ASUS MG28UQ 4K 28-Inch Adaptive-Sync Monitor

[Brane215]

fast ips's are priced close to fast tn's
single memory channel has order of magnitude more bandwidth than dp. i hope your apu has two.

That just means that IPS has made the jump needed to compete with TN speedwise, at least in soem applications, at the moment. Id doesn't mean that current fast IPS models cover everything one might want ( viewing angle, color uniformity, real bit depth etc).


WRT to bandwithth:

1. It isn't as simple as waterflow. You can't just add numbers.

2. This is declared, marketing number, that is never reached. Real bandwidth is usually considerably lower.

3. Higher refresh rate consumes bandwith multiple times. Once when pixels are acquired for frame refresh, and once when they have to be recomputed. Why else would you have higher frame rate ?

4. All this doesn't just cut a part out of available bandwith, it considerably lifts latencies that CPU sees when accessing RAM.

5. Let's estimate at the numbers again: 2 DDR3 channels with 2133MHz times 8 bytes/transfer means roughly 32 GB/s - peak. Real number is problably at 25GB/s or lower.
One 4k@144Hz needs 5GB/s out of that. How is that "order of magnitude" ? Keep in mind that if I want to have even good 2D animation, I need at least another 5GB/s for that display just to be able to draw a frame during the time monitor is showing last frame. That's at least 10GB/s, probably more, for simple 2D. And one monitor.
With 2 or 3 of those on my system, I'm out of the bandwidth, even before CPU managed to step into equation for its needs.

[pal666]

1. Ofcourse they do. Designers have to make some sort of compromise between LCD cells speed, polarization strength etc and price.

fast ips's are priced close to fast tn's

2. DP is not only problem. On list of the problems, that's probably smallest one. Probme is bandwidth this is demanding from RAM, especially if you are working with APU, which has ordinary DDR3/4, which isn't particularly wide and it jhas to share it with both GPU and CPU. Especially with CPU this can hurt.

single memory channel has order of magnitude more bandwidth than dp. i hope your apu has two.

[pal666]

I intentionally plan to stick to low-DPI monitors

as you could see, i never argued for high-dpi monitors, i even said that it is not a requirement. though 1280 is not only low-dpi, but also low-res

[Brane215]

vewing angle and colors have nothing to do with framerate since there are fast ips screens on the market already. and fast tn screens were always overpriced anyway. btw, "more than 60" does not imply "144"
that's why i said you need more than dp 1.2
monitor's useful life is usually much longer than videocard's. with capable monitor you could choose framerate/resolution/color depth, with incapable you can't

1. Ofcourse they do. Designers have to make some sort of compromise between LCD cells speed, polarization strength etc and price.
Just because there are some combinations that manufacturers deemed appropriate to declare as 120/144 etc Hz doesn't mean that they haven't made compromises on other fields.
Just because you can get Ariel Atom for €25k doesn't mean that getting yourself Tesla S or X would be a stupid purchase, since you can have way better acceleration for way less money.

2. DP is not only problem. On list of the problems, that's probably smallest one. Probme is bandwidth this is demanding from RAM, especially if you are working with APU, which has ordinary DDR3/4, which isn't particularly wide and it jhas to share it with both GPU and CPU. Especially with CPU this can hurt.

[ssokolow]

vewing angle and colors have nothing to do with framerate since there are fast ips screens on the market already. and fast tn screens were always overpriced anyway. btw, "more than 60" does not imply "144"
that's why i said you need more than dp 1.2
monitor's useful life is usually much longer than videocard's. with capable monitor you could choose framerate/resolution/color depth, with incapable you can't

That still depends on the user. I've replaced dead video cards twice since I first built this system in 2007 (GeForce 7600 -> GT430 -> GTX750) and both of the original 19" 1280x1024 monitors died within the last year or so, but I replaced them with similar 19" 1280x1024 monitors and the only significant change to my system was when I bought a passive DP->DVI adapter and added a third monitor.

I intentionally plan to stick to low-DPI monitors for as long as I can because I'm comfortable with them, my eyesight is already 20/20 (and only going to get worse when I get old), and I judge a monitor's appeal based on a metric which could be roughly described as "square inches per watt after filtering for acceptable response time and visual fidelity".

High DPI is for pocket devices like the DragonBox Pyra (Would have been 1080p but they managed to find a low-MOC supplier for 5" 720p LCDs) or HMDs where screen-door effects are an issue, not monitors that have 4 feet of desk and keyboard tray between me and them.

[pal666]

pal666: 144Hz brigns variaous compromises ( price/ viewing angle, color uniformity etc)

vewing angle and colors have nothing to do with framerate since there are fast ips screens on the market already. and fast tn screens were always overpriced anyway. btw, "more than 60" does not imply "144"

At 144Hz you need more than twice that, or 5GB/s.

that's why i said you need more than dp 1.2

That's not trivial, especially if you have multimonitor setup and/or are running from APU.

monitor's useful life is usually much longer than videocard's. with capable monitor you could choose framerate/resolution/color depth, with incapable you can't

[pal666]

That's perfectly adequate for everything except fast paced gaming and wide gamut photo/video editing. And I believe Michael has no use for either.

higher-than-60 refresh rate does not require games, it is just better for any moving picture. and wide gamut is part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020 which is not for video editing, but for plain old uhdtv. btw, 120 fps is also part of it

[Mark Rose]

Friendly advice: if you know from the start you'll need to scale, then you don't need all those pixels. Go with 1440 or 1600 instead.
I'd go in some store and look at 4k and sub 4k models without scaling and let my eyes tell me what they actually need.

Yep, good advice. I have a 169 PPI screen on my laptop, and I still see pixels, so I think 200 dpi would work well there. I thought I'd also appreciate 200 dpi on the desktop, and was eyeing 4k in a 21" form factor, but after seeing displays in the store, it turns out 4k at 27" is perfect for me (163 PPI). I might still go 24". It all depends on your eyes.

Running benq xl2411 (144Hz TN) atm, colors are objectively extreme shit, even compared to my 10 year old HP-ZR24w (SIPS panel).
On the other hand, bought it for gaming and after calibration with color probe it's somewhat acceptable monitor for non-gaming stuff.

[Brane215]

pal666: 144Hz brigns variaous compromises ( price/ viewing angle, color uniformity etc) htat many arent' willing to pay for. Bandwidth useage for frame refresh is not trivial. If you havee 4K@60Hz, you need roughly 4k * 2k * 4 ( bytes per pixel) * 60 = 2GB/s just for picture generation - so that the HW fetches all those pixels and send them through cable. At 144Hz you need more than twice that, or 5GB/s. That's not trivial, especially if you have multimonitor setup and/or are running from APU.