up most gpu cant do 4k @ 60 with DLSS and everything set high it can be usefull but i dont want this tech be used over actual native res, and never will, anymore then i like Dynamic res on consoles or pc for that matter.
To me 60 is sweat spot, 30 fps is almost never playable to me
When you can use Native res of monitor cause gpu isnt powerfull enough to push 60 fps or what ever you after, DLSS/FSR would be extremely usefull as you would still have native res of monitor be used so blur for using non native res would minimal
My room get to hot after few hours of game with current pc 6700k+1070ti or ps5, i dont know how people can deal with the heat of card using much more less, you live in igloo or just jack up your AC and electric bill? 🙄
Is it that hard to believe we play different games and have different standards? Trying to run crap at 8K would be completely intolerable for me, you do you.
That is why I said "fine" and not "perfect" or "the absolute best"...and also why I used the first person of "I" and "me". I said "fine" 4 times.
In a way, I completely support you by doing that, by using the first person and not some form of pluralistic intent.
Always got <3 for you, and anyone who wants to push push push the limits are far as possible is fine, that's why gurus exist, that's why we're here - so full respect to you, I was just pointing out that there are people who are fearful of the demands of 2160P, when in fact it's okay. You can scale just fine if you want 144Hz +, just as, if you are adventuring in the 30-60 range, or regular desktop usage for typing and browsing, 2160P in HDR is not a problem with a big monitor, even on my lowly 3060.
Apps if the intent in my post was...unclear...big budgets are not needed for 2160P, and the monitors available now (like the one listed here) offer exceptional desktop IQ @ very high refresh rates, with stunning input lag numbers.
58 fps with a 3090, almost the fastest consumer GPU in the world... while using DLSS at what setting? I don't know if you've noticed, but most games don't have DLSS. Turn it off and tell me what your results are.
And yes, to me 58 fps is well within crap territory, depending on the art style, speed of the game, etc, it can cause motion sickness for me. I use a 240Hz monitor for a reason, not for the hell of it. I wish I could play games at low fps and just enjoy them like most people can, but I can't.
So tell me, why is it so hard for you to understand that people have different standards? Somehow, I don't think you'd be playing games at sub 60 fps (with .1%s probably in the 30s or below) if it made you feel sick.
Honestly, even in the cases where it isn't sickening to look at, 60 fps just looks terrible to me and I'd never put up with it if I had an option.
Side question: Isn't your gaming area a boiling hell with that thing sucking down 440W+? My card can take up to 375W and will often hold at 340+ and I have to turn on the AC and open the room door to make it tolerable.
Notice that the fps is EXACTLY 58 on both screenshots? Now if you use your brain just a tiny bit, you'll probably come to the conclusion that it's due a framerate limiter... then if you use your brain just a tiny bit more, you'll notice that the gpu load is 70%, aka there is a fair bit of headroom...
Now if this can be done at 8k, then there is a fairly good chance that you can do upwards of 4 times higher fps at 4k... and yes, nearly new all AAA games include dlss.
To your last question : i live in scandinavia.
Notice that the fps is EXACTLY 58 on both screenshots? Now if you use your brain just a tiny bit, you'll probably come to the conclusion that it's due a framerate limiter... then if you use your brain just a tiny bit more, you'll notice that the gpu load is 70%, aka there is a fair bit of headroom...
Now if this can be done at 8k, then there is a fairly good chance that you can do upwards of 4 times higher fps at 4k... and yes, nearly new all AAA games include dlss.
To your last question : i live in scandinavia.
Who's not using his brain? You're pretty hostile for someone who doesn't have much of a point. I saw the 92% in the first screenshot. Your GPU temp is 70C, the loads show as 92% and 82%, which doesn't scale linearly with frame rate. Hell, they're not even a great indication of actual load anymore. If it did scale linearly, that'd be 63fps and 71fps, which again, to me is unacceptable. And I'm guessing you're using ultra performance DLSS mode, which I wouldn't use even at 8K.
What are you trying to prove? I'll never agree that it's a good experience, you can't seem to grasp what I keep saying over and over: People have different standards.
I can see your profile says you're in Denmark. I live in Canada, a frozen wasteland, and my 3080 heats the room its in too much when it's not during a bitter winter.
@Loobyluggs It was mostly towards the angry Dane.
Who's not using his brain? You're pretty hostile for someone who doesn't have much of a point. I saw the 92% in the first screenshot. Your GPU temp is 70C, the loads show as 92% and 82%, which doesn't scale linearly with frame rate. Hell, they're not even a great indication of actual load anymore. If it did scale linearly, that'd be 63fps and 71fps, which again, to me is unacceptable. And I'm guessing you're using ultra performance DLSS mode, which I wouldn't use even at 8K.
What are you trying to prove? I'll never agree that it's a good experience, you can't seem to grasp what I keep saying over and over: People have different standards.
I can see your profile says you're in Denmark. I live in Canada, a frozen wasteland, and my 3080 heats the room its in too much when it's not during a bitter winter.
Have you even tried running at 8k? My guess would be... no.
4k native
[spoiler]https://i.imgur.com/lnRebng.jpg[/spoiler]
4k dlssq
[spoiler]https://i.imgur.com/LpdQHiF.jpg[/spoiler]
8k dlssp
[spoiler]https://i.imgur.com/iuwb2RT.jpg[/spoiler]
Same thing in other games
[spoiler]
4k native
https://i.imgur.com/cptmUYq.jpg
4k dlssq
https://i.imgur.com/2t5dezK.jpg
8k dlssp
https://i.imgur.com/swJdiNp.jpg
[/spoiler]
Yeah, 8k dlss looks downright awful, dont it... much better to play it lower res... lol.
I can easily accept that you want higher fps, but that 8k (let alone 4k) is unplayable with current gpu's is just BS.
And 1. have you ever looked at a map? All the major cities in canada are way further south than the entirety of denmark. 2. sounds like a "your appartment sux" issue most of all.
Hi Hilbert, this seems like an interesting monitor.
Can you please tell us, how does it measure in regards to text ?
Most of my day goes by reading text (either coding, writing and reading documentation, or on Jira tickets, etc.) .
So this being an OLED panel, is it good for that ?
Is the text blurry, discolored or out of place or maybe it's not easily readable ?
Compared to a good IPS panel, is the text worse, better or equal in quality ?
Hi Hilbert, this seems like an interesting monitor.
Can you please tell us, how does it measure in regards to text ?
Most of my day goes by reading text (either coding, writing and reading documentation, or on Jira tickets, etc.) .
So this being an OLED panel, is it good for that ?
Is the text blurry, discolored or out of place or maybe it's not easily readable ?
Compared to a good IPS panel, is the text worse, better or equal in quality ?
This is not a direct answer to your question, but I made a significant improvement in my monitor (fast IPS, Viewsonic XG270) by reducing the Sharpness in the monitor OSD by just one or two notches - using this test as a baseline tool for finetuning that variable, you might want to find the original file rather than using a compressed version which I've attached:
Out of the box my monitor had sharpness slightly high which made text have too much pixelation - of course fixed by changing the sharpness variable which I mentioned.
(not a direct answer to your question, but may help you in the future regardless of which monitor you end up with)
Out of the box my monitor had sharpness slightly high which made text have too much pixelation - of course fixed by changing the sharpness variable which I mentioned. (not a direct answer to your question, but may help you in the future regardless of which monitor you end up with)