The perfect 4K 43” monitor! Soon! Asus XG438Q ROG

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Omegaferrari, Jan 8, 2019.

  1. sethk

    sethk [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,658
    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    No mention of FALD, no G-sync, single DP 1.4 silicon, so this should be really similar to existing 4K60 va monitors which are quite cheap but its a gaming 4k 120hz monitor so a premium will apply, my guess is $999.

    There are a lot of other monitors coming too, including some based on the AUO 32" 4k 144hz IPS panel (which may be slightly better for gaming use from a response time perspective and viewing angle).

    I expect a range of prices for > 27" 4K high refresh rate monitors (including a FALD versio of the 43" VA with 144hz refresh instead of 120hz), if they materialize by the end of the year.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019
  2. MistaSparkul

    MistaSparkul [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,044
    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    No 32" inch 120+Hz monitor was announced during CES. TFTC also says the 32" FALD panel was removed from AUO's panel roadmap. It's possible that it's been cancelled entirely.
     
  3. bigbluefe

    bigbluefe Gawd

    Messages:
    669
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Geezus. It's like there's a conspiracy to not make a fucking cool 30" monitor. What gives, Earth? Why do you BLOW?
     
  4. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,640
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    It would have been nice to see more inputs (like HDMI 2.1,and newer standards) but thw input it has fully supports the capabilities of the panel, so I am fine with it.

    G-Sync is IMHO mostly irrelevant now that Nvidia supports open standards for VRR.

    FALD would have been nice too, but heck, I'm just happy we are getting anything in this size class, and I actually turned off the local dimming on my 2015 Samsung because I found it didn't work well and looked better without it. Maybe the tech has improved since 2015 though.

    That looks interesting, but IMHO, 32" is way too small for for 4K. The fact that this Asus monitor hits the perfect sweet spot of 43" for a 4k resolution is one of its big selling points.

    Sounds about right. Most 4k60 TV's today already include 120hz panels, just not the capability to expose the full refresh rate to the inputs.

    Two things will drive up the price of this screen.

    1.) It's probably going to be relatively low volume. Those of us who want large gaming capable monitors are a relatively small crowd. You'll be splitting the development costs over much fewer units than a large volume 43" TV. This will likely impact the cost significantly.

    2.) ROG/Gaming branding. (sigh) As useless as this shit is, the companies have learned they can manipulate the lowest common denominator customer into paying more for it, which means it will likely carry a ROG price premium :(
     
  5. caffix

    caffix n00b

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    Looks like an excellent gaming monitor - but a) needs confirmed Nvidia compatibility and b) a VESA mount.

    Oh, and can this thread be renamed to include "Asus XG438Q" in the title somewhere?
     
  6. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,640
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Maybe you missed this?

    Nvidia Expands G-Sync Support to Approved Adaptive Sync Monitors


    10x and 20x now support Freesync and VRR. Officiellt they only support a small number of tested screens, but you can override and enable it on non tested screens in the drivers.

    Nvidia has shown some problems with some screens, but most good ones should work. (We all knew that there were a bunch of shitty Freesync screens, especially some early ones) I count this Asus ROG screen to be in the later category, and who knows, by the time it launched it may even get official support.

    I think 2019 may be the year where Nvidias closed proprietary G-Sync standard loses its relevancy as uses can use whatever VRR screen tech they want even with Nvidia GPU's.
     
  7. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,033
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    I'm inclined to agree, as much as I disagree with embracing inferior technology...

    Perhaps Nvidia's involvement will improve the ecosystem?
     
    Armenius likes this.
  8. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,640
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    I don't have much personal experience with either G-Sync or Freesync, but my vast reading on the subject matter is that FreeSync isn't necessarily inferior to Gsync. It's just that it is an open standard, and AMD didn't put tight enough controls on the specs in the first gen. So while there are some inferior Freesync Screens, there are also good ones, and the good ones are every bit as good as G-Sync. You just have to be more careful when buying.

    Similar to Android. You buy a new iPhone, you are pretty much guaranteed to get a high end phone. (that is locked in and sandboxed, just like Nvidia :p ) You buy a new Android phone, you have to be more careful because while there are plenty of great Android phones out there, there are also crappy ones.

    The Freedom of open standards includes the freedom to also release crap.

    Part of this is apparently addressed with FreeSync2 though, with AMD tightening up the spec requirements in order to give something the FreeSync2 label.
     
    Archaea, RamboZombie and cybereality like this.
  9. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,033
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    I believe that it's possible for FreeSync to equal G-Sync, and the biggest holdup seems to be stuff like minimum sync rates where G-Sync is always 30Hz up to monitor max, while FreeSync almost never gets that low. There's also concern about blanking intervals (frame doubling).

