ASUS Readying a 144 Hz 4K Ultra HD Monitor

[R-T-B]

TVs also often don't support Chroma 4:4:4, which is a nice way of saying the resolution of the color image vs the monochrome image is not the same. The human eye doesn't tend to notice this very much, but it isn't good.

 

[nexus_a]

Why is this thing 27" ffs? for 4k give us 32" minimum. 40" preferably.

nvm really... it's asus. they have no sense.

4K below 30 inch really is worthless imo, the PPI is way too high, such a dramatic waste of performance for a detail you can never really see

Wait and see, the people that buy this monitor will be downscaling all the time so they can actually enjoy 60+ fps But... when you downscale to 1080p on 27 inch, it looks like shit. Yep. Great monitor.

Had me at 144Hz and 4k, lost me at 27".

Have you guys ever used high ppi display? If you like large displays, fine, just don't say it's pointless.

27"?? WTF?? NO! 16:9?? WTF?? NO! It's 2016, we want 21:9. 16:9 is old tech, it's like 4:3 was to widescreen. Die already!

To people who need to work, even 16:9 is too wide. I prefer 4:3 or 16:10.

 

[Niteblooded]

I love how Asus is bringing the first 3840 x 2160 (or 4k) @144Hz and people are complaining. Even if you dislike Asus, even if you want moar, it is a step in the right direction so stop the whinefest.

For those complaining it is only 27", keep in mind that is the sweet spot of monitors right now. Try finding a "2k" (not even 4k) panel over 27" that does a 144Hz refresh rate. Let me make it simple for you, there isn't one. In fact, as far as I know, there is only two "2k" monitors over 60Hz. One is a 34" 3440 x 1440 Asus that does 100Hz which will only set you back $1300-1500. Another is a 2560 x 1600 30" NEC that only does 75Hz and it will set you back $1550-1800. Those are your options for 2k above 27". So before you ask for the moon on 4k, you might want let 2k develop some more. I'm sure we will see more options before the December but I still doubt we will see a 144Hz 4k display over 30" before the year is up. Besides its not like even Pascal is promising consistent frame rates over 60fps at 4k. I personally wouldn't buy into 4k at this time but monitors like the one Asus is promising opens the door, especially when they release a G-Sync/FreeSync version so when you dip below 60fps it shouldn't bother you much if at all.

Also, this isn't Asus' decision on panel size offering so blaming them is pointless. Right now it is pretty much LG and Samsung controlling the panel technology we see today.

 

[Prima.Vera]

In fact, as far as I know, there is only two "2k" monitors over 60Hz. One is a 34" 3440 x 1440 Asus that does 100Hz which will only set you back $1300-1500. Another is a 2560 x 1600 30" NEC that only does 75Hz and it will set you back $1550-1800. Those are your options for 2k above 27".

Well, Acer, Samsung, LG, Dell also have 34" with 3440x1440@100Hz already

 

[Naito]

There is nothing wrong with 27" 4K. Any smaller, and I would be inclined to agree, but anything larger for use at the typical distance sat at from a computer, too much of the screen is out of the main focal point of your eyes. If you are someone that sits further away, perhaps a larger screen would be suitable. Once you go 4K, you can't go back.

 

[Niteblooded]

Well, Acer, Samsung, LG, Dell also have 34" with 3440x1440@100Hz already

The search engine that I used failed to get monitors that start at 60Hz but can be OCed up to 100Hz (at times).

That doesn't matter though as the point remains the same regardless of your statement. Even 2k monitors can't offer what people are expecting of 4k monitors at this time. Once you step up from 27" on 2k or above you sacrifice something, mostly refresh rate. Feel free to prove that point wrong.

 

[Prima.Vera]

I can tell straight away that in both games and desktop use, from 60Hz to 100Hz, there is almost no difference at all. I also used at 144Hz monitor on my friends, and the feeling was the same. Really don't understand why some people really over hype about this.

 

[Naito]

I can tell straight away that in both games and desktop use, from 60Hz to 100Hz, there is almost no difference at all. I also used at 144Hz monitor on my friends, and the feeling was the same. Really don't understand why some people really over hype about this.

