I could buy a 55 inch OLED for that! That is insane! A $1000 would have been reasonable, with standard non hdr Gysnc monitors at $700, but $2500... who is going to spend that!
The thought that there are people in the world that can produce or even worse - find such a design appealing makes me sad. And the pricing makes it that much worse...
I know right. Its not like you are going to be playing many games at 4k and 144 FPS.
I also find 4k at 27 kind of terrible right now. 1440 is the perfect resolution for the windows desktop on a 27 inch screen, in terms of being able to actually read text natively. You'd have to run some scaling, and Windows scaling is very mediocre, especially when you have to do 125% or 150%.
Now if they had this at 5K, then maybe you could even argue the price was worth it. 200% percent scaling, retina display ppi heaven.
I have a cynical take on this. The scaler is there so you can game with today's graphics cards, but Nvidia wants to be sure there's always room for improvement, so they can continue to sell ever higher-performing cards. This monitor is clearly screaming for twin Titan Xp's in SLI.
Also, in regards to resolution vs. screen size, gamers will just dial down the AA. They achieve a similar effect (although I think I'd rather game at a slightly lower res with slightly better AA). And since dither is used to achieve 10-bit, a higher DPI means you'll see less of that noise.
Why would you ever want to game at a non-native resolution on an LCD? I always take the native res and reduce AA if I have anything on, I even reduce the texture quality to a point before going non-native with the resolution. Unless you are talking about integer value fractions of the max resolution. :)
1440p may be the perfect resolution *for you* at 27", but it looks like a window screen to me. Scaling in Windows is fine now, with the exception of a few apps that are somehow written to ignore it (EA's Origin, I'm looking at you). I use 150% scaling on my 27" 4k displays when I work, and I'm a software engineer who spends all day staring at code. If the scaling sucked, my eyes would be bleeding from the strain of trying to read badly rendered text. Maybe its not as good as scaling on Macs? IDK, I'm not a Mac user.
$2k is too much for these monitors though. Personally, I'd go for one without the G-sync hardware. The benefits of G-sync are practically zero* at 144hz anyway, why pay for the hardware for no benefit?
* the penalty for missing a frame update at 144hz is, at worst, ~7ms of stutter, which is too low for most people to detect, compared to ~17ms at 60hz. The benefit of G-sync is in eliminating most** of that penalty, so the smaller the penalty gets, the less you get from G-sync. As refresh rates rise, the benefits of G-sync asymptotically approach 0.
**G-sync introduces some small latency of its own. Best case is that it is not worse than the latency of the hardware it replaces in a non-G-sync version of the same monitor.
because it's the 384 zone HDR backlight that's the stupidly expensive part, pairing it with a 144p display would only save a a hundred or so dollars. It would still be stupidly expensive, but much less premium. Eventually we will see the tech trickle down, but the backlights need to get significantly cheaper to make and/or the people willing to pay $2500 for a monitor need to buy enough of them to cover the initial R&D costs first.
While the panel is no small feat - a high refresh rate 4K panel with 10bit color is still brand-new technology - it's the backlighting system that is the huge change from past monitors. A FALD backlight that is fast enough to be used with a high (& variable) refresh rate monitor and capable of generating a DCI-P3 color gamut is real cutting edge stuff.
The price will eventually come down. But to start things off there's a definite early adopters tax while the tech improves.
Its not 10bit. Its 8bit + FRC. Its not even true HDR at 144Hz. It can only do 4k 4:4:4 HDR upto 98Hz. Highly doubt the FALD is implemented correctly because the Asus rep mentioned that there is an option to change FALD latency so you dont get HALO effects in dark backgrounds. Probably comes with a downside where the brightness drops down from the 1000nits..
A 55 OLED is NOT in the same ballpark as this monitor. TVs are notoriously bad for gaming at all. I have a 55 OLED. Its not great for anything but what its meant for movies/TV
Why would you pay that much only to have burn in issues after a few hours? Playing GTA 5 for 4 hours? Are you insane! You need to stop or the map and and chat window will burn in!
Huh? OLED are don't have that problem much anymore. I've had KODI static image on it for 10 hours, i've had youtube open paused for hours on end. Its not a big deal like people make it out to be.
Its just subjective and there are a lot of fanboys. Burn in is still a very real problem, as a quick search on Google will show you (especially for pictures). There is a reason why they dont make OLED screens for PC. They have enough issues with TV station symbols or news station banners.
Wow those insane prices. I may buy nVidia cards, but I'm not insane. $699 was the price the 144hz 1440p monitors launched with G-sync, 3 years ago? I'd pay $1200 and I consider myself to spend an unreasonable amount on monitors... Forget it at this price.
