[tftcentral] Asus, Acer and HP Announce 65" Big Format Gaming Displays with G-sync

[Charlie22911]

Who says you have to put the 65" on your desk. IMO this is a product for people with Living Room PCs.

I was musing over folks who do. And I agree.

 

[tential]

I was musing over folks who do. And I agree.

That wasn't clear, especially since you're an ideal person for this monitor. Replace that Plasma and let that 1080ti see those gsync frames above 60 hz! All you have to do is unleash your wallet some more.

Nvidia is clearly trying to solidify itself as the HTPC GPU of choice. It already was for the most part, but if they get this out, and can get the price away from the insane starting levels it will, it will upgrade the living room HTPC gaming experience immensely.

 

[Grubbernaught]

Is this a sign of confidence from Nvidia that they expect 4k >60fps performance to be solidly delivered with the next gen of gpus?

I firmly believe this is going to be the case as the 1080ti is tantalizingly close to realizing this already.

Either way, sign me up.

 

[Charlie22911]

I don’t think nVidia is signaling anything with this display. I think it is just a way for them to get some additional cash from not only PC gamers, but also console gamers who are in the market for a TV or dissatisfied with the “lag” of their current TV; and I’m willing to bet it will be marketed that way.

 

[tential]

I love Home Theater Gaming way too much....

Found this while digging through neogaf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19g9peb_IXU
"At Samsung's First Look TV event ahead of CES 2018, a company executive told us that its 2018 range of QLED TVs will support VRR (variable refresh rate) technology from the likes of G-Sync and Freesync, even though the underlying chipset is not full HDMI 2.1."

So looks like AMD will be getting in on this too. Just looks like Nvidia wanted to give a press release while AMDs marketing is floating in the wind.

Lucky for AMD, people like me dig this info up and force you to try to care.

Your TV will be better... it will be more powerful than ever before... you want this... you want to game on your HDTV.... not just your desk... join me!

Now we just need GPUs... lol

 

[ZGR]

Is this a sign of confidence from Nvidia that they expect 4k >60fps performance to be solidly delivered with the next gen of gpus?

I firmly believe this is going to be the case as the 1080ti is tantalizingly close to realizing this already.

Either way, sign me up.

I'm not concerned one bit. Even a single 1080 ti will drive 4k144hz for the games I play. I am so excited for 4k144hz I really hope we have a display under $1000 before 2019.

 

[Grooveriding]

I mean exactly. Us as PC users, we don't need any of that junk. Most of us have other pcs.Trim the junk out of the displays and give us serious big screen displays. I mean we has a person here talking about using their HTpc setup with their 1080ti on a 55 inch 4k TV.

Why wouldn't that type user want a gsync option?

Our HTpc setups need the displays to match. Low input lag, high refresh, adaptive sync.

@Grooveriding

I mean... $4k is probably conservative.
It's the super niche display... Then add the gsync multiplier. Boom.

I'm just excited to see the PC gaming move more firmly into the living room. It's nice to use a console, but when everything is cross platform I really don't know why I'd get a console. $500 I can put a decent down payment on a gpu.

Well I hope not. 4K US is going to put this around $5500CDN before tax. At that price I could get a really nice OLED, which makes it a tougher proposition. I really like the idea of a big screen 4K with gsync and a high refresh rate though. At that point I'd play everything on the couch apart from FPS.

 

[PeterScott]

Well I hope not. 4K US is going to put this around $5500CDN before tax. At that price I could get a really nice OLED, which makes it a tougher proposition. I really like the idea of a big screen 4K with gsync and a high refresh rate though. At that point I'd play everything on the couch apart from FPS.

I expect it will be $4999 USD MSRP. Don't underestimate NVidias greed.

 

[DigDog]

how far do you have to sit to watch a 65" monitor?

 

[tential]

Well I hope not. 4K US is going to put this around $5500CDN before tax. At that price I could get a really nice OLED, which makes it a tougher proposition. I really like the idea of a big screen 4K with gsync and a high refresh rate though. At that point I'd play everything on the couch apart from FPS.

I'm not disagreeing.
I'm not saying it will be a good value for a lot of people. But for those with the disposable income, I'm sure there will be those who will definitely pick it up. I doubt it will have a hard time selling.

