750 bucks for 4K 60Hz ( not even IPS ) in 2019 when i paid 450 bucks for 4K 60Hz ( TN but still ) back in 2014 ..... SURE IT MAKES SENSE !!!

RH92750 bucks for 4K 60Hz ( not even IPS ) in 2019 when i paid 450 bucks for 4K 60Hz ( TN but still ) back in 2014 ..... SURE IT MAKES SENSE !!!

Did you get HDR for $450 in 2014?

bugThat's only 75% of the number of pixels on a 4k monitor though (6MP vs 8MP).

Funnily enough the three Dell screens where running over 12.2m pixels back 2011/2012.. Was great seeing it all working :) I miss the desktop space of that...
Three 4k screens aren't far off 25m pixels which is even more so impressive :) But I think the difference between GTX 580 3Gb and GTX 1080 (for example) is a lot higher :)

notbYour AOC doesn't have a proper stand (no vertical adjustment nor rotation) which means it couldn't be used in an office in countries with proper work safety regulations.
It's a lot less bright than this one.
LG also has (by specification) very nice colour space, few useful features and is visually attractive.

AOC is just a panel (often a good one) with all other costs minimized. Bad stands, bad backlight, issues with colour reproduction, occasional glitches and poor port choice - some of the things usually mentioned in reviews.
Well, you get what you pay for.

Not everyone is a gamer. And even most gamers don't care about >60Hz.

Then 'most gamers' haven't tried going to a 120hz+ monitor and back down to a 60hz one. The difference feels like night and day. Characters in fps games turn slower and things generally feel laggier @ 60hz.

bugDid you get HDR for $450 in 2014?

300 bucks premium for HDR 400 ( 600 ) 5 years later ??? Yeah NO THANKS

RavenmasterThen 'most gamers' haven't tried going to a 120hz+ monitor and back down to a 60hz one. The difference feels like night and day. Characters in fps games turn slower and things generally feel laggier @ 60hz.

You do understand that most gamers treat this as one of their hobbies - playing something like FIFA, Sims or GTA few hours a week, right?

RH92750 bucks for 4K 60Hz ( not even IPS ) in 2019 when i paid 450 bucks for 4K 60Hz ( TN but still ) back in 2014 ..... SURE IT MAKES SENSE !!!

Well... reading comments in this thread I'm somehow shocked, to be honest. This is totally not what I've expected from people that spend so much on GPUs and keyboards and so on.

But anyway... if you've never had a high quality monitor, you may not understand why people pay extra for things other than how many pixels or hertz it can do.
But for many a great monitor is the most important part of the whole experience and comfort (and sometimes essential to get the job done). And it's not that uncommon for people to pay for the screens almost as much as for the actual computer it's connected to. :-)

It very much reminds me of cycling. People who ride a lot buy expensive saddles. People who want to be "pro" and "fast" buy expensive derailleurs. :-)

RavenmasterThen 'most gamers' haven't tried going to a 120hz+ monitor and back down to a 60hz one. The difference feels like night and day. Characters in fps games turn slower and things generally feel laggier @ 60hz.

Could it be that not every gamer is into FPS? I used to be into that genre since the first Wolfenstein (if anyone remembers it), yet I haven't finished one since being let down by the first FarCry.
And yes, like I've said above, I'd prefer having everything and the kitchen sink. But at the current prices, it's not surprising some people will pick other features over high refresh.

notbBut anyway... if you've never had a high quality monitor, you may not understand why people pay extra for things other than how many pixels or hertz it can do.

4K 120Hz is high quality .
4K 120Hz IPS is even higher quality .
4K 120Hz IPS HDR 1000 is what the industry has the best to offer ( yet ) .
......
......
......
......
4K 60Hz VA with HDR 400 ( worst HDR experience you can have ) at 700bucks in 2019 when you could have about the same quality for 300bucks less back in 2014 is called a RIPOFF my friend not high quality !

RH924K 120Hz is high quality .
4K 120Hz IPS is even higher quality .
4K 120Hz IPS HDR 1000 is what the industry has the best to offer ( yet ) .
......
......
......
......
4K 60Hz VA with HDR 400 ( worst HDR experience you can have ) at 700bucks in 2019 when you could have about the same quality for 300bucks less back in 2014 is called a RIPOFF my friend not high quality !

This is not HDR 400, it's HDR 600.
Also, VA, the worst HDR experience you can have? Do you know anything about HDR (or VA)?

bugThis is not HDR 400, it's HDR 600.

Yeah sure HDR 600 with 400cd/m2 peak brightness ..... tell me more :shadedshu:

bugDo you know anything about HDR

Irony at it's best !

bugAlso, VA, the worst HDR experience you can have?

