Was looking for 4K monitor for gaming (mainly Counter Strike) + development work and found this.
Highlights
Samsung LU28E590DS/XY 28 UHD 3840×2160
Same Monitor is available in Bing Lee for 699$
And it has got decent reviews at Amazon
iOS Users Only
$5 credit for referrer and referee.
In the title it says 28".
But i also checked in store also at Chatswood. Its 28" for sure.
Ohh. Free sync…
Binglee one has hdmi 2.0
It says 2 EA.
I think it means 2 HDMI inputs.
They both have same model number. I assume they are same.
Consider a high refresh rate monitor for counter strike
can you recommend any monitor?
Depends on your budget and other features you might be after.
At around 415-449 mark could be looking at http://www.mwave.com.au/product/aoc-g2460pf-24-fhd-freesync-… or http://www.mwave.com.au/product/asus-vg248qe-144hz-24-1ms-hd…
Or if your after higher resolution (1440p), IPS panel and high refresh rate you could look at http://www.mwave.com.au/product/acer-xf270hu-27-wqhd-ips-fre…
There are other options available too.
Yikes, a TN display with only 60hz? That's not good.
Normally you choose either good framerate or good image quality, this has neither.
I am more inclined towards better framerate.
I bought XPS 15 and still struggling to find decent monitor with it.
There arent even any monitors running 4k above 60hz.
TN Panel….. Oh my…. do they still suffer from angle viewing issues, or have they fixed that?
yea. because when i use my computer my head is all over the place
This or… IPS Glow, take your pick.
i swear i saw this shortly after release for around the $500~ mark
I wouldn't consider a 60Hz monitor good for gaming anymore.
They were fine a year ago? Did everyone get eye upgrades or something?
IMO a good monitor now has minimum 120hz and ULMB mode.
Considering that the human eye cannot even see 60 Hz, thats a kinda moot point. Any game with refresh rate over 30 or 40 fps will be play dead smooth, so apart from epeen there's no inherent need to go higher.
Also consider that higher refresh rate means all the other gear like CPU and GPU need to be better to handle the extra bandwidth. It's pointless running a monitor at 120 Hz if your frame rates are 60 fps. And even more pointless running a monitor at 120 if it forces your hardware to drop to 30 fps, so in order to get decent frame rates you are backing off the graphics quality.
Also, the panel needs to be able to keep up as well, or you get smearing. So fast monitors might have poorer blacks, or vei Therefore, what matters most is what makes the gaming experience better
mate. dont come in here with all raw facts and shit, people are not going to like that.
120hz is all the rave at high school lunch hour so you not gona be very popular setting things straight.
aight?
Lol - accidentally posted while the sentences were incomplete. Now cannot fix it due to your reply.
@llama: He did give you a 19 minute window in which to fix them….. sadly they will now remain uncorrected on the public record indefinitely!
It was an edit to clarify that the performance of the monitor panel is also critical. Typing on mobile device is a bit slow, so my ninja edit failed!
It reads OK as it is, just looks like a typo.
the human eye cannot even see 60 Hz
This absolute statement requires proof, references?
He has no references cause he's completely wrong.
In my post I was speaking generally, rather than boring people with the scientific details. However I actually was attempting to edit it to clarify what I wrote, but I cannot change it now.
Read this very simple overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold
It's generally considered that 60 Hz is the highest human-visible refresh rate, and that is only applicable at extremely high levels of illumination (ie: not possible from a computer screen).
However, for some kinds of "pixel-illuminated" displays (eg: CRT) if there is rapid movement then the refresh rate can cause a stroboscopic effect, which is why Refresh Rates became important in ghaming years ago. However for devices like LCD panels with continuous backlight, the effect of refresh rates is far less noticeable. The human eye also has "persistence of vision" which means there is an after image that masks almost all flicker on a more "global" scale.
Consider: Movies are filmed and played back at 24 fps, and there is shit happening all over a massive screen, yet you see it as continuous motion. Most cinema projectors double it up (play each frame twice) to give it 48 fps, and that is good enough to stop flicker, but the actual content is only 24 fps. A few movies are filmed at 48 fps native, and these are considered to be "state of the art"…. even on an absolutely massive screen which is far higher "resolution" than 1440 or 4K monitors.
So, most people's eyes and brain max out at 60Hz. Maybe you are one of the special people who can discern 70 or even 75Hz - if so, good for you. I am sure you can find plenty of "scientific" material online that proves that gamers need higher refresh rates - if the punters want it, then the manufacturers will make it and charge extra.
Nevertheless, the QUALITY of the LCD panel is what actually matters, not just the raw numbers of the refresh rate. That is what my post's edit was trying to add - that a high refresh rate on a crappy slow smeary low-contrast panel is absolutely pointless, and that a better visual experience is possible from a lower refresh rate on a fast panel with better blacks / contrast ratio, faster response time, etc.
Your own reference states: "*In some cases, it is possible to indirectly detect flicker at rates well beyond 60 Hz in the case of high-speed motion… *"
Your absolute statement is wrong.
Despite your insistence, my deliberately generalised comments on this non-technical forum were not meant to be the definitive reference to human vision. Nevertheless, you have comprehensively proven that my "absolute statement" was wrong. Congratulations, you have won an argument on the internetz! It's slightly disappointing that you've missed the point of what I was trying to explain.
The statement from my reference that you so gleefully quoted ("In some cases, it is possible to indirectly detect flicker at rates well beyond 60 Hz in the case of high-speed motion…") has nothing to do with LCD Monitors or similar kinds of display. If you care to read the section where you copied that quote from, you'll learn that it's relating to flashing LEDs, stroboscopes, etc where the LIGHT SOURCE is flashed quickly and objects are moved.
The effect described in that section of the Wikipedia article relates to the INDIRECT visibility of flicker. That's only relevant to computer screens or TVs if you (say) chose to be spinning in your chair at higher than 3600 RPM whilst you are playing your games. Yeah, in that case I'd say that you are absolutely correct… under those circumstances I agree that most people would notice some visible flicker as the LCD screen flashes past every 1/60th of a second.
And it's only flicker that they need to worry about… most people would notice quite distinct symptoms of dizziness, and probably also experience some feelings of nausea after long gaming sessions! Anyway, it's silly to argue. Let's just agree to disagree, huh?
The human eye can definitely see above 30/40fps.
2xHDMI 1.4 (v2.0)
i.e. 1x1.4, 1x2.0 if anyone else was wondering.
Bookmarked. Hopefully when the next ebay's 20% off arrives, this will not be pushed up to $719.99
well i don't know the science or the facts all i know is i'd never go back to 60hz and i think you'll find anyone who has moved to 120/144hz monitors will say the same thing. I also wouldn't play a fps game without ULMB on, as long as you can maintain 120 frame rate at 120hz you are going to get a very smooth game.
The one @ BL is 38" according to specs…