Asus 43" 4k vs Acer 43" 4k

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Zarathustra[H], Apr 14, 2019.

  1. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,631
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    I started wanting to discuss the comparison of these two as of yet unreleased screens, but realized that didn't fall cleanly into either Omegaferrari 's thread on the Asus ROG XG438Q here, or Vega or Skott 's threads on the Acer Predator CG437K P here and here respectively.

    Since they are both 4K (3840x2160) in resolution, 43" in size, and have refresh rates above 100hz they are begging for a head to head comparison.

    A summary:

    Asus ROG XG438Q:
    Resolution: 3840x2160
    Size: 43"
    Panel Type: VA
    Screen Surface: AG Coating
    Max Refresh Rate: 120hz
    Adaptive Refresh Standard: FreeSync 2 HDR
    Refresh Range: 48hz-120hz
    HDR Standard: DisplayHDR 600 with Localized Dimming
    Image Processing: 10 bit
    Connections: Three HDMI 2.0 and one Displayport
    Other Features: Low Framerate Compensation (Automatic Interpolation at low framerates), Picture in Picture, Built in 10W speakers, Eye Comfort Certification (ensuring low blue light output and flicker-free operation, which presumably means no PWM for light dimming)
    Price: UNKNOWN
    Availability: UNKNOWN


    Acer Predator CG437K P:
    Resolution: 3840x2160
    Size: 43"
    Panel Type: VA
    Screen Surface: UNKNOWN
    Max Refresh Rate: 144hz
    Adaptive Refresh Standard: AdaptiveSync
    Refresh Range: UNKNOWN
    HDR Standard: DisplayHDR 1000 with Localized Dimming
    Image Processing: 10 bit
    Connections: 3x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort and 1x USB type-C
    Other Features: Light Sensor for brightness, Motion Sensor Wake from sleep, Remote control
    Price: $1,200 (US), EUR 1,499.00
    Availability: September



    I'll update the above as more details become available.

    As I see it right now, the Acer has the edge in HDR standard and max refresh rate, and hits the market in September at a fairly reasonable $1,200 USD. It lacks some details thus far regarding frame rate range, any interpolation technologies, as well as anything regarding eye comfort, and if it is shiny or has an AG coating, which the Asus all spells out. The Asus on the other hand as of yet does not have a release date or price associated with it.

    So much of this actually depends on seeing the screen in action, as well as getting some test results, but even so, which is your favorite thus far and why?

    I'm definitely buying one of these when they become available, unless a third alternative pops up by then. This is the size, resolution and feature set I've been craving for some time.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019
    Creepin_D, kasakka and KazeoHin like this.
  2. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,761
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    I second your opinion. I'm on a 40 inch screen now, 43 is still a nice size, if the local dimming and response time is on point, I'll be going with the Acer.
     
  3. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    13,774
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    The Acer is definitely looking good so far. I read that the Asus may debut at $1600, but I'm not sure that has been confirmed.

    Sure would be nice to know the refresh range on the Acer.
     
  4. kasakka

    kasakka [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,039
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Has anyone owned any older high refresh rate displays from both ASUS and Acer? To me Acer has always been more of a budget brand whereas ASUS's high refresh rate implementations have been quite competent in my experience. I may be just biased but to me the Acer screams "one-upmanship" where they try to make it seem better on paper by having higher refresh rate and better HDR.

    I really like the picture by picture and picture in picture options in the ASUS. I've been waiting for the display to come out since it was revealed because it would solve my issues working from home where now I have a single DP connector ASUS PG278Q so I have to use my work laptop without an external screen because there are no KVMs afaik that would work properly with G-Sync, 144 Hz etc. I think the XG438Q would be fantastic for showing two computer displays at once on such a big screen, making the large size more palatable to me at least. I certainly hope it comes out before September.

    The Acer has its perks too though. DisplayHDR 1000 and slightly higher refresh rate. While I don't really care too much about 120 vs 144 Hz since IMO it's not a big difference, the difference in HDR could be. It's still unknown if its adaptive sync will work as well as ASUS and whether ASUS has just been more honest about the specs as there are for example 165 Hz displays where the panel response time can't quite keep up and they perform better at 120 or 144 Hz.
     
  5. Skott

    Skott 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,928
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    I'm really looking forward to these two monitors. The Acer in particular. $1200 is much cheaper than I thought it would be. Not that $1200 is cheap. That's pricey for many gamers out there as is $1600. HDR isnt as important to me as a higher Hz is but that's just me. On the other hand I get irritated with the fake HDR (400nit,600nit, etc.,) many manufacturers are trying to pass onto us consumers. Until we see actual benches though everything is purely speculation. Personally I'd like to see both Acer and Asus hit something out of the ball park with these two monitors.
     
  6. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,631
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Agreed.

    Personally I think I'm leaning towards Asus right now, but there are so many details we don't know about both of them. I like the fact that they are advertising comfort factors like reduced flicker, and AG coating. Their low framerate auto-interpolation seems interesting too, but it remains to be seen, as I would expect that to introduce a ton of lag. If I had to choose between low-lag and smoothness, I'd choose low lag every time. I also have greater confidence in Asus doing this right. As kasakka mentioned above, I'm just not as confident in Acer, but I am hoping I wind up proven wrong. The top level refresh rate (120hz vs 144hz) I see as little more than marketing gobbeldygook. I'm probably not going to spend much time over 75hz anyway at 4k resolutions. Those GPU's just don't exist yet, and won't for many years to come. More important to me is the AdaptiveSync/FreeSync performance at low (50hz-75hz) refresh rates

    I am just thrilled that this size and resolution are finally getting the AdaptiveSync/FreeSync treatment. I have long considered 43" the perfect size for 4k. I am currently using a 2015 Samsung JS9000 at 48". it is a little on the large side, and has no adaptive sync so its all vsync at 60hz all day. I'd like something slightly smaller (43" would be perfect) but there is no way I can go back to the smaller screens I used in the past.

    I'm hoping this announcement from Acer puts the pressure on Asus and convinces them to come down from the rumored $1,600 price point. I'm guessing Asus probably thought they were entering a niche with this monitor, and they'd have that space to themselves and could charge a greater margin as a result. Competition always benefits the consumer!
     
    Skott likes this.
  7. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    13,774
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Agree very much with both of you. I think that the Asus has the potential to be the superior product, and I can see them nailing this implementation. I've never considered Acer to be a premium product...not that this particular monitor couldn't be awesome, but all else being equal I'd expect the Asus to edge it out.

    It'll all depend on the final specs, quality control, and, of course, price. I think that many of us would be willing to pay a couple hundred more for the Asus if it ends up being the better of the two, but if it turns out to be a $400 difference then we may have to weigh things a little more closely and see what exactly the compromises are (if any) with the Acer. The Acer primarily interested me from a price and HDR perspective, but if I'm honest I have more faith in Asus being able to deliver the better end product. I concur that after 120Hz you get diminishing returns, so that part's a wash for me anyway.

    LG needs to get into this space ASAP because they're doing some pretty awesome things with their 32" and ultrawide monitor lineup. I also wouldn't mind seeing something from Dell/Alienware. Who knows, maybe this 43" high refresh gaming sector will pick up steam and competition will benefit us all. We can certainly hope!
     
    Skott and Zarathustra[H] like this.
  8. Skott

    Skott 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,928
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    I agree Asus will probably do it better. They are more capable of doing it. I also think its great we finally are seeing some better competition in the 43" size market. Good things are happening on that front now. I would pay a few hundred dollars more for a better product but that's just me. I have the ability to pay it. Hopefully though competition will drive down price so many of my fellow gamers can benefit as well.
     
  9. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,631
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    I think you hit it spot on. If each model winds up performing and comparing sortof how I expect, I would not be opposed to paying $100-$200 more for the Asus. If they price it $400 more, I'd have to think longer and harder about it.
     
    Creepin_D likes this.
  10. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    13,774
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Yeah. For me it's not about having the ability to pay for it, I just typically approach purchases seeking the best value for my dollars spent. That's why I don't have a 2080Ti in my PC. The return on investment, to me, wasn't worth a $500 premium over what I paid for my 1080Ti and I didn't want to support the practice of such obscene launch prices.

    If the Asus is $400 more and the only practical difference is that (for example) it has a slightly broader refresh range, I'd probably buy the Acer. However, if the Asus is $400 more and it has a wider refresh range, less backlight bleed, no PWM while the Acer does have it, etc. then it'd be the Asus without question.

    But of course, all of this discussion on specs and pricing is largely theoretical at this point so there's no use going too deeply into the rabbit hole until we get more info.
     
    Skott and Zarathustra[H] like this.
  11. Gatecrasher3000

    Gatecrasher3000 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    277
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    I want 43" to be the new 27", any one of these monitors sounds super exciting.
     
  12. bigbluefe

    bigbluefe Gawd

    Messages:
    561
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    You can't trust Acer. They're bottom of the barrel in terms of customer support and quality control. They have a proven history of shipping broken products that just flat out didn't work to spec. Fuck that.
     
  13. Gatecrasher3000

    Gatecrasher3000 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    277
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    I don't know, my x34 has been working fine for years now, however there is a real chance the Asus will be better in regards to build quality over the Acer.
     
  14. Skott

    Skott 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,928
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Well at least Acer is trying. That is more than many of the other manufacturers are doing.
     
  15. sethk

    sethk [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,578
    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Asus has done better historically but Acer has some edge here in raw specs.
    Would also point out from first hand experience that Asus support sucked the last few times I used it. I don’t trust either brand that much.
    Also VA panel with non Nvidia developed backlight dimming - I would definitely wait for reviews.
     
  16. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,631
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Honestly, I'm not too concerned by this.

    I don't consider any kind of light dimming to be important. Whichever model I get, I'll check it out, and if I don't like it, I'll just disable any light dimming. Who needs it?
     
  17. Drags

    Drags Gawd

    Messages:
    931
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    anyone who wants HDR does :)
     
  18. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,631
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Yeah, HDR is a nice little bonus, but ultimately may prove to be more gimmick than anything else and is the something I would pay extra for.

    In just thrillers abouy High refresh rate 4k in a 43" screen with some form of adaptive sync