HP 5K Monitor Released at USD 1200

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9870/hp-z2...e-pixels/6
Wow, that's some price drop compared to the Dell 5K monitor. Now all we need to do is wait for DisplayPort 1.3 and the prices to drop even further.

[RolloTheGreat]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9870/hp-z2...e-pixels/6
Wow, that's some price drop compared to the Dell 5K monitor. Now all we need to do is wait for DisplayPort 1.3 and the prices to drop even further.

This monitor has got to be stunning for gaming.

Now that it's getting to be winter perhaps I'll try the 4K Vsync panel I bought this summer. Rollo Jr is almost entirely on PS4 now, so I can get on it again.

[BenSkywalker]

Now all we need to do is wait for DisplayPort 1.3 and the prices to drop even further.

Meh, we need OLED.

Drop it to 4K, swap it to OLED, double the price, I'm in

[SickBeast]

OLED seems like plasma 2.0 to me. Destined to failure. There has to be a reason why only LG is pursuing the technology. From what I have read it has a great picture however OLED screens can't get as bright as LEDs and they still don't look as good in a bright room. The burn in also concerns me. A lot of people say it's a non issue now but I still don't trust it.

Also, it's certainly not worth the price premium over LED. At least not yet.

I would say at the very least give it some time, let them work the bugs out, and let the prices drop. Although with LG effectively holding a monopoly on the product I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

[BenSkywalker]

OLED seems like plasma 2.0 to me. Destined to failure.

That is a game of prediction, and I won't say you are wrong but I will certainly say I hope you are. Plasma had that gawdawful strobing that induced nausea in those that could see it(although, like older DLPs and their rainbow issues, most people couldn't). That said, BetaMax was flat out superior and lost. The thing is, OLED's advantage over LCD is *MUCH* larger- the difference is a two by four to the eyes.

True story. I was in the market for a new tablet, I start walking around and I see a display that was clearly set up to be prime real estate with two tablets side by side. One of them had an utterly gorgeous screen- best I have ever seen, and it was sitting next to what looked like a cheap ass Chinese Android tablet with a sub Wal Mart display. Now that iPad was supposed to have a pretty good screen for LCDs- it was a joke, comical. I walked out of the store with a $400 tablet build by a manufacturer I don't like, using a garbage SoC that is an embarrassment to high end portables, loaded with bloat ware and a garbage rom that I would have to replace all for one simple reason. The, hands down, best screen I have ever seen.

That was over a year ago. Have not regretted or lamented that purchase once. My buddy just bought a new $1300 camera, he called me up as soon as he got it and told me he wants to use my tablet to see how good the thing really looks(no joke).

I tried working out how I could output my PC directly to my tablet and I would use that over the 27" 144Hz display I have now. No joke. It is *THAT* big of a difference.

Although with LG effectively holding a monopoly on the product I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

Uhm..... Samsung is the largest manufacturer of OLED screens- it really isn't even close....?

From what I have read it has a great picture however OLED screens can't get as bright as LEDs and they still don't look as good in a bright room.

First part is correct, second part is quite frankly laughable. Peak nits on a LCD will be higher when talking max vs max for the technology- under direct sunlight I would give you- in a bright room?

http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/tablets...-tab-s2-97

Not saying LCDs can't go brighter, all you have to do is use flood lights for a backlight and they will win- but that is an OLED screen flat out beating comparable LCD screens on brightness(it's in the numbers box, third one when you click next). Would you say the iPad is hard to use in a bright room? Because that is an OLED that is over 20% brighter.

Also, it's certainly not worth the price premium over LED. At least not yet.

Oh, in an instant if they made a PC monitor, I have no issue with the price, I just need one without TV post processing that LG is putting into all of their current sets(grrrrrrrr).

Although with LG effectively holding a monopoly on the product I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

I'm not sure where you got this impression, Samsung has sold more OLEDS, I believe, then *everyone* else combined? My numbers may be a bit off, but we are talking about hundreds of millions. Yes, they are almost all small displays, but they are certainly within striking distance to monitors as are LG, although they have to go the other way.

