35" Curved 3440 * 1440 200Hz Curved QDot FLAD 1000 nits

Wasn't there a video recently where an ASUS rep said this and the 4k HDR would be 1999 across the territories? Just stick your currency in front of the price.
 
B1gbeard said:
Wasn't there a video recently where an ASUS rep said this and the 4k HDR would be 1999 across the territories? Just stick your currency in front of the price.
Click to expand...

Guy in the HardwareCanuck video mentioned that pricing as $1200 so maybe he's got some confirmation from Asus. In that case they'll be pushing $1400-1500 for the UW version imo.
 
B1gbeard said:
Wasn't there a video recently where an ASUS rep said this and the 4k HDR would be 1999 across the territories? Just stick your currency in front of the price.
Click to expand...

Yup there is a video where an asus rep said 2000 everywhere for the 27" 4k HDR 384 FALD, no mention of the 35" 21.9 screen though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MCgM78Sg7s&feature=youtu.be&t=4m26s

But I don't see how an even larger display with a higher refresh rate and with quantom dot + 512 zones is going to cost the same or cheaper than the 27" 16.9 screen....
 
Nexus18 said:
Yup there is a video where an asus rep said 2000 everywhere for the 27" 4k HDR 384 FALD, no mention of the 35" 21.9 screen though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MCgM78Sg7s&feature=youtu.be&t=4m26s

But I don't see how an even larger display with a higher refresh rate and with quantom dot + 512 zones is going to cost the same or cheaper than the 27" 16.9 screen....
Click to expand...

No it's going to be pricey. Might be time to step off of the train with the way things are going. Hopefully AMD have something up their sleeve as Freesync tends to be a fair bit cheaper.
 
B1gbeard said:
No it's going to be pricey. Might be time to step off of the train with the way things are going. Hopefully AMD have something up their sleeve as Freesync tends to be a fair bit cheaper.
Click to expand...

No doubt a freesync version would be a good chunk cheaper but it will still be at least £1300 which is still stupid money for a 35" "LCD" display imo.
 
B1gbeard said:
Wasn't there a video recently where an ASUS rep said this and the 4k HDR would be 1999 across the territories? Just stick your currency in front of the price.
Click to expand...

That price has definitely been doing the rounds, but I don't think any price has been officially confirmed yet, so all rumour. Many have gladly paid over a grand for the PG348Q, so add 4K, 144Hz and HDR to that (minus the ultrawide though), and it's bound to be more expensive. Then again, the profit margin on the existing ultrawides is huge I reckon, and they are overpriced, so perhaps we will see a price reshuffle and the 4K HDR come in around the same, with the ultrawide version around the £1500 mark. I can't see the ultrawide being less than the 4K... that just wouldn't make sense as it's going to be the more desirable option for most people. £2K will be a hard pill to swallow for many, so I can't quite see that, but who knows.
 
mmacarthur said:
I'm so glad they didn't make the ROG Swift PG35VQ 4K, 1440P is the perfect sweet spot for me. Barring unfavourable reviews and a price point below £1300 this will almost certainly be my next monitor.
Click to expand...

Tbf the UW version of 4k (3840x1600) isn't that much more taxing the 3440 (I should know, I'm running it! :D).
 
JediFragger said:
Tbf the UW version of 4k (3840x1600) isn't that much more taxing the 3440 (I should know, I'm running it! :D).
Click to expand...


That's not 4K though... and it may not seem such a big difference, but there are 2 MILLION pixels between your monitor and a 4K one. That matters. In fact, do the math and you realise 3840x1600 is closer (just) to 3440x1440 than it is to 4K (3840x2160).
 
Legend said:
That's not 4K though... and it may not seem such a big difference, but there are 2 MILLION pixels between your monitor and a 4K one. That matters. In fact, do the math and you realise 3840x1600 is closer (just) to 3440x1440 than it is to 4K (3840x2160).
Click to expand...

I have done the math and it is closer to 3440. But going beyond 3840 width means going beyond 4k, shirley?
 
JediFragger said:
I have done the math and it is closer to 3440. But going beyond 3840 width means going beyond 4k, shirley?
Click to expand...

No monitor currently goes "beyond 4K", unless you count the Apple 5K and Dell 8K ones.

4K is determined by the overall resolution. Yes, the 38" LG monitor you speak of is the same pixel width as 4K, but it has less vertical height. Needless to say, the image is rendered across all the pixels, that's what determines the demands of any given resolution.

For what it's worth though, I would love to see that LG panel at a higher refresh with HDR and G-Sync, as I agree it wouldn't be that much more demanding to run. For me 38" would be the perfect size, but as this 35" one is a entirely new panel, I doubt we'll see much bigger for a while yet and at best the 38" might get an overclock and adaptive sync in the future.
 
As long as some customers are dumb enough to pay way way way more than these panels are worth the monitor makers will continue offering absolutely absurdly priced premium monitors. When customers stop paying because they think they are special by wasting more money than others, the prices will come down and then you can buy more things with the same money.

35" screen, £2k, laughable. As for 200hz, go do the frame time math, compare every 30hz frame time change between 30hz and 250hz and realise that diminishing returns make over 144hz give laughably small improvements. For instance difference between 30 and 60hz is 16.67ms reduction, that is extremely, extremely noticeable. 60hz to 120hz gives a 8.33ms reduction which is again noticeable but much less so. The difference between 144hz and 200hz is 1.94ms and is really just not noticeable.
 
Legend said:
That's not 4K though... and it may not seem such a big difference, but there are 2 MILLION pixels between your monitor and a 4K one. That matters. In fact, do the math and you realise 3840x1600 is closer (just) to 3440x1440 than it is to 4K (3840x2160).
Click to expand...

4K is 4096x2160!! :mad::mad::mad::p:p:p:p:p

*waves fist at marketing ***** around the world*

As for this monitor... really? Just looks like a muscle flex, wouldn't see it catching on for sure. Standard 16:9 please, I like my vertical pixel space, monitor height and don't like my speakers being 2 miles from each other :p

UHD, 16:9, NON-CURVED RUBBISH, 120hz and HDR please.
 
drunkenmaster said:
As long as some customers are dumb enough to pay way way way more than these panels are worth the monitor makers will continue offering absolutely absurdly priced premium monitors. When customers stop paying because they think they are special by wasting more money than others, the prices will come down and then you can buy more things with the same money.

35" screen, £2k, laughable. As for 200hz, go do the frame time math, compare every 30hz frame time change between 30hz and 250hz and realise that diminishing returns make over 144hz give laughably small improvements. For instance difference between 30 and 60hz is 16.67ms reduction, that is extremely, extremely noticeable. 60hz to 120hz gives a 8.33ms reduction which is again noticeable but much less so. The difference between 144hz and 200hz is 1.94ms and is really just not noticeable.
Click to expand...
Well said sir, most sensible post I've read on here for a while. Getting the same with graphics cards, my 980Ti may well be the last 'expensive' card I buy, unless Amd do something special with Vega.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom