But but but there’s that one Samsung monitor everyone trots out every time the subject is brought up! Obviously every 7000 series owner has one, though I can’t fathom what game even a 7900XTX could drive at 4K super ultrawide at 240Hz.
He’s right, though. Even the 4090 isn’t powerful enough for 4k120 without upscaling and Frame Gen. Why put out 4k240 monitors if the newest gen, essentially “Titan” class GPU, can’t even drive it? Just to say you did it first? It hardly seems like a good idea to sink all that capital just to be the first person to offer a halo product that relatively very few people will buy. There’s a significant risk to that strategy that could bite them in the end.
There’s a natural progression to technology, always has been. When the hardware becomes powerful enough, that’s when the next step forward will happen. Especially with how much money is involved in researching and implementing new technologies. As of now, IIRC only one monitor is capable of pushing 4k240 anyway, and it should work with the 4090 with DSC by HDMI 2.1’s specifications. So either Samsung screwed up, or Nvidia needs to enable it at the driver level. Either way, it’s a non issue, which I’m sure is why Nvidia didn’t put DP 2.1 on the 40 series. If they don’t have the power to drive the port now, they sure as hell won’t have it down the line.
Even the 4090 isn’t powerful enough for 4k120 without upscaling and Frame Gen. Why put out 4k240 monitors if the newest gen, essentially “Titan” class GPU, can’t even drive it?
Because AI-upscaling and frame gen are here to stay. You’re going to have to accept it eventually.
it’s like nvidia and the consoles: AMD can do whatever they want but the market penetration isn’t there until nvidia is onboard. Monitors are a low-margin high-volume business and you can’t support an advanced product that tops out at 10% addressable market.
Let alone when that brand’s customers are notoriously “thrifty”…
It’s not just about what you need today, it’s also about what you need in a couple years. If I pay $1600+ for a video card you can rest assured I expect it to be used for more than a couple years. Skimping on the ports seems like a bizarre choice.
It’s not just about what you need today, it’s also about what you need in a couple years.
I think this is a real tough argument even in the high-end monitor market. isn’t your $700 or $1200 or $2500 or $3500 going to get you more in 2 years if you wait?
why not wait to see what the monitor market has to offer when nvidia has cards to drive them?
it literally is the ironic mirror image of AMD’s tech holding back the consoles. just a funny coincidence of fate, funny reversal.
HDMI 2.1 can do 4k240 with DSC. The fact is that there’s only ONE monitor even capable of 4k240, and there’s some issue preventing that specific monitor from doing it over HDMI. The only way that’s a Nvidia problem is if it’s not enabled at the driver level. Otherwise, that’s a Samsung problem.
If the 4090 doesn’t have the power to push 4k240 now, it sure as hell won’t going forward once games become even more demanding. HDMI 2.1 can handle everything the 4090 is capable of. Should it have had DP 2.1? Yes. But acting like it’s holding back the 4090 is ridiculous. People are acting like that one monitor thats having issues is representative of every 4k240 monitor going forward, and coming to the false conclusion that the 4090 isnt capable of it. Once the issue with that specific Samsung monitor gets fixed, this all becomes a non-issue.
Going back to the power issue, it can’t even do 4k240 without a shit ton of upscaling and Frame Gen except on older games anyway. The whole issue is ridiculously overblown IMO.
So you need more than 165hz, 10bit, hdr, and 4k in a couple of years? Because that’s what hdmi 2.1 on a 4090 is running for me. I agree. They could have done better on the ports, but to the majority of users, the hdmi 2.1 has enough bandwidth tbh.
Not just need, but be capable of driving, too. Even a 4090 wouldn’t be able to run most games at the resolutions and refresh rates we’re talking about, and I doubt someone buying an insanely expensive monitor and the most expensive consumer GPU on the planet would then play games on low/mid settings.
maybe there’s someone who needs 8k text clarity for web browsing, or someone doing productivity work who just happens to need 240Hz? Competititive Excel pros? :P
Yes we know. A lot of people wouldn’t shut about the Nvidia GPUs not having it, as if it was that important.
