SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,825
The input lag on these new Samsung 4k sets is a staggeringly low 21ms in game mode
The link to the source is in this tread
The link to the source is in this tread
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
New Samsung 4k for everyone.
- Thread starter seanclayton
- Start date
I was just talking with a friend about the 24" Samsung 240T 1080p LCD I had in 2001...the lag was so bad every game seemed like a bad acid trip, and the street price on it was $4600 at that time.
Amazing to think we can now get 4k@60Hz with 4:4:4: chroma and a 21ms input lag rating for under a thousand bucks, even at 40-48" sizes.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
I have a few 40" 6700s in stock near by. I'll probably try one out within the next two weeks.
The distance is the max permitted by the depth of my desk. Which is 2 feet. If I had a deeper desk I would probably set it a bit further back.
You keep quoting that figure, but it's for the flagship JS9000 series. Why would this 3500 dollar quantum-dot panel have anything to do with these sub-1000 dollar budget models?
dpoverlord
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,931
Ok so confused here which Monitor the would be a better replacement from 32" 4k
I can only compare it to Bl3200PT which sits right next to it. I set the windows to duplicate the displays. The resolution for both was set to 1440p.
http://imgur.com/0vKd0jJ,HQnolpi#0
The first image is with the internal hardware display scaling on (from 1440p to 4k).
I am not sure what to make of it. I am going to take more pictures with scaling on since on this picture at least it looks like samsung is showing 30ms higher number which makes no sense.
The second image is with scaling turned off in nvidia control panel. This gives the display 4k picture. (nvidia for some reason is not letting me scale on the GPU i can only not scale or scale on display for samsung).
It shows the UN48JU7500 and BL3200PT being neck and neck. They are displaying the exact same number.
Do not read too much into the black difference between BL3200PT and JU7500. The BL3200PT was getting some reflections from all the lights I turned on on the left to get as low shutter speed as possible. Under normal conditions the JU7500 maybe has a touch deeper blacks but the difference is not that big (set to HDMI black level low and brightness 60).
Last edited:
Can't use a flash based timer to get accurate delay results:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/input_lag.htm#stopwatch
The Refresh Rate Multi Tool is the only good, free program for testing lag: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1423433
The lag doesn't matter either if the TV uses low frequency PWM (Side Effects) which combined with traditional 60hz LCD sample and hold blur ruin tearing free (V-Synced) motion clarity and negate the sharpness benefits 4K can offer: https://flic.kr/p/qSbVjo
PWM Test. Enable Aero, read the instructions, do not take pictures and disable all motion compensation features (they are likely disabled in the PC/Game Mode anyway). 1 blurred thick line=no PWM vs multiple vertical lines=PWM.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/input_lag.htm#stopwatch
The Refresh Rate Multi Tool is the only good, free program for testing lag: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1423433
The lag doesn't matter either if the TV uses low frequency PWM (Side Effects) which combined with traditional 60hz LCD sample and hold blur ruin tearing free (V-Synced) motion clarity and negate the sharpness benefits 4K can offer: https://flic.kr/p/qSbVjo
PWM Test. Enable Aero, read the instructions, do not take pictures and disable all motion compensation features (they are likely disabled in the PC/Game Mode anyway). 1 blurred thick line=no PWM vs multiple vertical lines=PWM.
Last edited:
Well I took some more pictures and the results mostly show that the internal hardware scaler does not add extra lag. I am seeing the same number on both monitors but as previous poster said that might not mean anything. Pictures:
http://imgur.com/V2lMcZd,KvN45ZM#0
The crappy black level on JU7500 in these pictures is not an aberration unfortunately. I have discovered that JU7500 has the exact same problem as BL3200PT. When you switch the input to 1080p the black levels go to crap (at least in PC mode). I even lowered the brightness back down to 50 because it was intolerably bad at 60 (normal settings at 4k I use are HDMI black low and brightness of 60. Which is a little better then brightness of 50 and HDMI black normal).
http://imgur.com/V2lMcZd,KvN45ZM#0
The crappy black level on JU7500 in these pictures is not an aberration unfortunately. I have discovered that JU7500 has the exact same problem as BL3200PT. When you switch the input to 1080p the black levels go to crap (at least in PC mode). I even lowered the brightness back down to 50 because it was intolerably bad at 60 (normal settings at 4k I use are HDMI black low and brightness of 60. Which is a little better then brightness of 50 and HDMI black normal).
Do you mean gaming or you also tried it with productivity apps?
Indeed, curved is mostly a gimmick for TV unless somebody has TV so huge it is almost like this monitor from distance and a dedicated theater place to make own IMAX
.There is visual adaptation, monitor which feels huge becomes normal after short time and there is no coming back to the smaller one. I have been in this when jumping from 19" to 24" and then to 27". That said, adaptation has its limits and 48" may never feel comfy, 40" might be at the upper limit.
But is your monitor lowered down to the max to touch the desk, like the one show in pictures here?
This is concerning input lag which depends on the electronics taking HDMI input signals of which one serves as PC input which means skipping various signal massaging functions. I believe all sets use the same circuit for this so there is no difference.
Yep I would assume that figure only applies to the SUHD sets until someone finds out otherwise. After all the lower end TVs could just be recycled 2014 sets.
Ok last test of the day. I do not have a CRT so its the BL3200PT on the right for comparison. Displays are duplicated at 1440p 60Hz. The 4k samsung display is set not to scale so the display is receiving 4k and the picture does not fill the whole screen.
I had to turn on all the lights again so it would not be a blurry mess (crappy phone camera does not let me manually adjust shutter).
http://imgur.com/SzBtxz1,S67ZCjm,OtcpMMQ,0Zniq5m,VwCiHRm
I will let the experts interpret the images but it looks like the samsung is roughly one frame ahead of the BL3200PT (which would indicate it has lower input latency then Bl3200PT).
I already did the PWM test (correctly) and the results are that JU7500 uses PWM. See post 173
Last edited:
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,825
The guys at Nebraska Furniture Mart confirmed they had heard the same numbers. 21ms in game mode for the 6700 and 6500.
It seems the numbers are the same across the board.
And, it makes sense. To meet margins, they can't have different chips, motherboards and panels. A lot of the internals and specs are the same.
It seems the numbers are the same across the board.
And, it makes sense. To meet margins, they can't have different chips, motherboards and panels. A lot of the internals and specs are the same.
Last edited:
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,825
Can you guys tell the rest of us where you are buying your sets?
Also, a comment on size. I currently use a Westinghouse 37" from ages ago, and text looks about perfect size in Windows w/o adjustment when it's set against back edge of the table. 40" is not that much larger and the pixels are 4x more dense.
As it is 1080p on such a size isn't that noticeable far as blocky pixels are concerned unless you're looking for it. A 40" is going to be pretty damn hard to read unless you mess with font setting and not everything in windows scales that well.
A 48" is 44% larger than 40", and if they were charging by panel size, 48^2/40^2*950=1368, so 1150 they're charging for the 48 is a good deal. The value for larger sizes greatly diminishes.
As it is 1080p on such a size isn't that noticeable far as blocky pixels are concerned unless you're looking for it. A 40" is going to be pretty damn hard to read unless you mess with font setting and not everything in windows scales that well.
A 48" is 44% larger than 40", and if they were charging by panel size, 48^2/40^2*950=1368, so 1150 they're charging for the 48 is a good deal. The value for larger sizes greatly diminishes.
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,565
So many models...this is kind of confusing. I would love it if someone who has kept up with all of this could do a list of the different 6xxx and 7xxx models with a brief summary of the features (curved/flat, supports 3D/no 3D, 4:4:4 support confirmed or not, etc.) so that the rest of us can make an informed decision. As someone who has been focused only on the Philips 40" monitor for months, and more recently the Seiki, this is quite overwhelming. Thanks!
All I'm saying is it may be good to wait for confirmation to avoid disappointment. The models last year did have different chipsets across series...
its pretty straightforward actually:
yes 3d:
7500
7100
no 3d:
6700
6500
curved:
7500
6700
straight:
7100
6500
They all support 4-4-4 and all are glossy (basically other then above and some TV only features that are disabled in PC mode they are identical).
You can review specs on samsungs website. The first 4 monitors listed will be the 4 above:
http://www.samsung.com/us/video/uhd-tv
Last edited:
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,565
Thank you very much. I was actually on Samsung's website running the various models through their compare tool, and you're right...once you dive in it's not so bad. They are largely very similar with only relatively minor and straightforward differences:
I put together a quick chart which should help people quickly discern the differences:
I included the panel weight (minus stand) so that people who will be putting these on an arm can make sure it supports the weight (the popular Ergotron LX for example supports up to 25 lbs. while the Humanscale M2 and M8 support up to 20 and 40 lbs. respectively).
If Samsung's specs are to believed, it's odd that they went with a 400 x 400 VESA mount on the UN40JU6500 while all of the other 40" models feature 200 x 200. Not a big deal but something that you may want to double check if purchasing an arm and/or VESA adapter.
dpoverlord
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,931
So what is the difference between this and the 9000 series? NCX, do you have an opinion on these monitors as a replacement over the ACER 32" 4k?
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,565
Using Samsung's site, it seems as though once you traverse from the 6000/7000 series to the 8000/9000 series you gain features such as Clear Motion, front firing speakers vs. down firing, etc. There really aren't many apparent HUGE differences, but the 9000 series is obviously the flagship. No doubt that many PC gamers will be able to do without some of the extra bells and whistles; I suspect the 6000/7000 series will be more than adequate for most, particularly considering the price differences (the smallest 9000 series TV lists for $2,499). Also of note, the smallest size available in some of the higher tier models is 55" which is simply going to be too large for many (hence why my comparison only included the 40 and 48" models).
Yes, the Samsung has less than 1 frame (16.7ms) of input lag. The 22ms Bodnar results being quoted are incorrect since it reads 10ms too high and has a 10ms minimum value.
I missed this, but am not surprised. A mod needs to change the thread title to 'New Samsung 4K Jokes For Everyone.'
I don't understand why anyone would buy a 60hz 4K display for gaming (especially if they plan on playing newer games without V or G-sync in order to not experience a mega screen tearing fest), especially one with PWM since the sharpness benefits are negated by LCD sample and hold blur and even more so by PWM if it is used. Wait for reviews of the 2015 4K Sonys since some of last years W7 & W8 series were PWM free.
Last edited:
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,702
The huge issue with Sony 4ks is the fact that none of them support 4:4:4 chroma at 60hz which imo is far worst than PWM. If I had to choose between a PWM free 4:2:0 subsampled display or PWM 4:4:4 display with less than 1 frame of input lag I'd rather just deal with the lesser of two evils. But hey if Sony can get their act right and get proper 4:4:4 on the 2015 TVs then the only remaining boxes they need to tick is the curve and low input lag.
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,565
Sigh. Typical NCX
NCX said:
I've come to two realizations; the first being that you are very knowledgeable and the second being that you are typically very negative towards a lot of products that will serve a lot of people just fine, so we won't always agree with you (and that's fine). Case in point; many people are already using the Philips and Seiki 40" panels which do have PWM but I've yet to see a case where anyone has complained about it. That may mean that they just don't know any better, but there are several people on this very forum using those panels for gaming and so far they've been nothing but impressed in the overall scheme of things.
But you did pique my interest with the mention of those Sonys; how did the W7 and W8 series fare as PC monitors (4:4:4, input lag, etc.)? I only ask because I don't recall seeing anything about them on this forum; certainly not to the level of interest that these Samsungs are generating, so if they had been viable options for PC gamers then I missed the hoopla on those.
Can anyone do some tests on what gaming is like in 1080P mode?
I'm planning on getting this and a GTX 980, but concerned that I'll need to downgrade to 1080p for some of the more intensive games.
And if so, what does 1080P look like at 60hz on this monitor? Tearing? Blurry? etc.
Its a choice between a big 4k at 60hz or one of those new high refresh rate 1080p monitors.
For me, bigger is always better, so I'm leaning big time toward the Samsung.
I heard great comments on how it games as 4k. Can anyone sign off on how it handles games as 1080P?
Thanks in advance.
I'm planning on getting this and a GTX 980, but concerned that I'll need to downgrade to 1080p for some of the more intensive games.
And if so, what does 1080P look like at 60hz on this monitor? Tearing? Blurry? etc.
Its a choice between a big 4k at 60hz or one of those new high refresh rate 1080p monitors.
For me, bigger is always better, so I'm leaning big time toward the Samsung.
I heard great comments on how it games as 4k. Can anyone sign off on how it handles games as 1080P?
Thanks in advance.
McDonalds serves people a lot of just fine. If you want to be part of a 'safe bubble' community where every one lives in ignorance is bliss lalaland, then why bother participating in forums like this or reviews?
The displays I am negative towards are usually irrationally designed by uncaring penny pinchers who rely on the fact that the people with lots of money to spend tend to have the lowest standards, least amount of knowledge and buy expensive displays before reviews come out.
In this thread as well as the 4K 60Hz 4:4:4 HDMI 2.0 people were wondering if these TVs have 4:4:4 support and low input lag, but it should not matter if we apply your thought process since there are likely far, far, far more happy TV-as-monitor users who have no problem using TVs without 4:4:4 support and high input lag. Why stop at 4:4:4 and low input lag, especially when it makes zero sense to ignore PWM in the case of 4K?
Good thread about various W7 & W8 Sonys. HDTV Test reviewed a few W7 & W8 series Sonys which support 4:4:4 and have low input lag, but they don't test for PWM even though many readers have been asking them to.
Is Sony dumb enough to not include 4:4:4 support when last years models had all of the features which make a TV good for PC use (4:4:4, low input lag and 4:4:4)? I hope not, but we will have to wait for some meaningful confirmation which I don't think exists yet.
Last edited:
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,565
Fair enough. It tends to annoy me when people write off otherwise impressive displays as "jokes" due to an issue that doesn't seem to bother many people (PWM), but then I realized that I do the same thing...I'm just not as vocal about it.
For example, I consider 4:4:4 subsampling a critical feature. If I come across a TV that has terrific color, amazing blacks, low input lag, etc. but only does 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 chroma, I immediately write it off as being substandard for my needs even though it might not bother hundreds of other people. So if your critical flaw (PWM) is like mine (4:4:4 chroma), I guess I can see where you're coming from.
Turns out your closed-mindedness has caused me to be more open-minded.
I'll check out that Sony thread, thanks. Hopefully what MistaSparkul said above won't be an issue and we can have 4:4:4 at 60 Hz with no PWM for 2015. But I suspect that may come with some other compromise since to date, no perfect display exists.
For example, I consider 4:4:4 subsampling a critical feature. If I come across a TV that has terrific color, amazing blacks, low input lag, etc. but only does 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 chroma, I immediately write it off as being substandard for my needs even though it might not bother hundreds of other people. So if your critical flaw (PWM) is like mine (4:4:4 chroma), I guess I can see where you're coming from.
Turns out your closed-mindedness has caused me to be more open-minded.
I'll check out that Sony thread, thanks. Hopefully what MistaSparkul said above won't be an issue and we can have 4:4:4 at 60 Hz with no PWM for 2015. But I suspect that may come with some other compromise since to date, no perfect display exists.
The 4k res is mostly useful for static desktop work.
4k or high res gaming is pointless anyway given the current state of art rendering engines.
> I don't understand why anyone would buy a 60hz 4K display for gaming
Oftentimes displays hooked up to a general purpose PC are use for more than one task.
There are two types of curve in use 300R and 400R meaning radius in centimeters. It seems
that either smaller sets get more aggressive curve 300R or it may be so that all newer sets get it (though big sets might still be at 400R, I have not checked this)
I put together a quick chart which should help people quickly discern the differences:
People in EUrope may wish to notice that there won't be there on offer the 40" 7500 model, that is no curved 40" 3D viewing there
.This is absolutely stunning (though PWM is still a problem). Note there were TVs in the past with such bad input lag that even mouse was very lazy so this is gigantic improvement.
Whaaaaa??? 4K gaming is obviously not for those who buy high-end monitor and save money by keeping ancient/cheap graphics card. If you look at results of tests for Titan X you will notice very decent 4K performance (note that at 4K there is no urgent need for highest settings). Add to this excellent overclocking of Titan X. Add to this DirectX 12 coming in the summer and you will see that 4K gaming is now very reasonable, albeit high-end, proposition.
Last edited:
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,825
I see a lot of people doing a lot of different things. I guess it's called their perspective. A lot of it I don't understand. But, I do have the wisdom to understand whatever makes them happy is good enough for me. I do not make it my business to go around and asking folks why they get off on they things ... they get off on.
Feel me brah?
I'm totally cool with you using a tiny 20" monitor
I might add, and, I guess I shouldn't be mad about this but you have to understand, there are a lot of average bro PC types. The thought of something like this is really out of the box for them and they are going to make thoughtless knee-jerk rude comments. There is where I can't really get mad. They just don't know any better. You guys have to remember, they don't understand people and there a lot of us use this larger displays as TV sets. I have consoles hooked up to mine and of course there is the immersive gaming that's awesome. Yeah, Star Citizen on a curved 48" at 4k .. yeah, it doesn't get much better.
Feel me brah?
I'm totally cool with you using a tiny 20" monitor
I might add, and, I guess I shouldn't be mad about this but you have to understand, there are a lot of average bro PC types. The thought of something like this is really out of the box for them and they are going to make thoughtless knee-jerk rude comments. There is where I can't really get mad. They just don't know any better. You guys have to remember, they don't understand people and there a lot of us use this larger displays as TV sets. I have consoles hooked up to mine and of course there is the immersive gaming that's awesome. Yeah, Star Citizen on a curved 48" at 4k .. yeah, it doesn't get much better.
Last edited:
your kidding rite?
Size definatly matters!
I had a LG 31MU97 monitor and it had a gorgeous 31" AH-IPS panel but I swapped it for the philips 40" monitor even though the VA panel was not as beautiful in terms of colour quality. I swapped because the size is just jaw dropping for gaming, alot more immersive than anything smaller. I can't even think of going back to anything smaller even if a 144hz IPS 4K panel came out. It would have to be atleast 40" otherwise I just could not go back smaller.
What I mean is 3d rendering engines and the models made in them aren't to the level where high res really maters.
"Low res" here doesn't mean the equivalent of viewing with slightly blurry vision where the physics of reality (lighting, matter) look at bit worse. With computer 3d the models are built up from zero as approximations the quality of which are still quite lacking, and looking at the numerous resulting artifacts with more pixels only reduces surprisingly few of them.
It's like viewing bluray movies ripped to 480p compared to dvd upscaled to whatever. The latter might sound impressive but still doesn't look that good, even compared to the former.
Preach. Be warned once you get used to more real estate space it can be hard to go back, so maybe the 40" is better in that sense.
This is gross exaggeration. Surely realtime rendering engines are not able for full photorealism but they render to the resolution which is required. 4K rendering looks better than 2K.
I would like to know 1080p@60Hz performance as well. I can't afford to spend $1000 on a GPU, but would love the screen real estate for desktop work.