Author Topic: PC 4K 43" monitors  (Read 8596 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2023, 07:40:58 pm »
Quote
I know a TV panel will not impress the avid gamer but I have modest requirements, as long as it does 60Hz at 4K and doesn't suffer from ghosting or smudging of text, it sounds grand to me.

I tried cheap TV panels instead of pukka monitors when I set out on the 4K path, and gave up on them all. As noted elsewhere, the RGB stuff needs to be right, which many TVs aren't, and TVs are just designed for TV usage. Small things, like how blanking works (or not), can get right up your nose after a bit.

I wound up with an Iiyama ProLite which has been a joy - not perfect but nothing is big enough to grab my attention. Got it cheap off Box since it was going obsolete, so great value as well. When this one dies, my next will be a similar pukka monitor.
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5171
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2023, 07:41:21 pm »
3840x2160 43" is around 102 DPI  ... the Windows default is 96 DPI if I remember correctly... so the pixels are a bit larger smaller than they should be, but close enough.

31.5" 3840 x 2160 is 139 DPI , which is close to 1.5 x 96 DPI (=144 DPI).   Of course it didn't look good at 115% scaling.

If you don't want to do scaling and want close as possible to 96 DPI,  go for 2560x1440 at 31.5" , that works out to around 93 DPI
« Last Edit: April 19, 2023, 07:48:20 pm by mariush »
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2023, 07:53:02 pm »
Quote
Of course it didn't look good at 115% scaling.

I said 'whatever it was' because I can't check now. Maybe it was 120% or 110% - it would be whatever the first or second notch was. And I didn't say it looked bad, just was still hard to read.

Quote
If you don't want to do scaling and want close as possible to 96 DPI,  go for 2560x1440 at 31.5"

Why? I want oodles of pixels so I can display - and read! - multiple A4 pages next to each other. Why on earth would I choose fewer pixels and a smaller screen? I want big and lots of it.

When I first tried a 32" it seemed massive, and I suspect that's how y'all think because that's what you've tried. It took quite a while to pluck up the courage to try a 43" but I would never go back to 32" after using this one. The only downside I can think of is with dump apps that open up full screen (and games that also start with some stupid resolution, like 1080p).
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15800
  • Country: fr
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2023, 08:34:11 pm »
I'm also currently shopping for a good 4K monitor at a reasonable price point.
But 43" on your desktop? Really? ;D

Even 32" I find already a bit much, but usable. Bigger than this, I doubt it. Probably depends on your use case though.
 

Offline aeberbach

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 238
  • Country: au
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2023, 08:47:29 pm »
I have thought about this too. Seems like 4k at full resolution could be great on a full screen. However all of the big 4k monitors use a BGR subpixel arrangement apparently, not RGB. Windows Cleartype is tuned for RGB and the results on BGR are said to be not great. I'm holding off until I can spend a bit of time in front of one and see how it really looks. Since most of my use is text it's an important point.

Dell do have a 6k monitor coming this year. It's unlikely to cost as much as the Apple 6k Pro HDR monitor so it could be an option.
Software guy studying B.Eng.
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6586
  • Country: nl
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2023, 08:50:11 pm »
Bought a Philips monitor 43" 4k about seven years ago, 2 hdmi and 2 dp inputs.
Distance 85cm.

My experience:
-  for gaming it is great. Played RDR2 for many hours enjoying the landscape on a horse  ;)
- For desktop work I would now go a step smaller like around 34-36" because it is a nightmare moving the mouse and if you make the mouse go faster you are searching where it went.

Also the 4 window mode (four full hd screens) it just doesn't work for me. Perhaps great for security guards watching cameras ir stockbrokers watching the markets, for windows, linux it becomes too small to do actual work.

So if I had to rebuy today I would go for a step smaller but definitely bigger than 30".
 

Offline MarkS

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • Country: us
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2023, 08:57:18 pm »
I downgraded from a 34" 4K monitor to a 23" 1080p. The eyestrain was intense and painful! Was the screen real estate nice? Yes! Would I do it again? Absolutely NOT!
 

Offline paulcaTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4364
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2023, 09:01:20 pm »
Well, it's academic now.  I bought a "used" philips.    It came down to Brand new illyama or S/H philips with HDR1000 etc.  Just hope it's not scruffed or marked on the screen!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07CRW3V31
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15800
  • Country: fr
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2023, 09:19:37 pm »
Well, it's academic now.  I bought a "used" philips.    It came down to Brand new illyama or S/H philips with HDR1000 etc.  Just hope it's not scruffed or marked on the screen!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07CRW3V31

The price is pretty good. 43" is huge, but whatever floats your boat!
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2023, 10:41:00 pm »
Quote
Just hope it's not scruffed or marked on the screen!

