So I've been hunting around for a monitor to replace my 40" 4K Philips, but due to the lack of HDMI 2.0, no HDR support, I can't run Netflix at 4K unlike on my 55" Sony 4K HDR TV in the living room. So as it is, I want 4K, higher refresh 120Hz+, HDR10, Low Latency, G-Sync and ideally OLED of around the 40" size, but no monitors support this... Yet! - So then I stumbled upon Nvidia BFGD, which seems to have flown over everybody's head when it was shown off at CES 2018. What is Nvidia BFGD? - A massive 65" 4K HDR10, 120Hz, G-Sync, QLED with 1000Nit Max brightness, DCI-P3 Colour Gamut, with Nvidia Shield built in! Wow!! I want one, but for now with my PC being used in the bedroom I wouldn't want anything much bigger than 43" as it's about the perfect size for watching Netflix in bed, and gaming at the desk without being too overwhelming. https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/bfgd-big-format-gaming-display
Not really, the 120Hz can still be taken advantage of with a 1080Ti at 4k with the AAA titles slightly dubbed down, either by resolution or game settings. Otherwise fast paced games like CS go will take full advantage of it. Though this won't be out till the Summer, so the next gen 1180Ti should close that gap.
I still can't see a 1080Ti pushing 120 FPS even with the settings down. It's also a bit of an oxy moron because by the time you move 10ft (the distance you are supposed to sit from a 65" panel) away all of the wonders of 4k are lost and you can barely tell the difference between it and 1080p. Is worth a watch.
I watched a ton of clips on youtube, including that one. There's plenty of games that you can get to run at 120FPS at 4K. A good example like Project Cars 2, Forza 7, or where some games are now optimized with dynamic settings and resolutions, you can get 120fps. But as you rightly said, with a screen so big, sitting 4m away would be hard to tell the differences at 1080p or 4k, so this is where the 120Hz will really shine! Now 4k gaming on my 40" at the desk really shows off 4K textures, where having a 27" or smaller monitor would be harder to notice the extra textures at 4K. So the Nvidia BFGD is actually designed to be in the living room, hence the inbuilt shield to stream your games to the big screen, with a display of it's size with monitor like response times. (Where TV's lack in that department.) Now if they bought a display out between 40-50" that would benefit myself having relocated my PC from the spare room to the bedroom, where I can watching Netflix in bed, or gaming on a big screen either at the desk, or on the bed, without it being too in your face, where you would need to sit back to play it. That to me is a multi purpose monitor, that gives you the benefits of all scenarios.
Upping the framerate also makes it more reasonable to sit closer without getting judder artefacts during turning/following tasks.
These are going to be crazy expensive when they first launch ... so unless you've got the dough to blow, you're gonna have to wait.
1080TI SLi pushes 4k @120+ in many games no problem, won't be long before it'll take one card. This BFGD needs a 40-46" size for desktop use that you can sit in front of or a big curve. I'd be happy to trial a 65 though
Absolutely! - That size range would be ideal in the bedroom. Wish the displays were OLED rather than QLED. And yes, I could quite happily take on the 65" version, though I may have to mount it to the ceiling, and play games laying down on the bed...
Not going to happen, LG is the only manufacturer of OLED panels and LG doesn't do G-Sync, so Nvidia would not push for those displays to happen in the first place.
Besides...OLED will burn in with any games that have bright HUDs. You should see the burn on my old Galaxy S6. Jeeeeeeesus.
I saw this test, but then reading the comments, people are questioning Samsung's Marketing with OLED on it's phones... But then you only have to look at when LCD first came out, the burn in was a lot worst! So as the technology matures, it will get better.
So much missing from that Samsung "test", it's a marketing stunt and nothing else, and image retention is entirely different than "screen burn". Sadly it's the sort of FUD that general punters believe, and will end up buying an "QLED" (which isn't actually QLED at all, and the cynic in me reckons it's because it almost looks like "OLED") telly versus a superior OLED because of it. That doesn't mean it's not a real thing, just that I trust Samsung about as far as I can throw their marketing team. Dell did pull their OLED monitor before it made GA, reportedly due to image retention and longevity concerns - I'd have no qualms about using one for dedicated gaming, but full time desktop use might be a bit too much to ask.
That's pretty much like most manufactures, though Samsung are known to be the worst for it. That's why I like independent reviewers. Research from different sources and make your own mind up about a product. I totally agree about gaming with OLED, as the Rift uses OLED displays, which looks totally stunning, and shows no signs of retention But surely to over come retention from OLED, wouldn't Pixel orbiting/shifting help?
Exactly - I wouldn't put it past Samsung to have switched it off, unnaturally maxed out the sharpness and contrast settings and do all sorts of other things to make sure it was as bad as it could possibly be.
I use a QLED screen for desktop on my games machine, often leave it up running paused etc as I go off to do something for family and never get back to it, seems good to me, no burn in, it's only a cheapy too. Quite impressed with it, looking forward to getting a better one at some point with retina burning HDR, current one does a good job but want more
QLED is just any old LCD (TN, PVA or IPS) panel, with all the 'quantum' fancyness being confined to a filter over the backlight that makes wider gamut backlights achievable for cheaper than they were previously. It's no more a new display technology than the transition from CCFL to LED backlighting.