Yes, I already pretty much do that Grooveriding about the bolded part.
I just don't play FPS because I didn't have a high refresh rate monitor.
I'm excited to have a much improved experience now. I took a break from large screen gaming when my projector broke and I got my 4K monitor. I can't lose VRR, so I can't wait to get VRR on a big screen again.

how far do you have to sit to watch a 65" monitor?

How far do you have to sit to watch a 65" TV?
No one is monitoring you, I checked.
You can sit anywhere.

If you want a starting point, use THX reference seating if you can't decide for yourself. Personally, I sit closer than THX reference when gaming, and only sit THX reference when watching TV/movies.
When gaming I sit as close as possible.
Pull out your xbox controller and enjoy some games. Or a wireless keyboard/mouse if you have a setup for playing like that. I could play with my keyboard in my lap and my bed as a mousepad just fine from my bedroom HTPC setup. FPS is just a no go without a monitor for me personally. If I go online it's Dota 2 now, and that's no problem for me on a big screen.

It makes twitch streams a lot more fun to watch too for me, but I also watch with my brother so watching a big Dota 2/League match on a large display is amazing.

Really, I only want to be at my monitor/desk for productivity. Nothing else. That's me personally.
I rarely if ever WANT to be gaming at my desk. Everything I do is to make it so I can enjoy games away from my desk actually.

 

[DigDog]

thing is, with human vision, if you sit at a desk-length to your monitor, you won't see all of those 65". high pixel count matters less when your monitor is further away, and games which demand high-refresh rates also demand that you sit close to the screen. it seems that this is a product that looks good on paper but has no practical purpose.

 

[tential]

So don't sit at desk length and sit where you want. Use this to replace your HDTV. This has been covered multiple times in the thread, and was literally just explained to you.
You're trolling/derailing at this point forcing the thread back to this basic explanation over and over again.

 

[DigDog]

no, but i know this argument goes over the head of high-ender, because i've seen it before. so here is the simplified version: i think this product is crap and wouldn't buy it if i had a million dollars.
also i might add that

high pixel count matters less when your monitor is further away, and games which demand high-refresh rates also demand that you sit close to the screen.

This was literally just explained to you.

but hey, have your five grand monitor.

 

[Charlie22911]

no, but i know this argument goes over the head of high-ender, because i've seen it before. so here is the simplified version: i think this product is crap and wouldn't buy it if i had a million dollars.
also i might add that



but hey, have your five grand monitor.

If you don't see the utility in this display then it isn't for you, but that doesn't mean it isn't for anyone. This is a gaming display for the living room first and foremost, and a TV in spirit.
This will likely have very minimal input lag, which on most every TV I've tried makes playing classic platformers impossible.
F-Zero GX is another example that applies specifically to me, where a few frames of lag can make playing the highest difficulty levels pretty much impossible, and actually impossible for hardest difficulty story mode.
If you are into speed running you can just forget it with a normal modern TV, as stuff needs to be so precise that it requires frame perfect timing. In that case even this display may not work, which is why AGDQ does their stuff on CRT TVs.

 

[ZGR]

I do think 65" is too much for desk gaming, but I do think this is a sign OEMs are starting to notice a demand for larger monitors. We have terrible choices past 30" and I still have very little interest in 21:9 due to the lower refresh rate.

I hope we have tons of options for 4k120hz+ which appease everybody.

 

[tential]

What is the infatuation in associating a monitor with a desk?

https://www.amazon.com/NEC-E705-70-Inch-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B00QPHY5BM

70 inch monitor.

Do you guys seriously think this is going on a desk?

Monitors are displays. They can be put ANYWHERE. You can use your 32 inch PC monitor as a TV.
You can use your HDTV as your primary display for your PC.

Displays are displays with their own properties. You pick the display you need for the application you're using your PC for.

A monitor does not equal a desk.

PC users of all people should understand this flexibility.

It's literally called a BIG FORMAT GAMING DISPLAY.

I don't understand how it can be anymore clear... but if you can't see past your desk, just exit the thread. There is nothing for you here.

 

[Elfear]

What is the infatuation in associating a monitor with a desk?

https://www.amazon.com/NEC-E705-70-Inch-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B00QPHY5BM

70 inch monitor.

Do you guys seriously think this is going on a desk?

