The 32 inch 4k IPS 144hz's...(Update - this party is started) (wait for it...)

MBeezy815

n00b
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
6
At this point I wonder if I'd be better off seeing if there is a monitor with 60hz refresh rate as long as all of the other boxes are checked...60 fps at 4k still is not a given if I'm correct so I really wouldn't be missing anything
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
I think it depends on what matters the most. I really wanted 144hz refresh for an edge in some games, but to me I can't trade so much image quality for that refresh rate, and in this case you are trading a LOT of image quality when compared to something like my PS321URV. I dont understand why a monitor like the Asus PG32UQ which is meant to be a gaming display has such poor response time and OD options. Why would AUO bother with a high refresh rate panel and then gimp it with its response time. The Innolux panel found in the M32U was on par with the PS321URV as far as response time, but its image quality was average at best and quality control was abysmal. The PS321URV also comes factory calibrated to perfection with discrete color space modes, all of which you can adjust brightness and other settings for individually. People who haven't seen a tightly calibrated display have no idea what they are missing.
 

dgrdsv

n00b
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
34
At this point I wonder if I'd be better off seeing if there is a monitor with 60hz refresh rate as long as all of the other boxes are checked...60 fps at 4k still is not a given if I'm correct so I really wouldn't be missing anything
You can use any of these monitors at 60 Hz.
These last several posts are really strange.
PG32UQ's response times are absolutely fine for gaming (they are 100% fine for 120Hz for example and I honestly don't see any issues above either), and I can hardly notice OD overshoot in any mode but the fastest one.
Saying that a 60Hz older panel has the same response time as the faster panel in M32U sounds just like a misinformation to me as well.
 
Last edited:

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
You can use any of these monitors at 60 Hz.
These last several posts are really strange.
PG32UQ's response time are absolutely fine for gaming (they are 100% fine for 120Hz for example and I honestly don't see any issues above either), and I can hardly notice OD overshoot in any mode but the fastest one.
Saying that a 60Hz older panel has the same response time as the faster panel in M32U sounds just like a misinformation to me as well.
I noticed the slow pixel response on the Asus prior to even seeing reviews. But if you look at the reviews you can see for yourself. You either get OK response time, or inverse ghosting. Even if it was just OK response time with no inverse ghosting at any refresh rate that still wouldn't be acceptable for a $1000 monitor. The FI32U and M32U both have the same Innolux panel, with a pixel response time twice as fast as the AUO version found in models like the Asus and MSI. It is not misinformation, the data is readily available from multiple sources. Refresh rate and response time are correlated but not mutually exclusive. My 60hz PS321URV has no visible ghosting. The Asus has noticeable ghosting. Remember that at 144hz the screen is refreshing approximately every 6.9ms. In the case of the Asus PG32UQ, it takes around 10ms for the pixels to refresh *on average*, meaning the pixels never catch up to what the monitor driver is sending to the raw pixels. What you get is ghosting and other artifacts. So no, the PG32UQ's pixel response time is not "fine", especially not for gaming. Hardware Unboxed review video is literally titled "Why So Slow?" and headlines with "Maximum Colors, Minimum Speed".

The M32U and FI32U have panels that are fast enough for their 144hz refresh rates (if just barely), but they also have worse image quality than the AUO panel, and by a good margin. So with this current crop of panels you choose either ghosting and inverse ghosting with decent image quality, or no ghosting with sub-par image quality. Not acceptable for their price points.

Also it should be noted. My PG32UQ had good gamut coverage, but terrible out-of-the-box calibration and gimped settings for a proper calibration. This forces you to have to do a software level calibration using an ICC profile, which is another issue. Many games and apps are not compatible with ICC profiles and so they will revert back to the standard calibration. Not having a good calibration out-of-the-box or at least the ability to do a proper hardware level calibration (via OSD menu setting), is something you see in sub $300 monitors.
 
Last edited:

dgrdsv

n00b
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
34
I noticed the slow pixel response on the Asus prior to even seeing reviews. But if you look at the reviews you can see for yourself. You either get OK response time, or inverse ghosting.
I look at the monitor as I write these and see nothing of what you're saying.
I mean maybe there's a perfect monitor somewhere out there in the universe which is miles better than PG32UQ but I personally haven't seen it. In comparison to any other typical IPS monitor PG32UQ is absolutely fine.

Even if it was just OK response time with no inverse ghosting at any refresh rate that still wouldn't be acceptable for a $1000 monitor.
Why? Is there a better monitor with such parameters cheaper?

