Gsync 4k 144hz HDR monitor prices 'released'

Ja, no thanks. I'd rather buy a large OLED. I wonder how much the BFGD are going to be.
 
Hard to compare euro prices to US but if the display is >$2K I think it's dead in the water and a completely pointless purchase. Especially since the FALD is probably going to suck just as bad as every other FALD.
 
Just give us a normal 4k 144Hz monitor ffs. Then the price would at least be somewhat more reasonable.
 
What is this shit? These manufacturers are fucking crazy.
I'm not buying anything 4k below 40" and especially not for that price.
27", lol. People can actually play on that?
My friend is even calling me out for cheating in FPS because I don't even need a scope on my 50" TV. What he sees as a tiny dot I clearly see as a player.
Even these 34" ultra wide screens are anything special. Still small, just wider.
 
The 144hz 1440p rog swift was $880 when it launched and was completely sold out for months despite people online saying it was too expensive and wouldn't sell.

This is even more extreme. So we'll see I guess.
 
The 144hz 1440p rog swift was $880 when it launched and was completely sold out for months despite people online saying it was too expensive and wouldn't sell.

Sure and if this display was $1000 I would buy one without thinking twice about it. When you're talking about twice as much as a 55" LG OLED TV, the comparison starts to look a lot more ridiculous. And "sold out" doesn't mean very much if your panel yields are so bad you can barely get any of the displays to the warehouse...which they might be for this thing.
 
With SLI/CF dead, I can't conceive a realistic use for a 4K 144Hz monitor, unless you love to play TF2 and CS still.
I rather see a more affordable affordable 35-43" 4K 100Hz monitor for now.
 
With SLI/CF dead, I can't conceive a realistic use for a 4K 144Hz monitor, unless you love to play TF2 and CS still.
I rather see a more affordable affordable 35-43" 4K 100Hz monitor for now.

They're just maxing-out the panel/connection speed.

The 100Hz ultrawides were all limited by the DisplayPort 1.2 speed, not the panels. You could buy one of these monsters and set the the refresh rate at 100Hz if that's your bag :D
 
Last edited:
A single 1080 Ti could run CS GO or Overwatch at 4K 100+Hz, so these panels are not useless.

However, I'll believe them when we can actually buy them. Yest they have a price, but you still can't buy them. Vaporware at this point. We've had 4K 144Hz monitors "Released" now for 3 years, but you still can't buy them.
 
We don't know how good they actually are as well. Just because they have high specs doesn't make them automatically good or great. Need unbiased reviews.
 
A single 1080 Ti could run CS GO or Overwatch at 4K 100+Hz, so these panels are not useless.

Overwatch in particular has render scale. Even without, it runs at 100-135fps at 4K Ultra. If you bump the render scale down to 75%, it will give you room to run at Epic with maxed out visual quality settings. Running at native 4K in the framebuffer in an FPS is not all that useful because every time you move the viewport, you are restricted by the motion resolution anyway. And the static UI will render at 4K and be perfectly sharp. I know quite a few modern games have a similar feature, but I'm not sure how common it is. Given that consoles basically require this sort of scaling to be able to do 4K at all, I would expect it to be fairly common going forward.
 
I think they just announced these to take attention away from the 120Hz Samsung TVs that will be sporting VRR and FreeSync coming in the Fall. I really doubt that Nvidia is going to skip VRR since it doesn't have an AMD tag associated with it. They might make you'll buy a Volta+ GPU to get VRR though. There is a good chance that the first iteration of Volta might not have VRR since the standard could have been unfinished when Nvidia was designing Volta.
 
there is no this is true. No way. At those prices they would sell maybe a few thousand per million pc gamers if that
 
Crazy to think this monitor may be more expensive than my brand new 2018 OLED. A 27" IPS screen? FALD and IPS are always a disaster combination. Blooming/haloing is quite noticeable on VA FALD displays, imagine IPS!

The Dell 27" IPS FALD that I tested was literally one of the worst displays I've ever tested.
 
Definitely more than my fire sale 55" B7...

