http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/d...

But it can only do 30Hz at 4K due to its limted inputs. You can game on it at 1080p@60Hz (hopefully without any scaling issues since 4K has exactly 4 pixels for every 1080p pixel).

You may notice a little bit of stuttering during long, slow pans, but for everything else, it should work pretty well.

The obvious difference in the scenarios you mentioned is interactivity. I find something charming about the 24hz look of traditional film (often even lower in animation, where "animating on twos or threes" can drop the effective framerate down to 12 or even 8 FPS), but I sure as hell wouldn't want to use a computer at 24FPS. Even outside of games, 120hz feels significantly better than 60hz just moving a mouse cursor around on a desktop.

I'm holding onto the idea that it's something that has to be pointed out to you before you really care, but beforehand there is still an unconscious negative effect. Say, you're talking about the steps you took to eliminate a frame of lag from a game, and it seems ridiculous and pointless to a layman, but then they turn around and complain that their game feels "unresponsive" or "floaty" ("I pressed the button and he didn't do anything!") The problem still affected them, they just didn't know what to attribute it to (or perhaps having not experienced, say, a PC FPS played on a CRT monitor, they don't have a frame of reference for how responsive a game should feel).

The thing is, movies aren't shown at 24fps - they actually flash each frame on and off a few times to reduce flicker.

It used to be done with a multiple bladed shutter on film projectors, but I believe digital projectors and TVs can do the same thing (on the TV if you turn off that awful motion interpolation that they all have turned on by default for some reason).

But one thing movies don't typically have is a very fast moving mouse pointer on the screen all the time... The mouse, and fast scrolls on web pages and stuff will likely have issues at 30Hz.

I'd be interested to see this display in action (not quite interested enough to experiment with $500 though) to see how it affected my vision of things.

LCDs have a continuous backlight and the liquid crystals need to change orientation to change frame. There's no flicker as long as they're showing the same frame. Here the flicker is noticeable as jerky motion, and is mostly just a problem for video, games, mouse cursor motion, smooth scrolling, etc.

That said, the points above about the mechanics of LCD's being different enough that I might not object are reasonable. I've really not tried using a 30hz LCD display.

If you look on eBay for QHD (2560x1440) monitors, the ones that include a Displayport input are about $100 more than the ones with only HDMI, because they can be used by so many more computers.

Are you sure that's correct? I was under the impression that virtually all GPUs have hardware scalers that wouldn't harm performance.

I dunno if that's true or not, but my aging ATI card definitely has an option for this, so I'd be kinda surprised if it was.

3.6 times as many pixels as a 1920x1200 display. The difference isn't all that profound. I would think that those games should run, since they tend to target a range of graphics features such that they can run on old and new hardware. And the kicker: you shouldn't need to turn on anti-aliasing with this monitor (although I don't know how much performance that saves you, it's certainly something).

I like a solid 60fps. Any time I see a dropped frames, or lagginess in a big scene, I pop into the graphics options and start cutting away fidelity until I get back to smoothness. Many games, even 5+ years old, don't run 100% at 60 fps on highest detail on the 680. Almost all games these days are GPU limited, as they're tuned for consoles. Asking to pump out 4x the pixels isn't cheap.

This is where Nvidia G-Sync technology will come in handily. It will allow a game to run at a variable frame rate without the graphics card being forced to send repeated frames so that the monitor can maintain 60hz. Instead, every frame rendered will be sent to the monitor as soon as it's available and the monitor will display it right away.

This will be doubly crucial for 4K displays, as otherwise it'll require far too much performance to maintain 60hz.

> But I still generally don't enable anti-aliasing over 2x unless it's a very old game, because it still costs too much.

You probably won't need it at all with this monitor, so you'll hypothetically be able to get some performance back that way.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gtx_780_ti_sli_geforce_...

And these cards are 600-700 USD each.

I have to wonder how much that's got to do with unoptimised drivers and unoptimised engines. It annoys me that there are some games I'll never be able to run (on PC) as well as they ran on the devs' PCs.

One last side-note. The Dell UltraSharp UP2414Q does not contains a built-in scaler, and none of the AMD and Nvidia cards we tried were able to display lower resolutions on a full screen. Nvidia cards used a quarter of the screen in the middle for Full HD 1920x1080 resolution, with AMD cards we were only able to select 1920x2160, which is half the screen. Until the GPU manufacturers adopt their drivers for this, the UP2414Q can only run its native UHD resolution full-screen. That does limit how you can use this screen right now.

See also this thread on dpreview, Roland Wooster has the monitor and has posted opinions:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3591245

And screenshots:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7re6a9_3U2nOFhZNU1N...

from:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52771357

Viewing the screenshots full-screen on an existing 24" approximates the usability, albeit with blurrier text.