This is what happens when not enough performance graphics cards land in the hands of gamers at sane prices. They'll just move toward consoles. Every graphics card not sold to a gamer equals less gaming motherboards sold, less gaming peripherals sold, etc.

Another press release for these monitors?
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gigabyte-aorus-introduces-4k-tactical-gaming-monitors.280907/

Caring1Another press release for these monitors?
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gigabyte-aorus-introduces-4k-tactical-gaming-monitors.280907/

Its the same and if that 48 inch is over $1500 you are better off getting a LG CX or C1

btarunrThis is what happens when not enough performance graphics cards land in the hands of gamers at sane prices. They'll just move toward consoles. Every graphics card not sold to a gamer equals less gaming motherboards sold, less gaming peripherals sold, etc.

Hey don't hate on them console boys. Personally I laud more high refresh rate "premium" monitors getting on console peeps' hands. Maybe this will make the monitor themselves cheaper.

dir_dIts the same and if that 48 inch is over $1500 you are better off getting a LG CX or C1

That's the sad state of PC monitors, LG destroys all of them for cheaper prices and bigger sizes.

Caring1Another press release for these monitors?
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gigabyte-aorus-introduces-4k-tactical-gaming-monitors.280907/

Original press release lacked info about hdmi 2.1.

It's a shame only the 43" version has any real details yet. If the 32" matches its features and I/O, it'll be pretty much the perfect monitor for me. I/O is particularly important - DP, 2x HDMI 2.1, and USB-C inputs with KVM functionality built in means effortless use of my desktop, laptop and consoles. That would be ideal. But 43" is way, way, way too large. Even 32" will take some adjusting to. But it should be great in terms of DPI, and if the panel is reasonably good (I'm not picky, tbh) and the price is right, Aorus might have a sale here.

ChomiqOriginal press release lacked info about hdmi 2.1.

It's right there in the link.

It is good to see TV-sized monitors come out that focus on response time. This might actually completely replace TV. After all, cable and its ad-infested, gloriously corrupted environment is yesterdays news for decades now already. At least on the internet line, everyone can pick whatever they like to see when they want it, even if its the same crap in the end :)

Also, the general quality of midrange HDTVs was, is and shall always be abysmal. Monitors do better and are hardly any more expensive.

Vayra86Also, the general quality of midrange HDTVs was, is and shall always be abysmal. Monitors do better and are hardly any more expensive.

These monitors are very unlikely to be cheaper than something like a Samsung Q80 or LG C1 of equivalent size (the 48" uses the same panel as the C1 48" after all - it's the only 48" OLED panel on the market). Below 48" is another matter, and the introduction of a ~40" class "TV" with 120Hz or higher is great, as there are essentially no options today. But above that, the TV market is pretty good already. You just need to pay for the privilege, as you will need to with these monitors.

ValantarThese monitors are very unlikely to be cheaper than something like a Samsung Q80 or LG C1 of equivalent size (the 48" uses the same panel as the C1 48" after all - it's the only 48" OLED panel on the market). Below 48" is another matter, and the introduction of a ~40" class "TV" with 120Hz or higher is great, as there are essentially no options today. But above that, the TV market is pretty good already. You just need to pay for the privilege, as you will need to with these monitors.

Of course, but the market is diversifying, which offers new niche and pushes for competition. Its a good thing if the monitor space blends with the TV space as gaming becomes bigger and on-demand more important. The inclusion of a TV tuner and lots of other stuff like internal storage and smart TV for example, is a sponsored affair but it still adds to the cost of TVs or at least, moves the focus to all that added bullshit rather than the panel itself. Its not without reason OLED is popular; the focus is on panel quality, image quality and consistency. Non-OLED TVs glaringly lack that, while they market themselves on tons of software features that are supposed to improve the image.

Monitors have none of that. They're closer to an OLED panel in an economical sense. The focus is on actual, hardware based panel qualities. I'm all for full focus/competition and movement on that. Backlit LCD was always inferior and it still is as a display technology, even if most of the drawbacks have been attacked many times over (and real improvements are made).

The big one here is latency and the inherent elimination of post processing done by the TV.

Vayra86Of course, but the market is diversifying, which offers new niche and pushes for competition. Its a good thing if the monitor space blends with the TV space as gaming becomes bigger and on-demand more important. The inclusion of a TV tuner and lots of other stuff like internal storage and smart TV for example, is a sponsored affair but it still adds to the cost of TVs or at least, moves the focus to all that added bullshit rather than the panel itself. Its not without reason OLED is popular; the focus is on panel quality, image quality and consistency. Non-OLED TVs glaringly lack that, while they market themselves on tons of software features that are supposed to improve the image.

Monitors have none of that. They're closer to an OLED panel in that sense. The focus is on actual, hardware based panel qualities. I'm all for full focus/competition and movement on that. Backlit LCD was always inferior and it still is as a display technology, even if most of the drawbacks have been attacked many times over (and real improvements are made).

