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

Why is it so hard to find a monitor like this?

Probably because of chroma subsampling which is fairly common on TVs/HDMI:

If it doesn't have DisplayPort, it isn't a monitor, in my opinion.
 
How are you supposed to sit in front of a 48" TV and game on it 2-4' from your face?
 
To be fair:
CX has limited 2.1 bandwidth in comparison to C9.
 
How are you supposed to sit in front of a 48" TV and game on it 2-4' from your face?

"How are you supposed" to specify a size of ">27in" and then get snarky when one is suggested? Perhaps an upper bound on your size preference is in order.
 
Maybe I was going under the assumption that anything above 34" wouldnt be the best suitable for viewing. Maybe people dont think of TV's as a computer monitor. Maybe that is why I said monitor and not TV.

Perception I guess.
 
What's "best suitable" is for the op to define, not for other people to guess at. As for TV vs monitor that was certainly a major distinction in years past, but outside of >120Hz framerates any other differences are null for the overwhelming majority of users.

Perception I guess.
 
Probably because of chroma subsampling which is fairly common on TVs/HDMI:

If it doesn't have DisplayPort, it isn't a monitor, in my opinion.
So what about all the monitors that are sold with D-Sub, DVI and HDMI? What are they? Chopped liver?
Admittedly I wouldn't buy one of those if I could avoid it, but still, the majority of cheap monitors have a combination of those ports.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Rei
So what about all the monitors that are sold with D-Sub, DVI and HDMI? What are they?
Old. VGA and DVI is quickly vanishing from computers. It's fine if a monitor offers HDMI connectivity in addition to DisplayPort but I would still use DisplayPort when connecting it to a computer. HDMI is for connecting computers to AV systems. HDMI inputs on monitors are for connecting things like game consoles which don't generally have DisplayPort because they too are designed for AV systems.
 
The main reason we don't have many 120hz 4k monitors is because you need 2 display port cables to run them. 4k 120hz requires a 1.2ghz cable, the current gen hdmi 2.0 and display port max out around 600mhz, which is why you need 2 for these displays.

From the fine print: User must connect two 1.4 DisplayPort cables to a capable device to achieve 144Hz overclock setting
 
Old. VGA and DVI is quickly vanishing from computers. It's fine if a monitor offers HDMI connectivity in addition to DisplayPort but I would still use DisplayPort when connecting it to a computer. HDMI is for connecting computers to AV systems. HDMI inputs on monitors are for connecting things like game consoles which don't generally have DisplayPort because they too are designed for AV systems.
Well, sadly no...
A lot of new products still ship with D-Sub and DVI connectors, both motherboards and screens.
Random examples

All fairly new products that falls in either the entry-level, mid-range or "business" categories of products. Most 24" and below monitors still have at least a D-Sub connector in addition to and HDMI port, as well as maybe a DVI port. The above examples are clearly not niche products or industrial/embedded products.

Yes, HDMI was intended as an AV interface standard, but sadly HDMI is often the only digital input when it comes to a lot of budget monitors. I have no explanation as to why this is the case over DP, since there's a royalty to pay for HDMI, but not DP.
Random $100 monitor from Acer, HDMI, DVI and D-Sub.
Basic 24" model from ViewSonic, HDMI and D-Sub only.

I mean, I recently got a 27" 1500R 144Hz 1440p Acer screen, it was only supplied with a D-Sub cable... It admittedly has DP and HDMI as well, but that's how much cost cutting some companies do...

Also, I guess you forgot about USB-C and Thunderbolt as display interfaces...

The main reason we don't have many 120hz 4k monitors is because you need 2 display port cables to run them. 4k 120hz requires a 1.2ghz cable, the current gen hdmi 2.0 and display port max out around 600mhz, which is why you need 2 for these displays.

Sorry, but that's BS. DisplayPort 1.4 can handle 120Hz no problem. 144Hz is a different matter, as per your example, which you clearly ignored yourself. Also, please don't mix up DP and HDMI, two very different things.
 
