Gsync 4k 144hz HDR monitor prices 'released'

That price is insane :) Even 32 4k/60 are on the expensive side. But we really need more of these 4k and 5k screens out to get away from the utter rubbish low ppi we have now as a standard. Hopefully prices will be pushed down once more options are out. For 32 inch 4k is the minimum ppi I would want, little more wouldn't hurt either (probably 5k would be where I'd say it's not really worth pushing higher for now).
 
Somehow I came around to thinking that a $2k price tag wouldn't be that bad. But $3k is just far too much.
 
The perfect monitor for gaming on my new Quadro GV100s. I have a feeling this would be like my 60hz 4k gsync experience and I'd have to go through 3 panels just to settle on one that actually works despite dead pixels and bad back light bleed. I'll pass.
 
Like what others have said... at this price (and size, I like high pixel density but can't disagree that 27" is small) it would have to be a flawless monitor. And I don't believe for a second that it will be. So I'll pass.
 
Q-BZ said:
This industry as a whole is way overdue to get real.
Click to expand...

This, one good controller with real inputs and a no-mess data path to the panel and the TV guys could shit all over them. For those that bring up size, there have already been 8k 55" panels and similar prototypes in their plants, do the math.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Forget it - the TV guys won't do shit. They are their customers and they sell panels.
 
The price range is out of reach for most gamers, and at 27" the size is questionable. 32" - 46" would be more appropriate.

That said, if all these features can be pulled off without QC issues then these monitors will be a treat. I'm curious to see 384 FALD while operating at 144Hz. Sounds great on paper, but we'll see how fast those local dimming zones can operate in practice.
 
I bet its "only" gonna be $2499.99 for USA

lol

They should never go over $1,999
I think $1,500 would have been the best price point.
 
l88bastard said:
I bet its "only" gonna be $2499.99 for USA

lol

They should never go over $1,999
I think $1,500 would have been the best price point.
Click to expand...

LoL I think $500 would be the best price point. How is that?

Anyway, even $1,000 for at least a 32" would be nice - anything below 32" I don't care for 4K. At $1500 I would like Pro Color calibration.
 
Way too expensive, especially with a panel lottery almost assured. I've lost my interest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Yeah, no thanks. Looking like the rumored ~40" 2019 LG OLED's are going to be the way to go. Almost assuredly a much better experience, w/ 120hz to boot. GSync can die.
 
tacos4me said:
Yeah, no thanks. Looking like the rumored ~40" 2019 LG OLED's are going to be the way to go. Almost assuredly a much better experience, w/ 120hz to boot. GSync can die.
Click to expand...

I like my X39 4k120 alot more than my old 27" 165hz Gsync displays. Lower some settings, lock fps @119hz, enable Vsync and the experience is outstanding.....except for the VA panel issues :-(

I have a C7 55" OLED and its orgasmic. A 40" 4K 120hz OLED with ULMB is my holy grail display.....if I had that I would be gooooooood ta gooooooooo!
 
JargonGR said:
LoL I think $500 would be the best price point. How is that?

Anyway, even $1,000 for at least a 32" would be nice - anything below 32" I don't care for 4K. At $1500 I would like Pro Color calibration.
Click to expand...

Umm yea....I meant "realistic" prices. I think free would be the best price point personally, but that won't get us very far now will it.
 
l88bastard said:
Umm yea....I meant "realistic" prices. I think free would be the best price point personally, but that won't get us very far now will it.
Click to expand...

Well based on TV pricing $1,500 is still high and will have tiny sales. I am not aware of yields though and whether this is the reason they price them so high.
 
JargonGR said:
Well based on TV pricing $1,500 is still high and will have tiny sales. I am not aware of yields though and whether this is the reason they price them so high.
Click to expand...

Since when did 60hz TV pricing have anything to do with anything PC high refresh displays? The two are completely mutually exclusive until we have 40" OLED 4k 120hz.

Anyhoo, I think they will sell at $1,999 if they go $2,500 like I think they are, they will most likely hit some consumer resistence....or not.....there seems to be this stupid ravenous base now that does not even blink an eye over payin three large for a GPU...........

What I do know is 12 years ago people were droppin $2,200 and buyin the 30" dells like hot cakes...so they will probably sell out at 2.5k
12_YEARS.jpg
upload pictures
 
I mean it's possible they made a display with a brilliant FALD with minimal haloing and near-instantaneous response time, that allows you to use the FALD in SDR content, and that panel uniformity is as good as professional displays at this price point.

