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

[Zarathustra[H]]

WTF?

Run a 27" monitor at 1080p, 1440p, and 4k. Even at that size its a NOTICEABLE difference in clarity. If you can't see beyond 100ppi then you need head to the Costco eye center


View attachment 188085

I have 20/20 or better vision once corrected.

I'm thinking you guys are sitting too close to your screens, and you know that can make you go blind

Either that or there is some kind of placebo effect going on.

I find even 1440p at 27" to be a bit too small.

If you have to use scaling to make your desktop usable, you have just wasted pixels.

 

[elvn]

I could replace my 43inch 4k screens that I use for desktop/apps someday with 43inch 8k screens but I wouldn't trade the desktop real estate I have now with a healthy 102.x ppi + 3' distance for a smaller 4k screen at higher density.

I also wouldn't trade higher ppi on a very short screen for the physical size I could get on a 4k 32inch inch to 43inch screen, preferring 40 to 43 inch. I target 100fps average on a high hz monitor (dialing settings down some as necessary) otherwise I'd be getting no appreciable gains out of the high hz - so even if there was a high hz 8k or 16k monitor available I wouldn't be using those for gaming unless they did integer scaling properly and/or had some futuristic high quality low input lag interpolation without artifacts to double or triple the frame rate.

Higher density would require scaling and would reduce how aggressive you'd need to use or eliminate the need altogether for cleartype. The same could be said of anti aliasing in games as resolution increases by orders of magnitude at 8k and 16k resolutions. Cleartype is essentially a form of anti-aliasing. So yes there are benefits....

I could up my 43inch 4k desktop/app/media playback dedicated screens to 8k or higher 43" screens when available no problem but losing the desktop and app space I have now would be wasting pixels/screen real estate imo because as things are now with 4k resolutions the ppi is completely adequate on a 43" at 3' away.

I think some newspapers are 200dpi not 108.8 but they don't use subpixels/cleartype and print is not the same so its not exactly an apples to apples comparison in that facet.

You also aren't viewing newspaper/magazines or tablets at 3' away.

The point was to show that default text size in un scaled 4k resolution, which is a similar size (outside of tint text of an obituary or tiny ad) . on a 43" 16:9 can comfortably fit three newspaper sized pages physically side by side as compared to adding a tiny strip to a 1440p to get 1600 high desktop/app real-estate wise.

Or compared to upping your pixel density on a 4k 27" or 32" screen.

 

[pippenainteasy]

I have 20/20 or better vision once corrected.

I'm thinking you guys are sitting too close to your screens, and you know that can make you go blind

Either that or there is some kind of placebo effect going on.

I find even 1440p at 27" to be a bit too small.

If you have to use scaling to make your desktop usable, you have just wasted pixels.

If sitting to close degrades your vision, wouldn't the same thing happen if you just happen to to wear glasses since you have something right in front of your eyes? Yet most people I know haven't changed their prescription in quite a while. Unless that's meant as a semi-joke.

 

[elvn]

Lenses focus light through them, changing the focal point. You aren't looking at material ON the lens any more than you are looking at material on the lens of your own eyeballs.. A lens is focusing the light projected as if it were closer or farther depending on whether you are correcting for nearsightedness or farsightedness. In the case of computer monitors I'd assume only farsighted (farther away needs no correction, nearer looks blurry/fuzzy). There is also a comfort factor in having a screen a bit farther away like my 3' viewing distance though. That is a physical room space comfort but it also helps if you are farsighted. Good VR headsets have lenses in them to make the screens look farther away too by the way. You wouldn't looking at a a bare screen a few inches in front of your eyes very comfortably.

So what happens is people either are born with astigmatism where the physical lense on their eyeball is shaped too obtusely or too flat so it can't focus one way or the other as far as typical eyesight, or as you get older you start losing the focusing ability for near vision (called presbyopia) "which occurs because the lens inside the eye becomes less flexible. This flexibility allows the eye to change focus from objects that are far away to objects that are close".

So you are using lenses either way - your eyeball's lenses or your eyeball's lenses plus a booster lens held above each eye.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

If sitting to close degrades your vision, wouldn't the same thing happen if you just happen to to wear glasses since you have something right in front of your eyes? Yet most people I know haven't changed their prescription in quite a while. Unless that's meant as a semi-joke.

