Computers & Electronics

8K TV as computer monitor?

  • Last Updated:
  • May 19th, 2021 12:52 pm
Tags:
[OP]
Deal Addict
Sep 13, 2004
3656 posts
1090 upvotes
Toronto

8K TV as computer monitor?

just noticed that a 7680 x 4320 TV set isn't too too expensive for
monitor use.
<https://www.lg.com/ca_en/tvs/lg-65nano95una>

Surprise: the input signal is limited to UltraHD! Try to find that out from a casual glance at the specs or the ads.

What kind of dirty trick is that?

Are there any actual 8K TVs that are cheap?

What video card could handle 8K 60Hz HDMI? Personally, I don't want to pay for gaming performance.
9 replies
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 29, 2018
1401 posts
971 upvotes
Vancouver
HDMI 2.1 & DP will do 8K. Though no FreeSync etc. Max 60Hz
Can't Stop. Won't Stop. Game Stop
Deal Expert
Feb 24, 2018
21141 posts
25102 upvotes
Hugh wrote: just noticed that a 7680 x 4320 TV set isn't too too expensive for
monitor use.
<https://www.lg.com/ca_en/tvs/lg-65nano95una>

Surprise: the input signal is limited to UltraHD! Try to find that out from a casual glance at the specs or the ads.

What kind of dirty trick is that?

Are there any actual 8K TVs that are cheap?

What video card could handle 8K 60Hz HDMI? Personally, I don't want to pay for gaming performance.
You're a good man, and this thread is underserved.

The NANO 8K is a good entry point into the 8K TV-Monitor category. This panel gives you roughly 85% of the performance of an OLED in my experience.

Find yourself a USB 4.0 DP-Supported laptop (potentially expensive) or an HDMI 2.1 video card (less expensive), otherwise you won't output 8K60.

Give up on proper 8K gaming for the next 12 to 24 months, 8K makes a great productivity panel at 65".
.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Sep 13, 2004
3656 posts
1090 upvotes
Toronto
I don't care about gaming. I use my desktop system mostly for text: programming, email, web browsing. I'm currently living at 30Hz (UltraHD) -- that's how little I care about latency. I do have a 60Hz UltraHD from a deal that @redflagdealsguy posted, but it isn't my main monitor, even though I could make it so.

I look at the specs of this monitor, and I don't see 8k input. It is claimed that streaming apps hosted on the device itself can support 8k streams but that's not what I want.

From the specs:
  • "HGIG: yes". HGIG isn't a standard, it's the HDR Gaming Interest Group. I assume that this tick box means that they've read https://www.hgig.org/doc/ForBetterHDRGaming.pdf A more nuanced descriptions of how they responded (if at all) might be useful.
  • "HDMI Input (HDCP 2.2) 4 Rear ". That doesn't say which HDMI standard it conforms to.
  • "USB Ports (v 2.0) 1 (Rear)/2 (Side) ". USB 2 won't do 8k.
  • "Ethernet Input: Yes ". Which speed standard?

In the non-specs copy, there is this intriguing section:

ALLM and eARC
Next Gen. Gaming Standard
A higher frame rate, ALLM (Auto Low Latency Mode) and eARC (Enhanced Audio Return Channel) all meet HDMI 2.1 specifications. These latest features allow fast-moving content in higher resolution and smooth, synchronized graphics. It's a more lifelike gaming experience. LG NanoCell 8K TVs have successfully completed testing at the HDMI Authorized Test Center in accordance with the HDMI Compliance Test Specification (2.1d)*.

*Test Specification : 2.1d (with HDCP, FRL12G(8K60), CEC, ARC, eARC, 6G, HBR, 4K).
That claims that some of its features conform to HDMI 2.1 but does not claim that its bandwidrh conforms to HDMI 2.1.

When I google for FRL12G, I only find references to LG TVs and no description of what it might actually be.

When I look up RTNGS, I find that it is classified as a 4k TV. https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/nano85

In other words, through close reading, I have found no evidence to support that this would work as an 8k monitor. But a lot of marketing words to make you think that it would.

If I've missed anything, I'd love to know. I'd like an affordable 8k monitor. I don't care about 8k TVs.
Deal Expert
Feb 24, 2018
21141 posts
25102 upvotes
@Hugh, I'm a connoisseur or TV-Monitors, but no expert. I've said that before, I'll only ever buy a 4K panel if it's 55" or smaller. At 65", I require 8K, otherwise the PPI-to-Distance equation 'breaks' in my workspace (i.e. the screen door returns).

What you want is something that provides 8K60 4:4:4, apparently even the 65" Nano99 8K TV falls short.

Image
Source: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/questions/ ... tv/6408029

So here's a question, can you wait a little bit for the 8K 2021 line up from various makers to get fully torn apart? The reviews don't tell the full story just yet, we need deep dives.

You can also do what I've done in past years and call or email the corporate manufacturer, in their halls someone somewhere knows these TVs inside and out.

Final point, when it comes to making TVs into dedicated monitors, go with conservative well established brands because panel consistency is even more important on a monitor.
.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Sep 13, 2004
3656 posts
1090 upvotes
Toronto
Thanks @redflagdealsguy. Intriguing.

I don't want DSC to be used in a monitor (having it isn't a problem). It isn't lossless. Or, in marketing speak, it is "visually lossless". From https://www.displayport.org/faq/#tab-di ... ession-dsc :
What is meant by visually lossless?

