The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet
m.thewirecutter.com
The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet
1–10 of 89 posts
Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet
#2I'd like to know if anyone is using a 4K monitor and their experience with it. I have an Apple thunderbolt display and I am ok with it.
I do not have a 4K. I use it with macbook pro 15" (retina display) and even though I do not get the same resolution, it does not look flaky at all and is decent enough for reading. Moreover, it connects with the pro using thunderbolt and thus does not require multiple connections for speakers, camera, mic and display.
Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet
#3Buying a 4K monitor for gaming is the essence of not getting it.
I want a 27" 4K monitor for coding. The Chromebook Pixel just makes it a nuisance to go to work and code on these shitty 25" 1080p monitors. At least at home I've got 27" @ 2560x1440 which I can actually get some shit done one.
Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet
#4I didn't have trouble rationalizing my pre-order of this LG Ultra QHD (3440x1440) for $999. It's not 4K, but it's very competitive.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JR6GCZA/ref=oh_details_o...
Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet
#54K is going to really not matter much for a while simply because the average computer doesn't have good enough graphics to make good use of it.
The resolution jump is huge and so you need a lot more GPU memory and processing power to do the same things at a higher resolution. Games are now really taking good advantage of 1080p, so we are another 5-10 years away from 4k being a real thing in terms of mainstream gaming.
Also, the average computer is not going to fare well in a 4k world. Sure, you might have videos on Netflix or some Blu-ray successor look nice in 4k, but good luck getting that to be a decent experience on the sub $500 laptop your parents just bought 2 years from now with a 15.6" 4k display with terrible viewing angles, a Celeron processor, integrated gfx, and a 5400 RPM 2TB Hard Drive...
High resolution is great, but as an industry we don't seem to be willing to upgrade the related components - memory, GPU, SSD unless it's on a mobile phone.
Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet
#6I'd like to know if anyone is using a 4K monitor and their experience with it. I have an Apple thunderbolt display and I am ok with it. I do not have a 4K. I use it with macbook pro 15" (retina display) and even though I do not get the same resolution, it does not look flaky at all and is decent enough for reading. Moreover, it connects with the pro using thunderbolt and thus does not require multiple connections for…
I have the Sharp 4K monitor that Apple sells in its stores and it's incredible. I run it at retina resolution at 60hz (now possible on Mac OS 10.9.3+) with a Mac Pro and it looks amazing.
Very pricey, but in my experience, worth every dollar.
Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet
#7"30 fps flicker" - that's not a CRT, it doesn't flicker, because unlike CRTs, a flat display doesn't have a ray refreshing the display top to bottom.
And 30 fps on a CRT wouldn't be enough to produce stable image in the retina at all, which is why CRT TVs used to refresh at a minimum of 50Hz, and that still flickers (it stops "flickering" at around 75Hz).
With flat displays frame rate is about display responsiveness and animation detail.
So I wonder where are the claims about eye-strain coming from. Maybe because people just want better display responsiveness and they like to borrow from the problems low refresh CRTs used to cause, because it sounds scientific and legit as a problem.
Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet
#8What bothers me about 4k is the switching of terms.
4k makes it sound like it has 4 times the vertical resolution of 1080p, but for pure marketing reasons, suddenly instead of the 4k referring to vertical resolution as 1080 did, it refers to horizontal resolution, so is really only twice the horizontal resolution of the 1920 that 1080p had. Overall that's 4 times the pixels because of squaring, but still!
Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet
#9"30 fps flicker" - that's not a CRT, it doesn't flicker , because unlike CRTs, a flat display doesn't have a ray refreshing the display top to bottom. And 30 fps on a CRT wouldn't be enough to produce stable image in the retina at all, which is why CRT TVs used to refresh at a minimum of 50Hz, and that still flickers (it stops "flickering" at around 75Hz). With flat displays frame rate is about display responsiveness…
Persistence of vision depends on the ambient brightness. Movies are 24FPS but they're shown in a dark room so the jitter isn't as bad.
A 30FPS screen in similar conditions wouldn't be as bad, but most people use computer screens in well it rooms.
The flickering on an LCD is different, but presents itself as a serious sputtering when you're moving things around.
Re: The best 4K monitor doesn’t exist yet
#10The ASUS PB287Q, AOC U2868PQU and Samsung U28D590D all support UHD resolutions at 60Hz and DisplayPort 1.2 SST. That means that they support working with just "one tile", they don't give the problems the previous dual-tile solutions.
I don't really see the problem with these new monitors that are good enough for most people. Good price, the TN panels are quite decent (confirmed by reviews both at The Tech Report (http://techreport.com/review/26510/4k-for-649-asus-pb287q-mo...) and KitGuru (http://www.kitguru.net/peripherals/monitors/zardon/aoc-u2868...).
Yes, you do need the best GPUs in order to take advantage of games in 4K. And yes, OS support is still incomplete. Anyway those trade offs are not that important if you are not a gamer and you can take advantage of that desktop area.
There's always good reasons for waiting. They could lead to never take advantage of improvements: you know, new improvements could be on the horizon when the ones you waited for finally arrive. And the story repeats itself...