TCL unveils 27-inch 8K, 65-inch 8K 120Hz OLED, and 57-inch 8K 240Hz mega PC gaming monitor

eastmen said:
27 inch and then 65 inch . Why not something in the high 30inch range or low 40 inch range. I feel like sub 30 is too small for monitors now !
Click to expand...

27" is a pretty nice size for a gaming monitor. 32" is okay too, but ultimately I'd just end up moving the monitor slightly further away from me. My next monitor will likely be 27" again, but a 1440p360 oled or something like that.
 
Oh, and an 8k 27" doesn't make any sense. I'd be curious how easily people could see any difference between 4k and 8k at 27". That pixel density is very high, but it could be differences in luminance rather than pixel size that make some difference.
 
HiDPI 4K would probably look great on that 27-inch monitor, albeit a bit on the smaller size but I don't think anyone is actively asking for a 330 PPI monitor 😅

I feel like the 32-inch 8K Dell UP3218K is already pretty crazy at 279 PPI but, oh my, the 4K HiDPI is just awesome.

Personally I would definitely consider upgrading if they released a 40-inch (220 PPI) or 42-inch (209 PPI) 8K 120Hz OLED.
 
8k just feels so useless. There's no video available that needs it. Game performance would never be worth it. I guess maybe photo editing would be awesome?
 
Scott_Arm said:
8k just feels so useless. There's no video available that needs it. Game performance would never be worth it. I guess maybe photo editing would be awesome?
Click to expand...
Graphic design, videography, photography, coding, music production ... etc etc. Usually the UI of those programmes will take up a lot of space.

It may seem useless for games though.
 
Pressure said:
Graphic design, videography, photography, coding, music production ... etc etc. Usually the UI of those programmes will take up a lot of space.

It may seem useless for games though.
Click to expand...
Sure until you play at 8k for a few years and go back to a 4k or sub 4k panel
 
eastmen said:
27 inch and then 65 inch . Why not something in the high 30inch range or low 40 inch range. I feel like sub 30 is too small for monitors now !
Click to expand...

Most of the market would feel >32inch is too big for a monitor and <65inch is too small for a higher end TV.

The other issue here is, albeit I wouldn't know the specifics of TCL manufacturing here, but in general for OLED manufacturing currently it's more complex than LCD manufacturing in that sizing isn't just a matter of scaling up/down. There significant differences in terms of the approach of manufacturing panels of various sizes. Which was a reason why for the longest time OLEDs were either small phone displays or very large TVs with nothing in between, the techniques used for both were widely different and actually did not scale well going up or down significantly barring further development.
 
arandomguy said:
Most of the market would feel >32inch is too big for a monitor and <65inch is too small for a higher end TV.
Click to expand...
Depends on the aspect ratio. For standard 16:9? Sure. For 21:9 and 32:10 you need more inches to compensate for loss of vertical.
 
If they fully support displayport 2.0 found this
DisplayPort 2.0 (2019)
Video resolutions:
8K/60 Hz uncompressed
10K@60Hz with 24-bit color and 4:4:4
16K@60 Hz with DSC

1702507059591.png

Why did I also post the specs for dual monitors? Well early 4k monitors used to need 2 cables because the tcons at the time only supported 2k if 8k monitors also required (or supported) 2 cables then they should be capable of 8k @ 144hz (provided gfx card fully supports dp 2.0)
 
Found this on google when you type nvida max resolution
Can 4090 output 4K 240hz?
GeForce RTX 4090 is limited to 120 Hz on the dual 4K 240 Hz Samsung Odyssey G9 Neo monitor. The GeForce RTX 4090 is 8K 120 Hz when it comes to Samsung's Odyssey Neo G95NC gaming monitor, with AMD's RDNA 3 Radeon GPUs able to push the full 240 Hz.

ps: that monitor has dual inputs
 
arandomguy said:
Most of the market would feel >32inch is too big for a monitor and <65inch is too small for a higher end TV.

The other issue here is, albeit I wouldn't know the specifics of TCL manufacturing here, but in general for OLED manufacturing currently it's more complex than LCD manufacturing in that sizing isn't just a matter of scaling up/down. There significant differences in terms of the approach of manufacturing panels of various sizes. Which was a reason why for the longest time OLEDs were either small phone displays or very large TVs with nothing in between, the techniques used for both were widely different and actually did not scale well going up or down significantly barring further development.
Click to expand...

These are IJP (Inkjet Printed) OLED panels. So, they are easier and cheaper to manufacture, but it's unknown how well each pixel/subpixel will retain its brightness over time as well as how resistent to burn-in they are.

Regards,
SB
 
I didn't catch that initially. That to me seems like more important news than the actual end products if printed OLEDs are now ready to scale for mass manufacturing. I believe the theory is that the printing method once scaled and initial capital amortized it could possibly lead to OLEDs displays being even cheaper to produce than LCDs.

I do feel it's also an interesting way to indirectly address the burn in/longevity issue. In theory if OLEDs hit LCD prices, if not cheaper, than does the lifespan matter as much compared to current premium pricing?

Also it looks like Samsung's new QD-OLED will be inkjet printed.
 
arandomguy said:
Most of the market would feel >32inch is too big for a monitor and <65inch is too small for a higher end TV.

The other issue here is, albeit I wouldn't know the specifics of TCL manufacturing here, but in general for OLED manufacturing currently it's more complex than LCD manufacturing in that sizing isn't just a matter of scaling up/down. There significant differences in terms of the approach of manufacturing panels of various sizes. Which was a reason why for the longest time OLEDs were either small phone displays or very large TVs with nothing in between, the techniques used for both were widely different and actually did not scale well going up or down significantly barring further development.
Click to expand...
I think over time the market is trending towards larger screens. Pricing continues to go down and so larger sizes are becoming more and more accessible.
 
eastmen said:
I think over time the market is trending towards larger screens. Pricing continues to go down and so larger sizes are becoming more and more accessible.
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if that's true for monitors. It's definitely true for tvs. Ultrawides are making a mark, but they're kind of replacing dual monitor.

Steam hardware survey is 60% 1080p (those will be 24") and 15% 1440p (those will be 27"). 4k displays are like 3% (likely 32" or more). The top selling gaming monitors are all going to be $250 or less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Show us your gaming set-up - PC Edition!
2 3
Replies
59
Views
7K
Davros
D
orangpelupa
LG OLED as PC Monitor: The bad and the good
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
29K
orangpelupa
orangpelupa
Shortbread
Next-Generation NVMe SSD and I/O Technology [PC, PS5, XBSX|S]
105 106 107
Replies
2K
Views
230K
Karamazov
K
Back
Top