Gsync 4k 144hz HDR monitor prices 'released'

elvn said:
yes I'd guess two or more but who knows. We just got to the point where a single top end gpu (1080ti) can do 100fps+, average, at 2560x1440 on games of it's generation - even so, with some over the top settings still turned off on a few of the most demanding games. If high hz 4k screens become more prevalent perhaps it would drive gpu manufacturers to achieve more sooner though.
Click to expand...

-1440P is a waste
-4k is a waste

Real Life is only 256 x 240 NES resolution and without the aid of magic mushrooms the Human brain can only see 7.3 FPS in monochrome.

330px-thumbnail.jpg
 
I'm honestly more interested in the 35" Ultrawides. But they probably won't be out until Q3 or Q4. TFTCentral reported panel production is supposed to start in July. And I'm still skeptical about panel quality for both of these things. Will need a real review before I even consider spending that much money on an Asus/Acer "gaming" product with historically terrible quality control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skott
like this
Sancus said:
I'm honestly more interested in the 35" Ultrawides. But they probably won't be out until Q3 or Q4. TFTCentral reported panel production is supposed to start in July. And I'm still skeptical about panel quality for both of these things. Will need a real review before I even consider spending that much money on an Asus/Acer "gaming" product with historically terrible quality control.
Click to expand...

Me too. That 35" 1440p @200Hz model is the one I want to see reviews of. If it ever releases.
 
I don't really care about extreme resolutions. HDR(and improved contrast in general, even with SDR) is a much bigger visual upgrade than 1440P -> 4K, to me, especially for gaming. The only time I notice any difference between my 1440P 27" monitor and my 4K 15" Dell(far higher ppi than any desktop monitor) is with text rendering, and well I don't really care about text quality while gaming lol.

TBH if the PG27UQ/Predator X27 was 1440P+200hz and $500 cheaper I would be more likely to buy it but I know why they didn't do that(because 4K is a marketing bullet point for ~higher quality~ even when it's meaningless in practice and restricted to 4:2:2 chroma above 98hz).
 
Yeah, I don't see 4k as useful for gaming yet. If coming from 1440p, there are a lot of things that may provide more improvement first, including as mentioned contrast. Just the ability to accept HDR content is an advance here too, even though no desktop monitor is remotely capable of actually recreating it. And I'd put getting higher motion clarity out of higher-spec panels above HDR, with VRR intact.

4k makes quite a bit more sense for TVs, though- the other choice is 1080p, not 1440p, TVs are larger, and 4k is the target resolution for home entertainment stuff. It's also about the max that can be extracted from film for those doing remasters, and I can testify that it looks great. Just got Saving Private Ryan on UHD and ran it through my OLED :).
 
Its 2018

1080Pee is disgusting

1440Pee is gross

2160 is fantastic..finally don't need blurry AA!
 
l88bastard said:
Its 2018
2160 is fantastic..finally don't need blurry AA!
Click to expand...

I've been running stuff at 2160p for the last 3 years and yes, I don't see why we should accept anything less,especially given the direction of TVs and consoles.
 
Personally for myself I dont need 4k. 1440p is good enough plus I wouldn't need more horsepower than a 1080Ti for it. I don't need 200Hz either. 144Hz would be enough. I'll admit I do want real HDR and Gsynch though. Now if a monitor/TV exceeds those 'good enough for me' requirements then hell yeah I'll take it!
 
caffix said:
I don't see why we should accept anything less,especially given the direction of TVs and consoles.
Click to expand...

Not sure how lower static resolutions than 4K are 'accepting anything less'. Consoles can't even output 4K at reasonable frame rates in most games so they just upscale, which removes many of the actual benefits of 4K. There is a trade off between motion resolution(refresh rate/fps) and static resolution(pixel count). If you are playing video games where the entire viewport is usually in motion(most real-time games) then the idea that you can just go 4K 120hz and have it be as good as(for example) 1440p 240hz is wrong. Much of the time, the 240hz screen will provide significantly better visual quality, especially if you introduce strobing.

