Reply to this thread
Solved Forum question
Started by IInuyasha74 | | 16 answers
Hello,
I have asked a few questions lately here about 4k gaming and displays. I have finally selected what I will buy, a 42 inch LED TV with 4k resolution. It has built in wifi, bluetooth, TV tuner, and a quad-core android based system making it a smart TV also. I can get all this, in the TV for the seemingly excellent price of $650.
The catch? The only really bad side I can find to it is that it might only be HDMI 1.4 compliant, though it has an advertised 240Hz refresh rate, it doesn't detail at what resolution so that is hard to go by.
What I want to know, does it seem like I should go for it? I can afford it, and I am willing to drop settings to keep FPS up to or past 30FPS, or use it just in 1440p. I jsut don't know if gaming at 4k and 1440p are so awesome that it is worth it, or if in just two short years displays capable of this will be much cheaper, meaning I made a bad decision.
I would appreciate guidence and opinions if this is a bad idea to jump for it now or not.
I have asked a few questions lately here about 4k gaming and displays. I have finally selected what I will buy, a 42 inch LED TV with 4k resolution. It has built in wifi, bluetooth, TV tuner, and a quad-core android based system making it a smart TV also. I can get all this, in the TV for the seemingly excellent price of $650.
The catch? The only really bad side I can find to it is that it might only be HDMI 1.4 compliant, though it has an advertised 240Hz refresh rate, it doesn't detail at what resolution so that is hard to go by.
What I want to know, does it seem like I should go for it? I can afford it, and I am willing to drop settings to keep FPS up to or past 30FPS, or use it just in 1440p. I jsut don't know if gaming at 4k and 1440p are so awesome that it is worth it, or if in just two short years displays capable of this will be much cheaper, meaning I made a bad decision.
I would appreciate guidence and opinions if this is a bad idea to jump for it now or not.
QNIX:
The problem with this is the Warranty. You're really taking your chances. It may have a one-year warranty at best, and doing any overclocking voids even that.
*I recommend something more like THIS for $430USD and has a THREE-YEAR warranty:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/benq-monitor-gw2765ht
site: http://www.benq.ca/product/monitor/gw2765ht/warranties/
I just think there's a very strong chance that the QNIX will have problems well before the three-year mark. For a little more money, and having "only" 60Hz refresh rate you're likely to have it a lot longer.
*Electronics can often be pushed higher than what it's rated for but then fail. The higher you push the refresh rate the more likely the monitor will fail.
Other:
Having "virtual 4K" I can only assume means it can take in a 4K signal then downsample it. Currently that's a pointless feature. You would want your PC resolution set to its native at 2560x1440 and you wouldn't want to send a game signal at 4K as that's just too processing intensive.
The problem with this is the Warranty. You're really taking your chances. It may have a one-year warranty at best, and doing any overclocking voids even that.
*I recommend something more like THIS for $430USD and has a THREE-YEAR warranty:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/benq-monitor-gw2765ht
site: http://www.benq.ca/product/monitor/gw2765ht/warranties/
I just think there's a very strong chance that the QNIX will have problems well before the three-year mark. For a little more money, and having "only" 60Hz refresh rate you're likely to have it a lot longer.
*Electronics can often be pushed higher than what it's rated for but then fail. The higher you push the refresh rate the more likely the monitor will fail.
Other:
Having "virtual 4K" I can only assume means it can take in a 4K signal then downsample it. Currently that's a pointless feature. You would want your PC resolution set to its native at 2560x1440 and you wouldn't want to send a game signal at 4K as that's just too processing intensive.
Well I have decided to go against the TV for now, and decided on an alternative.
http://www.amazon.com/QNIX-Evolution-2560x1440-Overcloc...
I've heard a lot about even 1080p content upscalled looks amazing on 4k displays of the same or greater size, so I kinda feel the resolution is important. However, I was really kinda arguing with myself to think that I could spend $650. Long story short, I'm in college and hoping to plan a trip out of the country. While I have extra cash saved up to spend, $650 was just a bit much. I was trying to make the case that the investment was worth it despite its price, cause for a 4k TV its pretty darn cheap, but there are just too many flaws with it so far.