Not any more. Computer hardware prices don't come down anymore until the hardware is no longer produced. Look at 27" 1440p G-Sync monitors. $800 3 years ago. $800 today. Also, CPUs: Haswell 4790k are still going for $200+ on eBay... when you can get a 7xxx Kaby Lake for the same price...
I'm only one the second page of comments and have read this exact statement three times. I bought an Acer XB270HU when it first came out nearly two years ago for $650. If you were to buy it now you would pay... $630. There's little reason to believe something like this will rapidly drop in price unlike previous panel technologies that had large consumer markets to grab. This price point just places it out of what is reasonable.
Sigh, why do you think a 55 OLED is better? A 55 OLED IS NOT a gaming monitor, TV screens are by nature terrible for gaming. I actually have that LG 55 OLED. Gaming on it is terrible. Its fantastic for TV/movies.
I game a lot on a 2009 Panny plasma and it's probably better than my monitor in every way apart from res (1080p vs 1440p). I haven't heard anything bad about the LG OLED screens in game mode apart from some issues with HDR and game mode (which may have been fixed?).
Every year they have gotten better. I know the 2016 models had issues with enabling HDR in game mode, however this issue is not present on the 2017 models and they have brought down the input lag as well. 2018 models look to improve on this further and the 2019 models are projected to have variable refresh and 120 Hz input as well. Granted, I don't think you'd want an OLED for normal desktop use due to the automatic brightness limiter, but for gaming, especially HDR gaming, I don't see what's wrong with a newer OLED.
A lot of folks who would be interested in upgrading to these new monitors probably already have a high refresh gaming monitor. Why not save a bunch of money and get an OLED (which, I'm sorry, is still going to have better image quality than these overpriced monitors) and then you can use that for the all the games that where you'd rather enjoy the full benefits of OLED HDR and then use your existing gaming monitor for competitive shooters and the like?
Like I would've gotten it if it was $1500, since these are pretty premium, but $2k?!? That's more than what 90% of PC builders out there spend on their PC...
That price puts these out of reach from all those but those that are willing to spend close to 10 grand on their PC. For the rest of us, 3440x1440 120 hz is the thing to go for.
Plus, what can even power this?!? Even the Titan V is more 4k 60 fps suited. 144 fps at 4k can't be done on AAA titles except with settings on something like medium or low...
Ive been waiting for the 3440x1440 200hz HDR they got coming out, now I am worried its going to cost $3k, and maybe I should stop waiting and buy one of the 120hz models available now.
Eh, I'm fine with using the screen that came with my laptop and phone. I don't see the point in buying more junk that just clutters up my desk and takes away space I need for art supplies.
Actually you won't. Because history of monitors shows in just a few months after these come out, "generic" brands will come out $500 cheaper. But what you should wait for before you jump on this is they are going to have a 34 inch(i hear 35 or 34 inch not sure) version. Trust me, a 34+ inch monitor is the better choice for 4k content.
AUO's the only panel maker to've announced many zone backlights for HDR. Their schedule has a 35" VA 3440x1440 widescreen at 200hz and 512 dimming zones scheduled for last Q2 of this year. A 32" version of this panel is scheduled for Q3. In both cases it'll probably be a few more months from the start of volume production of panels to retail availability.
I guess, this is still a good move. LCDs has muted image quality once you get used to bright OLED in the dark. I was for a surprise when I watched a 4K on my S8+. Now, I prefer it for movies over my 4K LCD TV.
So it's something like a year late, it's twice the cost that's appropriate for a premium monitor, isn't even a proper 10bpc implementation, will likely still exhibit bugs in Windows 10, will no doubt have quality control problems, and the devices themselves look cringe.
This is ridiculous. Been wanting a new monitor for a while, was looking at the dell s2417dg since I believe it has good performance and can be found at a reasonable price. However it launched a couple years ago already and since then I have't seen much inovation, at least in terms of 16:9 monitors which is definetely disappointing... Now this thing appears, 2 years late, hideously looking with a price tag so high that even most enthusiast won't even think about buying. People complain about RAM/GPU market, however, a monitor is a component just as important as those, if not more, in terms of how good of a gaming experience you have. I still see no Oled with individual pixel dimming (384 zones lol), wide colour gamut, perfect contrast, great viewing angles, super low response times, thin looking, and the list goes on... Monitor/panel makers just keep milking customers without inovating as most companies in the industry seem to have been doing in recent years...