The FI32U and M32U both have the same Innolux panel, with a pixel response time twice as fast as the AUO version found in models like the Asus and MSI. It is not misinformation, the data is readily available from multiple sources. Refresh rate and response time are correlated but not mutually exclusive. My 60hz PS321URV has no visible ghosting. The Asus has noticeable ghosting.
Your 60Hz panel by default has way more noticeable ghosting than a 144Hz one. This is the misinformation.

Remember that at 144hz the screen is refreshing approximately every 6.9ms. In the case of the Asus PG32UQ, it takes around 10ms for the pixels to refresh *on average*, meaning the pixels never catch up to what the monitor driver is sending to the raw pixels. What you get is ghosting and other artifacts.
What you get is some color transitions being below the refresh rate, and this is only true for refreshes above 120Hz really (133 or so even). This is absolutely not the same as "what you get is ghosting and other artifacts". You get a modern gaming LCD monitor. They all have these.

So no, the PG32UQ's pixel response time is not "fine", especially not for gaming.
Yes, they absolutely are. Saying this as someone who is gaming on this monitor.

Hardware Unboxed review video is literally titled "Why So Slow?"
Clickbaits gets you the clicks, yeah.

The M32U and FI32U have panels that are fast enough for their 144hz refresh rates (if just barely), but they also have worse image quality than the AUO panel, and by a good margin.
They have narrower color coverage. Again this is absolutely not the same as "worse image quality".

Not acceptable for their price points.
Again, give me an example of a better 32" 144Hz 4K monitor at $800 of M32U.

My PG32UQ had good gamut coverage, but terrible out-of-the-box calibration and gimped settings for a proper calibration.
The monitor is factory calibrated in sRGB mode which is written in the report which comes with it.
The default "racing" mode allows you to tune all of settings which you need to setup it to your liking.

Loads of misinformation.
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
You have no idea what you are talking about, and I wont argue with someone who will defend a bad purchase simply because it makes them feel better about it. The information I gave was factual. Saying "well what other options are there?" does not justify them. The other option is NOT throwing money into a fire and waiting until something worthwhile comes, which eventually it will.

Also FYI, the "factory calibrated" sRGB mode is a joke. I measured it with an i1 display pro plus with an average deltaE of 5.3, a heavy blue shift, and 96% gamut coverage. I wouldn't be surprised of those factory calibrated pieces of printer paper they come with are all identical, or selected from a chosen few.

Forgot to add, LG is releasing the 42" variant of their 4k OLED in less than 2 months. It will be priced below $1000. It will have near 100% P3 coverage, less than 1ms response times, no inverse ghosting, true HDR, full bandwidth HDMI 2.1, VRR, etc. I wont be getting it simply because I have some burn-in on my C9 and its to big for me, but it will destroy all of these monitors in every way by a country mile.
 
Last edited:

recusant

n00b
Joined
Oct 19, 2021
Messages
12
Still don't know why they can't just make a 27" or 32" OLED already. Just cut the big TV-size monitors in half, lol.

Edit: Nevermind, forgot about 144Hz. The wait continues.
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
Still don't know why they can't just make a 27" or 32" OLED already. Just cut the big TV-size monitors in half, lol.

Edit: Nevermind, forgot about 144Hz. The wait continues.
120hz vs 144hz is negligible at best. The biggest jump is 60hz to 120hz.
 

johnnysd

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
226
You have no idea what you are talking about, and I wont argue with someone who will defend a bad purchase simply because it makes them feel better about it. The information I gave was factual. Saying "well what other options are there?" does not justify them. The other option is NOT throwing money into a fire and waiting until something worthwhile comes, which eventually it will.

Also FYI, the "factory calibrated" sRGB mode is a joke. I measured it with an i1 display pro plus with an average deltaE of 5.3, a heavy blue shift, and 96% gamut coverage. I wouldn't be surprised of those factory calibrated pieces of printer paper they come with are all identical, or selected from a chosen few.

Forgot to add, LG is releasing the 42" variant of their 4k OLED in less than 2 months. It will be priced below $1000. It will have near 100% P3 coverage, less than 1ms response times, no inverse ghosting, true HDR, full bandwidth HDMI 2.1, VRR, etc. I wont be getting it simply because I have some burn-in on my C9 and its to big for me, but it will destroy all of these monitors in every way by a country mile.
I decided after try #3 that neither the M32U or Asus one were worth a damn so getting a 48" C1 that will be games only.
 

dgrdsv

n00b
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
34
You have no idea what you are talking about, and I wont argue with someone who will defend a bad purchase simply because it makes them feel better about it.
I've asked you two times to give me an example of a better purchase. You obviously can't do that. Thus all your rant is basically meaningless.
Are these monitors the pinnacle of monitor tech? Nah, they have a lot of issues - panel contrast is bad, variable OD is lacking again meaning that you'll have to adjust it manually to a target framerate, HDMI isn't fully featured on some of them, backlight zoning is obviously not enough for any sort of HDR experience, etc.
But response times, OD overshoot and color performance aren't on the list of actual issues. These monitors are completely fine in these three areas - they are similar here to any other IPS display on the market really.
It's you who certainly don't know what you're even talking about.