Amazon warehouse is usually pretty good, and you can send it back for no reason anyway (although shipping could be fun).

Do let us know how you get on with it :)
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5156
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2023, 10:42:26 pm »
Gonna have to munch on my humble pie here, at least on my RX 580 it is 4:2:0.  I swear I'd tested this before - perhaps it was 4:4:4 on my old GTX 1060 or I was fooling myself somehow.
It's physically impossible to do 4k@60 RGB or 4:4:4 through passive adapter regardless of what GPU you use. Nor it's supported by standard.
That is certainly true if the DisplayPort standards are followed explicitly, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a manufacturer out there who had a dual mode HDMI/displayport output that could do higher bandwidth as a non-standard implementation (and likely a limited/reduced HDMI functionality). Most endpoints are fairly forgiving in what they will accept, spawning the tweakers/gamers doing custom timings to increase refresh rates.

Note that both DP and HDMI have four differential pairs in the cable, but HDMI dedicates one as a clock and data is on the remaining three, with TMDS signalling used to minimise EMC, whereas DP uses embedded clock with clock recovery at the receiver end (128b/132b in latest spec).
HDMI 2.1 enters the chat...
But even before then some HDMI endpoints were doing clock recovery on the individual pairs anyway.
 

Offline coromonadalix

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7014
  • Country: ca
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2023, 11:40:11 pm »
had a 43" 4k tv  for a computer screen, yes the image was  radical loll     but you need a good clearance / distance, if not it will pop ypur eyes  loll     

seen avatar in 4k  on it, almost cried over

it was too much after 2 days,  reverted to a 2x 32" benq uhd monitors,  thats enough   loll

totally hate the ultra wide  34" or more monitor, i want height too damnit,  the 32" ratio was perfect, 43" a killer BUT   
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9322
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2023, 02:18:51 am »
Have been using 50" 4K for years, very nice if you have a GPU that can handle it well. For media playback including upscaling to 4K, I find that a Ryzen 2400G (~67% usage) is pretty much the minimum you would want to try with.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline bw2341

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Country: ca
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2023, 05:53:23 am »
I've been using a 40-inch Vizio V405-G9 TV on an RX570 for a few years now. I had to play around with the TV settings to get 4K RGB 4:4:4 at 60Hz. Since it is BGR subpixel, I had to use Adjust ClearType text (ClearType Text Tuner) to fix it. Otherwise, the text had horrible colour fringing.

I use 125% scaling and the text is sharp on most applications. I often use additional scaling in the browser for a more comfortable read as I get tired. I spend most of the time in the browser and I never see any scaling artifacts. The exceptions are some very old applications that have unevenly scaled text. Some new applications ignore the scaling and end up with text that is too small to read.

The Visio has a VA panel. Black levels are good in the darker room lighting I normally use. However, the viewing angle limitations of the panel are apparent. At my normal viewing distance of 1 to 1.5 m, the side edges of the panel have less contrast and saturation than the middle. In fact, if I look with one eye at a time, each eye sees a different amount of contrast and saturation for the same edge of the panel.

I almost ruined the TV by letting it update its firmware. After the update, it lost the ability to display with 1:1 pixel mapping, rendering it useless as a PC monitor. Everything looked blurry and it couldn't be fixed in the settings. Fortunately, others have experienced the same problem before me and a Reddit user saved and shared an older working firmware.

It works in 4K60 at 4:4:4 full range RGB in 8-bit mode connected by the HDMI port on the GPU. If I want 10 or 12 bpc (bits-per-channel), I need to switch to 4:2:2 or 4:2:0. I can chose these modes in AMD Adrenalin.

Edit: bpc, not bpp. fixed
« Last Edit: April 20, 2023, 11:58:50 am by bw2341 »
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2023, 09:32:25 am »
For my work laptop I have a USB-C hub which has 3 x DP outputs.  In theory, it supports 3 simultaneous DP outputs (and I am using 2 x 4K60 with RGB in this configuration - I've *heard* it can do 3 outputs at 4K but not tested it), though Display Stream Compression is of course needed to achieve even one of those outputs. Still find it pretty incredible that this all goes over a miniscule Type C USB connector.
 

Offline paulcaTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4364
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #40 on: April 20, 2023, 09:40:45 am »
over a miniscule Type C USB connector.

The thing I hate about USB-C is, it's like they standardised the connector physical form, but while everyone attended that meeting all the different departments went their separate ways after that, because below the physical form there are dozens and dozens of different configurations.  Some won't even let you draw a single mA, others it's your 500mA, yet another will give you 150W at 19.5V or more!  Sometimes it's the cable, sometimes it's the device, sometimes it's a combination.

My work laptop.  With the screen closed I can run it on a 5V USB Charger.  Draws about 18W.  Open the screen however and it refuses to run on that or charge from it period.  Plugging it into a QC3.0 9V smart charger port and again, screen closed "Ok", screen open "No way".  Yet the screen is not pulling more than that QC3.0 port will deliver.

It would seem for USB-C there are two options.  Spend well once for something gauranteed to work, or spend again and again and again buying "nearly works" and "works there not here" type deals. 

Feel free to move to "Pet peeve thread" :)
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Offline Psi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10385
  • Country: nz
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2023, 10:11:34 am »
49" curved ultrawide is amazing for work usage if you have money to burn.
You'd think it just for gaming but no, they are amazing for working too
Greek letter 'Psi' (not Pounds per Square Inch)
 

Offline Bicurico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1816
  • Country: pt
    • VMA's Satellite Blog
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2023, 10:30:57 am »
Some extra notes, when using a TV as a computer screen:

Scaling: You don't want to use scaling ever. It sucks and many applications are not compatible with a scaling factor different from 100%.
Size: You should select a screen size that is equivalent in DPI of your current monitor. If you have a 24" FullHD screen, then a 48" (50") screen with 4K will have the same DPI and you don't need to use scaling. Consider that you now have 4 FullHD screens (2 side by side, 2 on top).
Pixels: When buying the TV, note that some TV's use a different sub-pixel pattern than computer monitors. Go for a TV that has square pixels with the subpixels within each square. What I mean is this:

OK:

R R R
G G G
B B B

Not OK:

R G R
B R B 
G B R

You get the idea.

On my TV with current configuration (LG "Gaming Mode", HDR Mode, 60Hz) the screen is pretty much like my former Asus monitors. Red text on black or gray is okish/acceptable. Not perfect, but totally OK for me.

The main selling point of this configuration is the screen/desktop real estate. You suddenly wonder how you were able to work on a FullHD screen before...

As a side effect, I pretty much stopped using my HIFI Stereo connected via optical cable as sound source. The TV offers a pretty good sound for what it is and you don't need to setup speakers.

The bad points, after 3rd week:

1) I should sit a little bit higher. The top left and right corner of the TV are a bit too far and I need to move my head to properly read stuff. This is complaining at high level, though. I just put less important windows there, like when a CAM program is calculating. I will see when it is finished and meanwhile focus on the lower half and center of the screen.

2) The TV does not have a standby mode like a computer monitor. If the PC sleeps/switches off the screen output, the TV will show a picture mentioning lack of input signal. This means I have to switch the TV off, before leaving my desk. This might move Outlook from the second screen to the main screen if I move the mouse to wake the PC before switching the TV back on.

3) The TV sometimes shows events on top of the image (new FW available). This requires to take the remote and get rid of the message. This is a rare event, though.

4) I need to cover my window during the day, as there are many reflections. I think I would have the same issue with most computer monitors.

5) HDR mode revealed artifacts on the image I use on my desktop background, especially when looking at a certain angle. This is not the fault of the TV, but of the JPEG compression of the image. Means that you suddenly notice things like that.

6) If you do online meetings and need to share your screen, make sure you have (as I have) a second FullHD screen connected, otherwise all participants won't be able to read anything, because they will look at a 4K screen on their FullHD screens.

7) Some applications will render fonts way to big (i.e. VLC or VirtualBox). You can fix this by doing right click on the executable and editing the compatibility mode --> DPI settings.

8) My other PC had a GeForce GTX960 and this card did not have enough RAM to run games in 4K mode. I am not a gamer and I just use Rockstar GTA V as a benchmark and to run away from the cops... With my new computer I have a RTX4070TI and GTA V runs on basically highest settings in 4K. Note that I would not spend this kind of money to play GTA V with better settings: the game plays exactly the same and I would say that the improved graphics are barely noticable during a regular gaming session.

Overall this has been a great experience for me. I would not switch back to regular PC monitors. Note that my goal was to have the equivalent of 4 screens (5 actually, considering the extra monitor). It is not about having a bigger picture!


Offline paulcaTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4364
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #43 on: April 20, 2023, 10:50:24 am »
On ultrawide.  In most window managers you can rapidly split apps left/right halves (LWin+<- ->).  The aspect is such that you can have two perfectly normal looking apps side by side.  Chrome even has an extension to single click this splitting the current tab into a sister sidebyside config.

The annoying this is, YOU are part of the problem.  Having a rare aspect ratio causes issues.  An example is if someone, including me, forgets to set a particular setting when rendering the video file and then uploading to YouTube, the 21:9 capture of 21:9 content gets encoded as 21:9 content in a 16:9 frame with "pillar box" blanks.  Of course when you open that on a 21:9 screen and full screen it, the player sees 16:9 and adds "prison bars" either side.  The resulting takes up the centre half of the screen!
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Online wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Country: lv
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #44 on: April 20, 2023, 01:11:14 pm »
IMHO two 30-ish inch monitors are much better than a single ultra wide weirdo. You can arrange them in a comfortable way and do not need to bother with any issues.
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #45 on: April 20, 2023, 02:29:33 pm »
The single advantage I see with multiple monitors is being able to max a window to only that monitor. If that's what you need to do - perhaps having a main app maxed on there with supporting stuff on the others - it works well.

But having now tried a massive desktop I wouldn't go back to multiple smaller ones. One major reason is because the screen bezels sit smack in the middle of your workspace if you don't have a master screen. And if you do have a master screen you're stuck with the in the middle and the other(s) off to one side. Whilst you can technically spread an app across two screens, that bezel gets in the way, so realistically the maximum size for a window is a single screen.

On the 4K I can have it any way I want, wherever I want. As I said earlier, the only real downside is some app starting up maxed, but once tamed it's a non-issue.
 

Online wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Country: lv
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #46 on: April 20, 2023, 04:05:17 pm »
The single advantage I see with multiple monitors is being able to max a window to only that monitor. If that's what you need to do - perhaps having a main app maxed on there with supporting stuff on the others - it works well.

But having now tried a massive desktop I wouldn't go back to multiple smaller ones. One major reason is because the screen bezels sit smack in the middle of your workspace if you don't have a master screen. And if you do have a master screen you're stuck with the in the middle and the other(s) off to one side. Whilst you can technically spread an app across two screens, that bezel gets in the way, so realistically the maximum size for a window is a single screen.

On the 4K I can have it any way I want, wherever I want. As I said earlier, the only real downside is some app starting up maxed, but once tamed it's a non-issue.
The problem is that you cannot see the whole wide screen at once. With two monitors you can use main monitor straight in front of you for most things and put another monitor under angle so you basically switch between the two and have comfortable viewing distance for both. With ultra wide one, you cannot see all of it at once anyway, and with a downside that it's right and left side are uncomfortably far away compared to center of the screen. Even super curved screens are not that curved to mitigate that, and strong curvature is a whole another issue that may bog you. App toolbars located on the sides only makes it worse. So you may end up only using middle of the screen in most cases and waste the rest of the area. It may be decent for some sorts of gaming like racing though if center of the screen is what you want to look at most of the time. Modern monitor bezels are small, so you  can easily have only like 1-1.5cm wide dead area between the monitors.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2023, 04:08:20 pm by wraper »
 

Offline paulcaTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4364
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #47 on: April 20, 2023, 04:28:16 pm »
Why do you need to see the whole screen at once?

I wish I had a photo of a "Ops desks" in NYSE.  While most people had a single 22" LCD, us developers had 2, 24" LCDs. 

The Ops Desks had 9 x 24" LCDs arranged in a 3x3 grid.

It wasn't so they could see it all "at once", but so that a single flashing alert light on any one of 20 different dashboards "could" be seen immediate in context.

In my current company the Ops and support "floor" has 4 x 65" LCD panels on a "Dash wall" showing dashboards....  or one with the Wii Fit and another watching the mirror of someone playing VR Spiderman, depending on how busy it is.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Offline paulcaTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4364
  • Country: gb
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #48 on: April 20, 2023, 04:32:03 pm »
And yes multiple monitors adds a layer of flexibility a single large one does not.

Multiple inputs can be assigned to one or other screen.  I spend most of my days with one monitor extending off the work laptop and the other my personal PC.  (Part of me wishes Synergy was free and could get past the work laptop firewall).

It's also very nice while gaming.  The vast majority of AAA titles will lock you into full screen and barely support "windowed" mode even if you beg them.  Most will allow non-exclusive or boundary less full screen, such that you can with a bit of effort, free your mouse from the game and still click in the other screen.

I have also run 2 copies of a full screen game one on each monitor.   Eve Online.  Not a small game!
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Online wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Country: lv
Re: PC 4K 43" monitors
« Reply #49 on: April 20, 2023, 04:39:14 pm »
Why do you need to see the whole screen at once?
I said that you can view neither of sides decently (unless you move the chair). Therefore only middle of it is decently useable, at which point you could just put a normal monitor instead of that and get the same decently viewable area with advantage of being able to put another decently viewable monitor. I'm talking about big ultrawide monitors with height similar to 27-32" 16:9 ones.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2023, 04:47:55 pm by wraper »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf