9 ms·

Mini LED, but it's rather hamstrung by only being 2560×1440.

binkHN 5y ago
"Cooler Master also announced a 4K 160 Hz version of this monitor, the GP27-FUS. This device is also cheaper than other mini LED monitors. With similar specs to the GP27-FQS, save for a bump to HDMI 2.1, the monitor will cost $1,100 when it debuts alongside its lower-res sibling."
- rektide 5y ago
  The price for a modest bump in specs feels absurd. There's plenty of really decent 1440p144 monitors, but you want FALD (full-array local dimming)? $300 just became $600+. Similarly a ~$600 nearly doubles in prices when you add FALD. This tech commands such an unreasonably vast premium, for not much added build cost.
MrFoof 5y ago
This. I've been using multiple 1440p displays since 2010, and actually had a 2560x1600 LED back in 2004. I'd do anything for 5K, 120Hz, Mini-LED or Micro-LED displays with 10-bit color and HDR. I don't want 4K: 5K has over 77% more logical area. They don't have to be cheap. I'll pay well. I just want them to exist. I've been waiting over a decade at this point!
- Teever 5y ago
  > I don't want 4K: 5K has over 77% more logical area. Can you elaborate? 5/4 = 1.25
  - MegaButts 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5K_resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5K_resolution 4k is 4096 x 2160, 5k is 5120 x 2880 There's also a really helpful diagram on that page
    - another_kel 5y ago
      It's cinematic 4k. 4k monitor is 3840 x 2160.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    5:4 is only one dimension, but 5k screens have greater resolution in both dimensions. I make it roughly 66% more area: (5120 × 2880) / (4096 × 2160) = 1.6666
    - Inityx 5y ago
      It comes out to 77% if you use the SMPTE UHDTV standard of 4k, which is (2 * 1920) × (2 * 1080) = 3840 × 2160
      - nicoburns 5y ago
        Ah. I just checked, and that is indeed the resolution of the 4k monitor I'm currently using. So I would guess that standard is pretty common!
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        That’s also why 5K monitors are more than 2X the price of 4K ones at similar sizes. I have a 4K with those dimensions that I bought for $400, an LG 5K would cost at least $1200.
        nicoburns 5y ago
        I think the price is more about where on the adoption curve those technologies are. 4k is pretty mainstream these days, older tech and produced in high volumes: ergo cheaper. 5k is still pretty new, mainly constrained to higher end products, and sales volumes are lower: ergo more expensive.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        5K 27" monitors predate 4K 28" ones, but the supply was basically monopolized by Apple from day one. I can get an affordable 5K monitor, but unfortunately I have to get an iMac CPU unit to go with it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - LASR 5y ago
    (5120 * 2880) / (3840 * 2160) = 1.77 Since they are both the same aspect ratio (16:9) you can also take the ratio of one linear dimension and square it to get the area ratio. So: (5120/3840)^2 = (2880/2160)^2 = 1.777
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- adtac 5y ago
  my favourite thing about 5K is that you can do 2x scaling and still have plenty of space on your screen to display multiple windows (effectively 2560x1440) but with a 4K screen, you have three options: 1. no scaling and tiny fonts (ugh), 2. fractional scaling (ugh), or 3. 2x scaling and settle for 1080p real estate (ugh) IMO 5K > 1440p > 4K > 1080p
  - fabatka 5y ago
    Can someone explain why scaling a 4K screen by 200% is better than a monitor with 1080p native resolution? Or in general why is it better to use a scaled-up high res screen instead of a natively lower res screen? Doesn't the scaling get rid of any gains of being higher res? I just can't find an answer to this simple question online.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Assuming your entire software stack supports it, the advantage is that stuff can get displayed with twice the resolution but at the same physical size. Your operating system probably already does this with fonts and vector graphics. It can also be done with faster images too if they are provided at 2x resolution.
    - adtac 5y ago
      With 2x scaling, fonts are really crisp. Regular 1080p gets there most of the way, but with 2x scaling on a super high res display, the difference is noticeable and it's hard to go back. Have you ever switched from a high refresh rate screens to a 60 Hz screen and noticed a difference? I find this to be similar.
- wffurr 5y ago
  There’s the LG Ultrafine 5k monitor, but I suppose it doesn’t have HDR or 10-bit color?
  - christophilus 5y ago
    It’s fantastic, though. And it’s hard to live with less than 500 nits once you’ve used it. 5k is where it’s at.
  - MrFoof 5y ago
