4K yay or 4K nay?

[21Kid]

Can we please get back to drooling over useless pixels?

HDTVs at CES 2016: 4K Has Finally Arrived

Of course, with 4K becoming the Current Big Thing, the HDTV industry is already looking towards what the Next Big Thing is. That is high dynamic range (HDR) content. HDR greatly expands the amount of light and color information a video signal can hold. This doesn't affect the number of pixels like 4K; instead, each pixel is capable of showing a wider range of light.

[Jason]

Any new OLED news? Because that's what I care about.

[21Kid]

Me too. Seems like LG is the only one making big investments in it.

LG Display to Spend About $9 Billion on Factory for OLEDs - November 26, 2015

LG is jumping head-first into the flexible display game at CES 2016, where it will be showing off its latest innovations in OLED and LCD technology.

LG Secures Super Bowl Slot And Ridley Scott For OLED Commercial

LG will show off its paper-thin, rollable OLED panel at CES

[Jason]

Woah, that's neat

[thesameguy]

I think it's reasons like that that OLED is probably the long-term bet. Even though nanocrystals can net some good results, the actual displays don't have the same flexibility that OLED does. OLED screens are thin and require little power, and you just can't say that about anything that requires a backlight (relatively speaking!). It's really a similar situation as LCD - plasma may have had the better picture, but plasma displays don't go on watches, on laptops (unless you're Toshiba and it's 1990), and in cars. LCD goes all those places so there were lots of people developing and pushing. I think OLED is going to benefit from those same economies. Nanocrystal is really only good for one thing - larger, non-portable displays.

[LHutton]

Okay, now we are back to the root, and this is insane. I buy $1000 computers for the office. It's just what I do, and I have for 10 years.

In 2006 a $1000 computer was a Pentium D 830 3.0GHz with 2gb of RAM and an 80gb hard drive. A DVDRW was extra cost. Intel integrated graphics, built-in Broadcom Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows XP Pro 32-bit.
In 2009 a $1000 computer was a Core2Duo E7500 or E8400 3.0GHz with 2gb of RAM and a 160gb or 250gb hard drive. DVD-RW drive. Intel integrated graphics, built-in Intel Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows 7 Pro 32-bit.
In 2012 a $1000 computer was a Core i5 3470S 2.9GHz with 4gb of RAM and a 1tb hard drive. DVD-RW drive. Intel HD Graphics 2500, built in Atheros Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows 7 Pro 64-bit.
In 2015 a $1000 computer was a Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Processor with 8gb RAM and either a 1tb hard drive or 256gb SSD. Intel HD Graphics 530, built in Intel Ethernet and Realtek sound. Windows 7 Pro 64-bit or Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

Each one of these was a MASSIVE leap in performance at the same price point. Each one of these machines is smack-dab in the middle of the performance spectrum with mid-range processors, RAM loadouts, and storage capacity. These are all commodity office-grade machines - hence the same price point and me buying lots and lots of them. Computers in general got much, much cheaper in the early '90s and then again in the early '00s. Since around 2003 or 2004 computers have remained at about the same price across the board ("low," "medium," and "high" spec) while delivering more performance for the same price. So, if a $1000 computer is a mid-range office machine regardless of when you bought it in the last ten years, since inflation decreases the value of any monetary unit, computers of the same spec within the grand computer landscape at a point in time have gotten CHEAPER, not more expensive. Your assertion that the same relatively level of performance costs more annually is utterly, demonstrably false.

We can do laptops next if you like. I don't buy hundreds of them, but I do buy dozens.

Edit: We can also do gaming machines. I've got a few dozen XPS models ranging from the 435t with i7-950s to new XPS 8900s with i7-6700s. These are $2k price point boxes. Typically top-end i7s, the biggest hard drives, lately small SSDs, and mid-range discrete graphics.

Disagree completely. I spent a lot of time looking only recently, and noted that the prices were definitely higher in general. So high in fact that I initially decided to delay buying a PC for a few years, and if my hard drive hadn't packed in, that's exactly what I would have done.

$1000 PC anywhere? Nope. Doesn't even come with Office (30 day trial only), so add another £100 ($150). Thank you, drive through.

http://www.dell.com/uk/p/xps-8900-desktop/pd?ref=PD_OC

For the price of the top range XPS 8900 with GTX750, I got a top of XPS 8300 range PC with i7-860, + GTX 460... with a sound card... and Office... and a fucking colour printer/scanner/fax machine/photo-copier 6 years ago. Add them on to the XPS 8900 and you have £1500+. Devaluation of currency? Well I haven't seen salaries go up 50% in the last 6 years.

Now to get a Dell with a GTX960, you have to buy Alienware. This is where the prices get truly comical. £1480 for a GTX960 PC with the cheapest monitor option (£411 for 24 inch monitor). No Office, so add another £116 and it's just under £1600. So we're now at $2500 at current exchange rate for a system that is mediocre. Oh add sound card -> £1700-£1800. There's a damn good reason I broke a 15 year habbit of always buying a Dell.

http://www.dell.com/uk/p/alienware-x...60;6424~P2415Q

My final spec, if bought from Dell, would cost well over £2000 with no monitor.

Also, check your facts. There was never an XPS 8700 with a 1st gen i7. The 8700 debuted with Ivy Bridge i7s. The i7-850 was a low-end processor. The i7-6600k doesn't even exist. All XPS desktops include optical drives. Unless you produce a receipt, I will never, ever believe that £900 included any version of Office, even a free trial.

XPS 8300 sorry.

[thesameguy]

[LHutton]

If they sold relatively equal kit for less, their share price index would look like a cliff face. Basic economics.

Data also shows the lack of a consistent reduction in price from 1993 to 2008. Note Core 2 Due higher than Celeron II. i5 PC significantly lower but I bet if we had the next 7 years, it would go up. Sure as hell no i5-6600K PCs for $380, the CPU alone costs >$300. You can't even buy the parts for twice that figure.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-i5-660...l%20i5%206600K

[thesameguy]

Hey man, if you say so.

You know, my first Dell System 200 cost over five grand. Dell doesn't even sell a $5,000 computer anymore. It's a god damn miracle they're in business, taunting basic economics like that!

[Alan P]

So I'm downloading a 4k rip of Elysium. It's 46.6GB. I hope my wireless can keep up with the stream because I'm going to try and watch it through my TV, from my PC.