Hmm, a 144/165Hz IPS display? I hope this is the sign of things to come. I'd love to have a 144Hz 24" freesync version, with at least decent color accuracy.
If you want an adaptive sync solution that works that low, you need to go for GSync. Freesync is poor in that area partly because there is no oversight by AMD like there is of GSync by nVidia (so monitor manufacturers release things with a 45-75hz range etc) and partly because GSync doubles frames when below the minimum in order to still work in adaptive mode.
My preference would be 23 inch as that's what I am running on my other screens and is actually quite fine in terms of size but yea if I ever upgrade my gpu 144hz ips freesnyc with a decent resolutioon would be the best for me.
I don't understand why not even a single manufacturer publishes true viewing angle figures. They might just as well publish nothing other than the panel type because the viewing angle "spec" is meaningless.
Also more detailed pixel response time specs could be nice. At the very least, in addition to max transition speed, they should include slowest transition and max overshoot.
I don't understand what you are trying to get at. These use IPS panels, so they should have reasonably good horizontal viewing angles at normal viewing distances for a PC monitor.
It's not only about IPS, and IPS aren't all created equal. One prominent difference is in IPS glow. Some panels have none, or almost none. I'm sure also non-black colors behave differently in different panels.
If the specs were meaningful (what is it currently, the viewing angles for 1:10 contrast?) we might have more competition as it's easier to compare official specs than it is to hunt for, and extract info from, detailed reviews.
Good now they are out the way they can work on what we really want. Here is my wish list for next screen, 28-32inch 4k resolution IPS 4ms or less response times And the most important part ABOVE 60hz, preferably 120hz or more. They need to make next gen cards with display port 1.3 or skip to 1.4a and also implement new display port into the next monitors. You watch 4k gaming take off once we get beyond 60hz, Don't worry about cards not being powerful enough, There are many out there that already run multiple gpu's and next years 16nm gpu's should easily start getting above 60fps on a single card(depending on game of course). I am already running some AAA titles at the maximum 60fps the 4k monitor can go to with settings on max with 2x980ti cards.
Not interested in these, but does anyone know what's happening with the ASUS ProArt PA329Q? It was announced many months ago and it's STILL not available.
I'm just waiting now for a DisplayPort 1.3 monitor with a non-TN panel that can do 4K at a refresh rate higher than 60Hz, ideally 120Hz. Adaptive sync would also be extremely beneficial for such a monitor.
I wish that NVIDIA would enable ULMB at lower refresh rates. Ideally it would operate at any refresh rate that the monitor can sync to, instead of being limited to 85/100/120Hz.
Many games are capped to 60 FPS, so there is a need for ULMB at 60Hz. Older arcade games may even be running at refresh rates lower than 60Hz.
I've dealt with CRTs before and can handle the flicker. Let me make the decision of whether or not 50/60Hz flicker is acceptable.
Only BenQ monitors seem to have the option for a single strobe at any refresh rate that the monitor will sync to - but I'm not sure if that applies to their G-Sync monitors, and none of their gaming monitors seem to have 10-bit IPS panels. (or IPS panels at all)
Manufacturers are keeping harasding the common sense with midget monitors. Watch my lips: any 4k monitor must be not smaller then 48-50". For any purpose, gaming or business.
3840x2160 at 22-24" is a "High DPI" or "Retina" class monitor. Text and images are rendered at twice the resolution of a standard DPI display and the quality is significantly improved. Your workspace is not 3840x2160, but 1920x1080.
4K at 40-44" is a massive "standard DPI" monitor. You get the full 3840x2160 workspace, but the pixels are relatively large. Text on standard 100-110 PPI monitors looks pretty bad to me after using retina-class notebooks, phones, and tablets for a few years now.
4K at 27" is an awkward display. It's too big for 2x scaling, too small to use at 1x, and non-integer scaling has a lot of rendering problems.
Frankly I'm hoping that 8K gets here sooner rather than later. It's a much more flexible resolution and will allow for "retina-class" displays in the 40-44" range (2x) and print-quality displays in the 22-29" range. (3x and 4x scale)
I don't get why manufactureres focus so much on higher refresh rate. 120hz is already the perfect frequency, since it is a multiple of 30 and of 24, so you won't have stutter in either video content. And even though the difference between 60 and 120 is noticeable, (nearly) nobody will notice the difference between 120 and 144, especially since most systems cannot drive a display at that refresh rate anyway.
144Hz in 3D mode would give 72Hz per eye, allowing you to watch 3D movies without 3:2 pulldown. It took me a while to realize this and I originally thought 144Hz was just an idiotic marketing thing where it was just a bigger number, but thinking this way I can at least believe that there's some logic involved in it.
Persistence. If you use ULMB getting into higher refresh rates and lower persistence has a noticeable effect on motion clarity. Granted if you have a mediocre system a lower refresh monitor with adaptive sync is probably better, but there are people who do play games at those frame rates.
These monitors are nice, but I love my Eizo Foris FG2421. I have been gaming since '93, and it's the best gaming monitor I've ever had. http://gaming.eizo.com/products/foris_fg2421/
I read that this is an awesome monitor but in the last 1.5 years a lot of progress has been made. The Eizo is 1080P, 23.5" which some gamers find too small (myself included) and it has no A-Sync tech of any kind = $620 US per your link. The Asus above has 2560x1440 (win), 27" (win) and G-Sync (win). I think the Eizo is too expensive now relative to what's out there / coming out shortly.
In any event, even though I personally have a 2560x1440, I feel like this resolution might never become popular. I think once GPUs get fast enough and prices keep dropping, 4K will take over 1080P and bypass 2560x1440 altogether. Once we have 4K screens with A-Sync at reasonable prices for 28-32" inch sizes, it'll be too hard for 2560x1440P standard to compete. I do feel that 21:9 with 144Hz does have a chance to carve its own niche as it offers something unique.
Why not have it switch between 120 and 165? I have a ROG Swift monitor, and honestly, I never use it at 144Hz. That may sound really weird, but the reason is that the GPU never drops below 800Mhz because it can't enter a low power state and maintain 144Hz (from what I read). What's the big deal there? According to my UPS, I'm using nearly twice as much power *at idle* (about 120W to 220W or so). It just didn't seem worth it to jump from 120Hz, which can idle, to 144Hz.
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
38 Comments
Back to Article
nagi603 - Friday, October 9, 2015 - link
Hmm, a 144/165Hz IPS display? I hope this is the sign of things to come. I'd love to have a 144Hz 24" freesync version, with at least decent color accuracy.Death666Angel - Friday, October 9, 2015 - link
Gimme that, but I've grown to like my 27" stuff. So 27" 1440p/144Hz/freesync/IPS. Golden!inighthawki - Friday, October 9, 2015 - link
32" or greater, please :)sr1030nx - Friday, October 9, 2015 - link
That's what I'm looking for as well.Ideally with a minimum freesync range of 20-30.
rtho782 - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
If you want an adaptive sync solution that works that low, you need to go for GSync. Freesync is poor in that area partly because there is no oversight by AMD like there is of GSync by nVidia (so monitor manufacturers release things with a 45-75hz range etc) and partly because GSync doubles frames when below the minimum in order to still work in adaptive mode.rtho782 - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
Sounds like you want the RoG Dominator. It's been out a while. https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?pro...fiasse - Sunday, October 11, 2015 - link
Asus MG279Q your choiceqlum - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
My preference would be 23 inch as that's what I am running on my other screens and is actually quite fine in terms of size but yea if I ever upgrade my gpu 144hz ips freesnyc with a decent resolutioon would be the best for me.SeanJ76 - Friday, October 16, 2015 - link
You buy a BenQ 144hz TN panel if you want great color.sheh - Friday, October 9, 2015 - link
I don't understand why not even a single manufacturer publishes true viewing angle figures. They might just as well publish nothing other than the panel type because the viewing angle "spec" is meaningless.Also more detailed pixel response time specs could be nice. At the very least, in addition to max transition speed, they should include slowest transition and max overshoot.
