4K, IPS, 27", FreeSync Monitor for $399!

nycdarkness said:
27 inch 4k eww. Seriously it's eww.
Click to expand...

This is how I look at it.

This monitor PPI is 163 pixels per inch which the normal human eye can see around 300PPI. So one would need a 8K monitor to actually be able to display full fidelity of what one can see. If it was 300ppi you would not need AA if everything including textures were at that density as well. So being close will show a lot of fine detail.

Anyways my laptop is at 160 ppi 14", which looks great even though on the small side.

Going big on a 4K monitor and sitting close you once again back with a low PPI view. Which I am sure some would prefer and I can understand that choice as well. I would prefer a 300 PPI type monitor and larger as in 34" or so. My 2 cents.
 
noko said:
This is how I look at it.

This monitor PPI is 163 pixels per inch which the normal human eye can see around 300PPI. So one would need a 8K monitor to actually be able to display full fidelity of what one can see. If it was 300ppi you would not need AA if everything including textures were at that density as well. So being close will show a lot of fine detail.

Anyways my laptop is at 160 ppi 14", which looks great even though on the small side.

Going big on a 4K monitor and sitting close you once again back with a low PPI view. Which I am sure some would prefer and I can understand that choice as well. I would prefer a 300 PPI type monitor and larger as in 34" or so. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

That's why I had to bought a Dell Ultrasharp 25" 2560x1440 where most IPS 1440p are 27" and they only have less PPI. I need more PPI, so texts can be sharp looking and I don't need much AA to use in some games.
 
I got my 49 inch 4K for $379 a few months ago. It's working quite well with my R9 390 via Displayport adapter.

And, I also have my XBOX One and PS4 connected. :)

But, no, it's not Freesync.
 
not bad monitor for the price (if it was 399 including shipping, but I see it listed now as 499)

now question is what would be something similar
with 75-144Hz rate (not lousy 60Hz)
with native 10bit
with DisplayPort 1.3 (sadly 1.4 is fresh so don't expect before fall in some devices)

btw. what's with people thinking that beyond 8bit per color component is something special ?
10-12bit pcc output and displays exists for decade ... I'm nearly sure since HD series AMD card have support by default (2008-2010>) ...
since 2013/2014 it was added to control panel for end-user AMD cards

now those HDR related improvements on are most of time limited to Displayport 1.4 and HDMI 2.1 , so no massproducted monitors
while something might go thru DP 1.3 and HDMI 2.0a it's not 'good enough'

overally the adoption of 10bit pcc output and HDR is absurdly slow
(waiting for the jump since release of Windows Vista but end market got stuck in standard TrueColor for nearly 10 years)
and finally now MS talks about it being 'something in Windows 10
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top