Acer, ASUS Delaying Their 4K, 144 Hz G-Sync HDR Displays to 2018

[Raevenlord]

It's confirmed: no 144 Hz 4K gaming with HDR in 2017 for NVIDIA gamers who want to make use of G-Sync t avoid screen tearing in their games. Acer last week announced that its 4K HDR Predator X27 gaming display would be delayed to Q1 2018 (meaning, no such thing below your Christmas tree or on your fireplace sock, sadly.) But it isn't Acer's fault, apparently: ASUS's ROG Swift PG27UQ, which features virtually the same specifications, has also been delayed to 2018. Both these monitors are based of an NVIDIA reference design showcased at Computex 2017 (you may remember a slight foul play there as well.)

The Acer Predator X27 and the ASUS ROG Swift PG27UQ are based on AU Optronics' M270QAN02.2 AHVA panel, which offers a 3840×2160 resolution and can reach a 144 Hz refresh rate. Something that really should make these monitors shine is the usage of a direct LED backlighting system with 384 zones, which can be individually dimmed or brightened as needed, which allows the panel to deliver much higher levels of contrast, needed for true HDR display. At least until OLED panels make their way to high-performance gaming monitors, these are expected to be the best of the crop.





So far, only Acer and ASUS have announced displays based on this panel and NVIDIA's reference design. Neither Acer nor ASUS have disclosed the reason for the delay, but a quick mental effort says that since two different brands are involved, the problem must be not with their expertise or technical inadequacy to solve the problem: it must be a common factor to both that is affecting their capability to deliver. So, this could have something to do with NVIDIA's reference design (that the brands need to rework/polish), or due to their sole supplier of this particular panel: AU Optronics. Should we see any FreeSync monitors using the same AUO panel crop up until then, we'll know the answer to that particular question.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Bytales]

Inside sources whisper that they want to Launch the freesync Version concomitently. You know, because VEGA is such a kick ass.

I personally would have been pleased by a Screen similar with the Freesnyc 2 Monitors from Samsung but with 4k Resolution. Perhaps Samsung will draw their Magic wand and conjure one for us. 600 Nits HDR is better than Standard anyway. Im pleased with the 32 Inch 1440p@144hz from Samsung. I just Need a VEGA to drive it properly

 

[Upgrayedd]

I assume this does not mean anything about the ultra-wide 200Hz panels from each company and they are on schedule with those.

 

[Manu_PT]

4k in 27 inches. Laughable.

Still there is no gpu power to 4k 144hz yet, would rather see a 4k 60hz monitor that could do 1080p @ 120hz for competitive games, taking the best from both worlds (LG oled C7 new tv model does this but costs 3000eur).

 

[Wattery Fowls]

Inside sources whisper that they want to Launch the freesync Version concomitently. You know, because VEGA is such a kick ass.

I personally would have been pleased by a Screen similar with the Freesnyc 2 Monitors from Samsung but with 4k Resolution. Perhaps Samsung will draw their Magic wand and conjure one for us. 600 Nits HDR is better than Standard anyway. Im pleased with the 32 Inch 1440p@144hz from Samsung. I just Need a VEGA to drive it properly

I'm gutted Mine has developed two stuck pixels and has to be returned its the LC32HG70 version

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

what nit are these?

My PQ279q? the 144hz 1400p LCD has 350 nit which makes ULMB 100% just do able in the dark.

If they made 600 or 1000 nit that means 100% ULMB will be brighter and more usable but also allow even lower ULMB % which would be huge.

10% ULMB is amazing but obvously too dark with abse nit of 350.

600 nit would allow 50-100% ULMB

1000 nit would allow 30-100% ULMB

That is 2x or 3x faster screen which is almost CRT responsive but with after images unless the screen has fixed ghosting.

I also hope its light enough to work on my monitor arms . The one I have is just barely light enough.

4k in 27 inches. Laughable.

Still there is no gpu power to 4k 144hz yet, would rather see a 4k 60hz monitor that could do 1080p @ 120hz for competitive games, taking the best from both worlds (LG oled C7 new tv model does this but costs 3000eur).

I have 4K 27 in and its just fine. Your eyes can see around a max of 720DPI So even 8K at 27in is good.

Granted for work...I would rather have a 32 in screen at 4K but for gaming or pictures 8K is ideal at 27 in in regards to DPI and clarity.

 

[Lomskij]

4k in 27 inches. Laughable.

Still there is no gpu power to 4k 144hz yet, would rather see a 4k 60hz monitor that could do 1080p @ 120hz for competitive games, taking the best from both worlds (LG oled C7 new tv model does this but costs 3000eur).

Why? I mean, how often do you change a monitor? Even now there are plenty of games that 1080 Ti SLI can run at >100 fps @ 4k. Rumoured price for these monitors is around $2k, so if you can afford that, you can probably afford an adequate GPU set up, no?
Besides, give it a couple of years, and I'm pretty sure single GPU 4k solutions will be available as well (e.g. Volta).

 

[Manu_PT]

SLi? Cmon mate, SLI doesn´t work on half of the games I play, is completly useless nowadays and adds input lag and bad frame times when it works (battlefield 1 a good example). Even AMD is droping CF support in the near future, it just isn´t worth the hassle and power consumption.

what nit are these?

My PQ279q? the 144hz 1400p LCD has 350 nit which makes ULMB 100% just do able in the dark.

If they made 600 or 1000 nit that means 100% ULMB will be brighter and more usable but also allow even lower ULMB % which would be huge.

10% ULMB is amazing but obvously too dark with abse nit of 350.

600 nit would allow 50-100% ULMB

1000 nit would allow 30-100% ULMB

That is 2x or 3x faster screen which is almost CRT responsive but with after images unless the screen has fixed ghosting.

I also hope its light enough to work on my monitor arms . The one I have is just barely light enough.



I have 4K 27 in and its just fine. Your eyes can see around a max of 720DPI So even 8K at 27in is good.

Granted for work...I would rather have a 32 in screen at 4K but for gaming or pictures 8K is ideal at 27 in in regards to DPI and clarity.

I don´t agree. I tested 4k at 27 inches and I couldn´t spot differences from 1440p unless I was using a magnifier. 27 inch is too small for 4k. Is hard enough to tell with static images, nevermind while playing a game. From 32 and upper yes, 4k starts to shine. Also you need windows scaling on that resolution on a 27 screen, and we all know what happens with a lot of programs when you use scaling, and also bad mouse accel wich ruins my aim on twitch shooters. 27 inch 4k is a no go to me.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

SLi? Cmon mate, SLI doesn´t work on half of the games I play, is completly useless nowadays and adds input lag and bad frame times when it works (battlefield 1 a good example). Even AMD is droping CF support in the near future, it just isn´t worth the hassle and power consumption.



I don´t agree. I tested 4k at 27 inches and I couldn´t spot differences from 1440p unless I was using a magnifier. 27 inch is too small for 4k. Is hard enough to tell with static images, nevermind while playing a game. From 32 and upper yes, 4k starts to shine. Also you need windows scaling on that resolution on a 27 screen, and we all know what happens with a lot of programs when you use scaling, and also bad mouse accel wich ruins my aim on twitch shooters. 27 inch 4k is a no go to me.

it is a scientific fact that eyes can see 720ppi (@1 foot).
https://techdissected.com/ask-ted/ask-ted-how-many-ppi-can-the-human-eye-see/

 

[Manu_PT]

I won´t enter that "scientific fact" route... been there done that. I tested it and 27 inch with 4k was useless to my eyes and perception. If you really notice the difference and find it astonishing, good! No problem mate.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Why? I mean, how often do you change a monitor? Even now there are plenty of games that 1080 Ti SLI can run at >100 fps @ 4k. Rumoured price for these monitors is around $2k, so if you can afford that, you can probably afford an adequate GPU set up, no?
Besides, give it a couple of years, and I'm pretty sure single GPU 4k solutions will be available as well (e.g. Volta).

SLI is fidgety at best, completely abhorred at worst, and seems to be less and less of a target as time goes on.

In order for a single GPU to be good enough, it would have to be more then twice as fast as the titanXP. Sure, GPUs will eventually reach that, but with tech shrinks becoming harder and more expensive, it may be quite some time before we get one.

I would much rather they focus on giving us a 1440p144 monitor that doesnt cost an arm and a leg. At 27", the diminishing returns hits 4k HARD.

 

[Manu_PT]

SLI is fidgety at best, completely abhorred at worst, and seems to be less and less of a target as time goes on.

In order for a single GPU to be good enough, it would have to be more then twice as fast as the titanXP. Sure, GPUs will eventually reach that, but with tech shrinks becoming harder and more expensive, it may be quite some time before we get one.

I would much rather they focus on giving us a 1440p144 monitor that doesnt cost an arm and a leg. At 27", the diminishing returns hits 4k HARD.

I would add something to your post, but the thing is that you pretty much said everything.

When they make something like this monitor on 32 inches or 40 inches? Count me in. 27? No thanks, 1440p 165hz is gorgeous.

 

[Cybrnook2002]

I think you mean NVIDIA-toting (but then again perhaps you don't?)

totting
/ˈtɒtɪŋ/
noun
1.
(Brit) the practice of searching through rubbish for usable or saleable items

 

[qubit]

These are the kind of monitor I've been waiting for: 4K versions of my high refresh, high spec BenQ XL2720Z, so shame they're holding them back. Having said that, they'll likely cost a grand or so, which is far too expensive to afford right now.

 

[Folterknecht]

4K @27"? Nope

 

[medi01]

Given that 55" inch OLED TV can be had for 1900-ish Euro... I'd expect 27 inch ones (doesn't even need to be 4k, 1440p max, hell, even 1080p) for 500-700 to be quite doable...
FreeSync of course.

 

[5DVX0130]

@Raevenlord
Shouldn’t that be 2017? The first sentence also seems a bit off awkward to me.

I re-worded it a bit, and fixed the year:
It's confirmed, no 144 Hz 4K gaming with HDR in 2017 for gamers who want to make use of NVidia’s G-Sync for gaming free of screen tearing.

 

[Franzen4Real]

I really hope this will not be the case for the Asus PG35VQ as well.. It has already been determined that it will be my next monitor and the $$ is already set aside. I get a lot of years out of my monitors before buying new and in the past when I have, it has always been one that was already on the market. Waiting for them to just announce a new ultra wide sucked... and now the wait for it to come to market is worse =(

As much as I'd like to make the 4K jump , I too agree that the GPU power isn't there yet for 60Hz+ (I don't do SLi) and I want at least a 32". However, the 35" Ultrawide fits my use case much better right now and should eventually pair up with Volta nicely.

 

[bug]

SLi? Cmon mate, SLI doesn´t work on half of the games I play, is completly useless nowadays and adds input lag and bad frame times when it works (battlefield 1 a good example). Even AMD is droping CF support in the near future, it just isn´t worth the hassle and power consumption.



I don´t agree. I tested 4k at 27 inches and I couldn´t spot differences from 1440p unless I was using a magnifier. 27 inch is too small for 4k. Is hard enough to tell with static images, nevermind while playing a game. From 32 and upper yes, 4k starts to shine. Also you need windows scaling on that resolution on a 27 screen, and we all know what happens with a lot of programs when you use scaling, and also bad mouse accel wich ruins my aim on twitch shooters. 27 inch 4k is a no go to me.

Eh, I'd post again the link to Sony's presentation of their 4k Xperia phone. Members of the press were looking at the prototype and raving about it until some from Sony directed them to the real sample: they were looking at the regular 1080p model. But I'm too lazy to dig it up again.

Long story short: somebody's always going to claim they see stuff that's not there. And even if they do and you can't it still makes no difference to you.

 

[bug]

SLI is fidgety at best, completely abhorred at worst, and seems to be less and less of a target as time goes on.

In order for a single GPU to be good enough, it would have to be more then twice as fast as the titanXP. Sure, GPUs will eventually reach that, but with tech shrinks becoming harder and more expensive, it may be quite some time before we get one.

I would much rather they focus on giving us a 1440p144 monitor that doesnt cost an arm and a leg. At 27", the diminishing returns hits 4k HARD.

Yeah, that also happen to be among the few reasons I keep tabs on high-end video cards: to see what's going to fit in my $200-300 budget in a couple of years.
The thing is, even if I know I won't game at 4k for the next 3-4 years, a 4k desktop (for photo editing and stuff) would still be sweet. Still, I'd need a 32"-er and I don't know of many decent ones that don't sell for an arm and a leg yet.

 

[Raevenlord]

@Raevenlord
Shouldn’t that be 2017? The first sentence also seems a bit off awkward to me.

I re-worded it a bit, and fixed the year:
It's confirmed, no 144 Hz 4K gaming with HDR in 2017 for gamers who want to make use of NVidia’s G-Sync for gaming free of screen tearing.

Thanks, fixed, cleaned up the sentence a bit =)