No. You look through glasses. I think it's the point at which you focus that is the iasue, which in the case of someone who wears eyeglasses is well beyond the distance of the glasses themselves.

 

[Sancus]

I have 20/20 or better vision once corrected.

I'm thinking you guys are sitting too close to your screens, and you know that can make you go blind

If you have to use scaling to make your desktop usable, you have just wasted pixels.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a certain display or to sit closer to yours. You are free to do what you want, as I am. The problem is when you insist that everyone else is wrong, and that they can't see things that are objectively, scientifically understood to be beneficial to image quality.

Sitting too far from your screen can make you develop extremely incorrect ideas about image quality, a far worse fate than going blind, but that doesn't seem to have stopped you!

 

[Sancus]

If sitting to close degrades your vision

It doesn't, contrary to decade old articles that cite nothing, there's no scientific evidence that sitting at any particular distance causes any permanent damage. It is an old wives' tale. It may or may not cause eyestrain depending on the person and the distance, which is a temporary discomfort.

 

[kasakka]

It doesn't, contrary to decade old articles that cite nothing, there's no scientific evidence that sitting at any particular distance causes any permanent damage. It is an old wives' tale. It may or may not cause eyestrain depending on the person and the distance, which is a temporary discomfort.

At the same time displays have also changed. You no longer have issues like out of focus CRTs with low refresh rates causing eye strain. You should put your display at a distance where it is comfortable to read or use scaling and zoom features to make it comfortable.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

It doesn't, contrary to decade old articles that cite nothing, there's no scientific evidence that sitting at any particular distance causes any permanent damage. It is an old wives' tale. It may or may not cause eyestrain depending on the person and the distance, which is a temporary discomfort.

Except for that link in my post...


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-sitting-too-close-to-screen-making-you-blind/

 

[Armenius]

Except for that link in my post...


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-sitting-too-close-to-screen-making-you-blind/

Except that is not what the article says at all. The sensationalism stops after the second paragraph and they talk about eyestrain symptoms, all of which pass with time after stopping the activity causing it.

The article was also written in 2007 while the question posted above by Sancus was published in 2010.

 

[ijozic]

What about using a high resolution display at a small size with scaling to make text look a little crisper than it did 15 years ago? Is that also not a valid reason?

The text looks clearly blurry at even moderately small sizes. I don’t know how you can act as though 110 PPI clarity at 2’ is as clear as we can see. Try it out! You may be surprised.

Yeah, same here, I upgraded from a QHD 27" to a 4K 32". I got used to the native 4K several times (though it's tiring for the eyes), but as the screen died (and it took a long time to have it shipped for warranty internationally, then carry it again over in my checked in luggage), I got switched back to QHD once or twice. When I finally got it back and working, I left it scaled at 150% for a while and realised I really like it. It might have the net work area of a QHD 32", but everything looks super sharp and since a QHD 27" wasn't really super sharp to begin with, a QHD 32" would look just unacceptably bad in this day and age (used to own a 27" 1200p monitor which has almost the same DPI). Scaling was pretty bad on Windows 7, but it's much better on Windows 10 for like 99% of the stuff I use.

But, don't bother convincing people who know everything otherwise. It's a futile task.

 

[elvn]

Call me when I can get an 8k 43" for desktop/apps.

Until then 43" 4k desktop app space is glorious .. x2 in my case. Eventually x3 I hope

When I move any farther back with a 43" added to the monitor array I'll have to start scaling past 100%. I really could be scaling 125% already at 3' away - so the perceived pixel density is already quite good as it is at these distances.

Several of my main apps allow text sizing within them on the fly - directory opus file manager, firefox + nosquint addon, chat apps (irc, chatty for twitch, discord, my sms app), thunderbird email, etc... so I can tweak them to comfort level as desired. The core menus of some of the more major apps/suites are the ones that will require scaling if I move back more. I'm borderline right now.

