I’m trying to find a 38-48" 4k monitor with a 120/144hz refresh rate, but I’m not sure what I want exists.
I understand that 2160@144hz requires DSC because the bandwidth constraints of DP, but what I really want is a monitor that can run 2160@120hz and also run 1600@144hz (WQHD+) without DSC. This should be possible, but I haven’t found any products that explicitly state they can do it. Does this exist?
Holy grail would be, when the monitor is running at 3840x1600, you could shift the picture up or down to whatever position you want.
After digging through the user manuals of several monitors in the size range. I found that the Samsung Odyssey Neo G7 43” does indeed support a custom CVT of 3840x1600@144hz. It doesn’t specify if it uses DSC, but I suspect it doesn’t, cause it shouldn’t need to. I’m gonna purchase it, and I’ll post my experience for anyone who’s interested.
The QN90B supports 3840x1600 but only at 120hz and doesn’t support 144hz in any configuration. It seems to be basically the same display as the Neo G7 but less game oriented and strangely, it’s a little more expensive.
The C2’s doesn’t mention it or even have a resolution table at all. Plus I’m not on the OLED train yet, since I do a lot of productivity (software engineer), and I can’t stand the idea of burn in.
Originally I was looking at buying the LG 38” UltraGear because I like the 21:9 aspect ratio for gaming, but I thought about it more and realized I wanted full 4k for productivity, and the idea of paying 700 more dollars for less pixels offended my sensibilities. Hence my search for a full 4k monitor that also supports 21:9 @ 144hz. Would be nice if LG made such a model, cause I hear their new IPS panels are really good.
I would question the ability of an average human to be able to accurately point out the difference between 120hz and 144hz. Even 120hz and 160hz should be difficult to distinguish from an average gamer’s perspective.
Couple that with:
The current selection of games and video card that will utilize it fully. In the future, this will change of course (as you change your GPU as well) but as a reminder, a few months ago (prior to the current gen).
There is also this current economic collapse happening, generally people dont have the purchssing power and as a result of this…
Dont expect game manufacturers to actually target optimization of your desired hardware. Even Elden Ring had a modest requirement at launch.
TLDR: 120hz is presently enough and for several more generations.
I just checked that my Asus PG48UQ can do that, in the menu under Image > Aspect Control > Screen Position there are 5 vertical positions.
Apparently the monitor can do 138Hz in “overclocked” mode, but I’ve only seen that supported in Windows, don’t know if that is with DSC off, and I only use Linux. I’m guessing it can be enabled in Linux with a custom EDID config, but 4k 120Hz is fine for me so I’ve never tried. Checked it can do 3840x1600 in 120Hz with DSC off, over HDMI. If you have any idea how I can test it in Linux, happy to test it if you’re interested.
There’s also a PG42UQ 42" version with apparently identical features/specs apart from the size.
I understand and agree that the difference between 120hz and 144hz is basically imperceptible, but it’s kinda about the principle. If i’m gonna spend ~$1000 on something, I want it to be taking full advantage of its potential.
There are reports online that it does work at 144hz in 3840x1600, and it’s a native 144hz display, so even at 3840x2160p it should be running at 144hz (as long as you have the latest firmware update).
I could be open to the idea of OLED, but only if the burn-in mitigation features can give me 6+ years of zero burn operation. But I’m skeptical because I spend a minimum of 8 hours a day with static content on my screen.
If I rule out the OLED, the other 3 options are pretty close in price, so I’m not sure how much better use of my money could be achieved.