PS: And yes I know, oled has burn in issues... However, those have been mitigated in recent iterations and since I dont plan on leaving static images on there for 10 hours straight I dont really think it would affect me or most people that much. Even if it did, i'd prefer interupting my gaming/movie sessions for 5 minutes every now and then to run a screen saver if that meant that while enjoying them i'd have a much much richer and immersive experience
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
60 Comments
Back to Article
Sttm - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
I could buy a 55 inch OLED for that! That is insane! A $1000 would have been reasonable, with standard non hdr Gysnc monitors at $700, but $2500... who is going to spend that!r3loaded - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Better yet, the 55 inch OLED TV doesn't look like Megatron either.iter - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
The thought that there are people in the world that can produce or even worse - find such a design appealing makes me sad. And the pricing makes it that much worse...Hixbot - Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - link
Why does Asus think gaming components have to look like a toy spaceship?Alistair - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Why don't they make an HDR 1440p and save us a thousand dollars, right?Sttm - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
I know right. Its not like you are going to be playing many games at 4k and 144 FPS.I also find 4k at 27 kind of terrible right now. 1440 is the perfect resolution for the windows desktop on a 27 inch screen, in terms of being able to actually read text natively. You'd have to run some scaling, and Windows scaling is very mediocre, especially when you have to do 125% or 150%.
Now if they had this at 5K, then maybe you could even argue the price was worth it. 200% percent scaling, retina display ppi heaven.
mode_13h - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
I have a cynical take on this. The scaler is there so you can game with today's graphics cards, but Nvidia wants to be sure there's always room for improvement, so they can continue to sell ever higher-performing cards. This monitor is clearly screaming for twin Titan Xp's in SLI.Also, in regards to resolution vs. screen size, gamers will just dial down the AA. They achieve a similar effect (although I think I'd rather game at a slightly lower res with slightly better AA). And since dither is used to achieve 10-bit, a higher DPI means you'll see less of that noise.
Death666Angel - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Why would you ever want to game at a non-native resolution on an LCD? I always take the native res and reduce AA if I have anything on, I even reduce the texture quality to a point before going non-native with the resolution. Unless you are talking about integer value fractions of the max resolution. :)asgallant - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
1440p may be the perfect resolution *for you* at 27", but it looks like a window screen to me. Scaling in Windows is fine now, with the exception of a few apps that are somehow written to ignore it (EA's Origin, I'm looking at you). I use 150% scaling on my 27" 4k displays when I work, and I'm a software engineer who spends all day staring at code. If the scaling sucked, my eyes would be bleeding from the strain of trying to read badly rendered text. Maybe its not as good as scaling on Macs? IDK, I'm not a Mac user.$2k is too much for these monitors though. Personally, I'd go for one without the G-sync hardware. The benefits of G-sync are practically zero* at 144hz anyway, why pay for the hardware for no benefit?
* the penalty for missing a frame update at 144hz is, at worst, ~7ms of stutter, which is too low for most people to detect, compared to ~17ms at 60hz. The benefit of G-sync is in eliminating most** of that penalty, so the smaller the penalty gets, the less you get from G-sync. As refresh rates rise, the benefits of G-sync asymptotically approach 0.
**G-sync introduces some small latency of its own. Best case is that it is not worse than the latency of the hardware it replaces in a non-G-sync version of the same monitor.
DanNeely - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
because it's the 384 zone HDR backlight that's the stupidly expensive part, pairing it with a 144p display would only save a a hundred or so dollars. It would still be stupidly expensive, but much less premium. Eventually we will see the tech trickle down, but the backlights need to get significantly cheaper to make and/or the people willing to pay $2500 for a monitor need to buy enough of them to cover the initial R&D costs first.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Bingo.While the panel is no small feat - a high refresh rate 4K panel with 10bit color is still brand-new technology - it's the backlighting system that is the huge change from past monitors. A FALD backlight that is fast enough to be used with a high (& variable) refresh rate monitor and capable of generating a DCI-P3 color gamut is real cutting edge stuff.
The price will eventually come down. But to start things off there's a definite early adopters tax while the tech improves.