[SteelCrysis]

That is a game of prediction, and I won't say you are wrong but I will certainly say I hope you are. Plasma had that gawdawful strobing that induced nausea in those that could see it(although, like older DLPs and their rainbow issues, most people couldn't). That said, BetaMax was flat out superior and lost. The thing is, OLED's advantage over LCD is *MUCH* larger- the difference is a two by four to the eyes.[/color]

[color=#333333]True story. I was in the market for a new tablet, I start walking around and I see a display that was clearly set up to be prime real estate with two tablets side by side. One of them had an utterly gorgeous screen- best I have ever seen, and it was sitting next to what looked like a cheap ass Chinese Android tablet with a sub Wal Mart display. Now that iPad was supposed to have a pretty good screen for LCDs- it was a joke, comical. I walked out of the store with a $400 tablet build by a manufacturer I don't like, using a garbage SoC that is an embarrassment to high end portables, loaded with bloat ware and a garbage rom that I would have to replace all for one simple reason. The, hands down, best screen I have ever seen.

All thanks to increased pixel density, which higher resolution tends to bring. Pixel density is what gives 4K its edge over OLED, despite people jumping on OLED as a reason to reject 4K.

[BenSkywalker]

All thanks to increased pixel density, which higher resolution tends to bring.

Uhm, no. LCD's biggest problem is their atrocious contrast ratio- this is only compounded by higher pixel density. You are increasing the resolution information available for the eyes but are lacking, by several orders of magnitude, the ability to have proper distinction between colors particularly of varying intensity of light intensity.

This 5K monitor is 217 PPI, I was using a 440PPI display last year- it isn't remotely *close* to the overall picture quality that OLEDs offer.

Pixel density is what gives 4K its edge over OLED, despite people jumping on OLED as a reason to reject 4K.

That is like saying a gasoline powered car is better than a diesel because it has wider tires. 4K OLEDs have been available for a while now, 4K is just a resolution, OLED is a display type. I have zero interest in buying an archaic LCD because they increased the pixel density. 4K OLED is *VASTLY* superior to 4K LCD- it isn't remotely close. Simply view them side by side, the LCD panel will look like absolute shit.

[RolloTheGreat]

Personally I just wish they would bring back plasma. Has most of OLEDs image quality advantages, and stomps OLED flat in motion display.

Don't care very much about the TVs you have to sit in the middle of the room to see the PPI advantage.

[BenSkywalker]

Has most of OLEDs image quality advantages, and stomps OLED flat in motion display.

This is a problem with LG's TVs, not OLED- that is why I made the comment about their post processing. Kills what would otherwise be hands down the best display for the living room to date without question.

There have been tests done where they took the same video clip on an OLED and Plasma, changed out a black frame for every other one the OLED displayed and it beat the Kuros in motion resolution. Half the actual frames, higher motion resolution. Image persistence is a perception issue for us because OLED is an always on display type, not strobe light like plasmas. It's one of the things that pushed the Oculus boys to use 90Hz OLED and a couple other tweaks to give if full motion resolution(which no Plasma ever quite hit that I am aware of, highest was Kuros at ~900 lines IIRC).

[RolloTheGreat]

Has most of OLEDs image quality advantages, and stomps OLED flat in motion display.

This is a problem with LG's TVs, not OLED- that is why I made the comment about their post processing. Kills what would otherwise be hands down the best display for the living room to date without question.

There have been tests done where they took the same video clip on an OLED and Plasma, changed out a black frame for every other one the OLED displayed and it beat the Kuros in motion resolution. Half the actual frames, higher motion resolution. Image persistence is a perception issue for us because OLED is an always on display type, not strobe light like plasmas. It's one of the things that pushed the Oculus boys to use 90Hz OLED and a couple other tweaks to give if full motion resolution(which no Plasma ever quite hit that I am aware of, highest was Kuros at ~900 lines IIRC).

Yep, I knew the LGs had that doubling up the frames crap going on.

I had this tv back in the day, was the cats ass for sports:

http://www.cnet.com/products/samsung-pna650/

[SickBeast]

History has proven many times that technology that is "good enough" and is cheaper will always win. Most people don't care about oled's infinite black levels or better motion resolution. Actually led tvs with 120hz are pretty good for fast motion. That's the thing. LED is pretty good and it is by far the cheapest and the most reliable.

[RolloTheGreat]

History has proven many times that technology that is "good enough" and is cheaper will always win. Most people don't care about oled's infinite black levels or better motion resolution. Actually led tvs with 120hz are pretty good for fast motion. That's the thing. LED is pretty good and it is by far the cheapest and the most reliable.

True 120hz panels would be fine for motion, but how many exist that aren't just inserting duplicate frames?

