Asus 4k @ 144hz at Computex

apple20150101 said:
I want 32 inch 4k ips 144hz monitor.
Click to expand...

How about a 32" 5k?

QqgOenI.jpg
 
I feel spoiled with my 40" 4k screen. If they can make a 144hz 40" 4k screen with similar image quality, id lay 1200+ for it.
 
KazeoHin said:
I feel spoiled with my 40" 4k screen. If they can make a 144hz 40" 4k screen with similar image quality, id lay 1200+ for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm definitely never going with something smaller than 32" and would prefer 40", especially at 4k. Also done with TN panels. Still though it's good to see these panels are actually a thing already, I thought it would take much longer for display tech to get here.
 
I wonder if this display strobes? Definitely stoked about some high Hz / low blur 4k monitors coming, but I think 27" is a little on the small side for my liking at that res. My wallet is ready when they go 32"+, would love to see a 144Hz 32"+ 4k that was curved in both the x and y; spherically. Once you start getting that big the corners of the monitor are starting to get pretty far away from you.
 
Only 27"? FFS, ASUS... Was excited until I saw that. 32" is as small as I'll go on a 4K monitor, but I'd prefer a 40".
Martha Stewart said:
How about a 32" 5k?

QqgOenI.jpg
Click to expand...
Damn, that is a nice amount of Rec. 2020 coverage for a consumer display. Is it OLED?
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Armenius said:
Only 27"? FFS, ASUS... Was excited until I saw that. 32" is as small as I'll go on a 4K monitor, but I'd prefer a 40".

Damn, that is a nice amount of Rec. 2020 coverage for a consumer display. Is it OLED?
Click to expand...

For me, the size is perfect. I've been looking for higher resolution monitors, and 27" is about as big as I'll go on a monitor. I'd rather have the Dell OLED though, which seems to be MIA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Skott said:
The text on that screen would be really hard to read I'm thinking. Even with 20/20 vision.
Click to expand...
Anything above 1440p which is less than 40" in size is intended to be used with display scaling.
The extra resolution is there to increase text and image quality, not workspace.
At 32" that's 184 pixels per inch, which is a little bit larger than the ideal for 200% scaling in Windows. (192 PPI, or 30.6")
 
I completely missed those at the Computex yesterday. Asus and Acer both had their respective 'normal' section and their gaming section separate (RoG & Predator respectively), and I only had enough time to look at the gaming section.

They did, however, showcase a surround setup with 3 PG27AQ's though.

But... as tempting as 4k @ 144hz can be, I think I'd be more interested in the 200+hz models, GPUs can barely drive 4k @ 60hz with decent settings, so 4k@144hz probably can't be exploited for another two GPU microacrchs, plus you have many games that cap their fps at 30 or 60..
 
jbltecnicspro said:
And nVidia wants to get rid of triple and quad SLI. :D
Click to expand...
I can't blame it on them entirely, I think they might be between a rock and a Hard place with this.

Super high resolution would require super high graphics processing power, which would warrant the use of multiple GPU's (4k @ 144hz and 5k @ 60hz are such resolutions at the moment), but even a dual GPU setup is a fairly niche market, and x3 and x4 mGPU? Niche in a Niche, especially considering you'd NEED (not just want) to use at least 28 lane CPU.

The actual implementation is partly game developer's responsibility, and I can't really blame them for not fully supporting a configuration that a very small number of people use.

One can only hope that nVidia comes up with a special magic sauce for SLI that would make it compatible and scale equally across ALL games, but alas, such sauce has yet come to pass.
 
chenw said:
I can't blame it on them entirely, I think they might be between a rock and a Hard place with this.

Super high resolution would require super high graphics processing power, which would warrant the use of multiple GPU's (4k @ 144hz and 5k @ 60hz are such resolutions at the moment), but even a dual GPU setup is a fairly niche market, and x3 and x4 mGPU? Niche in a Niche, especially considering you'd NEED (not just want) to use at least 28 lane CPU.

The actual implementation is partly game developer's responsibility, and I can't really blame them for not fully supporting a configuration that a very small number of people use.

One can only hope that nVidia comes up with a special magic sauce for SLI that would make it compatible and scale equally across ALL games, but alas, such sauce has yet come to pass.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree with what you're saying for sure. I think it's sweet that 4K 144hz is going to be a possibility. But I think this is a bit of a "cart before the horse" situation. Two GPU's struggle to push 4K at very high settings as it is. But maintaining a very high framerate too? Whew! But then again... This kind of stuff continues to push GPU makers into making "Bigger, faster, stronger..." So ultimately it's a win for us.
 