kot0005 - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Its not 10bit. Its 8bit + FRC. Its not even true HDR at 144Hz. It can only do 4k 4:4:4 HDR upto 98Hz. Highly doubt the FALD is implemented correctly because the Asus rep mentioned that there is an option to change FALD latency so you dont get HALO effects in dark backgrounds. Probably comes with a downside where the brightness drops down from the 1000nits..Beaver M. - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
But its an AUO panel. Do you know what that means? Panel lottery.Dug - Wednesday, April 18, 2018 - link
Then why are Visio and Sony able to make full FALD 4k TV's $1000 or more cheaper than this if the backlight is so expensive?Flunk - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
I'd rather have one of these than a 55" OLED. Better usable lifetime for one thing, and better specs. And a 55" won't fit on my computer desk.imaheadcase - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
A 55 OLED is NOT in the same ballpark as this monitor. TVs are notoriously bad for gaming at all. I have a 55 OLED. Its not great for anything but what its meant for movies/TVBeaver M. - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Why would you pay that much only to have burn in issues after a few hours? Playing GTA 5 for 4 hours? Are you insane! You need to stop or the map and and chat window will burn in!imaheadcase - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Huh? OLED are don't have that problem much anymore. I've had KODI static image on it for 10 hours, i've had youtube open paused for hours on end. Its not a big deal like people make it out to be.Beaver M. - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Its just subjective and there are a lot of fanboys.Burn in is still a very real problem, as a quick search on Google will show you (especially for pictures).
There is a reason why they dont make OLED screens for PC. They have enough issues with TV station symbols or news station banners.
imaheadcase - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
You do know a TV vs a PC monitor is totally different for gaming right?Intredpid3d - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Cuz G-Sync, now they got you, now you pay.Alistair - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Wow those insane prices. I may buy nVidia cards, but I'm not insane. $699 was the price the 144hz 1440p monitors launched with G-sync, 3 years ago? I'd pay $1200 and I consider myself to spend an unreasonable amount on monitors... Forget it at this price.Alistair - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Wish Sony would just make a 40 inch X900e with this scaler... :)Flunk - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Price will come down in time.mooninite - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Not any more. Computer hardware prices don't come down anymore until the hardware is no longer produced. Look at 27" 1440p G-Sync monitors. $800 3 years ago. $800 today. Also, CPUs: Haswell 4790k are still going for $200+ on eBay... when you can get a 7xxx Kaby Lake for the same price...haukionkannel - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Yep prices Are not coming down like They used to come...Skiddywinks - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
This is killing me. I've wanted a decent 144Hz 1440p monitor for fucking ages.Beaver M. - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Youre not alone. I would even pay close to $1k for one. But there simply are none that have acceptable quality and have G-Sync.willis936 - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
I'm only one the second page of comments and have read this exact statement three times. I bought an Acer XB270HU when it first came out nearly two years ago for $650. If you were to buy it now you would pay... $630. There's little reason to believe something like this will rapidly drop in price unlike previous panel technologies that had large consumer markets to grab. This price point just places it out of what is reasonable.euskalzabe - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
LOL. That's all I have to say. Thanks Asus, but I think I'll buy a 55" OLED for $1500 instead.imaheadcase - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Sigh, why do you think a 55 OLED is better? A 55 OLED IS NOT a gaming monitor, TV screens are by nature terrible for gaming. I actually have that LG 55 OLED. Gaming on it is terrible. Its fantastic for TV/movies.SirCanealot - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Sorry, why is it terrible?I game a lot on a 2009 Panny plasma and it's probably better than my monitor in every way apart from res (1080p vs 1440p). I haven't heard anything bad about the LG OLED screens in game mode apart from some issues with HDR and game mode (which may have been fixed?).
cwolf78 - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Every year they have gotten better. I know the 2016 models had issues with enabling HDR in game mode, however this issue is not present on the 2017 models and they have brought down the input lag as well. 2018 models look to improve on this further and the 2019 models are projected to have variable refresh and 120 Hz input as well. Granted, I don't think you'd want an OLED for normal desktop use due to the automatic brightness limiter, but for gaming, especially HDR gaming, I don't see what's wrong with a newer OLED.A lot of folks who would be interested in upgrading to these new monitors probably already have a high refresh gaming monitor. Why not save a bunch of money and get an OLED (which, I'm sorry, is still going to have better image quality than these overpriced monitors) and then you can use that for the all the games that where you'd rather enjoy the full benefits of OLED HDR and then use your existing gaming monitor for competitive shooters and the like?
Booyaah - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Not even OLED, just a cheap normal display...Beaver M. - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
I wouldnt call local dimming (HDR) normal. Its a huge improvement in an LCD.Hurr Durr - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
All these nice specs, the 3k bucks price, and the "design" that makes you want to claw your eyes out.What a bargain!
mode_13h - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
I'm in the market for a HDR monitor with adaptive sync, but I'll take 2560x1440 and you can keep the scaler.Also, not sure I need the matrix back light... I know TVs with those tend to have artifacts from them.
mode_13h - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Also, doesn't need to be blindingly bright.Fnnoobee - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
A 27" monitor for 1 1/2 times what my gaming desktop computer costs? Yeah, sounds legit. What are the monitors made of, powdered unicorn horns?Beaver M. - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
You will need at least 2 1080 Tis to power that monitor. So I highly doubt your PC would be that "cheap".If it is, you cant use it properly anyway.