Of course, no G-Sync or full-resolution 144Hz support.
 
LOL. That's all I have to say. Thanks Asus, but I think I'll buy a 55" OLED for $1500 instead.
 
I think they just announced these to take attention away from the 120Hz Samsung TVs that will be sporting VRR and FreeSync coming in the Fall. I really doubt that Nvidia is going to skip VRR since it doesn't have an AMD tag associated with it. They might make you'll buy a Volta+ GPU to get VRR though. There is a good chance that the first iteration of Volta might not have VRR since the standard could have been unfinished when Nvidia was designing Volta.
I think if we had source code of NV drivers any skilled programmers could hack these drivers to work with Fresync, VBR and even some non-Freesync monitors as you can force some monitors to do Freesync without having Feesync... it is where 'free' comes from :ROFLMAO:
This feature is already supported on NV chips do support it on eDP panels on some gaming G-Sync laptops which do not have G-Sync modules.
That said you might be right and NV might lie about something missing from Volta because they are money grabbing mother flockers :vamp:

120Hz VBR supporting TVs... is it just me or AMD cards look more and more tasty? :whistle:
 
You would think when paying $1000 and more for a monitor it would be perfect or close to it. Both Acer and Asus have terrible QC, and do not stand behind their product. $2000 for a 27" monitor is borderline nuts, but with the prices of video cards these days, who knows.
 
Hardware to drive these monitors and panels themselves are probably very expensive. I doubt they have very high availability of panels either. Better to sell less for more...
Besides last thing manufacturers want is these new releases to cut into price range of existing models causing them to drop.

Professional NEC/EIZO do not support 4K HDR at 144Hz. Plus you need to add hefty G-Sync tax.

I would be interested in such monitor should it cost 1500$ tops for 27". Double of that is truly insane.
If they also support hardware calibration and A-TW though... where do you make monitor pre-orders? :cat:
 
I think they just announced these to take attention away from the 120Hz Samsung TVs that will be sporting VRR and FreeSync coming in the Fall. I really doubt that Nvidia is going to skip VRR since it doesn't have an AMD tag associated with it. They might make you'll buy a Volta+ GPU to get VRR though. There is a good chance that the first iteration of Volta might not have VRR since the standard could have been unfinished when Nvidia was designing Volta.

VRR should be possible to add to cards with HDMI 2.0 so I would expect it just as a driver update. Nvidia being Nvidia though, I would not be surprised if it was a next gen only feature though or wasn't supported until there are more TVs on the market with VRR and AMD cards that work with them. There are a lot of things people have asked for years that they have not bothered to implement.

Also note that the Samsung is 120 Hz at 1080p, not 4k. The panels on older models already support 120 Hz even at 4K but the TVs only have HDMI 2.0 so they are bandwidth limited. I expect that next year's models would be HDMI 2.1 so they're actually capable of 4K @ 120 Hz.
 
There is an actual consumer demographic guide that's regularly updated that gives you adoptive rates based on price along with other factors education level, age, gender, etc. Basically, the pool for people that will spend $3,000 on a monitor is very very tiny vs a $100 monitor.
 
At this price, I'll probably buy just 1. I prefer dual monitors, but I'll use one of my old 1440p ones as the secondary.
 
There is an actual consumer demographic guide that's regularly updated that gives you adoptive rates based on price along with other factors education level, age, gender, etc. Basically, the pool for people that will spend $3,000 on a monitor is very very tiny vs a $100 monitor.

They must know it and they are testing the waters. If Apple can do it (I own iPhones & an iPad) everyone can and not to mention what High-End vendors have been doing for years.
Sure there is a performance aspect to consider here but since everything high-tech electronic loses value as a rock on free fall I am not going to bite.
I will gladly pay top dollar for good gear but it either has to last for long or it is making me money. For games? I neither play and even if I start again I can wait for prices to come down.

If they bring out a 40" 4K @ 120Hz, with 100% Adobe RGB - DCI-P3 + HDR for $2,000 I would be all in.
 
