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

Panel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
461
the LG is more vibrant is because alot of the colors really pop! I like that alot, yeah the Asus has better contrast ratio, and I did think the image looked good on that Asus too but the LG nano-IPS vibrancy of the colors really won me over on the image quality front too. Colors look more solid, and not so soft as it did on the Asus.
I'm also just now realizing, after moving to a modern IPS display, just how much people underplay the colors on these things. Yes, the contrast isn't all there, but man, vibrancy clearly plays a bigger role than I thought (at least to some people), because my new LG IPS pops more than a lot of high end VA's. I'd say overall image quality is on par with them, if not somewhat higher. And mine doesn't even use nano-IPS, it's just the normal stuff. I wouldn't call myself an IPS evangelist, but until OLED comes around everywhere (who knows when that'll happen), I'm more than content with it.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,840
Regarding "PoP" .. I bumped the vibrancy up a few % on my LG 32gk850g (VA screen) some even at the price of accuracy since I mostly use it for gaming. You can also use nvidia freestyle if on a nvidia GPU. Freestyle via a hotkey pops up an overlay of slider controls on the left side of the screen during a game which allows you to adjust a bunch of different filters including the saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc on the fly both plus and minus which allows some interesting results. It will remember your settings on a per game basis. It's sort of like an easy-mode reshade and was written with the help of the author of reshade. A good thing about freestyle is that when you exit the game back to your desktop, your desktop settings are preserved. So you can amp up your games without making your desktop/apps look any different, and you can make a very dark game, colorful isometric, bitmap/indie game, etc. look a lot different than each other settings wise to enhance the look considering the limitations on practically all monitors... some weaker than others in certain areas.


Nividia Freestyle.

https://www.geforce.com/en_GB/gfecn...ansel-enhancements-geforce-experience-article


Nvidia supports several hundred games with freestyle directly and now it also supports reshade shaders natively.

https://reshade.me/forum/general-discussion/5960-reshade-shaders-in-nvidia-freestyle-gfe

https://github.com/crosire/reshade-shaders/tree/nvidia

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

I dropped out on these 43" monitors. Personally I'll never go back to 870:1 to 1000:1 contrast ratios and the accompanying black depths of TN and IPS that are being mentioned in this thread. At least some of these larger monitors are VA though which made this xg438q's 3800:1 contrast ratio and .03 black depth tempting. Pricing , features, and lack of hdmi 2.1 / dp 2, FALD, etc... resulted in me deciding that I'm instead going to hold out for the LG CX 48" OLED and hdmi 2.1, 3080ti gpu as upgrades at this point. I'm also heavily leaning toward VR now after getting my feet wet with an oculus quest (with quest link to my pc) since the holidays. I'm hoping the eventual next generation of VR headsets in the next few years has much higher resolution. high FoV as standard in more models as well as higher bandwidth connectors and high Hz.
 
Last edited:

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,879
I'm not a big fan of hdr 600, wish they had bumpe it up to big boy brightness.
That's not useful if you don't have an equally good local dimming solution. HDR1000 with minimal dimming zones is no better than HDR600. Even though for example OLEDs have a peak brightness of about 700-800 nits in HDR, due to per pixel local dimming the end result looks better than LCDs capable of much higher brightness.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,840
Agreed. Quoting some specifics on the c9 in relation to the percent of the screen below:

Yes I'm saying that games use hybrid log gamma where you can move the white point and gamma brighter which can make things out of bounds one extreme or the other. IDK of much content that would blast max nits fullscreen sustained unless it was a poorly done game with a bad white point/gamma scale.

A 800nit or higher peak is impossible on OLEDs outside of peak 10% window of highlights and before ABL kicks in.

