Sony Electronics Unveils New Gaming Gear Brand "INZONE," to Maximize Performance and Ability with Upgraded Gaming Monitors and Headsets

[Kn0xxPT]

that 2k vs 4k comparison in the video is just absolute garbage BS, wtf



don't you miss a bit more real estate? like 32''. I really wanted to go from 2k to 4k but considering 32

I don't think 32" is the best size for close-ranged gaming. either 4k or 2k... curved or not ... in ultrawide thats a different story.
but for work ... 4k 32" is nice for multitasking.
personally i find 27" to 30" the optimal screensize for close-ranged gaming... in recent years I got more aware of DPI ratio/Screen size, Higher DPI makes wonders!
My perfect Monitor for multipurpose is 29" / 30" ultrawide, IPS (gotta love IPS), 144hz minimum, 2k ( 4k is just not there yet ), 1ms GtG... and all the gimmicks

 

[Bomby569]

I don't think 32" is the best size for close-ranged gaming. either 4k or 2k... curved or not ... in ultrawide thats a different story.
but for work ... 4k 32" is nice for multitasking.
personally i find 27" to 30" the optimal screensize for close-ranged gaming... in recent years I got more aware of DPI ratio/Screen size, Higher DPI makes wonders!
My perfect Monitor for multipurpose is 29" / 30" ultrawide, IPS (gotta love IPS), 144hz minimum, 2k ( 4k is just not there yet ), 1ms GtG... and all the gimmicks

i do use it for work. But just for gaming why do you say that? field of view to big? (i use a 1440p 27'' now)

 

[eazen]

Why buy this monitor when you can buy an LG OLED for ~$1000 ?

Because I don’t want a huge TV in front of my eyes on my table and get blinded by it? That’s not even viable or suitable. Also this is faster and optimized for gaming and has no burn in.

 

[siluro818]

Dudes a scammer. Don't watch his videos.

As for Sony. Make an oled. The only good differences about these monitors is they have hdmi 2.1.

A scammer, eh? I'm sure you've got proof and everything... xD

 

[Space Lynx]

A scammer, eh? I'm sure you've got proof and everything... xD

Hardware Unboxed is one of the best there is, not sure what they are on about. They do have great monitor reviews, very in-depth and high quality.

 

[Beer4Myself]

Dudes a scammer. Don't watch his videos.

As for Sony. Make an oled. The only good differences about these monitors is they have hdmi 2.1.

man are you one of those guys from Userbenchmark because no one else ... apart from fanboys would call them a scam

 

[Valantar]

Dudes a scammer. Don't watch his videos.

Wut? Scammer? Care to elaborate?

that 2k vs 4k comparison in the video is just absolute garbage BS, wtf

That's standard fare for monitor advertising - any "demonstration" of the benefits of higher resolution is always nonsensical garbage. Which makes sense, as there's no way of representing those benefits through a video viewed on another screen of another resolution.

don't you miss a bit more real estate? like 32''. I really wanted to go from 2k to 4k but considering 32

I'm not the one being asked here, but I've been going back and forth on moving to 2160p 32" or 27" over the past couple of years (I haven't committed as I'm waiting on a do-it-all monitor with good HDR for a price I can afford), and after finally getting around to visiting some stores and seeing 32" monitors in the flesh I've concluded that for me, that's simply too big. Especially when I already have a secondary 24" mointor, but even on its own 32" would be too large for comfort, as at the viewing distances I prefer (about an arm's lenght) that would place the screen corners just a tad too far out to see without eye strain or neck strain from repeated rapid movement. I'd like a tad more screen real estate than 27", but other than a few 28" panels there's nothing in between, so it's 27" for me. And I know I'd appreciate the uptick in sharpness for work (a lot of text), and I'd likely run it at 150% scaling to match a 1440p desktop layout and scaling.

 

[eazen]

Wut? Scammer? Care to elaborate?


That's standard fare for monitor advertising - any "demonstration" of the benefits of higher resolution is always nonsensical garbage. Which makes sense, as there's no way of representing those benefits through a video viewed on another screen of another resolution.

I'm not the one being asked here, but I've been going back and forth on moving to 2160p 32" or 27" over the past couple of years (I haven't committed as I'm waiting on a do-it-all monitor with good HDR for a price I can afford), and after finally getting around to visiting some stores and seeing 32" monitors in the flesh I've concluded that for me, that's simply too big. Especially when I already have a secondary 24" mointor, but even on its own 32" would be too large for comfort, as at the viewing distances I prefer (about an arm's lenght) that would place the screen corners just a tad too far out to see without eye strain or neck strain from repeated rapid movement. I'd like a tad more screen real estate than 27", but other than a few 28" panels there's nothing in between, so it's 27" for me. And I know I'd appreciate the uptick in sharpness for work (a lot of text), and I'd likely run it at 150% scaling to match a 1440p desktop layout and scaling.

Could be that 32” but curved would do the trick for you, the curve could help with the viewing angles. That said, I’m a fan of 27” monitors myself but I’m considering moving up to more next time (whenever that is) and I’m currently using a curved 27”.

 

[Valantar]

Could be that 32” but curved would do the trick for you, the curve could help with the viewing angles. That said, I’m a fan of 27” monitors myself but I’m considering moving up to more next time (whenever that is) and I’m currently using a curved 27”.

A curve kind of makes sense at 32", but not with a secondary monitor alongside it. That would necessitate a curve so shallow it stops helping. Either way it's a compromise. But I'm quite convinced that for my (very mixed) use, 32" is just a tad too large. 29-30" 16:9 would likely be perfect, but that doesn't exist

 

[eazen]

A curve kind of makes sense at 32", but not with a secondary monitor alongside it. That would necessitate a curve so shallow it stops helping. Either way it's a compromise. But I'm quite convinced that for my (very mixed) use, 32" is just a tad too large. 29-30" 16:9 would likely be perfect, but that doesn't exist

I think that monitor space is kinda reserved for professional monitors and mostly 16:10 as well, not that that’s a bad thing, to the contrary, but they aren’t optimized for gaming if that’s your thing.

 

[Kn0xxPT]

i do use it for work. But just for gaming why do you say that? field of view to big? (i use a 1440p 27'' now)

yep 32" its to big .... and even if curved .... gets really weird view angles. a friend of mine has one and he complains a lot( Samsung G7 i think ), if he goes far a bit from the monitor, like laying back in the chair or something.
even 34" ultrawide starts to be a bit awkward... ( but it really depends of what tasks are mainly used).
For me, like 50% for work, 30% for MMORPG and 20% for Films/Series... even for Racing games it justifies an Ultrawide... for FPS competitive games 21:9 its weird.

 

[bug]

yep 32" its to big .... and even if curved .... gets really weird view angles. a friend of mine has one and he complains a lot( Samsung G7 i think ), if he goes far a bit from the monitor, like laying back in the chair or something.
even 34" ultrawide starts to be a bit awkward... ( but it really depends of what tasks are mainly used).
For me, like 50% for work, 30% for MMORPG and 20% for Films/Series... even for Racing games it justifies an Ultrawide... for FPS competitive games 21:9 its weird.

I have a 32" with a 24" next to it. Not too big at all.

 

[eazen]

I have a 32" with a 24" next to it. Not too big at all.

Depends on your desk, I use 2x 27” monitors here with ease, some people use smaller desks.

 

[TheDeeGee]

Why buy this monitor when you can buy an LG OLED for ~$1000 ?

Not everyone has a 4 meter deep desk to make a 48 inch OLED TV work as monitor.

 

[claster17]

I literally never notice blooming on our Samsung Q80

Even in lowest latency mode? Game mode usually has worse blooming because the algorithms don't have enough time to suppress it as effectively.

 

[trsttte]

A curve kind of makes sense at 32", but not with a secondary monitor alongside it. That would necessitate a curve so shallow it stops helping. Either way it's a compromise. But I'm quite convinced that for my (very mixed) use, 32" is just a tad too large. 29-30" 16:9 would likely be perfect, but that doesn't exist

There are a couple of 30.5'' 16:10 monitors but those are 2560x1600p and usually very overpriced for what they offer to a regular consumer unless you can snag an office refurb unit

 

[kha]

Because most people don't want a 48"+ """monitor""" on our desks. Some people value their neck muscles, ligaments and bones, and and prioritize ergonomics and physical comfort.

For a long time I saw people with 2 or 3 monitors on their desk. They worked like this since the company offered multiple monitors until retirement, the physical actives ones didn't complain about comfort, but usually they had good posture, the sedentary ones...

Because I don’t want a huge TV in front of my eyes on my table and get blinded by it? That’s not even viable or suitable. Also this is faster and optimized for gaming and has no burn in.

What's the difference between one big display and multiple monitors? I'm more blinded by a small (24"/27") LED monitor than a 48 inch OLED.
You can buy an arm monitor if you don't want to use the space on your desk and also put the monitor further away from you. I have it on my standing desk and I still have have enough space.
I'm using 48CX for a year an half and there's no burn in, I usually play one game, browse and netflix. In some countries you can buy extra warranty to cover the burn in.

Initially, I was hesitant to buy it, but I said what the heck and bought it, I haven't regretted the decision. On the contrary, I asked myself why I hesitated for so long.
Like @Valantar wrote, is a matter of taste, maybe you don't want a big "monitor" on your desk.

 

[eazen]

What's the difference between one big display and multiple monitors?

The difference is format. It’s 16:9 + 16:9 and not 1x huge 16:9, which would mean I have to look up all the time which is not ergonomic. Basically I have a ultra wide setup right now but it’s still two monitors with all the advantages it has to have two monitors, I can manage and switch windows, game on main monitor and use other for nonsense like streams or whatever. With one huge monitor I can not do that practically, i would need to switch to window mode and then reduce resolution from native down to something like 2000p and then use the rest of windows for the browser I use to watch a stream with on the side (or whatever else) - this doesn’t look good and it’s not practical, I will never play on window mode or use a monitor like that. For productivity on the other hand, I bet, a huge 48” monitor is great, you can put all windows in one instead of having it in two monitors, it’s fine, but again, the monitor is too big vertically and it’s not ergonomic for table usage. Basically it’s a TV you’re using on the table. And that’s possible but I would only do that with a dedicated monitor stand behind the PC stand itself so I can lower the monitor behind that, otherwise it will be too far up and not ergonomic. Also it would solve the problem with being too near into my face. All things I wouldn’t do, I’m looking to buy a 27-32” OLED in the future, maybe based on the new OLED tech developed by Samsung, with normal display sizes and cheaper prices. Or anything completely new that’s not related to OLED at all.

 

[Guwapo77]

The M9 sounds like a great monitor but in the UK its $300 more than the US so I will pass.

Amazon UK has it for £999

 

[trsttte]

1100€ for the EU amazon storefronts, that starts to be a difficult ask for 96 zones (the Cooler Master micro led I think is supposed to be 1200€ or something like that with 500+ zones)

 

[eazen]

1100€ for the EU amazon storefronts, that starts to be a difficult ask for 96 zones (the Cooler Master micro led I think is supposed to be 1200€ or something like that with 500+ zones)

Yes it’s too much. 800 max if you ask me.

 

[mazzilla]

Amazon UK has it for £999

Yeah, I saw that, in the US its the equivalent of £740, so not only did Sony change the dollar sign to a pound sign they shoved an extra £100 on top. Either way still too expensive to justify.

 

[Valantar]

Yeah, I saw that, in the US its the equivalent of £740, so not only did Sony change the dollar sign to a pound sign they shoved an extra £100 on top. Either way still too expensive to justify.

US pricing is without tax though. The UK has a 20% VAT rate. £740*1.2=888. So there's still a markup, but that's normal essentially everywhere across the globe when compared to the US. Being the largest single market (at least historically, and still in terms of premium products) has its benefits. There are very few places in the world where electronics prices match US prices even when accounting for tax differences.

 

[eazen]

US pricing is without tax though. The UK has a 20% VAT rate. £740*1.2=888. So there's still a markup, but that's normal essentially everywhere across the globe when compared to the US. Being the largest single market (at least historically, and still in terms of premium products) has its benefits. There are very few places in the world where electronics prices match US prices even when accounting for tax differences.

At least if they don’t have atrocious tax problems with the east. Prices weren’t that great in the last years, EU often had better.

 

[Valantar]

At least if they don’t have atrocious tax problems with the east. Prices weren’t that great in the last years, EU often had better.

I guess Trump's dumb trade war and forcing his own population to pay tariffs on imported goods might have skewed that. But did the EU have better pricing, even including tax? That sounds extreme.