Monitors are displays. They can be put ANYWHERE. You can use your 32 inch PC monitor as a TV.
You can use your HDTV as your primary display for your PC.

I think people understand what you're getting at for the most part but, if I had to guess, the PC users who do most if not all of their gaming from the couch is a small percentage. IMO, one of the big reasons to get into PC gaming vs consoles is the ability to use a keyboard and mouse and sitting on the couch just isn't conducive to the accuracy allowed by a mouse or pounding keys on your lap. Couple that with viewing distances that are normally too far away to see the benefits of 4k or higher fidelity graphics that PC gaming brings. For those gamers who do some of their gaming on the couch, paying ~$5000 for something that isn't their main monitor is a huge luxury unaffordable by most enthusiasts I would think.

I'm not saying their isn't a benefit for those couch-gamers out there or for enthusiasts in general as the technology filters down to desk-size monitors and/or more affordable option but most PC gamers will have a hard time understanding the utility of these 65" monitors for their desk-driven lifestyle.

 

[PeterScott]

I think people understand what you're getting at for the most part but, if I had to guess, the PC users who do most if not all of their gaming from the couch is a small percentage.

I am sure a MUCH smaller percentage use 65" screens on their desk.

At this point, it looks more like everyone wants to be the joker that points out the obvious that this is really too big for a Desk, except that they have been beaten to that point half a dozen times by now, and it wasn't even funny the first time.

It should be obvious to anyone that this is aimed at living room PCs, regardless of their market-share. It isn't like they expect to sell millions of $5000+ gaming screens anyway. It's more of a Halo product.

BTW my PC is in my living room where it serves many roles, as destkop PC, HTPC and Living room gaming attached to my HDTV. I play KB/Mouse games at my desk with my Desktop monitor, and Joystick games from my couch on my HDTV.

This wouldn't only be for gaming, it's also a great screen for watching movies/Netflix etc... You would buy this instead of a 65" TV, since most people probably don't use built in tuners anyway.

 

[tential]

I think people understand what you're getting at for the most part but, if I had to guess, the PC users who do most if not all of their gaming from the couch is a small percentage. IMO, one of the big reasons to get into PC gaming vs consoles is the ability to use a keyboard and mouse and sitting on the couch just isn't conducive to the accuracy allowed by a mouse or pounding keys on your lap.

No, one of the big reasons to get into PC gaming vs consoles is the ability to choose your method of input. It's not to be tethered to keyboard/mouse. You can use a VARIETY of inputs/gaming gear/racing wheels/etc.
You're purposely tying PC gaming to a very narrow viewpoint now.

Couple that with viewing distances that are normally too far away to see the benefits of 4k or higher fidelity graphics that PC gaming brings.

For those gamers who do some of their gaming on the couch, paying ~$5000 for something that isn't their main monitor is a huge luxury unaffordable by most enthusiasts I would think.

The $5000 price tag was a guess in this thread. I already posted there would be a cheaper freesync option as well. And err.... go to avsforum and look at some of the HTPC/home theater setups and add up the component costs of everything in them. There is a section specifically for $3k+ projectors....
So ya... if it's not your cup of tea, and you're purposely looking to complain about the price when I already showed a lower price option will be on the way and the price isn't even known yet... then well this isn't for you.

I'm not saying their isn't a benefit for those couch-gamers out there or for enthusiasts in general as the technology filters down to desk-size monitors and/or more affordable option but most PC gamers will have a hard time understanding the utility of these 65" monitors for their desk-driven lifestyle.

So you saw a thread, saw it was a product you weren't interested in, then saw how it could be used, and then rather than accept that, you continued to explain how it would be overpriced/isn't worth it for desk driven monitors (not you specifically but those who responded to the thread).

I am sure a MUCH smaller percentage use 65" screens on their desk.

At this point, it looks more like everyone wants to be the joker that points out the obvious that this is really too big for a Desk, except that they have been beaten to that point half a dozen times by now, and it wasn't even funny the first time.

It should be obvious to anyone that this is aimed at living room PCs, regardless of their market-share. It isn't like they expect to sell millions of $5000+ gaming screens anyway. It's more of a Halo product.

