Yes, and? Are they 240Hz? Do they support variable refresh rates? Do most of them have built-in batteries? Do they come with warranties that actually apply in western countries? No. Besides, most cheap AE (and similar) portable monitors have terrible brightness, contrast and color accuracy. See for example this: https://www.notebookcheck.net/MageDok-15-Portable-...
Do you comment on news of new laptops launching with "Company X already makes a number of laptops" also?
Nothing in the comments here suggesting 17" portable monitors are new to people at least.
As for the panel being just as good - have you actually measured it, and are those panels you're comparing it to calibrated? Do they have wide color gamuts? Judging by eye is ... well, not really sufficient. Far too subjective. I know a lot of Clevo laptops historically have had terrible TN panels, at least.
Judging by eye is not sufficient? Why not? You can ONLY see the world through your own eyes so while benchmarks and measurements are useful for pre-purchase comparing and product research, if you are happy with your screen because it looks good to you then why do after the fact numbers matter beyond extending you digital dick measurement to people who could care less about what you own?
1) Your visual perception changes during the day and in response to food, drink, and sleep 2) You are pretty much guaranteed not to have the same room and lighting as anyone else 3) I do not know how good your eyesight is or need to trust it 4) I might not particularly care about your subjective opinion on how you like colors to be setup 5) Therefore, I would rather a scientific, quantitative, numerical, robust, rigorous, absolute, objective, and established approach to measure color accuracy with regards to color gamut, contrast ratio, grayscale balance, minimum / maximum brightness, and, (if need be): 6) then apply my own subjective criteria to realize fully well whether such a display suits my own needs or not?
Sometimes, someone doesn't know any better, so why would I think their opinion means much?
If someone has been used to < 1080p low contrast-ratio TN panels all their life, for example, would they really understand what a high-end 5K IPS display or a 4K OLED TV look like? They probably wouldn't even be able to imagine it.
You seem to have mistaken a criticism of somebody's approach to recommendations and/or technical discussions for a criticism of their choices.
If their purchase is fine for them, that's great. I'm not interested unless I know whether or not it's fine for me, and without objective measurements I simply can't make that judgement. OP's comment isn't helpful because it compares apples to theoretical spider monkeys.
Yasamoka gave a good response above, but there is something to add too:
- Human perception of color is highly flexible, meaning that you get used to the color of your displays over time. Subjective judgement is thus fundamentally untrustworthy in terms of making recommendations or indirect comparisons. - Color accuracy actually matters in the real world - have you tried online clothes shopping on an inaccurate display? Looking at furniture? Art or other decor? It can lead to some serious surprises and disappointments. And that's just a single example. Being able to accurately judge how, say, you and your family look in photos posted online is another. - The monitor isn't mainly part of "the world" but rather a medium through which (parts of) the world can be seen. An inaccurate monitor misrepresents what it displays and as such fails to fulfill its purpose properly. It might still be adequate, serviceable, even seemingly good, but it is still not working as it should, and unnecessarily skewing its representation of the world.
Because, sadly, 3:2 and 16:10 panels are still quite rare, even if they are thankfully growing more common. It will still be quite a while before high refresh rate non-16:9 panels are widely available. Also, widescreen does generally make sense for gaming - taller aspect ratios are better for productivity, but wider horizontal viewing areas make sense in most games.
Besides, I think a lot of people will be connecting this to SFF gaming PCs, not laptops. Travelling with a modern 5-7L gaming PC is quite practical, but carrying a gaming monitor isn't - until this arrives, that is.
For some office presentations such a monitor would be perfect. Let's see at what price it will reach after the first impact with the market. If there was also a wireless connection solution, it would be perfect.
I would still prefer 1440p with 144hz or above. Also 3.5 hours run time seems to be anemic even though it's refreshing at 240hz, the weight and size seems to be reasonable let see how would be the execution.
I second that preference, but unfortunately the problem is the panels being manufactured - for some reason they're almost all either 1080p sRGB gamut and high refresh rate, or 4K Adobe RGB gamut and low refresh rate. There has been precisely one 1440p 120Hz 17.3" panel, and it was TN with funky colours.
That new 4K 120Hz panel is interesting, but the colour accuracy seems odd and it's going to be expensive for as long as there's only one manufacturer producing them.