meacupla - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
I don't understand what you are trying to get at. These use IPS panels, so they should have reasonably good horizontal viewing angles at normal viewing distances for a PC monitor.sheh - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
It's not only about IPS, and IPS aren't all created equal. One prominent difference is in IPS glow. Some panels have none, or almost none. I'm sure also non-black colors behave differently in different panels.If the specs were meaningful (what is it currently, the viewing angles for 1:10 contrast?) we might have more competition as it's easier to compare official specs than it is to hunt for, and extract info from, detailed reviews.
TheCurve - Friday, October 9, 2015 - link
Anandtech: if you're wondering what your audience would like to see, these monitors get my vote!shane007 - Friday, October 9, 2015 - link
Good now they are out the way they can work on what we really want.Here is my wish list for next screen,
28-32inch
4k resolution
IPS
4ms or less response times
And the most important part ABOVE 60hz, preferably 120hz or more.
They need to make next gen cards with display port 1.3 or skip to 1.4a and also implement new display port into the next monitors.
You watch 4k gaming take off once we get beyond 60hz, Don't worry about cards not being powerful enough, There are many out there that already run multiple gpu's and next years 16nm gpu's should easily start getting above 60fps on a single card(depending on game of course).
I am already running some AAA titles at the maximum 60fps the 4k monitor can go to with settings on max with 2x980ti cards.
mobutu - Sunday, October 11, 2015 - link
not quite there but close:http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_predator_...
Morawka - Friday, October 9, 2015 - link
Imagine in 10 years when we have OLED monitors pushing 600hz with gsync.OLED can refresh so much faster, plus the colors are like 14bit.
mooninite - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
I was hoping the 1440 monitor would be cheaper than the Acer that has been out for a while... No luck. :(Maybe the Acer one will go on sale.
B3an - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
Not interested in these, but does anyone know what's happening with the ASUS ProArt PA329Q? It was announced many months ago and it's STILL not available.r3loaded - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
I'm just waiting now for a DisplayPort 1.3 monitor with a non-TN panel that can do 4K at a refresh rate higher than 60Hz, ideally 120Hz. Adaptive sync would also be extremely beneficial for such a monitor.User.Name - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
I wish that NVIDIA would enable ULMB at lower refresh rates. Ideally it would operate at any refresh rate that the monitor can sync to, instead of being limited to 85/100/120Hz.Many games are capped to 60 FPS, so there is a need for ULMB at 60Hz. Older arcade games may even be running at refresh rates lower than 60Hz.
I've dealt with CRTs before and can handle the flicker. Let me make the decision of whether or not 50/60Hz flicker is acceptable.
Only BenQ monitors seem to have the option for a single strobe at any refresh rate that the monitor will sync to - but I'm not sure if that applies to their G-Sync monitors, and none of their gaming monitors seem to have 10-bit IPS panels. (or IPS panels at all)
SanX - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
Manufacturers are keeping harasding the common sense with midget monitors. Watch my lips: any 4k monitor must be not smaller then 48-50". For any purpose, gaming or business.brucek2 - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
Put another way, what you're saying is that no desktop monitor should ever be allowed to be 4K.I am glad you are not in charge of worldwide monitor production.
Gigaplex - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
What about 47"? Your absolute limits aren't reasonable.blzd - Sunday, October 11, 2015 - link
You use 50" TVs as a desktop monitor?User.Name - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
3840x2160 at 22-24" is a "High DPI" or "Retina" class monitor.Text and images are rendered at twice the resolution of a standard DPI display and the quality is significantly improved. Your workspace is not 3840x2160, but 1920x1080.
4K at 40-44" is a massive "standard DPI" monitor.