Hint: Your $500 "HiSense" and my $1400 Sharp and Rollo Jr's $1200 Samsung probably aren't among them.

[BenSkywalker]

History has proven many times that technology that is "good enough" and is cheaper will always win.

Not really, no- your use of always is what makes this inaccurate- almost always I'd agree with though

Actually led tvs with 120hz are pretty good for fast motion.

If by 'pretty good' you mean 'OMFG what kind of train wrecked abortion is this' I would absolutely agree. BTW- why did you refer to it as a 'LED'? It's an LCD- or are we going to call OLED "     " because, you know, no backlight? 120HZ TVs use a frame interpolation hack that introduces *MASSIVE* artifacts and blurring- they are shockingly bad- and they only display 60Hz regardless. Mind you, I have a 144Hz monitor- and that helps with movement *a lot*- the 120Hz feature on my TV is *ALWAYS* set to off- it is outright terrible.

LED is pretty good and it is by far the cheapest and the most reliable.

CRTs were actually significantly more reliable, and cheaper at the time, and they lost to LCDs. Not saying OLED will win, but I will point out that economy cars aren't even close to dominating anywhere in either of our markets

I think that most people who believe they suffer from refresh rate issues actually suffer from frame rate issues due to lack of a powerful enough GPU or a powerful enough CPU to consistently push 60fps.

What I am talking about in regards to refresh rate, at least in terms of plasma, is that they are not a constant on display type- they pulse- just like CRTs. If you notice the pulsing, it will likely make you sick to your stomach.

These people will invariably have a single mid-range GPU and an i5 or worse processor (usually an i3 or one of those ridiculous "anniversary pentiums" or an AMD pile of crap) and will argue until they are blue in the face that anything more powerful is a waste.

I'll give you the mid range graphics all day, but an i5 is a problem? I won't say it is a waste outright, I will say you are *WAY* better off taking the extra $100-$200 and getting more GPU power with an i5 then going with an i7 and cutting GPU corners. In any real setting on anything demanding you will *almost* always be GPU limited with a remotely decent i5.

[SteelCrysis]

CRTs were actually significantly more reliable, and cheaper at the time, and they lost to LCDs. Not saying OLED will win, but I will point out that economy cars aren't even close to dominating anywhere in either of our markets

The reasons LCDs defeated CRTs were because of power efficiency and because people were tired of getting back issues from lifting CRTs.

[RolloTheGreat]

Depends on the specific i5 model and what you are trying to run.  More of an issue with processors under i5 for sure.  Frankly, if you are a gamer just get a mainstream i7 and be done with it.  Both my i7's cost me less to purchase than my Phenom II 940 did (and therein lies a large part of the reason why AMD is fucked nowadays).

I understand the scanning issue, interlaced modes on the Amiga were painful because it happened around 15 hz - half NTSC and PAL's normal 30hz rate.  Flicker was terrible.

Care to post links to the big advantage of owning a i7 vs a i5 for gaming at the same clock speed?

AMD learned the lesson of "moar corez" apparently you have not.

Not to mention virtual corez aren't even real corez.

Ben is right, GPU is the way to go.

[RolloTheGreat]

Do your own research.  I'm not your assistant to be bossed around!

As I said mainstream i7's can be had cheaper than Phenom II quad cores sold for.  Why would you settle for less?!  I never mentioned core count or the nature of the cores.  I will note however that hyper-threading has come a long way since Nehalem and Sandy Bridge and I'd rather have it than not.

No, the reason I like i7 is the clock speed.  4.0 ghz out of the box, 4.4 ghz solid simply by putting an aftermarket heatsink on and using the all core turbo tweak in the bios.  No overclock needed.

Speaking of overclocking, 2600K was pretty legendary too, just pop an aftermarket heatsink on and get an entire extra ghz of speed simply by changing the multiplier from 34 to 44, that's it nothing else to change.  The only way it could have been easier is to have a "press me for 1 ghz extra speed" button on the motherboard.

I have a 4790K as well, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in that and the 4690 I have in the other desktop.

[RolloTheGreat]

You can't tell the difference between 3.5/3.9 and 4.0/4/4 ghz?!

You are getting old and decrepit mate!  No wonder you hardly game anymore!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devil...i5-4690k/5



http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6447/in...ndex5.html

Which ones could you see the difference in?

[SteelCrysis]

Tom's likes it too: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hp-z...404-8.html