Dr. Swag - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Like I would've gotten it if it was $1500, since these are pretty premium, but $2k?!? That's more than what 90% of PC builders out there spend on their PC...That price puts these out of reach from all those but those that are willing to spend close to 10 grand on their PC. For the rest of us, 3440x1440 120 hz is the thing to go for.
Plus, what can even power this?!? Even the Titan V is more 4k 60 fps suited. 144 fps at 4k can't be done on AAA titles except with settings on something like medium or low...
Sttm - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Ive been waiting for the 3440x1440 200hz HDR they got coming out, now I am worried its going to cost $3k, and maybe I should stop waiting and buy one of the 120hz models available now.mode_13h - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Perhaps they're thinking a SLI of 1080 Ti's?But the scaler is an important point, and an admission that buyers will not always have the horsepower always to feed them a 4k signal.
p1esk - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
I'd pay up to $1000 for an ultrawide curved 5k monitor with 120Hz. The first company to make them will get my money.PeachNCream - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Eh, I'm fine with using the screen that came with my laptop and phone. I don't see the point in buying more junk that just clutters up my desk and takes away space I need for art supplies.TristanSDX - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
These prices are just fake. Will be real when some shop will get monitors. Rela prices will be 1200=1500$haukionkannel - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Nope... these Are the real prices. In Finland 2500-2600€...Premius stuff indeed!
Caleer - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Personally I can't wait to get PG27UQ, With 4K 144HZ Gsync I will be set for some time with it.imaheadcase - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Actually you won't. Because history of monitors shows in just a few months after these come out, "generic" brands will come out $500 cheaper. But what you should wait for before you jump on this is they are going to have a 34 inch(i hear 35 or 34 inch not sure) version. Trust me, a 34+ inch monitor is the better choice for 4k content.DanNeely - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
AUO's the only panel maker to've announced many zone backlights for HDR. Their schedule has a 35" VA 3440x1440 widescreen at 200hz and 512 dimming zones scheduled for last Q2 of this year. A 32" version of this panel is scheduled for Q3. In both cases it'll probably be a few more months from the start of volume production of panels to retail availability.Beaver M. - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Where did you get that information?Are there new 1440p ones listed too?
DanNeely - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
TFT Central's news page. What I listed was it for FALD HDR panels from AUO. None of the other panel makers have announced/leaked similar panels.http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/38.htm#au...
Caleer - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Eh, no thanks on 34in, I ready have a PG27AQ and want to add PG27UQ as my main. But they promised those 34 screens later on this year if you want one.haukionkannel - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
When Are 32”-36” monitors with same speck as these coming out. 4K would be better with a Little bit bigger screens...zodiacfml - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
I guess, this is still a good move. LCDs has muted image quality once you get used to bright OLED in the dark. I was for a surprise when I watched a 4K on my S8+. Now, I prefer it for movies over my 4K LCD TV.Beaver M. - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
Until you have burn in effects.Simon_Says - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
So it's something like a year late, it's twice the cost that's appropriate for a premium monitor, isn't even a proper 10bpc implementation, will likely still exhibit bugs in Windows 10, will no doubt have quality control problems, and the devices themselves look cringe.⛳👏
Hixbot - Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - link
wow, looks like I'm keeping my CRT for another decade.djdp77 - Saturday, May 5, 2018 - link
This is ridiculous. Been wanting a new monitor for a while, was looking at the dell s2417dg since I believe it has good performance and can be found at a reasonable price. However it launched a couple years ago already and since then I have't seen much inovation, at least in terms of 16:9 monitors which is definetely disappointing... Now this thing appears, 2 years late, hideously looking with a price tag so high that even most enthusiast won't even think about buying. People complain about RAM/GPU market, however, a monitor is a component just as important as those, if not more, in terms of how good of a gaming experience you have. I still see no Oled with individual pixel dimming (384 zones lol), wide colour gamut, perfect contrast, great viewing angles, super low response times, thin looking, and the list goes on... Monitor/panel makers just keep milking customers without inovating as most companies in the industry seem to have been doing in recent years...PS: And yes I know, oled has burn in issues... However, those have been mitigated in recent iterations and since I dont plan on leaving static images on there for 10 hours straight I dont really think it would affect me or most people that much. Even if it did, i'd prefer interupting my gaming/movie sessions for 5 minutes every now and then to run a screen saver if that meant that while enjoying them i'd have a much much richer and immersive experience