BTW my PC is in my living room where it serves many roles, as destkop PC, HTPC and Living room gaming attached to my HDTV. I play KB/Mouse games at my desk with my Desktop monitor, and Joystick games from my couch on my HDTV.

This wouldn't only be for gaming, it's also a great screen for watching movies/Netflix etc... You would buy this instead of a 65" TV, since most people probably don't use built in tuners anyway.

I'm just wondering how much of it I have to put up with before it's considered against the rules and trolling/derailing my thread/product bashing.

Edit: Might as well lock this thread at this point. This just doesn't seem to be the place to discuss this.

 

[Elfear]

A lot of threads about a new tech or product discuss the pros and the cons. I wasn't trying to troll or get anyone's panties in a bunch so I'll bow out of this conversation so you can continue your discussion. Apologies.

 

[HurleyBird]

I don't think 65" is too big, but the resolution density is a bit low for a monitor. 5K would work better. A curve is also going to help at this size and distance. OLED would be perfect since, if the monitor ended up too large for any specific task, or the wrong aspect, you could just insert black bars in certain positions without annoying backlight bleed.

 

[ZGR]

What is the infatuation in associating a monitor with a desk?

https://www.amazon.com/NEC-E705-70-Inch-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B00QPHY5BM

70 inch monitor.

Do you guys seriously think this is going on a desk?

Monitors are displays. They can be put ANYWHERE. You can use your 32 inch PC monitor as a TV.
You can use your HDTV as your primary display for your PC.

Displays are displays with their own properties. You pick the display you need for the application you're using your PC for.

A monitor does not equal a desk.

PC users of all people should understand this flexibility.

It's literally called a BIG FORMAT GAMING DISPLAY.

I don't understand how it can be anymore clear... but if you can't see past your desk, just exit the thread. There is nothing for you here.

Mouse and keyboard games are a bit easier on a desk, but it is totally possible to do that on a couch with this display.

But for me, it is cost. I love my cheap 4k monitor because I didn't feel ripped off and it looks beautiful.

Having affordable monitors allows far more gamers to upgrade and right now, BFGD's are not worth it over the cost of a TV.

My friend's 4k OLED tv cost about the price of that monitor! Input lag is the major problem for that TV though.

 

[Despoiler]

With HDMI 2.1 having VRR there is no point to this product line at all. Unless of course Nvidia plans to triple down and not support HDMI 2.1 VRR. I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[PeterScott]

My friend's 4k OLED tv cost about the price of that monitor! Input lag is the major problem for that TV though.

Why wouldn't this cost as much (or More) as your friends OLED TV?

This is a a top end 4K FALD (Full Array Local Dimming), HDR, Quantum Dot 65" screen. The last screen Samsung made with this specs was the KS9800, the 65" had an MSRP of $4500.

Take the $4500 as baseline and Add the NVidia Tax for Gsync, and additional NVidia tax for the built in NVidia Shield Android box, and the niche factor.

It's an easy $5k.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Why wouldn't this cost as much (or More) as your friends OLED TV?

This is a a top end 4K FALD (Full Array Local Dimming), HDR, Quantum Dot 65" screen. The last screen Samsung made with this specs was the KS9800, the 65" had an MSRP of $4500.

Take the $4500 as baseline and Add the NVidia Tax for Gsync, and additional NVidia tax for the built in NVidia Shield Android box, and the niche factor.

It's an easy $5k.

Because it's an OLED TV. The KS9800 was great, but even the article you linked notes that the Display Quality is top of its class:

we expected still better local dimming from such a robust and massive 4K television and thus would say that the local dimming of this model is only moderately good. In this area, LG’s OLED 4K TVs like the flagship G6 completely blow the KS9800 out of the water in terms of quality,

And that TV is $4,300 on Newegg. So yeah, not only are you adding the baseline, the Gsync Tax, and the NVIDIA Shield Android Box, and the subjective items like the niche factor, but then subtracting the subjective value of the objective fact that the same amount of money can buy you a much higher quality panel, then yeah, it's not nearly cut and dry on pricing as you're making it out to be. Not to mention there's absolutely no indicator that any of these panels are going to be anywhere near the quality of something like the KS9800, let alone an OLED Panel.

We'll know more when they're on the street, but the sharp curve of halo product pricing makes me thing you'll be paying for a $2,500 TV tops with the rest being NVIDIA gravy.