This new display is only $300 so much cheaper. It has 1440p, 12-bit color, and at least has 60Hz refresh rate. My TV is mounted on the wall already, and my PC sits beside it on a table, so I am going to try and find space to move the computer into the floor where it has enough ventilation space, and put the monitor hopefully on the table without it blocking the TV (as I will still use the TV for consoles and such).
It says it has a "virtual 4k" mode, not sure what that is about, but these are apparently rejected Samsung displays that didn't get a perfect score, and they are overclocked, some people manage 140Hz but I think I will be happy with anything past 75Hz. Seems like it should be a good display. Thanks for talking me out of the 4k Tv, I think overall I will feel better about this one.
http://www.amazon.com/QNIX-Evolution-2560x1440-Overcloc...
I've heard a lot about even 1080p content upscalled looks amazing on 4k displays of the same or greater size, so I kinda feel the resolution is important. However, I was really kinda arguing with myself to think that I could spend $650. Long story short, I'm in college and hoping to plan a trip out of the country. While I have extra cash saved up to spend, $650 was just a bit much. I was trying to make the case that the investment was worth it despite its price, cause for a 4k TV its pretty darn cheap, but there are just too many flaws with it so far.
This new display is only $300 so much cheaper. It has 1440p, 12-bit color, and at least has 60Hz refresh rate. My TV is mounted on the wall already, and my PC sits beside it on a table, so I am going to try and find space to move the computer into the floor where it has enough ventilation space, and put the monitor hopefully on the table without it blocking the TV (as I will still use the TV for consoles and such).
It says it has a "virtual 4k" mode, not sure what that is about, but these are apparently rejected Samsung displays that didn't get a perfect score, and they are overclocked, some people manage 140Hz but I think I will be happy with anything past 75Hz. Seems like it should be a good display. Thanks for talking me out of the 4k Tv, I think overall I will feel better about this one.
A high quality 1080p, 60Hz monitor will cost you about $350-400. It'll be about the same for an entry level 1440p, 60Hz monitor. The Asus Swift, 1440p, 120Hz, G-sync, and 8-bit color, is $750.
I still am very reserved about the use of a monitor as your TV. I can understand why you want to do it for practicality concerns, but trust me, if you do buy something like the Asus Swift, you'll never be able to go back to a TV again - between the features, the image quality, and with that one, the high refresh rate and insane smoothness of motion thanks to G-sync, monitors are head and shoulders above TVs.
The trouble is that there's no reason to be displaying "4k" content just because it might look better. It won't.
Remember that resolution has absolutely nothing to do with the actual picture quality; what does matter is pixel density, which 4k is a general improvement on... except that something that's 1440p and 27" is going to be both easier and cheaper to play at, but also will look way better than a 42" 2160p TV... even without the comparison between image quality between the two.
I would definitely look at a place where you could put a 24" or 27" monitor using a VESA mount - even though space is restricted, it could easily mount to the wall, or the ceiling, and remove that issue.
Just some thoughts.
Hope you figure out what you're looking for and are happy with the result!
I still am very reserved about the use of a monitor as your TV. I can understand why you want to do it for practicality concerns, but trust me, if you do buy something like the Asus Swift, you'll never be able to go back to a TV again - between the features, the image quality, and with that one, the high refresh rate and insane smoothness of motion thanks to G-sync, monitors are head and shoulders above TVs.
The trouble is that there's no reason to be displaying "4k" content just because it might look better. It won't.
Remember that resolution has absolutely nothing to do with the actual picture quality; what does matter is pixel density, which 4k is a general improvement on... except that something that's 1440p and 27" is going to be both easier and cheaper to play at, but also will look way better than a 42" 2160p TV... even without the comparison between image quality between the two.
I would definitely look at a place where you could put a 24" or 27" monitor using a VESA mount - even though space is restricted, it could easily mount to the wall, or the ceiling, and remove that issue.
Just some thoughts.
Hope you figure out what you're looking for and are happy with the result!
Well I have never gamed on anything higher than 60Hz so I guess that won't be too much of a bother.