    Neither. It came out in 2014, with some revisions since. 8 years later, there's just not much else out there in 5K-land. The products basically don't exist. I can get some rather fantastic 1440p displays -- HDR, 165Hz, DCI-P3 color gamut, and excellent color reproduction (especially when calibrated) for as cheap as $260 on sale. Best thing imaginable? No, but amazing for the price, and objectively better in every measure than the 1440p displays that were $1000+ in 2010. I'd pay $2000 -- perhaps even $2500 -- each (and I'd buy THREE), for a 5K display that met my requirements. -- ----- Hardware Unboxed recently made a video complaining that the display market is too heavily driven by gamers wanting a specific, narrow feature set for a rock bottom price. Display makers have delivered that. However they don't really make much of anything else as a result. It's a nasty, difficult, low-margin business where almost no one is making money, hence why it's huge volumes of largely the same thing with no major shifts forward.
    - wffurr 5y ago
      Seems like there have been advances, just not in pixel density beyond 160 PPI. The bigger issue than low margins is the "4k" marketing and lack of large buyers other than Apple for 5k displays. I think early on in the 4k hype train, there was a bandwidth issue with Display port that required MST for 5k.
- ksec 5y ago
  So basically the Apple Pro Monitor but with 120Hz? Unfortunately 200+PPI are extremely expensive. So 5K panel at 27"+ are partially speaking an Apple only SKUs.
- zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
  I've been waiting for basically the same thing in 3:2 or 16:10 although I'd settle for 4K, given real-world constraints. For what it's worth, that's a tremendous amount of bandwidth that even _new_ protocols such as HDMI 2.1 or DisplayPort 2.0 don't support, except DP2.0 in it's maximum bandwidth mode that hasn't been implemented anywhere as far as I know. If you take your requirements down to 4K, then both HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0 at UHBR10 can do it.
badsectoracula 5y ago
For me even that is too much :-P. I have a 27" 2560x1440 monitor and i consider it too large. At least when i upscale older (or very demanding) games from 640x480 or 1280x720 they look crisp enough instead of the blurry mess that was before a few years when this became possible outside of emulation. But i bought it because of the VA panel, 165Hz refresh rate and flat surface since i couldn't find any smaller monitor with those characteristics. So if that next-best-thing-to-OLED tech is actually good, i'll most likely get one since i doubt i'll see a real OLED PC monitor in not-gargantuan sizes.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
2.7k for gaming is not particularly hamstrung.
TylerE 5y ago
and, for it's gaming target audience, much more hamstrung by being 60hz.
grishka 5y ago
For macOS users like me, 4K on 27" is weird. Running it at 1x dpi would make everything too small, running it at 2x "retina" dpi would make everything too huge. And macOS can't do non-integer UI scaling nicely. Apple uses the term "5K" when describing its iMacs with 27" retina-1440p displays, but monitors with that resolution are very rare it seems.
- Macha 5y ago
  Yeah, Linux has similar issues with non-integer scaling. I'm sticking with 1440p for now as 4k at 1x for a desktop monitor is too small and 4k at 2x is sacrificing too much screen space, so I just do 1440p at 1x. 5k at 2x would be similar but with the advantages in text/etc sharpness.
  - hollerith 5y ago
    >Yeah, Linux has similar issues with non-integer scaling. Wayland does not have those issues and is very nice in my experience although I hear that screen sharing is still a work in progress. I mean apps that talk directly to the Wayland protocol without XWayland in between, which includes Firefox, Chrome, graphical Emacs, all the Gnome apps.
    - DCKing 5y ago
      Wayland doesn't solve fractional scaling. It doesn't support fractional scaling and instead renders surfaces at 2x and scales down, resulting in a fuzzy image with higher resource consumption. It's better than nothing, especially compared to the extremely backwards situation of XWayland apps, but it is very far from where it should be [1]. Even if Wayland were to support fractional scaling: Gtk doesn't support fractional scaling at the toolkit level - integer scaling only [2]. Although it's worth noting Qt and Electron could probably support fractional scaling today. The general philosophy being pushed on the Linux desktop is to do scaling like macOS, but unfortunately it combined that bad philosophy with a worse implementation. Wayland is a blessing for the Linux desktop, but sadly the free desktop is still waiting to be dragged into the 21st century in many respects. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/kde/comments/lficfe/wayland_fractional_scaling_may_be_sort_of_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/kde/comments/lficfe/wayland_fractio... [2]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/issues/47 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/i...

"Cooler Master also announced a 4K 160 Hz version of this monitor, the GP27-FUS. This device is also cheaper than other mini LED monitors. With similar specs to the GP27-FQS, save for a bump to HDMI 2.1, the monitor will cost $1,100 when it debuts alongside its lower-res sibling."

rektide 5y ago
The price for a modest bump in specs feels absurd. There's plenty of really decent 1440p144 monitors, but you want FALD (full-array local dimming)? $300 just became $600+. Similarly a ~$600 nearly doubles in prices when you add FALD. This tech commands such an unreasonably vast premium, for not much added build cost.

MrFoof 5y ago

This. I've been using multiple 1440p displays since 2010, and actually had a 2560x1600 LED back in 2004. I'd do anything for 5K, 120Hz, Mini-LED or Micro-LED displays with 10-bit color and HDR. I don't want 4K: 5K has over 77% more logical area. They don't have to be cheap. I'll pay well. I just want them to exist. I've been waiting over a decade at this point!

Teever 5y ago
> I don't want 4K: 5K has over 77% more logical area. Can you elaborate? 5/4 = 1.25
- MegaButts 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5K_resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5K_resolution 4k is 4096 x 2160, 5k is 5120 x 2880 There's also a really helpful diagram on that page
  - another_kel 5y ago
    It's cinematic 4k. 4k monitor is 3840 x 2160.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  5:4 is only one dimension, but 5k screens have greater resolution in both dimensions. I make it roughly 66% more area: (5120 × 2880) / (4096 × 2160) = 1.6666
  - Inityx 5y ago
    It comes out to 77% if you use the SMPTE UHDTV standard of 4k, which is (2 * 1920) × (2 * 1080) = 3840 × 2160
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      Ah. I just checked, and that is indeed the resolution of the 4k monitor I'm currently using. So I would guess that standard is pretty common!
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        That’s also why 5K monitors are more than 2X the price of 4K ones at similar sizes. I have a 4K with those dimensions that I bought for $400, an LG 5K would cost at least $1200.
        nicoburns 5y ago
        I think the price is more about where on the adoption curve those technologies are. 4k is pretty mainstream these days, older tech and produced in high volumes: ergo cheaper. 5k is still pretty new, mainly constrained to higher end products, and sales volumes are lower: ergo more expensive.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        5K 27" monitors predate 4K 28" ones, but the supply was basically monopolized by Apple from day one. I can get an affordable 5K monitor, but unfortunately I have to get an iMac CPU unit to go with it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- LASR 5y ago
  (5120 * 2880) / (3840 * 2160) = 1.77 Since they are both the same aspect ratio (16:9) you can also take the ratio of one linear dimension and square it to get the area ratio. So: (5120/3840)^2 = (2880/2160)^2 = 1.777
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
adtac 5y ago
my favourite thing about 5K is that you can do 2x scaling and still have plenty of space on your screen to display multiple windows (effectively 2560x1440) but with a 4K screen, you have three options: 1. no scaling and tiny fonts (ugh), 2. fractional scaling (ugh), or 3. 2x scaling and settle for 1080p real estate (ugh) IMO 5K > 1440p > 4K > 1080p
- fabatka 5y ago
  Can someone explain why scaling a 4K screen by 200% is better than a monitor with 1080p native resolution? Or in general why is it better to use a scaled-up high res screen instead of a natively lower res screen? Doesn't the scaling get rid of any gains of being higher res? I just can't find an answer to this simple question online.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Assuming your entire software stack supports it, the advantage is that stuff can get displayed with twice the resolution but at the same physical size. Your operating system probably already does this with fonts and vector graphics. It can also be done with faster images too if they are provided at 2x resolution.
  - adtac 5y ago
    With 2x scaling, fonts are really crisp. Regular 1080p gets there most of the way, but with 2x scaling on a super high res display, the difference is noticeable and it's hard to go back. Have you ever switched from a high refresh rate screens to a 60 Hz screen and noticed a difference? I find this to be similar.
wffurr 5y ago
There’s the LG Ultrafine 5k monitor, but I suppose it doesn’t have HDR or 10-bit color?
- christophilus 5y ago
  It’s fantastic, though. And it’s hard to live with less than 500 nits once you’ve used it. 5k is where it’s at.
- MrFoof 5y ago
  Neither. It came out in 2014, with some revisions since. 8 years later, there's just not much else out there in 5K-land. The products basically don't exist. I can get some rather fantastic 1440p displays -- HDR, 165Hz, DCI-P3 color gamut, and excellent color reproduction (especially when calibrated) for as cheap as $260 on sale. Best thing imaginable? No, but amazing for the price, and objectively better in every measure than the 1440p displays that were $1000+ in 2010. I'd pay $2000 -- perhaps even $2500 -- each (and I'd buy THREE), for a 5K display that met my requirements. -- ----- Hardware Unboxed recently made a video complaining that the display market is too heavily driven by gamers wanting a specific, narrow feature set for a rock bottom price. Display makers have delivered that. However they don't really make much of anything else as a result. It's a nasty, difficult, low-margin business where almost no one is making money, hence why it's huge volumes of largely the same thing with no major shifts forward.
  - wffurr 5y ago
    Seems like there have been advances, just not in pixel density beyond 160 PPI. The bigger issue than low margins is the "4k" marketing and lack of large buyers other than Apple for 5k displays. I think early on in the 4k hype train, there was a bandwidth issue with Display port that required MST for 5k.
ksec 5y ago
So basically the Apple Pro Monitor but with 120Hz? Unfortunately 200+PPI are extremely expensive. So 5K panel at 27"+ are partially speaking an Apple only SKUs.
zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
I've been waiting for basically the same thing in 3:2 or 16:10 although I'd settle for 4K, given real-world constraints. For what it's worth, that's a tremendous amount of bandwidth that even _new_ protocols such as HDMI 2.1 or DisplayPort 2.0 don't support, except DP2.0 in it's maximum bandwidth mode that hasn't been implemented anywhere as far as I know. If you take your requirements down to 4K, then both HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0 at UHBR10 can do it.

