Originally Posted by ToTheSun!
BenQ, LG, and Samsung, to name just 3, have 4K monitors with Freesync support.
I forgot to add 40-43" there. Yes, Samsung/LG/BenQ release tons of tiny little screens for large amounts of cash, LG even releases freesync widescreens at around 34 inches (less screen area btw since the less square a display is at a given diagonal the less actually display area the panel maker has to offer) for well over a thousand dollars at 3440x1440p while tv makers are popping out hdr tv sets @ 4k and 50 inches for less money. These monitor makers think that we are too stupid to look at displays from other categories and compare prices?
Even the Asus announcement of 4k@ 120Hz looked to be designed for a screen that was 27 inches...
*** is WRONG with these people? 1080p on a 27 inch screen is too low a resolution, with 1440p it looks nice an sharp and pleasant. There are diminishing returns to going with higher resolution at the same size, but one of the PERKS of higher resolutions is that it lets you expand the screen even LARGER without a diminution of the sharpness and clarity at a given distance. Larger screens tend to create more immersive and impressive visuals unless your ends are completely pedestrian like some competitive fps/moba player where a smaller field of view might be ideal.
But instead of increasing the size of the 4k offerings to 40-43 inches like the korean off brand monitor makers, the main guys are still spitting out these tiny 27 inch models, and slightly less terrible 32 inch models... I am surprised not a single ONE of them thinks there is a market for something larger. Wasabi does, Crossover does, so why don't they?Edited by Sammael7 - 7/14/16 at 9:15am