Honestly you have made some good points. While I have been kind of argumentative and pretty strongly trying to counter your input, its just because I find that helps to make sure to get over everything. Strong debate leads to better decisions. I do want it, cause I feel the 4k will look great and while it lacks 4k@60Hz, I doubt I will have a GPU that can run that anyways in the next several years. By the time I do have a GPU capable of 4k@60Hz I plan to move to a new apartment, and ultimately slide this TV off as a living room TV and at that time buy a monitor for gaming that will work better.
That is if I buy it though, I am pretty sure I can live with the downsides, however to be safe thanks to our discussion I want to be sure to check alternatives again. While earlier when I went looking, I removed all displays below 1440p, I am opening up to look at 1080p displays with good refresh rate if they stand to have good savings also.
I do highly appreciate your time in being a knowledgable person to talk over the good and bad sides of the purchase. I will be sure to return and let everyone know if I decide on a 1080p display or the 4k display, and make sure to let everyone know how the 4k goes if I end up with it. Thanks again.
Honestly you have made some good points. While I have been kind of argumentative and pretty strongly trying to counter your input, its just because I find that helps to make sure to get over everything. Strong debate leads to better decisions. I do want it, cause I feel the 4k will look great and while it lacks 4k@60Hz, I doubt I will have a GPU that can run that anyways in the next several years. By the time I do have a GPU capable of 4k@60Hz I plan to move to a new apartment, and ultimately slide this TV off as a living room TV and at that time buy a monitor for gaming that will work better.
That is if I buy it though, I am pretty sure I can live with the downsides, however to be safe thanks to our discussion I want to be sure to check alternatives again. While earlier when I went looking, I removed all displays below 1440p, I am opening up to look at 1080p displays with good refresh rate if they stand to have good savings also.
I do highly appreciate your time in being a knowledgable person to talk over the good and bad sides of the purchase. I will be sure to return and let everyone know if I decide on a 1080p display or the 4k display, and make sure to let everyone know how the 4k goes if I end up with it. Thanks again.
Best solution chosen by IInuyasha74
IInuyasha74 said:
Well I appreciate the input, but again I have used a TV as my monitor for my computer for two years now and its worked wonderfully. I don't really feel that a TV as a monitor is a bad idea.It makes sense the refresh rate issue though might exist, it makes sense that maybe the standard is to only do 60Hz and use this tech to make it seem like its more. Though I hope it is a genuine 120Hz display and it just interpolates up to 240Hz.
For your questions:
1) I currently use a 32" 1080p Tv. The PPI of the 42" with four times as many pixels will still have higher PPI. Though in honest PPI isn't very important to me. You get a really high quality image made of 4k level of pixels. The total image is still going to look good, and given my eye sight isn't the best I'd hate to have a 28" 4k display.
2) I just looked up the Asus monitor cause it sounds like a good monitor, but it costs about $130 more. In addition to that, while it has good features, it lacks the smart TV aspect. The color actually is lower than the TV, its advertised as 12-bit and has viewing angles of up to 70 degrees. Plus it has a tuner built in, and because it manages all these things at once, it really helps to save me space. I only have a very small living space, and the only place to put a monitor is right where my current TV is or the table in front of it. So I would have to remove the monitor to watch TV and vice-versa.
We can all tell you that it's not a genuine 120Hz display. It will only accept an input of 60 Hz. That's due to the logic boards that TVs use.
I can certainly understand why you don't want a 28" 4k display, but again I ask why you're bothering. You're either going to be paying $650 to get 4K at 30Hz, or you're going to be paying $650 to get 1440p at 60 Hz if you're lucky. I am highly doubtful that it's really a 12-bit panel (that's medical grade). I do feel you on lack of space, though there are certainly ways to get around that by using the VESA mounting options on the back of a monitor.
Really though, none of that matters.
You asked us a question (Should you buy this TV), and for the most part don't seem to care about the downsides. It's obvious that you want it, so go ahead and give yourself a treat and buy it; let us know if it works as well as you were hoping, and if it does, it might help change some of our minds.