If they did that, it would be worth $2500 or $3000. I just doubt it. If what they actually have is a monitor with haloing issues as bad as the Dell, that won't even enable the FALD in SDR mode, with the same uniformity problems the original M270 panel has then it isn't worth $3000 no matter how many hertz or pixels it has.
 
ohh I am not defending it.....there is a high probability it will be hot garbage like the sixty hz version
 
I’d pay $1500 max for a 38” curved ultra wide with HDR, gsync, 3880x1600, IPS or VA, 100hz. No more.
 
Are there going to be people buying this? Yes. There's just nothing else on the market for similar specs. I'm sick of people saying how you need a 40" or above TV, etc. If you're sitting close to a monitor, you can tell the difference between 2k and 4k on a 27". Too small text? There will be scaling. As for an 8 bit panel? The current 144hz 1440p are also 8 bit in the same way the new ones are. Would I rather have a 27" OLED 120 Hz panel? Yes, but those don't exist, and there's nothing coming even on the horizon, so it's going to be a good 2+ years before something better comes along at this size.

And here's where I think ASUS is making their biggest mistake. There are going to be people who buy this, but it will probably be few and far between. But those of us who do buy it are probably going to be ridiculously picky. Remember when the 144Hz 1440p monitors came out? Some people were buying 10+ monitors just to get 1 good one. With an $800 monitor, you can probably justify the poor quality as there will be plenty of others who can live with 1 dead pixel or bad backlight bleed. With a $2500 monitor, you're not going to have an audience to pawn the bad monitors off too. And, there will probably be people who do the same with this, buying 10+ monitors just to get that one good one. Maybe that's the delay though, and ASUS and Acer know this, making sure that the panels they have are good, but I seriously doubt it given their track record.
 
If they dont solve the Haloing issue......an charge more than 1500......there will be alot of these going back, just like what happened with the Dell OLED.

The Dell OLED would have been epic if they would have supported 4k120 with MST, but instead it was flawed with a double strobe at 60hz which was friggin annoying and at its high price point many sent it back and dell completely discontinued it.

I see similar things happening with the 60hz FALD and Haloing, many people sending them back.

If they do not solve the haloing problem and people still keep the display, its resale value will probably really suck in a year or so IMHO
 
If that's what they want for mere 27" monitors, I can only imagine what the 65" BFGD models will cost. $5,000+, maybe?

I already thought the $600-800 non-HDR 27" equivalents cost too much for my liking as is; that's why I'm instead rocking an Eizo FG2421 I paid less than $250 for to replace my dearly-departed Sony GDM-FW900. Sure, 23.5" 1920x1080 at 120 Hz is rather underwhelming by current standards, but I expect my refresh rates and contrast to not suck. The FG2421's probably the first LCD I laid eyes on that didn't completely suck coming from the holy grail of CRT monitors, though VA has its quirks (black smear that even VR-grade OLED panels suffer from, viewing angle-based black crush) and it predates G-SYNC.

That said, I want to go big later, for a good console and PC experience alike on one display, and 65" would be pretty big without being too big. The thing is, HDTVs are a non-option until they start packing real 120 Hz and VRR with no godawful input lag as standard features, and I'm not always so sure about that third point since HDTV manufacturers love their laggy image processing for TV/movies at the expense of games and responsive PC mouse cursors. Oh, and the ones that don't suck are still as expensive as these monitors are, maybe a bit less so below 65".
 
Damn... I was excited about these... until I saw the price. No thanks. I can’t justify that price.

For those mentioning the 40” oled lg’s, thanks as I had not heard about those. I would prefer a 32” for higher ppi but I can deal with ~110ppi if it’s going to be 40” and oled.
 
thelead said:
Damn... I was excited about these... until I saw the price. No thanks. I can’t justify that price.

For those mentioning the 40” oled lg’s, thanks as I had not heard about those. I would prefer a 32” for higher ppi but I can deal with ~110ppi if it’s going to be 40” and oled.
Click to expand...

40" 4k is an excellent size. Its absolutely fantastic for work productivity and a much better alternative than having multiple displays. Being able to surf two web pages, view a few cam whores and watch a movie without seeing any screen door effect is awesome.