I would say it differs from individual to individual.

 

[BrainCruser]

4K below 30 inch really is worthless imo, the PPI is way too high, such a dramatic waste of performance for a detail you can never really see

Wait and see, the people that buy this monitor will be downscaling all the time so they can actually enjoy 60+ fps But... when you downscale to 1080p on 27 inch, it looks like shit. Yep. Great monitor.

The move to 4K is supposed to quadruple pixel density. The aim is not to stay at 72PPI but move to 250~ish PPI, which is close to the density of printed paper. Basically 4K screens are supposed to make text more readable, which they do with proper support.

 

[Vayra86]

The move to 4K is supposed to quadruple pixel density. The aim is not to stay at 72PPI but move to 250~ish PPI, which is close to the density of printed paper. Basically 4K screens are supposed to make text more readable, which they do with proper support.

Mmmyeah.. I am really counting pixels on 1080p text fields right now /s

4K is overkill for a lot of applications and very much so for TV in most living rooms around the world. Text doesn't get more readable. It can be read fine today and it is of fine quality. I understand there are applications that take advantage for 4K, but I really don't see it that much for gaming (yet) which is so much more about motion resolution than static pixel density, and a host of other image quality aspects. And then there is the undeniable issue of view distance and the PPI we can actually perceive. 4K is not a sweet spot for most people, it is slightly above it and it is directly related to screen size.

 

[D007]

You're overreacting a lot like a spoiled child. Take a chill pill. ) There is a difference between 30Hz and 60Hz, but only a slight one between 60Hz and more. Relax!
I have a 3440x1440@100Hz monitor, and there is almost no difference between gaming at 100Hz and 60Hz on my old monitor. Also because I never used VSYNC either ways.

It's a master race thing.. An E-peen thing.. That is becoming clear to me about this 144 hz thing..
I rock 60hz on 4k, smooth as butter.. Show me this magical rig these people have, that actually hits 144 fps in the first place..
No games I play do that..lol.. Ultra settings, I'm lucky to get 60 with 2 908 gtx's in sli.
Still silky smooth..
And I'm not downgrading visual quality to reach 144 fps.. It's senseless to me..

 

[PP Mguire]

Have you guys ever used high ppi display? If you like large displays, fine, just don't say it's pointless.



To people who need to work, even 16:9 is too wide. I prefer 4:3 or 16:10.

You quoted my post, now please point to where I said it was pointless..

I love how Asus is bringing the first 3840 x 2160 (or 4k) @144Hz and people are complaining. Even if you dislike Asus, even if you want moar, it is a step in the right direction so stop the whinefest.

For those complaining it is only 27", keep in mind that is the sweet spot of monitors right now. Try finding a "2k" (not even 4k) panel over 27" that does a 144Hz refresh rate. Let me make it simple for you, there isn't one. In fact, as far as I know, there is only two "2k" monitors over 60Hz. One is a 34" 3440 x 1440 Asus that does 100Hz which will only set you back $1300-1500. Another is a 2560 x 1600 30" NEC that only does 75Hz and it will set you back $1550-1800. Those are your options for 2k above 27". So before you ask for the moon on 4k, you might want let 2k develop some more. I'm sure we will see more options before the December but I still doubt we will see a 144Hz 4k display over 30" before the year is up. Besides its not like even Pascal is promising consistent frame rates over 60fps at 4k. I personally wouldn't buy into 4k at this time but monitors like the one Asus is promising opens the door, especially when they release a G-Sync/FreeSync version so when you dip below 60fps it shouldn't bother you much if at all.

Also, this isn't Asus' decision on panel size offering so blaming them is pointless. Right now it is pretty much LG and Samsung controlling the panel technology we see today.

27" is the sweet spot for 1440p. I have a 28" 4k monitor in my lab right now and it's too small. People tend to forget about scaling which is going to be an issue until 4k is more mainstream.

There is nothing wrong with 27" 4K. Any smaller, and I would be inclined to agree, but anything larger for use at the typical distance sat at from a computer, too much of the screen is out of the main focal point of your eyes. If you are someone that sits further away, perhaps a larger screen would be suitable. Once you go 4K, you can't go back.

I sit normal distance from a 48" curved 4k display. I have no issues gaming and actually prefer it. What's wrong with 27" 4k is scaling. Monitors like ultrawides (what I'm on now at work) don't cover the majority of field of vision and is distracting to me. My screen at home I don't have this problem. I guess what most don't understand is preference being personal is just that, personal. Everybody is different and has different requirements for their comforts. I personally prefer a large screen, due to the size I want the highest resolution I can afford. 4k TV is it for me.

Mmmyeah.. I am really counting pixels on 1080p text fields right now /s

4K is overkill for a lot of applications and very much so for TV in most living rooms around the world. Text doesn't get more readable. It can be read fine today and it is of fine quality. I understand there are applications that take advantage for 4K, but I really don't see it that much for gaming (yet) which is so much more about motion resolution than static pixel density, and a host of other image quality aspects. And then there is the undeniable issue of view distance and the PPI we can actually perceive. 4K is not a sweet spot for most people, it is slightly above it and it is directly related to screen size.

Resolution in gaming makes a huge difference in aliasing and sharpness. That's why things like downsampling, DSR, and resolution scaling are popular for people with lower resolution monitors. After this summer and 4k BDs start rolling out 4k screens will start dropping in price like flies. I show people a real 4k video in my lab and they immediately ask me where they can buy true 4k content. When 4k gaming is more affordable it'll be the same.

It's a master race thing.. An E-peen thing.. That is becoming clear to me about this 144 hz thing..
I rock 60hz on 4k, smooth as butter.. Show me this magical rig these people have, that actually hits 144 fps in the first place..
No games I play do that..lol.. Ultra settings, I'm lucky to get 60 with 2 908 gtx's in sli.
Still silky smooth..
And I'm not downgrading visual quality to reach 144 fps.. It's senseless to me..

I won't sit here and say Titan X's handle 4k well, because Maxwell wasn't designed for 4k. I will say that the games I play it handles it decently over 60 but I don't need 144. Framerate requirements are different for each game and most people tend to forget you only need to keep your dip above 45 and it'll be smooth. On that note, the only game I play now is Overwatch and at 150% scaling maxed I still get between 150-180fps.

 

[Naito]

I sit normal distance from a 48" curved 4k display.

Depends what you define as normal? Normal as in a TV range 2-3m+? Or normal PC range of 60cm+?

What's wrong with 27" 4k is scaling.

Scaling? DPI scaling of the operating system? Just go no scaling at all.

I guess what most don't understand is preference being personal is just that, personal.

Original post was just a general reply to the multiple '27" is too small' posts, nothing directed at anyone specifically. Just my own experience with my screen - 4K or otherwise, I believe it's on the verge of being a bit large.

 

[PP Mguire]

Depends what you define as normal? Normal as in a TV range 2-3m+? Or normal PC range of 60cm+?

I use it as a computer monitor, at a desk.

Scaling? DPI scaling of the operating system? Just go no scaling at all.

You can't, even on a 48" screen things are too small. It's worse on smaller screens.

Original post was just a general reply to the multiple '27" is too small' posts, nothing directed at anyone specifically.

Because for now it's true to most, unless you want to run your desktop at 1080p or 1440p. Even some games don't have proper hud scaling.

 

[Slizzo]

Those speaking about bandwidth on display port, it is likely that the monitor could use two display ports in order to properly allow 144Hz @ 4K.

 

[Vayra86]

You quoted my post, now please point to where I said it was pointless..

27" is the sweet spot for 1440p. I have a 28" 4k monitor in my lab right now and it's too small. People tend to forget about scaling which is going to be an issue until 4k is more mainstream.

I sit normal distance from a 48" curved 4k display. I have no issues gaming and actually prefer it. What's wrong with 27" 4k is scaling. Monitors like ultrawides (what I'm on now at work) don't cover the majority of field of vision and is distracting to me. My screen at home I don't have this problem. I guess what most don't understand is preference being personal is just that, personal. Everybody is different and has different requirements for their comforts. I personally prefer a large screen, due to the size I want the highest resolution I can afford. 4k TV is it for me.

Resolution in gaming makes a huge difference in aliasing and sharpness. That's why things like downsampling, DSR, and resolution scaling are popular for people with lower resolution monitors. After this summer and 4k BDs start rolling out 4k screens will start dropping in price like flies. I show people a real 4k video in my lab and they immediately ask me where they can buy true 4k content. When 4k gaming is more affordable it'll be the same.

I won't sit here and say Titan X's handle 4k well, because Maxwell wasn't designed for 4k. I will say that the games I play it handles it decently over 60 but I don't need 144. Framerate requirements are different for each game and most people tend to forget you only need to keep your dip above 45 and it'll be smooth. On that note, the only game I play now is Overwatch and at 150% scaling maxed I still get between 150-180fps.

I think we are on the exact same page, just wording it differently. I too do NOT see a point for 4K at 27 inch, and as you say, the real sweet spot is something along 1440p for that screen size. Although a slight resolution bump at that size is still very doable; I've tried the Dell U2515H which is 1440p @ 25 inch and it works surprisingly well too, no scaling required although I did have to squint at times to read some small font text. With that in mind, I really don't see any advantage to 4K @ 27" - all that detail is lost with a normal view distance. With regards to scaling, I think a PPI of about 120-140 is pretty much perfect. No way to identify pixels unless you crawl inside the monitor, and no need for scaling.

4K today is an early adopter's nightmare. You end up with scaling issues sooner or later, you still need more than a single GPU to really push those pixels in all games at decent fps, and you're paying a huge premium to get all of that. We're getting close to 'usable' 4K in terms of GPU power, but I really think early 2017 is the best time to get into it, and even then only with a very high budget. Then again, 4K scales down to 1080p very nicely, and one doesn't buy a monitor every one or two years.

 

[PP Mguire]

Then again, 4K scales down to 1080p very nicely, and one doesn't buy a monitor every one or two years.

No it doesn't. It's a nasty mess. If I run my screen 1080p or even 1440p it's blurry and looks bad. Had HP in here with a 24" 4k screen. They had no scaling on and literally nobody could use the monitor. Only look at pretty pictures on it.

4k is an enthusiast product, so of course you pay a premium to use it. Pretty sure that was obvious. THe majority of people out there are still on 1080p so something like a used 970 sub $200 is perfect for them and none of this applies to them.

 

[Naito]

No it doesn't. It's a nasty mess. If I run my screen 1080p or even 1440p it's blurry and looks bad.

Gotta agree with you on this one. I've had to stop playing more demanding games that the SLI 670s (obviously not 4K ready) struggle with at 4K as rendering anything lower than the native resolution leads to seriously blurry, muddy and unbearable visuals. I don't think any size screen would fix that, however.

I was very sceptical of any benefit of 4K, but I needed a new monitor and got a great deal on my 4K one - was originally looking at 1440p @ 144Hz. I am not disappointed at all with my decision because when a game is capable of running 4K, it looks simply superb. Now I just need to upgrade the GPUs...

 

[ERazer]

27"?? haha, no

 

[Gin-year-bread]

When will they stop advertising none-4K monitors as being 4K? 2160p is still not 4K.

 

[Dethroy]

When will they stop advertising none-4K monitors as being 4K? 2160p is still not 4K.

You are the one mistaken. 4K is nothing but a marketing term to begin with...

 

[Gin-year-bread]

You are the one mistaken. 4K is nothing but a marketing term to begin with...

Not by a long shot. 1K, 2K, 4K, 8K, 16K.... have been in use for years and years.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

They're not exactly scientific/standard where ATSC/PAL standardized 480i, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p.

"2K" generally means 2000 pixels wide. "4K" generally means 4000 pixels wide. "8K" generally means 8000 pixels wide.

They usually describe height has being a 2:1 ratio width:height.

 

[PP Mguire]

Because 4k is catchier and easier to say than 2160p.

 

[librin.so.1]

Because 4k is catchier and easier to say than 2160p.

arguably, since interlaced scanning is out the window now and thus there's no need to distinguish between progressive and interlaced scanning with "p" and "i" suffixes, respectively, the p can be dropped into effectively "2160"