Building a computer? Need advice/suggestions? Come here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

You know, my monitor is also supposedly 6 ms GTG with 12 ms typical, 16 ms tested by Anand. If it's ghosting, I'm usually too busy having fun or oogling at the visuals to care. A bigger issue is the input lag that results when you enable VSYNC. In Battlefield, it's enough to get you killed.

---

That's what I'm talking about. I always equated the ms with response time between updates with hertz/refresh

My old samsung syncmaster had an advertised 75 hertz refresh rate, but when we went to the full Rez of the monitor of 1900x1200 it would drop to 60. False advertisement, or misleading, rather.

What sucks about all of this, is that 4k monitors in less than 27" screens are only making a comeback JUST NOW those monitors are $1,200 on eBay currently, and were released in 2001. TWO THOUSAND AND ONE. WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE 4K monitors for 12 FREAKING YEARS. IM PISSED.

And what did you want to do with 4k Monitors in 2001? Watch a DVD? Play a game with your GeForce 8600 GT? ^^

I cannot understand why you one want right now either. In the future maybe yes but now?

There were no 8600 GTs in 2001. Radeon 9800 Pro and Nvidia FX 5900 Ultra were in vogue, though. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrickssj6

And what did you want to do with 4k Monitors in 2001? Watch a DVD? Play a game with your GeForce 8600 GT? ^^

---

This has nothing to do with that. I'm pissed because we've moved backwards, not forwards, in monitor screen-tech. It's akin to going from an octo-core cpu back to dual core, or from 28nm architecture to 56 nm or larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrickssj6

I cannot understand why you one want right now either. In the future maybe yes but now?

---

See above.

Or going from having a multi-window workspace to being limited to two windows...

Sorry idgi. If I am completely missing the point, would you please elaborate?

Where have we gone backwards or do you mean we have not-gone-as-fast-forward in terms of screen resolution? 3nm Transistors already existed back in 2006, so being at 28nm Technology right now does not mean we have gone backwards...there is a lot more to a product to be commercially available than just "having the technology to do it".

Foremost is the demand and for instance for me, 4k is not really interesting right now because it also does not seem like a leap forward in technology than just another "nice-to-have". My demand for a new monitor (I have been looking for one) was just 1200p (because I prefer 16:10) and this is more important: Being pre-calibrated with 100% sRGB coverage. I have a dual-monitor setup because I often work with 2 windows simultaneously. If 4k would allow me to do this conveniently on one screen I would welcome and consider using it, I am just not sure it does.

Also just to give you an example from another tech branch: Do you know how many Megapixels the top-of-the-line $5500 DSLR from Nikon has? 16. They have cheaper DSLRs with up to 42 but they decided to use 16 on their best camera. There is always more to something than it might appear at first and in some cases, less is just more.

I'm upset because, I honestly think the average standard for a computer monitor that's sold at a place like best buy should be a minimum of 1440p. But no, there are still 1080 models. 1900x1440 is the high-end that's on display, and TV's utterly demolish the computer screens in display area.

Sure, it's great for you- the IBM T220 and T221 were commercially available in mass production in 2001. More than that, the reasons why we've gone backwards, or stagnated, are more dumb than i'd like. There was a time when computer monitors murdered TV's in terms of quality (and a lot of the times, they still do), but since the hd tv hype has subsided a bit, we've gone not just down from the T220+221, but we've stayed at the same exact ratios as TV's ever since the entering of 'hd' as a television standard.

2560x1440 is 1440p.

Where we went backwards on PC displays is moving from 16:10 to 16:9 and from having the common 14" and 15" display resolution go from 1440x900 to 1366x768. It's atrocious and, while I'm glad to see this resolution is fading away, the market is still over-saturated with garbage computers so equipped. Why? All because panel vendors could simply scale production of their 720p panels to fit the PC market, the cheap fuckers.

1600x900 is also a step down from those 1680x1050 16:10 monitors that used to hold their position on the market, but since 1080p monitors have become so inexpensive I don't mind as much.

Also, Dell's replacements for the U2711/U3011 are shit. I got a hell of a lot more for $900 with my U2711 than you get for the same price out of the U2713. Way more connectivity, CFL backlighting be damned.

e: warsaw posting too fast. this is @dwood

Well you should probably not compare apple with oranges; for obvious reasons TVs have a bigger display area and we stuck at this aspect ratios because they are the golden ratio after all. You also should look more at the back-end of things: The content which will be displayed is surely as important than the display itself. I know in America they are further ahead with HDTV but over here we just barely switched over to it and it is still just picture with 720p which then gets upscaled to 1080p so why should people now buy 4k TVs if there is no standard for it? No console, no BluRay and no TV Channel can output that resolution.

To me, display development has gone into the wrong direction. Everyone just wanted to have a smaller response time (which is just gamer elitism really...), a higher resolution and a bigger screen, the usual "bigger is better" mentality. Why not focus on stuff we all would benefit from for instance pre-calibration so we can all -this sounds very banal- at least see the same picture, which after all, is the point of a display? Why own a huge car with 500bhp if it cannot get you from A to B.

I welcome every new form of technology but if 1440p or 4k means down-scaling my games so my gfx card can handle them, to upscale movies to fit the resolution and Windows not being practical at doing multi-window work on one display, I just don't see the need for it and I wait for the point in time when there will be technology to truly support this.

@warsaw 16:10 supremacy.

On a side note, maybe I am just not experiencing these controversies. My Computer has 1200p, my Laptop has 1080p, TV has 1080p and my smartphone has 720p. Pretty much all standard.

Technology pushes technology. You mentioned your graphics card would struggle with 4k resolutions and more to the point - I quote:

Quote:

---

I just don't see the need for it and I wait for the point in time when there will be technology to truly support this.

---

Had we had 4k monitors a decade ago and they were being pushed to become the new standard back then, then nVidia, AMD, and Intel would all have put forth the effort to make their graphics support these greater resolutions. Imagine if my little GT 630 was built to push that many pixels? I imagine it would still perform as it does now with 1080p in terms of speed, but it would have been built with the intent to drive full 4k resolutions if that were the case. Now, I'm not saying it can't, but there would be a massive performance impact. That impact wouldn't exist if it was built in a time when 4k is and has been the standard since before its previous gen counterparts were manufactured.

A similar thing is if fiber internet had been set up across Europe and the Americas ten years ago. We wouldn't really be talking about it now in all our excitement because we've had it for a good long while. Hell, we would probably be pushing something more powerful at this point if that's even possible. Attempting to break physics and getting ansible-like communication maybe? And all our TVs would be reaching 8k or something. vOv