When will a 4K, 120Hz, 40" Monitor (or TV) be under $500?

[Caveman]

Just the subject question... Planning future upgrades...

Can anyone hazard a guess???

 

[ShintaiDK]

Forget TV unless you want 40-100ms input lag.

For monitor, 40" is the major issue so its close to the borderline of relatively never.

 

[biostud]

September 14th 2021

 

[x3sphere]

4K@120Hz? Who knows. Current GPU hardware isn't even sufficient enough to drive that, except maybe 3-Way Titan X on older titles. DP 1.3 will also be required.

In fact I'd place bets on seeing some kind of OLED monitor before we see 4K@120Hz.

 

[alcoholbob]

Just the subject question... Planning future upgrades...

Can anyone hazard a guess???

Are you planning 10 years in the future?

How long did it take for a 40" 1080P 60Hz TV to be below $500 after 1080i TVs were first introduced? It took 13 years (first 1080i TVs were 1998, first sub-$500 40" 1080p TVs were around 2011).

 

[JDG1980]

For monitor, 40" is the major issue so its close to the borderline of relatively never.

Philips, Seiki, and Crossover already have 40" 4K VA monitors available. There isn't a huge market for these, but it does exist. Wasabimango has released a 42" 4K IPS monitor. All these monitors use panels originally designed for TVs, but that doesn't really matter - a monitor and a TV are basically the same thing today, the only real difference is in the type of inputs, the scaler, and whether or not there's an ATSC tuner.

Currently, of course, all are limited to 60 Hz. That won't change until DisplayPort 1.3 becomes available in shipping products. DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 2.0 don't have enough bandwidth to do 4K@120Hz without sacrificing color fidelity. In theory, you could use two DP 1.2 connections like the current 5K monitors do, but I doubt that is going to happen.

High refresh rate monitors first came from the Korean companies. I expect the same to be true here; once DisplayPort 1.3 parts are available off-the-shelf, there's a good chance one of these companies will take a >=40" 4K@120Hz TV panel and use it to create a monitor. It's impossible to say if it will be under $500, but it will probably be under $1000.

 

[Caveman]

Thank you all for the answers. I've been edified. I assume a 40" PC Monitor at 4K under $500 was right around the corner...

I would have assumed the 4K would almost make a larger screen a necessity and drive the industry towards a demand for large screen monitors at home for PC use...

 

[Valantar]

I'd say this depends on how the premium PC gaming market develops. The current 40" UHD monitors are probably meant for either enthusiast use or CAD, medical imaging or other professional non-colour accuracy sensitive applications. These professional fields have nothing to gain from 120Hz. On the other hand, as long as the panels become available (which they might due to the drive for useless Hz bragging rights in the TV field) and display controllers and interfaces that can drive them become widely adopted, there will be little stopping any manufacturer from making enthusiast monitors like this. They will, however, charge a premium. Both panels, controllers and other parts will be expensive for a good while still, and >30" sizes will always be a tiny niche for PC usage (sitting 2' away from a 40" monitor makes no sense in the vast majority of cases). Given the "popularity" of $1000 GPUs I wouldn't doubt that these monitors will be coming, though. People love excess.

 

[TemjinGold]

Thank you all for the answers. I've been edified. I assume a 40" PC Monitor at 4K under $500 was right around the corner...

I would have assumed the 4K would almost make a larger screen a necessity and drive the industry towards a demand for large screen monitors at home for PC use...

Given you are looking at less than $500, money is a real concern. So even if it WAS right around the corner, you wouldn't be able to drive it unless the only game you play is Solitaire.

 

[RussianSensation]

Forget TV unless you want 40-100ms input lag.

Not all TVs have input lag approaching 100ms. There are plenty of options in the 25-35ms range. If he isn't a competitive gamer and plays mostly single-player titles, the input lag isn't an issue.

For monitor, 40" is the major issue so its close to the borderline of relatively never.

A lot of people say that until they try a 37-40" monitor. Once you get used to it, 23-27" PC gaming monitors are tiny and less immersive. 40" for 4K actually sounds amazing. If he has a desk big enough, it could work well.

To answer the OP, I am guessing 5-7 years.

 

[Caveman]

I'm sure this has been discussed before quite a bit but what is actually the big deal about refresh rates greater than 60Hz? Does 60Hz really feel "jerky" compared to 120Hz?

And as far as TV input lag... For flight simulation, I think I could be ok with 25ms...

 

[x3sphere]

Thank you all for the answers. I've been edified. I assume a 40" PC Monitor at 4K under $500 was right around the corner...

I would have assumed the 4K would almost make a larger screen a necessity and drive the industry towards a demand for large screen monitors at home for PC use...

Well, if you drop your 120 Hz requirement I'd say we could see a 4K 60 Hz monitor at 40" for $500 by next year.

The Philips 4065UC can be had for as low as $900 right now.

 

[jqderrick]

My buddy just got a corssover, I'll see how it works tonight.