Asus 43" 4k vs Acer 43" 4k

Im glad to not be alone in finding 43 inches as the ideal size for 4k computer use. My TCL 43S405 has been a great monitor except for being fixed refresh, but the price lets me forgive it. Even finding 4k 43 inch screens at all isnt easy, at any price or spec. As mentioned in this thread, even the high end Samsung lines that include a 43" model remove all the features that would make us interested. So heres to hoping these panels used by Asus and Acer get picked up by other makers for perhaps a lower price, since it surely does not cost over triple per unit to add FALD and Freesync.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Thevoid230 said:
Im glad to not be alone in finding 43 inches as the ideal size for 4k computer use. My TCL 43S405 has been a great monitor except for being fixed refresh, but the price lets me forgive it. Even finding 4k 43 inch screens at all isnt easy, at any price or spec. As mentioned in this thread, even the high end Samsung lines that include a 43" model remove all the features that would make us interested. So heres to hoping these panels used by Asus and Acer get picked up by other makers for perhaps a lower price, since it surely does not cost over triple per unit to add FALD and Freesync.
Click to expand...

Definitely not. I think its the perfect balance for productivity and gaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
I don't know if I'd consider 20ms to be that high, but the max of 60Hz at that price point would kill it for me at that price point knowing that these other displays will do twice that for a bit more.

I'm perfectly OK with gaming at 60Hz but if anything is gonna pull me away from my OLED, it won't be another 60Hz LCD lol.
 
Lateralus said:
I don't know if I'd consider 20ms to be that high, but the max of 60Hz at that price point would kill it for me at that price point knowing that these other displays will do twice that for a bit more.

I'm perfectly OK with gaming at 60Hz but if anything is gonna pull me away from my OLED, it won't be another 60Hz LCD lol.
Click to expand...


20ms is not that high when considering these TV type monitors. But there are quite a few actual gaming monitors with 1ms or less input lag and there have been for many years. Typically they are single input models because often the display input board and monitor electronics for processing them is what is adding a bunch of lag.
 
EniGmA1987 said:
20ms is not that high when considering these TV type monitors. But there are quite a few actual gaming monitors with 1ms or less input lag and there have been for many years. Typically they are single input models because often the display input board and monitor electronics for processing them is what is adding a bunch of lag.
Click to expand...

Good to know, thanks. I'm guessing that most of those are those super fast TN gaming monitors.

I've gamed on displays with worse than 20ms over the years, so I suppose that's why it doesn't seem that bad to me. But I guess that may be on the upper end of what's common now when it comes to gaming monitors.

I'm eager to see what Asus and Acer can manage to get the lag down to on these. The hype surrounding these displays is pretty high, so hopefully they don't disappoint!
 
Last edited:
Thevoid230 said:
So heres to hoping these panels used by Asus and Acer get picked up by other makers for perhaps a lower price,
Click to expand...
Exactly. Who is making the panels for these things anyways, LG? I know I'm getting ahead of myself, but it would be great if the Korean ebayers get their hands on them, strip then down, put them in their own bezels, and charge 60% the price as Asus/Acer
 
If the quality check out on these I will definitely be making the move to them. I was using a 40inch 4k tv as a monitor and I loved the size but the ghosting and lack of vrr was a dealbreaker for me.
 
spiroh said:
If the quality check out on these I will definitely be making the move to them. I was using a 40inch 4k tv as a monitor and I loved the size but the ghosting and lack of vrr was a dealbreaker for me.
Click to expand...

Man, I just hooked up an old 1080p 55" to an old gaming laptop for bedroom use... tearing at that resolution and screen size is rough, but I'd rather live with it than deal with v-sync induced input lag.

VRR everything.
 
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS85LzkvODExNjI5L29yaWdpbmFsLzE4LWFic2xhZy5wbmc=.jpg
Lateralus said:
I don't know if I'd consider 20ms to be that high, but the max of 60Hz at that price point would kill it for me at that price point knowing that these other displays will do twice that for a bit more.

I'm perfectly OK with gaming at 60Hz but if anything is gonna pull me away from my OLED, it won't be another 60Hz LCD lol.
Click to expand...

Was referring to this input lag
 
Thevoid230 said:
View attachment 167766

Was referring to this input lag
Click to expand...

Oh wow, yeah that's pretty bad. My apologies - I just skimmed that review when you posted the link and mixed up response time vs. input lag.

In any event, this thing doesn't look very attractive against the competition IMO. At least not as a gaming monitor.
 
Thevoid230 said:
Was referring to this input lag
Click to expand...

Since there's no link and it's not labeled, I have to ask: is that input lag measured from signal input to end of the last pixel transition?