Maybe you should learn to read first before replying ?

Im calling it the worst HDR experience possible because of the 400cd/m2 PEAK wich is the bare minimum ( at best ) , not because of VA .

RH92Yeah sure HDR 600 with 400cd/m2 peak brightness ..... tell me more :shadedshu:

displayhdr.org/performance-criteria/
^^^ Tell me what's the required full-screen brightness for DisplayHDR 600.

RH92Irony at it's best !

I'm not seeing it.

RH92Maybe you should learn to read first before replying ?

Im calling it the worst HDR experience possible because of the 400cd/m2 PEAK wich is the bare minimum ( at best ) , not because of VA .

You specifically quoted VA in there.

bugdisplayhdr.org/performance-criteria/
^^^ Tell me what's the required full-screen brightness for DisplayHDR 600.

You definitely have reading comprehention issues don't you ?

Full Screen Long Duration Minimum Requirement : 350cd/m2
Full Screen Flash Minimum Requirement : 600cd/m2
10% Center Patch Minimum Requirement : 600cd/m2

AT 400cd/m2 PEAK YOU FAIL 2/3 OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR HDR600 !!!!

bugI'm not seeing it.

Ofc you're not seeing it ... you fail to even understand the link you post yourself let alone being able to understand irony !

bugYou specifically quoted VA in there.

Keep grasping at straws ! Im repeating myself learn to read before replying .....

RH92You definitely have reading comprehention issues don't you ?

Full Screen Long Duration Minimum Requirement : 350cd/m2
Full Screen Flash Minimum Requirement : 600cd/m2
10% Center Patch Minimum Requirement : 600cd/m2

AT 400cd/m2 PEAK YOU FAIL 2/3 OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR HDR600 !!!!

It doesn't fail at anything (otherwise it wouldn't be able to carry the logo). You're just failing at comprehension.
This one has local dimming, it will flash as high as requested.

bugIt doesn't fail at anything (otherwise it wouldn't be able to carry the logo). You're just failing at comprehension.
This one has local dimming, it will flash as high as requested.

So i guess you don't understand what the word PEAK means !

I did my best i can't help you more than this .....

RH92So i guess you don't understand what the word PEAK means !

I did my best i can't help you more than this .....

I understand what peak means, you just pull it out of of your rear.
Look at the specs of the monitor.
www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32UL750-W-4k-uhd-led-monitor

• Brightness
  
  350 cd/m²(Min.), 400 cd/m² (Typ.)

It's 400 cd/sqm typical, not peak.

bugI understand what peak means, you just pull it out of of your rear.
Look at the specs of the monitor.
www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32UL750-W-4k-uhd-led-monitor

• Brightness
  
  350 cd/m²(Min.), 400 cd/m² (Typ.)

It's 400 cd/sqm typical, not peak.

Im pulling nothing out of my rear my friend im just able to read the article !

Cool im looking at the specs of the monitor , im seeing 400cd/m2 typical ..... but im seeing nowhere 600 cd/m2 peak !

RH92Im pulling nothing out of my rear my friend im just able to read the article !

Source this, then:

RH92AT 400cd/m2 PEAK YOU FAIL 2/3 OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR HDR600 !!!!

RH92Cool im looking at the specs of the monitor , im seeing 400cd/m2 typical ..... but im seeing nowhere 600 cd/m2 peak !

From the same page: "This HDR 600 monitor has been rated to deliver impressive peak luminance of 600 nits for undeniably spectacular highlights."

You dont get "HDR xxxx rated monitor" if it cant get that. Simple. They dont give out that rating as candy.

Also its why HDR monitors are so ridiculously expensive. It will be better in the future, just not now (2-3 years give or take). Making HDR gaming will be even harder, wont expect anything reasonable in like 5 years from now.

MescalambaYou dont get "HDR xxxx rated monitor" if it cant get that. Simple. They dont give out that rating as candy.

Also its why HDR monitors are so ridiculously expensive. It will be better in the future, just not now (2-3 years give or take). Making HDR gaming will be even harder, wont expect anything reasonable in like 5 years from now.

I, for one, want HDR mostly for my photos. I don't know how well it works with local dimming though. And seeing the glacial pace of monitors' progress, I don't think the situation will change much in the just 2-3 years.

bugI, for one, want HDR mostly for my photos. I don't know how well it works with local dimming though. And seeing the glacial pace of monitors' progress, I don't think the situation will change much in the just 2-3 years.

Ah, yea I thought about that. I suspect it can work, but unsure if there is viewer that would support it. HDR pics are easy, but dunno what can actually talk to HDR displays and present it. Would be cool tho, really looking forward to that. Always fighting with limited DR of JPEGs. :D