Tuesday, December 5th 2017

TrendForce: Shipments of Gaming Monitors Doubled in 2018, Market Share of Curved Models to Surpass 50% in Gaming Sector

The gaming market is one with high gross margins in the vast majority of its product lines - this is easily seen with the number of companies that have just slapped the same aesthetic look and "gaming" branding to otherwise "normal" product lines. One such instance, in particular, is the gaming monitor segment, where increasing perception of more competitiveness with higher refresh-rate monitors has brought about an urge to upgrade in the market - and not the least of which was brought about by games such as PUBG and Fortnite (the former even sparked an upgrade frenzy in China's Internet Cafes as they vied for ever more customers who would get an edge on their store over others that didn't sport these high refresh-rate monitors).

According to TrendForce's report, ASUS is the worldwide sales leader i the gaming monitor segment, followed by Acer, with AOC/Philips coming in a close third. TrendForce reports that the increased demand has seen shipment of gaming-grade (or at least branded) monitors has doubled in 2018 compared to last year, and that a sector that has increased significantly is the one of curved monitors, which has been taken up chiefly by Samsung, bringing it to the fourth spot in the manufacturer race. The curved monitor market has achieved a 50% stake in the whole of the gaming monitor, led chiefly by China's demand.
Source: TrendForce
Add your own comment

20 Comments on TrendForce: Shipments of Gaming Monitors Doubled in 2018, Market Share of Curved Models to Surpass 50% in Gaming Sector

#1
Manu_PT
And yet some people still say that 144hz/240hz gaming is irrelevant and that everyone should always get a Ryzen processor even if 0,1% Lows on Battlefield or Pubg are at 70fps compared to 100/110 on Intel. It seems 144hz isn´t that niche.
Posted on Reply
#2
Vya Domus
Manu_PT said:
And yet some people still say that 144hz/240hz
There you go again. The phrase "144hz/240hz" wasn't even mentioned but by some convoluted logic you see this as some sort way to forward your outrageous claim that 240z is commonplace yet again, as you did in the other thread. Why, is beyond me.

Just let go of this absolute nonsense already.
Posted on Reply
#3
Manu_PT
Vya Domus said:
There you go again. The phrase "144hz/240hz" wasn't even mentioned but by some convoluted logic you see this as some sort way to forward your outrageous claim that 240z is commonplace yet again, as you did in the other thread. Why, is beyond me.

Just let go of this absolute nonsense already.
Nah I wont because it is objectively better experience and will be mainstream in the near future. I had this kind of debates already when 85hz were a thing and overclockable LCDs. Then 120hz and now 240hz. Time always shown I was right and Im right again. The ones that deny it are those that:

- cant afford it
- can afford it but dont want to bother
- can afford it but never experienced it so think it is useless

Been there done that. Thing is that high refresh is getting more and more common.

240hz is the best gaming/browsing/movie experience I ever had in my life.
I dont believe that someone who tried 240hz can ever feel confortable with his lower refresh rate monitor.
Posted on Reply
#4
Vya Domus
Manu_PT said:

The ones that deny it are those that:

- cant afford it
- can afford it but dont want to bother
- can afford it but never experienced it so think it is useless
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of arguments with this "can't afford it" crap. Not only you sound like every 13 year old on the internet trying to flex on somebody when all else fails but you don't even get that right. 240hz gaming is not even close to being the most expensive thing out there, 4K takes that spot easily because that's where the money is at. As a matter of fact 240hz monitors can be had for not much more than the cheapest 4K ones despite them offering an "objectivity better experience".

Wanna know why ? Crappy TN panels that are cheap to make, the bane of every monitor's existence. That being said enjoy your premium, common and "objectively" better monitors while the rest of us that can't afford them have to make do with those shitty color accurate 4K displays with great viewing angles, HDR and all that horrible stuff that the industry keeps making in overwhelmingly higher quantities because what do they know, right ?
Posted on Reply
#5
INSTG8R
I ended up with a curved 27” and frankly it does nothing for the experience at that size. I’m sorry I’m contributing to the curved numbers because coming from a 27” flat monitor I see zero benefits. UW and maybe 32” and up maybe(I couldn’t fit 32” on my desk and sent it back so couldn’t say if the curve added anything)
Posted on Reply
#6
Eric3988
Going from 60hz to 144hz on my new monitor has been underwhelming for me. I went from a 27" to 24" and unless I'm playing games that are well optimized I can't exceed 100 fps without burning up my Vega 56 and it's blower style cooler. I've been using fps caps from 60-90 to keep my card quiet and cool and that more positively effects my experience than 100+ fps. The freesync has been the biggest difference now that I haven't seen screen tearing without having on v sync. When I buy a new monitor, it will have freesync with a 4k res and better viewing angles instead of high refresh rate.
Posted on Reply
#7
StrayKAT
I'll likely never get Curved. I just don't see the appeal.... unless I had a multi/surround setup. Looking into upgrading to 4K though (I use a 4K TV, but the monitor is still 1080p).
Posted on Reply
#8
Manu_PT
Vya Domus said:
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of arguments with this "can't afford it" crap. Not only you sound like every 13 year old on the internet trying to flex on somebody when all else fails but you don't even get that right. 240hz gaming is not even close to being the most expensive thing out there, 4K takes that spot easily because that's where the money is at. As a matter of fact 240hz monitors can be had for not much more than the cheapest 4K ones despite them offering an "objectivity better experience".

