Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-08-2013, 10:00 PM   #26
blackened23
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KentState View Post
If you think about it, a current generation card is necessary to push that refresh rate on a 1600p monitor so it will come with display port by default. All of the HP laptops we buy at work have had display port and their IPS monitors have included it for the last year. To say that nobody uses it is not true.
I think it's a lot more common than many desktop users would think - The fact that nearly all apple products use it is pretty huge, not to mention that it's pin compatible with thunderbolt display. A lot of apple macbook users have displayport monitors to use their devices on.

Anyway, here's hoping to a 120hz 2560 or 4k display in 2013.
blackened23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 03:59 AM   #27
BFG10K
Lifer
 
BFG10K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 20,487
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pia View Post
But practically everyone could use DisplayPort if they bought a cheap cable, no? I took a quick look at the bottom of the barrel models in each nVidia's Geforce model series starting from the newest, and I had to go all the way to 100 series before I found a card that did not feature DisplayPort.
AFAIK it’s not enough to just have Display Port. 120 Hz requires double the transmission bandwidth of 60 Hz. Or to put it another way, the GPU has to support a 4K resolution @ 60 Hz in order to be able to guarantee 2560x1600 @ 120 Hz.

On nVidia's side only the 6xx series supports 4K resolutions; even the previous flagship (GTX580) lists 2560x1600 as the maximum resolution, which means it likely can’t drive it @ 120 Hz.

Note that we’re talking about simple 2D desktop resolutions here, not 3D gaming, so the performance of the card is irrelevant.

2560x1600 @ 60 Hz has been available since 2005, but the amount of people that use it is miniscule to begin with. The amount of people that can add 120Hz on top of that is a drop in the bucket from that already miniscule amount.
__________________
4790K | Titan | 16GB DDR3-1600 | Z97-K | 128GB Samsung 830 | 960GB Crucial M500 | 1TB VelociRaptor | X-Fi XtremeMusic | Seasonic X 560W | Fractal Arc R2 Midi | 30" HP LP3065

Last edited by BFG10K; 01-09-2013 at 04:41 AM.
BFG10K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:58 AM   #28
blackened23
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,556
Default

Yep, GPU is a big limiting factor. Interface wise, Displayport allows for bandwidth up to 21.6 Gb/s and 720MHz within specification, while DVI-D allows for a maximum of 9.9 Gb/s and 300MHz. 2560x1600x30bppx120hz is roughly 16 Gbs.

Video card is also a limiting factor as you mentioned; many older video cards aren't able to do it, although anything supporting 4k resolution @ 60hz will be able to do it. All of the current generation of GPUs are good to go as far as that is concerned.

Last edited by blackened23; 01-09-2013 at 08:10 AM.
blackened23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:28 AM   #29
kevinsbane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 669
Default

For what it's worth; there is no bandwidth limit in the DVI spec for dual link DVI. The specification states that anything abovge 165 mhz pixel clock (~2560x1440@42hz) must use a dual link DVI connection - but does not state a limit above that. 330mhz is not in the specification as a max pixel clock for dual link DVI (2560x1440@85hz). It's simply not in the spec. 165mhz pixel clock per link is a nice rule of thumb, but so long as the hardware is designed to take advantage of greater than that, it is not actually out of spec of DVI.

Not that DVI really handles it well at that point of course; my monitor runs 1440p@115hz, but it begins to start flickering at that point. I wouldn't want to run a 2560x1600@120hz using DVI. It's at the edge of the material ability for copper DVI cables.
kevinsbane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:34 AM   #30
Black Octagon
Senior Member
 
Black Octagon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: European Union
Posts: 856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackened23 View Post
I've been digging around on this and it appears the reason for the 60hz limitation on 2560 IPS panels is indeed due to the lack of bandwidth of DVI-D. The panel produced by LG is capable of 120hz - and has for some time - but the DVI interface does not allow for it within specs; it does not have enough bandwidth while displayport does..
Not quite correct. Dual Link DVI IS capable of the bandwidth for 120Hz at 2560x1440, however this bandwidth also needs to be supported by the GPU, its drivers, and the PCB of the monitor.