And if you get queazy motion sick like me with a screen that is too big..........all ya gotta do is slide it back on your desk until it feels like a 32" lol
 
I'll have to wait a couple revisions before I can get something like that. When your whole rig is less than the monitor, it's obvious it's not marketed for you.
 
thecold said:
I'll have to wait a couple revisions before I can get something like that. When your whole rig is less than the monitor, it's obvious it's not marketed for you.
Click to expand...

Who the hell are they marketing this to? If they think the GPU pricing trend is indicative of what the gaming segment is willing to pay for displays they are dead wrong as the GPU market has been artificially inflated and driven by miners.

If they are marketing to color experts and other various professionals, then its 8-bit panel blows

If they are marketing to work productivity types, that 27" 4k is way too small
 
thecold said:
I'll have to wait a couple revisions before I can get something like that. When your whole rig is less than the monitor, it's obvious it's not marketed for you.
Click to expand...
It’s not just that, this is a STUPID price range. I can afford it and my rig costs more than the monitor but it’s just stupid. I work way too hard to throw $2500 at a 27” monitor that is not perfect.
 
thelead said:
Damn... I was excited about these... until I saw the price. No thanks. I can’t justify that price.

For those mentioning the 40” oled lg’s, thanks as I had not heard about those. I would prefer a 32” for higher ppi but I can deal with ~110ppi if it’s going to be 40” and oled.
Click to expand...

I...

Fuck.

OLED fixes so many issues by default, if they can get 120Hz, adaptive sync, and low input lag, eff it...
 
Nytegard said:
I'm sick of people saying how you need a 40" or above TV, etc.
Click to expand...

There’s a reason why 40”-46” 4K is increasingly sought after by PC users. This size range maximizes the benefits of both increased resolution and desktop real estate at 4K while still being manageable in size for the average desk.

NamelessPFG said:
HDTVs are a non-option until they start packing real 120 Hz and VRR with no godawful input lag as standard features, and I'm not always so sure about that third point since HDTV manufacturers love their laggy image processing for TV/movies at the expense of games and responsive PC mouse cursors. Oh, and the ones that don't suck are still as expensive as these monitors are, maybe a bit less so below 65".
Click to expand...

There are TVs with 20ms of response time for PC input. That’s not exactly laggy. Gaming quality? Depends on what you’re playing. You’re not going to be a frag king, but for most other genres of games it’s fine. Professional color monitors aren’t far off, and after you add in response time + lag you’re typically pushing over 30ms or so. I get around 32ms average for the MMOs I play on my professional grade monitor, and it’s fine.

l88bastard said:
Who the hell are they marketing this to? If they think the GPU pricing trend is indicative of what the gaming segment is willing to pay for displays they are dead wrong as the GPU market has been artificially inflated and driven by miners.

If they are marketing to color experts and other various professionals, then its 8-bit panel blows

If they are marketing to work productivity types, that 27" 4k is way too small
Click to expand...

All good points. Jack of all trades but master of none?
 
gan7114 said:
There’s a reason why 40”-46” 4K is increasingly sought after by PC users. This size range maximizes the benefits of both increased resolution and desktop real estate at 4K while still being manageable in size for the average desk.
Click to expand...

I get that. But it's not for everyone. For what I do, anything short of dual monitors is unproductive, even if I have more screen real estate with the single monitor. Multiple monitors are a must, and honestly, for me, anything above 24" is too big. Even my 27" monitors I feel are too large. But I want that dpi of 4k.
 
gan7114 said:
There’s a reason why 40”-46” 4K is increasingly sought after by PC users. This size range maximizes the benefits of both increased resolution and desktop real estate at 4K while still being manageable in size for the average desk.
Click to expand...

To me a 27-30" display already has all the desktop space I would ever need. I want 4K mostly for improved text rendering and visuals in games so for me anything larger than say 32" would not work on a desktop. So right now the situation is that neither computer monitor nor TV manufacturers make a display that I would want. The 32" 4K high refresh rate panel supposedly going into production later this year is what I'm looking for.
 
l88bastard said:
Since when did 60hz TV pricing have anything to do with anything PC high refresh displays? The two are completely mutually exclusive until we have 40" OLED 4k 120hz.

Anyhoo, I think they will sell at $1,999 if they go $2,500 like I think they are, they will most likely hit some consumer resistence....or not.....there seems to be this stupid ravenous base now that does not even blink an eye over payin three large for a GPU...........

What I do know is 12 years ago people were droppin $2,200 and buyin the 30" dells like hot cakes...so they will probably sell out at 2.5k
View attachment 66679upload pictures
Click to expand...