Forgot to add, LG is releasing the 42" variant of their 4k OLED in less than 2 months. It will be priced below $1000. It will have near 100% P3 coverage, less than 1ms response times, no inverse ghosting, true HDR, full bandwidth HDMI 2.1, VRR, etc.
It will also be a WRGB panel which means that it won't be suitable for any sort of precise desktop work, only games and movies.
But sure, OLED will be an obvious step above these IPS monitors. That LG panel though won't be without issues of it's own either.

And consider this: panel development leads are rather long. These AUO and Innolux panels won't be seriously updated for a couple of years at best. There may be some OC versions hitting 160Hz but that's about it. What else is there? There will likely be a 32" sized 4K LGD panel from their "fast IPS" line next year - and that's about it. These monitors are here for the next couple of years. If you're fine waiting till 2023-4 for the next generation of this tech then fine, do that. I myself will be waiting on this gen though since it definitely beats waiting another 2-3 years on anything available previously.
 
Last edited:

ssj3rd

n00b
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
21
And consider this: panel development leads are rather long. These AUO and Innolux panels won't be seriously updated for a couple of years at best. There may be some OC versions hitting 160Hz but that's about it. What else is there? There will likely be a 32" sized 4K LGD panel from their "fast IPS" line next year - and that's about it. These monitors are here for the next couple of years. If you're fine waiting till 2023-4 for the next generation of this tech then fine, do that. I myself will be waiting on this gen though since it definitely beats waiting another 2-3 years on anything available previously.
I don’t think that’s true at all, just wait for the CES 2022 next year and the announcements.

But if you’re actually right, then I will too buy a 42er LG OLED, even if it’s too fcking big for me.
 
Last edited:

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
I don’t think that’s true at all, just wait for the CES 2022 next year and the announcements.

But if you’re actually right then I will too buy a 42er LG OLED, even if it’s too fcking big for me.
Yup. Just look at Apple's mini LED tech. With 10,000 LEDS in 2,500 zones on a laptop. The tech is here.
 

dgrdsv

n00b
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
34
I don’t think that’s true at all, just wait for the CES 2022 next year and the announcements.
The announcements at CES 2022 will come to market at the end of 2022 at best. See the date when the very same PG32UQ was announced. There are some other more egregious examples as well where monitor products have been MIA for about two years after their announcements.
But that's besides the point even. The point is that the lead times are long for panel development. These panels which we see in this first wave of 4K/144/32" monitors have appeared on manufacturers roadmaps in 2018 (!) And there are not a lot of updates to these panels on these roadmaps right now - which means that any serious update is unlikely to appear in products prior to 2023-4 here.

But if you’re actually right then I will too buy a 42er LG OLED, even if it’s too fcking big for me.
42" is actually a perfect size for a 4K monitor. You will be able to use it with 100% desktop scaling which is a plus.
Next good option would be something like 4X of resolution in the same diagonal - 5120x2880 27"-32" for example. This would result in a nice round 200% of desktop scaling.
32" 4K is a bit too short on both fronts - not big enough for 100% and not dense enough for something like 200%.

But with OLEDs there's a catch which is burn-in which I'd expect to destroy the panel in about one year of a typical desktop work usage.
So even if there will be 32-42" RGB OLED panels with >120Hz (120 is fairly low end by PC standards these days TBH) they'll have to cost between $250-500 per product to make is worthwhile - since you'll likely have to change them once a year while your LCD monitor would probably chug along just fine for ~5 years at least.

Just look at Apple's mini LED tech. With 10,000 LEDS in 2,500 zones on a laptop. The tech is here.
That tech will cost ~$5000 for the same panel size and will still have all the same issues but the one with the 16 backlight zones not being enough for HDR.
I fail to see how that would be good when a ~$1000 monitor without such backlight isn't. HDR is hardly a must have feature on an LCD panel. They all suck at it.
 

azalex86

n00b
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
14
But with OLEDs there's a catch which is burn-in which I'd expect to destroy the panel in about one year of a typical desktop work usage.
Anecdotally, ive been using OLEDs as main work monitors for the last 3 years and have yet to see any burn-in. The C1 gets about 10-12 hours of usage in desktop content, programming, JIRA dashboards and such, M-F and about 4 hrs on Saturday and Sunday.

