28" 4k 60Hz monitors have already been around for like 5 years. This brings absolutely nothing new or interesting, why introduce it at all? Unless they are reducing the retail price to the common sale price around $200.
I agree, it lacks proper HDR brightnessm and the specs are nothing special for this day.
I wish they would make a proper 27/28" 1440p 144Hz+ HDR1000 screen instead (16:9 and non-curved please), that seems to be a gap in the market as everyone is doing 4K now.
For example the Acer Predator X27 had excellent HDR brightness, but its 4K and as such limited by DP/HDMI bandwidth, and it also fell short in some other categories - unfortunately.
First of all, the human eye could not see HDR1000 on a 28' fully - it would be to bright and have to be toned down and second, true cinema HDR1000 needs dynamic lighting zones which would be nearly 1500.00+ and 2 monitors have this spec exist.
for Consoles and Affordable 4K content this is price point and IPS panel is amazing
4k 60hz isn't ideal for a lot of people. If you play any competitive games you are better served by higher refresh rates. 1440p 144hz is a great middle ground being easier to push higher frames with while offering very noticeably better visuals then 1080p. I personally would almost always take a good 1080p or 1440p 144hz screen over a 4k 60hz.
1440p 144hz is what we should all be aiming for, or even 120hz for now. That's about 4x more data than 1080p 60z, or almost 2x at 60hz. 4k was purely for movies, and apparently nobody even cared about 4k blu-rays..
If you play competitive games, you should be turning off all the advanced rendering, which means that image quality isn't a factor.. and the "High Refresh Rate" displays with their crappy panels, and single back light are great for you..
But if the games you play are more "atmospheric" rendering quality and eye candy are what you SHOULD be focusing on. Even with an RTX 2080ti these features can drop framrates way below 144 fps.. often below 80 fps.. In this case you are far better off with a 60fps 4K TV with local dimming than a crappy PC display. Most PC's have a crappy IPS displays, with terrible black levels.. I mean .. THEY SSUUCCKK!! If you care at all about image quality, those high FPS displays will do nothing but provide more crappy images every second..
Those are all high-end feature you listed. This isn’t a high end display.
If it were it would be a ROG monitor w/ HDR1000, 4K@144hz via DSC, & MiniLED or OLED. That monitor is easily $1500+. Asus already have a $2000 monitor providing this for almost 2 years now.
Next year they have proper successors such as the PA32UCG wi/ 1152 MiniLED zones, HDR1400 (monitor actually goes 1600 nite, HDMI 2.1 VRR, Thunderbolt 3, & actually proper HDR formats support to take advantage of those nits with Dolby Vision, HLG, & HDR10
Monitor industry has been slacking off for years meanwhile TVs have gotten better overtime. I'm considering buying a good TV to act as a secondary monitor as you can buy 43" models from last year with 4k and hdr for $300 and less. These idiots have been milking with the same spec monitors for years. No one is going to spend $1000 plus for a monitor in this spec range. Add 144hz and then we can talk
Too bad none of the 43" TV's support more than 60Hz. Like Samsung Q60 or Q50-series. If you buy the 55" in the same series, you get FreeSync _AND_ 120Hz (although not 4K _AND_ 120Hz at the same time mind you, no HDMI 2.1 for that).
But looking for such a set for a long time. Ended up getting a cheap Samsung 32" VA with 4K and FreeSync as temporary solution (for less than 300dollars).
Yup. If it was 38" rather than 28", it'd be pretty close to perfect for a general desktop monitor. (In my book, the remaining step toward perfection would be a curved screen - IMHO required at that size for arm's-length use... but YMMV)
38" or 40" is great.. 32" is way, way, wayyyyy too small small for me. After using 55" for so long, I could use a 46" quite comfortably. 40" is about HALF the screen area of 55".
A curve would be fantastic, so long as there is an uncurved version too (my current 55" set doubles as my main TV).