A couple niche IPS monitors exist that are capable of 120Hz at this resolution (Overlord Tempest X270OC and Yamakasi Catleap Extreme 2B). Both include the same PCB. This PCB does not have a '120Hz mode' out of the box. It needs to be overclocked.

The last couple gen of graphics cards are capable of supporting such overclocks. The current drivers from both AMD and NVIDIA are not. Both companies have imposed an arbitrary 330Mhz pixel clock limit in the drivers, which prevents you from reaching the needed bandwidth. So those of us that own these monitors are using customised drivers in which the pixel clock limit is unlocked.

That leaves the cable and DVI connection. It's true that the bandwidth needed to drive 120hz@2560x1440 tests the limits of DVI, but it is possible. It's true that the latest versions of DisplayPort offer even better bandwidth than DVI, and I understand that Thunderbolt could possibly do it to. A more eloquent and detailed explanation is available here: http://120hz.net/showthread.php?1135-How-is-2560*1440-120hz-possible&p=17387&viewfull=1#post17387

What does this all mean? It probably IS possible for 2560x1440 monitors to offer 120Hz out of the box in the foreseeable future. However, a few things would need to happen before we'll see them from the big monitor manufacturers:
(1) A monitor PCB needs to be developed that comfortably supports the required bandwidth - I have no idea how feasible this is,
(2) Any monitor incorporating this fictitious PCB would need to have dual link DVI, or DisplayPort (or possibly Thunderbolt) among their inputs, and
(3) AMD and NVIDIA need to remove the pixel clock limits they currently impose in their drivers

How likely is this to happen in the coming few years? Who knows...

EDIT: kevinsbane beat me to it!

Last edited by Black Octagon; 01-09-2013 at 08:37 AM.
Black Octagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 09:30 AM   #31
blackened23
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Octagon View Post
Not quite correct. Dual Link DVI IS capable of the bandwidth for 120Hz at 2560x1440, however this bandwidth also needs to be supported by the GPU, its drivers, and the PCB of the monitor.
You are using anecdotal evidence of the 120hz catleaps as a backbone of your argument, however it isn't quite correct. 2560x1600x30bpp at 120hz requires 16Gbs. The maximum specification of DVI-D allows for 9.9Gbs. It does not have enough bandwidth. By contrast, 1920x1080x300 at 120hz requires roughly 8Gbs; DVI-D allows for 120hz at 1080p, but not 1440/1600p. On the pixel clock issue, that is also true as well but both AMD and nvidia allow for higher pixel clock rates through the driver. That is an easily fixed issue.

Furthermore, while some claim to have 120hz catleaps - it has been proven across various websites that anything above 75hz results in dropped frames. So while their video card control panel allows them to select 120hz, the limitations of DVI-D results in dropped frames.

So - again - DVI-D does not have enough bandwidth. Displayport does. Lastly, every 2560 IPS panel made in the past 3 years supports displayport - except, oddly enough, those crap korean panels. Ever wonder why they're so cheap and so many are defective? You get what you pay for.

Last edited by blackened23; 01-09-2013 at 09:34 AM.
blackened23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 09:55 AM   #32
kevinsbane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackened23 View Post
You are using anecdotal evidence of the 120hz catleaps as a backbone of your argument, however it isn't quite correct. 2560x1600x30bpp at 120hz requires 16Gbs. The maximum specification of DVI-D allows for 9.9Gbs. It does not have enough bandwidth. By contrast, 1920x1080x300 at 120hz requires roughly 8Gbs; DVI-D allows for 120hz at 1080p, but not 1440/1600p. On the pixel clock issue, that is also true as well but both AMD and nvidia allow for higher pixel clock rates through the driver. That is an easily fixed issue.

Furthermore, while some claim to have 120hz catleaps - it has been proven across various websites that anything above 75hz results in dropped frames. So while their video card control panel allows them to select 120hz, the limitations of DVI-D results in dropped frames.