Wanna know why ? Crappy TN panels that are cheap to make, the bane of every monitor's existence. That being said enjoy your premium, common and "objectively" better monitors while the rest of us that can't afford them have to make do with those shitty color accurate 4K displays with great viewing angles, HDR and all that horrible stuff that the industry keeps making in overwhelmingly higher quantities because what do they know, right ?
You mean 4k 60hz panels that have awful motion clarity as soon as you move the mouse around? Yeah sure, enjoy your high resolution perfect colour for static images. Have fun looking at photos or landscapes on Witcher 3, while I have fun moving around with perfect smoothness, no blur and instant response.

In fact when you move around with the mouse at 60hz 4k it has worse image detail in movement due to the amout of pixels getting blur. Even 1080p 240hz has more detail than 4k 60hz as long as you have moving images. Educate yourself then talk. Also HDR monitors? What you mean, those 400cdm? Laughable really, if you think that´s good HDR.

Must be a great gaming experience, buying a great 4k 60hz 400cdm HDR monitor with 3000:1 Contrast, plus a RTX 2080 ti for RTX effects and then admire static landscapes/images. Every gamer´s dream
Posted on Reply
#9
Vya Domus
Manu_PT said:
Even 1080p 240hz has more detail than 4k 60hz as long as you have moving images
You are genuinely delusional to even think that would be the case. You are running out of arguments buddy and have resorted to making stuff up. Hilarious.

Manu_PT said:
Educate yourself then talk.
You know so little that you don't even know what you don't know.
Posted on Reply
#10
Manu_PT
Vya Domus said:
You are genuinely delusional to even think that. You are running out of arguments buddy and have resorted to making stuff up. Hilarious.



You know so little you don't even know what you don't know.
No I´m not "delusional". You are just clueless about the matter, that´s all. I will quote CBB, Blur Bluster website founder. He is the reference about monitors/panels and refresh rates etc. He did an experiment and concluded this:
Also, it's a vicious circle -- higher resolution amplify motion clarity limitations of Hz massively. 4K 120Hz LCD degrades motion clarity on a relative-percentage more than 1024x768 60Hz LCD.
For one-screen-width-per-second horizontal panning motion, measured in the length of TestUFO blur trailing size behind moving UFO objects:
--> 1024x768 60fps motion -- motionblurs 1024/60ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 17 pixels -- roughly 17x blurrier than stationary graphics), 17:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary
--> 3840x2160 120fps motion -- motionblurs 3840/120ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 32 pixels -- roughly 32x blurrier than stationary graphics), 32:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary.

So you see, higher resolution amplifies sample-and-hold motion blur visibility. Naturally de-blurring (stroblessly, since real life doesn't strobe/flicker) retina graphics in fast motion will require extremely high frame rates at refresh rates. The more Retina a display becomes, the lower the persistence you need to completely eliminate display motion blur. And the only way to do strobeless low persistence is ultra-high-fps at ultra-high-Hz.
Source

THe more you increase resolution, the more Hz you need to reduce blur effects. 1080p @ 240hz makes a motion blur trail of 8 pixels. 4k @ 60hz creates a whoping 64! Because everytime you have moving images on 4k you are distorting the original resolution already and if you are at 60hz it is even worse. At 1080p 240hz there is barely distortion and it has more detail on moving images than 4k resolution or even 8k.

