MSI Rolls Out MAG Optix G27C4 1500R Curved Monitor with 165Hz Refresh Rate

[btarunr]

MSI today rolled out the MAG Optix G27C4 27-inch curved gaming monitor. With a more acute curvature of 1500R (compared to the prevelant 1800R monitors), the Optix G27C4 boasts of 165 Hz refresh-rate and support for AMD FreeSync. The Samsung-sourced VA panel offers Full HD (1920 x 1080) resolution, 1 ms response-times, 178°/178° viewing-angles, and an anti-glare surface treatment. Display inputs include DisplayPort 1.2a (needed for FreeSync), and two HDMI 1.4a ports. The panel also offers blue-light reduction, and flicker-free LED backlighting. Measuring 611.5 mm × 225.4 mm × 457.9 mm (WxDxH), the monitor weighs around 5.4 kg. The company didn't reveal pricing.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[medi01]

TN?

 

[oldtimenoob]

TN?

AV Panel.... but its a HD monitor, QHD would have been better.

 

[droopyRO]

AV Panel.... but its a HD monitor, QHD would have been better.

Pushing 165 fps in 1440p, not even a 2080 Ti can do that in AAA games with high settings. In E-sports and old games in doable.

 

[Fatalfury]

Pushing 165 fps in 1440p, not even a 2080 Ti can do that in AAA games with high settings. In E-sports and old games in doable.

Not sure why every AAA need 144hz+...
games like divison2 , overwatch , CS go, Call of duty,,,,mostly FPS,TPS, racing only need 120Hz +

games like assassin creed, tomb raider..etc dont need high fps

 

[Chomiq]

Pushing 165 fps in 1440p, not even a 2080 Ti can do that in AAA games with high settings. In E-sports and old games in doable.

Nobody's saying you have to play it on ULTRA.

 

[droopyRO]

So why do you get a 1440p monitor for gaming, if you can't max out the settings ? medium settings in 1440p don't look as good as ultra settings in 1080p.
TW Warhammer 2 is my favourite game toghether with Witcher 3 in the last 5 years. If i play on Ultra in 1440p (that means most settings turned to max, except shadows, AA, DOF and water reflections) i get about 50-55 fps. In Extreme settings (MSAA 2x, extreme shadows, DOF and water reflections on) i get about 50-55 fps in 1080p. But since my monitor is a 1440p @144Hz, 1080p scaling looks worse than at native resolution. So yes i keep the settings down a bit, to achieve 50-60 fps in this game.

The only real upgrade would be a 2080 Ti, but it costs about 4 x my 1070 Ti on the second hand market, and that is money i don't have to spend on hardware.

 

[Chrispy_]

Freesync/G-Sync compatible has kind of killed the need for higher-refresh monitors now; Most twitch games have enough latency elsewhere in the input:response loop that reducing the frame time alone adds negligible benefit.

Back in the V-Sync days it was really useful to have a higher refresh rate. 165Hz would have meant that dropping every other frame would still result in an acceptable 82Hz/82fps - and dropping two frames would have rendered at 55Hz/55fps.

These days its a moot point. The pixel response of these panels is in the 10ms range anyway and the concept of dropped frames halving your framerate and doubling your input lag doesn't exist with VRR. On a 144Hz VRR display, getting 135fps just drops your refresh rate by 9Hz, rather than doubling the latency/lag and halving your framerate.

Everyone will have a different perception of what is fast enough, but I think with IPS and VA panels having a realistic average response of around 10ms, 100Hz is enough. On a TN panel with 3-5ms, there's a case to be made for 240Hz displays still, preferably with backlight strobing to eke the last bit of motion clarity out of the display. I think 1080p and specifically on non-AAA games is a requirement here because regardless of the resolution there aren't many games that even an overclocked 9900K can handle at 240fps.

 

[B-Real]

So why do you get a 1440p monitor for gaming, if you can't max out the settings ? medium settings in 1440p don't look as good as ultra settings in 1080p.
TW Warhammer 2 is my favourite game toghether with Witcher 3 in the last 5 years. If i play on Ultra in 1440p (that means most settings turned to max, except shadows, AA, DOF and water reflections) i get about 50-55 fps. In Extreme settings (MSAA 2x, extreme shadows, DOF and water reflections on) i get about 50-55 fps in 1080p. But since my monitor is a 1440p @144Hz, 1080p scaling looks worse than at native resolution. So yes i keep the settings down a bit, to achieve 50-60 fps in this game.

The only real upgrade would be a 2080 Ti, but it costs about 4 x my 1070 Ti on the second hand market, and that is money i don't have to spend on hardware.

Absolutely right. I saw maybe a Linus video back to the GTX 1080Ti I think, where they were showing it can't do 4K 60 fps, then lowered settings to medium-high. Why the hell would I turn down settings to medium? Just to get higher resolution?

 

[Space Lynx]

Absolutely right. I saw maybe a Linus video back to the GTX 1080Ti I think, where they were showing it can't do 4K 60 fps, then lowered settings to medium-high. Why the hell would I turn down settings to medium? Just to get higher resolution?

because even 1440p with lower settings looks crisper. and also 4k requires almost no MSAA to look crisp.

1080p you need 4x MSAA, sometimes 8x. 1440p is fine with 2x MSAA, and 4K most of the time you can get by without it and it still looks better than 1080p with 8x MSAA by a large margin. to my eyes anyway