So - again - DVI-D does not have enough bandwidth. Displayport does. Lastly, every 2560 IPS panel made in the past 3 years supports displayport - except, oddly enough, those crap korean panels. Ever wonder why they're so cheap and so many are defective? You get what you pay for.
The bolded portion is incorrect. There is no max bandwidth on dual link DVI in the DVI spec.

Secondly, it has been proven by various sites that multi-input catleaps/korean monitors in general skip frames above 60hz. It has also been conclusively proven that certain monitors, the Catleap "2B" variant and the Overlord Tempest OC monitors, can and do display up to 135 fps.
kevinsbane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 10:31 AM   #33
BrightCandle
Diamond Member
 
BrightCandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,763
Default

I am far from an expert in this but taking a quick look at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface) it does seem like that its plausible that the maximum DVI-D dual link resolution would be 1920x1200x24@120.

My reasoning for this is that single link DVI-D is limited to 1920x1200x24@60 Hz. Dual link being double could likely carry 120Hz of the same resolution.

The actual maximum resolution (widescreen) @ 60hz on a single link is 2,098 1,311, there are no standard resolutions between 1920x1200 and that slightly increased resolution.

Now with Catleap 2B's they do seem to have overclocked the cables past that limit quite considerably such that instead of being limited to 2.75 Mpixels at 120Hz they are 3.686 Mpixels at 120Hz. That is quite an overclock.

Thus I doubt we'll see any DVI-D 120hz monitors beyond the 1080p ones we see today ( I still hold out for 24" 1920x1200 but I doubt it'll happen). Displayport should usher in more high resolutions and higher hz but its far from certain when that change on desktop will happen decisively. I get a lot more 2x DVI ports on a GeForce 680 and only 1xDisplayPort. I can't thus run surround on DP at all.
__________________
I no longer frequent these forums.
BrightCandle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 10:48 AM   #34
blackened23
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinsbane View Post
The bolded portion is incorrect. There is no max bandwidth on dual link DVI in the DVI spec.

Secondly, it has been proven by various sites that multi-input catleaps/korean monitors in general skip frames above 60hz. It has also been conclusively proven that certain monitors, the Catleap "2B" variant and the Overlord Tempest OC monitors, can and do display up to 135 fps.
I just double checked and you are indeed correct (only for DVI-DL), however this is still questionable because the bandwidth becomes limited by the copper interconnects used within the cable itself and the number of pins available. That's pretty ambiguous and i'd imagine that some ports/connections wouldn't allow it. Also, DVI is a dead standard in terms of no governing body existing to solidify standards or improving it - DVI will stay the way it is; whereas DP and HDMI are both governed by VESA and manufacturers, respectively.

Last edited by blackened23; 01-09-2013 at 10:56 AM.
blackened23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 11:32 AM   #35
kevinsbane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackened23 View Post
I just double checked and you are indeed correct (only for DVI-DL), however this is still questionable because the bandwidth becomes limited by the copper interconnects used within the cable itself and the number of pins available. That's pretty ambiguous and i'd imagine that some ports/connections wouldn't allow it. Also, DVI is a dead standard in terms of no governing body existing to solidify standards or improving it - DVI will stay the way it is; whereas DP and HDMI are both governed by VESA and manufacturers, respectively.
DVI is definitely a dead standard. The standards body last met in 2001 and has since disbanded! That makes it older than Windows XP >.> DisplayPort hopefully will gain a lot of traction, especially since almost all the quality 1440p+ monitors do not run HDMI 1.4 ports (That and my laptop has DisplayPort)

Quote:
My reasoning for this is that single link DVI-D is limited to 1920x1200x24@60 Hz. Dual link being double could likely carry 120Hz of the same resolution.
The 165 pixel clock mhz limitation (~2560x1440p@42hz) of Single link DVI is not an upper bound of the protocol itself. It is a threshold that above which you must use dual link DVI in order to be considered "in-spec".
kevinsbane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 12:02 PM   #36
Black Octagon
Senior Member
 
Black Octagon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: European Union
Posts: 856
Default

Two more points from me:

1) The frame skipping Catleap Multi was a very specific batch. The manufacturer, Witech, cottoned on to the fact that eBay was going ape shit crazy for overclockable Catleaps, and released this Multi and specifically allowed the eBay sellers to market them as overclockable. The same software that was used to pick up the frame skipping can be used on any monitor. It has been used to verify that the Catleap Extreme 2B and Overlord Tempest X270OC do actually output 120Hz when overclocked to that refresh rate. I myself have a Tempest at 120Hz and it is every bit as smooth as the native 120Hz Samsung 950D next to it.