By being visually lossless, a typical observer of a display, under typical viewing conditions, would in most cases not notice any difference or degradation of images or video after compression, when compared with the uncompressed image or video.
Can HDMI 2.1 support 8k without loss? I don't know. I'm peering at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_2.1
The 48 Gbit/s bandwidth provided by HDMI 2.1 is enough for 8K resolution at approximately 50 Hz, with 8 bpc RGB or Y′CBCR 4:4:4 color. To achieve even higher formats, HDMI 2.1 can use Display Stream Compression with a compression ratio of up to 3:1. Using DSC, formats up to 8K (7680 × 4320) 120 Hz or 10K (10240 × 4320) 100 Hz at 8 bpc RGB/4:4:4 are possible. Using Y′CBCR with 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 chroma subsampling in combination with DSC can allow for even higher formats.[123]
That sounds like a "yes": I'm willing to accept 50Hz and only 8b/c. Can the nano99 do this?

The specs say nothing useful. The Q&A on Best Buy says there is more info in the manual. There are actually two manuals: the Owner's Manual (which is silent) and the User Guide, which seems to apply to all LG TVs (the same manual is linked from the nano95 and nano99 support sections). The User Guide has a section HDMI-PC Supported Mode (sic). Under 7680x4320, for 8k models only, it supports 220kHz horizontal frequency and 50Hz vertical frequency, but only if HDMI ULTRA HD Deep Color is set to 8k.

I don't trust this because it is insufficiently specific. For example, it says nothing about DSC or pixel data format.

This doesn't even distinguish between the nano95 and nano99. But rtngs does: it calls the nano95 a 4k TV and the nano99 an 8k TV.

So I have no idea where the BB answer came from.

What a mess.

Wait another year? Why not. I don't need this. I don't even know if it would work ergonomically. I don't quite know how to place an 8k monitor. My current UltraHD setup has worked well for many years, but imagining an array of 2x2 of the existing monitor makes me fear that it is unworkable.
Deal Expert
Feb 24, 2018
21141 posts
25102 upvotes
Hugh wrote: What a mess.

Wait another year? Why not. I don't need this. I don't even know if it would work ergonomically. I don't quite know how to place an 8k monitor. My current UltraHD setup has worked well for many years, but imagining an array of 2x2 of the existing monitor makes me fear that it is unworkable.
As it turns out, HDMI 2.1 may possibly not support 8K60 4:4:4 RGB without compression, which will produce artifacts noticeable at 65".

You have two options.

Run at 8K50 / 8K30 with 4:4:4 RGB, or wait. I'll need to verify the claim that 8K50 4:4:4 RGB is on the table, but if it is, it's a plenty fast refresh rate for a productivity panel.

HDMI 2.1 will hopefully see sub-modifications, e.g. 2.1b, that introduce 8K60 4:4:4 RGB but by the time something like that rolls out to Canadian shelves we could be in 2023.

Why not do what I did, get yourself an LG OLED 55" (2017 to 2020) panel and run at 4K60, be it at RGB or RGBW. You may cringe, but OLED panels are so good that even without native 4:4:4 RGB, they still look fantastic for most text-based productivity work. They also produce the least eye-strain of any TV panel I've ever used as a monitor. You can save boat loads by getting a previous generation LG 55" OLED, there are plenty of distributors out there.
Last edited by redflagdealsguy on May 19th, 2021 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Sep 13, 2004
3656 posts
1090 upvotes
Toronto
redflagdealsguy wrote: As it turns out, HDMI 2.1 may possibly not support 8K60 4:4:4 RGB with compression, which will produce artifacts noticeable at 65".

You have two options.

Run at 8K50 / 8K30 with 4:4:4 RGB, or wait. I'll need to verify the claim that 8K50 4:4:4 RGB is on the table, but if it is, it's a plenty fast refresh rate for a productivity panel.

HDMI 2.1 will hopefully see sub-modifications, e.g. 2.1b, that introduce 8K60 4:4:4 RGB but by the time something like that rolls out to Canadian shelves we could be in 2023.
Yeah. To all you said.
Why not do what I did, get yourself an LG OLED 55" (2017 to 2020) panel and run at 4K60, be it at RGB or RGBW. You may cringe, but OLED panels are so good that even without native 4:4:4 RGB, they still look fantastic for most text-based productivity work. They also produce the least eye-strain of any TV panel I've ever used as a monitor. You can save boat loads by getting a previous generation LG 55" OLED, there are plenty of distributors out there.
As it happens, we bought an LG 65C1 OLED TV this week (CXs are almost gone). But for TV use, not as a monitor. This is our first UltraHD TV-as-TV. Eventually I'll try it as a monitor, but cheap UltraHD TVs seem good enough for my monitor use. I don't think that 65" is the best size for an UltraHD monitor.
Deal Expert
Feb 24, 2018
21141 posts
25102 upvotes
Hugh wrote: Yeah. To all you said.

As it happens, we bought an LG 65C1 OLED TV this week (CXs are almost gone). But for TV use, not as a monitor. This is our first UltraHD TV-as-TV. Eventually I'll try it as a monitor, but cheap UltraHD TVs seem good enough for my monitor use. I don't think that 65" is the best size for an UltraHD monitor.
Right now, 55" TVs as Monitors is my max. I'm nearly 6'2", so I have it on a standing desk platform.

Congrats on the 65" C1.
.

Top

Thread Information

There are currently 2 users viewing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)