They have gotten to a spot where you can be fairly reckless with them, just don’t walk away from your computer with static content up over night and don’t keep the brightness at blinding levels. Make sure there is a screensaver or display time out set and you’ll be fine for much longer than a year.

*one thing to note — if someone is really concerned about it, there are warranties out there that include burn in for about $100-150 for 3 years
 

Freekill

n00b
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
I returned the M32U with the defective subpixel and got a replacement that is fine. So they do exist.

Also, I managed to create a custom resolution in the nvidia control panel that somehow gives 3840x2160@144hz (manual timing: 143,856hz = 6x23.976hz) with full RGB on a DP 1.4 connection (Nvidia GTX 1080ti). I see no frame skipping or banding.

I had to go back to the previous 60hz 4k panel (Acer Predator) and the slow refresh rate was painful in comparison.

Sure it's not perfect (some BLB, not so great angles, IPS glow) but so are all current monitors and it will have to do until we get < 48" Oled's.

Now I have to find my X-Rite i1...
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
I picked up another M32U today in hopes id get a "good one". Nope. It's junk. The same as the previous M32U. The image quality is just so far behind the PS321URV. The lack of P3 gamut coverage compared to the PS321URV is extremely obvious and the black levels are on another level with the PS321URV. Anyone who has an M32U or FI32U should also check to see if they have streaking on an all black screen. Both of the M32U's ive had have the exact same streaking on an all black screen. Its not banding, but literally thin vertical streaks that run through the AG coating. Its just not worth buying these 32" 4k 144hz panels. They are made as cheap as possible and priced like they are high end displays.
 

Freekill

n00b
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
Ok so I located my X-Rite and and... it's soft touch coating had turned all sticky. Anyway, after 1 hour of removing it with isopropyl alcohol I calibrated the M32U.

The results:

DeltaE : 0.12 (avg), 1.14 (max), 0.23 (RMS)

sRGB coverage: 99.7%
AdobeRGB coverage: 85.4%
DCI P3 coverage: 87.8%

Black level = 0.1061 cd/m^2
White level = 112.91 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.23
Contrast ratio = 1064:1

Screen settings:

- profile: custom 1
- brightness: 22
- contrast: 50
- color vibance: 10
- sharpness: 5
- gamma: 2.2
- color temperature: R96 G96 B98

Not too bad for an IPS display.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

GoPocky

n00b
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
5
Ok so I located my X-Rite and and... it's soft touch coating had turned all sticky. Anyway, after 1 hour of removing it with isopropyl alcohol I calibrated the M32U.

The results:

DeltaE : 0.12 (avg), 1.14 (max), 0.23 (RMS)

sRGB coverage: 99.7%
AdobeRGB coverage: 85.4%
DCI P3 coverage: 87.8%

Black level = 0.1061 cd/m^2
White level = 112.91 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.23
Contrast ratio = 1064:1

Screen settings:

- profile: custom 1
- brightness: 22
- contrast: 50
- color vibance: 10
- sharpness: 5
- gamma: 2.2
- color temperature: R96 G96 B98

Not too bad for an IPS display.
The rtings review confirm the M32U is a good monitor

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/gigabyte/m32u
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,874
I picked up another M32U today in hopes id get a "good one". Nope. It's junk. The same as the previous M32U. The image quality is just so far behind the PS321URV. The lack of P3 gamut coverage compared to the PS321URV is extremely obvious and the black levels are on another level with the PS321URV. Anyone who has an M32U or FI32U should also check to see if they have streaking on an all black screen. Both of the M32U's ive had have the exact same streaking on an all black screen. Its not banding, but literally thin vertical streaks that run through the AG coating. Its just not worth buying these 32" 4k 144hz panels. They are made as cheap as possible and priced like they are high end displays.