Sorry, but that's BS. DisplayPort 1.4 can handle 120Hz no problem. 144Hz is a different matter, as per your example, which you clearly ignored yourself. Also, please don't mix up DP and HDMI, two very different things.
I was thinking of dp 1.2, I think you're right about 1.4
 
The main reason we don't have many 120hz 4k monitors is because you need 2 display port cables to run them. 4k 120hz requires a 1.2ghz cable, the current gen hdmi 2.0 and display port max out around 600mhz, which is why you need 2 for these displays.


False. DisplayPort 1.4 can do 4K 120 Hz in one cable. DisplayPort 1.4 + Display Stream Compression (DSC) can do 4K 144 Hz in one cable. Problem is, you need a Turing or Navi card to do DSC because older cards do not support DSC.

I have no explanation as to why this is the case over DP, since there's a royalty to pay for HDMI, but not DP.
I do: they're TVs. Economies of scale: sell the same panel to two customers and it's cheaper for both. The only difference between the TV and the monitor in those cases is an ATSC/PAL TV tuner board instead of a simple input only board. Few dollars difference in cost is all.
 
I do: they're TVs. Economies of scale: sell the same panel to two customers and it's cheaper for both. The only difference between the TV and the monitor in those cases is an ATSC/PAL TV tuner board instead of a simple input only board. Few dollars difference in cost is all.
I guess you haven't looked at how different the controller board in a monitor and a TV are then?
The two are hardly interchangeable. You also pay the HDMI royalty based on number of sold units, not SKUs.
So unfortunately, that's not a valid reason.

It's also a lot more than a few dollars difference in price, although I guess it depends on what we're comparing. The boards below are hardly an apples to apples comparison. However, it's a fair comparison between what people are expecting in terms of features from a TV and a monitor.

This is from a 42" LG TV.
A13N3GKpCOL._AC_SL1500_.jpg


This is from a 21.5" BenQ monitor.
IMG_4554.jpg
 
Last edited:
I guess you haven't looked at how different the controller board in a monitor and a TV are then?
That's literally the only difference between the two markets. Monitor controller boards have very little on them where TV controller boards have a variety of input types and often an ARM processor to make it "Smart."

You also pay the HDMI royalty based on number of sold units, not SKUs.
Wasn't talking about HDMI (because monitors and TVs both have that). Was talking about component video analog to digital converters, ATSC/DVB/NTSC/PAL tuners, IR receiver, ARM processor, DAC for speakers, speaker, etc.

The most obvious sign a monitor is also designed to be a TV is by the large bezel to handle speakers and IR receiver.
 
Asus announced a new 32" 4K monitor that seems very promising. It's IPS. As of right now, im eyeing this.
Come on Asus! Im dying for this to come out already!
 
I bought the Nixeus monitor I linked and it is glorious. Puts the TN panel next to it to shame in every way. A shame I have to run games on low presets to get reasonable framerates but...new graphics cards are coming out soon. :D

Only two gripes about it:
1) It comes with a POS cable. Ordered a StarTech 3m HBR3 certified cable.
2) FreeSync is disabled by default and it is located on the advanced tab on the second page. It gives no indicator that there's more than one page of settings so...had to discover it through trial and error.
...all good now. :D
 
Last edited:
That is an insane price!!!
 
DisplayHDR 1400, how often do you come across the designation.
My 5k Ultrafines are 500 nit and they can get bright enough to cause a migraine. This monitor must get so bright that will burn holes in your retinas.
 
My 5k Ultrafines are 500 nit and they can get bright enough to cause a migraine. This monitor must get so bright that will burn holes in your retinas.
That is the point. They aren't for ergonomics. I don't wanna drop the mic, but it isn't the first miniled ips with a few of eye dryness symptoms. Personally, I enjoy people providing amusement, it is a public service in my eyes. They are the heroes of our times, a fitting corollary to this ever progressing march. It is only fair they are in the front lines.

PS: there is a local idiot who opened up a monitor guide thread who is recommending everyone FALD like it is for everybody and I'm getting insulted everytime I point out something to the idiot with 22" LCD who asks how he can solder a tuner and speakers to his monitor, like - get an lcd tv eh?
 
Back
Top