new Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 cards released

Tuco said:

Yeah what the hell is with there being no cheap options for 4k/high refresh monitors?

What is this $2000 monstrosity and why is it my only option?

ASUS ROG Swift PG27UQ 27" 4K UHD 144Hz DP HDMI G-SYNC HDR Aura Sync Gaming Monitor with Eye Care - Newegg.com

Click to expand...

There's plenty of good 1440p options, even some ultrawides. Unfortunately, none of them have HDR.

4k HDR at high refresh is very hard to pull off. Both of the ones heading to market have a 500 dollar custom FPGA built in just to handle the processing.

ASUS ROG Swift PG27UQ 27" 4K 144Hz G-SYNC Monitor: True HDR Arrives on the Desktop | Teardown and Hardware Analysis

Utnayan said:

Seeing the reviews on this makes me sad when I see PC gamers experiencing HDR for the first time. It's like seeing Apple iPhone users go nuts over the term Water Resistant when Samsung had it out for 4 years prior. We really need (And I do mean this) to get back to the place when PC power drove innovation and consoles were trying to keep up - not the other way around. Because I bet we would have already seen a shit ton of advancement by now.

Click to expand...

I mean, the reverse is true for adaptive sync, which Samsung is finally working into some of their latest TVs and Xbox One S and X are now being patched to support, and 100+ hz refresh rates, which are still totally off the horizon for consoles. Both of those are game-changes individually and together they are phenomenal.

10- and 12-bit color monitors have existed for a long time, but there was no standard, so the only things that used that color space were photo editing programs with custom color palettes. Valve tried pushing HDR into the PC space 15 years ago with the Lost Coast demo, but it didn't gain any traction. All those years later, TVs and consoles had the advantage that the 4k UHD HDR spec became an industry standard without much of a fight from the individual TV manufacturers, and consoles were able to just latch onto that spec.

mkopec said:

The problem with monitors like that is they fill an incredibly small niche, which is PC gamers, and further, PC gamers with enough expendable cash that can afford $2K monitor and $3K computers. This is why youre not seeing the price drops and further development, its because its a market that no one really cares to develop for.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is quite the case.

The reason you didn't see 4k 100+hz monitors is because no video card on the market could push those framerates. 1440p+144hz monitors exploded onto the market (there over a dozen now, with some in the sub-500 dollar range when they originally retailed for $800) once the 10-series Nvidia cards came out, because those could push those framerates in popular games.

It'll probably be another generation until 120hz 4k is realistic on PC (though the 2080ti should be able to do it in some lower-poly games like Overwatch) so I wouldn't expect 120hz 4k HDR monitors to be commonly available until 2 years from now, and they'll still probably be in the 800-1200 dollar range for a long time. But if you're happy with 4k HDR at 60 fps, like TVs are currently, I've already linked a 450 dollar monitor that's very very good.

I think what you will see is a bunch of 120hz+ 3440x1440 Ultrawides, since that seems about ideal for the 2070 on high/2080 on ultra. There's already quite a few out, but none support HDR. The fabled ROG SWIFT PG35VQ | Monitors | ASUS USA is still not on the market yet, which is a huge disappointment.

mkopec said:

Ok so you now have 12 models of 144hz 1440P monitors, YAY! While there is like 10000 models of 1080p monitors which everyone, except gamers, still buy. Same shit with TVs, again I jsut purchased a roku 55" 4K HD 144hz HDR tv for less than $500. And there is probably 1000 other models of TVs to choose from in that range.

Saying shit like the market is stifled by lack of $2K video cards that can push this is asinine, when you and I know it, the average joe is not spending $5K to play video games on his PC.

Click to expand...

That's my point. When 4k 120hz capable video cards are in the sub 500 dollar range, you will start seeing 4k 120hz monitors in the sub 1000 dollar range.

Monitor manufacturers are not going to make displays that no one has hardware to drive. Even the $3k Titan V could not do 4k 120hz.

Vorph said:

TV manufacturers lie about refresh rates, especially on a $500 model. If they claim 120-144Hz it's really 60-72Hz. 240Hz can mean either 60Hz or 120Hz, depending on the price point you're looking at.

The shit they use to fake double/quadruple refresh rates is what causes godawful looking soap opera effect and should always be turned off.

Click to expand...

TV manufacturers can also lie about HDR. They might meet the color spec, but their really is no quantitative measure of how good the local dimming has to be in order to be considered HDR. So you end up with TVs with wildly varying quality in local dimming and all stamped HDR.

Vorph said:

Agreed, and I would much rather have ultrawide on a pc monitor than 4K. 21:9 gives a huge advantage in games like Path of Exile (enough that even when I use a 1080p monitor I play in a 1904x816 window), while going from one 16:9 resolution to another essentially does nothing at all.

Click to expand...

1080p to 1440p is a pretty big jump, not even just for gaming but also productivity too. There's a huge difference when I'm working at home with nice monitors or at work with trash tier.

4k is barely noticeable at 27 inches. Maybe on a 32 inch monitor it's more noticeable but I'd rather have ultrawide.

My eventual setup will likely be two ultrawides stacked ontop of each other, one for my work PC and one for my gaming PC, with Mouse Without Borders operating between the two.