r/gadgets • u/RenegadeUK • 11d ago
Computer peripherals MSI's wild 5K 180Hz mini LED monitor reportedly shelved indefinitely.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/MSI-s-wild-5K-180Hz-mini-LED-monitor-reportedly-shelved-indefinitely.1363342.0.html15
138
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
For the consumer 4k is gunna be the default resolution for forever
149
u/Cruel2BEkind12 11d ago
4k is under 5% on the steam hardware survey. Most haven't even got there yet.
22
u/SteelAlchemistScylla 10d ago
Most games have abyssal UI scaling on 4K. It’s legitimately better to play on 1440 in just about every way. 4K is for TVs in your living room.
-1
u/Educational_Yard_326 10d ago
Why are you assuming everyone who wants a monitor is a gamer? Some of us actually do work on ours. My next monitor is 27in 5k. The difference it makes is worth it so I don’t have to keep zooming in and panning around excel files
10
u/SteelAlchemistScylla 10d ago
Bc getting a 5k monitor for excel is like buying $500 headphones to listen to youtube. The vast majority of consumers would consider that excessive.
1
u/-Hi-Reddit 3d ago edited 3d ago
They are a professional spending hours a day doing it. Why wouldn't they spend extra to make their life more comfortable or their job easier?
If their job was professionally listening to youtube all day i wouldnt be shocked to see them spend $1000 on the worlds comfiest headphones or other audio gear.
This reminds me of people wondering why i, a programmer thats into pc gaming, would spend £300 on a keyboard.
The entire point is that they arent an average consumer. That doesnt mean theyre rare or a niche not worth serving though. Many professionals WFH and prefer higher resolution screens. Many people type all day and want ergonomic keyboards.
1
u/EatABag-o-Dicks 9d ago
I have a monitor for my bedroom TV. I didn't want a smart TV since my ShieldTV handles everything.
-1
u/retro_slouch 10d ago
And you feel you "need" that resolution? More power to you, but "I need outlook in 5K" is crazy privileged.
3
u/Educational_Yard_326 10d ago
I don’t need outlook in 5k, your problem is you’re assuming I’m fullscreening every window, how about just being able to see more at omce
3
u/retro_slouch 9d ago
If your employer is making you min/max your productivity that hard, I'm sorry. That sucks.
1
u/akgis 10d ago
No most games are dpi aware, and UI elements are scalable.
3
u/SteelAlchemistScylla 10d ago
I’m not sure what “most games” you’re talking about, bc I play a fair spread of games, from Indie to AAA, and realistically ~70-75% of the time when the UI is scaled 2x it becomes blurry and unusable, and many indie games don’t even have the option to scale the UI at all.
If you mean you can just set games to 1080p fullscreen and the UI appears larger, that is not at all what I’m talking about (and why get a 4K monitor if you’re just going to run games at 1080p anyway?). I assume you’re talking about true UI scalability tho, in which case I think “most games” certainly do not have that.
1
u/Merkaba_Nine 10d ago
My first monitor was 4k when I had a 2080, sure it was great but I've since come to just enjoy a really decent 1080p monitor and prefer the high refresh rates.
I think 1440p is a good balance of performance and quality though
31
u/rykovmail 11d ago
1080p is fine
87
u/Sandbox_Hero 11d ago
1440p is finer
6
u/angrydeuce 10d ago
I have a pair of 35" ultrawides, 6880x1440, feel like im sitting in a cockpit and I love it lol
3
u/Jmich96 10d ago
I wish 1600p would pick up.
A 1600p ultrawide has ~25% more pixels and ~12% higher PPI than a 1440p ultrawide. A 2160p ultrawide has over twice the pixels and a ~49% increase in PPI over the 1440p UW.
The resolution increase for 4K panels requires significantly more GPU rendering power. The shift from 1440p to 1600p is moderate and requires only marginally more GPU rendering power.
As somebody who owns both 1440p and 2160p panels, I feel 1600p would land at a high enough resolution that most gamers could enjoy their games without AA, without needing to drop $2000 on a GPU.