You get the full 3840x2160 workspace, but the pixels are relatively large.
Text on standard 100-110 PPI monitors looks pretty bad to me after using retina-class notebooks, phones, and tablets for a few years now.
4K at 27" is an awkward display. It's too big for 2x scaling, too small to use at 1x, and non-integer scaling has a lot of rendering problems.
Frankly I'm hoping that 8K gets here sooner rather than later. It's a much more flexible resolution and will allow for "retina-class" displays in the 40-44" range (2x) and print-quality displays in the 22-29" range. (3x and 4x scale)
zodiacfml - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
Wow, I love these specs. Nothing to complain except that the price reflects that too. Maybe, Freesync versions will fix that.Azune - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
I don't get why manufactureres focus so much on higher refresh rate. 120hz is already the perfect frequency, since it is a multiple of 30 and of 24, so you won't have stutter in either video content. And even though the difference between 60 and 120 is noticeable, (nearly) nobody will notice the difference between 120 and 144, especially since most systems cannot drive a display at that refresh rate anyway.Gigaplex - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
Spec sheet wars.blzd - Sunday, October 11, 2015 - link
Exactly. Heck even 90 or 100Hz would be enough. Now we're getting 144 and 160 for no reason.User.Name - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
A flicker-free 165Hz display has almost half the motion blur of a 90Hz display.6ms persistence vs 11ms.
Sogekihei - Sunday, October 11, 2015 - link
144Hz in 3D mode would give 72Hz per eye, allowing you to watch 3D movies without 3:2 pulldown. It took me a while to realize this and I originally thought 144Hz was just an idiotic marketing thing where it was just a bigger number, but thinking this way I can at least believe that there's some logic involved in it.Midwayman - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
Persistence. If you use ULMB getting into higher refresh rates and lower persistence has a noticeable effect on motion clarity. Granted if you have a mediocre system a lower refresh monitor with adaptive sync is probably better, but there are people who do play games at those frame rates.looper - Sunday, October 11, 2015 - link
These monitors are nice, but I love my Eizo Foris FG2421. I have been gaming since '93, and it's the best gaming monitor I've ever had. http://gaming.eizo.com/products/foris_fg2421/looper - Sunday, October 11, 2015 - link
At Amazon...http://www.amazon.com/FORIS-FG2421-BK-23-5-Inch-Sc...
RussianSensation - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
I read that this is an awesome monitor but in the last 1.5 years a lot of progress has been made. The Eizo is 1080P, 23.5" which some gamers find too small (myself included) and it has no A-Sync tech of any kind = $620 US per your link. The Asus above has 2560x1440 (win), 27" (win) and G-Sync (win). I think the Eizo is too expensive now relative to what's out there / coming out shortly.In any event, even though I personally have a 2560x1440, I feel like this resolution might never become popular. I think once GPUs get fast enough and prices keep dropping, 4K will take over 1080P and bypass 2560x1440 altogether. Once we have 4K screens with A-Sync at reasonable prices for 28-32" inch sizes, it'll be too hard for 2560x1440P standard to compete. I do feel that 21:9 with 144Hz does have a chance to carve its own niche as it offers something unique.
Aikouka - Sunday, October 11, 2015 - link
Why not have it switch between 120 and 165? I have a ROG Swift monitor, and honestly, I never use it at 144Hz. That may sound really weird, but the reason is that the GPU never drops below 800Mhz because it can't enter a low power state and maintain 144Hz (from what I read). What's the big deal there? According to my UPS, I'm using nearly twice as much power *at idle* (about 120W to 220W or so). It just didn't seem worth it to jump from 120Hz, which can idle, to 144Hz.SeanJ76 - Friday, October 16, 2015 - link
......of course they don't list the most important spec -ppi-alexbagi - Thursday, November 12, 2015 - link
Noticed this site also confirms it as 165Hz: http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/asus-pg279q-...Can you really feel a difference between 144Hz and 165Hz though?