Agreed, I am actually quite happy that single GPU solution for 4k is no longer that far away, it may even be as close as Volta (1080ti would probably be like 980 was for 1440p).

But compared to 1080p days, I think we are in a better place, back then we didn't even have the concept of high refresh rates.

It's good to have monitor tech outpacing GPUs again.
 
Then it would be perfect... Literally. I don't think we could do any better than that for non-vr displays.
 
I feel like you will never get gpu's powerful enough to outpace graphics settings because the graphics ceiling is really arbitrary to begin with. The challenge for devs is to whittle games down to fit real time, not the other way around. They could easily bump up the ultra setting 3x, 4x, 10x etc what it is now. You can also downsample from 8k or more and use mods to go way over ultra even now. Meshes and textures are downsized by devs using authoring software. View distances are limited, and animated objects viewable in distances, and view distance layout tricks are utilized. Shadows are limited too. There really is no ultra, at least not like the one you think you know on the slider, if you look at it that way, only what you are capped at artificially. The more powerful gpus get, the more graphics image and fx quality "limits" that devs artificially set as the ceiling (ultra) will go up.

For example, according to this benchmark , shadows of mordor with the hd texture pack on ultra gets only 50fps at 4k with a single 1080. Even with dual 1080's in sli, it gets 87fps. And that is a game from "last" generation in relation to these cards. At 2560 x 1440 a single 1080 almost gets 100fps though at 97fps. The htc vive is 2160x1200 at 90hz too btw.

So 4k will always be stuck in the mud frame rate wise. When we go to dp 1.3 and HDR monitors, 4k will be back down to the 60hz limit again too in HDR mode.
Personally I'm looking forward to 21:9 , 3440 x 1440 dp 1.3 monitors at 144hz+. I'll probably get dual 1080ti to feed one when available.

People are infatuated with graphics detail in still shots, but you don't play screen shots. If you are using a high hz display or high hz + variable hz to run low (sub 75fps-hz to 90fps-hz mode/most of the time in game, really should be like 100 at least imo), you are essentially running a low hz, low motion definition and motion articulation, smearing blur monitor and missing out on most of the gaming advancements modern gaming monitors provide outside of the judder/tearing/stops avoidance.
 
I'm pretty sure the ability to run most games at 4k at 120 fps on dual card setups would already be a reality if nVidia didn't artificially gimp their gpu lineup for the sake of having more room to release more cards that are only moderate upgrades at best (but still upgrades and therefore, still likely to be bought by enthusiasts). It seems like the only time we get a major advance in gpu tech (or noteworthy price cuts) is when they have to compete directly with something amazing (or cheap but comparable in power) that AMD has cooked up.
 
4k 144Hz would be great for MOBAs and easy to run shooters ala Overwatch/TF/CS. It'll won't be practical for all the bells and whistles 1st player games until we get probably 3rd or 4th generation HBM and even then it will be reserved for multi-GPU solutions with multiple $800-1000 flagship cards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Having used an X34 for the past 10 months, I just have no interest in anything less than an ultrawide variant of this.
 
leadays said:
Will the 240hz monitor work like the eizo foris fg2421 or like a normal 144hz monitor?
Click to expand...

Neither :p It will work like a normal 240hz monitor.

elvn said:
So 4k will always be stuck in the mud frame rate wise. When we go to dp 1.3 and HDR monitors, 4k will be back down to the 60hz limit again too in HDR mode.
Personally I'm looking forward to 21:9 , 3440 x 1440 dp 1.3 monitors at 144hz+. I'll probably get dual 1080ti to feed one when available.
.
Click to expand...

I believe with DP 1.4 you can do 4k@120hz with HDR. 1.3 is probably going to be short-lived.

The AOC AG352UCG should be the first with 21:9 , 3440 x 1440@144hz (possibly up to 200hz), we already know about the A-MVA panel since TFTcentral posted about it early 2016. Not sure whether it even turned up at Computex though.
I just hope AUO managed to improve the response times this time, or else it will ghost like a bitch unless ULMB is engaged. The 35'' 1080p had worse response/overdrive, viewing angles and uniformity than some of the budget grade VA monitors.

I guess a 32'' 4k 144hz IPS prototype will also turn up eventually, since AUO makes both 27'' and 32'' sizes of those.
And then it starts all over with the HDR monitors, which are expected early-mid 2017, likely not any sooner.
 
Last edited:
the 200hz 2560x1080 VA monitor Acer had on display (no pun intended) at computex was touting a response time of 4ms.

