Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 5 Sep 2014.
5,120x2,880 native resolution.
All these lovely new monitors and not one of them with variable refresh rate tech
I am tempted to grab one of these Acer ones
4K with Gsync but I am also tempted with the ROG Swift monitor still got to wait till I get the money together for either of them though.
This Dell monitor is going to take some grunt to run it at the max res for gamers.
Unless it comes with a magnifying glass, on a flexible arm attached to the top, included in the price, I am not interested.
What graphics card can output that resolution to a single monitor?
I'd love to hop on the gsync band wagon too. But with free sync coming I think it best to wait. Hopefully more 4k ips displays will be available by then.
Yup. It's the same as a 4 monitor 2560x1440 eyefinity setup.
You'd need all the graphics cards to power it.
G-Sync, FreeSync, all I want is a 120Hz(+) IPS panel. I am sick and tired of having to choose between "Looks good, but slow" (IPS/PVA) and "Performs well, but looks crap." (TN).
That was something I was thinking about today. You probably can't have an IPS panel at that speed. In order to have that speed and the colour accuracy you would probably need a new technology. This is all baseless speculation though.
Because windows is crap at scaling and not everyone has a eyes with in built telescopes. Apple more than likely have the whole scaling thing done faily well (I'm guessing) on their operating systems.
Some of the early Korean 27" IPS panels (With the Dual-Link DVI connector only) could be overdriven to (up to) 144Hz without issue, and a check with a high-speed camera showed it really was running at 144Hz. So at least some panels can do it, it seems.
Well, there you go. Wild speculation disproven. Still, producing something like that at reliable commerical volumes maybe quite difficult.
Well, there's probably a reason why manufacturers don't sell any IPS screens standard at 120Hz, even if they potentially handle it. Think of it, why would they leave out a feature they could ask extra money for on some "premium series" monitors if it's so simple?
I think - and this is also baseless speculation - that it's highly likely there's some big disadvantage to overclocking an IPS panel to 120Hz and above, probably a reduction in lifespan.
Well until Microsoft does something about it. I don't think you'll get your 24 inch 4k monitor
Edit. Actually dell have a 24 inch 4k. So there you go wrong again
Shame they are hobbling it with such a small screen size, most 4k monitors are over 30 inches.
The Asus z87-pro does 3840x2160 at 60hz
I see a z97 asrock one with display port 1.2 they seem common enough
Only over DP 1.2, jrs77 wants it over HDMI which no card does yet.
I did read what you said and you do want it (60 Hz) over HDMI
Talk about moving the goal posts, but OK....
Q series chipset display port 1.2
You could get a 30" 4k monitor, use the gpu to resize it to 2560x1600. That would give you a 20" screen with 150 ppi
I'm well aware of the fact your skull is welded to your spine preventing even the most minor of head turning. You would have a 20" diagonal of illuminated screen at your desired ppi. That would be it. There would be a black border all around the remainder of your screen.
I think you are overly fussy with your requirements. That you are very inflexible in what you can make work for you.
Since you are unwilling to accommodate 4k or a larger screen. It's the only viable solution I can think of that meets your requirement. If someone made your ideal monitor tomorrow. It would be so niche that it would probably cost the same or more.
Separate names with a comma.