• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Latest 4K 144 Hz Monitors use Blurry Chroma Subsampling

These monitors are just joke. Ridiculous price, halo artifacts from FALD, insufficient bandwitch, insane power consumption and screamig cooling. Why NV just didn't add second DP connector, to vercome limitations? This could be enough for 170 Hz in HDR without any chroma subsampling. Maybe their G-Crap HDR is too limited to handle such bandwitch.
 
From marketing point of view, it makes perfect sense.
...just like abandoning 16:10 :banghead:
It's not just marketing though, it has effects irl.

Years ago, 3dfx made the right decision and limited their cards at 65,536 colors, because that's all the hardware could realistically handle. Nvidia on the other hand had no issue slapping "16M colors" sticker on the box (with hardware support), even though you could not get anything playable using 16M colors. Users bought Nvidia in droves and in the aftermath Nvidia bought 3dfx.
A few years after that, ATI did the right thing and limited their entry-level cards to DX8.1, because, again, it was all the hardware could handle. Nvidia again slapped a DX9 sticker on their FX5200 cards and sold them in droves. Even though ATI's Radeon 9000/9100 were actually faster and you couldn't play any DX9 title on the FX5200.

That's why I treat failure to report these things as major fails for tech sites and have made a habit of pointing these out.
 
I guess this is a whole new perspective on my statement that 120 fps / hz is more than fine for high refresh and going higher = pointless.

Now its not only pointless, but proven counterproductive.

There are two basic ways to beat motion blue: very fast refresh, aka 240Hz, or a strobing backlight. They can be combined for even better results. Today's fast LCD's with a strobe actually have better motion resolution than the old CRTs, simply because they're running at a faster refresh rate, they're inherently sharper with their fixed pixels and also have a lot of them (at least Full HD). I've been enjoying this since I got my Asus VG278HE 144Hz monitor back in 2012. It's possible to run a special utility to trick the strobe into activating without the NVIDIA driver being in 3D mode, which looks fantastic, if a little dim. My newer BenQ XL2720Z has much more flexible strobing since it's independent of graphics card vendor and works at any refresh rate. It's especially great at 60Hz for inducing migraine from all that flicker. :laugh:

This right here is what sold me on my FG2421:

https://www.blurbusters.com/eizo-240hz-va-monitor-uses-strobe-backlight/

And it works everywhere :)
 
Last edited:
100hz is pretty smooth to look at too. :) I might try 240hz 1440p 27" someday when all that comes out, I think my dream monitor is 27" 240hz 1440p micro-LED, just seems to have 0 issues with any game I throw at it, that rez and size I mean, while if I try to play older games in 4k, its just a terrible experience trying to get the text and UI to scale, and many games don't even have mod support to fix it. I probably will have two monitors in the future, one for modern games, and one for older. lol
I'd like to see what 240Hz looks like with no dropped frames. Diminishing returns I should imagine, but awesome.

It's ironic how a better system can actually make your old games look worse due to their limitations.

Huge difference between CRT and LCD though.
CRT: no image to speak of, just a dot moving at huge speeds to trick your eyes into seeing one.
LCD: image is always there, but you can't refresh it as fast.

When CRTs were everywhere, virtually everybody in their late thirties who used one at their job, had to wear glasses.
I think quantum dot could bring back that insanely fast refresh speeds while maintaining LCD's advantages. But it would take real quantum dot, not that contraption Samsung sells these days. Then again, Samsung's XL20 was also promising back in the day and the tech never took off...
Yeah, the basic difference is that LCD is a sample and hold display while CRT isn't, which leads to all that perceived motion blur. Note that the picture isn't really that blurred and you can test it easily yourself. Set the graphics card to 60Hz and move the mouse left and right. Follow it with your eyes: it looks blurred and blurrier as the pointer moves faster. Now keep your vision focused on the middle of the screen (ie no eye movement) and move the pointer left and right. You now see a series of perfectly sharp, stationary pointers, proving the perception illusion. It's all to do with the brain averaging the movement. With a CRT, the blur effect is actually still there, but much less pronounced.

There are two basic ways to beat motion blur: very fast refresh, ie 240Hz, or a strobing backlight. They can be combined for even better results. Today's fast LCD's with a strobe actually have better motion resolution than the old CRTs, simply because they're running at a faster refresh rate, they're inherently sharper with their fixed pixels and also have a lot of them (at least Full HD). I've been enjoying this since I got my Asus VG278HE 144Hz monitor back in 2012. It's possible to run a special utility to trick the strobe into activating without the NVIDIA driver being in 3D mode, which looks fantastic, if a little dim. My newer BenQ XL2720Z has much more flexible strobing since it's independent of graphics card vendor and works at any refresh rate. It's especially great at 60Hz for inducing migraine from all that flicker. :laugh:

www.blurbusters.com have all you could ever want to know about beating motion blur and the latest in high refresh, strobing monitors.


