I'm finally ready to take the plunge into 4k gaming. However i use my PC for at least 10 hours per day for viewing static content for uni and work, which i think rules out OLED.
My hope was to get a decent mini-led but it seems like there aren't too many good options in that space. I'm not sure what the best option is. My budget is $1000, and i want to be over 120hz.
I don't think that helps.
Why not?
You need to prevent the screen from displaying the static content so the emitters aren't being used. You'd need to update the entire screen to do this.
Go OLED
You know they are not really Organic, right ???
My old one would not compost.
No need to rule out OLED for that - go have a look at one of the many OLED burn in tests on youtube. Most have mitigation systems built in anyway.
OzB favorite:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/product/philips-328p6vjeb
But 4K for gaming does not make much sense. Humans will not perceive such resolution in a moving image. And it slows down your frame rate, or other quality measures,.
4K shines for static content - text, photos.
Just get a 120Hz FHD. Or QHD if you really believe it matters.
Are you saying you cant tell the difference between FHD and 4K? I already have a 4k TV and the difference between my old 1080p files and my 4k files is night and day.
You could spray vinegar in my eyes and it would still be easy to see
This is a complex topic, which arouses strong emotions.
There are many variables, and multiples differences between two encodings of the same movie. Bitrate for a start.
I also depends on the source. Does it have well-lit static scenes like a nature documentary, or is it a grainy action movie?
It doesn't evoke strong emotions at all, and it's not complex. I'm just stating a fact. 1080p is well below what my eyes are capable of resolving. This applies to games on the TV also. Might be time to go to the optometrist my friend.
@gruffjaguar: The fact that you state this without mentioning arc size, distance, screen size, etc does not give you credibility. There is a theoretic limit based on simple physics for how close you need to sit. Reality adds more limits.
But I've had these conversations with people over audio, e.g. the sampling rate of CDs is too low. Or the DACs are out of phase.
@bargaino: https://tools.rodrigopolo.com/display_calc/
Ok well according to this website^ for a 1080p image on 32 inch screen to appear at the highest detail a human can resolve you would need to sit 1.3 meters away. Which is about 4 times further away than i sit.
Currently on a 1440p/27inch screen at 30-35 cm away the difference between a HD and QHD is obvious. I too have had conversations with people before who swore black and blue that they couldn't tell the difference between a 30fps game and a 60fps game. Which is funny to me because i find 30fps to be absolutely unplayable.
While this conversation isn't quite as ridiculous to me as that one it's still in the same ballpark
Currently on a 1440p/27inch screen at 30-35 cm away the difference between a HD and QHD is obvious.
OK, that makes sense. I have a similar setup for games, not that I play a lot.
30fps game? That would be OK for many games, better than cinema, but a bare minimum for FPS. Maybe they play different games to you??
just move your mouse around a lot…