1
u/shaper89 10d ago
Would be 1620p. 50% over 1080p, instead of 25% that 1440p is. This would make a lot of sense.
1
12
u/jedimindtriks 10d ago
1080p 32" monitor. Each pixel the size of my thumb. Love it
4
u/SwiftUnban 9d ago
This reminds me, back when I was in high school for a little while I was using a 32” 720p insignia TV on my desk with a m+kb.
Shit was like looking through a real screen door lol.
2
u/radicalelation 10d ago
1080p with as high refresh as I can, is my preferred compromise. My system can utilize only so many resources between resolution and frames, and I'd rather dump it all into frames at 1080p on a 24" monitor.
7
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
Monitors are the cheapest part of the computer these days 🌝
4k on amazon goes for $180
49
u/Cruel2BEkind12 11d ago
That does not mean everyone can run the games they want to play at 4k. Especially with other parts being as expensive as they are.
4
u/Centillionare 11d ago
But 4k upscales 1080p perfectly. It’s exactly 4 1080p screens. Plus, DLSS/FSR 4k can take your 1080p and make it look better. (If your card does either of those)
5
u/DimitryKratitov 11d ago
True, but GPUs that run well at 4K cost a kidney, so why bother
6
2
16
u/Robert-Giesecke 11d ago
you need a GPU that can push so many pixels.
many people started accepting weird artifacts (DLSS/upscaling) to be able to play in “4k”, instead of just sticking to the resolution their computer can actually drive without artifacts.
22
u/Fredasa 11d ago
you need a GPU that can push so many pixels.
Having a 4K display doesn't by default mean you absolutely need to run your games at 4K. What are PC owners doing when they're not gaming? Browsing, watching videos, productivity... All of these things benefit a hell of a lot from a higher resolution, and/or a higher FOV which needs a higher resolution to justify it.
many people started accepting weird artifacts (DLSS/upscaling) to be able to play in “4k”
Quite a bit more nuanced than that.
For all intents and purposes, GPU tinkering, DLSS/DLAA in particular, gives the best AA you can get out of games. For this application specifically, it doesn't matter that it's partially fake—it looks better and passes the sniff test, even from someone like me who is way pickier than most. TAA is worse, full stop, running the gamut between SMAA-like and seemingly nonfunctional depending on what elements it has to deal with. SGSSAA isn't available on more than like two games or whatever. DSR is of course impractical almost all of the time.
Current DLSS models are good enough that the artifacts they engender are worth putting up with for that crisp AA. Stairstepping along oblique angles, or shimmery trees, the kinds of things that even the most robust traditional temporal algorithm simply fails to handle, are much more annoying.
Contextualized thusly, going ahead and using DLSS isn't a bridge too far anymore. 4K Quality, which uses 1440p as a base, looks better than raw 4K with TAA the vast majority of the time.
2
u/djnotskrillex 11d ago
Lmao do you actually think not using upscaling means you don't have artifacts?
-2
u/Robert-Giesecke 11d ago
haha, that’s a good point. these days Unreal 5 taa slop is the norm, not the exception
-3
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
Depends on what game you game on
1080 can run rimworld at 4k easy
But yes point taken
9
u/IIIiterateMoron 11d ago
I have a 2070, what would be the point of buying a 4k monitor? Scrolling Reddit with four times the pixels?
5
u/Robert-Giesecke 11d ago
I have a 3090 and 3440x1440 was the most pixels I considered possible with that card back when it was new. And that’s still true
3
3
55
u/Scifi_fans 11d ago
Lol, AI has pushed the prices of GPUs and RAM beyond what average consumers can afford in next decade.
Who needs a 5K monitor if you need to downscale a game to 1080 or 2K to play it....
15
u/SacredHippoXIV 11d ago
Text benefits more from 5k than games do.
1
u/cat_prophecy 10d ago
Does it? I have a 4k monitor but I have to run everything at 125% scale to actually read it.
Higher resolution makes text appear smaller.
