4K monitors at $350 dollars

[Mondozei]

So, Newegg is now selling the Acer 4K monitor at 350. According to MaxPC, this is after other vendors have lowered their 4K monitor prices to 450 or below.

Other models, like the Samsung one, was also selling at 400-450 range in the last few weeks.

So, we're starting to see a new convergence, where 4K monitors are being pushed to more reasonable levels for main street, partly because 4K IPS displays are starting to debut at the prices where the TN-panels used to be(600-700 range). And some, though not all, TN-panels are pretty damn good, like the Samsung panel(the same used in the Asus TN 4K panel) which has a very wide color gamut and good brightness.

The question, then, is whether of not people will buy a decent 4K TN-panel at a future price of, say, 250 dollars. Or, maybe a IPS panel for 350 dollars. Would it be worth it?

I for one wouldn't buy one, because even at 1080p, most of the newest GPUs struggle to get to 60 fps at ultra in the most recent games. And SLI/Crossfire is often a hit and miss, sometimes a new game is released and there isn't even support for it.

The ASUS ROG Swift looks a lot better to me, although I want a much more affordable Freesync model, which could be used on either NV/AMD. What about you guys?

 

[smithkt]

No. I'm not buying any monitor now until I see what shakes out with the freesync stuff.

Why does the IPS option also require the price to be $50 lower as well? Seems odd to add two conditions to that poll option.

 

[AnandThenMan]

None of the poll options apply to me. I'm willing (and will) buy a 4K monitor in the $700-800 price range so I get the higher end tech that will last though many GPU upgrade cycles. I completely fail to understand why people spend thousands on computer hardware but cheap out on the display.

 

[SolMiester]

I actually just got a AOCU2868PQU for NZ$350 which is like $275, because it was new and so cheap!...not that my work lappy can run 4k, but hopefully my replacement will run a better resolution. Im just enjoying the size!

 

[ChappedStick]

No. I have a great 1440p monitor (IMO) and it already takes some beefy hardware to feed it with all the eye candy turned on.

 

[Piklar]

$350 NZ for that display is a mint price! Have the Samsung 28" 4K as centre screen in my office but have migrated Gaming to the lounge on a Sony 70" 4K @60fps which means my media centre has become a Silverstone FT02 turned on its side on wheels haha .. a humble 4770 @4.5ghz and SLI gigayte 970 G1s take care of the rest Friday nights is becoming neighbor comes over with beers and we drunk drive NFS rivals haha!

 

[stuff_me_good]

No, until at least IPS grade 4k monitor and freesync. But still I would go fullhd OLED in a heartbeat above 4k IPS.

 

[AnandThenMan]

No. I have a great 1440p monitor (IMO) and it already takes some beefy hardware to feed it with all the eye candy turned on.

Video playback, desktop space, video editing, photo editing. 4K rocks and rolls for stuff like this, sans the Windows issues with scaling. For gaming I'm not worried GPU hardware will catch up.

 

[DooKey]

Video playback, desktop space, video editing, photo editing. 4K rocks and rolls for stuff like this, sans the Windows issues with scaling. For gaming I'm not worried GPU hardware will catch up.

Video hardware will catch up in a few years. 1440/1600p is the sweet spot for the next couple of years.

 

[Berliner]

Better get a good quality monitor with a "regular" pixel amount, than cheap and terrible 4k stuff.

Especially if you are into graphics or photography.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Agreed. I don't expect a 4K monitor at the $350 price point for quite some time.

 

[Insomniator]

Would rather have a 24" 1440p IPS.

 

[Mondozei]

I completely fail to understand why people spend thousands on computer hardware but cheap out on the display.

Most people don't buy hardware for thousands of dollars (at a time). That's a very niche market, just like the 800+ dollar crowd for monitors.

Which is why the OEMs have been lowering prices in the $300-range because that means mass affordability on a different scale. If the average person had to buy a new PC from scartch, most would settle for the 600-900 dollar band. And most wouldn't afford more than a few hundred dollars at most for a monitor.

And there's also a myth that more expensive is always better. It won't be long until you can get a good quality 4K IPS display in the $300 dollar range. But the thread, if you missed it, was about if people would get one even then. And there are a lot of reasons to re-think an automatic yes.

 

[AnandThenMan]

It's safe to assume that most people on this forum don't run a $600 PC, that's less than the graphics cards many here are running and those get replaced every few years. I don't think it's a myth that expensive is always better, but common sense tells you that mostly you get what you pay for, more so if you educate yourself before buying.

 

[Mondozei]

It's safe to assume that most people on this forum don't run a $600 PC

No, but a $900 dollar PC, the upper range of my price band, is safe to assume that many are either running or has run in the past (and could do so again). And no, spending 800 dollars on a monitor isn't just a niche market, it's a niche within a niche market.

