ViewSonic Launches its Flagship 32-inch ELITE XG321UG 4K Mini-LED Gaming Monitor

[bug]

42'' is still way too much for me and I don't trust OLED nor am I going to change any of my use habits to prevent degradation.

Be that as it may, paying a grand more for less real-estate doesn't look like the smartest thing to do.

Hopefully QD-OLED will shake up the market and mini-led is and will gett cheaper as well

miniLED is a stopgap solution (so it probably won't have enough time to get cheaper), microLED is already in the works.
QD-OLED is still more complicated than OLED so it will be more expensive and more power hungry. I'd love if it proves me wrong, but I don't have high hopes.

 

[trsttte]

QD-OLED is still more complicated than OLED so it will be more expensive and more power hungry. I'd love if it proves me wrong, but I don't have high hopes.

I believe it will be more expensive than OLED for now, i've seen quoted a couple times that yields are low but it's still only now starting to ramp production. In the long run I think it will be cheaper because it's simpler than OLED - the OLED layer only needs one kind of emiter with less chance for cross polution and less colour filtering in the upper layer

 

[bug]

I believe it will be more expensive than OLED for now, i've seen quoted a couple times that yields are low but it's still only now starting to ramp production. In the long run I think it will be cheaper because it's simpler than OLED - the OLED layer only needs one kind of emiter with less chance for cross polution and less colour filtering in the upper layer

QD-LED is definitely not simpler than OLED.
The OLED layer in QD-LED is simpler, but there's another layer (QD) that produces the actual colors. You get intensity/luminance from one layer and color/hue from another. At the very least, these two have to kept in sync.
Don't get me wrong, from I have read QD is very promising. I'm just not convinced QD-LED isn't yet another attempt from Samsung to recoup ground they lost when they bet against OLED.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Going back to your arguments:

To respond;

1. 32" 2160p MiniLED IPS - you can get 48" instead. if that's too much real estate for you, 42" will be available this year

32" is still on the big side but it's doable. 42" is as unacceptably too big as 48".

2. 144hz refresh rate - you can get 120Hz from OLED, it will look better than 144Hz LCD

Not but as much as you think and with OLED you are always faced with burn-in and unavoidable emitter failure. Unlike normal LEDs, OLED elements have a very limited life span. They dim over time and will fail. LEDs generally have a useful lifespan 200x than that of an OLED emitter. I have an OLED TV and it starting to show it's age and is more dim than it once was. It's less that 3 years old. High quality IPS with MiniLEDs are much preferred.

3. 3.6ms pixel response time - not an issue with OLED

True, but the other disadvantages for outweigh this point.

4. HDR 1400 - it will still look worse than HDR on OLED (halos, OLED has better dynamic range)

Not by much. People make a bigger fuss about this than it deserves.

5. Viewsonic - this one is valid

Yes, it is.

I'm still not seeing anything to make me want to fork $1,000 extra.

That's ok, this display is not for everyone.

Hopefully QD-OLED will shake up the market and mini-led is and will gett cheaper as well

This.

 

[bug]

Not by much. People make a bigger fuss about this than it deserves.

Not by much. Let's take a look.
Highest LCD certification (DisplayHDR 1400 black level 0.02, white level 1400 - 70,000:1 contrast
Lowest OLED certification (DisplayHDR TrueBlack 400): black level 0.0005, white level 400 - 800,000:1 contrast

Basically, the only objective criterion this monitor has going for it is max brightness. Everything else is subjective.
Of course, if somehow this is exactly what you need, Viewsonic is probably better than buying Asus, Gigabyte and whatnot. But the price point is still ridiculous.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Highest LCD certification (DisplayHDR 1400 black level 0.02, white level 1400 - 70,000:1 contrast
Lowest OLED certification (DisplayHDR TrueBlack 400): black level 0.0005, white level 400 - 800,000:1 contrast

Ok, but again...

and with OLED you are always faced with burn-in and unavoidable emitter failure.

...this. LCD's don't do this.

Basically, the only objective criterion this monitor has going for it is max brightness.

Again, see above. Durability is important as well as reliable performance. OLED doesn't offer that currently.

But the price point is still ridiculous.

Why? It's the top of the line display in it's size class from a premium maker. You don't get premium for pennies.

 

[bug]

Ok, but again...

...this. LCD's don't do this.

Again, see above. Durability is important as well as reliable performance. OLED doesn't offer that currently.

OLED monitors, maybe. But since we're looking at a TV alternative, TVs have 3 layers of defense against burn-in: picture shifting, logo detection and dimming (for static bright areas) and periodic pixel refresh/retest. There's even a 4th layer, brightness limiter, but if you need HDR, you won't be using that.

Why? It's the top of the line display in it's size class from a premium maker. You don't get premium for pennies.

Why? Because if you don't need HDR, you can get every other feature for $700-800. And if you need HDR, OLED offers a better experience for less.

Edit: One more thing going in this monitor's favor (but only because it's a monitor, not because it's LCD): using a CX/C1/C2 requires HDMI 2.1 to get 120Hz and VRR. If your video card doesn't already have that, you're pretty much screwed at current prices.

 

[lexluthermiester]

But since we're looking at a TV alternative

No, we're not. This display has no TV tuner built in. It is purely a PC/Gaming display.

I'm done debating this. Either you see the value of this display or you don't.

 

[bug]

No, we're not. This display has no TV tuner built in. It is purely a PC/Gaming display.

I meant the alternative to this is a TV. And sadly, TVs don't come with DisplayPort.

I'm done debating this. Either you see the value of this display or you don't.

Believe me, I've been looking for years for a monitor that does HDR for my photo work. But since that's just a hobby of mine, I can't justify anything over a grand. I could stretch that a bit, but that's about where "reasonable" stops for me.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I meant the alternative to this is a TV. And sadly, TVs don't come with DisplayPort.

Ah, understood.

Believe me, I've been looking for years for a monitor that does HDR for my photo work.

And this would work wonders...

But since that's just a hobby of mine, I can't justify anything over a grand.

...yet this.

I could stretch that a bit, but that's about where "reasonable" stops for me.

There are some who feel differently. They want a display the preforms well and will last them a decade or more. A 4k display of these specs and Viewsonic levels of quality will easily last many years and provide what many professionals, dedicated amateurs and demanding gamers want.

 

[bug]

Ah, understood.

And this would work wonders...

...yet this.

There are some who feel differently. They want a display the preforms well and will last them a decade or more. A 4k display of these specs and Viewsonic levels of quality will easily last many years and provide what many professionals, dedicated amateurs and demanding gamers want.

Pros are a different breed (and they may even scoff at this), they make the $$$ back after a few jobs. Amateurs and gamers are a different story.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Amateurs and gamers are a different story.

I will agree, but again, there are those who want the best and are willing to pay for it. This display appeals to that sector of buyers/users. If you look at the rest of Viewsonic's lineup, you will see far more affordable offerings. While they do not meet the same exacting specs this one does, they are all still a cut above the competition and at an affordable price range.

 

[bug]

I will agree, but again, there are those who want the best and are willing to pay for it. This display appeals to that sector of buyers/users. If you look at the rest of Viewsonic's lineup, you will see far more affordable offerings. While they do not meet the same exacting specs this one does, they are all still a cut above the competition and at an affordable price range.

This does not make the price right (or justified) in general. That's where we disagree.

 

[lexluthermiester]

This does not make the price right (or justified) in general. That's where we disagree.

Everyone has their perspective...

 

[bug]

Everyone has their perspective...

My perspective is 700€ avg wage (national) and a 19% VAT