Well, in higher-end panels there is a similar focus on those qualities. The various LCD technologies generally can't quite match OLED (though there are some pretty non-uniform OLED panels out there), but higher end LCDs do have high quality panels with good image quality and consistency, and beat out OLEDs in several metrics (such as perceived quality in an even moderately bright room).

You're right that tuners and all the """smart""" TV mumbo jumbo theoretically adds cost, but economies of scale always counteract that - when a TV can be sold with 90+% of the same parts in millions and millions of units globally, it'll be cheaper overall than a monitor with less features but the same high cost components that sells in the tens of thousands. Particularly if the TV is sold by the panel manufacturer, while the montior is sold by a third party company.

Products like this make me slightly hopeful that this might be changing, but most of us have been hoping for this for a decade with no real change, so I'm not very optimistic.

Article says they're available now. They're not. They're coming soon.

King MustardArticle says they're available now. They're not. They're coming soon.

And IIRC each size is a different technology. You have VA, IPS and OLED all mixed in there.

I jumped over the bandwagon by getting a 48" LG CX OLED back in December. Everything works perfectly: super fast response time in Game Mode, 4K, HDR, 120Hz, VRR and, of course, OLED deep blacks and vivid colors (also, no limited number of 'light zones' for HDR, as each pixel in an OLED panel is its own light zone). You get used to the size once your neck develops new muscles where none existed before (my previous monitor - now secondary - was a 43" 4K LG with an IPS panel so I got it easier than most ehehe).

The major problem (for me) of getting a TV instead of a PC monitor is that the former does not go into Standby mode like the latter, it simply displays 'No Signal' and eventually turns itself off (which means you must power it on with the remote afterwards). Not a biggie if it's a single monitor, but if you have a second or third monitor this means any open windows on your desktop will move all over the place as the TV turns itself off and stops being detected by Windows. The workaround is an open source utility called 'Monitor Keeper', it will move all your windows back into their original positions when you turn the TV back on (just make sure to run it with Admin privileges).

The other major problem has to do with this being an OLED panel: to help prevent burn in the panel will automatically dim itself after a while if the image remains static for too long. Can be a huge PITA if you are working on the Windows desktop, for instance, as suddenly you notice that everything is now much harder to read because of how much darker the display has become. This 'feature' CANNOT be turned off (unless you say goodbye to your warranty by going into the Service menu) and the only solution is to wiggle some windows around until the display becomes bright again.

Other than the above, I absolutely LOVE my CX, it just works. No problems connecting it to a 3090 and a PS5 via HDMI 2.1 (just make sure you get proper cables). No burn in so far either.

JcRabbitAnd IIRC each size is a different technology. You have VA, IPS and OLED all mixed in there.

I jumped over the bandwagon by getting a 48" LG CX OLED back in December. Everything works perfectly: super fast response time in Game Mode, 4K, HDR, 120Hz, VRR and, of course, OLED deep blacks and vivid colors (also, no limited number of 'light zones' for HDR, as each pixel in an OLED panel is its own light zone). You get used to the size once your neck develops new muscles where none existed before (my previous monitor - now secondary - was a 43" 4K LG with an IPS panel so I got it easier than most ehehe).

The major problem (for me) of getting a TV instead of a PC monitor is that the former does not go into Standby mode like the latter, it simply displays 'No Signal' and eventually turns itself off (which means you must power it on with the remote afterwards). Not a biggie if it's a single monitor, but if you have a second or third monitor this means any open windows on your desktop will move all over the place as the TV turns itself off and stops being detected by Windows. The workaround is an open source utility called 'Monitor Keeper', it will move all your windows back into their original positions when you turn the TV back on (just make sure to run it with Admin privileges).

The other major problem has to do with this being an OLED panel: to help prevent burn in the panel will automatically dim itself after a while if the image remains static for too long. Can be a huge PITA if you are working on the Windows desktop, for instance, as suddenly you notice that everything is now much harder to read because of how much darker the display has become. This 'feature' CANNOT be turned off (unless you say goodbye to your warranty by going into the Service menu) and the only solution is to wiggle some windows around until the display becomes bright again.

Other than the above, I absolutely LOVE my CX, it just works. No problems connecting it to a 3090 and a PS5 via HDMI 2.1 (just make sure you get proper cables). No burn in so far either.

I love my LG 48CX as a bedroom TV and soon-to-be PS5 monitor. I have an LG 32 inch LCD 4K monitor for my PC. I think 48 inches is too big and too much of a compromise to be used as a PC monitor.

TardianI have an LG 32 inch LCD 4K monitor for my PC. I think 48 inches is too big and too much of a compromise to be used as a PC monitor.

I used to think the same about getting a 43" LG IPS monitor when I went from a 30" at 2560x1600 to 4K, but 43" is actually the ideal monitor size for 4k if you want to retain 100% DPI on the Windows desktop (i.e.; no text scaling).

