-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Nvidia presents BFG Display - 65" 4k HDR 120hz + Nshield screens
- Thread starter Bombless
- Start date
On one hand I would really really want one. On the other hand I can't see myself paying the price for this. Chance for one under $2K is 0 I am guessing.
I have a 55" TV hooked up to my consoles and my gaming PC. The latter is also connected to my multi-monitor setup. I certainly wouldn't mind a 65" TV for couch gaming. That said, a 55" option would have been nice as well to cut down the price a bit.
Edit: I guess I really don't understand why people are puzzled. You have your TV connected to the computer. You are sitting on your couch, playing say Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, AC, etc.. .from the couch on your TV with a controller. Where is the disconnect? Are folks that puzzled about a PS4/Xbone connected to a 65" TV?
Projectors don't have tuners either. I don't see why it appears strange to replace the display in a couch arrangement with something that is not a TV.
It's a niche product in a niche market
I expect the price to be well above $2000 (which is the rumored price for the 27inch 4k 144Hz/GSync/HDR from ASUS)
Not to mention, look at the picture on their site:
Nevermind the fact that's nowhere near a 65" display, it's clear nVidia seriously thinks that people are just going to plop these on their computer desks. Wtf?
Point being: these displays in the 30-40" sizes should be first, not fucking 65.
Nevermind the fact that's nowhere near a 65" display, it's clear nVidia seriously thinks that people are just going to plop these on their computer desks. Wtf?
Point being: these displays in the 30-40" sizes should be first, not fucking 65.
Only costs one kidney or your firstborn. Also. It's got new EYE RAPE technology (Extremely Yuge Electronic Retinal Annihilation Photon Emission) that will rip your eyeballs a new one.
I can see $3,500. X1 Chip is not expensive, G-Sync is like $200-300. So the real question is how much a 65" low latency, high refresh, HDR panel going to run. $3K is high enough to be plausible for say Acer.
This stinks of a last ditch effort by Nvidia to protect their Gsync Golden Goose or extract the last few eggs against its impending doom in the form of Variable Refresh Rate. Evidently already supported by 2018 Samsung's, and all but assuredly hitting every manufacturer by next year, a continued attempt to lock their GPU's to Gsync would send AMD's market share and mind share through the roof and Nvidia into freefall. What may seem like a non-issue in the comparatively tiny gaming monitor market will become a completely different monster when every modern display people own supports an open standard Nvidia are actively blacklisting.
Going by the sharp uptick for monitors compared to similar sized TVs I think $3000 is just a dream not too mention Nvidia can be shitty with pricing in general
I agree. They are going to have to support VRR. Eurogamer seems to know whats up as well. From their article about this "monitor":
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-nvidia-reveals-65-inch-4k-displays-with-gsync
Sucks that AMD doesn't really have anything competitive in the high end GPU space nowadays
I have a 1440p freesync monitor (48-75Hz I think) but am stuck @60Hz because I have a GTX 1080 (bought before Vega was out and tbh I still wouldn't go Vega today)
Wasn't even looking for a FS monitor in the first place but seems like every other monitor is freesync nowadays
The Gsync price premium is too much for me
I assume one reason it seems perfectly fine to me is that my main "couch-scale" display is, in fact, a projector.
The ONLY thing separating monitors from TVs nowadays are inputs/outputs (such as for audio) and the built-in tuner. They are getting closer and closer in the inputs/output space, and the lack of a built-in tuner is hardly a problem for anyone spending this kind of money on a 65" screen. This thing is essentially a TV, and most definitely meant for living room applications and not to be placed at a desk.
No I was just replying to the idea that people don't use 65'' displays with their PCs from their couch.
Unless their new GPU really is a new hardware design and significantly leaps ahead of what they already have. If the gap between them and AMD grows even more substantial, it's going to be a real dilemma. The big hope is the HDMI group has enough sense to make it a mandatory part of the spec. And let's face it, running moves at 24/48hz has very valid uses for this too. I don't think even Nvidia would be crazy enough to abandon HDMI support.
I believe it already is a part of the HDMI 2.1 spec. It's just going to up to Nvidia if they try to remove the feature/block the feature from their cards like they did with DP.
Stop, those of us using TV's to play PC games on, with our controllers and comfy couches are breaking the illusions of crampy/stuffy PC.
Sounds interesting but I'd really love a ~30" version of this - a gSync monitor with HDR that does at least 120hz and is 1440p or 4k, all for $1k or less.
But yeah I can see in a few years every desktop monitor having VRR and HDMI 2.x and HDR so less of an issue, but its kinda crazy how we still are waiting for good desktop HDR solutions.
But yeah I can see in a few years every desktop monitor having VRR and HDMI 2.x and HDR so less of an issue, but its kinda crazy how we still are waiting for good desktop HDR solutions.
A lot of times things are declared optional/mandatory. It's not actually a part of the mandatory DP spec, is it? That's why it's so important it's declared mandatory for certification.