You are the type of guy responsible for internet myths like "human eye cant see past <insert number of fps/hz here>" or "no one needs 240hz", etc. Stupid myths that only hold back technology. You are completly wrong about this subject, educate yourself, read some articles and experiments on Blur Blusters website.
Posted on Reply
#11
Vya Domus
Manu_PT said:

Source
Source for the "experiment" : a comment on a forum. :roll:

Thanks buddy that's enough for me, you can stop now.
Posted on Reply
#12
INSTG8R
Manu you’d actually have an argument if it weren’t for your argument is for shitty TN panels. I’m on my second 144hz panel. First IPS and now VA but I would never sacrifice 240hz for shit TN EVER! Get into the now of panels and then you might actually be taken seriously.
Posted on Reply
#13
Vayra86
Manu_PT said:
Nah I wont because it is objectively better experience and will be mainstream in the near future. I had this kind of debates already when 85hz were a thing and overclockable LCDs. Then 120hz and now 240hz. Time always shown I was right and Im right again. The ones that deny it are those that:

- cant afford it
- can afford it but dont want to bother
- can afford it but never experienced it so think it is useless

Been there done that. Thing is that high refresh is getting more and more common.

240hz is the best gaming/browsing/movie experience I ever had in my life.
I dont believe that someone who tried 240hz can ever feel confortable with his lower refresh rate monitor.
144hz =/= 240hz

You're an edge case, accept it.
Posted on Reply
#14
StrayKAT
Manu_PT said:
You mean 4k 60hz panels that have awful motion clarity as soon as you move the mouse around? Yeah sure, enjoy your high resolution perfect colour for static images. Have fun looking at photos or landscapes on Witcher 3, while I have fun moving around with perfect smoothness, no blur and instant response.

In fact when you move around with the mouse at 60hz 4k it has worse image detail in movement due to the amout of pixels getting blur. Even 1080p 240hz has more detail than 4k 60hz as long as you have moving images. Educate yourself then talk. Also HDR monitors? What you mean, those 400cdm? Laughable really, if you think that´s good HDR.

Must be a great gaming experience, buying a great 4k 60hz 400cdm HDR monitor with 3000:1 Contrast, plus a RTX 2080 ti for RTX effects and then admire static landscapes/images. Every gamer´s dream
60Hz works out better on a TV/10 feet away. Just saying.
Posted on Reply
#15
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
INSTG8R said:
Manu you’d actually have an argument if it weren’t for your argument is for shitty TN panels. I’m on my second 144hz panel. First IPS and now VA but I would never sacrifice 240hz for shit TN EVER! Get into the now of panels and then you might actually be taken seriously.
He’ll also never be taken seriously as long as he keeps insulting people who don’t agree with his curved monitor opinion and as long as he says people not being able to see above a certain FPS rate is an Internet myth.

I feel so much better knowing my eyes are lying to me and contributing to a myth. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#16
Vayra86
StrayKAT said:
60Hz works out better on a TV/10 feet away. Just saying.
It goes for monitor viewing too. Most people tend to crawl inside their monitor to resolve the detail over time, and that is when you start noticing all the flaws a panel has. At typical viewing distance (about an arm's length), most of that gets eliminated, because that is what the monitor is calibrated for.
Posted on Reply
#17
StrayKAT
Vayra86 said:
It goes for monitor viewing too. Most people tend to crawl inside their monitor to resolve the detail over time, and that is when you start noticing all the flaws a panel has. At typical viewing distance (about an arm's length), most of that gets eliminated, because that is what the monitor is calibrated for.
Maybe you're right (although I look forward to getting a 4K monitor soon). It's just that I haven't tested it yet.
Posted on Reply
#18
Vayra86
StrayKAT said:
Maybe you're right (although I look forward to getting a 4K monitor soon). It's just that I haven't tested it yet.
That is where PPI comes in, and why high PPI isn't really always an advantage. What size/diagonal are you looking at? Personally I'd not go much higher than 140~160 PPI. Going over that is wasting a lot of performance on detail you can barely distinguish (for gaming that is).
Posted on Reply
#19
StrayKAT
Vayra86 said:
That is where PPI comes in, and why high PPI isn't really always an advantage. What size/diagonal are you looking at? Personally I'd not go much higher than 140~160 PPI. Going over that is wasting a lot of performance on detail you can barely distinguish (for gaming that is).
Maybe just 28". It's not going to be heavy on gaming exactly. And I planned on just going with Samsung to match the TV (I doubt I'll get QLED though).
Posted on Reply
#20
Vayra86
StrayKAT said:
Maybe just 28". It's not going to be heavy on gaming exactly. And I planned on just going with Samsung to match the TV (I doubt I'll get QLED though).
Still haven't seen a QLED monitor in person, only the TV's. The picture does pop nicely, but so does any other VA. I did read the blacks weren't as great, which makes sense given the technology.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment