Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › [Official] The Qnix/X-Star 1440p Monitor Club
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Official] The Qnix/X-Star 1440p Monitor Club - Page 730

post #7291 of 25887
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaXxJaPxX View Post

As much as I'd like to agree, I don't think gamers make up that much of the "pc user" category. everyone owns a PC these days. I'd estimate maybe 10-20% are gamers, and of that, only 40-50% are concerned with resfresh rates. I base this on nothing but pure guesstimation

Also with these monitor you need a pretty decent GPU.. You can still be a gamer with a weak video card that cannot push 1440 or 120hz.
post #7292 of 25887
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorcopio View Post


I cannot believe it...(in a sad meaning of the sentence)
We've Apple throwing "Retina" things everywhere and we have nothing more than 2 or 3 monitors capable of 1440p@120Hz, all via unofficiale ways?
We've 32" 2160p costing 3500$ and 30" 1600p STIll cost 500-1500$??? Feels like wrong to me.

even Apple doesn't have a 27" monitor higher than 1440p. Their newest iMac that came out today has that resolution. It's just too expensive and video card can't handle it as well. Besides, "retina" is all about pixel density and not total pixels. Their latest iPad is 2048 x 1536 which is 3.1 million pixels. These monitors have almost 3.7 million pixels. If you used the same "retina" pixel density on a 27" panel, it would have over 15 million pixels. Huge difference in processing power needed to operate that!
post #7293 of 25887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deluxe View Post

Because 99% of pc users could'nt care less about higher than 60hz.
We are a lot of people but a tiny percentage

100% agree with this comment. We are in a huge minority right now. Maybe in a few years after most upgrade to the 120 Hz or 240 Hz televisions, will everyone start caring about their PC monitor refresh rate. Even most gamers don't really care about 120Hz because they don't know what they are missing. I certainly didn't know anything until I actually saw it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dseg View Post

Where did you get this statistic?
A majority of gamers care about low FPS, and I believe gamers make up a huge portion of "pc users."

I think you're right about caring for low fps, but I think most gamers would agree that >45fps is perfectly acceptable and 60fps is optimum. My only source of info to go off of is the sheer amount of reviews I see for GTX 660(midrange) vs 670 and 680 reviews. If most gamers were that concerned, most would purchase the high end cards, which is not the case. Hard to measure things accurately this way, I know, but I think most game card manufacturers would admit their Nvidia "60's" series cards sell the best over the others.

I do not think gamers are a huge portion of pc users. Considering the amount of business users, I think gamers are roughly 10%.
Edited by Xentar712 - 9/24/13 at 1:01pm
post #7294 of 25887
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinsbane View Post

Forgot about those, yes the Tempest X270OC can overclock as well, but they're little more than Catleap 2B's in different shells. They, at least, do not suffer from image retention, colour shifts, uniformity and brightness issues when overclocked. But 120hz is still not guaranteed.

Practically Tempest have the same panels of Catleap/QNIX coupled with a slightly different PCB?
What about percentage of overclock success?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xentar712 View Post

even Apple doesn't have a 27" monitor higher than 1440p. Their newest iMac that came out today has that resolution. It's just too expensive and video card can't handle it as well. Besides, "retina" is all about pixel density and not total pixels. Their latest iPad is 2048 x 1536 which is 3.1 million pixels. These monitors have almost 3.7 million pixels. If you used the same "retina" pixel density on a 27" panel, it would have over 15 million pixels. Huge difference in processing power needed to operate that!

I know, that's why I've written "Retina" and not Retina.
I'm so sad...
And as someone stated we're only 5% of the whole computer market: no producer will care about us.
post #7295 of 25887
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorcopio View Post

Practically Tempest have the same panels of Catleap/QNIX coupled with a slightly different PCB?
What about percentage of overclock success?
Tempests and Catleaps use an LG IPS panel. Qnix use a Samsung PLS panel.

Percentage of overclock success is high, but probably about the same as with Qnix/Catleap 2B. Overlord X270OC are tested to 96hz, but no operation beyond 60hz is warrantied.
post #7296 of 25887
Quote:
Originally Posted by dseg View Post

I know, that's why I've written "Retina" and not Retina.
I'm so sad...
And as someone stated we're only 5% of the whole computer market: no producer will care about us.

I'm not saying it won't come. It will. Just not for 5-8 years. Seriously, at the ppi you desire, 15 million pixels too much to ask. Even HDMI 2.0, which is brand new and won't be out till next year, only supports 9 million pixels at 60Hz.

Progress happens regardless of what category you are in. Apple will always push their users to like pretty things. High ppi monitors are pretty so they will adopt the technology when it is available. Other manufacturers will do the same. It will cost you but they will eventually make the monitor you want.
post #7297 of 25887
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinsbane View Post

Overlord X270OC are tested to 96hz, but no operation beyond 60hz is warrantied.

They are tested at 96hz, Scribby tests at 96hz to ensure that the OC models actually overclock before shipping them out - many of them go above that normally between 110-120hz.
post #7298 of 25887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xentar712 View Post

100% agree with this comment. We are in a huge minority right now. Maybe in a few years after most upgrade to the 120 Hz or 240 Hz televisions, will everyone start caring about their PC monitor refresh rate. Even most gamers don't really care about 120Hz because they don't know what they are missing. I certainly didn't know anything until I actually saw it.

Retina doesn't precisely equate to pixel-density because what Apple says they mean by it is that from a nominal viewing distance for the particular device in question, the pixel density is enough to where the human eye cannot distinguish between pixels.

For a 27" iMac this is around 28", for an iPhone it's around 6" and for an 8"-9" tablet it's around 12" - 18". If any of us were to bring the screen within 4 inches of our faces (assuming 20/20 vision) then the display would need a pixel density of 2190 ppi for pixels to be indistinguishable.

http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/

Devices like the Google Glass are already around or above this mark however the ppi would need to be much higher than 2190 if the display really is within less than 4 inches of our eye because of the pixel screen space limitation of 640 x 360.
Edited by paulkon - 9/24/13 at 1:19pm
post #7299 of 25887
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulkon View Post

Retina doesn't precisely equate to pixel-density because what Apple says they mean by it is that from a nominal viewing distance for the particular device in question, the pixel density is enough to where the human eye cannot distinguish between pixels.

For a 27" iMac this is around 28", for an iPhone it's around 6" and for an 8"-9" tablet it's around 12" - 18". If any of us were to bring the screen within 4 inches of our faces (for people with 20/20 vision) then the display would need a pixel density of 2190 ppi for pixels to be indistinguishable.

http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/

Devices like the Google Glass are already around or above this mark however the ppi would need to be much higher than 2190 if the display really is within less than 4 inches of our eye because of the physical screen space limitation of 640 x 360.

You're right, I actually thought about that after I wrote it. That's precisely the reason why I don't really care so much about 4k and will be happy with this monitor for many years. I have a really tough time seeing the pixels - which is good! It's like when people show me their 1080p phones and I compare it to my Nexus 4 which has a 768p screen. At the distance I hold the phone away from my face, I can not tell any difference.
post #7300 of 25887
4K at 30" will look amazing - itll take at least 2 years before we can even power it at 60hz tho, we're barely able to power 1440p at 120hz outside of multi GPU setups
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Monitors and Displays
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › [Official] The Qnix/X-Star 1440p Monitor Club