A C9 OLED's HDR can only do
Fullscreen peak/burst: 301 nit ... Fullscreen sustained: 286 nit
50% peak/burst: 530nit ... 50% sustained: 506nit
25% peak/burst: 845nit ... 25% sustained: 802nit
10% peak/burst: 855nit .. 10% sustained: 814nit

A Samsung Q90's HDR for comparison since it's LED LCD and very bright
Fullscreen peak/burst: 536 nit ... Fullscreen sustained: 532 nit
50% peak/burst: 816nit ... 50% sustained: 814nit
25% peak/burst: 1275nit ... 25% sustained: 1235nit
10% peak/burst: 1487nit .. 10% sustained: 1410nit



For comparison

200w bulb = ~ 3000
100 W = 1600 lumen
75 w = 800 lumen
40 w = 450 lumen


However think of HDR normally sort of like having a screen size slide of film with varied levels of transparency that the light is shining through, of which the brightest pass throughs are mostly highlights of bright colors. On SDR screens and low peak nit HDR screens those colors would be clipped to white or rolled down from at a much lower color volume ceiling.

Then consider that the locations are often moving. The glint of a rifle barrel, the oscillating reflections of the sun on water, moving cars, etc too. And if you are in a virtual reality type of scenario while gaming, you probably shouldn't stare directly into the sun or a nuclear blast for too long eh?


HDR 10,000 is the benchmark for the most realism. Even HDR 1000 as a content set point is fractional HDR. There are a lot of hdr 1000 uhd discs, a bunch at hdr4000 and only 1 or 2 afaik that are 10,000 because noone has the hardware to play them yet at those levels. Some games can also technically do hdr10,000 when tested with color maps.


https://www.theverge.com/2014/1/6/5276934/dolby-vision-the-future-of-tv-is-really-really-bright

"The problem is that the human eye is used to seeing a much wider range in real life. The sun at noon is about 1.6 billion nits, for example, while starlight comes in at a mere .0001 nits; the highlights of sun reflecting off a car can be hundreds of times brighter than the vehicle’s hood. The human eye can see it all, but when using contemporary technology that same range of brightness can’t be accurately reproduced. You can have rich details in the blacks or the highlights, but not both.


So Dolby basically threw current reference standards away. "Our scientists and engineers said, ‘Okay, what if we don’t have the shackles of technology that’s not going to be here [in the future],’" Griffis says, "and we could design for the real target — which is the human eye?" To start the process, the company took a theatrical digital cinema projector and focused the entire image down onto a 21-inch LCD panel, turning it into a jury-rigged display made up of 20,000 nit pixels. Subjects were shown a series of pictures with highlights like the sun, and then given the option to toggle between varying levels of brightness. Dolby found that users wanted those highlights to be many hundreds of times brighter than what normal TVs can offer: the more like real life, the better.
"
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,875
This monitor has Freesync, but is it certified by Nvidia for G-sync?
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,203
Not necessarily. I have a FreeSync monitor that works that is not on the list. But you are taking a gamble without confirmation.
 

justin_43

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
420
This monitor has Freesync, but is it certified by Nvidia for G-sync?
While not certified I can confirm it works. But do yourself a favor and save your money, this monitor is not worth it. I returned mine the next day. After reading this thread and all the issues with this monitor I bought it anyway. I was hoping that I would be able to deal with the issues but I could not. The smearing is very bad in game. Pixels take a long time to change from black. There is also a feeling of laggyness with very fast movement. I played some games running it at 4k 120Hz next to my Wasabi Mango (cheaper Korean monitor) running 4k 60hz switching back and forth between monitors and without a doubt the cheap 60Hz monitor was way smoother. I was legitamately pushing 120 FPS and it looked LESS smooth than a 5 year old monitor running 60Hz. With G-Sync enabled on both. G sync indicator tells me it was working on the XG438Q but it sure doesn't feel like it. The text problem does exist as well, but it wasn't too bad. I could have lived with it if it wasn't for the horrible smeary laggy mess that this is even @ 4k 120Hz with G-sync. But text does look odd even after using the clear type tool.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
15,966
Thread title needs to be updated. This monitor is far from perfect.

