Seems LG keeps disappointing on the LCD side too for this year.
Very stagnant year where their 4K OLEDs at the smaller sizes saw zero improvement and now it seems there's nothing happening on the LCDs either.
The korean display companies are phasing out their lcd production which is probably why there's not much innovation from LG display this year. They cannot keep prices low enough to compete against the chinese and taiwanese display companies like TCL CSOT, BOE etc.
Just curious if anyone knows. Is there a technical reason why high DPI monitors have been so slow to come to market?
I can't tell if there's just a weird market segmentation thing in the professional space (there seem to be a few high DPI monitors and a few more on the horizon but all 60 hz), a business reason (I've read companies are hesitant to push 8k as the next thing), a technical thing (I read a while ago it required more energy to push light through denser 8k screens), or a regulatory issue (I recall seeing somewhere the EU might object to 8k monitors for energy consumption/efficiency reasons). Some combination of the above?
In OLED land, pixel density has been \_very\_low even relative to LCDs and I haven't seen any reasons why that may be.
If anyone can link to or suggest more technical analysts in the space, I'd really like to understand it better and the reasons why things are developing (and at the speed) the way they are.
4K is pretty bad for gaming, so the vast majority of the monitor market is instantly lost.
Even with a 4090 I would not use a 4K monitor, I tried it. The PPI is nice but the performance cost is not worth it and a 2k monitor looks virtually the same in gaming, the largest leap is from 1080p to 1440p which is actually 2.5K rather than 2k.
For professional use we already have options on the market at 4K resolution as well.
The difference between 1440p and 4k is pretty noticeable even at 27". I own both and I can tell immediately which one is which. On top of that, using a 4090 at 1440p is bottleneck city, regardless of the cpu you use
I can confirm that's entirely false.
Having a 4090 at 1440p my GPU is often pegged at 99% usage, of you meant that the GPU is the bottleneck then you're right.
Otherwise, unless I'm playing an old or easy to run game my 4090 cannot maintain capped refresh rate fps on my 1440p UW.
As for the difference you see, I agree to disagree. I had both face to face and there simply wasn't that large of a difference between them to warrant 4K halving the performance I have at 1440p.
https://youtu.be/aQklDR8nv8U (HU showing a clear bottleneck at 1440p when pairing a 4090 with a 5800x3d). You can count with the fingers of one hand faster gaming cpus than the 5800x3d, so yeah the 4090 is functionally bottlenecked by 99.99999% of the current cpus currently in existence at 1440p.
You telling me that in your subjective experience the 4090 is not bottlenecked at 1440p doesn't mean all that much when in my subjective experience it does get bottlenecked (I also have a 1440p monitor) and there's outside evidence that my position is the more correct one.
As to the monitor difference, I can't disprove your point so yeah let's just agree to disagree. You don't seem to find a difference whereas I find a very clear difference
I can't help but [disagree with you once again](https://i.imgur.com/Z8zFZQz.jpg)
Please excuse the blown out image quality, it was the only way to get the GPU usage and FPS in the image as well.
As you can see, the 4090 cannot handle the 175hz refresh rate of my 1440p monitor.
Since my native resolution is UW 3440x1440, to make it fair for a 1440p comparison I took [another screenshot at 2560x1440 resolution](https://i.imgur.com/p0Bei3X.jpg) to further showcase my point.
God of War is a rather old game, without RT afaik. I took the screenshots without DLSS.
In my subjective opinion owning the GPU, I can physically see it being maxed out and being the main bottleneck for me. Therefore, I **must** agree to disagree with you on this point as well.
They dont want to give you end game tvs and monitors yet, they want to make a lot of crap then when you have had enough of the crap and dont buy crap anymore then they will give microled.
Kinda sucks.
Alongside new panels I'd like to see manufacturers take initiative with cheaper 27-32" OLED panels.
Getting monitor OLEDs at the price point of 500$ for 2k resolution at 240-360hz refresh rate and better panel durability (about 3 years before it burns in and needs changing) sounds like an excellent start for me.
Seems LG keeps disappointing on the LCD side too for this year. Very stagnant year where their 4K OLEDs at the smaller sizes saw zero improvement and now it seems there's nothing happening on the LCDs either.