 

[Panel]

In the case of computer monitors I'd assume only farsighted

I agree with most of your comment, but I am nearsighted and still where glasses with my screen. At the idea 2-2.5 feet distance, I can’t see the text as well as I’d like to.

 

[kasakka]

Call me when I can get an 8k 43" for desktop/apps.

Until then 43" 4k desktop app space is glorious .. x2 in my case. Eventually x3 I hope

I'm curious what you do with all that desktop space? You seem to have one of the largest desktop space setups I've seen here.

I'm a web developer so when working my CRG9's dual QHD desktop space goes to good use by fitting several browsers, IDE windows, terminals etc side by side but for personal use I tend to have not much more than a web browser and a few web apps (Gmail etc), game launchers etc open all the time so all that desktop space is nice but not as necessary. I don't know what I would do with 3x 43" worth of space - or where to put the displays!

 

[Panel]

I'm curious what you do with all that desktop space? You seem to have one of the largest desktop space setups I've seen here.

I'm a web developer so when working my CRG9's dual QHD desktop space goes to good use by fitting several browsers, IDE windows, terminals etc side by side but for personal use I tend to have not much more than a web browser and a few web apps (Gmail etc), game launchers etc open all the time so all that desktop space is nice but not as necessary. I don't know what I would do with 3x 43" worth of space - or where to put the displays!

I’m primarily a macOS user at this point (I know that’s a minority on here), and I often work directly off of my MacBook. Thus, I’ve grown accustomed to using the built in multiple virtual desktops to better manage my space. It’s gotten to the point where I much prefer just flicking my fingers on the trackpad or mouse and moving onto a separate desktop to view more things. Doing that fast, over and over, to me is still much more efficient than glancing up into the corner of large format display. And remember, with any display 27” or more, I STILL have ample room to have a few floating windows next to each other, or 2 side-by-side taking up half the screen. I doubt I personally will even want a lot of physical real estate again, because the more I have, the harder it is to full screen. I can’t maximize an app on a dual-QHD display of on a 43” monitor.

For me, a single high-DPI display coupled with virtual desktops is perfect. I do like bigger, but to a degree. I doubt I could realistically full-size comfortably on anything larger than 16:9 at 35”. Since screens that size don’t really exist, I’m capped at 32”, which is fine. Certainly not “small” for my tastes. If I ever develop a use case that requires more simultaneous screen real estate, I’d just get a second display. Doubt I could do any bigger than 32” if there were 2 of them.

Also, please note that I’m not trying to invalidate any of your set-ups. Just thought I’d share what works for me.

 

[kasakka]

I’m primarily a macOS user at this point (I know that’s a minority on here), and I often work directly off of my MacBook. Thus, I’ve grown accustomed to using the built in multiple virtual desktops to better manage my space. It’s gotten to the point where I much prefer just flicking my fingers on the trackpad or mouse and moving onto a separate desktop to view more things. Doing that fast, over and over, to me is still much more efficient than glancing up into the corner of large format display. And remember, with any display 27” or more, I STILL have ample room to have a few floating windows next to each other, or 2 side-by-side taking up half the screen. I doubt I personally will even want a lot of physical real estate again, because the more I have, the harder it is to full screen. I can’t maximize an app on a dual-QHD display of on a 43” monitor.

For me, a single high-DPI display coupled with virtual desktops is perfect. I do like bigger, but to a degree. I doubt I could realistically full-size comfortably on anything larger than 16:9 at 35”. Since screens that size don’t really exist, I’m capped at 32”, which is fine. Certainly not “small” for my tastes. If I ever develop a use case that requires more simultaneous screen real estate, I’d just get a second display. Doubt I could do any bigger than 32” if there were 2 of them.

Also, please note that I’m not trying to invalidate any of your set-ups. Just thought I’d share what works for me.

For me maximizing anything but select few apps on 27" 1440p or higher res screens is pointless. I can understand doing that for apps that actually make use of that space like image editing, 3D modeling, more complex IDEs etc but everything else works better in a window. I also work on MacOS and for me virtual desktops haven't been the best way to work as I felt I was constantly switching between them rather than just a couple of windows. But it's great to have that option as it allows you to make a smaller display less cluttered.