VRR is an optional part of the HDMI 2.1 spec. I fully expect only expensive high end TVs will support it. If you think the $300 TV you buy at Walmart will have HMDI 2.1 VRR boy do I have a great bridge to sell you. Expect only the top shelf Samsung QLED, LG OLED, and Sony models to have it. You're going to be paying $3k+ for VRR anyways and compared to that these things with G-sync won't look badly priced at all.
Indeed. VRR has been declared as an optional part of the HDMI 2.1 spec.
FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The thing about the 300 dollar TV at Walmart, they don't need anything in the 2.1 spec. Current HDMI already already supports 4k/60hz. It really pisses me off that marketing always wins over substance. 2.1 should have actually meant something. Otherwise stick to 2.0 and omit the 2.1 logo from your box:(
Yeah, there's zero chance Nvidia supports it unless AMD gets their act together and starts providing competitive cards.
The 2018 OLEDs will be capable of displaying 4k at 120hz. I'd rather have that and get whatever card that is going to replace the 1080ti. You'll probably come out cheaper.
Do you have a source for that? (as in, supporting that actual input resolution/refresh rate)
It would be fantastic (though sadly the sizes LG currently produces don't fit my use cases)
Have they explained how yet? It was speculated to be limited to USB-C. So unless you can convert DP to USB-C, I wouldn't expect to input any live gaming on it.
https://www.cnet.com/news/lg-oled-tvs-dont-mess-with-success-in-2018/
Never mind. I read the linked article but it looks like it's just for streaming. Sorry.
OLED does have burn-in issues for monitor-like use cases.
It's hard to estimate how severe they are, but rtings.com is currently doing a really good test: https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test
I find it a little strange that Nvidia aren't really working with TV manufactures to at least put G-Sync into their TV's. I guess everyone will just use the HDMI 2.1 standard.
I hope this sort of thing gains traction. I like big screen gaming.
There's nothing strange about it. No TV manufacturer would ever pay Nvidia the $100-200+ per unit they evidently charge for the Gsync hardware and license (estimate based on MSRP of an otherwise identical Freesync Vs. Gsync monitor). Samsung famously doesn't support Dolby Vision because they don't want to pay Dolby the licensing/royalty fee, which is probably $10-20/unit based on what MS charges for the Atmos Headphone license. Their Gsync sales team has probably been laughed out of more board rooms than they can count.
If that's the case, why don't Nvidia just support the open standard? I'm sure they can implement a sort of "G-sync through HDMI" or something.
Because there are still 10's of thousands or possibly low 100's of thousands of monitor manufacturers and customers who have been stupid enough to pay it. Gsync has probably generated over 100 million in revenue LTD, why would they voluntarily give that up?
Only way I see them giving it up is if they begin to lose a significant amount of market share.
Agreed, which they will when the millions of Samsung, LG, Sony, etc TV's sold every year support variable refresh rate, and people start seeing stories and videos complaining about why it works with AMD but not Nvidia. That is of course assuming they're stupid enough to try not supporting the HDMI standard in the first place.
Like all emissive display technologies OLED does have the risk of burn-in, yes. How susceptible OLED displays are to burn-in is subject to debate. Many users here, myself included, game all the time on OLEDs, without issue, but there are verified reports of OLED burn-in here as well so it is certainly a valid concern.
With this BFG display, and where pricing will likely end up ($4k+), you are going to be comparing it to displays like the Sony 65A1E OLED, or the LG E8. In side-by-side comparisons the OLEDs will win every time, particularly against an LCD with only 1k nits of peak brightness. Sony and Samsung will be pushing 2k nits of peak brightness in 2018 with their LCDs... this display is outdated upon release.
4K G-Sync @ 120hz. Even though OLED runs circles around an AOC LCD screen, that PC game is going to look much nicer in motion, IMO, on this screen. Not that I'd ever purchase one (absolutely expect MSRP to be 4999.99). Just saying. 120hz G-Sync vs 60hz (input) OLED tips in favor of the inferior display. For PC gaming.
Local dimming introduces input lag. It would be nice if people who aren't THAT hardcore about input lag could have a real local dimming option which made the lag 20 ms instead of 10 ms or something. I mean for watching Blu-rays and stuff, lag doesn't matter at all so having the option at least for that would be nice.
AMD is completely uncompetitive in PC gaming right now so there's no way this would cause them to lose market share unless Volta was somehow slower than Pascal and AMD suddenly doubles performance between Vega and Navi. This is not a realistic scenario, so Nvidia's absolutely dominant control of PC gaming will continue through at least 2019.
However Nvidia does generally support HDMI standards and they will likely support HDMI 2.1 VRR. There's no reason for them not to. Most people will not pony up the cost of whatever these displays will be, and Nvidia has already established G-sync as a technically superior premium variable refresh rate technology. Supporting something that's not as good like HDMI 2.1 VRR won't hurt sales of G-sync computer monitors and it won't do anything to decrease or increase sales of these super-niche BFGD's. People who have the money and want the best will still buy G-sync.
Last edited:
