Kinda getting tired of 1440p these days. 4K 144hz any day now. Hopefully next year when GPU power goes up another level again.

MrAMDKinda getting tired of 1440p these days. 4K 144hz any day now. Hopefully next year when GPU power goes up another level again.

What monitors are 4k 144hz? I'm curious to know. Also I am still loving my dual 1440p monitor setup. Unlike a 4k monitor I can easily see text on the screen (I guess Windows zooms stuff in at 4k?).

RehmanpaWhat monitors are 4k 144hz? I'm curious to know. Also I am still loving my dual 1440p monitor setup. Unlike a 4k monitor I can easily see text on the screen (I guess Windows zooms stuff in at 4k?).

ASUS and Acer are releasing 4K 144hz HDR monitors next year. People give Windows scaling a lot of flak but I'm running Windows 10 @ 150% scaling on 4K with a 28" screen. Pretty much the same GUI size as a 1440p 27" but with higher pixel density. However 4K really shines on larger displays like 32"+

This monitor's spec has nothing on Samsung CHG70 except for the flashy light and space-saving stand. Knowing Asus, it is likely to have an even more ridiculous price tag thanks to the ROG logo.

Once again, close but no cigar. I'm glad 1800R monitors and VA panels are becoming more common, and that they can do that with reasonably high refresh rates at 1440p to boot. But no VESA mount, even as an option with a bracket or some such? No thanks. Also, 32" at WQHD is too low pixel density for my tastes.


Hey, Asus, this is what I want:
-34" (same panel height as my current 27" 16:9 monitor) UWQHD (3440x1440)
-100-144Hz (with LFC, preferably FS range down to ~30Hz, definitely below 50Hz)
-1800R curvature
-VA panel (2500-3000:1 contrast ratio) with reasonable response times
-Reasonable colour calibration (sRGB < 3 DeltaE at the very least, although a profile for something close to Adobe RGB would be nice too - don't need 100% coverage, but >90% with calibration would be nice)
-VESA mount and removable stand (but please don't skimp on the stand adjustability)
-Matte screen coating
-HDR (FreeSync 2 would be awesome!)
-4-port USB hub (if it had a KVM function, that would give extra brownie points for sure, but it's not a must)
-Integrated power supply

All of these are requirements. I'm not buying anything that doesn't fulfill every point on that list (though I might be willing to compromise on calibration if the gamut coverage is there - I can calibrate for myself if it comes to that, as long as the firmware allows for it - speaking of which, 3D LUT support? Yes please.). As for other stuff: I don't really care about speakers, but I suppose they can be useful in a pinch (if it has speakers, plz give me a headphone output for my old consoles too). USB-C in for DP would definitely be nice (though not if it means removing regular DP). TB3 would be nifty too, but not if it pushes the price beyond $1000. Got that? Good. Now go make it, and announce at CES. Please and thank you.

silapakornThis monitor's spec has nothing on Samsung CHG70 except for the flashy light and space-saving stand. Knowing Asus, it is likely to have an even more ridiculous price tag thanks to the ROG logo.

I was going to say...nothing really special about this monitor.

Too big for curved ! Curved is good for 21:9 aspect ratio or 27"

AnimalpakToo big for curved ! Curved is good for 21:9 aspect ratio or 27"

that makes no sense...

MrAMDASUS and Acer are releasing 4K 144hz HDR monitors next year. People give Windows scaling a lot of flak but I'm running Windows 10 @ 150% scaling on 4K with a 28" screen. Pretty much the same GUI size as a 1440p 27" but with higher pixel density. However 4K really shines on larger displays like 32"+

4k makes no sense on anything lower than 30 to 32 inches. I myself had the chance to test 4k 27 inches vs 1440p 27 inches and I couldn´t notice any difference in games, unless I looked at the screen 5cm away from it. is just dumb, too high PPI and asks for powerful hardware. Imo for 27 inch = 1440p 144hz/165hz all day.

4k for 32 inches.

Manu_PT4k makes no sense on anything lower than 30 to 32 inches. I myself had the chance to test 4k 27 inches vs 1440p 27 inches and I couldn´t notice any difference in games, unless I looked at the screen 5cm away from it. is just dumb, too high PPI and asks for powerful hardware. Imo for 27 inch = 1440p 144hz/165hz all day.

4k for 32 inches.

For gaming, I agree. Not to mention that (at regular viewing distances, at least) 27" is bordering on as tall as is useful for a display that you're mostly looking at the middle of, making any added vertical size more or less useless periphery (unless you're playing a game where extra vertical peripheral vision is key, which is pretty much no game I've ever heard of) while still consuming as much processing power as the central areas. Ultrawide makes far more sense, as it better simulates the human field of vision, and horizontal peripheral vision is both more useful in games and more useful to our eyes (after all, our eyes can move about twice as far on the horizontal axis as on the vertical axis), making the field of view both useful and natural.

4K can make sense for photo/video editing and graphics work on < 30" displays, but pretty much nothing else. Of course, text is also rendered a bit more sharply, but that doesn't really make much of a difference at 2-3'.

Edit: fun when the forum autocorrects < 3 to <3...

Tired of curved. Thank God TV manufacturers (at least some) stopped doing it.

MrAMDKinda getting tired of 1440p these days. 4K 144hz any day now. Hopefully next year when GPU power goes up another level again.

Time for 4k ultrawides!

medi01Tired of curved. Thank God TV manufacturers (at least some) stopped doing it.

TVs and monitors have radically different viewing positions, meaning that the answer to the question of curved vs. flat isn't transferable between the two. TVs are viewed from quite far away, and generally fill less of your field of view than a monitor. TVs are also generally used by more than one person at a time. The first means that the effect of the curvature is far less noticeable, while the second brings with it the struggle of who gets to sit in the TVs "sweet spot" viewing position (dead centre). To fill the same portion of your field of view as a 27" monitor at 2.5', a TV at 10' would have to be 108". To be equivalent to a 32" monitor at the same distance, it would have to be 128". And it's generally more common to have the TV more than 10' away than it is to have a >65" TV, not to mention that it's quite common to have a couch/chair setup where viewers are quite off-centre. As such, curvature on TVs has very little effect/use, and some of that effect will be to the worse. Monitors, on the other hand, are viewed relatively close, fill a large portion of the viewer's field of view, and are generally used by one person at a time. Curved panels make far more sense here, and especially with ultrawide monitors they have a definite place (at those widths, the curvature means the panel is closer to the same distance from your eyes at all points, increasing peripheral vision acuity and making the experience more comfortable for the eyes). On the other end of the spectrum, nearly all movie theatres have curved screens, and generally the bigger they are, the more curved. IMAX is the absolute king of curved projection screens.

MrAMDKinda getting tired of 1440p these days. 4K 144hz any day now. Hopefully next year when GPU power goes up another level again.

For gaming 4K is not good, even with the likes of 1080 Ti. Most games don't even look good in 4K.

goodeedididFor gaming 4K is not good, even with the likes of 1080 Ti. Most games don't even look good in 4K.

Generally yes, but it's all about the games you play. I play BF1 and BF4 at 4K at an stable 60fps with a GTX 1070. And of course it looks beautiful because, DICE.

An advantage of 4K displays though is that they can go into a "ultrawide mode" by setting a custom resolution of 3840x1620. Makes games look like movies while also having a lower GPU load. And depending on the screen size can even match or beat an actual UW 34" & 38" display (eg: 40" 4K @ 3840x1620 = 38" UW screen area)

MrAMDGenerally yes, but it's all about the games you play. I play BF1 and BF4 at 4K at an stable 60fps with a GTX 1070. And of course it looks beautiful because, DICE.

An advantage of 4K displays though is that they can into a "ultrawide mode" by setting a custom resolution of 3840x1620. Makes games look like movies while also having a lower GPU load. And depending on the screen size can even match or beat an actual UW 34" & 38" display (eg: 40" 4K @ 3840x1620 = 38" UW screen area)

For BF1 I kinda agree, but there is a problem that nobody mentions about 4K and the problem is that hardware like GPUs don't handle it well. For example in BF1 @ 1440p I have 6-7 ms frame times but @ 4K frame times are like 16 ms. I have no idea why and if you don't have g-sync or freesync it sucks.