Given that a display is normally the second most power hungry component of a laptop (after the CPU (and GPU if applicable)) this is not really surprising. Displays like this need to be very thin and light seeing how they are by nature secondary devices - meaning that you're also already carrying something else. The battery is thus kept small enough to keep it light, and is likely more comparable to a tablet battery than a laptop battery. Besides, gaming without access to a wall outlet for more than 3 ½ hours - especially at 240Hz - is rather utopian.
It's possible that it can actually run off just the one depending on the power delivery capabilities of the host device, but if not a secondary port is always a good idea.
Are you saying that normal >=24" monitors are travel friendly? Because they are quite the opposite. Some people might want this as a secondary display for a laptop. Some might want it as a companion to a powerful SFF PC (there are lots of backpack-friendly SFF cases capable of housing a powerful gaming PC). Either way this would allow for quality gaming while travelling. Some might want it as an alternative to desk-bound or couch gaming, e.g. for use in bed or if the TV is being used by someone else. You seem to think this is intended for stationary use when the whole point is its size, weight and portability. 17" CRTs weren't exactly portable either...
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
29 Comments
Back to Article
nandnandnand - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
I would hook up a Raspberry Pi 4B to that.Valantar - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link
Please let this be less than $500. Pretty please?amandi - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
According to this article, it's going be to 399 euros, which is around $440:https://hardzone.es/marcas/asus/asus-rog-strix-xg1...
Valantar - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
That is ... surprisingly reasonable. Wow.TheWereCat - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
If its €399 then it will be definitely less than $400 MSRP because prices in € almost always include tax.nerd1 - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
There already are a number of of portable 17" monitor out there. I got one at $170 from aliexpress (albeit only 60hz)Valantar - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
Yes, and? Are they 240Hz? Do they support variable refresh rates? Do most of them have built-in batteries? Do they come with warranties that actually apply in western countries? No. Besides, most cheap AE (and similar) portable monitors have terrible brightness, contrast and color accuracy. See for example this: https://www.notebookcheck.net/MageDok-15-Portable-...Do you comment on news of new laptops launching with "Company X already makes a number of laptops" also?
nerd1 - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
BC it seems lot of people do not know the existence of portable 17" monitor.And mine is quite good, I use it side by side with clevo and razer laptops and panels are just as good
Valantar - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
Nothing in the comments here suggesting 17" portable monitors are new to people at least.As for the panel being just as good - have you actually measured it, and are those panels you're comparing it to calibrated? Do they have wide color gamuts? Judging by eye is ... well, not really sufficient. Far too subjective. I know a lot of Clevo laptops historically have had terrible TN panels, at least.
PeachNCream - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
Judging by eye is not sufficient? Why not? You can ONLY see the world through your own eyes so while benchmarks and measurements are useful for pre-purchase comparing and product research, if you are happy with your screen because it looks good to you then why do after the fact numbers matter beyond extending you digital dick measurement to people who could care less about what you own?yasamoka - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
Let's see, because:1) Your visual perception changes during the day and in response to food, drink, and sleep
2) You are pretty much guaranteed not to have the same room and lighting as anyone else
3) I do not know how good your eyesight is or need to trust it
4) I might not particularly care about your subjective opinion on how you like colors to be setup
5) Therefore, I would rather a scientific, quantitative, numerical, robust, rigorous, absolute, objective, and established approach to measure color accuracy with regards to color gamut, contrast ratio, grayscale balance, minimum / maximum brightness, and, (if need be):
6) then apply my own subjective criteria to realize fully well whether such a display suits my own needs or not?
yasamoka - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
To add to my own previous reply:Sometimes, someone doesn't know any better, so why would I think their opinion means much?
If someone has been used to < 1080p low contrast-ratio TN panels all their life, for example, would they really understand what a high-end 5K IPS display or a 4K OLED TV look like? They probably wouldn't even be able to imagine it.
PeachNCream - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
So basically, dick waving. Got it.Spunjji - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
You seem to have mistaken a criticism of somebody's approach to recommendations and/or technical discussions for a criticism of their choices.If their purchase is fine for them, that's great. I'm not interested unless I know whether or not it's fine for me, and without objective measurements I simply can't make that judgement. OP's comment isn't helpful because it compares apples to theoretical spider monkeys.