I'm currently running my CRG9 in PbP with one half for my work Macbook Pro and the other for my home computer. Will probably switch to one or the other when I get an adapter capable of running the MBP at the full resolution.

 

[elvn]

It was more affordable than ever to do. I got a tcl s405 for $230 and a samsung NU6900 for about $270. However I also can be found away from home on a 15 inch laptop but very often on a 8.5inch tablet so I am often using a small display.

Futuristically, I'd really love practically a full wall of high rez monitor (minority report comes to mind as well as other sci-fi show command centers) with no bezels that used some advanced interpolation to do 1000fps at 1000hz for essentially zero blur. One where you could run games and apps in windows at whatever size and aspect you wanted and zoom/shrink sizing them at will. Beyond that, extreme rez AR glasses that would allow me to put screens and virtual objects, helpers, etc virtually anywhere in real space and remote view full areas and do VR when desired. That would be a full augmented world screen that also had vr capability - you can't get much bigger than that.

 

[Panel]

For me maximizing anything but select few apps on 27" 1440p or higher res screens is pointless.

I think part of the reason I like it so much is the simplicity of it. One button, done. I can get right to work (or whatever it is I’m doing). No need to move windows around, be it by hand or by software.

It’s also partially because it’s the opposite of multi-tasking: no distractions. I can focus on one thing entirely. This is mostly because my work flow has the luxury of being limited to single applications at a time, of course.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Quoting to tag

I have 27" 1440p IPS, 31.5" VA 1440p, 31.5" VA 4k, and 24" IPS 1080p, with excellent vision.

31.5" VA 4k at 100% scaling is borderline unusable at any viewable distance; I have to sit close enough that I have to turn my head or strain to see the full desktop. Quite uncomfortable. On my particular monitor, which is a cheap Acer, text isn't very blurry, but it's not TN / IPS sharp, and scaling for stuff that scales well isn't very good either. There's no real happy medium with this monitor; it's used as an 'extra' display.

31.5" 1440p at 100% scaling, with the VA panel, results in noticeably unsharp text. And I don't mean 'blocky' or 'pixelated', it's just not sharp. This is a gaming monitor though, and is rarely used for text stuff. If it is, application scaling is usually employed.

27" 1440p IPS at 100% is... perfect- at the right viewing distance. I moved up to 31.5" due to using multiple monitors and having the resulting viewing distance increased beyond what was comfortable with the display, this for more desktop space, which meant that using scaling was the opposite of what I was looking for. However, it's a fast panel, and it spanks the VA above in dark transitions, which stand out to me. It's currently used on a different system and I'm finding it quite enjoyable all around.

24" 1080p IPS at 100% is also perfect, and with the slightly higher PPI, is also just on the inside of usable at the same distance that the 31.5" displays are used. Perfect side monitor; I was using two until I needed to lend one to a family monitor.


Addendum: I have an old HP ZR30w, which has a 30" 2560x1600 panel, and while it has higher than average input lag compared to the above gaming monitors and atrocious response times, it's a dream to work on. I haven't used it in years and I need to take the time to set it up again; I may replace my 24" now-single side monitor with it if I can get the old panel and backlights into spec for color work.

 

[Wag]

Well I’m really disappointed about this whole situation. I’ll wait for the HDR version of this display to be released and see how it is, but if not I’ll just pick up a cheap 43” TV like a TCL and just call it a day until something good arrives on the 43” PC display front. Really tired of using my 2015 Samsung 48” as a monitor.

 

[Panel]

Addendum: I have an old HP ZR30w, which has a 30" 2560x1600 panel, and while it has higher than average input lag compared to the above gaming monitors and atrocious response times, it's a dream to work on. I haven't used it in years and I need to take the time to set it up again; I may replace my 24" now-single side monitor with it if I can get the old panel and backlights into spec for color work.

I own a Dell 3007WFP, and it’s a similar monitor. I still wish they made 30” 16:10 displays. It really was the perfect aspect ratio. Too bad it’s pretty much a dead ratio at this point.

 

[kasakka]

I own a Dell 3007WFP, and it’s a similar monitor. I still wish they made 30” 16:10 displays. It really was the perfect aspect ratio. Too bad it’s pretty much a dead ratio at this point.