I didn't try it though.
 
I won't go bigger than a 27" I know for a fact I can focus better on smaller monitors.
 
chenw said:
the 200hz 2560x1080 VA monitor Acer had on display (no pun intended) at computex was touting a response time of 4ms.

I didn't try it though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and they even reach the 4ms in many brighter and mid-tone transitions but during some dark GtG and CtC transitions these can jump up to 30-50ms, which causes smearing and darkening. The Acer and AOC displays released so far had a really badly configured overdrive too, so it added noticeable inverse ghosting to the regular ghosting.
ULMB helped a lot on the Z35, since it just swallowed the trails while the backlight was turned off. AUO has to work on improving the response times, and I also wonder how the upcoming high refresh SVA will compare (the 27'' 1080p is probably Samsung panel)
Another option to defeat this smearing would be to implement the option to pre-tilt the crystals (in anticipation of dark transitions), like what Samsung realized in some of their old S-PVA panels using DCC-II but this will add input lag.
 
Last edited:
Gatecrasher3000 said:
Any additional info on this?
Click to expand...
Not much. This is from the press release (mentions hardware LUT):

The 32-inch ASUS ProArt 5K UHD professional monitor provides stunning 5120 x 2880 resolution images through as single DisplayPort connection. Designed for graphics professionals, it has a wide color gamut with 100% Rec. 709, 99.5% Adobe RGB and 95% DCI-P3 color-space support...

Both ProArt monitors feature the exclusive ASUS ProArt Calibration Technology, which includes color accuracy tuning and uniformity compensation for easy monitor calibration. It offers overall data mapping, correlation and calibration, and saves all color parameter profiles on the display’s internal scaler IC chip instead of the PC, so users do not have to recalibrate settings whenever the display is hooked up to different computers.
 
chenw said:
But... as tempting as 4k @ 144hz can be, I think I'd be more interested in the 200+hz models, GPUs can barely drive 4k @ 60hz with decent settings, so 4k@144hz probably can't be exploited for another two GPU microacrchs, plus you have many games that cap their fps at 30 or 60..
Click to expand...
I don't know how it is that PC gamers use their displays, but I sometimes get the impression that people are buying one display for each task.

What I'd like would be a 4K 144Hz display which is also capable of doing integer scaling with a 1080p input.
Then you get 4K on the desktop for nice high DPI text and images.
4K144 for older/less demanding games, and 1080p144 for newer games which are more demanding.

Instead, the way that many people on PC forums talk about it, you think they'd have their 200Hz TN panel for fast-paced gaming, their 1440p VA monitor for slower-paced gaming and standard DPI applications, and a 4K/5K IPS monitor for high-res gaming / high DPI text and images.

I just want one display to handle all of those things. A properly designed 4K display could do that. (ideally 8K, but we're a few years away from that)
 
Whats the point of using a 200-240hz monitor when the pixel response time is too high? wouldn't it ghost like crazy?
 
Is everybody overlooking the productivity increase a 4K screen offers at any reasonable refresh rate, and then using the onboard / GPU-based scaler to run 1440p/144 or 1080p/144 when one wants to game?? It's 4k and 144Hz capable, but one isn't being forced to use both at the same time.
 
chenw said:
Agreed, I am actually quite happy that single GPU solution for 4k is no longer that far away, it may even be as close as Volta (1080ti would probably be like 980 was for 1440p).

But compared to 1080p days, I think we are in a better place, back then we didn't even have the concept of high refresh rates.

It's good to have monitor tech outpacing GPUs again.
Click to expand...

I think we are at least one more generation away to getting a single GPU that can run games at 4k res on the highest settings. Probably two more generations. By then however 5k and 8k monitors will be the next rage resolution. There is already movement in that direction but that is a different subject.
 
Skott said:
I think we are at least one more generation away to getting a single GPU that can run games at 4k res on the highest settings. Probably two more generations. By then however 5k and 8k monitors will be the next rage resolution. There is already movement in that direction but that is a different subject.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we're definitely not there yet, even with the GTX 1080. Most reviews I've read indicate anywhere from 45-60fps on high settings at 4K using a single GPU setup. Which is an 'ok' experience, IMO. With dual 1080s plus a Haswell-E or Broadwell-E setup, you'd probably get 60fps consistently. So a good or even great experience at 4K still won't be here until the next GPU generation, but it's something to look forward to.

1440p really seems to be the sweet spot right now in terms of graphics horsepower and gaming experience. And if you just want to have an absolutely amazing experience and be blown away, use a GTX 1080 at 1080p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top