Up until recently I had and still used an original Fluoro backlit LCD monitor, and that thing ran hot enough to warrant a fan or two, I guess it would still be alive if it had them.
Or the fan would have failed anyway. :p
 
Last edited:
This is just ridiculous and sad.

When will we finally see HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.5 ? It almost seems like they are holding those technologies back just to sell us crap like this. Keep us in the old world as long as possible, so we'll need to buy new updated monitors once they come out. Put as many compromises as possible into today's monitors, so they seem like old world as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
oohhh that's actually what i thought .... there is a sweet spot for each persone ...

fortunately (or unfortunately ) mine is at 60-75hz (can tolerate 30hz but not for games) and i considere 1440p to be the ideal resolution up to 32" and just as for refresh rate, up to 1620p is nice (3K) but above is gimmick (fortunately was maybe because i can find decent price around these specs :laugh: )

4k 120hz is a joke and 144hz even more ... maybe in one or two more GPU gen...

actually i rather hate the high res small size screen tendency .... 1440p/4K 24"? seriously? even at 1440/1620p 32" sitting at a adequate distance i can't see the pixels or any aliasing (never using FxAA or any AA since i swapped for that screen ) :laugh: even worse with smartphone ... i have a 1440p 5.2", previously i had a 720p 5.6", 1080p 5.5" and 1200p 8" (luckily the 1440p 5.6 was at a price lower than the other 3 ... otherwise i would never take it)

Remember; The fact that these monitors are out in the market at a staggering price does not mean that the companies are 'pushing' these onto the customers. They just put cutting edge technology into a product to "test" the market and the supplychain. In 3-5 years everyone will have a 4K 144hz instead of a 1440p 144hz screen and that is good because then the GPUs will be able to keep up. For now they are an expensive peak into the new standard avaliable to the entusiast willing to pay. :)
 
"If you are spending 2k, why you should go for a TV, not monitor 101"
 
Remember; The fact that these monitors are out in the market at a staggering price does not mean that the companies are 'pushing' these onto the customers. They just put cutting edge technology into a product to "test" the market and the supplychain. In 3-5 years everyone will have a 4K 144hz instead of a 1440p 144hz screen and that is good because then the GPUs will be able to keep up. For now they are an expensive peak into the new standard avaliable to the entusiast willing to pay. :)

The biggest problem with high refresh gaming is not the GPU, but the CPU. You can always dial down a few settings to reduce GPU load, but that doesn't work for CPU - it actually is counterproductive as GPU bottlenecks get removed means the CPU load will increase. And for competitive gaming there is also the limitation of server tickrates and network latency (try to get 8.33ms on PUBG, I challenge you :p). Add onto that the general public doesn't even notice anything above 40~60 FPS as long as its stable, and you can safely conclude 120+Hz is a niche and always will be. Its not new either, this goes back to CRT days.

It still puzzles me why they keep pushing higher refresh rates than 120. Diminishing returns + impossible to achieve FPS make it virtually 100% worthless. I never even considered the bandwidth issue on top of all that :p

"If you are spending 2k, why you should go for a TV, not monitor 101"

Strange comment. 98% of all TVs have horrible input lag even for regular desktop use. And TVs are generally cheaper for higher res and greater diagonals.
 
Last edited:
The biggest problem with high refresh gaming is not the GPU, but the CPU. You can always dial down a few settings to reduce GPU load, but that doesn't work for CPU. And for competitive gaming there is also the limitation of server tickrates and network latency. Add onto that the general public doesn't even notice anything above 40~60 FPS as long as its stable, and you can safely conclude 120+Hz is a niche and always will be. Its not new either, this goes back to CRT days.

It still puzzles me why they keep pushing higher refresh rates than 120. Diminishing returns + impossible to achieve FPS make it virtually 100% worthless. I never even considered the bandwidth issue on top of all that :p

I agree that there are situations where the CPU is the limit (especially in online FPS gaming), A good netcode will not punish your FPS, but punish the information the client receive; You have a visually buttery smooth experience but it might be the fact that clients/targets you are aiming for is being updated slow due to the low tickrate. Again depending on the game different setups have different advantages, but singleplayer gaming CPU should be able to deliever the frames. But again thanks to AMD we have 8c16thread CPUs to the mainstreamsegments already now :)
 
NVIDIA did something similar with their so called HDMI 2.0 Ready products that only did 4:2:0 sampling, not full proper 4:4:4, advised it as hdmi 2.0 but looked like crap
 
Why is the article not talking about the color depth? It's just as important and as big factor for this as resolution and refresh rate are.
120 Hz RGB works fine - as long as you limit yourself to 8-bit colors and thus rule out HDR.
10-bit colors, which allows HDR to function too, is limited to ~100Hz (98 Hz in case of these first monitors) if you want to keep RGB/YCbCr 4:4:4
 
NVIDIA did something similar with their so called HDMI 2.0 Ready products that only did 4:2:0 sampling, not full proper 4:4:4, advised it as hdmi 2.0 but looked like crap

That's wasn't just Nvidia. HDMI 2.0 doesn't have the bandwidth to handle both 4:4:4 and HDCP 2.2 at the same time. Thank DRM for that one.
 