I don't think there is much need for 16:10 resolutions in that size when 32" 16:9 is the same height but a little bit wider. The big issue with those displays was resolution, 2560x1600 was just a little bit low for the size.

For laptops 16:10 should be the standard, it's just stupid that most laptops have this huge lip at the bottom. Apple is one of the few manufacturers still sticking to 16:10 on their laptops and it makes using them just better.

Basically the smaller the display the more useful 16:10 format becomes over 16:9

 

[demu]

32 inch 16:10 is narrower but higher than 32 inch 16:9 display
http://www.displaywars.com/32-inch-16x9-vs-32-inch-16x10

 

[kasakka]

View attachment 188739
32 inch 16:10 is narrower but higher than 32 inch 16:9 display
http://www.displaywars.com/32-inch-16x9-vs-32-inch-16x10

I was comparing 30" 16:10 vs 32" 16:9.

 

[The_Yukon_Man]

Well I’m really disappointed about this whole situation. I’ll wait for the HDR version of this display to be released and see how it is, but if not I’ll just pick up a cheap 43” TV like a TCL and just call it a day until something good arrives on the 43” PC display front. Really tired of using my 2015 Samsung 48” as a monitor.

I've been following this thread over the past couple of months, and I'm in the same boat as you. I've been in the market for a nice large format monitor for PC work / gaming, and consoles. I currently have the 2016 ASUS ROG PG278Q 144p / 144hz monitor. I've never had any complaints with the quality of this display, but I was a bit hasty when I purchased it. I didn't realize back in 2016 that it doesn't have any HDMI connections. This has become quite a problem for me in recent years, as my only HDMI capable display is a much smaller 21" 1080p monitor that I bought back in 2014, which isn't so enjoyable to console game on.

The new ASUS 43" line up was looking good on the surface, but after reading the conversations in this thread I think I will wait awhile longer for large format gaming monitors to mature. What I was looking for in the ASUS 43" was a solid upgrade to my current display, as well as a high quality display that could double for all my other needs as well.

Instead, like you were considering, I went ahead and purchased a TV as a second display, as I don't own one of those yet. After a fair amount of research, I went with the Samsung Q70R 55". What drew me in about Samsung's TVs is that they now support variable refresh rate on the 55" and above models, and the Q70R has very well rated HDR implementation for its price range. Additionally, the Q70R can achieve 15ms of response time, which for me is acceptable for a large 55" display. The Q70R cost $1100, which is equivalent to what ASUS is currently charging for their 43" Q model, and likely a fair amount lower than what they will charge for their QU model.


Hopefully in the next 4-5 years these large format monitors can mature a fair amount, and the manufacturers can get their game together and listen to the consumers regarding the features / qualities that are being requested.

 

[bananadude]

I've been following this thread over the past couple of months, and I'm in the same boat as you. I've been in the market for a nice large format monitor for PC work / gaming, and consoles. I currently have the 2016 ASUS ROG PG278Q 144p / 144hz monitor. I've never had any complaints with the quality of this display, but I was a bit hasty when I purchased it. I didn't realize back in 2016 that it doesn't have any HDMI connections. This has become quite a problem for me in recent years, as my only HDMI capable display is a much smaller 21" 1080p monitor that I bought back in 2014, which isn't so enjoyable to console game on.

The new ASUS 43" line up was looking good on the surface, but after reading the conversations in this thread I think I will wait awhile longer for large format gaming monitors to mature. What I was looking for in the ASUS 43" was a solid upgrade to my current display, as well as a high quality display that could double for all my other needs as well.

Instead, like you were considering, I went ahead and purchased a TV as a second display, as I don't own one of those yet. After a fair amount of research, I went with the Samsung Q70R 55". What drew me in about Samsung's TVs is that they now support variable refresh rate on the 55" and above models, and the Q70R has very well rated HDR implementation for its price range. Additionally, the Q70R can achieve 15ms of response time, which for me is acceptable for a large 55" display. The Q70R cost $1100, which is equivalent to what ASUS is currently charging for their 43" Q model, and likely a fair amount lower than what they will charge for their QU model.