DarkSable said:
There are real 120hz MONITORS. Almost every tv out there that claims a high refresh rate can only accept a 60Hz input. Period. And then it takes that and interpolates to create extra frames to display. It's a horrible thing to try. Just do yourself a HUGE favor and don't try to game using a TV as your monitor. Take it from all of us that have tried that it's a bad idea.Here are my two questions for you:
1) Why are you going to spend so much money on being able to game in 4k and then display that on a screen with PPI marginally better than a standard computer monitor? That's a hideous waste of money for absolutely no benefit.
2) If you're going to spend that much money anyways, why not get an Asus Swift and have a really, REALLY high quality monitor that simultaneously is 1440p, 144Hz, 8-bit TN (so has both speed and great color), and comes with G-Sync so even the games you can't max are incredibly smooth. For basically the same price as this hideous Chinese TV you're lusting after.
Well I appreciate the input, but again I have used a TV as my monitor for my computer for two years now and its worked wonderfully. I don't really feel that a TV as a monitor is a bad idea.
It makes sense the refresh rate issue though might exist, it makes sense that maybe the standard is to only do 60Hz and use this tech to make it seem like its more. Though I hope it is a genuine 120Hz display and it just interpolates up to 240Hz.
For your questions:
1) I currently use a 32" 1080p Tv. The PPI of the 42" with four times as many pixels will still have higher PPI. Though in honest PPI isn't very important to me. You get a really high quality image made of 4k level of pixels. The total image is still going to look good, and given my eye sight isn't the best I'd hate to have a 28" 4k display.
2) I just looked up the Asus monitor cause it sounds like a good monitor, but it costs about $130 more. In addition to that, while it has good features, it lacks the smart TV aspect. The color actually is lower than the TV, its advertised as 12-bit and has viewing angles of up to 70 degrees. Plus it has a tuner built in, and because it manages all these things at once, it really helps to save me space. I only have a very small living space, and the only place to put a monitor is right where my current TV is or the table in front of it. So I would have to remove the monitor to watch TV and vice-versa.
There are real 120hz MONITORS. Almost every tv out there that claims a high refresh rate can only accept a 60Hz input. Period. And then it takes that and interpolates to create extra frames to display. It's a horrible thing to try. Just do yourself a HUGE favor and don't try to game using a TV as your monitor. Take it from all of us that have tried that it's a bad idea.
Here are my two questions for you:
1) Why are you going to spend so much money on being able to game in 4k and then display that on a screen with PPI marginally better than a standard computer monitor? That's a hideous waste of money for absolutely no benefit.
2) If you're going to spend that much money anyways, why not get an Asus Swift and have a really, REALLY high quality monitor that simultaneously is 1440p, 144Hz, 8-bit TN (so has both speed and great color), and comes with G-Sync so even the games you can't max are incredibly smooth. For basically the same price as this hideous Chinese TV you're lusting after.
Here are my two questions for you:
1) Why are you going to spend so much money on being able to game in 4k and then display that on a screen with PPI marginally better than a standard computer monitor? That's a hideous waste of money for absolutely no benefit.
2) If you're going to spend that much money anyways, why not get an Asus Swift and have a really, REALLY high quality monitor that simultaneously is 1440p, 144Hz, 8-bit TN (so has both speed and great color), and comes with G-Sync so even the games you can't max are incredibly smooth. For basically the same price as this hideous Chinese TV you're lusting after.
photonboy said:
I see some confusion:1) That 240Hz refresh rate on a TV is internal only. It can only take in a 60Hz signal then it can artificially add more frames. It's actually not even a desirable thing for most video and is only mostly useful for sports.
It would also add latency since it has to sample several frames so it's not even a good option for gaming.
2) You can't simply choose "1440p" (2560x1440) when using an HDTV. It's not a monitor, and unless it has a dedicated PC input with its own scaler you're likely limited to 1080p (and below) and 2160p above that.
3) 4K is probably not even noticeable compared to 2K when viewed at normal distances for TV viewing. What's worse, if you're sitting close enough to appreciate 4K video (if you have any), normal video isn't going to look good and will show any imperfections.
