It’s nice to see progress on the display front, but damn those prices are too rich for my blood. $.$

I thought i was crazy for giving the Alienware AW3418DW serious consideration. If it wasn’t curved i probably would have bought it.

bugTo this day I'm not sure why we're discussing 144Hz refresh rates. To do 144 refreshes a second, a 7ms response time is needed. Across all color (and gray) transitions. No known consumer panel can do that. And I'm pretty sure with only 7ms to do the job, even overdrive doesn't work as well as it does at 60Hz.

Looks like salty someone can't afford a 144Hz gsync screen! Mine is very nice, you should try one some time on a twitch fps game. Does it meet the claimed specs? Beats me, but it's way better than static 60Hz screens, that's all I really care about.

Well, crap. No way am I going to entertain the thought of purchasing this even though I could. That is too damn much! I think the highest figure that I could contemplate would be $1500.

It looks like I am going to upgrade to 1440p @144Hz after all. It will take 2+ more years before that early adopter tax comes down.

xorbeLooks like salty someone can't afford a 144Hz gsync screen! Mine is very nice, you should try one some time on a twitch fps game. Does it meet the claimed specs? Beats me, but it's way better than static 60Hz screens, that's all I really care about.

I'm kind of going the other way. I need a good screen for my programming and photo editing. Gaming comes second and for my needs 60Hz is good enough (I've started gaming back when games ran in CGA mode, so there's that). I would get a high refresh monitor, bit I can't find one without high refresh that fits into my budget.

Really dread thinking about what they might want for the BFGD.

I don't care about the 4K at all, I just want the HDR 2k 160 or whatever have you monitors.

FxWell, crap. No way am I going to entertain the thought of purchasing this even though I could. That is too damn much! I think the highest figure that I could contemplate would be $1500.

When these were announced last year I also guessed they would be about $1500. I would've actually been fine with just 120hz honestly.

No reason for everyone to be up in cahoots over the pricing. The amount of manufacturers that make monitors is decent, at least it's not like a NVidia vs AMD deal where theres only 2 of em to make monitors.
Competition will come soon enough, prices will go down, we will all rejoice.

Man I wish they were more affordable

bugYou're the second people that says I have a problem with high refresh, my English must be failing me. I've said it already, high refresh probably has its benefits. It's ridiculous refresh that I have a problem with. You can't tell me a monitor will do 144 (or 165) Hz with no artifacts, when there's no panel that can actually refresh that fast. If there is, please link it, I'd really like to know.

Response time and refresh rate act independently. Response time is the time it takes for a pixel to change color while refresh rate is the number of times a second the monitor can be updated. Even with a pixel response time that's slower than the monitor's refresh rate, the monitor can still update pixels at a faster rate because it is more frequently checking to see if they need to be updated.

For example, a monitor with a 60 Hz refresh rate has a 16.6ms time gap between each screen refresh while a monitor with a 144 Hz refresh rate only has a 6.9ms gap between each screen refresh. This means that a 144 Hz monitor has an additional 9.7ms advantage. A 144 Hz monitor has enough extra time there for even slow pixels to refresh and change color before the 60 Hz monitor even has a chance to request the pixel to change color.

TLDR; faster refresh rates allow the monitor to get the pixel color change (response time) ball rolling, thus giving high refresh rate monitors an advantage regardless of pixel response times.

happitaWhen these were announced last year I also guessed they would be about $1500. I would've actually been fine with just 120hz honestly.

No reason for everyone to be up in cahoots over the pricing. The amount of manufacturers that make monitors is decent, at least it's not like a NVidia vs AMD deal where theres only 2 of em to make monitors.
Competition will come soon enough, prices will go down, we will all rejoice.

You do know there's only 2 or 3 actual manufacturers of these panels, right? So it is almost exactly the same situation.

Seeing with my own eyes that the best gaming GPU to date still struggles to get 100+ fps at 1440p makes me afraid to go 4K.
I think I'm gonna stick with 2.5K for a decade or so. The improvements in other aspects such as HDR and quantum dot are welcome though.

Dell & I forgot whom else, released a 5K monitor last year, was over $4,000 (maybe ($5,000) & were sold out in no time, were accepting pre-sales.:)

NVIDIA has been stating for at least 2 years that 4K was the future of gaming, and now that the chance is getting close, these prices won't hold. The initial price is just like any new item, example, GPU's. When new, are expensive, to recoup some R&D cash. After awhile, a 3rd party corporation comes in with essentially the same monitor, only throws in a TN panel rather than IPS & shash 50% off the price, then the war is on, pricing will dip.