It's easily doable to push >200 frames per second at 1440p in most competitive games(Overwatch, CSGO, all the mobas, etc) so it makes sense to want higher refresh rates. And personally I perceive the visual benefit of higher motion resolution along with strobing to be better than 4K. With HDR-capable backlights hitting 600 nits sustained, it would be easy to finally build a large, high-refresh strobing monitor that has good brightness even if the room isn't perfectly dark.

A 1440p 240hz 27" screen with HDR capable backlight that can also be used for 300-400 nit strobing SDR would be, to me, a MUCH better display than a limited-to-98-hz-HDR PG27UQ. Not least of which because you wouldn't have to care about having enough gpu power to actually hit a minimum 100fps at 4K, or 144fps in SDR mode.
 
4k for gaming right now is overkill, but in a few years it will be the norm. 4/5k for people who work with text/video/pictures all day on 27-32 inch monitors makes a huge difference, once you seen how better text rendering becomes you will never want to go back. For gaming integer scaling and higher refresh on lower res would have bridged the gap but unfortunately monitor and GPU manufacturers took a half a**ed approach to it, probably to milk customers even more, selling them "upgrades" every year
 
4K is useless with these high fps screens, unless you're playing old games that are easy to push.

I have a 1080ti and still struggle to push everything at "gasp" 1440p @ 165fps. Not sure 4k 144 will be a reality any time soon
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
4K is useless with these high fps screens, unless you're playing old games that are easy to push.

I have a 1080ti and still struggle to push everything at "gasp" 1440p @ 165fps. Not sure 4k 144 will be a reality any time soon
Click to expand...
VRR tech, have you heard of it?
 
This video is a week old but the newer 27" HDR, Gsynch 4K @ 144Hz monitors seem to be finally coming.

 
There will be a non-hdr variant coming 2-3 months from now at a reduced price. TFTCentral says the panels go in mass production next month for the non-hdr variant. If the HDR gets bad reviews, I will probably wait to see the non-hdr version.
 
I think I'm going to find myself 'in between' again.

I want HDR 'support', i.e. the ability to accept HDR signals and properly process them, but I'm not interested in FALD. I do hope that the 'non-HDR' panels simply lack FALD, but keep the updated controllers.
 


That's a heck of a lot of FALD haloing (unavoidable). I'm sure the monitor will be fine for bright games like PUBG, but it's going to be terrible for dark games.
 
Vega said:
That's a heck of a lot of FALD haloing (unavoidable). I'm sure the monitor will be fine for bright games like PUBG, but it's going to be terrible for dark games.
Click to expand...

It looks pretty low latency though which is still an improvement. At least there won't be horrible bright trails behind every bright moving object on a dark background.
 
Meh I'll just wait for whatever monitor ends up using the new 43 inch 4k 120Hz AUO VA panel. Unless we get 4k120Hz OLED first.
 
Vega said:


That's a heck of a lot of FALD haloing (unavoidable). I'm sure the monitor will be fine for bright games like PUBG, but it's going to be terrible for dark games.
Click to expand...


I can't express how I feel in words when watching this preview....thank God we have songs like this that can fully express what we cannot say.
 
Vega said:


That's a heck of a lot of FALD haloing (unavoidable). I'm sure the monitor will be fine for bright games like PUBG, but it's going to be terrible for dark games.
Click to expand...


Wow, that is really bold to ask for ~2k$ for a monitor with that kind of haloing! I would expect a perfection for that price, and the option for bigger size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
sharknice said:
Is it possible to not have haloing with a fald?
Click to expand...
Yeah but you would need a crazy amount of zones...for a 4K panel, you would probably need ~500,000-~2,000,000 zones for it not to noticeable in a desktop environment/mouse cursor IMO.
 
