They have also gone from smallest size being 42" to 27" and refresh rate from 120/144 hz to 240 hz so there have been improvements which was my point. To be fair, there has been progress regarding LCD based monitors as well since the PG32UQX was released. I do agree in general that development of LCD monitors have kind of stagnated, perhaps with the exception of the G9 57" which is at least different.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The 32 inch 4k IPS 144hz's...(Update - this party is started) (wait for it...)
- Thread starter DarkSideA8
- Start date
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,554
What kind of improvements have we gotten since the PG32UQX though? What FALD gaming monitor can you buy today has better specs than the PG32UQX in every possible way? It's 2023 and people are literally still buying the PG32UQX because there simply isn't anything better even though it's been years already. Anything with higher peak brightness and dimming zones is only found in 60Hz panels so I would hardly consider that an improvement, it's one step forward and one step back. TVs on the other hand are going ham with dimming zone and brightness output and if you look at where they were just 3 years ago it has come an insanely long way.
I think he was saying there's been OLED improvements. They haven't improved much on the brightness side, but they've improved in other ways.
You are right about the LCD market, heck that's why I bought a PG32UQX last week. Really the thing I'd like to see improved more than anything is the blur. I'd take the same thing, same zones, same brightness, but faster panel and ya, I'd buy that. Of course I'd be even more interested in one that was faster and more zones, but the only real complaint I have with this is the blurring.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,554
He specifically said we have LCD improvements too.
Ahh true. I mean there have been... just not in the HDR arena 
. Like there is a 500Hz LCD coming out soon so for the "I want speed and care about nothing else" crowd that's a development, likewise LG appears to have figured out how to push IPS contrast up to 2000:1 which is nice. So there's development, just not in the "better HDR" arena which is sad because that's what I want. After gaming in HDR, I can't go back.
. Like there is a 500Hz LCD coming out soon so for the "I want speed and care about nothing else" crowd that's a development, likewise LG appears to have figured out how to push IPS contrast up to 2000:1 which is nice. So there's development, just not in the "better HDR" arena which is sad because that's what I want. After gaming in HDR, I can't go back.MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,554
Ahh true. I mean there have been... just not in the HDR arena
True. Perhaps I should have been specific and said that there have been no improvements in LCD displays when it comes to the HDR gaming experience. If this keeps up then I plan to pick up a FALD TV in a few years once 65" sizes get 5000+ dimming zones and 4000+ nits of brightness. Currently those specs are only found in 85" sizes atm but I believe it will trickle down if you just give it some time.
Ahh true. I mean there have been... just not in the HDR arena
Not sure if you need my participation in the discussion regarding what I wrote and mean or if you would rather continue without me?
If you prioritize high brightness at an even higher price the 32UQX is probably hard to beat. If you on the other hand want less blooming/haloing, better blacks, lower response times, higher refresh rates, no fan noise etc. there are better alternatives, some of which were released after the 32UQX.
My X27 is kind of in the same position as the 32UQX or rather as a similar monitor 1-2 years before. Despite several attempts I have yet to find a single monitor that can beat it where it is the strongest. Last victim of that is the GP27U. Far from an ideal monitor though. If only Samsung had included a way to disable upscaling, the 65" QN900B/C would probably be my go to LCD monitor.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,554
Not sure if you need my participation in the discussion regarding what I wrote and mean or if you would rather continue without me?
If you prioritize high brightness at an even higher price the 32UQX is probably hard to beat. If you on the other hand want less blooming/haloing, better blacks, lower response times, higher refresh rates, no fan noise etc. there are better alternatives, some of which were released after the 32UQX.
My X27 is kind of in the same position as the 32UQX or rather as a similar monitor 1-2 years before. Despite several attempts I have yet to find a single monitor that can beat it where it is the strongest. Last victim of that is the GP27U. Far from an ideal monitor though. If only Samsung had included a way to disable upscaling, the 65" QN900B/C would probably be my go to LCD monitor.
Again, one step forward and one step back. Making improvements in some areas but cutting back in others. You can't really buy a monitor today that is just flat out completely superior and totally obsoletes what's been around for years already. Maybe this will change who knows, with the floodgates on OLED monitors being opened I think it's high time the LCD markets start kicking into high gear as well and we might start seeing some crazy new products come out over the next several years that will truly be an upgrade for all owners of current FALD monitors.
While I personally probably prefers the same monitor "profiles" as you seem to do, it is also a matter of what you as a buyer prioritize. For some, the PG32UQX would have been a no go even when it was new besides the pricing. For most sane people, the pricing alone would probably rule it out, just like the X27 and the Asus equivalent did a few years before that.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,554
Yes the price is offputting but those specs eventually trickle down to cheaper models just like like how the InnoCN offers almost PG32UQX performance for a fraction of the price. Spec wise they are pretty much the same, 4K 144Hz 1152 zone IPS panels. The Asus is just superior thanks to the GSync module but for many, myself included, it's not worth it to pay $2500 vs $850 for that alone. If we see a 5000 zone 4000 nits monitor release costing $5,000 of course hardly anyone would buy it but at least you can probably expect a cheaper equivalent to be made at some point in the future and sell for a fraction of that price while offering most of the image quality. But if we never get such products at all in the first place, how can it ever trickle down more mainstream pricing? You got to start somewhere.
The problem with those TVs is that you really can't use them in a normal PC setup because of their size. (Well maybe for something like a flight sim where filling your peripheral vision is a benefit, but VR would be better there I think.) And 5000 zones in a 65" TV is the same size dimming zone as in a 32" screen with 1250 zones; so even there it's only really that they've managed to push the peak brightness up the backlight elements aren't really any better.
I really wish I knew what was going on with the 27/32" 10k and 1m zone backlight models that the panel makers have been teasing via their road maps the last few years.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,554
Yes I'm talking about those TVs purely from a gaming standpoint, they would definitely make for poor monitor use. The 10k and 1m zone panels are canned IIRC. It's probably not feasible to have that many dimming zones just yet seeing as we have been stuck at 1152 for years now with 2304 barely making it into recent 60Hz panels.
You actually can, but mostly as a substitute for a multimonitor setup, I recommend heading over to the 8K monitor thread for more discussions on that. I agree about the zones though, even though the 65" QN900B I tested out a few months ago for desk use was surprisingly good, even viewing angles very really good, and I am used to OLED. Of course, 8K 65" for desk usage probably won't be a mainstream thing, but then some people even consider 42" as being too big
You actually can, but mostly as a substitute for a multimonitor setup, I recommend heading over to the 8K monitor thread for more discussions on that. I agree about the zones though, even though the 65" QN900B I tested out a few months ago for desk use was surprisingly good, even viewing angles very really good, and I am used to OLED. Of course, 8K 65" for desk usage probably won't be a mainstream thing, but then some people even consider 42" as being too big
32: 16:9 already comfortably fills my vertical FOV. I could probably go a bit bigger but not a lot. Having put my 2560x1600 in portrait mode a few times when I wanted to look at a very long list with minimal scrolling I found my neck disliked the constant up/down to take it all in. For the >90% of the time I'm using it for desktop I'd basically have to only use the bottom half or two thirds of a 65" TV; turning it into a scuffed ultrawide.
Ya I think 32" is really pushing it. All said and done I think I'd prefer one slightly shorter. I used to have a 30" 16:10 NEC back in the day and I think that is about as large as I'd realistically like the vertical. 32" is getting a little too large and I can't imagine going larger.
For something larger it would need to go farther away, but then space becomes the issue. At an arm's length away, a 32" screen is over 50 degrees FOV. a 55" screen would have to go around 4 feet away to be about perceptually the same size and that would be an issue, room space wise.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,732
32" 16:9 is about 0.2 inches taller than a 30" 16:10. I've owned both, but settled on 28" nowadays.
So far my most favorite has been my previous Alienware 38" 2.4:1. It is a bit more than half an inch shorter than the 32" and, of course, a good bit wider. It did really well size-wise and I really debated if I wanted to replace it. I still have it, and could still return the PG32UQX, but I'm just too enamored with HDR gaming. Plus I will say it is convenient having both the monitor and TV at 4k since I do switch back and forth which one I'm using depending on if my GF is using the TV for something else.
Even though I am a die hard multi monitor guy, recent years I have found myself gravitating towards virtual desktops more and more. But as a full stack developer, I sometimes still find that there are times where I just need to see so many windows at the same time that even an unscaled 4K isn't enough. Or rather, I am more effective when I have the option to do it. Unscaled 8K is a bit silly though, even when I tried to put all my windows on the same virtual desktop, I simply run out of Windows even when about half of that 8K where still unused
If only one could disable the upscaling, my daily driver would be a 8K 65", it might still be in the future though. But that 8K discussion is probably better suited to the 8K thread.Of course, I have to admitt that being a monitor nerd that likes to push the boundaries has a big impact as well on my monitor purchases
While pointing out the obvious, viewing distance also plays a large part in that equation. Especially TVs these days are really thin and works very well for being wall mounted, which at least for me means that they relatively get a lot smaller compared to a smaller monitor on the usual desk stand. It also looks much better in the room, unless you really like the look of big monitors taking up a lot of space in the room (I am old enough to remember the CRT days). Now, all this is of course heaivily influenced by personal preferences, how your setup looks, if you want/can wall mount, standing desks etc. Whats good for one person might not be for another, YMMV as always.
Concerning the brightness drops of the Acer X32 FP in HDR mode with brightness setting between 97 and 100, I measured power at the wall: 100% brightness showing fullscreen white drops from 172 W to 93 W in less than 30 seconds. 96% brightness stays at 167 W without dropping.
When the monitor changes from HDR to User mode by sending brightness commands via DDC/CI then it drops to 75 W and gets considerably darker.
At the same time 75 W in real SDR mode manages to reach close to the brightness of 167 W in HDR mode (hard to discern by eyes, needs measuring) and consequently is a *lot* brighter than 75 W in HDR mode.
When the monitor changes from HDR to User mode by sending brightness commands via DDC/CI then it drops to 75 W and gets considerably darker.
At the same time 75 W in real SDR mode manages to reach close to the brightness of 167 W in HDR mode (hard to discern by eyes, needs measuring) and consequently is a *lot* brighter than 75 W in HDR mode.
Worth mentioning that others cannot reproduce this on their units.
Same as with my massive (!) VRR + DSC dropouts on a 2070 Super, not reproducible by users on 30 and 40 series cards at least. At the same time the Asus PG32uqxR (same panel) did not experience these dropouts. I will get a new X32 FP in a few days to compare against this unit. If nothing else then hopefully backlight bleeding luck is better with the new one and it also was cheaper (so I can return the more expensive and supposedly less properly working one).
Have returned my X32 but there is no SDR/HDR specific eco mode or something like that?
what did you get instead? why did you return it?
There is a general eco mode ("Maximum Brightness"), but that one just limits the peak brightness you can set and I disabled it.
Still to be decided
My second X32 unit arrives a few days ago. Here are some comparisons of the second unit (B) to my first unit (A).
The Good (unit B vs. A):
- Considerably better - but still somewhat mediocre - backlight bleed on B, which also leads to better native contrast in those edge areas.
- Considerably less vertical "scanlines" on B, to the point of hard to even reproduce. I also noticed that A mostly produces "scanlines" in its horizontal center (third) only, but not towards the edges. Since this is especially problematic in HDR mode and seems to vary in strength I suspect that heat plays a role, too.
- The display on B can be moved up (1 cm) and down (2 mm) further on its stand. The stand of A seems to block too soon at its upper boundary as there is still some visibly free space on the guiding rails.
- Both units are audibly dead silent in all modes (SDR and HDR)!
The Bad (one or both units):
- B suffers from uneven white-point distribution over its screen area. It's more greenish to the left and more purplish to the right. It's subtle, but especially unpleasant (and noticeable) with brighter backgrounds (like white websites).
- Both units struggle with waking up from prolonged sleep when Windows enters display power-saving mode (not PC standby, just display). They hand, don't react to button presses and need some fiddling with keeping the power button pressed or unplugging the power cord to get back a picture.
- The Acer Display Widget does not allow to control Brightness in HDR mode using firmware .09, .10 or .15, while the OSD does allow that with .15 at least. Controlling brightness via third party DDC/CI application throws both units out of HDR mode into a much darker User mode with .15, but doesn't do anything in HDR mode with .09 and .10.
- Maximum brightness in SDR mode struggles to overpower my daylight room when I open the shades between morning and middle of the day. It gets better in the afternoon. Knowing that the monitor is capable of higher brightness and only artificially limited to lower SDR maximum is an unnecessary let-down.
- Dynamic Overdrive or having an OD setting between "Off" and "Normal" would be a welcome addition for using VRR at varying refresh-rates. "Normal" is often too strong below 160 Hz and Normal too weak above 120 Hz.
- Local Dimming cannot be set to one of the quick access buttons.
The Ugly (both units!):
- VRR + DSC connected via Displayport 1.4a to my 2070 Super still produces massive (!) dropouts on both units, especially in the 115-125 Hz range. I tried firmwares .09, .10 and .15, same results.
- Using Brightness 97-100 in HDR mode leads to considerable drop in brightness (and corresponding power usage at the wall) within 30 seconds on both units. Using Brightness 96 or less fixes this (and 96 is brighter than 97-100 then). No such problem in SDR mode.
- The tiny case frame around the side and upper display edges are slightly bend outwards, leaving gaps between frame and panel. This leads to backlight escaping through these gaps between panel and frame at the upper edges left and right and 8 discrete points along the upper edge of the panel/frame (single square holes towards the sides, double holes for the two center ones).
Bonus observations (both units):
- Local Dimming only ever completely disables LEDs for full black in SDR mode using Brightness up to 20 (fullscreen black, may vary slightly with mixed content). It changes in discrete steps every 19-20 Brightness levels. In HDR mode the backlight is never turned off for full black in any zone at any Brightness setting. Minimum HDR black seems to corresponds more to SDR step 3 (40-58) than step 2 (21-39). I speculate that this is to keep blooming and black crush in check.
- Firmware .09 already allowed to change Overdrive modes in combination with VRR, but only via Acer Display Widget, not via OSD. Firmware .10 removed that from both OSD and Acer Display Widget and only .15 re-introduced it to both.
- Firmware .15 also changed the brightness range when "Maximum Brightness" (MB) is disabled. Before it started at lower brightness (similar to MB enabled) but peaked lower at 100. Now Brightness 61 is the same as 100 was before and anything above uses local dimming black step 2 (same as 21-39 with MB enabled), but in return Brightness 0 is considerably brighter with MB disabled vs. enabled (and vs. older firmware).
The Good (unit B vs. A):
- Considerably better - but still somewhat mediocre - backlight bleed on B, which also leads to better native contrast in those edge areas.
- Considerably less vertical "scanlines" on B, to the point of hard to even reproduce. I also noticed that A mostly produces "scanlines" in its horizontal center (third) only, but not towards the edges. Since this is especially problematic in HDR mode and seems to vary in strength I suspect that heat plays a role, too.
- The display on B can be moved up (1 cm) and down (2 mm) further on its stand. The stand of A seems to block too soon at its upper boundary as there is still some visibly free space on the guiding rails.
- Both units are audibly dead silent in all modes (SDR and HDR)!
The Bad (one or both units):
- B suffers from uneven white-point distribution over its screen area. It's more greenish to the left and more purplish to the right. It's subtle, but especially unpleasant (and noticeable) with brighter backgrounds (like white websites).
- Both units struggle with waking up from prolonged sleep when Windows enters display power-saving mode (not PC standby, just display). They hand, don't react to button presses and need some fiddling with keeping the power button pressed or unplugging the power cord to get back a picture.
- The Acer Display Widget does not allow to control Brightness in HDR mode using firmware .09, .10 or .15, while the OSD does allow that with .15 at least. Controlling brightness via third party DDC/CI application throws both units out of HDR mode into a much darker User mode with .15, but doesn't do anything in HDR mode with .09 and .10.
- Maximum brightness in SDR mode struggles to overpower my daylight room when I open the shades between morning and middle of the day. It gets better in the afternoon. Knowing that the monitor is capable of higher brightness and only artificially limited to lower SDR maximum is an unnecessary let-down.
- Dynamic Overdrive or having an OD setting between "Off" and "Normal" would be a welcome addition for using VRR at varying refresh-rates. "Normal" is often too strong below 160 Hz and Normal too weak above 120 Hz.
- Local Dimming cannot be set to one of the quick access buttons.
The Ugly (both units!):
- VRR + DSC connected via Displayport 1.4a to my 2070 Super still produces massive (!) dropouts on both units, especially in the 115-125 Hz range. I tried firmwares .09, .10 and .15, same results.
- Using Brightness 97-100 in HDR mode leads to considerable drop in brightness (and corresponding power usage at the wall) within 30 seconds on both units. Using Brightness 96 or less fixes this (and 96 is brighter than 97-100 then). No such problem in SDR mode.
- The tiny case frame around the side and upper display edges are slightly bend outwards, leaving gaps between frame and panel. This leads to backlight escaping through these gaps between panel and frame at the upper edges left and right and 8 discrete points along the upper edge of the panel/frame (single square holes towards the sides, double holes for the two center ones).
Bonus observations (both units):
- Local Dimming only ever completely disables LEDs for full black in SDR mode using Brightness up to 20 (fullscreen black, may vary slightly with mixed content). It changes in discrete steps every 19-20 Brightness levels. In HDR mode the backlight is never turned off for full black in any zone at any Brightness setting. Minimum HDR black seems to corresponds more to SDR step 3 (40-58) than step 2 (21-39). I speculate that this is to keep blooming and black crush in check.
- Firmware .09 already allowed to change Overdrive modes in combination with VRR, but only via Acer Display Widget, not via OSD. Firmware .10 removed that from both OSD and Acer Display Widget and only .15 re-introduced it to both.
- Firmware .15 also changed the brightness range when "Maximum Brightness" (MB) is disabled. Before it started at lower brightness (similar to MB enabled) but peaked lower at 100. Now Brightness 61 is the same as 100 was before and anything above uses local dimming black step 2 (same as 21-39 with MB enabled), but in return Brightness 0 is considerably brighter with MB disabled vs. enabled (and vs. older firmware).
You might want to think about a PG32UQX or XG321UG. Stupid expensive, but if you can swing the price they should clear up most of the issues you have with the X32. The XG321UG is supposedly totally silent, the PG32UQX does have a fan but it is very quiet from my testing. Can get obnoxiously bright in SDR mode, like 500nits (still not as bright as it can do in HDR). Very uniform screen, one of the most uniform I've ever seen and measurements from pros back that up. No VRR issues with nVidia since it is a Gsync ultimate monitor. Very little white balance shift with local dimming in my measurements, it tracks quite well, better than most monitors track without local dimming.
The only issue, other than the price, is the slow response times. You are going to get some blurring and that is just no way around that. It is the one thing I wish I could improve.
It really is a fantastic monitor though, I wish I'd bought it years ago.
The PG32UQX likely isn't 4500 EUR vs. 1050 EUR (price for the 2nd X32) better for my non professional color work use case, though. The X32 comes with compromises, but it also comes 3000-3500 EUR cheaper. Might be better to get a new graphic-card for that money, as 30 and 40 series users could nor reproduce the VRR + DSC dropout issues. The Viewsonic is about 3800 EUR around here. Ouch.
Man, that sucks that it is so expensive over there ><. Over here the X32 is like $1200 and the PG32UQX is $2300. So still a whole lot more, but not like 4x the price. With that difference... ya I can see the PG32UQX just being a complete non-starter. It's odd to me that the price of the Acer is almost the same as the US, a tiny bit cheaper actually, but the Asus is over double the price it is in the US.
Regular price of the Acer is 1300-1450 EUR. I got the first unit for 1300 and just got lucky to find the second unit as "new B-stock" (looks like opened box only). I will return the first and likely have to keep the second while trying to get push for another firmware update (there were multiple meaningful ones already).
With the (interesting looking) X32Q just being around the corner they might no invest too much energy into it any more, though. Unfortunately it likely will take longer than October until it arrives in the EU/Germany and my old Dell U3014 is broken now (showed stronger color temperature differences between left/right, so I am a bit used to it). And other than the super expensive UQX and Viewsonic there are only the uqxR (worse than the X32) at 1700 EUR and PD32M (probably same panel as the expensive Asus and VS for about 1700-1900 EUR, but questionable firmware quality and no updates expected).
There also is the Asus PA32UCG-K for 3900 EUR (including an i1 colorimeter) that is maxing out at 120 Hz. Then there are the is the 1250-1300 EUR ASUS ProArt PA32UCR-K, which again includes an i1 colorimeter and shares all the specs of the uqxR, except for only reaching 60 Hz. And last there is the LG 32GQ950P-B, which matches most of my search filters, but offers no mini LED local dimming and comes with a fan on top of that.
Among the best parts about the X32 apart from using a reasonably fast panel and processing is that it is noise-free in any mode (both fan and coil whine), offers multiple levels of local dimming algorithms, saw multiple firmware updates that fixed issues and introduced new features and allows to control brightness both in SDR and HDR modes even when local dimming is enabled.