    The challenge is that if I buy a G-Sync display, I get everything- if I want to buy a FreeSync display, regardless of the GPU I'm using, I've quite a bit of research to do just to ensure the full featureset is there.

    And despite Nvidia using an FPGA with its own memory buffer, I'm betting that the price of entry for an equivalent FreeSync monitor won't be much higher, once you get everything implemented :).
     
  10. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,640
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    For the record this 43" Asus monitor has an adaptive refresh range of 48hz to 120hz, so not quite as low as 30hz.

    Under 48hz it goes into automatic interpolation mode to make the framerate smoother. This might be a nice feature, I don't know. Maybe for cutscenes? I'd expect any interpolation effects to add way too much input lag to be useful.

    Honestly I don't really care much about framerates that low. I will never under any circumstance be playing anything that drops that low. The minimum I expect to ever see is like 55fps in intense scenes on single player games, when I target a 60fps minimum in my settings.

    Also, I always wonder why low refresh rate sync is a problem. If you need syncing that low, why can't the monitor just switch to double the framerate and just push every other frame? It ought to have the same effect.
     
  11. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,033
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    I think that's part of the extra hardware needed for G-Sync and nicer FreeSync implementations.

    But as far as low framerates, it's always something we'll have to deal with. New games, new software loads, sometimes ~35-40FPS is acceptable to turn on the eye candy. G-Sync gives you that by default, and here we are talking about a 4k panel :).
     
  12. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,640
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    I guess thats what some people do.

    I like eye candy, but I won't under any circumstance put up with more than extremely occasional drops below 60fps.

    When I played Deus Ex Mankind divided I had to do some tweaking to get everything to work considering how heavy that game is on the GPU.

    I created a custom letterboxed 21:9 Ultrawide resolution in the Nvidia control panel (3840x1646) and even that wasn't enough for not drop under 60fps a lot. Then I remembered that I am playing on an international market TV that has support for european 50hz TV modes, so I vsynced it to 3840x1646@50hz and that worked pretty well, but I wouldn't want to count on dropping as low as 50hz in most titles. For anything multiplayer FPS I would consider 50fps unplayable. I'll put up with stuff down to maybe 50fps at the lowest in single player FPS, but that's about it.
     
  13. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,033
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    It really depends on the game; for FPS, I agree, I'd want faster. But adventure games, or say turn-based games? Not as big of a deal, if you want the eye candy.

    On FPS games I usually prefer 120FPS, where my monitor currently sits :).
     
  14. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,640
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Back when I played CS semi-competitively I liked to play at high refresh rates. These days I really don't care. I target 60+ in single player FPS games (and will actually cap it at that if I can render much higher as I prefer lower noise). In multi-player FPS games I prefer as high of a refresh rate I can get, but I am usually very GPU limited, and I'm not about to compromise on the visuals to get much higher than 60.

    The only non-FPS title I ever play is Sid Meiers Civilization series, and there fps isn't much of a concern. I can get all the framerate I need or want with even modest hardware, and even if I didn't and it dropped, even very low framerates are playable.
     
  15. GuardianGI

    GuardianGI n00b

    Messages:
    8
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    No local dimming, shitty matte coating, cheap VA panel with subpar 3000:1 contrast ratio (probably) with overpriced $1000+ GAEEEMING MONITOR tag!
     
  16. Skott

    Skott 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,983
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    I'm kinda 'meh' about this monitor. I think its a nice start but not quite there. Have to wait and see how well it performs once released. Q2 supposedly.
     
  17. bigbluefe

    bigbluefe Gawd

    Messages:
    669
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    They charge $1,500 for tiny subpar 27" screens. This will be $2,000+ on release, guaranteed.
     
  18. kasakka

    kasakka [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,268
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Part of the issues seems to be handling panel overdrive. Apparently the G-Sync modules handle this a lot better than Freesync displays. Reddit has a fantastic thread about this just now:

    I hope ASUS has managed to implement Freesync in a way that it works as well as their G-Sync displays. At least they should have good knowledge of both techs at this point. I'm super happy with how my ASUS PG278Q has performed over the years so the upcoming 43" display is enticing as it might be more reasonably priced than the ones that have FALD etc. I just hope it actually releases this year because it took about a year for the PG278Q to come out after it was announced and I think it was about the same for PG27UQ.
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  19. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    19,101
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    The article mentions that local dimming is required for HDR 600 certification. I don't know if that's true or not. Local dimming doesn't necessarily mean FALD, but at least it's not the fake full-frame dimming.
     
    Commander Shepard likes this.
  20. Vega

    Vega [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,281
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Too bad March now and still no new info.
     
  21. Creepin_D

    Creepin_D [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,136
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2000
    Hopefully we will hear something between now and April. I just recently heard about this monitor, and I'm very interested.
     