Anything smaller and 9pt size text becomes a bit too hard to read (at least for me), forcing you to increase screen DPI to 125% or 150%, which kind of defeats the purpose as in terms of screen real estate it turns your 4k monitor into the equivalent of a 2K monitor.

They don't make OLEDs smaller than that (yet) and 48" is not that much bigger than 43" (I have the 48" CX as the primary side by side with my older 43") so provided your desk is big enough (I have one of those huge L-shaped IKEA desks) you soon get used to it. And once you do, you wouldn't go back. :)

JcRabbitI used to think the same about getting a 43" LG IPS monitor when I went from a 30" at 2560x1600 to 4K, but 43" is actually the ideal monitor size for 4k if you want to retain 100% DPI on the Windows desktop (i.e.; no text scaling).

Anything smaller and 9pt size text becomes a bit too hard to read (at least for me), forcing you to increase screen DPI to 125% or 150%, which kind of defeats the purpose as in terms of screen real estate it turns your 4k monitor into the equivalent of a 2K monitor.

They don't make OLEDs smaller than that (yet) and 48" is not that much bigger than 43" (I have the 48" CX as the primary side by side with my older 43") so provided your desk is big enough (I have one of those huge L-shaped IKEA desks) you soon get used to it. And once you do, you wouldn't go back. :)

What are you reading that regularly uses 9pt text? That sounds like some poorly formatted stuff, whatever it is.

You're right that 2160p at 43" is close to the classic Windows recommendation of ~100PPI (interestingly it's just slightly lower DPI than 1440p@27"), though there's also the consideration of field of view and viewing distance alongside that. A 43" display at any normal monitor viewing distance would mean your actually useful field of vision covers at best 1/4 of the screen at a time, with sharp focus on a fraction of that again (humans have properly sharp focus for about a 5° span of vision after all). So either you need to move away from the monitor to keep more of it in view (which isn't always possible, and would increase perceived PPI, necessitating scaling) or risk eye and/or neck strain from exaggerated eye and neck movement to make use of the whole viewing area. If the latter isn't an issue for you and you need a lot of screen real estate then it sounds like a good solution, but for the majority of people 43" is far too large for a desk-bound monitor. I'm planning to move from 27" to 32", but I'm well aware that even my current 27" monitor only gets used a fraction at a time outside of gaming (where I typically sit much further back, or push the monitor arm back all the way). It's always a compromise, but I'd never even consider 43".

ValantarWhat are you reading that regularly uses 9pt text? That sounds like some poorly formatted stuff, whatever it is.

Back when the typical screen resolution was something like 1024x768 or even 800x600 (yeah, I am THAT old eheh) 9-10pt text made all the sense in the world. With Windows being backwards compatible all the way to the 90's, that means a ton of applications I still use today (also have you seen the point size used for the text labels on the MSI Afterburner graphics window?! Ouch).

Besides that I am also a developer and the more code I can see at once the better, so please pity me. :D

ValantarSo either you need to move away from the monitor to keep more of it in view (which isn't always possible, and would increase perceived PPI, necessitating scaling) or risk eye and/or neck strain from exaggerated eye and neck movement to make use of the whole viewing area. If the latter isn't an issue for you and you need a lot of screen real estate then it sounds like a good solution, but for the majority of people 43" is far too large for a desk-bound monitor.

You DO need to move your neck when facing a 43" or 48" monitor positioned at a meter or so from your face (that's why I 'joke' about developing new neck muscles in every post I make about using a monitor of this size on a desk). But, at least for me personally, it was only somewhat uncomfortable in the very beginning, and I got used to it rather quickly (or rather, my neck did lol). I realize that might not hold true for everyone though.

As for gaming, the huge size and your proximity to it actually makes it more immersive, IMO.

JcRabbitBack when the typical screen resolution was something like 1024x768 or even 800x600 (yeah, I am THAT old eheh) 9-10pt text made all the sense in the world. With Windows being backwards compatible all the way to the 90's, that means a ton of applications I still use today (also have you seen the point size used for the text labels on the MSI Afterburner graphics window?! Ouch).

Besides that I am also a developer and the more code I can see at once the better, so please pity me. :D


You DO need to move your neck when facing a 43" or 48" monitor positioned at a meter or so from your face (that's why I 'joke' about developing new neck muscles in every post I make about using a monitor of this size on a desk). But, at least for me personally, it was only somewhat uncomfortable in the very beginning, and I got used to it rather quickly (or rather, my neck did lol). I realize that might not hold true for everyone though.

As for gaming, the huge size and your proximity to it actually makes it more immersive, IMO.

If it works for you I guess you're one of the lucky ones, though I'd be very wary of any indication of developing neck pains, as they can take years and years to get rid of and be quite debilitating. People have wildly varying tolerances for those kinds of things though, and they also change quite dramatically throughout our lives. I agree on the gaming side though - as I said, that's where I think my planned 32" 2160p monitor upgrade will truly shine, without being so large as to either be an ergonomic issue or make me feel like I'm only using the centre 1/4 of the monitor when not gaming :P