Acer and ASUS Delay Their 4K 144 Hz G-Sync HDR Displays to 2018

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
It was previously reported that Acer would be delaying their 4K HDR Predator X27 display, and now ASUS is pushing theirs back, too: the ROG Swift PG27UQ will not be released until 2018. Two specific possibilities come to mind: either the reference design needs to be further polished, or mass production of the panel was delayed by AUO.

Unfortunately for NVIDIA, this ultimately serves as a de-facto delay for their G-Sync HDR platform, as these displays are the flagship of the line. No other 4K G-Sync HDR displays have been announced, and there are precious few panels set to be released this year that would even meet NVIDIA's needs. Otherwise, in the opposing AMD camp, while none of AMD's partners have announced similar FreeSync displays, any potential products using the AUO panel should be similarly impacted. So FreeSync users looking for a flagship-quality FreeSync 2 HDR display will find themselves waiting into 2018 as well.
 
What kind of rig can drive 4K @ 144fps in most modern games? Last I checked even my 1080ti was only pushing 100fps at 3440x1440p in a couple titles, but then again my core system is old, but I wasn't aware there was a big jump recently.
 
Darn, I am planning on building a new system this December and was considering this panel.
 
Still very few 1440p panels at high refresh rates and none that do HDR. Why not bring out some slightly lower end models while we wait? 1440p at 120hz VA HDR panel would be plenty. And drivable by a 1080 Ti.
 
no point rushing them out now is there? youd need vega to run 4k freesync and i have a feeling vega cards are going to be scarce with the mining fiasco for a while, and way over priced
 
My S2716DG can hold me out for a while longer.

I'm interested in this monitor but only if they have fixed their quality control issues. I'm sure this thing is going to be at least $1500 out of the gate (rumor is $2k in some places) For that much money I expect absolute perfection.
 
EchtoGammut said:
What kind of rig can drive 4K @ 144fps in most modern games? Last I checked even my 1080ti was only pushing 100fps at 3440x1440p in a couple titles, but then again my core system is old, but I wasn't aware there was a big jump recently.
Click to expand...
G-Sync gives the panel longevity by having the range for faster video cards in the future. Plus, you don't need to hold a constant 144 FPS to fully enjoy this monitor.
 
Sorry i don`t get it , 27" is too small for 4K in my opinion.
this res sould go on something closer to 30" , or ultra wide 34"
 
Armenius said:
G-Sync gives the panel longevity by having the range for faster video cards in the future. Plus, you don't need to hold a constant 144 FPS to fully enjoy this monitor.
Click to expand...

I think longevity is the key. Part of the issue I believe is that 4K is something proposed that's very difficult to accompany. It seems there's been a resolution race without the hardware to back it up. Heck, even Scorpio and the PS4 Pro can't do 4K.

I think 4K is a fad that while achievable, is a mountainous task with many technological hurdles to overcome. I believe that a 4K 144hz HDR panel is jumping the gun and there are milestones manufacturers should look at accomplishing first, like HDR, standardizing or implementing synchronization technology across the board, high refresh rates, etc.

To me, higher refresh rates are way more important than 4K and I believe that's the direction that the market is heading as well. And while HDR is cool, it's not available on the content side! So even if monitor were available it wouldn't make lick of difference for nearly every game and wouldn't make a difference for old titles which people probably play over 50% of the time - and then with HDR there are even more issues like what about when people record or broadcast their game play; how is that going to work?

And there in lies the problem. You have all of these issued, problems and hurdles, almost none of which have been addressed and they're trying to build a flagship monitor that contains all of the technologies and all of the problems that will sell for thousands of dollars (it will likely cost more than the system it will run on) and my bet is they're not going to sell. Or production is going to be canceled because the developmental cost is so monumental that there will be no return on investment.

I have a 2k 165hz gsync monitor myself and I have to say I don't think it needs more features. What it needs to be is cheaper for the masses and better video cards to keep it towards the top end of 165hz.

I don't even know how they think people are going to run these 4k monitors. A 1080 Ti can't even even do a solid 4k @ 60hz
 
T_A said:
Sorry i don`t get it , 27" is too small for 4K in my opinion.
this res sould go on something closer to 30" , or ultra wide 34"
Click to expand...
You know the PPI would be almost exactly the same on a 34" 5040x2160 screen as a 27" 3840x2160 screen. I would, however, like to see this come in a 32" 16:9 flavor.
 
T_A said:
Sorry i don`t get it , 27" is too small for 4K in my opinion.
this res sould go on something closer to 30" , or ultra wide 34"
Click to expand...
That's true for GUI programs, but you can never get too much density in games, at least not until Anti-Aliasing becomes unnecessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M76
like this
Kwaz said:
To me, higher refresh rates are way more important than 4K and I believe that's the direction that the market is heading as well.
Click to expand...

Actually, scanning/strobing backlights are way more relevant for gamers than high refresh rates, a 100Hz panel with strobing has less blur than a 240hz panel without it. and more often than not, way less overdrive artifacts.
 
geok1ng said:
Actually, scanning/strobing backlights are way more relevant for gamers than high refresh rates, a 100Hz panel with strobing has less blur than a 240hz panel without it. and more often than not, way less overdrive artifacts.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity - this is from first hand experience? I've always wondered what a mega refresh rate would play like, but I've never had anything above 100Hz..
 
geok1ng said:
Actually, scanning/strobing backlights are way more relevant for gamers than high refresh rates, a 100Hz panel with strobing has less blur than a 240hz panel without it. and more often than not, way less overdrive artifacts.
Click to expand...

The monitor that I have does strobing (ULMB) as well. I just prefer to use GSYNC as screen tearing bothers me more.
 
Kwaz said:
And while HDR is cool, it's not available on the content side! So even if monitor were available it wouldn't make lick of difference for nearly every game and wouldn't make a difference for old titles which people probably play over 50% of the time - and then with HDR there are even more issues like what about when people record or broadcast their game play; how is that going to work?
Click to expand...

Almost all the new Xbox games I've bought have HDR support. It's a pretty big difference and my next monitor will definitely have HDR. I'd take HDR over 4K any day.
 
Dirty Butler said:
Almost all the new Xbox games I've bought have HDR support. It's a pretty big difference and my next monitor will definitely have HDR. I'd take HDR over 4K any day.
Click to expand...


This is what I'm saying. Perhaps it didn't read right. There are many technologies and almost all of them are better than Quad HD. I reckon its refresh rate > sync technology > HDR > ULMB > Quad HD

While some titles and displays have a software HDR option, it isn't the same as having a screen capable of it and content filmed / rendered in 10 bit full gamut HDR
 
You'll really want a non gimped Volta card for these anyways, right?
 
JosiahBradley said:
Still very few 1440p panels at high refresh rates and none that do HDR. Why not bring out some slightly lower end models while we wait? 1440p at 120hz VA HDR panel would be plenty. And drivable by a 1080 Ti.
Click to expand...

Why note sell it as soon as possible? Yeah, you may not be able to run it at full resolution with current CPU/GPU, but if I was in the market for a new display, I'd want one that I know would still be a *GREAT* display in 3-5 years. I don't have a 100+ Hz display now, and I was seriously considering getting one soon - this was to be the perfect future-proof display. Great for gaming, and also great for watching 4K HDR video. As it stands now, if I want 4K HDR video, I can't have it on the same display that I use to game.
 
JosiahBradley said:
Still very few 1440p panels at high refresh rates and none that do HDR. Why not bring out some slightly lower end models while we wait? 1440p at 120hz VA HDR panel would be plenty. And drivable by a 1080 Ti.
Click to expand...
Cuz capitalism. You must bring out the flagship product first from every new lineup, as if you bring out lesser models earlier the temptation will be high for people to buy those instead of waiting for the top end model.
 
Have to say I'm kind of bummed about these delays. Maybe they will launch along side Volta?
 
Kwaz said:
blurf....I don't even know how they think people are going to run these 4k monitors. A 1080 Ti can't even even do a solid 4k @ 60hz
Click to expand...

Obviously, with two or more 1080Ti/Titan X/Xp.

Anyways, none of what you mentioned seems like it'd be any kind of problem for anyone who would seriously consider purchasing. This display is catering to a very small, niche group of consumers who buy flagship displays to pair with flagship GPUs. Who else would give a rat's ass about the main selling points (Gsync & refresh rate) besides gamers?
It's not like putting these kinds of monitors out will cut into their production of all their reasonably priced displays that 99% of consumers will actually buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top