No, until at least IPS grade 4k monitor and freesync. But still I would go fullhd OLED in a heartbeat above 4k IPS.

Interesting, why?

Video hardware will catch up in a few years. 1440/1600p is the sweet spot for the next couple of years.

Actually, I disagree with you. I think 1080p continues to be the sweetspot.
As I noted, in the newest and most graphically demanding games, getting 60 fps at ultra is still something the 980 can often (barely) manage. And I'm not even going for the Metro: Last Light titles.

There's a good case to be made that 1440p will become the sweetspot in a few years and then stay there for a few more. 4K is going to be unbeatable for productivity/reading, but if you want more than that(after all, most of us get our work done on different PCs than our home PCs), then 1440p could easily beat 4K for quite a few number of years, maybe even 5 or 6.

It depends how much VR accelerates GPU advancement. Carmack has said that since you'd probably need 4K at minimum at high refresh rates for VR to be viable, the amount of GPU horsepower needed to carry that means that GPU innovation has to quicken the pace. But what needs to happen doesn't has to happen, and if we don't get that, then I think 4K isn't going to be the natural step many may think outside of ultra-optimized PC ports, which are far and few in-between(Looking at you, Alien: Isolation).

If single GPU performance is going to accelerate, then it going to be for VR like Carmack said.

 

[tweakboy]

Your I bet its 5ms or higher. That is no good. FPS games will be mouse laggy game lag

SO FPS games vsync on its 1ms and doesnt lag , its like a crt ,,and what not...

 

[Tweakin]

Would rather have a 24" 1440p IPS.

:thumbsup: I'm in and looking for a 27" 1440p

 

[james1701]

Still not worth dumping my Dell U3011.

The only upside I can see is enough people would buy them and complain about GPU performance, it might spark a performance race again.

 

[stuff_me_good]

Interesting, why?

Although big resolution is nice, I personally give more credit to base black and contrast than any other aspect in picture quality. OLED has infinite contrast and not some measly 1000:1 like in IPS. No glowing and weird color shift when watching different angle. Even the motion is better on OLED, not to mention color reproduction. Yes there are also some drawbacks on OLED, but those are going to be history pretty soon. Look how long it took LCD to iron out the defects. It's not going to take nearly as long from OLED.

I have now 1440p IPS monitor and absolutely hate the IPS glow and color shifts and laughable high(meaning bad) base black. Contrast is ok as it is calibrated, but since contrast is only 950:1, you can't see almost any details in any challenging dark pictures.

 

[alcoholbob]

IMO not that great of a deal being 28" 4K and TN...

now the Acer B326HK 32" 4K IPS is a good buy IMO at $699.

 

[RussianSensation]

IMO not that great of a deal being 28" 4K and TN...

now the Acer B326HK 32" 4K IPS is a good buy IMO at $699.

This. A monitor is akin to a high quality case/PSU - it tends to stick around for 5+ years unless you always want to be on the cutting edge. I'd easily spend $700 for a 4K IPS over $350 for a 4K TN panel unless the TN was out of this world amazing.

What's holding me back primarily are (1) 4K prices which have fallen a lot and trend seems to continue well into 2015-2016 as more 4K models start competing with each other; (2) FreeSync/G-Sync situation. I want to see the prices and performance on Samsung's 4K FreeSync monitors; (3) GPUs and monitors should have DP1.3 and HDMI 2.0 standard across the board and then I will consider upgrading to both.

 

[alcoholbob]

This is just an early price drop from what I've seen. I believe the price will eventually settle around $699 permanently in 2015, it looks like the monitor is launching in Russia soon for ~$735 according to articles.

 

[VirtualLarry]

So, Newegg is now selling the Acer 4K monitor at 350. .

So, we're starting to see a new convergence, where 4K monitors are being pushed to more reasonable levels for main street, partly because 4K IPS displays are starting to debut at the prices where the TN-panels used to be(600-700 range).

Where? I searched for Acer 4K at Newegg, and it was $800!

 

[alcoholbob]

Where? I searched for Acer 4K at Newegg, and it was $800!

That's because the one you see is a G-Sync monitor and is not on sale.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I wouldn't get one unless it was an IPS.

TN panels have bad viewing angles and aren't suitable for large panels. Monitors attend different angles to your eye depending on which part you're looking at, larger panels have a greater range of angle and so appear less uniform than smaller panels.

Certain monitor types like TN have very bad viewing angles which means from a single seated position the monitor will look very uneven. IPS is the only monitor type currently that has the kind of viewing angles to make large screens bareable.

4k is a waste on a small screen, or on a large screen you push very far away from you, so it's only worth it with screens that are large or fill your vision.

Gaming isn't really a big issue, simply use 1/4th the rest (1920x1080) and then use 4x upscale to render at 4k, it will look more jaggy but perform pretty much as well as regular 1080p.

I'll get a 4k panel when they drop below £1000.