It's a crying shame when 4K monitors (at 60Hz) are typically selling for less than 2K monitors. I mean, 4K is 4x the pixels of 1080p, while 2K is only 1080p x2. One would think that the 4K model would be more expensive, yet it's backwards, paying more for less pixels, some of these 4K monitors (like mine) has a 1ms refresh rate, the best one can get.:)

If these newer 4K monitors for the price runs slower than 1ms, then for sure it's not worth having. I'd imaging these are going to be fast. Not to worry, NVIDIA will have the GPU's to push these monitors, some with dual 1080 Ti's are likely set to go, any 10 series card is DP 1.4 capable. It's about time that DP 1.4 monitors hit the market, it's has been a standard for over 2 years w/out the hardware to take advantage of that speed. Which is something else to consider. Most of with 1070/1080 (to include Ti for both) has no idea of how fast our cards can run at DP 1.4, because wh haven't had any monitor to match that speed, there may had been a DP 1.3, I believe primarily for medical imaging usage. Therefore, our cards may be faster than we think, especially in a SLI configuration.:D

Not to worry, time is the answer, these OEM's wants to sell these to the wealthy & upper middle class who has the cash first, then once there's more competition (again, one may have a TN panel), pricing will drop. Think about it, just 5 years ago, how many of us had 4K (or 2K) monitors? Now both are everywhere. often on promo, my Samsung 4K could had been $224.99 at Costco on Black Friday 2016, but I didn't think to look, felt that 4K wasn't in my budget. I eventually got the same monitor for $299.99 (Samsung 28" U28E501D). One of which Samsung placed a similar model number on for most every big brand retailer, and sold the one on their site (the core version) for $100 more. It's a 2015 model, lacking USB ports, but it gives me 4x the real estate (pixel count) over the 24" ASUS sitting in the other corner that was $30 more in 2014. What more could I want for $300?:)

Now, these will never drop that low, yet I'd say that $1,000 won't be far off the mark come 12-18 months, there's also 5K monitors on the market. Dell having one, they may want to make it push the same limits, unless these are for professional usage only.

Things will be OK, remember that many of us has GPU's that'll do 8K (including the GTX 1060) & that'll be the next big release afterwards (at 60Hz for awhile) for the OEM's, once they can profit from 144Hz technology for 4K. No need to hit the panic button over an initial release, I'd bet that some who has didn't have the 1st issue with dropping $1,000+ for a CPU (Intel or AMD Threadripper).:)

Cat

Don't pay the early adopter tax on these, unless you are swimming in cash that you dont know what to do with. In a couple years these will be cheaper, better, and affordable video cards might exist that can drive them at that max refresh rate.

Wowzers... At that price I could've built (2) fully capable robust systems (VR + RGB lights + Watercooling) w/ all the fixings. I'll just stick to 4K gaming at 60Hz for now till I get rich or hit the lotto lol.

Let's sell 27 inch FALD screens with new nvidia's buzzwords all over it at a price of a bloody 65 inch 4k HDR OLED TV, now, shall we?

bugNeah, the GSync module is like 100 bucks.

No, first we have no idea how much that obsolete non-HDR gsync thing was, but we know even less about how much "HDR" version of it (oh heavens) cost.

medi01No, first we have no idea how much that obsolete non-HDR gsync thing was, but we know even less about how much "HDR" version of it (oh heavens) cost.

G-Sync modules have been on sale for $200: www.guru3d.com/news-story/g-sync-diy-kits-now-available.html
But that's the cost when you buy one piece.
HDR, I'm not even sure G-Sync has anything to do with that. G-Sync only times when a refresh happens, it shouldn't care what that screen is made up of. I also haven't heard of a new HDR module being released specifically for HDR.

bugTo this day I'm not sure why we're discussing 144Hz refresh rates. To do 144 refreshes a second, a 7ms response time is needed. Across all color (and gray) transitions. No known consumer panel can do that. And I'm pretty sure with only 7ms to do the job, even overdrive doesn't work as well as it does at 60Hz.

The link subsequently provided is for a curved screen which is not 1440p and therfore not at all representative of what has been avialbel for over 3 years

This panels over 3 years old and has no problem (5.5 ms avg / 6.9 worse case ... which is < 7.0)

www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm#response_times



Not to mention a 3 ms lag time



and the 2+ year old panel in the XB271 HU is 15% faster.

Those G-Sync hardware modules were initially released for the Asus 144 hz panel released b4 G-Sync was really ready. But, the thing is, those monitors were also capable of motion blue reduction voia toastystrobelight utility. That's the big deal between G-Sync and Freesync ... both have their greatest impact between 40 - 70 fps (30-70 for G-sync) ... but above that, G-Sync monitors provide the option to switch to ULMB which is what gamers generally prefer once ya get up above 70-75 fps. At today's cards can consistently deliver that performance at 1440p. At 4k ... I don't know what next generation will bring but it is likely to be close.

I have an original Acer XB270HU, it does have a firmware bug with horizontal stippled patterns. Every so often I bump into it. I have thoroughly enjoyed 144Hz gsync. I fired up L4D on my dad's PC, and thought dang his PC is so slow. Checked net_graph, 200 fps. Oh yeah, 60 Hz screen, hah. The difference is massive for fast paced shooters.