I agree. But question: Why does P3 gamut coverage matter for the M32U? I don't know much but my assumption was that the need for wider color gamuts (P3 and REC.2020) were for HDR viewing since that type of content takes advantage of said wider color gamuts. For regular SDR viewing, isn't sRGB gamut coverage which the M32U covers basically all of it, enough? Why is there a need for wide color gamut coverage when the only content that should be viewed on the M32U is SDR and not HDR. HDR400/600 with 8-16 edge lit zones is an absolute joke and I think these monitors should be treated as regular SDR monitors. Now if you are doing some photo work that uses P3 and Adobe RGB color space then I can understand that.
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
I agree. But question: Why does P3 gamut coverage matter for the M32U? I don't know much but my assumption was that the need for wider color gamuts (P3 and REC.2020) were for HDR viewing since that type of content takes advantage of said wider color gamuts. For regular SDR viewing, isn't sRGB gamut coverage which the M32U covers basically all of it, enough? Why is there a need for wide color gamut coverage when the only content that should be viewed on the M32U is SDR and not HDR. HDR400/600 with 8-16 edge lit zones is an absolute joke and I think these monitors should be treated as regular SDR monitors. Now if you are doing some photo work that uses P3 and Adobe RGB color space then I can understand that.
The problem is the price. For the price, in the case of the innolux models (M32U, FI32U, and others) these should be 95%+ DCI-P3. The innolux panel suffers from phosphor decay thanks to the use of the cheapest method possible to qualify for wide color gamut. To most it is unnoticeable, but to a trained eye you can see a red after image specifically with white text on a black background. Similar to the "Rainbow Effect" found on DLP projectors, but instead of a rainbow its just red. The above person is claiming this is a good monitor because you could calibrate it with an x-rite and make an ICC profile. Well an x-rite will get good results with a $200 TN monitor. An ICC profile is useless for games, I dont know a single game that will use the ICC profile in full screen mode. Sure if you want to play windowed that will likely apply your ICC profile. It seems a lot of people dont understand how windows manages color profiles. Most web browsers dont even use ICC profiles, including chrome.

I have seen thousands of displays and have had hands-on time with some ultra high end displays. These Innolux and AUO 4k/144hz panels rank as some of the worst panels I have seen. They both have major compromises, on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Rtings ratings are misleading as they take objective data measurements which on the surface seem great. However in real world usage the expectation you might get from the rtings ratings vs what you experience will not line up. To anyone happy with these displays they likely dont know better which is what I assume is the target audience is for these. For example someone stated above that 60hz by default means the pixel response time is slower than any 144hz display, which means they dont understand what pixel response is.

Lets look at the PG32UQ. At its maximum refresh rate of 155hz, the panel driver is processing and sending a new frame to the raw pixels every 6.45ms. However, the panel is only able to do a top to bottom refresh every 8.88ms (level 4 OD, with decent overshoot), 37% slower than what would be required to keep up with this refresh rate. You might say well ok, just set the panel to an 8.88ms refresh rate which would be 112hz. Well unfortunately as you lower the refresh rate, voltage surge requirements change and thus pixel response time becomes greater to maintain the same level of overshoot. You could keep OD voltage the same (level 4 OD) at lower refresh rates and have fast response times, but you would be increasing overshoot exponentially. So what you need is a good base level response time from the start that scales with different refresh rates. Many quality panels are able to maintain pixel response times and balance overshoot with their respective refresh rates. The PG32UQ is not a high refresh rate 4k monitor. It is a 4k monitor that can accept high refresh rates, but not display them. You will never get a true high refresh rate experience with the PG32UQ. It is not worth $999. I wouldn't even buy it at $500.

The innolux variants are the only true 4k/144hz 32" panels out right now. They are fast enough to give you the high refresh rate experience. However in my opinion, the refresh rate does not make up for the other compromises. A good quality 32" 4k panel will give you a better overall experience, and at a lower cost. Yes it will only be 60hz (some can OC to 75hz), but if you are in the market for a 32" 4k monitor I just cant recommend the current crop of 4k/144hz 32" monitors. If you want a high refresh rate monitor for competitive gaming you are better off with a 32" 1440p high refresh rate monitor until REAL 4k/144hz monitors become available. If the PPI is to low move down to a 27" panel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: res
like this

les_garten

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
428
The problem is the price. For the price, in the case of the innolux models (M32U, FI32U, and others) these should be 95%+ DCI-P3. The innolux panel suffers from phosphor decay thanks to the use of the cheapest method possible to qualify for wide color gamut. To most it is unnoticeable, but to a trained eye you can see a red after image specifically with white text on a black background. Similar to the "Rainbow Effect" found on DLP projectors, but instead of a rainbow its just red. The above person is claiming this is a good monitor because you could calibrate it with an x-rite and make an ICC profile. Well an x-rite will get good results with a $200 TN monitor. An ICC profile is useless for games, I dont know a single game that will use the ICC profile in full screen mode. Sure if you want to play windowed that will likely apply your ICC profile. It seems a lot of people dont understand how windows manages color profiles. Most web browsers dont even use ICC profiles, including chrome.

I have seen thousands of displays and have had hands-on time with some ultra high end displays. These Innolux and AUO 4k/144hz panels rank as some of the worst panels I have seen. They both have major compromises, on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Rtings ratings are misleading as they take objective data measurements which on the surface seem great. However in real world usage the expectation you might get from the rtings ratings vs what you experience will not line up. To anyone happy with these displays they likely dont know better which is what I assume is the target audience is for these. For example someone stated above that 60hz by default means the pixel response time is slower than any 144hz display, which means they dont understand what pixel response is.