IMO, gaming perfection would be a slightly curved 40" 16:9, or maybe a 43" 18:9. 1440p/4k, 90/100/120/144hz. I think that should honestly be the new standard for gaming. Large screens make it much easier to see guys in FPS games, and are much more immersive. For general desktop use, it would be like having 3-6 screens.
"Stealth fighter" design, 60Hz, and if it breaks, it goes off to GTech or Pegatron where they take over a month to NOT fix whatever the issue is, and you end up waiting on hold for 90 minutes trying to get someone who can deal with the screwup...
I wish someone would make a 24" 4K 450-500nits, HDR/DCI-P3/10bit monitor with DP1.4 in, non-WLED backlight (GB-R or something else proper), there hasn't been anything decent in this space since Dell UP2414Q, I would gladly trash my trio of those monitors for an upgrade with thinner bezels, better color / brightness and non-MST DP1.4 input
My thing is the new MS FLIGHT SIMULATOR and DCS (Digital Combat Simulator World). I play games occasionally, but not eye/hand coordination types. I had a 27" Benq 1440 from around 2017 and just recently purchased a Dell S3220DGF 1440 for $399 and also an ASUS 28" 4K VG289Q for $330. Do I really need the 4K on a smaller screen?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
Back to Article
EliteRetard - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link
Why?28" 4k 60Hz monitors have already been around for like 5 years.
This brings absolutely nothing new or interesting, why introduce it at all?
Unless they are reducing the retail price to the common sale price around $200.
nevcairiel - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link
I agree, it lacks proper HDR brightnessm and the specs are nothing special for this day.I wish they would make a proper 27/28" 1440p 144Hz+ HDR1000 screen instead (16:9 and non-curved please), that seems to be a gap in the market as everyone is doing 4K now.
nevcairiel - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link
For example the Acer Predator X27 had excellent HDR brightness, but its 4K and as such limited by DP/HDMI bandwidth, and it also fell short in some other categories - unfortunately.thegpuguy - Tuesday, August 25, 2020 - link
First of all, the human eye could not see HDR1000 on a 28' fully - it would be to bright and have to be toned down and second, true cinema HDR1000 needs dynamic lighting zones which would be nearly 1500.00+ and 2 monitors have this spec exist.for Consoles and Affordable 4K content this is price point and IPS panel is amazing
Killshotgn - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link
4k 60hz isn't ideal for a lot of people. If you play any competitive games you are better served by higher refresh rates. 1440p 144hz is a great middle ground being easier to push higher frames with while offering very noticeably better visuals then 1080p. I personally would almost always take a good 1080p or 1440p 144hz screen over a 4k 60hz.flyingpants265 - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link
1440p 144hz is what we should all be aiming for, or even 120hz for now. That's about 4x more data than 1080p 60z, or almost 2x at 60hz. 4k was purely for movies, and apparently nobody even cared about 4k blu-rays..TEAMSWITCHER - Sunday, November 17, 2019 - link
If you play competitive games, you should be turning off all the advanced rendering, which means that image quality isn't a factor.. and the "High Refresh Rate" displays with their crappy panels, and single back light are great for you..But if the games you play are more "atmospheric" rendering quality and eye candy are what you SHOULD be focusing on. Even with an RTX 2080ti these features can drop framrates way below 144 fps.. often below 80 fps.. In this case you are far better off with a 60fps 4K TV with local dimming than a crappy PC display. Most PC's have a crappy IPS displays, with terrible black levels.. I mean .. THEY SSUUCCKK!! If you care at all about image quality, those high FPS displays will do nothing but provide more crappy images every second..
lilkwarrior - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link
You’re better off with a HDMI 2.1 OLED TV ATM, LG’s C9+ w/ G-SyncZoolook13 - Wednesday, November 20, 2019 - link
It has no G-sync module, please don't fall for Nvidias tricks.It's HDMI VRR, it could just as easily have been Freesync branded.
lilkwarrior - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link
Those are all high-end feature you listed. This isn’t a high end display.If it were it would be a ROG monitor w/ HDR1000, 4K@144hz via DSC, & MiniLED or OLED. That monitor is easily $1500+. Asus already have a $2000 monitor providing this for almost 2 years now.
