Go big or go home
I've got access to a lot of computer hardware—more than any sane man really needs, frankly—but when it comes to my home entertainment I have a problem… well, several in fact. First, I don't have a good space set up as a home theater, and second, I can't really afford all of the things I'd really like to have in a home theater. Take, for example, the display: ideally, I would want the best projector money could buy, and I'd want a dark room, comfortable seating, and someone bringing me food, drinks, etc., while I watch movies, play games, or cheer for my favorite sports team (go Broncos!). But sanity will always play a role for me, so the $50K projection systems are out of the question.
Enter the Sony VPLVW350ES 4K projector. There's none of that 1080p business here; if I'm going to spend as much as I would for a decent used car, I want something that will handle the next generation of content. Capable of throwing up to a 10-foot 4K (4096x2160) image from 12 feet, the Sony will more than satisfy my needs for 4K content. Sure, there are better projectors (e.g., the Sony VPL-VW600ES, or if you're really well-funded, the VPL-VW1100ES), but they can cost over twice as much. They may deliver an improved image and have some additional features, but the VW350ES should still look great and I can put the money saved toward better seating (or my kids' college education fund).
Besides, this is all hypothetical. My last HDTV gave up the ghost a few years back, and since then I cut the cable and went with streaming video from Netflix, Hulu, etc., to my desktop. We're using a 34-inch ultrawide screen right now, which is problematic as many streaming video sources don't even know how to handle a 21:9 aspect ratio. But I can dream, and when I do, I can't help but imagine my brother-in-law's awesome home theater room in his basement, only with a few upgrades like 4K to sweeten the deal.
What does the Sony projector get me that I'm missing now?
Lots of things. Size, for example. There's no competing with size; at least when it comes to home theaters, bigger IS better! Somehow it seems my little ultrawide 34-incher just doesn't quite suffice—heck, I can't even read subtitles half the time from my couch, curse my old man eyes. A projector would also magically create a space for the projector, or so I imagine, which would be really great because I could totally use an extra room in the house, especially one dedicated to movies and such.
4K for the Desktop
In a similar vein, I also want a great 4K display for my desktop… but let me qualify that "great" part. I already have an Acer XB280HK, which is an UltraHD G-SYNC display. It looks pretty good, but it has a few limitations. First, it only accepts a single DisplayPort input; second, it's a TN panel with the usual caveats that entails; and third, it's just way too small for me to comfortably use the native resolution with 100 percent scaling—and yes, that's still a problem for applications and games on occasion. The solution is simple, really: I need a bigger 4K (UltraHD) display, and for my purposes, I'm thinking 40–42 inches would be just about perfect.
A bit of background information might be beneficial here. I was an early adopter of 30-inch displays, and I still have an HP LP3065 and a Dell 3007WFP kicking around (though the latter is definitely wearing out after nearly 10 years). Even with a 30-inch display, I sometimes found 2560x1600 content a bit difficult on my aging eyes, but I could manage. Needless to say, dropping down to a slightly smaller display with the XB280HK and then doubling the resolution certainly makes things look sharp… and tiny. [Cue old man talking about walking uphill in the snow both ways….] I've mostly adjusted to using higher DPI displays, but it would be great to really see all that content, and since I can fit a couple of 30-inch displays on my desk, a single 40-inch panel shouldn't be a problem.
Westinghouse's 40-inch 4K UHD display is admittedly something of a budget offering, but on the surface it appears to offer everything I'd need. And at $760, it's something I might actually consider buying rather than just fantasizing about it. It checks all the right boxes, with a USB 3.0 hub, wide viewing angles, and HDMI 2.0 plus DP 1.2 inputs. The styling is pretty subdued, but I'm good with that. The lack of height adjustment and other features shouldn't be too bad either, since I find I rarely need to move my displays once they're in place.
What does the Westinghouse give me that I'm not getting now?
See above: size matters. Except in this case, it's not just about the size of the display; it's about being able to make good use of that size. More importantly, it should also give me better colors, better viewing angles, and less eyestrain. But not all is sunshine and roses in 4K display-land.
My biggest gripe with UltraHD computer monitors is that the display I want doesn't actually exist right now—and in fact, it can't really exist without some additional improvements in technology. I've tested G-SYNC and FreeSync displays, and higher refresh rates are definitely the future… but I also want a higher-resolution display. That old "can't have your cake and eat it too" problem is rearing its ugly head for me.
Give me a 4K (or 5K) display that's large enough that I can read text at 100 percent scaling, and then get me 120Hz refresh rates with FreeSync/G-SYNC, and make sure the panel is IPS or VA or some other high-quality solution. Then I'd be a happy camper. In the meantime, I'm stuck with a selection of compromises, and for getting work done I'd take a larger 4K IPS display over my current 4K TN G-SYNC panel given a choice.
Power up the pixel generators
With two 4K/UltraHD displays for viewing content, the only thing left on my list is something to push pixels to the displays. This one is a lot easier, and as the resident GPU guru at Maximum PC, I already have access to plenty of high-end GPUs. Having tested the latest and greatest from both AMD and Nvidia, the decision on which GPU to use is really pretty easy: Nvidia's GeForce GTX 980 Ti wins, hands down. Nearly all of the 980 Ti cards I've tested so far perform exceptionally well, and they overclock 20–25 percent above stock (more in some cases), so there's no real need to buy the most expensive 980 Ti. Instead, I'd grab two of Zotac's GTX 980 Ti Amp! cards, which are currently at $640, $20 less than MSRP. I'd run them in SLI, and then I'd overclock them for good measure!
There are several reasons to go with Nvidia over AMD right now, not the least of which is the better performance and power characteristics. For 4K gaming at stock, the R9 Fury X is basically equal to the 980 Ti, provided you don't run any games at settings that need more than 4GB VRAM. That's a little worrying, but the fact that I can get 20 percent more performance (versus eight percent on the Fury X) via overclocking seals the deal. What's more, AMD's GPUs don't have HDMI 2.0 support, so powering my hypothetical 4K projector would be a problem.
Of course, my office and my home theater would be in different rooms, so I might need a second PC for the HTPC. Depending on how much gaming is actually being done (as opposed to watching videos), I might stick with something a little less crazy, like a GTX 960 4GB—still fast enough for 1080p gaming, and it includes HDMI 2.0 along with Nvidia's latest PureVideo engine that should be better at handling 4K H.265 (HEVC) content.
So, what does GTX 980 TI SLI do for me?
In a word, frame rates. It would also let me max out the visuals in pretty much any current game. Sure, G-SYNC/FreeSync allow you to fall below 60fps without feeling the stutter as much, but even a single high-end GPU running UltraHD will often struggle. Put a couple together and let their wonder twin power activate, and suddenly, you're rocking 50+ fps and life is grand. It might not make me a better gamer, but my foes will be green with envy as they pop my ripe melon from across the map yet again.
Wrap up
So there you have it: Jarred loves 4K and he wants to embrace it in all forms. There's an elephant sitting in the corner that we at least need to look at briefly, however. While running games at 4K/UltraHD isn't much of a problem, getting 4K content for TV/movies is another matter. Netflix, YouTube, and other streaming services now support 4K content, but many videos are only available in 1080p; broadcast TV and Blu-ray, on the other hand, are basically stuck at 1080p. UltraHD Blu-ray addresses this limitation for those who still use physical media, but given the bandwidth requirements of 4K we're not likely to see much from broadcasters—who already frequently over-compress 1080p content so they can deliver more channels. It's all fun and games for me, and I really do enjoy using and viewing higher-resolution content, but while I may lust after it, my wallet, for the time being, is staying closed. Don't even get me started on 8K....
What items are on your technolust list? Let us know in the comments!