  22. Vega

    Vega [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,281
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Ya maybe they are working on trying to get it high on the G-Sync certified pecking order.
     
  23. Astral Abyss

    Astral Abyss 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,664
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Wasn't it supposed to be Q1 release? Hell, I'd be happy just to know what the price is going to be at this point. That way I can decide if I even care anymore.
     
    Lateralus and Zarathustra[H] like this.
  24. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,640
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    My thoughts exactly.
     
  25. Creepin_D

    Creepin_D [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,136
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2000
    I hope that is the case.
     
  26. Wag

    Wag Gawd

    Messages:
    955
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Looking forward to this display. I'm also curious about this display because if it's > $1500 I'd probably lose interest.
     
  27. Kdawg

    Kdawg Gawd

    Messages:
    938
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2017
    most likely over $1000.

    My biggest gripe with these TV monitors is that they cheap out on the LED backlights. With LEDs being so cheap, there is no reason all TVs couldn't be brighter.

    I recently disassembled my 43" TCL 4k tv, and it only has 3 strips of 8 leds, a total of 24 leds for the backlight.
     
  28. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,640
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Brightness has never bothered me, I tend to turn my screens down in order to not scorch my eyeballs, but man, with only 24 LED's on a 43" screen, how the hell to they diffuse the light enough to make sure it spreads evenly?
     
  29. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,888
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    And with anything other than a VA, your contrast goes out the windows when you blast the brightness.
     
  30. AngryLobster

    AngryLobster Clueless

    Messages:
    169
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2016
    Even the other stuff they announced alongside this that were suppose to see end of January releases (XG49VQ) have yet to be released so I don't think this is going to be available until Summer or later.

    Also it will without a doubt be $1500+ given the Philips 43 60hz model with edge lit local dimming sells for $999.

    This has been such a lame waiting game. It's been 2+ years I've waited for a VA 43+ 4K 120hz display (with working VRR) but here comes another year wait because this is guaranteed to have issues and there are no HDMI 2.1 GPUs to use with capable TVs.

    Maybe in 2020.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2019
  31. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    14,728
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Is anyone who is waiting for this monitor cross-shopping it with the LG 38GL950G (curved 38" 3840x1600 175Hz G-Sync) that's supposed to release in Q2? I know, ultrawide vs. 4K, but as someone who already has a large 4K monitor I could be interested depending on price.

    I wish LG would confirm (or not) that 40"-49" OLED that they supposedly announced a while back that would have all of the 2019 improvements (4K@120, etc). If it was anywhere south of $2k I'd buy it and not look back.

    I agree, waiting for all of these to release is painful!
     
  32. Vega

    Vega [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,281
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    That LG according to their rep won't be out until Q3 at the earliest. And monitors I think are the most delayed piece of hardware type in the world.
     
  33. Lateralus

    Lateralus More [H]uman than Human

    Messages:
    14,728
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Ugh. I have a B7 in the meantime, so tough as it is I'm "getting by" LOL. I want this picture quality + HFR/VRR in a smaller size but am keeping my eye on the others.

    Why'd you end up selling your Wasabi Mango? It looked like the best large gaming monitor at that time (i.e. what we were all waiting for). But certainly a stopgap to what's coming.
     
  34. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,370
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    This looks good unless someone starts making a 43" OLED in the same year. HDR 1000 or brighter would be better considering it is a VA LCD rather than a 600nit ABL vs burn in risk OLED, and I found no mention of the # of local dimming zones. There is also no HDMI 2.1 for future hdmi 2.1 gpus. I'm trying not to buy anything without hdmi 2.1 at this point so this would be begrudging. One other glaring issue I see that would bother me perosnally is:

    https://pcmonitors.info/asus/asus-xg438q-43-inch-120hz-4k-va-model-with-vesa-displayhdr-600/

    " The rear of the monitor is matte black plastic with various ROG styling elements, including an interesting imprinted pattern. The included stand appears to offer tilt as the only ergonomic flexibility and there is no immediate provision for VESA mounting. An adaptor of some description could possibly be included, but that isn’t confirmed currently. The ports of the monitor include; DP 1.4, 3 HDMI 2.0 ports, 2 USB 3.0 ports (plus upstream), a 3.5mm audio input and a 3.5mm headphone jack. 2 x 10W speakers are also included for fairly powerful sound output."

    I have a few 43" 4k TVs on large monitor arms already which I find a much better setup than stands at my desk since I can float the monitors higher up and at the best angles etc., so if these lack any VESA mounting it would be unfortunate.