If they can produce big OLEDs for $1500 then I would expect something equivalent or more for $2,500 - this is the kind of relationship I imply and it is a personal point of view.

As far as the Dells go I am one of those that bought a 30" HP display for this kind of money back then. But it offered a resolution no other display had and increased productivity at a bit size too. That was something.

Today I might buy something equivalent to an ASUS PA32UC that offers professional color and what I consider the minimum acceptable size for 4K resolution (the ideal would be a 40-43" for me).

BTW - I don't play games and even if I would I couldn't care less about being competitive in FPS fragfests. So in my case these monitors are useless and overpriced for what they offer. If they manage to sell them good for them though. I was just hoping for a smoother desktop experience but not accompanied by so many compromises + a tiny size and ridiculously high price - again for me.
 
If they do a 40" OLED with variable refresh, that's the end of computer monitors for me.
 
JargonGR said:
If they can produce big OLEDs for $1500 then I would expect something equivalent or more for $2,500 - this is the kind of relationship I imply and it is a personal point of view.

As far as the Dells go I am one of those that bought a 30" HP display for this kind of money back then. But it offered a resolution no other display had and increased productivity at a bit size too. That was something.

Today I might buy something equivalent to an ASUS PA32UC that offers professional color and what I consider the minimum acceptable size for 4K resolution (the ideal would be a 40-43" for me).

BTW - I don't play games and even if I would I couldn't care less about being competitive in FPS fragfests. So in my case these monitors are useless and overpriced for what they offer. If they manage to sell them good for them though. I was just hoping for a smoother desktop experience but not accompanied by so many compromises + a tiny size and ridiculously high price - again for me.
Click to expand...

For the professional monitors I typically stick with Eizo, or if willing to spend $1000 more, go with a Wacom Cintiq. With the Cintiq, you'll get the same high quality panel plus pen & touch support. Decent for drawing.
 
gan7114 said:
There are TVs with 20ms of response time for PC input. That’s not exactly laggy. Gaming quality? Depends on what you’re playing. You’re not going to be a frag king, but for most other genres of games it’s fine. Professional color monitors aren’t far off, and after you add in response time + lag you’re typically pushing over 30ms or so. I get around 32ms average for the MMOs I play on my professional grade monitor, and it’s fine.
Click to expand...
20ms is decent, though people tend to expect under 16ms (one frame at 60 Hz) these days. My FG2421 can manage that if the built-in Turbo240 ULMB-esque strobing feature is off, though turning it on pushes it past the 16ms threshold.

I just find that HDTVs are a crapshoot regarding input lag, forcing you to do careful research on which ones aren't total lagfests of the sort that screw you over in FPSs and fighting games, while monitors are more consistent. Too bad the latter also tend to be consistently smaller, and the former with low latency tend to be consistently expensive, too (usually with the ones near the top of the RTINGS rankings for input lag being somewhere near a grand, give or take a few hundred dollars).

But at the same time, I like having good image quality. Any halfway decent CRT delivered on that by default (especially aperture grille types), and the FG2421 holds up remarkably well for an LCD with its roughly 5000:1 static contrast and 120 Hz. Trying to get both without compromising on anything other than price is the hard part.

Nytegard said:
For the professional monitors I typically stick with Eizo, or if willing to spend $1000 more, go with a Wacom Cintiq. With the Cintiq, you'll get the same high quality panel plus pen & touch support. Decent for drawing.
Click to expand...
That depends on which Cintiq you're buying, I've found.

The 27UHD has a great panel and digitizer accuracy (drawing is sublime on that thing), but sorry about your wallet. The 13HD/first-gen Cintiq Companion has a decent IPS panel, but black levels are more like dark grey, especially if you forget to set the dynamic range to full 0-255 instead of limited 16-235 on a Companion Hybrid (what I use, basically a 13HD touch with Android functionality when unplugged). The 21UX is also respectable.

But the old 15X has a disgraceful TN panel, and I've heard the 17SX and 12WX don't fare much better. Then again, those were also the earlier and often lower-end models, albeit the ones that budding artists are likely to afford when starting out if they know where to shop.

As for Eizo, I wouldn't mind having another, but the fact that I own an FG2421 in the first place was just a matter of me looking around in the right place at the right time. These things are unobtanium nowadays. Damn shame, as they're good monitors if you can look past the 1920x1080 res.
 