I was looking forward to it myself. Oh well. 48CX here I come. It's not perfect either, but much closer than this disappointment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lived
like this

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,879
Thread title needs to be updated. This monitor is far from perfect.

I was looking forward to it myself. Oh well. 48CX here I come. It's not perfect either, but much closer than this disappointment.
Definitely. Last year around this time I was so ready to go from my 2014 27" 1440p TN panel to this one. Then the reports came out, I started looking at the Acer CG437KP. Then that turned out to be crap and so I looked at the ASUS PG43UQ (XG43UQ at the time), hoping it was maybe an improvement for panel and software. Nope, did not even come out until this year.

Meanwhile the LG 38GL950G kept getting pushed back and its eye watering 2500 euro release price in my country was just ridiculous. Went with the Samsung CRG9 ultrawide and it has worked really well but I want to try the LG CX 48" OLED considering how happy I am with my 65" LG C9.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,727
Thread title needs to be updated. This monitor is far from perfect.

I was looking forward to it myself. Oh well. 48CX here I come. It's not perfect either, but much closer than this disappointment.

Yeah, I regret buying this screen. Primarily due to the absolutely abysmal text quality.

If all I did was play games, it would be fairly decent though.

Maybe I can sell it locally to someone who only cares about games.
 

justin_43

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
420
Thread title needs to be updated. This monitor is far from perfect.

I was looking forward to it myself. Oh well. 48CX here I come. It's not perfect either, but much closer than this disappointment.
The LG CX 48 is my plan is well. Like you said it's not perfect but is as close as we can get right now. It's the only way for g-sync over HDMI and once ampere comes out it should (it better) support it @120hz. And of course none of smearing and response time garbage with OLED.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,727
The LG CX 48 is my plan is well. Like you said it's not perfect but is as close as we can get right now. It's the only way for g-sync over HDMI and once ampere comes out it should (it better) support it @120hz. And of course none of smearing and response time garbage with OLED.
My only gripe with this screen is that it is 48". If it were only ~5" smaller, it would be damned near perfect.

I also wonder what the image retention is like on this model, if I have to worry about the menu bar after 8+ hours of work.
 

justin_43

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
420
My only gripe with this screen is that it is 48". If it were only ~5" smaller, it would be damned near perfect.

I also wonder what the image retention is like on this model, if I have to worry about the menu bar after 8+ hours of work.
I have been using a 43" for 5 years now and for most of that time thought it was the perfect size. But lately when gaming I realize I want something slightly larger. For desktop use I'd agree that 43 is the perfect size. But 48" seems to be a size I might like for gaming. I sit pretty close and I want it to fill my entire FOV.

As far as image retention goes I would probably try and hide as many static screen elements as possible. I will hide my taskbar and browser menu bar. There is also a pixel shift option that intermittently shifts all the pixels 3-4 in different directions. I think with that and a little care it will be fine.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
15,966
I have been using a 43" for 5 years now and for most of that time thought it was the perfect size. But lately when gaming I realize I want something slightly larger. For desktop use I'd agree that 43 is the perfect size. But 48" seems to be a size I might like for gaming. I sit pretty close and I want it to fill my entire FOV.

As far as image retention goes I would probably try and hide as many static screen elements as possible. I will hide my taskbar and browser menu bar. There is also a pixel shift option that intermittently shifts all the pixels 3-4 in different directions. I think with that and a little care it will be fine.
You're on it. That's how I use mine. Over 2.5 years now (with the last 1.5 years being used daily for work) and no burn-in. Just be sensible with it and don't let stuff sit forever in the same spot. I think using a low OLED light level helps. I only turn mine up for HDR.

I went from 40" to 48" and definitely appreciated the larger size for gaming. Then to 55" not because I wanted to, but because that was the smallest size that I could get an OLED in. Due to not running apps full screen and the true blacks, it's excellent as a monitor and awesome for gaming but overall I do feel like the 48" was a little better for the distance that I sit...hence the CX.
 