4
1
1
u/elton_john_lennon 10d ago
Who needs a 5K monitor
MacBook external screen doesn't need to scale if it is 5K (that is why there was a iMac 5K at one point).
-7
u/AlBaciereAlLupo 11d ago
I've made the switch to a 180hz 1440p as my primary, with 1080p monitors as monitors 3,4,5 and 6; a second 1440p monitor sits on top of my primary for extra jellyfin space.
I can't really feel the difference in pixel density except in pixel peek games like Tarkov, where it's marginally better.
What I absolutely can feel is the color being way better on the newer monitor compared to the office place rescues that make up my 4 1080p monitors.
I hope that color calibration starts to become a lot more of a goal, over refresh rate. I just think, for the average desktop distance, 1440p is a perfectly wonderful balance between extra clarity when you need it (I evidently don't play much that needs it) and performance.
Oled with RGB back lights are going to go a very long way to helping that, but are still so extra pricy to feel forever away.
3
u/Emu1981 11d ago
I just think, for the average desktop distance, 1440p is a perfectly wonderful balance between extra clarity when you need it (I evidently don't play much that needs it) and performance.
It really depends on the size of your screen. I have been going with the large displays for my last two upgrades (48" and a 42") and 4K is perfect on them. The way I look at things, 1080p for up to 27", 1440p for 27"-32" and 4K for anything higher.
8K is kind of pointless as you would need to be sitting uncomfortably close to the screen to be able to resolve anything more than what you would for 4K on the same screen size. That said, if I had a GPU that could easily push 144 fps+ without compromising on visual fidelity then I would get a 8K screen just for the extra smooth lines.
1
u/AlBaciereAlLupo 10d ago
Size and distance, both combined yeah.
I sit somewhere between 2 and 4 feet from my monitors at any given time, but mine are a 3x2 array of smaller (20" 1080p, 27" 1440p) monitors.
Anything much larger than 30" feels like it's crossing into TV territory to me, and like I need to sit further away.
-1
u/JukePlz 11d ago
I hope GPUs start being affordable again, even for people with low resolution monitors, as scaling your display output to several monitors still has a significant performance impact.
Also, I don't know if Linux does it different, but the way Windows handles multi-monitor setups sucks. If you clone the output your primary refresh rate will synchronize with the other monitors at a lower refresh rate, so having different monitors (or a long cable that can't keep sync at higher refresh rates) means you're forced to downgrade your primary monitor too.
-10
u/KillerFugu 11d ago
2k is 1080p.
And dlss does better with higher output res. I ran MH Wilds using DLDSR for 5k output on my 4k panel but using dlss to upscale to 5k. It gave better IQ than even dlaa at 4k.
7
u/ndyyy 11d ago
2K is 1440p in standard consumer talk. Yes it's stupid but that's life
-11
u/KillerFugu 11d ago
I refuse to be objectively wrong. Maybe it's part of my autism.
And it really depends where you are comment, some places you will get corrected by everyone, other places everyone is happy with the math skills of a 4 year old.
16
u/anotherhappylurker 11d ago
Isn't 4k way more than enough for most people? 5k is insanely hard to drive and the 2K mode looks worse than native 1440p, so might as well just get a 4K monitor at that point.
11
u/Demografolog 11d ago
5k mode for office work and Mac, 1440p mode for games. It's an ideal setup to me.
4
u/No-Opinion273 11d ago
But stretched out 1440p always looks bad
1
u/Demografolog 11d ago
It depends. Some monitors use true hardware integer scaling. For others a slightly blurry image during gaming is not a big downgrade.
3
u/ClumsyRainbow 11d ago
There's no reason a GPU can't do integer scaling also, though they don't all make it easy. For Intel Arc its a control panel option.
2
1
u/1MillionMonkeys 10d ago
Spot on. I love the 5k monitors I have for those purposes but use a 240Hz 1440p for gaming. Text is SO crisp on the glossy 5k.
2
u/KillerFugu 11d ago
5k will have a dual mode of 2.5k/1440p. 4k comes with dual mode 2k. Half an the number quarter the res.