Well we need to see one of these in actual action. Proper testing and review. I'll remain hopeful but cautious.
 
thelead said:
Yeah but you would need a crazy amount of zones...for a 4K panel, you would probably need ~500,000-~2,000,000 zones for it not to noticeable in a desktop environment/mouse cursor IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't think it needs to be that crazy. You could probably approach a good usage scenario with around 5,000 zones, but it really depends on the panel size. 384 zones on a 27" means each backlight is about 0.8 in². 5,184 zones would reduce that to 0.06 in². On a 65" panel 384 zones would make each backlight a 4.6 in², while 5,184 zones reduces that to 0.34 in². A 64x64 mouse cursor on a 27" 4K screen is 0.154 in² and 0.891 in² on a 65".
 
Armenius said:
I don't think it needs to be that crazy. You could probably approach a good usage scenario with around 5,000 zones, but it really depends on the panel size. 384 zones on a 27" means each backlight is about 0.8 in². 5,184 zones would reduce that to 0.06 in². On a 65" panel 384 zones would make each backlight a 4.6 in², while 5,184 zones reduces that to 0.34 in². A 64x64 mouse cursor on a 27" 4K screen is 0.154 in² and 0.891 in² on a 65".
Click to expand...
You’re probably right but I think of dark sky scenes with stars in the sky and fald lcds always look like trash compared to OLED. That said, 5,000 zones seems like a crazy number too on a 27” so who knows if we’ll ever see that... it might make more sense looking into ‘fixing’ OLED issues or finding a better technology altogether.
 
Armenius said:
I don't think it needs to be that crazy. You could probably approach a good usage scenario with around 5,000 zones, but it really depends on the panel size. 384 zones on a 27" means each backlight is about 0.8 in². 5,184 zones would reduce that to 0.06 in². On a 65" panel 384 zones would make each backlight a 4.6 in², while 5,184 zones reduces that to 0.34 in². A 64x64 mouse cursor on a 27" 4K screen is 0.154 in² and 0.891 in² on a 65".
Click to expand...

if your target is limiting the bright spot around a cursor, the number needed should be relative to the cursor size in pixels not the dimensional size of the lighting element in inches (although the latter has the potential to be a hard engineering limit for backlit displays).

a 64x64 cursor would need 60*34 = 2040 zones if it snapped directly from one zone to the next. Since in most cases it'd be spanning 4 zones, the over-brightened area would be 4x the cursor size.

Halving the lighting zone size to 32 pixels on a side would need 120*68 = 8160 zones, with the cursor being 4 zones in area, but typically straddling a total of 9 (one fully covered and overhanging into 8 adjacent ones), for an over-brightened zone 2.25x the cursor size.

Doing it again to 16x16 would need 240*137 = 32880 zones (fractional rounding finally let us drop 1 row on the vertical), with the cursor the size of 16 zones, but straddling 25 (9 fully covered and overlapping part of 16 around them), for 1.56x the cursor size.

This makes it clear that diminishing returns build up fairly rapidly as the dimming zones get smaller than the light source.



OTOH the impression I got from the brief pre-review video I saw of one of these the other day, had me feeling the bigger issue wasn't that the lighting zone was so much larger than the cursor but that it took a significant fraction of a second to fully dim again after the cursor moved away.
 
thelead said:
You’re probably right but I think of dark sky scenes with stars in the sky and fald lcds always look like trash compared to OLED. That said, 5,000 zones seems like a crazy number too on a 27” so who knows if we’ll ever see that... it might make more sense looking into ‘fixing’ OLED issues or finding a better technology altogether.
Click to expand...

The issue of getting the zones small enough is why micro-LED is being looked at as a backlight for future HDR LCDs. The 146" 4k display Samsung showed off earlier this year was 30 DPI.

for a 27" 4k screen, that'd give the potential for dimming zones of only 6x6 pixels, or 230k dimming zones. I suspect that'd be good enough to solve any static haloing issues. Dynamic issues would OTOH still be dependent on how fast the microLED backlight could switch assuming they can't get the controller smart enough to compensate for it by setting the LCD pixels extra dark for a few frames to compensate for the residual backlight anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top