Would be interesting to see a comparison between Samsung QN900C and Asus PG32UQX. While of course very different i some regards, the 65" QN900C is kind of 4 PG32UQXs in one package and they actually share some similarities being both LCD, both featuring high brightness with local dimming, both being 144 hz etc. The PG32UQX should have fewer pixels per zone, but at the same time, software (algorithms) seem to have a big impact on end result, as well as the QN900C being VA and unlike the PG32UQX being refreshed each year. Input lag and response times seems much faster on the QN900C though (input lag is OLED levels, pixel response times are probabably as good as they get with LCD / VA). The PG32UQX even seems kind of cheap in comparison as well
Of course, a 65" 8K TV as a desk monitor isn't for everyone, but for someone like me thinking that just one 4K monitor is not enough, it is an interesting option and apparently this year, with support for 4 sources in Multi View instead of previously only two, each one of them could potentially be a 4K 32" monitor. Did try out the QN900B with surprisingly good results, but in the end the undefeatable upscaling made me return it, but am considering getting the QN900C instead to at least give it a try. The Neo G7 would probably have to be mentioned as well here, but not convinced about that massive curve for many reasons and seems to have a high failure rate even for being a Samsung.
Of course, a 65" 8K TV as a desk monitor isn't for everyone, but for someone like me thinking that just one 4K monitor is not enough, it is an interesting option and apparently this year, with support for 4 sources in Multi View instead of previously only two, each one of them could potentially be a 4K 32" monitor. Did try out the QN900B with surprisingly good results, but in the end the undefeatable upscaling made me return it, but am considering getting the QN900C instead to at least give it a try. The Neo G7 would probably have to be mentioned as well here, but not convinced about that massive curve for many reasons and seems to have a high failure rate even for being a Samsung.
The cheapest I can get the PG32UQX in Finland is 3500 euros or ~$3700, even after all these years. Even substracting 24% VAT it's ~$2800. I have no idea why this monitor in particular is so much more expensive when most displays tend to be more in line with "US price + VAT" levels.
Last year I paid 399 euros for a 28" 4K 144 Hz IPS Samsung G70A and I have few complaints about it, except it's an absolutely terrible HDR monitor. It's pretty nuts how the mini-LED functionality can make a monitor anything from 4-10x more expensive.
The 32" 4K 120+ Hz + mini-LED market is still a complete shitshow without a single truly great option, that is a straight up "just buy this one" recommendation.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,263
The EUR sign is Alt+0128, by the way.
€
€
JohnnyFlash
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2022
- Messages
- 161
Anyone see anything on the VG32UQA1A yet?
It is strange to me as well. IS ASUS shit in general more expensive, or is it just this one monitor?
I mean, I understand how it is going to push up the price a good bit because not only is the array of MiniLEDs themselves costly, but all the hardware to quickly and accurately control them is as well. It is going to push cost up a fair bit.
The Asus uqxR costs over 20-25% more than the Acer X32 FP despite using the same panel. So there is an extra Asus ROG tax. I first bought the Asus hoping for better firmware than the Acer, but in the end it was the other way around for both firmware and at least the noisy part of the hardware.
Other than that it is lack of competition in the mini LED niche. When I filter for non-curved 27-40" + 4K + wide-gamut (93+% P3) + high refresh-rate (120+ Hz) + mini LED monitors I get 7 results, 1x 27" and 6x 32". Out of the 6x 32" there are three at 1400 - 1900 EUR and the other three at 3800 - 4500 EUR.
The number of reviews and user feedback on all of these are rather low, too, so they don't seem to sell nearly as much as all the other (cheaper) stuff people are talking about.
Other than that it is lack of competition in the mini LED niche. When I filter for non-curved 27-40" + 4K + wide-gamut (93+% P3) + high refresh-rate (120+ Hz) + mini LED monitors I get 7 results, 1x 27" and 6x 32". Out of the 6x 32" there are three at 1400 - 1900 EUR and the other three at 3800 - 4500 EUR.
The number of reviews and user feedback on all of these are rather low, too, so they don't seem to sell nearly as much as all the other (cheaper) stuff people are talking about.
Agree. It is like buying a Porsche or Ferrari engine and chassis but then putting on cheap tires. The only part that contacts the road: “where the rubber meets the pavement” so to speak.
Image quality opinions differ from one user to the next when reviewing the same monitor. On the other hand a $1000 GPU cannot be easily disputed in terms performance. It's not cheaping out per say, it's what looks "acceptable" to the individual.