Re:HDMI 2.0 officially announced
by harpastum on Wednesday September 04, 2013 @09:53AM
(#6327536)
It came out a little while ago, so it only supports 30fps at 4k, but this 39 inch 4k monitor is decently reviewed, and only $700: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00DOPGO2G
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:HDMI 2.0 officially announced
by rartichoke on Wednesday September 04, 2013 @10:03AM
(#6327612)
30 fps is even a bigger joke than 60. I think even the general public would get nauseous watching a game being played at a solid 30 fps, it's much different than watching a low fps movie.
If I were to drop $700 on a new display I would rather buy 2x $350 2650x1440 monitors that can run at 120hz at that resolution. They've been on the market at that price for quite a while now.
Back in 2001 or 2002 I bought a 21" 1600x1200 120hz CRT for $80 for comparison. It also had no input delay, perfect colors and the screen itself was flat. The only downside is it weighed like 80 pounds.
Most current-gen console games target 30FPS. An exception being Rage made by id software. Carmack was very proud that it ran at 60fps, but nobody else seemed to care.
Its a different story for PC gaming and competetive gaming though.
Re:HDMI 2.0 officially announced
by sillysaurus2 on Thursday September 05, 2013 @03:26PM
(#6336332)
If I were to drop $700 on a new display I would rather buy 2x $350 2650x1440 monitors that can run at 120hz at that resolution. They've been on the market at that price for quite a while now.
May I ask, which monitor are you referring to? A $350 monitor that can do 2650x1440 and run at 120hz? I need a monitor like that for my graphics research.
>30 fps is even a bigger joke than 60. I think even the general public would get nauseous watching a game being played at a solid 30 fps, it's much different than watching a low fps movie.
People after 4K displays in the current market aren't going for game machines...