>I don't think 4k120 today is in the same market position as 1080p60 5 years ago.
Yeah, I think you're actually right there.
People talk about high-end monitor technology much more than they used to, but I'm not sure how many ordinary people actually have them.
>Once IPS became reasonably available, companies with TN products couldn't push for them as premium products from an image quality perspective.
That's really interesting. I recently changed monitors from 4k60 to 1440p/144Hz under the assumption that the increased frequency would make more of a difference than the additional resolution.
Immediately noticed an inferior quality picture (less pixels aside) - perhaps that's why!
I bought my first 4k@120 monitor this year. Huge TV that doubles as PC screen. The first time I've bought a TV and the first time I've spent that much on a monitor. My graphics card can't keep up (I'd need a GPU as expensive as the screen) but playing games at 1080p works fine. The 4k resolution is most appreciated when I do desktop stuff.
I think 4k@120 monitors are entering more people's price range and many will choose one on their next upgrade cycle.
Yeah, I think you're actually right there. People talk about high-end monitor technology much more than they used to, but I'm not sure how many ordinary people actually have them.
>Once IPS became reasonably available, companies with TN products couldn't push for them as premium products from an image quality perspective.
That's really interesting. I recently changed monitors from 4k60 to 1440p/144Hz under the assumption that the increased frequency would make more of a difference than the additional resolution. Immediately noticed an inferior quality picture (less pixels aside) - perhaps that's why!