Lets look at the PG32UQ. At its maximum refresh rate of 155hz, the panel driver is processing and sending a new frame to the raw pixels every 6.45ms. However, the panel is only able to do a top to bottom refresh every 8.88ms (level 4 OD, with decent overshoot), 37% slower than what would be required to keep up with this refresh rate. You might say well ok, just set the panel to an 8.88ms refresh rate which would be 112hz. Well unfortunately as you lower the refresh rate, voltage surge requirements change and thus pixel response time becomes greater to maintain the same level of overshoot. You could keep OD voltage the same (level 4 OD) at lower refresh rates and have fast response times, but you would be increasing overshoot exponentially. So what you need is a good base level response time from the start that scales with different refresh rates. Many quality panels are able to maintain pixel response times and balance overshoot with their respective refresh rates. The PG32UQ is not a high refresh rate 4k monitor. It is a 4k monitor that can accept high refresh rates, but not display them. You will never get a true high refresh rate experience with the PG32UQ. It is not worth $999. I wouldn't even buy it at $500.

The innolux variants are the only true 4k/144hz 32" panels out right now. They are fast enough to give you the high refresh rate experience. However in my opinion, the refresh rate does not make up for the other compromises. A good quality 32" 4k panel will give you a better overall experience, and at a lower cost. Yes it will only be 60hz (some can OC to 75hz), but if you are in the market for a 32" 4k monitor I just cant recommend the current crop of 4k/144hz 32" monitors. If you want a high refresh rate monitor for competitive gaming you are better off with a 32" 1440p high refresh rate monitor until REAL 4k/144hz monitors become available. If the PPI is to low move down to a 27" panel.

Your Indian name is now...

Throws Turds in Punch Bowl
 

dgrdsv

n00b
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
34
You will never get a true high refresh rate experience with the PG32UQ.
Again, this is just a lie. You're taking WORST transition times and applying them to ALL pixels. Which isn't at all how it works in practice where such transitions would be happening to ~20% of pixels and you'll see OD artifacts at ~10% of them. This is basically unnoticeable for the majority of uses.
As I've said, this panel's issues are mediocre contrast, not that great viewing angles and complete lack of HDR capability. Response times and OD overshoot are fine and not at all that different from any other modern fast IPS panel.

A good quality 32" 4k panel will give you a better overall experience, and at a lower cost. Yes it will only be 60hz (some can OC to 75hz), but if you are in the market for a 32" 4k monitor I just cant recommend the current crop of 4k/144hz 32" monitors.
And this is just pure b.s.
60Hz panels even at the same price (so ~$800, which is a lot for a 60Hz) may be marginally better in color reproduction but they will be worse for motion EVERYWHERE. They will be unequivocally worse for gaming and they will be worse even in desktop usage due to low refresh rate.
It's just absolutely a fact which anyone who has even tried to compare a 60Hz monitor to a 144Hz one would be aware of. And no, rare overshoot artifacts and "slow" pixel transitions (your 60Hz one will have even slower pixel transitions, of course) will not make these 144Hz panels worse here.

Btw I remember you mentioning Apple's 10000 LED panel as something better - well, it's so slow that it's hardly even a 60Hz panel!
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
For anyone willing to educate themselves, here is a simplified review laying out *average* (not rare unicorn transitions) pixel response times: https://www.techspot.com/review/2332-asus-rog-pg32uq/

Do note from their findings: "Unfortunately though, this mode [level 4 OD] still isn’t that fast and refresh compliance below 50% is disappointing, suggesting perhaps the panel isn’t quite fast enough for gaming at this refresh rate."
 

dgrdsv

n00b
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
34
For anyone willing to educate themselves, here is a simplified review laying out *average* (not rare unicorn transitions) pixel response times:
"Average" pixel response times are including these "rare unicorn transitions" into them. Hence why they are "average".
This review is also done at 155Hz overclock - which is essentially useless on that monitor due to panel not being fast enough for it and the fact that it removes all refreshes between 60 and 155.
The panel is completely fine at 120-144Hz and it's definitely better than your "unicorn 60Hz monitor" for gaming and general usage.