NamelessPFG said:
20ms is decent, though people tend to expect under 16ms (one frame at 60 Hz) these days. My FG2421 can manage that if the built-in Turbo240 ULMB-esque strobing feature is off, though turning it on pushes it past the 16ms threshold.

I just find that HDTVs are a crapshoot regarding input lag, forcing you to do careful research on which ones aren't total lagfests of the sort that screw you over in FPSs and fighting games, while monitors are more consistent. Too bad the latter also tend to be consistently smaller, and the former with low latency tend to be consistently expensive, too (usually with the ones near the top of the RTINGS rankings for input lag being somewhere near a grand, give or take a few hundred dollars).

But at the same time, I like having good image quality. Any halfway decent CRT delivered on that by default (especially aperture grille types), and the FG2421 holds up remarkably well for an LCD with its roughly 5000:1 static contrast and 120 Hz. Trying to get both without compromising on anything other than price is the hard part.
Click to expand...

I agree, TVs really are a crapshoot. Even on that Rtings list, TVs with low lag either have terrible contrast, poor uniformity, bad motion handling, subpar gamut, no HDR, etc. I dream of having a viable OLED in a 32”-46” size for a monitor.

One thing I absolutely cannot do after using wide gamut and high bit monitors for my desktop and gaming over the last 8 years is go back to sRGB. There is such a huge difference between 16.7M and 1.07B colors, and 6bit vs 10bit. Any future monitor for me, gaming or otherwise, will have to be 10bit and 100% DCI-P3. I’ll sacrifice some lag and latency, it’s that important.

If only we had OLED monitors...

I read that LG’s 2018 OLED models come with BFI. Wouldn’t that help reduce image retention? That, combined with the new pixel structure on the 2018 models would further help I’d imagine.

Someone here needs to take the plunge and buy a C8, use it for heavy gaming and desktop work for 6 months, then report back. :)
 
NamelessPFG said:
20ms is decent, though people tend to expect under 16ms (one frame at 60 Hz) these days. My FG2421 can manage that if the built-in Turbo240 ULMB-esque strobing feature is off, though turning it on pushes it past the 16ms threshold.

I just find that HDTVs are a crapshoot regarding input lag, forcing you to do careful research on which ones aren't total lagfests of the sort that screw you over in FPSs and fighting games, while monitors are more consistent. Too bad the latter also tend to be consistently smaller, and the former with low latency tend to be consistently expensive, too (usually with the ones near the top of the RTINGS rankings for input lag being somewhere near a grand, give or take a few hundred dollars).

But at the same time, I like having good image quality. Any halfway decent CRT delivered on that by default (especially aperture grille types), and the FG2421 holds up remarkably well for an LCD with its roughly 5000:1 static contrast and 120 Hz. Trying to get both without compromising on anything other than price is the hard part.


That depends on which Cintiq you're buying, I've found.

The 27UHD has a great panel and digitizer accuracy (drawing is sublime on that thing), but sorry about your wallet. The 13HD/first-gen Cintiq Companion has a decent IPS panel, but black levels are more like dark grey, especially if you forget to set the dynamic range to full 0-255 instead of limited 16-235 on a Companion Hybrid (what I use, basically a 13HD touch with Android functionality when unplugged). The 21UX is also respectable.

But the old 15X has a disgraceful TN panel, and I've heard the 17SX and 12WX don't fare much better. Then again, those were also the earlier and often lower-end models, albeit the ones that budding artists are likely to afford when starting out if they know where to shop.

As for Eizo, I wouldn't mind having another, but the fact that I own an FG2421 in the first place was just a matter of me looking around in the right place at the right time. These things are unobtanium nowadays. Damn shame, as they're good monitors if you can look past the 1920x1080 res.
Click to expand...

As for Wacom, I'm talking about their high end models (anything 24"+), not the smaller monitors. In May, they'll be selling their 32" version. The 24" one is 4k with a 10-bit monitor as well. But you'll be spending $3k+ and the thing doesn't come with a stand, so probably $4k+ in the end. I currently use the 27" one, but with the bezel, it's very big, and very heavy. I'm debating on upgrading, mainly because of the parallax for drawing as well as the lag between what you draw and what you see. (And the touch controls don't work too well on their old models).

Sadly, when shopping for desks, most desks now are designed for lightweight LCD monitors, and don't support the weight of it (~55lbs), which is lighter than CRT monitors of yesteryear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top