You would think when paying $1000 and more for a monitor it would be perfect or close to it. Both Acer and Asus have terrible QC, and do not stand behind their product. $2000 for a 27" monitor is borderline nuts, but with the prices of video cards these days, who knows.
It is not the lack of QC. It is them just pushing all they make and hope people accept what they get. It cheaper to send them a new unit then tossing out the bad panels.
 
It is not the lack of QC. It is them just pushing all they make and hope people accept what they get. It cheaper to send them a new unit then tossing out the bad panels.

The main problem is, right now, you don't have a choice. I don't want to use a 55" monitor as a computer screen. For work purposes, I need dual (or more) screens. So, I'm looking for something smaller. And we're now going to have one panel to choose from.
 
The main problem is, right now, you don't have a choice. I don't want to use a 55" monitor as a computer screen. For work purposes, I need dual (or more) screens. So, I'm looking for something smaller. And we're now going to have one panel to choose from.

A 27" 4k is alot more useless than a 55" 4k screen. Especially for work productivity.

I run a Zisworks X39 4k120 and for work productivity its GODLY!
 
To rich for me.

I just can't see spending that much on a monitor.

I can, but it has to be really good. The new displays have a lot of killer features in them but I agree, they are seriously expensive. To me displays are long term investments. I'm on year 3 for my 1440p 27" 144 Hz G-Sync display and it's a good combination of size and resolution. That said, for 4K I'd prefer a little bit larger 30-32". There seems to be a 32" panel in the pipeline but considering how long it seems to take to get these out I expect that will be available late next year at the earliest.

But unless something radically changes in the next say 5 years (for example OLEDs of this size becoming a thing) then I would expect a 4K 27-32" screen to be really great for anything you throw at it. At this point there are lots of early adopter features as only two GPUs available can handle 4K really well at the moment and HDR is still in its infancy on PC. G-Sync displays haven't got much cheaper in the time I've owned one nor have they improved significantly, with very few larger than 27" non-ultrawide options available.
 
These displays better be flawless for this price. Which I doubt, I'll definitely not be a day1 buyer.
 
This was on my radar, and I knew they would be expensive, but holy shit. I want the 35 incher but it's going to be how much money when it comes to the States?

Prices are euro, with VAT, but the 27 inch variants from Acer and Asus are €2500 and €3000 respectively.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12637/acer-and-asus-gsync-hdr-displays-listed-and-priced

Computer Monitors are just too expensive for gaming, it cheaper to buy a OLED TV within gaming mode, I wouldn't waste my money or my time on a small 27inch but if it was a 30 - 42inch I might buy one but not at that price, it will be to same when the BFGD comes out it might be around $3,000 IMHO to pay for the G-Sync.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
I guess the HDR backlight makes them so expensive.

Any chance of seeing these 144Hz 4K panels (32" for me, thanks) released with standard backlight?
 
I guess the HDR backlight makes them so expensive.

Any chance of seeing these 144Hz 4K panels (32" for me, thanks) released with standard backlight?

According to TFT central AUO has a 32" version of this panel planned for late Q3, but it's still going to have the stupidly expensive HDR backlight. I'd assume they'll eventually do 144hz models with a normal backlight, but haven't put them on their publicly available schedule yet (TFT central update is from last fall. and doesn't go out to the end of this year). No one else has announced 4k/144hz or similar levels of backlight zoning yet.

I''ve got acer's 32 40k/60 gsync panel and the AUO glitchyness (a mangled frame every 6 to 12 hours) has probably put me off them indefinitely. I'm not planning to replace for a few years though until Samsung or LG have 4k/144/hdr monitors in either LCD or burn in free OLED (if anyone can figure out how to do that).
 
Damn, and I thought my 27" 2560x1440 144Hz TFT G-sync monitor was expensive.

For 4K resolution, I think I would want at least 37" screen size.
 
Suddenly my excitement for these monitors has dropped quite a bit. I have doubts that the quality control will be even close to perfect which will make the high prices not worth it. Maybe they'll surprise us and these monitors will be amazing in every way, justifying the high prices, but right now it's not looking like it.
 
Back
Top