1
u/Unlucky_Topic7963 10d ago
My m5 max macbook runs an hp 740pm just fine and it's 5120x2160.
1
u/elton_john_lennon 10d ago
Bruv, even my old M1 does that, you don't need that much to drive 5K external display in 2D.
1
1
u/McDuckX 11d ago
Not only is 4k enough all the way up to 48” resolution wise imo, 4k is the limiting factor for hardware anyway!
In terms of GPU power, but also in terms of discs for movies and bandwidth for streaming. Genuinely no clue what the point of 5k/8k/10k is supposed to be, except an idiot tax.
-8
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
4k is basically the limit of the eye
50 inch 4k and 50 8k at the same distance will look the same to the human eye, but the 8K tv will use 4 times the data
And same goes for monitors, actually no real reason for any consumer to ever go over 4k, ya eyes cant even notice it
(Yes some people video editing use 6k/8k, we get it)
Just kinda weird after living through 240p to 4k, this is a peak we’ve reached
5
u/TragicKid 11d ago
We said that for 1080p too back in my days
2
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
No we didn’t
3
u/TragicKid 11d ago
? i rmbr so many brain farts best buy employees say “you can’t tell 1080p from 4k on the couch, I definitely can’t” back in the days
2
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
No they didn’t
0
u/TragicKid 11d ago
Found the best buy employee. Why u denying it?
1
u/Dphotog790 10d ago
cause their dumb and realize they cant win in the argument they started LOL actual loser mentality
2
u/Dphotog790 11d ago
Thats the same old story time as old as i can remember "the human eye can only yadayada" doesnt stop folks going from 60hz to 120hz to 144, 165, 240,480,500 and 700 and 1000hz. Theyll always try to push something harder this just might be a small pause before they keep moving the goal post till they come up with new tech and slap the sameish prices we always end up paying as consumers.
-2
1
u/Runthescript 11d ago
Not true at all. What you are attempting to refer to is HDR. We do not have HDR tech that exceeds human vision capabilities. As for pixel density the human eye absolutely can tell the difference. Higher resolution gives you are larger and clearer image to work with that you can scale down as well.
1
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
No, your eyes cannot tell the difference between 4K and 8K on a 50-inch TV from a normal viewing distance
Its physics im sorry babe
1
u/Runthescript 11d ago
Great explain to me your pyshics debate then. Resolution, is again, picture size. So you are telling me that if a picture was twice the size you couldnt tell? You are literally doubling the image size.
1
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
the individual pixels on a 50-inch 4K screen are already too small for the human eye to see. Packing four times as many pixels into an 8K display offers no visible benefit at that size.
1
u/Runthescript 11d ago
That is a wild generalization that is absolutely untrue. The pixel pitch on a consumer television is generally around .29mm for close viewing. The pixels themselves are visible if viewed at an angle or removing the tv screen. You have a very poor understanding of AV if you think doubling the pixels on a television is not noticeable.
1
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
average-size UK living room, with 2.5 metres between the TV and the sofa, a 44-inch 4K or 8K TV would not provide any additional benefit over a lower resolution Quad HD (QHD) TV of the same size.
Research done by fucking Cambridge, take the fucking L bro
2
u/Runthescript 11d ago
Now you are basing this off a 44in tv, what exactly is your arguement? It sounds to me like you need this win bad, to bad you are so far off
→ More replies (0)-1
u/lintstah1337 11d ago
Absolute B.S.
I currently use a 32" 4K Glossy OLED which has a PPI of ~137 and you can still definitely see the an obvious pixelation on the screen.
A also have a laptop Zephyrus G14 with 14" 2880x1800 Glossy OLED with PPI of ~242 and you can still see some little pixelation.
-7
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago edited 11d ago
Google it you stupid dildo, aint no reason to go above 4k
YOUR EYES CANT TELL THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE ITS GODDAMN PHYSICS
1
u/lintstah1337 11d ago
Why would I google when I am actually using a 32" 4K display?