Here, a magnified visual comparison of your "fast enough Innolux" panel with this AUO one:

pursuit_2.jpg


What a difference, eh?
Notice the "magnified" part as well. You won't see these like that in practice.
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
"Average" pixel response times are including these "rare unicorn transitions" into them. Hence why they are "average".
This review is also done at 155Hz overclock - which is essentially useless on that monitor due to panel not being fast enough for it and the fact that it removes all refreshes between 60 and 155.
The panel is completely fine at 120-144Hz and it's definitely better than your "unicorn 60Hz monitor" for gaming and general usage.
Sorry, you are still ignorant to how LCD's work. Lowering the refresh rate of an LCD panel at the same OD level does in fact lower response time, at the expense of overshoot. Again, voltage surge requirements change with refresh rate. Its the nature of LCD's. For the PG32UQ to finally reach an acceptable pixel response time at your 120hz-144hz range (level 4 OD), overshoot is now an issue. You should also realize that there are panels, 60hz in fact, that have pixel response times under 4ms with acceptable overshoot. Even more extreme would be OLED, with less than 1ms response time and no overshoot, even at 60hz. These displays would give a visually better experience in motion despite being 60hz.
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
I should also add for those interested, the nature of sample-and-hold displays such as LCD and OLED cause inherent motion blurring and motion resolution loss. Technologies like CRT and Plasma which are impulse-driven have nearly the same motion resolution as they do static resolution due to their flashing of complete frames.
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
What a difference, eh?
Notice the "magnified" part as well. You won't see these like that in practice.
Actually yes, that is quite a difference. The apparent motion resolution of the FI32U appears to be about DOUBLE that of the PG32UQ. Look at the black curved lines on the red part of the ship. They are nearly absent on the PG32UQ.
 

dgrdsv

n00b
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
34
Sorry, you are still ignorant to how LCD's work. Lowering the refresh rate of an LCD panel at the same OD level does in fact lower response time, at the expense of overshoot. Again, voltage surge requirements change with refresh rate. Its the nature of LCD's. For the PG32UQ to finally reach an acceptable pixel response time at your 120hz-144hz range (level 4 OD), overshoot is now an issue.
You control OD on that monitor, and no, overshoot is not an issue on it, unless you do something stupid like run 60Hz at OD4 or use OD5.
OD4 is fine at 90-144Hz.
OD2 and OD3 are fine for <90Hz.
I struggle to notice any overshoot on that monitor, and here are you telling me how big of a problem it is.
The only real problem with OD here is that it's not actually variable and you need to change it manually for a target refresh rate. But that is the same problem for like 99% of non-Gsync monitors.

You should also realize that there are panels, 60hz in fact, that have pixel response times under 4ms with acceptable overshoot. Even more extreme would be OLED, with less than 1ms response time and no overshoot, even at 60hz. These displays would give a visually better experience in motion despite being 60hz.
Sure and they will still be SLOWER in actual pixel response times than these 144Hz monitors. Because - here's something from this universe for you - pixel response time can't be faster than panel refresh rate. You get it?
Panels are refreshing the pixels with refresh rate. So even if you have a 1ms response you will have to wait for 15.67ms until the next one on your 60Hz monitor. Which is why it will never be better for gaming or even desktop usage.
The only thing you get this way is a complete lack of motion induced blur - but that's only true for OLEDs (some of them anyway; I've seen my share of really slow OLEDs), LCD panels will still have it, in various amounts. And they will be worse for gaming, period, because essentially any <144Hz panel will be when compared to a 144Hz one. Why do you think gamers buy these awful TN panels?

Actually yes, that is quite a difference. The motion resolution of the Fi32U appears to be about DOUBLE that of the PG32UQ.
No further questions.
There is no perceivable difference here. They both blur and they both are fine with that blur at 144Hz.
You should've guessed by now btw that blur and OD artifacts are linked in their actual visibility to panel PPI.
 

Freekill

n00b
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
The innolux panel suffers from phosphor decay thanks to the use of the cheapest method possible to qualify for wide color gamut. To most it is unnoticeable, but to a trained eye you can see a red after image specifically with white text on a black background. Similar to the "Rainbow Effect" found on DLP projectors, but instead of a rainbow its just red.

Do you have a method to show this red "phosphor decay" ? I took photographs of a white text on black background while scrolling aggressively (both vertically and horizontally) and I cannot see any evident artifact (fringing, ghosting).

Scrolling white text on black background is still bad for the eyes, even on OLED.
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
Gamers buy TN panels for pixel response times, they also happen to usually be higher refresh rates although in the beginning this was not that case. As yes, pixel response time CAN be faster than the driven refresh rate. Pixel response time is *additive* to panel refresh rate. So in your argument you are saying you only need a 16.7ms response time for a 60hz display. This is wrong. In this scenario a pixel would take 33.4ms to change from frame to frame. This would look absolutely terrible.

To understand how LCD's work, imagine a soldier standing at attention waiting for an order. They are a 60hz soldier (pixel) and get an order once every 16.7ms. However, it takes them 4ms to carry out their order, meaning they can only complete one order every 20.7ms without errors (in a monitor, its overshoot). The extra time over the 16.7ms causes smearing.

The PG32UQ has a an average scene to scene response of 15.33ms at 155hz (6.45ms frame time + 8.88 response time) when counting for pixel response and sample-and-hold. A 60hz TN panel with with a 1ms response time is 17.7ms. Yea, your PG32UQ is amazing.
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
Do you have a method to show this red "phosphor decay" ? I took photographs of a white text on black background while scrolling aggressively (both vertically and horizontally) and I cannot see any evident artifact (fringing, ghosting).

Scrolling white text on black background is still bad for the eyes, even on OLED.
The way I am able to see it is by rapidly moving eyes left and right, the same method used to see the rainbow effect on DLP. The text does not need to be moving. Some people are not capable of seeing it.
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
Do you have a method to show this red "phosphor decay" ? I took photographs of a white text on black background while scrolling aggressively (both vertically and horizontally) and I cannot see any evident artifact (fringing, ghosting).

Scrolling white text on black background is still bad for the eyes, even on OLED.
I presume if you really want to see it and are not able to see it with rapid eye movement, turning on the BFI feature will make it much more pronounced. Someone can test this as I returned my second unit already.

EDIT: Even better, Rtings took a slow motion video of the M32U with BFI. In the video you can clearly see the red after the white flash, this is phosphor decay. The backlight is red as the phosphor is still glowing after the blue spectrum LED has shut off: https://www.rtings.com/videos/pages/aAzFXjHH/c0020.mpd?autoplay=false&autoload=false

To get a wide color gamut cheaply, they use narrow spectrum blue LED's coated with red phosphor. The blue LED combines with the red phosphor to produce a higher than average gamut on the cheap, with the side-effect being red phosphor decay. The correct way to create wide gamut panels is the use of quantum dots. This artifact is entirely eliminated with QD's and you get a near 100% P3 coverage.

If you see a monitor claiming 90% DCI-P3, it is likely using red phosphor LED's. If you see 95% or 98% claimed DCI-P3, its highly likely using QD's.
 
Last edited:

Freekill

n00b
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
I *am* susceptible to rainbow effects with DLP's and, yes, I do see artifacts on this monitor when using their implementation of BFI (aim stabilizer sync).

They are compatible with your description (red ghost image on the left of white vertical lines displayed on a black background and while rapidly moving the eyes).

I now remember checking that option and disabling it right away because of discomfort.

But I do not see RBE's when it is turned off. I cannot see any the difference with my other 4k IPS.

Maybe they did not use an actual black frame for the BFI on the M32U?
 

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
I *am* susceptible to rainbow effects with DLP's and, yes, I do see artifacts on this monitor when using their implementation of BFI (aim stabilizer sync).

They are compatible with your description (red ghost image on the left of white vertical lines displayed on a black background and while rapidly moving the eyes).

I now remember checking that option and disabling it right away because of discomfort.

But I do not see RBE's when it is turned off. I cannot see any the difference with my other 4k IPS.

Maybe they did not use an actual black frame for the BFI on the M32U?
It would seem their version of BFI is not twisting the pixel to the off (black) state, but rather relying on the backlight being off and thus "black", although red in this case. I presume many monitors dont switch the pixels due to the response time not being fast enough.
 

Freekill

n00b
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
I took 120fps videos with and without aim stabilizer sync and when it is enabled there is a visible red line/horizontal area that appears to be scanning the whole screen (ie it's moving between each frame and isn't even present on some of them).

Here is a sample frame :

smaller_with bfi.mp4_20211125_134510.685.jpg


This does not look like a phosphor trail.

Edit : and this is with a white background.

smaller_with_bfi_white_bg_20211125_140019.mp4_20211125_140518.448.jpg
 
Last edited:

nvidia_amd

n00b
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
19
Its not a phosphor trail like you get on plasma. It is from the fact that the red phosphor's decay time is many orders of magnitude longer than the blue LED. The LEDs cycle speed can be measured in nanoseconds while the phosphor's decay time is in milliseconds. Notice the black areas are never red, as the pixels are closed and thus you are not able to see the backlight.

Also, the reason why it appears to be a horizontal "scan" with your images is just due to your camera. The video from rtings is using a slow motion camera that is at least 1000fps and you can see the entire screen is red at once. The M32U is not able to scan like that as it doesnt have the local dimming capabilities, not to mention the dimming zones are vertical not horizontal.

This is the video of the M32U from Rtings: https://www.rtings.com/videos/pages/aAzFXjHH/c0020.mpd?autoplay=false&autoload=false

Regardless thank you for the images, very interesting to say the least. Can you post images with the refresh rate set to 60hz? That might work better with your 120fps camera.
 
Last edited:
Top