Really should break the two up, even in the same graph, to avoid confusion between processing lag and pixel response times.
 
Still no news on these? Safe bet that the Acer won't be available in September when there is so little info on it right now?
 
I'm looking forward to these especially considering that I have a few 43" tv's as monitors already. One of these gaming screens would fit perfect in the center to replace my 32" ~144hz g-sync 1440p VA. I'm going to wait to see what the 1000nit one's reviews are like so I might be waiting awhile though.

I only use my side 43" monitors as massive desktop space for apps, streams, media playback.. incl. among other apps and multiple apps, multiple browser windows.. file management, chat, progress meters, playlists, editors, converters, mixers readouts, directions/tutorials, etc.

Even though I use my TV-Monitors as desktop real estate and never game on them - TV's input lag isn't that bad really now for most things as show below. It mainly needs hdmi 2.1 for 4:4:4 chroma 120hz + VRR at 4k.

The input lag at 120hz isn't bad at all on the 120hz capable modern flagship tvs. 7ms to 11 ms mostly. Even the TCL s405 isn't too bad at 15ms 4k 60hz compared to TVs in the past.

Samsung Q9FN ( from rtings.com )
------------------------------------------------
- notably still "relatively low" input lag even when optionally using interpolation for low frame rate consoles for example
cuW0BwU.png
Click to expand...


TCL S405 (rtings.com)
-------------------------------------
mTwd6OX.png
Click to expand...


LG C9 OLED (rtings.com)
-------------------------------------
ASfg446.png
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
At least in the videos floating around, the Acer has no adjustability from the built-in stand (no height, tilt, swivel) and does not support a VESA mount meaning you're stuck with the fixed stand and can't use an arm of after-market mounting solution. That would make the Acer DOA for me. I don't know how anyone can use a panel that size without having a way to adjust its position, particularly the tilt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this
burburbur said:
At least in the videos floating around, the Acer has no adjustability from the built-in stand (no height, tilt, swivel) and does not support a VESA mount meaning you're stuck with the fixed stand and can't use an arm of after-market mounting solution. That would make the Acer DOA for me. I don't know how anyone can use a panel that size without having a way to adjust its position, particularly the tilt.
Click to expand...

43" is so big you got nowhere to go with adjusting it...its just BIG. However, adjusting the tilt is very easy....all you need are a few of these puppies under the rear legs
71b-I0S1ydL._SX425_.jpg
 
burburbur said:
At least in the videos floating around, the Acer has no adjustability from the built-in stand (no height, tilt, swivel) and does not support a VESA mount meaning you're stuck with the fixed stand and can't use an arm of after-market mounting solution. That would make the Acer DOA for me. I don't know how anyone can use a panel that size without having a way to adjust its position, particularly the tilt.
Click to expand...

While these things may change for release, those are pretty big minuses. I've tried the Acer ET430K to get an idea of how a 43" display feels and felt that it was just a bit too straight at the store. Ideally I would want to put the screen bottom edge quite close to the table top while tilting it just a little bit backwards despite its massive size.

So far it still looks like ASUS is the way to go for these displays, especially if they manage to get the 144 Hz and HDR1000 support in there as they showed off at E3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this
burburbur said:
At least in the videos floating around, the Acer has no adjustability from the built-in stand (no height, tilt, swivel) and does not support a VESA mount meaning you're stuck with the fixed stand and can't use an arm of after-market mounting solution. That would make the Acer DOA for me. I don't know how anyone can use a panel that size without having a way to adjust its position, particularly the tilt.
Click to expand...


I use ergotron LX HD arms on my 43" screens. They are huge arms and not cheap. I got mine on sale for $237 but they go as high as $300 (which is the same price range as each of the 43" tvs I bought incidentally, $235 for the TCL and ~$270 for the samsung). I wouldn't go back to not using the monitor arms. It's not just for looks. There is a big difference in day to day usability and also in easily moving them around to get behind the desk to work on connections, cabling and hardware, etc. I can just swing them around or lift them way up in the air. Of course micro adjusting to the perfect angle and distance for regular use a huge benefit too. I find them well worth it. I won't be buying any monitor without VESA standard mounting capability. It's a standard for a reason and even TVs have it let a lone a high end gaming monitor costing thousand(s) of dollars.



Installing a vesa plate and the main ergotron LX HD arm section onto one of my two 43" TV-monitors
FOIkbxK.jpg
Click to expand...


This pic credit - Lawrence can draw channel's ergotron LX HD review on youtube , mounting a 20 Lb, 30" x 18" CINTIQ drawing tablet screen
tLjgHlr.png
Click to expand...