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,343
I'm very happy I went with the 55" CX instead of waiting for the 48". This thing is awesome, even at 1440p. I don't have a problem sitting 1' farther back.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,727
I have been using a 43" for 5 years now and for most of that time thought it was the perfect size. But lately when gaming I realize I want something slightly larger. For desktop use I'd agree that 43 is the perfect size. But 48" seems to be a size I might like for gaming. I sit pretty close and I want it to fill my entire FOV.

As far as image retention goes I would probably try and hide as many static screen elements as possible. I will hide my taskbar and browser menu bar. There is also a pixel shift option that intermittently shifts all the pixels 3-4 in different directions. I think with that and a little care it will be fine.
Every time I've swapped monitors it has taken some getting used to.

With each increase in size, listed below, it felt unnatural and unwieldy at first, but eventually I got used to it, and couldn't imagine going back.

13" VGA (~1991)-> 16" SVGA (~1995) -> 22" 1600x1200 (2001) -> 24" 1920x1200 (2005) -> 30" 2560x1600 (2010) -> 48" 3840x2160 (2015)

That is, until I got to my 48" Samsung JS9000. It felt a little too big, and continued to feel that way for the 5 years I used it as my primary.

Now some of this will differ with viewing distance. (I usually sit 24 to 30" away from my screens) but with 48" I found that some of the peripheral required me to move my head to really process what was on the screen in front of me. When I backed down to 43" this was no longer the case. Also at 48" the 4k pixel density was a little bit too low. It was far too easy to see individual pixels at my viewing distance. This is not the case with 43".

Reasons I moved away from my 48" Samsung JS9000 were partially that I still felt it was a little large, but also in large part because I was tired of vsynching to 60hz to avoid tearing. The Asus XG438Q solved both of those issues between a smaller size, and G-Sync compatibility, but I have just not been able to get used to the horrible text quality.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,875
While not certified I can confirm it works. But do yourself a favor and save your money, this monitor is not worth it. I returned mine the next day. After reading this thread and all the issues with this monitor I bought it anyway. I was hoping that I would be able to deal with the issues but I could not. The smearing is very bad in game. Pixels take a long time to change from black. There is also a feeling of laggyness with very fast movement. I played some games running it at 4k 120Hz next to my Wasabi Mango (cheaper Korean monitor) running 4k 60hz switching back and forth between monitors and without a doubt the cheap 60Hz monitor was way smoother. I was legitamately pushing 120 FPS and it looked LESS smooth than a 5 year old monitor running 60Hz. With G-Sync enabled on both. G sync indicator tells me it was working on the XG438Q but it sure doesn't feel like it. The text problem does exist as well, but it wasn't too bad. I could have lived with it if it wasn't for the horrible smeary laggy mess that this is even @ 4k 120Hz with G-sync. But text does look odd even after using the clear type tool.
Well, thanks for the warning but I already have this monitor for about 8 months.
I haven't really noticed any issues but we maybe play different games. I don't play shooters, mostly MMORPGs and similar RPG games. I like the picture quality. It's definitely a better buy than my 55" 2018 Samsung Q7F TV which supports 1440p/120hz. For those games that I managed to get 4k/120hz going on my old 1080Ti, it was really a huge improvement over Q7F.
I even use it for photo editing.
Also, I haven't had any problems reading text. The colors are better. I'm not going back to a TV again. Too many useless options for us who use a TV exclusively as a PC monitor. And I paid €500 more for the TV.
 

Juzam

n00b
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
2
Same here. Sure text in black background looks less than ideal but all other complaints people are having with this monitor can be negated by a few tweaks in settings.
Do not force enable g-sync. It doesn't work properly. I play all kinds of games on this thing with my 2080ti sli setup and it looks absolutely stunning. I'm never going back to a TV.
 
Top