Went to the Dark Side: Switched to 40" 4K Gaming (Samsung 40KU6290) from 1440P 144Hz

[XavierMace]

Well, HannooFX is using a scaling factor of 150%. I'm trying that now. Before I had it set to 125%, which was just a tad too small for me, reading the forums in Waterfox.

I don't think that the 4:2:0 is all that significant a limitation, for white/black contrasting text.

White on black is basically a best case scenario and even then it's more of a factor than you might think (based on my experience with both 4:2:0 and 4:4:4). It's by no means a deal breaker (IMO) when you're on a budget, but it's definitely noticeable.

 

[VirtualLarry]

even then it's more of a factor than you might think (based on my experience with both 4:2:0 and 4:4:4)

Hmm. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I guess, commenting that I can't quite tell the difference, TBH.

My 24" Westinghouse 1080P HDTV, supported 4:4:4 and 10-bit color, with my 7950 3GB card, in Win10 64-bit.
This Avera 40" 4K UHD HDR TV, supports only 4:2:0 and 8-bit color, with my RX 460 4GB Nitro card, in Win10 64-bit.

Yet, while I should probably be able to notice, I just don't see it, really.

Although, I have the 24" running VSR @ 2560x1440 on 1920x1080, and the 40" 4K running VSR @ 5120x2880 on 3840x2160. With a scale factor of 150% right now on the 4K.

 

[nico07]

I bought the UN40KU6290 recently as well to replace my Seiki 43" 4K I bought earlier this year. The Seiki was nice but only 4:2:0 chroma and 8 bit. It also lacked any up-scaling of any variety. The UN40KU6290 took a bit of tweeking to get it right on my GTX1070, but when adjusted looks night and day different from the other screen. The 10 bit image is gorgeous and a joy to behold. The first thing you need to do is go into the advanced picture settings and enable "HDMI UHD Color" on the input (used HDMI 1, not sure if others work for this). Once enabled I was able to go into the NVidia Control Panel and change the resolution from the default 30Hz 4:4:4 chroma to 60Hz 4:4:4. Without the "HDMI UHD Color" enabled the best you can get at 4K 60Hz is 4:2:0 chroma which is noticeably worse than 4:4:4. The 10 bit picture is incredible and the black levels are pretty impressive. With 4K resolution I still prefer scaling text to 150 percent but 100 percent and 125 percent are still usable.

 

[BrianHVB]

I just purchased this same TV and had the same thought process. It will be arriving in five days. I'll be using it for both gaming and programming on an MSI laptop (i7-6700HQ, GTX 1070). What are your experiences at using it for web browsing, word processing, or other productivity tasks? Any issues looking at it for prolonged periods?

I'm also thinking about wall mounting it, as I can't find any fully adjustable desk stands that will support a VESA 400x400 plate. But there are plenty of adjustable wall brackets. How far away is the TV from you when using a mouse/keyboard combo?

 

[dcGColts]

So, I was originally shopping for a low priced 4K TV for my home office in the 40"-50" range, I never experienced 4K at home, I have 1080p 63" Samsung Plasma and 1080p 3D BenQ Projector and 105" screen for my home Theater needs.

Considering how cheap 4K TVs are right now, I decided to get one just to "play" with it for 4K TV/video viewing, then I found the 40" 4K HDR(sort of) Samsung KU6290 for $289 at BestBuy for this holdiay..which according to rtings http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ku6300, it is the same as KU6300 but without Bluetooth and smart remote which I couldn't care less, and it is actually GREAT as PC monitor because it supports 4K@60Hz and Chroma 4:4:4 with low input lag in game mode of no more than 36ms.

I got it and decided it to try it first as my monitor instead as a TV for my office, going from my Acer 1440p 144Hz TFT monitor, I didn't know what I was expecting...but after an hour of using it...I was blown away

Dear god, 4K on 40" is like having a personal IMAX, my eyes are still getting adjusted to the sheer size of the screen, but I love it

Only issues is screen tearing with vsync off specially coming from 144Hz, and 4K gaming performance on GTX 1080, the 1080 is enough for almost all games (except Crysis 3) at 4K with maximum settings, but certainly would be looking to get GTX 1080 Ti or Vega

Screen tearing is annoying, I turned on vsnyc in a lot of games, and honestly I don't feel much input lag, specially if the game supports adaptive vsync such as Doom, so I am OK with it.

So, even with some screen tearing, and getting adjusted to the lower frame rate for now, it is a completely different experience to have 40" 4K monitor 2 feet from you..I am only concerned about my eyes though..still.

So here you have it, I am gaming on 4K now...and love it.

PS: I don't think it is worth it to go 4K as a monitor on screen less than 40", just not worth it IMO.

I got the same tv 50" samsung KU6290 I don't know if you notice but under nvidia control panel and the resolution tab the only way to get HDR 10bit color is on 4:2:2 mode. On 4:4:4 mode it forces 8 bit color output if you want HDR+ mode to be enabled all the time then you change to 4:2:2 mode and then select 10 bit color btw the TV is standard HDR the other kind of hdr is dolby vision which is 12bit and it may or not last HDR 10 bit is what is used as the standard for HDR atm. So basically when your on 4:4:4 mode you have no hdr support your just using standard 8 bit color.

 

[rickon66]

I went 40" 4K about a year ago with a 40" curved Samsung. I'll never be able to go back to anything smaller or with lower resolution.

 

[HannooFX]

I went 40" 4K about a year ago with a 40" curved Samsung. I'll never be able to go back to anything smaller or with lower resolution.