Hopefully in the next 4-5 years these large format monitors can mature a fair amount, and the manufacturers can get their game together and listen to the consumers regarding the features / qualities that are being requested.

I do like the Samsung's but the problem is lack of functionality with Nvidia GPUs. I wonder what the chances are of Nvidia working with Samsung to make this happen, as they have with LG and their OLEDs? If this was definitively in the pipeline for happening soon, it would be a great reason to pick one up... especially for those people concerned about burn-in with OLED if using for long hours on a PC.

Overall though, it does illustrate what a mess the monitor market is in. Samsung have a TV which in every conceivable way completely destroys the sorry excuse for a monitor that the XG438Q is... only it's minus a DP 1.4 port, and obviously comes in a bit too large for most, but still, it's a bad joke that Asus are even making this overpriced piece of junk. Even at half the price I wouldn't want it.

 

[Panel]

I was comparing 30" 16:10 vs 32" 16:9.

It’s still not quite as tall, but I get what you mean. Not much of a difference anymore.

 

[Wag]

I've been following this thread over the past couple of months, and I'm in the same boat as you. I've been in the market for a nice large format monitor for PC work / gaming, and consoles. I currently have the 2016 ASUS ROG PG278Q 144p / 144hz monitor. I've never had any complaints with the quality of this display, but I was a bit hasty when I purchased it. I didn't realize back in 2016 that it doesn't have any HDMI connections. This has become quite a problem for me in recent years, as my only HDMI capable display is a much smaller 21" 1080p monitor that I bought back in 2014, which isn't so enjoyable to console game on.

The new ASUS 43" line up was looking good on the surface, but after reading the conversations in this thread I think I will wait awhile longer for large format gaming monitors to mature. What I was looking for in the ASUS 43" was a solid upgrade to my current display, as well as a high quality display that could double for all my other needs as well.

Instead, like you were considering, I went ahead and purchased a TV as a second display, as I don't own one of those yet. After a fair amount of research, I went with the Samsung Q70R 55". What drew me in about Samsung's TVs is that they now support variable refresh rate on the 55" and above models, and the Q70R has very well rated HDR implementation for its price range. Additionally, the Q70R can achieve 15ms of response time, which for me is acceptable for a large 55" display. The Q70R cost $1100, which is equivalent to what ASUS is currently charging for their 43" Q model, and likely a fair amount lower than what they will charge for their QU model.


Hopefully in the next 4-5 years these large format monitors can mature a fair amount, and the manufacturers can get their game together and listen to the consumers regarding the features / qualities that are being requested.

I'm not going to put a 55" display on my desk. My 48" already takes up my whole workspace- I want to go smaller, not bigger. 43" would have been a good compromise for me. I think even the cheap 43" TCLs are better than my 2015 48" Samsung at this point. I just didn't want to buy another TV- I really want a dedicated 43"+ PC display that's focused on gaming. We really don't have anything like that yet.

 

[The_Yukon_Man]

I do like the Samsung's but the problem is lack of functionality with Nvidia GPUs.

There is some good news on that front... kinda. Nvidia just recently announced that they will be rolling out a driver update as soon as October that will enable support for VRR across all of their 16xx and 20xx series cards. The bad news for folks like myself... I have a 10xx series card.

The market for VRR, Free-Sync, and G-Sync is incredibly confusing and convoluted. I wish that one of these would emerge as a clear industry standard. This reminds me of the days when Blu-Ray was competing with HD DVD. If Nvidia's VRR update works well with my inbound Samsung Q70R display, I may finally have the excuse I was looking for to upgrade to a 20xx series card. If not, I am still happy using my 10xx series on my 27" G-Sync display.

I'm not going to put a 55" display on my desk. My 48" already takes up my whole workspace- I want to go smaller, not bigger. 43" would have been a good compromise for me. I think even the cheap 43" TCLs are better than my 2015 48" Samsung at this point. I just didn't want to buy another TV- I really want a dedicated 43"+ PC display that's focused on gaming. We really don't have anything like that yet.