2) Dual Link DVI is indeed capable of the bandwidth needed for 120Hz at this resolution - again, IF your monitor, graphics card, drivers, monitor PCB and DVI cable all support it. Nonetheless, we are quibbling about DVI in this thread. The point is that Tempest OC and Catleap 2B owners are operating on the fringes of what DVI can handle. If a monitor manufacturer were to specifically design a 2560x1440 monitor that operates at 120Hz out of the box, it's all but obvious that they would use DisplayPort, or possibly Thunderbolt...
__________________
Asrock Extreme3 Z68 | i5-2500k @ 4.6Ghz | 8GB Corsair Vengeance | Sapphire HD7970 @ 1250/1750 | Crucial M4 128GB | CM Hyper Evo 212 | Overlord Tempest X270OC @ 120Hz
Black Octagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 02:30 PM   #37
AdamK47
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 10,849
Default

Will it use full array back lit LEDs, or will it be edge lit? It better be full array.
__________________
Intel Core i7 5960X - Asus Rampage V Extreme - 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 - Four Nvidia GTX 980s in 4-Way SLI - 256GB Samsung 850 Pro SSD - Five 1TB Samsung 840 EVO SSDs in 5TB RAID-0 - 6TB Seagate 7200RPM HDD - Pioneer BDR-206 BD-RW - Corsair Obsidian 750D case - Thermaltake Water 3.0 Ultimate cooler - Corsair AX1500i power supply - Razer BlackWidow Ultimate keyboard - CST LaserTRAC 2545W trackball - BenQ BL3200PT monitor - Shure SRH1440 headphones - Windows 8.1 Pro x64
AdamK47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 02:43 PM   #38
blackened23
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamK47 View Post
Will it use full array back lit LEDs, or will it be edge lit? It better be full array.
From what i've read, it isn't edge lit unlike the u3011.
blackened23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 03:05 PM   #39
DonGateley
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7
Default

Any indication whether or not it will have an MHL input? Their Ophelia device requires it and they don't currently have any monitors with it so one would hope...
DonGateley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 04:10 PM   #40
ViRGE
Super Moderator
Elite Member
 
ViRGE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 30,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonGateley View Post
Any indication whether or not it will have an MHL input? Their Ophelia device requires it and they don't currently have any monitors with it so one would hope...
I wouldn't count on it. MHL doesn't have enough bandwidth to drive the monitor at its native resolution, so why bother?
__________________
ViRGE
Team Anandtech: Assimilating a computer near you!
GameStop - An upscale specialized pawnshop that happens to sell new games on the side
Todd the Wraith: On Fruit Bowls - I hope they prove [to be] as delicious as the farmers who grew them
ViRGE is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 06:31 PM   #41
moonbogg
Diamond Member
 
moonbogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,500
Default

4K 30"ers coming? Why does that not surprise me. It won't be long now.
__________________
3930K @ 4.3 - 16GB DDR3 @ 1600 - 2X GTX 670 SLI(2GB) - SAMSUNG 830 SSD - 1920X1080 @ 120HZ - WINDOWS 8.1
moonbogg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 09:14 PM   #42
DonGateley
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRGE View Post
I wouldn't count on it. MHL doesn't have enough bandwidth to drive the monitor at its native resolution, so why bother?
Is it less than HDMI? If so, I wonder why a new standard would be lower bandwidth than an older one.

It would be sorta embarrassing if Ophelia (given that it sees the light of day) would have no place in their own product lineup.
DonGateley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 09:45 PM   #43
ViRGE
Super Moderator
Elite Member
 
ViRGE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 30,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonGateley View Post
Is it less than HDMI? If so, I wonder why a new standard would be lower bandwidth than an older one.