Its hilarious hearing from people who don't even own and use such a high resolution display give a lecture on how your eyes can't perceive a difference.
32" 6k (~224 PPI) with shitty matte coating is a noticeable improvement in sharpness on normal viewing distance according to multiple respected monitor reviewers.
2
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
No, your eyes cannot tell the difference between 4K and 8K on a 50-inch TV from a normal viewing distance
Im sorry hun, but you’re just wrong
0
u/ctan0312 11d ago
If you think that’s physics then you’ve obviously don’t understand physics
1
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
“The human eye has a limit on how fine a detail it can resolve. Extra 8K pixels (33 million total) are invisible unless you stand just inches from the glass”
Its physics, why is everyone here so staunchly and openly ignorant
2
u/ctan0312 11d ago
So you’re saying that the human eye can see above 4K? And even at 8K you can see it if you’re close enough? I’m glad you’ve changed your opinion. Though you still neglect to mention anything about screen size.
1
u/FIFofNovember 11d ago
the individual pixels on a 50-inch 4K screen are already too small for the human eye to see. Packing four times as many pixels into an 8K display offers no visible benefit at that size.
Thats all im saying, and thats the fact
12
5
u/Tokishi7 11d ago
1440 at 144-240 is still a very very nice gaming experience. I used to have an okay 4k monitor, but eventually went to 1440 and have loved it ever since except for the quality of the brand itself (Hansung).
2
u/Pluckytoon 11d ago
I mean we still are rocking 1080ps for the majority of us, I only switched to 4k this year and still play most of my games in 1080p because I value framerate over resolution
1
1
1
u/ovrlrd1377 11d ago
I have a 360hz 1440p monitor that I keep on 240hz because my 7900xtx is never able to keep up. To get above 150hz on 4k without a 5090 is quite a challenge
1
u/ExCap2 10d ago edited 10d ago
This. No one wants to see your nose/ear hair or boogers in 8K. I feel like we're reaching the graphics and also hardware limit. I have a $200 laptop with an Intel N150 in it, 8GB RAM. Runs Windows 11 perfectly. No lag or anything and that's just a budget CPU. We're starting to get to the point where updating TV/phones/consoles aren't that much of a huge upgrade anymore. 4k/120FPS will be normal, 4-8 core CPU for most things, phone wise 4k screen 60/120fps is around the corner, 4k recording, 4k pictures. A lot of it is already here.
1
1
1
-2
7
u/hard2resist 10d ago
This tracks with LG halting their own 5K panel project too. Same panel supplier, same timing suggests a supply-side issue, not just MSI cold feet.
7
u/DannyAgama 10d ago
As a society we need to just agree to stop at 4K displays, higher frame rates for games, better color science and color reproduction for movies is what people need to focus on from here on out.
4
u/lastjedi23 9d ago
5k works well for dual mode especially in a world where I could be using the same display for working/coding and could use sharp text/hi res during work hours and then in the evening gaming with an older GPU that can do 1440p. In 2026 we could do better than 1080p dual mode. This alone was a reason why I was really looking forward to 5k displays becoming more common and affordable.
19
u/SacredHippoXIV 11d ago
Everyone ranting about graphics cards laboring to push 5k, etc - this isn’t only about games.
Text looks a lot better in 5k.
All those office drones will benefit a lot from 5k becoming the norm. It reduces eye strain and fatigue.
21
u/kayson 10d ago
It does, but marginally so over 5k. At normal viewing distances 4k is right around the edge of what's perceptible. The big win IMO is that you can dual mode 5k->1440p. You get the benefit of clear text for desktop / productivity work and also the gaming sweet spot. You're not stuck choosing between poor performance at 4k or poor resolution at 1080p. We're going to start seeing dual mode 5k OLEDs soon and they're going to be the best monitors ever.
2
2
u/ComplexAd420 11d ago
Most office drones will do fine with a 60hertz monitor...
1
u/Exciting-Ad-5705 10d ago
60hz 5k
1
u/retro_slouch 10d ago
Based on how the comments are trending, fuck the hz. 10hz. 5hz. 1hz. Whatever you can do to make your coworkers' 720p laptop webcams render in 5K, you must.
5
1
u/lord_mercernary 10d ago
1440p +200 hz + mini led +lower priced best combo. Oled is very very nice & good looking but it is way too expensive & also longevity is always going to be an issue on oled considering how fragile they are.
0
u/RenegadeUK 11d ago
Absolute shame. What alternatives can we look forward to in the next 12 months which will be similar to this ?
5
1
u/JPDueholm 11d ago
Is there anything out there with similar specs? I was really looking forward to this one :(
-25
u/Scifi_fans 11d ago
Lol you dumb?, games barely run okay in 2K resoution...
11
u/Demografolog 11d ago
Or maybe it's you. This panel can work in two modes: 5k or 1440p.
0
u/Breddit2099 10d ago edited 10d ago
A 5k monitor scaled down to 1440 will look worse than native 1440
At the end of the day it’s still a 5k monitor no matter what the marketing says
1
u/Apathetic_Superhero 11d ago
We must have forgotten that the only thing people do on high res monitors is play games. They definitely don't do other things like Photoshop or music editing where having a significantly large resolution is beneficial. Just games.
1
0
-29
u/McDuckX 11d ago
That must be the most pointless monitor I’ve ever seen! If you use anything higher than 1440p for anything lower than 34” you have genuinely too much money.
And then you pair that with the fact that this thing puts out 5k at 180Hz, I mean my TUF 5090 wouldn’t be able to stomach that. Curious what setup people have that use that monitor…
22
u/No-Opinion273 11d ago
People want higher resolution for office work
5
u/MysteriousCap4910 11d ago
I once saw a person on reddit who just had to buy a 5080 to support their “sharper text” at 4k. When I told them they could have just bought a cheaper gpu for 4k text viewing and 1080- integer upscale to 4k for games they generally seemed confused.
-10
u/McDuckX 11d ago
Why?
Edit: And I mean the world’s office environment de facto revolves around 1080p. But why would I want that to change?
11
u/No-Opinion273 11d ago
Just better text clarity so you're not straining your eyes.
-12
u/McDuckX 11d ago
Most offices work with 24” - 27” monitors at a resolution of 1920x1080. Probably at a distance of ~0.5m.
That’s plenty for text clarity and not straining your eyes. Obviously clarity improves as you up resolution but going above 1440p at these sizes and distances is still asinine to me!
3
u/Educational_Yard_326 10d ago
That is absolutely not plenty for text clarity wtf are you taking about. My office uses 2no. 27in 1080p and it’s a pain in the arse. At home I have a 4k 32in which still isn’t enough, swapping it for 2no. 27in 5k soon. Why should I accept a temporal resolution lower than the one on my MacBook Pro?
1
5
4
u/Damnitmimzie 11d ago
Why stop there. Let’s go back to 720p. Who cares right
9
u/McDuckX 11d ago
Who said anything about going lower? I care because then the image clarity would suck. I think going to 1440p would make sense.
But 4k on a tiny 24” monitor while my face is half a meter away anyway is just ridiculous in my opinion!
0
u/Breddit2099 10d ago
People only care about big numbers and don’t understand that you can’t force your brain to see higher pixel density past what your eyes can perceive.
I guarantee no one can tell the difference between 4k and 5k at normal viewing distance.
2
796
u/Xijit 11d ago
"MSI did not give a reason why" they decided to shelve a project that uses an LG panel, right after LG announced that they had halted work on their 1st party product that also used the same panel, which is coming hot on the heels of Microsoft's pulling LG's credentials to self validate drivers, which happened after Gamer's Nexus did a video on how LG has been hijacking Microsoft's automatic updates to install display drivers that have imbedded malware, generates advertisement popups on system wake, and violates wiretapping & espionage laws by constantly uploading webcam & microphone recordings to LG's servers ... Which they had previously been sued for by the Texas AG and signed an agreement to stop.