Yeah, I agree. 55" is a tad larger than what I was looking for. The only reason why I went with the 55" was that their 49" and 43" displays apparently have a different panel that does not support any form of VRR. So in the end it was go big or go home for me. The only reason I compromised and went with a Samsung TV is that I don't have a TV, only my 27" G-Sync display.

 

[burt1972]

but the the sorry excuse for a monitor that the XG438Q is... only it's minus a DP 1.4 port, and obviously comes in a bit too large for most, but still, it's a bad joke that Asus are even making this overpriced piece of junk

do you try this "junk"? i have it about a month and i can say its not perfect, but overall one of best gaming monitors available today. Great clarity at 4k (i am using 150 - 200% scaling), great hdr, great colors. my previous acer xb270hu looks really bad in comparison with 438q in almost every possible way.
if one can live with little ghosting and typical pva contrast shifting its a dream monitor - until oled 40-43 120hz hdr freesync will be possible to buy

 

[Gatecrasher3000]

Flipping our monitors upside down, to get slightly cleaner text.
Its the [H] way...

 

[Panel]

It is not curved, and its not wide screen,, not the best gaming monitor and only 120hz and cheap VA Panel and what not.

Exactly. As I’ve explained above, I’m a high-DPI kinda guy, but if I were to buy a large format gaming monitor, it would be ultrawide. Wide just makes more sense to me than tall.

 

[MistaSparkul]

I guess this thing is currently the best option that's out there, but the title should be changed as this thing is nowhere near PERFECT

 

[l88bastard]

I guess this thing is currently the best option that's out there, but the title should be changed as this thing is nowhere near PERFECT

OP should change "Perfect" to HOT GARBAGE!

 

[burt1972]

another observation - i think OD does not work in hdr mode. in sdr i do not see any black smearing problems, even while fast scrolling. in hdr its noticeable. strange... in hdr OD option is grayed out.

 

[RamboZombie]

I have one of these - and i really like it - it's not perfect- but no monitor currently is..

this is no where near HOT GARBAGE! - imho.

looks bland next to my oled - but plays sooo much better due to 4k120 and freesync.

Just completed Mad Max on it @ allmost locked 117fps, small dips but never noticed thanks to freesync - smiling all the way!

 

[jadders]

Flipping our monitors upside down, to get slightly cleaner text.
Its the [H] way...

How did you flip yours around? Also, can I get a picture of the screen with text (at 100% scale) to see how sharp it is being flipped?

 

[chimera991]

Anyone know the release date and price?

 

[elvn]

This XG438Q has been out in the UK and was in stock from a few vendors at one point in the USA. Newegg online warehouse store and I think microcenter brick and mortar. Newegg has it listed out of stock for $1099.99
----------------------------------------------------------

I've been actively participating in this thread and I've read a few good site reviews of this monitor and have come to some conclusions....

I wanted this monitor to be a full upgrade to my 32GK850G high hz 1440p VA in every facet.

PRO:.. Size upgrade without being way too large: great size (at ~ 3' viewing distance or more)t which also matches my other 43" 4k 60hz monitors. Once you get a 32" 16:9 or 40" to 43" 4k monitor, the ~ 13" tall 27" 16:9s and ultrawides look like a narrow box window or a belt. Single monitor up close they are ok, so is a laptop. Depends on your taste and setup I guess. Screen dimensions image including heights.

PRO/CON:... PPI: It has a much better PPI than the poor ppi of the GK850g but requires you to flip the monitor upside down to get RGB for the best text clarity.

PRO...Massive Desktop/app space with the physical screen size combined with the ppi. It has so much more desktop and app real-estate than other monitors even ultrawides. You can also run ultrawide resolutions on a 4k monitor on most games which will give you the benefit of higher fps than 4k on more demanding games. and at a larger uw phsyical viewport size. Desktop/app space comparison picture.

PRO/CON...Resolution: The resolution gives a much better pixel density but drives your frame rate lower which gets nothing out of the high hz capability or requires you to turn you graphics settings down considerably on the more demanding games to get toward 100fps average or more for 120hz+ benefits.

PRO/Equivalent... High Hz: both screens have high hz capability.

PRO/CON: Freesync .. Good to have nvidia capable VRR but G-sync still has some benefit over freesync. GK850G uses a g-sync module.