badsectoracula 5y ago

For me even that is too much :-P. I have a 27" 2560x1440 monitor and i consider it too large. At least when i upscale older (or very demanding) games from 640x480 or 1280x720 they look crisp enough instead of the blurry mess that was before a few years when this became possible outside of emulation. But i bought it because of the VA panel, 165Hz refresh rate and flat surface since i couldn't find any smaller monitor with those characteristics. So if that next-best-thing-to-OLED tech is actually good, i'll most likely get one since i doubt i'll see a real OLED PC monitor in not-gargantuan sizes.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

2.7k for gaming is not particularly hamstrung.

TylerE 5y ago

and, for it's gaming target audience, much more hamstrung by being 60hz.

grishka 5y ago

For macOS users like me, 4K on 27" is weird. Running it at 1x dpi would make everything too small, running it at 2x "retina" dpi would make everything too huge. And macOS can't do non-integer UI scaling nicely. Apple uses the term "5K" when describing its iMacs with 27" retina-1440p displays, but monitors with that resolution are very rare it seems.

Macha 5y ago
Yeah, Linux has similar issues with non-integer scaling. I'm sticking with 1440p for now as 4k at 1x for a desktop monitor is too small and 4k at 2x is sacrificing too much screen space, so I just do 1440p at 1x. 5k at 2x would be similar but with the advantages in text/etc sharpness.
- hollerith 5y ago
  >Yeah, Linux has similar issues with non-integer scaling. Wayland does not have those issues and is very nice in my experience although I hear that screen sharing is still a work in progress. I mean apps that talk directly to the Wayland protocol without XWayland in between, which includes Firefox, Chrome, graphical Emacs, all the Gnome apps.
  - DCKing 5y ago
    Wayland doesn't solve fractional scaling. It doesn't support fractional scaling and instead renders surfaces at 2x and scales down, resulting in a fuzzy image with higher resource consumption. It's better than nothing, especially compared to the extremely backwards situation of XWayland apps, but it is very far from where it should be [1]. Even if Wayland were to support fractional scaling: Gtk doesn't support fractional scaling at the toolkit level - integer scaling only [2]. Although it's worth noting Qt and Electron could probably support fractional scaling today. The general philosophy being pushed on the Linux desktop is to do scaling like macOS, but unfortunately it combined that bad philosophy with a worse implementation. Wayland is a blessing for the Linux desktop, but sadly the free desktop is still waiting to be dragged into the 21st century in many respects. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/kde/comments/lficfe/wayland_fractional_scaling_may_be_sort_of_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/kde/comments/lficfe/wayland_fractio... [2]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/issues/47 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/i...