Yep 40" @ 4K and there is really no going back any smaller, I think it is a sweet spot

I do miss high refresh rate on my 1440p 144Hz monitor though, makes gaming much smoother, but the large high resolution with HDR makes up for that

When they come out with 4K 120Hz I will get that

 

[HannooFX]

I got the same tv 50" samsung KU6290 I don't know if you notice but under nvidia control panel and the resolution tab the only way to get HDR 10bit color is on 4:2:2 mode. On 4:4:4 mode it forces 8 bit color output if you want HDR+ mode to be enabled all the time then you change to 4:2:2 mode and then select 10 bit color btw the TV is standard HDR the other kind of hdr is dolby vision which is 12bit and it may or not last HDR 10 bit is what is used as the standard for HDR atm. So basically when your on 4:4:4 mode you have no hdr support your just using standard 8 bit color.

Correct there is no HDR with 4:4:4. I am OK with 4:2:2, I don't notice much difference in text, I don't do any real web surfing or reading documents on my desktop

 

[dcGColts]

Correct there is no HDR with 4:4:4. I am OK with 4:2:2, I don't notice much difference in text, I don't do any real web surfing or reading documents on my desktop

Yeah personally I prefer HDR+ Mode over every other mode on TV. I have 24" monitor I use for web surfing. TV used for pc gaming/watching tv shows/movies and also for xbox one s.

 

[wanderica]

I just bought the same monitor, and it's really amazing. A small company out of New York still had some and as luck would have it, I snagged one at the $299 price point. I do miss my 144Hz GSync, but the size and a little V-Sync definitely makes up for it with that 4k resolution. Now I'm anxiously awaiting my 1080 Ti which I also was lucky enough to snag yesterday direct from Nvidia. So glad I didn't go smaller. 40" seems perfect.

Bad picture, but you get the idea.

 

[sm625]

How long will it be before we can have 4K-120Hz on a 40" panel?

 

[AdamK47]

TV displays are increasing in popularity with PC gamers. It's where manufacturers are focusing their product development efforts given that the market is many times larger compared to PC monitors. It's also a highly competitive market. You can get a large quality display at a good price.

Bad input lag is slowly becoming a thing of the past. While there are still outliers with bad input lag, it has generally been decreasing year after year. 2015 was good, 2016 was better, 2017 is looking to be great. The new 2017 Samsung TVs have gone down to just 20ms with 4:4:4 Chroma PC mode.

 

[dcGColts]

How long will it be before we can have 4K-120Hz on a 40" panel?

4k/144hz/hdr/gsync monitors are being made right now released later this year not sure on size though personally 4k is only worth it over 1440p if you are above 37". But then there is also the issue that I don't think 1440p monitors going to get hdr. So when these 4k/144hz/hdr monitors the hdr alone makes it a huge plus over 1440p.

Here is some news about it http://www.anandtech.com/show/11014/asus-demonstrates-rog-swift-pg27uq-4k-144-hz-hdr-dcip3-and-gsync

 

[tg2708]

@dcGColts yea I'll have to agree hdr is a game changer, it's something people need to see to appreciate the marked improvement over regular sdr.

 

[Thinker_145]

Why should I care about HDR when we are a country mile away from a perfect SDR gaming screen? I find it very annoying the priorities of PC gamers sometimes.

 

[ZGR]

I'm kinda the opposite. I want a smaller 4k display after seeing my friend's 17" 4k laptop.

We both played a lot of Ghost Recon Wildlands and r6 Siege and aliasing is easily visible on my 28" 4k while it isn't on his laptop. The shimmering effect of trees, power lines, and fine meshes are basically gone.

aliasing is nowhere near as noticeable on 1080p and 1440p as it on 2160p, but decreasing PPI further will just make it more noticeable. At 28" I can easily see aliasing and want 4x anti aliasing.

Yes, a smaller 4k display limits the possibilities of usage, as you must sit closer to the display, but I prefer that.

At the end of the day, I want a 4k VR headset, a 4k laptop, and then a big 60"+ (might as well be 8k) for couch entertainment.

If I were to be gaming on a large 4k display I will definitely want antialiasing. Unfortunately, AA is far too costly at this resolution with our weak GPU's.

What looks like an ok fit is Dell's $5000 32" 8k60 display (no adaptive sync). At 32", aliasing will be nearly non existant.

By the time 8k gets down to $350, 16k will be out. If we get a solid 21:9 5k 120hz monitor under $700, I may skip 8k and wait for 16k120hz. I am completely willing to live with the minor aliasing for 120hz. I couldn't say the same for 14400 and especially 1080p.

But I wholeheartedly disagree about 4k being a waste below 32". 4k is a great fit for gaming laptops and I want one. Not being able to upgrade the GPU on those 4k laptops kills my interest unfortunately. But I am definitely interested in a tiny 4k monitor.

It all depends on your desk setup and how close you are to the display. Going above 32" would be a nightmare in useablitity for my setup.

To put into perspective how close I sit to the 28" UHD: I use 100% scaling and find it near perfect in text size.

 

[HannooFX]

How long will it be before we can have 4K-120Hz on a 40" panel?

That is my dream
Asus releasing two 4K 144Hz 27" ones this year, one is HDR

However I can't go back to 27", I need 40-42" 4K 120Hz TV/Monitor then I am golden.

If it is a TV, it needs HDMI 2.1 as well to support 4K/120Hz

DP 1.4 already supports 4K/120Hz

 

[tg2708]

Why should I care about HDR when we are a country mile away from a perfect SDR gaming screen? I find it very annoying the priorities of PC gamers sometimes.

Well you don't, and everyone have different priorities (lack of better word) when it comes to choosing what is actually worthwhile for them. HDR makes an extremely bland looking game in terms of color and lighting looks much better and hdr actually improves on sdr content. Horizon zero dawn is an actual testament to this as the regular ps4 (the one I have) looks way better when hdr is applied to the game. I can even imagine how much more awesome/better it would look when hdr is applied to a proper pc game running at 4k with near to max details.