It would be sorta embarrassing if Ophelia (given that it sees the light of day) would have no place in their own product lineup.
MHL is equivalent to HDMI 1.3. 1920x1080 at 60fps. HDMI can at least slide since there are a fair number of computers (and game consoles) where HDMI is the only option (such as Ultrabooks). MHL doesn't have that kind of leverage though.
__________________
ViRGE
Team Anandtech: Assimilating a computer near you!
GameStop - An upscale specialized pawnshop that happens to sell new games on the side
Todd the Wraith: On Fruit Bowls - I hope they prove [to be] as delicious as the farmers who grew them
ViRGE is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 10:01 PM   #44
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonbogg View Post
4K 30"ers coming? Why does that not surprise me. It won't be long now.
Sharp 32 incher for $5.5K.

The best part about 4K becoming the next HDTV standard is PC monitor manufacturers won't be able to artificially keep prices high like they did with 30 inch 1600P screen for almost a decade because PC gamers could just go out and buy a 32-40 inch 4K TV at BestBuy.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 07:33 AM   #45
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
Sharp 32 incher for $5.5K.

The best part about 4K becoming the next HDTV standard is PC monitor manufacturers won't be able to artificially keep prices high like they did with 30 inch 1600P screen for almost a decade because PC gamers could just go out and buy a 32-40 inch 4K TV at BestBuy.
Did you ever try compare a monitor and TV side by side?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 10:01 AM   #46
Ferzerp
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 5,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Did you ever try compare a monitor and TV side by side?

Granted, but the panel is the expensive part, and at this point, the panels are often the same. It's the electronic bits that make (low end) TVs poor monitors. I've seen some higher end ones that work fine, when set up for it, but they're also huge, and so the pixels are huge.
Ferzerp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 10:28 AM   #47
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferzerp View Post
Granted, but the panel is the expensive part, and at this point, the panels are often the same. It's the electronic bits that make (low end) TVs poor monitors. I've seen some higher end ones that work fine, when set up for it, but they're also huge, and so the pixels are huge.
Is my Samsung UE55ES7005 lowend?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare
Competition is good at driving the pace of innovation, but it is an inefficient mechanism (R&D expenditures summed across a given industry) for generating the innovation.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 10:48 AM   #48
Ferzerp
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 5,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Is my Samsung UE55ES7005 lowend?
Formal logc fail!

ferzerp: There exists a subset of A called C that does B
ShintaiDK: My TV is in A, it must do be!

No, ShintaiDK, if your TV is really in A and doesn't do B, it is not a member of C.
Ferzerp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 10:56 AM   #49
blackened23
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,556
Default

I think there is a rather large divide between PC monitors and HDTV's in terms of quality - consider that the typical TV screen is viewed from many feet away, whereas a PC monitor is often viewed from very close distances. I personally have seen many HDTVs with QA issues such as dead pixels, bleed, and uneven brightness; it generally doesn't matter because they can only be seen at close (1-2 feet) viewing distances. The electronics used within a device make a big difference; the high rate of defective korean monitors is pretty much case in point.

On average a PC monitor will have far fewer defects than a TV - small defects on HDTVs remain undetected, whereas on a PC monitor they are glaringly obvious due to viewing distance.

The other thing one should mention is that ultra HD TV sets will have a 30hz refresh rate @4k2 if I recall correctly; on top of this uHDTVs will be using the HDMI interface. Without exception I have never seen a 2560 monitor able to display greater than 1080p with HDMI, so i'm not quite sure how this will work. I understand that the 1.4 HDMI specification allows for higher resolution but in practice, either the device or cable will be a lower spec which prevents >1080p from working.
blackened23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 10:58 AM   #50
blackened23
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,556
Default

With all that said, I should add if we're talking pure gaming, viewing distance isn't critical. I enjoy sitting on my couch and using my HDTV for gaming at times - so I guess uHDTVs will be fine for gaming. I definitely wouldn't use a TV for anything outside of gaming though, personal preference I guess.
blackened23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.