My desk setup with an egotron LX HD mounted 43" 4k screen on each end. A 43" gaming screen to replace the middle 32" 1440p ~144hz g-sync VA would fit nicely (on a VESA mount arm)
bUZAS18.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I won't be surprised if we see the Acer with a VESA mount on launch. Very, very peculiar thing to leave out. Makes no sense they'd do this.

Besides, looking at the image below taken from a video at a recent Acer event, this seems to show I think could be 200mmx100mm VESA mounting points;

43-vesa.jpg
 
elvn said:
I'm looking forward to these especially considering that I have a few 43" tv's as monitors already. One of these gaming screens would fit perfect in the center to replace my 32" ~144hz g-sync 1440p VA. I'm going to wait to see what the 1000nit one's reviews are like so I might be waiting awhile though.

I only use my side 43" monitors as massive desktop space for apps, streams, media playback.. incl. among other apps and multiple apps, multiple browser windows.. file management, chat, progress meters, playlists, editors, converters, mixers readouts, directions/tutorials, etc.

Even though I use my TV-Monitors as desktop real estate and never game on them - TV's input lag isn't that bad really now for most things as show below. It mainly needs hdmi 2.1 for 4:4:4 chroma 120hz + VRR at 4k.

The input lag at 120hz isn't bad at all on the 120hz capable modern flagship tvs. 7ms to 11 ms mostly. Even the TCL s405 isn't too bad at 15ms 4k 60hz compared to TVs in the past.

Samsung Q9FN ( from rtings.com )
------------------------------------------------



TCL S405 (rtings.com)
-------------------------------------



LG C9 OLED (rtings.com)
-------------------------------------
Click to expand...


Fixed that now. I had mis-labeled the first screenshot originally as TCL. The first quoted screenshot is the Samsung Q9FN which at 120hz 1440p is 10.8 ms input lag. Even optionally turning interpolation on (mostly for consoles) , it's 20.8 which while high would have been much higher and unplayable in the past.


I'd assume hdmi 2.1 sets with 120hz 4k would have similar numbers. The OLED ones are down to more like 7 - 8ms input lag too. 7 to 11 is very low for a tv. One frame running 120fps (120fps solid not average) at 120Hz (or greater Hz) is 8.3ms by comparison. 100fps at 100Hz or greater is 10ms per frame. So more or less equivalent of 1 frame of framebuffering and only if you are getting that high of a frame rate most of your frame rate graph
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
Fixed that now. I had mis-labeled the first screenshot originally as TCL. The first quoted screenshot is the Samsung Q9FN which at 120hz 1440p is 10.8 ms input lag. Even optionally turning interpolation on (mostly for consoles) , it's 20.8 which while high would have been much higher and unplayable in the past.


I'd assume hdmi 2.1 sets with 120hz 4k would have similar numbers. The OLED ones are down to more like 7 - 8ms input lag too. 7 to 11 is very low for a tv. One frame running 120fps (120fps solid not average) at 120Hz (or greater Hz) is 8.3ms by comparison. 100fps at 100Hz or greater is 10ms per frame. So more or less equivalent of 1 frame of framebuffering and only if you are getting that high of a frame rate most of your frame rate graph
Click to expand...

My 2016 Samsung KS7005 (Nordic KS8000) is something around 22ms in SDR and 37ms in HDR. That was one of the lowest at the time. They have made great strides in the last few years in input lag. I don't mind the SDR input lag but the HDR is a little bit bothersome in that it gets noticeable. I wouldn't use it in games that require very exact timing.

Now if only TV manufacturers could get their heads out of their asses and make some 38-43" TV models that are not bottom of the barrel stuff. Even though these same manufacturers often make desktop displays as well, there is a big gap in 4K displays where monitors are small and TVs are huge. I guess they think ultrawides cover that area.
 
kasakka said:
My 2016 Samsung KS7005 (Nordic KS8000) is something around 22ms in SDR and 37ms in HDR. That was one of the lowest at the time. They have made great strides in the last few years in input lag. I don't mind the SDR input lag but the HDR is a little bit bothersome in that it gets noticeable. I wouldn't use it in games that require very exact timing.
Click to expand...

What many people don't realize about input lag is that it isn't just the monitor we are interested in. We are talking about the entire pipeline of lag, all the way from the mouse, into the USB subsystem, up through the PCIe bus, through the RAM, CPU caches and into the CPU, where there is game engine processing lag, going back out over the PCIe bus to the GPU where the processing can add additional lag, before we even get to the monitor.

Human Factors research suggests that most people experience anything under 100ms to be instantaneous. People used to gaming on a computer are probably a little bit more sensitive than the population on average, so lets say 85ms as an educated guess.

Thus, if you have a fairly low input lag system you can get away with m ore input lag on your monitor and it won't be noticeable. On the other hand, if you have components or settings (like multi-GPU in AFR mode) or use scaling rather than rendering at the native resolution of your monitor, which adds input lag, your choice of a very low input lag monitor becomes even more important.

This - to me - explains why some people are perfectly fine with upt to 30ms of monitor input lag, and others suggest that sub 10ms is absolutely crucial. We are only looking at the very tail end of the entire input lag pipeline.
 
bananadude said:
I won't be surprised if we see the Acer with a VESA mount on launch. Very, very peculiar thing to leave out. Makes no sense they'd do this.

Besides, looking at the image below taken from a video at a recent Acer event, this seems to show I think could be 200mmx100mm VESA mounting points;
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it makes no sense not to even offer a VESA mount. It would be great if the holes you point to are for a VESA mount.
 
These 43" 4k 144hz displays are taking waaaay too long to be released. I'm sure there is a decent market for them in the PC gaming community.

The wait is excruciating.
 
Wag said:
These 43" 4k 144hz displays are taking waaaay too long to be released. I'm sure there is a decent market for them in the PC gaming community.

The wait is excruciating.
Click to expand...
Shoulda gotten a ZisWorks display, you would have had 40" 4k, 120hz a year ago.
 
Wag said:
These 43" 4k 144hz displays are taking waaaay too long to be released. I'm sure there is a decent market for them in the PC gaming community.

The wait is excruciating.
Click to expand...

I feel your pain. They really should move CES to somewhere around Q2 so product announcements would not be ridiculously ahead of time. Compared to other tech industries it feels like the display industry moves slow as molasses.
 
Overdrive compensates for the response times of LCDs, especially ips and VA response times. TN is fastest, then a modern gaming ips , then VA. OLED is extremely fast. Overdrive reduces or eliminates response time related smearing within a margin and so helps keep overall motion definition/blur reduction tighter at higher frame rates on a high refresh rate monitor. Without overdrive, you'd get transition smearing at a much lower ceiling when ramping up to higher frame rates on a higher hz monitor. . Without running higher frame rates at higher hz, you'd otherwise get much worse sample and hold blur on the lower end when moving the viewport at speed in 1st/3rd person games though. So it's somewhat of a sweet spot at high fps and high hz getting appreciable blur reduction and motion definition gains without being so high that the frames within a peak Hz outpace the overdrive enhanced response time capacity (especially in the case of VA monitors).

For reference,
60fps @ 60hz+ = 16.6ms frame times
100fps@100Hz = 10ms
120fps@ 120hz = 8.3ms
144fps@ 144hz = 6.9ms
165fps@ 165hz = 6.1ms
240fps@ 244hz = 4ms

So you can see how ips and especially VA response times would exceedingly get outpaced, especially on the slowest transitions, even with some of the better overdrive implementations in a few gaming monitors. That is of course, if you are supplying the higher Hz capability with frame rates that are in those very high Hz ranges.
As you go a little higher from a "more capable" range, the overdrive can still help cut out some of the middle transition smearing but the worst response time related smearing will be more obvious. The higher you go the higher the percent of transitions will smear.

.......

This quote is from Zisworks creator in a reddit thread: in reply to response times and lack of overdrive:

"
Scanning is available at 4k120. Push one button to enable or disable it. Scanning is similar to strobing, but does not require the long vertical blanking periods. Blurbusters will have good coverage of the feature, I've been working to add additional flexibility to the firmware to make their testing easier.

The input boards on the x28/x39 do not implement overdrive. Scanning does a decent job of hiding most of the transition time on the 28" without adding much extra cost. Scanning on the x39 helps, but pixel transition time on the 39" is much longer, so it is mostly persistence of vision effect being improved."


------------------------------------------------

Blur Busters has some info on rolling scanning on OLEDs here (since even oled super fast esponse time alone does nothing vs sample and hold blur) :
https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/

"One big problem to overcome first, is that impulse-driving require a lot of brightness to compensate for extra black period between refreshes. OLED has historically had brightness problems,"

The briightness issue is bad enough, but the other con is that most scanning and flicker technologies are tied to the frame rate so would require very high frame rates which don't go below say 100hz , 120hz or higher on the LOW end of the frame rate average imo to prevent PWM / strobing/scanning flicker eyestraing and fatigue. Unless someone implements a very low input lag interpolation without artifacts that could boost your frame rate by a factor of x2, x3, or x10 in relation to strobing and scanning rate and combine it with a extreme brightness ceiling starting point to start with someday that is.

------------------------------------------
Variable Refresh Rate (hdmi 2.1 VRR, gpsync, freesync) , would help most people gaming on 4k screens by eliminating stutter and judder during (perhaps more modest} frame rate ranges they are using to push their graphics settings higher, and to skate through the occasional frame rate pothole..
Most people wouldn't be going over 120fps or 144fps regularly, at least on more demanding games, on a 4k 120hz - 144hz monitor and going over is where it would tear more (when the frame rate exceeds the refresh rate) ... but in a more general sense yes without the feature you'd get uneven frames vs. refreshes without smoothing from being in sync whether it be judder, stutter, stops or tearing.

I'll never go back to not having VRR , 120hz+, and decent contrast/black depth personally but if you did want a 120hz 4k those Zisworks sound like they would have been a lot better than a 60hz one for a time.
 
Last edited:
Per the blurbusters info page on them. (https://www.blurbusters.com/4k-120hz-with-bonus-240hz-and-480hz-modes/)


"The image quality of 480 Hz will be degraded relative to 4K 120 Hz. It uses point sampling scaling, and does not have overdrive. Scanline effects and artifacts are very visible. However, 4K 120 Hz makes this a very handy everyday monitor before 2018 even if the bonus 480 Hz"


I don't think any have VRR. They focus on high Hz (with accompanying frame rates) and scanning backlight usage with some tradeoffs.

From The
Zisworks X39 kit review. Thread.

geok1ng said:
I will side with candre23 on this: if one is sitting on a RX480 and considers $500 holy grail price range, *sync is a must, because the card can not handle 4k 60hz or even 1080p 120hz on quite a few games.
Then again, selling the TV will at best put the budget around the low end Freesync 34x14 VAs. And one loses: motion clarity, resolution, refresh rate and input lag. ironically, the RX480 is almost a decent card at 34x14.

Which brings me to the point: [H]oly grail price range in monitors is nort[H] of $900.
Please lets not compare Zisworks kits value against high end variable refresh displays twice the price.

Zis kits do not have Freesync because even after signing AMD's NDA, the only source of DP chips compatible with Freesync refused to sell parts to Zis. Meanwhile, if someone with a lower end gpu decides to game at 4k instead of 1080p, there is always vsync.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
Per the blurbusters info page on them. (https://www.blurbusters.com/4k-120hz-with-bonus-240hz-and-480hz-modes/)


"The image quality of 480 Hz will be degraded relative to 4K 120 Hz. It uses point sampling scaling, and does not have overdrive. Scanline effects and artifacts are very visible. However, 4K 120 Hz makes this a very handy everyday monitor before 2018 even if the bonus 480 Hz"


I don't think any have VRR. They focus on high Hz (with accompanying frame rates) and scanning backlight usage with some tradeoffs.

From The
Zisworks X39 kit review. Thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah, without VRR in one form or another that screen is completely pointless.

Productivity users don't care about refresh rates above 60hz, and gamers in 2019 won't put up with tearing, which leaves this as a monitor for no one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this
Not having G-Sync at that price range kinda sucks. I'm too old for FPS so high refresh is not important for me even though I have a RTX-2080. If I can live with a 49" on my desk (currently using a 40" but I have a about 18" of space behind the monitor), a better solution is probably a Samsung QN49Q70R or a Sony XBR49X900F at the $1000 range. The Samsung is probably a better choice with lower input lag and VVR up to 60hz.
 
Wiz33 said:
Not having G-Sync at that price range kinda sucks. I'm too old for FPS so high refresh is not important for me even though I have a RTX-2080. If I can live with a 49" on my desk (currently using a 40" but I have a about 18" of space behind the monitor), a better solution is probably a Samsung QN49Q70R or a Sony XBR49X900F at the $1000 range. The Samsung is probably a better choice with lower input lag and VVR up to 60hz.
Click to expand...

It makes everything smoother. Web browsing, Godsdamn Excel. File Manager. I want it on everything, even if the 'thing' only uses integrated graphics.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
It makes everything smoother. Web browsing, Godsdamn Excel. File Manager. I want it on everything, even if the 'thing' only uses integrated graphics.
Click to expand...


I find 60hz plenty smooth on the desktop. I mean, sure, I notice that it is not smooth if I rapidly move a window around, but I don't really ever do that.

With excel or a webbrowser? I open them, and full screen them to a side screen or snap them to half my main screen and there they stay.

Regular desktop use just doesn't have enough motion for it to make a practical difference, unless you are the type to jiggle your windows around just to be in awe of how smooth they are :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top