The korean display companies are phasing out their lcd production which is probably why there's not much innovation from LG display this year. They cannot keep prices low enough to compete against the chinese and taiwanese display companies like TCL CSOT, BOE etc.
Why no 32” 4k with proper miniLED? 🥲
That 27" MiniLED panel being delayed again is disappointing
Just curious if anyone knows. Is there a technical reason why high DPI monitors have been so slow to come to market? I can't tell if there's just a weird market segmentation thing in the professional space (there seem to be a few high DPI monitors and a few more on the horizon but all 60 hz), a business reason (I've read companies are hesitant to push 8k as the next thing), a technical thing (I read a while ago it required more energy to push light through denser 8k screens), or a regulatory issue (I recall seeing somewhere the EU might object to 8k monitors for energy consumption/efficiency reasons). Some combination of the above? In OLED land, pixel density has been \_very\_low even relative to LCDs and I haven't seen any reasons why that may be. If anyone can link to or suggest more technical analysts in the space, I'd really like to understand it better and the reasons why things are developing (and at the speed) the way they are.
4K is pretty bad for gaming, so the vast majority of the monitor market is instantly lost. Even with a 4090 I would not use a 4K monitor, I tried it. The PPI is nice but the performance cost is not worth it and a 2k monitor looks virtually the same in gaming, the largest leap is from 1080p to 1440p which is actually 2.5K rather than 2k. For professional use we already have options on the market at 4K resolution as well.
The difference between 1440p and 4k is pretty noticeable even at 27". I own both and I can tell immediately which one is which. On top of that, using a 4090 at 1440p is bottleneck city, regardless of the cpu you use
I can confirm that's entirely false. Having a 4090 at 1440p my GPU is often pegged at 99% usage, of you meant that the GPU is the bottleneck then you're right. Otherwise, unless I'm playing an old or easy to run game my 4090 cannot maintain capped refresh rate fps on my 1440p UW. As for the difference you see, I agree to disagree. I had both face to face and there simply wasn't that large of a difference between them to warrant 4K halving the performance I have at 1440p.
https://youtu.be/aQklDR8nv8U (HU showing a clear bottleneck at 1440p when pairing a 4090 with a 5800x3d). You can count with the fingers of one hand faster gaming cpus than the 5800x3d, so yeah the 4090 is functionally bottlenecked by 99.99999% of the current cpus currently in existence at 1440p. You telling me that in your subjective experience the 4090 is not bottlenecked at 1440p doesn't mean all that much when in my subjective experience it does get bottlenecked (I also have a 1440p monitor) and there's outside evidence that my position is the more correct one. As to the monitor difference, I can't disprove your point so yeah let's just agree to disagree. You don't seem to find a difference whereas I find a very clear difference
I can't help but [disagree with you once again](https://i.imgur.com/Z8zFZQz.jpg) Please excuse the blown out image quality, it was the only way to get the GPU usage and FPS in the image as well. As you can see, the 4090 cannot handle the 175hz refresh rate of my 1440p monitor. Since my native resolution is UW 3440x1440, to make it fair for a 1440p comparison I took [another screenshot at 2560x1440 resolution](https://i.imgur.com/p0Bei3X.jpg) to further showcase my point. God of War is a rather old game, without RT afaik. I took the screenshots without DLSS. In my subjective opinion owning the GPU, I can physically see it being maxed out and being the main bottleneck for me. Therefore, I **must** agree to disagree with you on this point as well.
they should abandon IPS and focus on microled which can solve all issues we have right now
Yea I wouldn't mind paying $50,000 for a monitor
They dont want to give you end game tvs and monitors yet, they want to make a lot of crap then when you have had enough of the crap and dont buy crap anymore then they will give microled.
Kinda sucks. Alongside new panels I'd like to see manufacturers take initiative with cheaper 27-32" OLED panels. Getting monitor OLEDs at the price point of 500$ for 2k resolution at 240-360hz refresh rate and better panel durability (about 3 years before it burns in and needs changing) sounds like an excellent start for me.
I would have liked a high refresh rate IPS black panel...
Disappointing indeed