    It would fit in perfectly between the other two potentially though if it were mountable, and is a HDR-lite capable 120hz 4k monitor with variable refresh rate via displayport 1.4 with some kind of VA FALD implementation (contrast, black depth). If I sprung for a 55" Dell alienware OLED it would be gigantic at 55" so wouldn't match my other monitors, and it would probably cost a lot omre than this one. I'll have to wait and see what's up and see what if anything is very high priced rather than astronomically priced.
     
  35. kasakka

    kasakka [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,268
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    On videos from CES (see YouTube) they mentioned that it should be compatible with VESA mounts. Those images are just renders so things can change before the display goes into production or you can get an adapter. How do you use monitor arms to position your displays? How does it work better than having a pretty low height stand on desk? Because to me the 43" is so huge already that I don't see it working for me if it is raised much above table height.

    HDMI 2.0 is not ideal but at least for me it's enough. I'm planning to get the display to be able to connect my gaming desktop and when working from home my Macbook Pro to the screen in picture by picture mode. Dual DP would have been nice though.

    The built-in speakers to me are the biggest waste on this. What gamer won't have at least decent headphones to use?
     
  36. cybereality

    cybereality [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,793
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Yep. Once I went to monitor arms, I don't think I can go back to using stands. The arms are just way more flexible to getting the right position/angle.
     
    xmadror likes this.
  37. oledguy1

    oledguy1 n00b

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    May 16, 2017
    I am very interested in this monitor as well. Has anyone read anything about the pixel layout of the panel on this monitor? I remember reading reviews on the Philips 43" Momentum monitor from last year that said it had a BGR (Blue, Green, Red) pixel layout instead of the normal RGB layout. That made using the monitor for normal desktop app usage as less than ideal. Thanks!
     
  38. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,370
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    yeah that was an odd one and it was IPS I think. Had a bunch of complaints in reviews of some other issues too. I don't think modern 43" tv style tech will have anything like that, in a hdr 600 FALD VA monitor. The lines between monitors and tvs are blurring now, especially once hdmi 2.1 with VRR, QFT start becoming mainstream and in gpus.

    -------------------------------------------------

    A few things to look out for in this monitor would be:

    -What quality is the overdrive and what is the response time?
    Most of the current VA gaming monitors including asus' have black smear even at 120fpsHz's 8.3 ms rate because their overdrive isn't top notch.
    The LG32GK850G is the exception there and setting a standard this monitor would have to match or exceed.

    -How many backlights are in the FALD array?
    This has a big impact on how severe the offset of dim and bloom in surrounding areas are.

    -How aggressive is the FALD implementation and does it favor the Dimming side (losing some detail/visibility) or the Bloom side (glowing outside of things).

    -How vibrant are the colors (some VA are toned down a bit and benefit from increasing digital vibrancy settings at the cost of color accuracy and/or some lost color detail in fields of a color)

    -Is there a sharpness setting in the OSD? (the LG GK850G lacks one and can only use nvidia freestyle sharpness filters in game, not on the desktop).

    -How good does the free-sync operate in range and how well does it work with nvidia gpus.

    -What is the input lag and are there any "TV" type options you can turn on/off like interpolation, flicker/strobe without bad artifacts or adding large amounts of input lag.

    -What is the 4:4:4 chroma limit regarding Hz over dp , with and without HDR enabled and HDR content since there is no HDMI 2.1 support for future gpus.

    - What are the contrast ratio and black depths in dynamic FALD mode in SDR and HDR.

    - Price obviously,
    and as comapred to the dell alienware 55" OLED gaming monitor,
    and both price and release date in consideration that by/in the year 2020 we should have HDMI 2.1 tvs with 120hz 4k, VRR, QFT that will compete with this, off hopefully hdmi 2.1 gpus.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2019
  39. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,640
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Personally I don't really care about that local dimming stuff. I usually disable it anyway because it annoys me. I prefer fixed backlighting, at very love brightness settings as I usually only ever use my screen in a dark room at night anyway. I also really don't care whether it has HDR or not.

    Also, with every single screen I use I always have to turn down the saturation or put it in "sRGB" mode because everything feels over saturated and unnatural to me, so I don't want "vibrant colors" either.

    In fact, most of what you mention I consider extras or nice to have's, but not something I really care about.

    Heck, I'll probably never even use it above 75hz or so, so if it blues a little at 120hz, who cares?

    I'm just happy to finally have a 4k screen at ~100dpi with variable refresh.

    In every other regard, as long as it looks as least as good as my ~2006 era Dell 2007FP IPS screens, I'm happy.

    I'm not going to pay through the nose for it though. I already have a 40+ 4k screen.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2019
  40. Necere

    Necere 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,733
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    I would guess it's not going to have FALD at all, or they'd probably be talking about it already. At best, it might have some edge lit local dimming with 8 zones.