4) Even if you could game at 4K it would only make sense to do so if you can get 60FPS at max or near-max quality settings. Outputting a 4K resolution but then being forced to turn down visual quality and/or run at lower frame rates makes little sense.
Keep in mind that the game textures don't currently benefit a 4K screen, so the only advantage is if you have small HUD/text elements. They'll look sharper such as CIV5, Starcraft 2. Those games are also rarely played on an HDTV due to the viewing distance anyway. There's a reason that the HUD in console type games is a certain size.
This confuses me a little bit. You mention its only 60Hz, but does there not exist actual real life 120Hz and 144Hz displays? Granted at 1080p it would be hard to believe it was getting 240Hz and that it is using artificial frames to increase to 240Hz, but is it not possible that it is capable of 120Hz?
This also kind of confuses me because for a different TV, made by Seiki another Chinese company that is a 4k Tv has the option to be played at 1440p using any of the HDMI ports. Why would this one be limited to 1080p and lower or 2160p (which is its max resolution)?
For the image quality settings I am not so worried. I just did a test and limited my display to 30Hz, while there is a noticeable decline in pretty much all tasks including gaming, I didn't feel like it was a big problem playing games at 30Hz. I was still able to move around well and head shot enemies, It was only really noticeable when moving around a lot and I kind of feel that was probably because I had V-Sync off and tearing was visible at times.
For the 4k image clarity, I've already looked at that aspect of from reviewers, several websites who have reviewed displays at 4k resolutions and tried playing games have commented that the image looks astonishingly beautiful even with several settings on there lowest point or removed completely.
I don't feel the size is a real issue either. If I buy it, it will go right where my current TV is at, which I use from anywhere between 8 feet away and 3 feet away. So reading text won't be so troublesome. Especially since its a 42" and the PPI isn't as tight as the 28" 4k displays typically looked at.
I see some confusion:
1) That 240Hz refresh rate on a TV is internal only. It can only take in a 60Hz signal then it can artificially add more frames. It's actually not even a desirable thing for most video and is only mostly useful for sports.
It would also add latency since it has to sample several frames so it's not even a good option for gaming.
2) You can't simply choose "1440p" (2560x1440) when using an HDTV. It's not a monitor, and unless it has a dedicated PC input with its own scaler you're likely limited to 1080p (and below) and 2160p above that.
3) 4K is probably not even noticeable compared to 2K when viewed at normal distances for TV viewing. What's worse, if you're sitting close enough to appreciate 4K video (if you have any), normal video isn't going to look good and will show any imperfections.
4) Even if you could game at 4K it would only make sense to do so if you can get 60FPS at max or near-max quality settings. Outputting a 4K resolution but then being forced to turn down visual quality and/or run at lower frame rates makes little sense.
Keep in mind that the game textures don't currently benefit a 4K screen, so the only advantage is if you have small HUD/text elements. They'll look sharper such as CIV5, Starcraft 2. Those games are also rarely played on an HDTV due to the viewing distance anyway. There's a reason that the HUD in console type games is a certain size.
1) That 240Hz refresh rate on a TV is internal only. It can only take in a 60Hz signal then it can artificially add more frames. It's actually not even a desirable thing for most video and is only mostly useful for sports.
It would also add latency since it has to sample several frames so it's not even a good option for gaming.
2) You can't simply choose "1440p" (2560x1440) when using an HDTV. It's not a monitor, and unless it has a dedicated PC input with its own scaler you're likely limited to 1080p (and below) and 2160p above that.
3) 4K is probably not even noticeable compared to 2K when viewed at normal distances for TV viewing. What's worse, if you're sitting close enough to appreciate 4K video (if you have any), normal video isn't going to look good and will show any imperfections.
4) Even if you could game at 4K it would only make sense to do so if you can get 60FPS at max or near-max quality settings. Outputting a 4K resolution but then being forced to turn down visual quality and/or run at lower frame rates makes little sense.
Keep in mind that the game textures don't currently benefit a 4K screen, so the only advantage is if you have small HUD/text elements. They'll look sharper such as CIV5, Starcraft 2. Those games are also rarely played on an HDTV due to the viewing distance anyway. There's a reason that the HUD in console type games is a certain size.
See all answers