But but but there’s that one Samsung monitor everyone trots out every time the subject is brought up! Obviously every 7000 series owner has one, though I can’t fathom what game even a 7900XTX could drive at 4K super ultrawide at 240Hz.
Nvidia: “No one has DP2.1 monitors, why ship it?”
Monitor manufacturers: “No one has DP2.1 capable sources, why ship it?”
Some one has to go first. This is how tech works people.
He’s right, though. Even the 4090 isn’t powerful enough for 4k120 without upscaling and Frame Gen. Why put out 4k240 monitors if the newest gen, essentially “Titan” class GPU, can’t even drive it? Just to say you did it first? It hardly seems like a good idea to sink all that capital just to be the first person to offer a halo product that relatively very few people will buy. There’s a significant risk to that strategy that could bite them in the end.
There’s a natural progression to technology, always has been. When the hardware becomes powerful enough, that’s when the next step forward will happen. Especially with how much money is involved in researching and implementing new technologies. As of now, IIRC only one monitor is capable of pushing 4k240 anyway, and it should work with the 4090 with DSC by HDMI 2.1’s specifications. So either Samsung screwed up, or Nvidia needs to enable it at the driver level. Either way, it’s a non issue, which I’m sure is why Nvidia didn’t put DP 2.1 on the 40 series. If they don’t have the power to drive the port now, they sure as hell won’t have it down the line.
Because AI-upscaling and frame gen are here to stay. You’re going to have to accept it eventually.
there’s barely even any monitors anyway.
it’s like nvidia and the consoles: AMD can do whatever they want but the market penetration isn’t there until nvidia is onboard. Monitors are a low-margin high-volume business and you can’t support an advanced product that tops out at 10% addressable market.
Let alone when that brand’s customers are notoriously “thrifty”…
It’s not just about what you need today, it’s also about what you need in a couple years. If I pay $1600+ for a video card you can rest assured I expect it to be used for more than a couple years. Skimping on the ports seems like a bizarre choice.
I think this is a real tough argument even in the high-end monitor market. isn’t your $700 or $1200 or $2500 or $3500 going to get you more in 2 years if you wait?
why not wait to see what the monitor market has to offer when nvidia has cards to drive them?
it literally is the ironic mirror image of AMD’s tech holding back the consoles. just a funny coincidence of fate, funny reversal.
HDMI 2.1 can do 4k240 with DSC. The fact is that there’s only ONE monitor even capable of 4k240, and there’s some issue preventing that specific monitor from doing it over HDMI. The only way that’s a Nvidia problem is if it’s not enabled at the driver level. Otherwise, that’s a Samsung problem.
If the 4090 doesn’t have the power to push 4k240 now, it sure as hell won’t going forward once games become even more demanding. HDMI 2.1 can handle everything the 4090 is capable of. Should it have had DP 2.1? Yes. But acting like it’s holding back the 4090 is ridiculous. People are acting like that one monitor thats having issues is representative of every 4k240 monitor going forward, and coming to the false conclusion that the 4090 isnt capable of it. Once the issue with that specific Samsung monitor gets fixed, this all becomes a non-issue.
Going back to the power issue, it can’t even do 4k240 without a shit ton of upscaling and Frame Gen except on older games anyway. The whole issue is ridiculously overblown IMO.
So you need more than 165hz, 10bit, hdr, and 4k in a couple of years? Because that’s what hdmi 2.1 on a 4090 is running for me. I agree. They could have done better on the ports, but to the majority of users, the hdmi 2.1 has enough bandwidth tbh.
Yes. I want my dual-4k 32:9 240hz display for coding goddamit.
Not just need, but be capable of driving, too. Even a 4090 wouldn’t be able to run most games at the resolutions and refresh rates we’re talking about, and I doubt someone buying an insanely expensive monitor and the most expensive consumer GPU on the planet would then play games on low/mid settings.
New AAA titles don’t stop older games from running.
maybe there’s someone who needs 8k text clarity for web browsing, or someone doing productivity work who just happens to need 240Hz? Competititive Excel pros? :P
Sure. 4K 240Hz OLED is coming next year.