Valantar - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
Yasamoka gave a good response above, but there is something to add too:- Human perception of color is highly flexible, meaning that you get used to the color of your displays over time. Subjective judgement is thus fundamentally untrustworthy in terms of making recommendations or indirect comparisons.
- Color accuracy actually matters in the real world - have you tried online clothes shopping on an inaccurate display? Looking at furniture? Art or other decor? It can lead to some serious surprises and disappointments. And that's just a single example. Being able to accurately judge how, say, you and your family look in photos posted online is another.
- The monitor isn't mainly part of "the world" but rather a medium through which (parts of) the world can be seen. An inaccurate monitor misrepresents what it displays and as such fails to fulfill its purpose properly. It might still be adequate, serviceable, even seemingly good, but it is still not working as it should, and unnecessarily skewing its representation of the world.
olde94 - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
i could see this being popular in the SFFPC comunitysharath.naik - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
pointless. why cannot they release a 14 inch 16:10 or 13 inches 3:2 monitors? That is the one you can attach to extend existing laptops that can game.Valantar - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
Because, sadly, 3:2 and 16:10 panels are still quite rare, even if they are thankfully growing more common. It will still be quite a while before high refresh rate non-16:9 panels are widely available. Also, widescreen does generally make sense for gaming - taller aspect ratios are better for productivity, but wider horizontal viewing areas make sense in most games.Besides, I think a lot of people will be connecting this to SFF gaming PCs, not laptops. Travelling with a modern 5-7L gaming PC is quite practical, but carrying a gaming monitor isn't - until this arrives, that is.
Smart Web Design - Saturday, January 25, 2020 - link
For some office presentations such a monitor would be perfect. Let's see at what price it will reach after the first impact with the market. If there was also a wireless connection solution, it would be perfect.Eliadbu - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link
I would still prefer 1440p with 144hz or above.Also 3.5 hours run time seems to be anemic even though it's refreshing at 240hz, the weight and size seems to be reasonable let see how would be the execution.
Spunjji - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
I second that preference, but unfortunately the problem is the panels being manufactured - for some reason they're almost all either 1080p sRGB gamut and high refresh rate, or 4K Adobe RGB gamut and low refresh rate. There has been precisely one 1440p 120Hz 17.3" panel, and it was TN with funky colours.That new 4K 120Hz panel is interesting, but the colour accuracy seems odd and it's going to be expensive for as long as there's only one manufacturer producing them.
Valantar - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
Given that a display is normally the second most power hungry component of a laptop (after the CPU (and GPU if applicable)) this is not really surprising. Displays like this need to be very thin and light seeing how they are by nature secondary devices - meaning that you're also already carrying something else. The battery is thus kept small enough to keep it light, and is likely more comparable to a tablet battery than a laptop battery. Besides, gaming without access to a wall outlet for more than 3 ½ hours - especially at 240Hz - is rather utopian.levizx - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link
It needs 2 USB-C? Why?nandnandnand - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link
One is for video input, the other for power/charge. Or you can use the Micro-HDMI for video input.Valantar - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
It's possible that it can actually run off just the one depending on the power delivery capabilities of the host device, but if not a secondary port is always a good idea.peevee - Monday, January 27, 2020 - link
What is the point of having 17" external monitor? Is it 1993?Valantar - Tuesday, January 28, 2020 - link
Are you saying that normal >=24" monitors are travel friendly? Because they are quite the opposite. Some people might want this as a secondary display for a laptop. Some might want it as a companion to a powerful SFF PC (there are lots of backpack-friendly SFF cases capable of housing a powerful gaming PC). Either way this would allow for quality gaming while travelling. Some might want it as an alternative to desk-bound or couch gaming, e.g. for use in bed or if the TV is being used by someone else. You seem to think this is intended for stationary use when the whole point is its size, weight and portability. 17" CRTs weren't exactly portable either...fourier07 - Tuesday, March 17, 2020 - link
1920x1080? Who is playing with such a resolution? 1w speakers, c'mon! I wouldn't pay for this monitor even 300 bucks.yufeifei - Tuesday, February 23, 2021 - link
The price seems great, but I was thinking more about its features.https://jp.kiperline.com/products/kl-skyline-gen-9...