It's 2018 and still no 4k monitor with 120hz or 144hz support?

Mangler said:
About #3, Didn't he say that that 98hz was the cutoff point in the vid?
Click to expand...

An HBR3 cable as well as Display port 1.4 are capable of doing 4K/120 10Bit HDR 4:4:4 at 32.4Gbps which is the limit. And this is without the use of DSC. DSC is probably used to achieve the 144Hz but sacrifices CSS.
 
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/as...ed-to-use-color-compression-at-120144-hz.html

So instead of using DSC which would give far better image quality they are using subsampling which makes the image blurrier.

Not only that its been discovered that its an 8Bit panel and not 10Bit so HDR10 is not supported. Up to 98Hz the monitor will support 10Bit color. Once you go over 98Hz its 8Bit with 4:2:2 Subsampling....

These panels keep getting worse and worse....
 
not buying till HDMI 2.1 and or DP 1.5 is out .


i'll have to suffer with 4k/60 40" till then


can't get a single card to do 4k/60 in new games more like 40 to 60 fps

so no hurry for 4k/120 144
 
So I have on hand 1 of each of the two 27s. The rog is my friends and the panels are the same obviously but on build quality the acer takes it. Also the asus has a very small fan inside vs the acer is much more audible. So get the acer over the asus.
 
So much for the wait. Kinda makes me feel better about my purchase. Meh.

Anyway, looks like monitor progression has gone cold for at least another year. HDR ain't even worth the thought at this stage.
 
nycdarkness said:
So I have on hand 1 of each of the two 27s. The rog is my friends and the panels are the same obviously but on build quality the acer takes it. Also the asus has a very small fan inside vs the acer is much more audible. So get the acer over the asus.
Click to expand...

How are they to game on? 4k pixel pitch at 27" plus 144hz is surely killer, no?
 
HDR is great when it works properly and not something that can be just dismissed. As in terms of it being 27inches thats probably the biggest downside. This really should of been 32.
 
I'm not really concerned about size, but rather pixel density. 27" for me is just fine, it's all about pixel density and refresh rate afaic. HDR sounds like a good bonus.

Don't get me wrong, 32" is great, but how is clarity with 4k, 27", 144hz? Must be clear as hell.
 
Clarity for sure would be crispy as but probably a little too small on the text side of things?

Demo, scorptec had the ViewSonic XG2703 1440p G sync 165hz monitors for only $719. First 20 Units. Was tempted to grab one for shits and giggles. I bet it would have been better quality than the ROG. I dislike the bezel on it but that’s one cheap Gsync monitor.
 
I already have a 1440p IPS monitor that oc's to 165hz (but prefer 144hz for oc latency). I wont upgrade until a single GPU can drive it. Ti just drives 1440p as it is, screw 4k at this point. MGPU is out of the question for (MP) gameplay reasons.
 
Its very crisp at 27 but with so many larger monitors and ultrawides. Specially if your use to an ultrawide it's a bummer. However, I believe you have the pg27q right? I have that monitor as well but I haven't used it in a long time. Tbh I found the pq27q to just look like crap coming as I had a x34 when I got it. It felt cramped and the colors themselves didn't look too great either. With that said aside from the picture clarity, the image quality in terms of color etc blows the pq27q out the water. In terms of just overall image quality this panel is noticeably better than what's out there. I've been using the 32 acer 4k gsync and the alienware 120hz ultrawide, so this x27 definitely feels less immersive to an extent. The market is at the point where 24-25 is small and 27 is ur avg it seems almost. Going from 27 to 27 you can call it a visual upgrade, going from like UW to it or a larger 4k monitor to it, it's hard to say its worth the 2k price point. If your looking at the 27 and 32 4k side by side, I can't say the 27 is that much sharper. Once again the biggest thing going for this monitor is the color. If they had hdr 1440p monitors at 144hz, I think it would sell much better due to price point, and ability to push 144hz. Hdr is game changing when it's working properly.
 
Apparently ACER is said too be the worst out of the two:

[yt]3YCldvmZ6QA[/yt]

And apparently he's not the only one who is unhappy with the Acer.
 
Couple things. #1 Acer has a revised bracket they can give you. #2 that's only if you arm mount it. The asus fan is much more audible cuz its tiny. The fan ordeal behind the visa mount location is lame but the guy's video is more like hes trying to hate on a 2k purchase. I can understand wanting near perfection for 2k but at the same time this is a 1st gen panel, if you want the most refined product you shouldn't be making the first leap. So I find the video to an extent legit but also with a huge side of clickbaity.
 
he is right I have never has a tv or monitor that needed a fan

and those little fans are always loud as hell if it needs a fan use a slow 140mm fan
 
demo said:
I already have a 1440p IPS monitor that oc's to 165hz (but prefer 144hz for oc latency). I wont upgrade until a single GPU can drive it. Ti just drives 1440p as it is, screw 4k at this point. MGPU is out of the question for (MP) gameplay reasons.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, I’m just saying :bleh2:
 
Hapatingjaky said:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/as...ed-to-use-color-compression-at-120144-hz.html

So instead of using DSC which would give far better image quality they are using subsampling which makes the image blurrier.

Not only that its been discovered that its an 8Bit panel and not 10Bit so HDR10 is not supported. Up to 98Hz the monitor will support 10Bit color. Once you go over 98Hz its 8Bit with 4:2:2 Subsampling....

These panels keep getting worse and worse....
Click to expand...

So wait, at over 98hz its compressed even at 8bit?
 
According to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

HDMI 2.0 has to use 4:2:2 compression even with 8bit @ 4k at from 75hz and up. With 10bit it uses compression even at 60hz.

However Display Port 1.4 can do 8bit @ 4k at 120hz without compression, but has to do DSC compression at 144hz. It had do 4k @ 60hz with 10bit without compression.

Looks like I will skip on this monitor and wait until they support HDMI 2.1 standard. It is very weird that they did not support it, since it was released last year.
 
I thought the existing G sync tax on monitors was bad, expect a total of $500 just for G-sync HDR module....
 
Been around here long enough to know maybe 1 or 2 ppl at best on this forum would buy the acer or rog. But there is a firmware update to address the black crush. You either gotta send the monitor in or wait for a tool later in the year.
 
We'll still need at least 2 GPU's in SLI / crossfire to get anywhere near 120 Hz refresh at 4K, and that need will maintain itself for quite a while if for no other reason that games get more demanding over time, so even if we have GPU's twice as fast as anything out now, the latest games out by then will be a lot more demanding too...….


Never mind 5K ( 5120*2880 ), or 8K (7680*4320), which will destroy any hardware for the next several years, especially 8k being that it's 4x more demanding than 4k so here we are all happy to see 60 Fps happen at 4K. when in both fill rate and memory bandwidth terms, 8K is 4x more demanding so a given game that does 60 Fps at 4K, could drop as low as 15 Fps at 8K.....It's unplayable.



The only option is to use the same solution AMD does for their CPU's and put multiple GPU dies in the same package and each has a connection to the HBM memory chips and between themselves ( infinity fabric )….We've only got the 7nm fab process in terms of GPU makers actually showing working silicon using that process and stated to be released next year, and below that is nothing but hot air and will take years to see anything.....3 to 4 years if not more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top