Next year they have proper successors such as the PA32UCG wi/ 1152 MiniLED zones, HDR1400 (monitor actually goes 1600 nite, HDMI 2.1 VRR, Thunderbolt 3, & actually proper HDR formats support to take advantage of those nits with Dolby Vision, HLG, & HDR10
surt - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link
Really not sure who would buy a monitor today without at least 120hz.milkywayer - Saturday, November 16, 2019 - link
Monitor industry has been slacking off for years meanwhile TVs have gotten better overtime. I'm considering buying a good TV to act as a secondary monitor as you can buy 43" models from last year with 4k and hdr for $300 and less. These idiots have been milking with the same spec monitors for years. No one is going to spend $1000 plus for a monitor in this spec range. Add 144hz and then we can talkdrgigolo - Sunday, November 17, 2019 - link
Too bad none of the 43" TV's support more than 60Hz. Like Samsung Q60 or Q50-series. If you buy the 55" in the same series, you get FreeSync _AND_ 120Hz (although not 4K _AND_ 120Hz at the same time mind you, no HDMI 2.1 for that).But looking for such a set for a long time. Ended up getting a cheap Samsung 32" VA with 4K and FreeSync as temporary solution (for less than 300dollars).
flyingpants265 - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link
Still waiting for the cheap 40" sets... Can't go back after using a 55" for so long.boeush - Saturday, November 16, 2019 - link
Yup. If it was 38" rather than 28", it'd be pretty close to perfect for a general desktop monitor. (In my book, the remaining step toward perfection would be a curved screen - IMHO required at that size for arm's-length use... but YMMV)flyingpants265 - Monday, November 25, 2019 - link
38" or 40" is great.. 32" is way, way, wayyyyy too small small for me. After using 55" for so long, I could use a 46" quite comfortably. 40" is about HALF the screen area of 55".A curve would be fantastic, so long as there is an uncurved version too (my current 55" set doubles as my main TV).
IMO, gaming perfection would be a slightly curved 40" 16:9, or maybe a 43" 18:9. 1440p/4k, 90/100/120/144hz. I think that should honestly be the new standard for gaming. Large screens make it much easier to see guys in FPS games, and are much more immersive. For general desktop use, it would be like having 3-6 screens.
Dr_Derpface - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link
"Stealth fighter" design, 60Hz, and if it breaks, it goes off to GTech or Pegatron where they take over a month to NOT fix whatever the issue is, and you end up waiting on hold for 90 minutes trying to get someone who can deal with the screwup...timecop1818 - Saturday, November 16, 2019 - link
I wish someone would make a 24" 4K 450-500nits, HDR/DCI-P3/10bit monitor with DP1.4 in, non-WLED backlight (GB-R or something else proper), there hasn't been anything decent in this space since Dell UP2414Q, I would gladly trash my trio of those monitors for an upgrade with thinner bezels, better color / brightness and non-MST DP1.4 inputSoulkeeper - Saturday, November 16, 2019 - link
Yeah, we want 120Hz ! Are you listening asus !?TristanSDX - Saturday, November 16, 2019 - link
why there are so few 24 inch 4K monitors ? just few modelscoukd be great if they release more of it, especially with high frame rates
austinsguitar - Sunday, November 17, 2019 - link
4k, 60hz, 5ms g-to-g, weak free sync range... I already don't like where this is going...Olof45 - Monday, December 30, 2019 - link
Would this monitor be compatiable with a consol?pavlograd - Friday, September 4, 2020 - link
My thing is the new MS FLIGHT SIMULATOR and DCS (Digital Combat Simulator World). I play games occasionally, but not eye/hand coordination types. I had a 27" Benq 1440 from around 2017 and just recently purchased a Dell S3220DGF 1440 for $399 and also an ASUS 28" 4K VG289Q for $330. Do I really need the 4K on a smaller screen?