PRO/CON: Some quasi HDR capability using Hybrid Log Gamma style HDR that works with SDR and "SDR+" screens labeled HDR (hdr 400, hdr600 that can't do PQ HDR of HDR1000 white point using absolute values). The edge lighting isn't go to do real hdr side by side highlights by a long shot, however the GK850G has no color brightness ability past SDR range at all.

PRO: Native Contrast: The native contrast of the XG438Q is 900 to 1000 more than the GK850G at almost 4000:1 and with the accompanying deeper black depths even before adding local dimming to the equation.

PRO.. Local Dimming: Not FALD unfortunately but adds significant black depth and contrast in large areas of scenes. Variable and scene dependent.

CON ..Overdrive + Response time: Unfortunately it's overdrive + response time combination is slightly slower which means it can't eliminate as much of the black smearing on the worst transitions as the bar the GK850G has set.
*This really should only be noticeable on games and settings that get 100fps or more on a high hz monitor because that's when you start reducing sample-and-hold blur to a soften blur rather than a smearing blur. 100fps ranges on a 4k monitor won't always be the case. The desktop will always be max fps vs hz though so there is that as well.

CON... Uniformity: The uniformity on the XG348Q is poorer with much darker corners than the already poorer-than-my 4k tvs GK850G which has "ok" uniformity. My TCL s405 and samsung nu6900 are great by comparison.

CON.. BRG pixel layout: This can necessitate you tweaking cleartype more aggressively and adjusting your display settings and viewing distance to compensate if it bothers you. Or if you really want RGB it could require you to buy a vesa mount of some kind and flip the monitor. The OSD of the monitor and any device bios screens will not be flipped, but windows display settings easily flips and remembers your settings with no problem.

CON... Displayport 1.4 with no HDMI 2.1: We are still trying to stuff a 4k signal down a too narrow dp 1.4 pipe and this has no future proofing since it has no hdmi 2.1

CON... PRICE: Considering all of the caveats I don't think this monitor is worth $1100 + tax (~$1200 here). While it looks like a decent gaming monitor overall, much like my gk850g it has some weaknesses in some facets that result in tradeoffs. Had the XG438Q matched and/or surpassed my gk850g in every facet I'd be much less reluctant to buy one. As it is it would still be a nice upgrade from my 32" LG in some respects but not at that price tag all things considered.

EDIT: ----------
CON...Wide Gamut Only: This is a wide gamut monitor that has no sRGB setting in the OSD for accurate pc color use in SDR content including obvious things like skin tones in media. Most other gaming monitors are sRGB and some wide gamut color monitors have sRGB setting as an option in the OSD. This can be a deal breaker for some.

You forgot that you can't disable the wide gamut mode, that makes this monitor basically unusable for any desktop operation outside of HDR content. Including non-HDR sRGB games.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Unfortunately it's overdrive + response time combination is slightly slower which means it can't eliminate as much of the black smearing on the worst transitions as the bar the GK850G has set.

CON... Uniformity: The uniformity on the XG348Q is poorer with much darker corners than the already poorer-than-my 4k tvs GK850G which has "ok" uniformity. My TCL s405 and samsung nu6900 are great by comparison.

This hurts a bit- compared to my Acer XB271HU, the GK850G is already poor in terms of uniformity and the black smearing jumps off the screen for me. I've been playing on the Acer a bit, and yeah the contrast sucks, but the panel is about as fast as you can get even today and the colors are great (and uniform!). I do color work with photography being one of my other hobbies (you thought high-end monitors and video cards were expensive...), and I don't need perfect uniformity and color, but certainly close enough to ensure that my output is at least printable and looks good on social media.

PRO/CON:... PPI: It has a much better PPI than the poor ppi of the GK850g but requires you to flip the monitor upside down to get RGB for the best text clarity.

I'm not terribly annoyed by this; I'm a monitor arm convert, now that I've started to use larger displays that I cannot get close enough in an ergonomic fashion with their included stands, and I don't really care which way is 'up' if it improves image quality. I would like to see, however, someone do this and show that text clarity is really improved overall.