Remember; The fact that these monitors are out in the market at a staggering price does not mean that the companies are 'pushing' these onto the customers. They just put cutting edge technology into a product to "test" the market and the supplychain. In 3-5 years everyone will have a 4K 144hz instead of a 1440p 144hz screen and that is good because then the GPUs will be able to keep up. For now they are an expensive peak into the new standard avaliable to the entusiast willing to pay. :)
mmhhh... well Medion did the right thing, for me, with a 32" 1440p (1620p capable) 60hz (75hz no sweat) 8ms (5ms on overdrive mode) IPS at 299chf/300.39usd


cutting edge? pffffffrt ... being a test lab rat paying an overpriced product is ... beyond :roll:

4K 144hz? no thanks, actual card are barely capable to do 2160p55.... 3k 75hz is enough (and i doubt the next gpu gen will be able to push more... my 1070 with her hefty stock oc improved by a home oc can't push 75fps at 1080p but manage to stay between 33 and 68 at 1440p and 30-59 at 1620p luckily above 1080p i can sacrifice AA and keep other setting to the max :D )


ooohhhh 3-5yrs mmhhh my eyesight will not be as good as it is now (plot twist: i am suffering of hypermetropia astigmatism tho i don't wear glasses for reading or computer related stuff ... it act as a natural antialiasing o_O ) maybe i will find 4k actually usefull in 5yrs :toast:

edit: don't they dare to keep 24" as a norm for 4K in 3-5yrs.... i can't go under 32" since my X58222
 
Last edited:
NVIDIA did something similar with their so called HDMI 2.0 Ready products that only did 4:2:0 sampling, not full proper 4:4:4, advised it as hdmi 2.0 but looked like crap
 
BvSGsXryDee2FPQv.jpg


Geeeez. The quality difference is not just huge, is extremely huge. Anything less than 4:4:4 looks like a heavily compressed movie from 2000s.....
 
They should have used DSC for 121-144 Hz. Alternatively, two DisplayPort connectors. Chroma subsampling is a copout.
 
They should have used DSC for 121-144 Hz. Alternatively, two DisplayPort connectors. Chroma subsampling is a copout.
Can't use DSC when the G-Sync-scaler doesn't support it ;)
 
Can't use DSC when the G-Sync-scaler doesn't support it ;)
Explains everything, including the DP1.4 firmware NVIDIA outed not too long ago.
 
Is this 4:x:x thing ever written anywhere? I can't even find it in reviews at tftcentral, and I can't imagine more reputable reviewer - so manufacturers probably don't publish it at all.
 
Is this 4:x:x thing ever written anywhere? I can't even find it in reviews at tftcentral, and I can't imagine more reputable reviewer - so manufacturers probably don't publish it at all.
I'd have thought for computers and monitors it would always be 4:4:4 as the picture has always been perfectly sharp, except in this stupid case. I'd surmise that this is why they never mention it.
 
I'd certainly hope so! But...
 
I'd have thought for computers and monitors it would always be 4:4:4 as the picture has always been perfectly sharp, except in this stupid case. I'd surmise that this is why they never mention it.

Not actually true. CRTs weren't perfect from a chroma sampling perspective, IIRC.

Few actually cared though, because CRTs tended to distort the shit out of image geometry anyways...
 
Not actually true. CRTs weren't perfect from a chroma sampling perspective, IIRC.

Few actually cared though, because CRTs tended to distort the shit out of image geometry anyways...
Oh gawd, yes. :rolleyes: So glad to be free of that.

CRTs were analogue, so I don't see how this applies (chroma sampling imperfection). I don't know that much about it, so perhaps I'm missing something.
 
Is this 4:x:x thing ever written anywhere? I can't even find it in reviews at tftcentral, and I can't imagine more reputable reviewer - so manufacturers probably don't publish it at all.
There's nothing to publish. The HDMI spec mandates support for 4:4:4, 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 since HDMI 2.0 (4:2:2 has been with us since HDMI 1.0). Obviously for higher refresh rates the bandwidth is simply not there, so the monitor has to use compression.
Now, if a monitor was using 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 to push FHD@60Hz, that would be something worth reporting. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
 
Back
Top