4k 144hz Monitors - More offerings down the line?

SirPsychoZe0

SirPsychoZe0

SirPsychoZe0

Associate
Joined
1 Sep 2018
Posts
188
In recent years I have held 4k at 144hz to be the (current) holy grail in monitors for gaming. Aspects such as gsync/freesync, HDR etc. are also important, but I feel that nothing would match the combination of 4k and 144hz as features in a monitor.

At present, I am aware of a few 27" monitors at the very top end that can do this, seemingly less than half a dozen. I am ignoring anything 43" or higher on the basis that they are, in general, too large for the average consumer, or at worst, actually just a big TV. The few 27" monitors that have these specs are obviously quite expense at present, and there isn't much variety (I for one would prefer 32" as the sweet spot, particularly when sitting further back whilst using a controller to game).

I have been regularly scanning these forums for news of new 4k 144hz monitors, but there doesn't seem to be much, if any. Does anyone know if there is more such monitors in the pipeline from manufactures? I know that being able to run games at 4k 144 FPS is difficult for most games and impossible for the most demanding ones, but there are games which can do it on the right graphics cards, and games which benefit from lower settings just to hit that sweet spot. Do manufactures think there is no market for it, or is the technology just not there at the right cost level?
 
SirPsychoZe0 said:
In recent years I have held 4k at 144hz to be the (current) holy grail in monitors for gaming. Aspects such as gsync/freesync, HDR etc. are also important, but I feel that nothing would match the combination of 4k and 144hz as features in a monitor.

At present, I am aware of a few 27" monitors at the very top end that can do this, seemingly less than half a dozen. I am ignoring anything 43" or higher on the basis that they are, in general, too large for the average consumer, or at worst, actually just a big TV. The few 27" monitors that have these specs are obviously quite expense at present, and there isn't much variety (I for one would prefer 32" as the sweet spot, particularly when sitting further back whilst using a controller to game).

I have been regularly scanning these forums for news of new 4k 144hz monitors, but there doesn't seem to be much, if any. Does anyone know if there is more such monitors in the pipeline from manufactures? I know that being able to run games at 4k 144 FPS is difficult for most games and impossible for the most demanding ones, but there are games which can do it on the right graphics cards, and games which benefit from lower settings just to hit that sweet spot. Do manufactures think there is no market for it, or is the technology just not there at the right cost level?
Click to expand...



theres not a market - hardly any setups can do 144fps on 4k. Once GPUS catch up it'll be another story - oh and they're priced shockingly
 
BTW the price of fibre-optic displayport cables is really coming down. I've just bought one - my fourth - for £70.
 
This site is quite good for keeping an eye on whats coming up. Very informative site too. https://www.displayninja.com/new-monitors/

I myself just received one of those V expensive 27 inch monitors this week.

Folk who just come out and say no PC will run it clearly do not understand that you can use ALL those settings offered in game under video, to get a very decent performance and image quality. People who read reviews and look at the low FPS in the 4k bench don't seem to understand that the easiest way to replicate and compare resolutions is turn everything to ultra and put blur on, max anti aliasing, post processes and so on. Many of the post processes are to help smooth out or mitigate picture quality particularly for lower resolutions. You don't need much anti aliasing - Motion Blur on with a high hz monitor is pointless as you bought a high hz monitor so you don't need blur to cover the low hz judder and associated tear from fast moving images. Anyway, enough of the people who don't know what they are on about and just repeat verbatim what they read on forums from other 'console come PC gamers' and don't understand reviews and gaming benchmarks.

Many of the 144hz screens will only actually do 120hz with things like VRR on. G-Sync ones do 144hz with VRR I think. G-sync compatible Freesync monitors are usually limited to 120hz on one DP 1.4 cable. There just isn't enough bandwidth in DP 1.4 or current HDMI, (until 2.1) to carry the signal @ 4K 144hz. Though how much 120-144hz is noticeable depends on how sensitive you are on it. To get to 144hz some require 2 display port cables but you lost VRR and often HDR. Proper HDR need to start at 1000 ideally.

Often the HDR wont work as the bandwidth will not do full colour so caveats are made with those too.

They are horrendously overpriced for the tech behind them and the issues that come with tn, IPS or VA panels. OLED or equivalent will become the norm and cheaper in time.

I bought the ACER XV273K and it's one of only 15 (16 as they have just recommended Asus TUF Gaming VG279QM) monitors tftcentral have recommended. Been using tn for a few years and got my first 4k 60hz when they first came out, then swapped my work monitor for 4k 60hz freesync and now the ACER. Going to IPS has been odd. The colors are of course very good but the blacks just aren't going to be perfect for IPS tech. Each tech suffers. Most of the bigger 4k panels seem to be VA panels but suffer from ghosting and haloing. In a dark room the glow is noticeable on my IPS but the monitor comes with it's own ambient lighting under the panel to lighten your peripheral vision so the blacks look better. I find the IPS very bright so have turned it down as I don't like bright light anyway and the glow is worse if you have the brightness high.

SO I'm really pleased with mine, still haven't got it perfect yet as the glow can be noticeable at certain angles. Turning on 144hz, Overdrive, ULMB and HDR switches off VRR.

Been playing Insurgency Sandstorm which is very demanding on the GPU. Most base settings on high (very high is an option) and rubbish off like blur, post processing and other edge processing off, these settings that are really to make low resolution graphics look better I get a very good image with fps 90-120fps with VRR on. Just got to find the best I can get using the ambient light and brightness levels to reduce glow. IPS isn't ever going to be black blacks due to it's nature.

An expensive itch got scratched as a £150 discount made it too itchy. They shouldn't be the price they are for the flaws in the technologies available, but these monitors are here for high end gamers and the ACER is one of the cheapest high hz 4k monitors along with one of the ASUS ones. To have better blacks you need to double your budget and for me, just having blacker blacks isn't worth that much. Again for 32 inch version I think it's gonna be near double, I'd like that but I sit close anyway as I use a keypad and mouse with my hands under the monitor. There is a market for them because manufacturers make them.

I can notice the difference from jumping to 120hz but the real litmus test will be plugging my 60hz VRR monitor back in on the weekend.
 
jabski said:
ASUS ROG Swift PG32UQX
Acer Predator X32
Click to expand...

Those are the kinda monitors I would be looking for, although I think a minor curve is required for such size screens when sitting close. The price tag is eye-watering! Whilst not something I could afford, it at least indicates where the market is with these panels. It is safe to say that I will continue with 1440p 144hz for a few years to come.
 
Woodsta888 said:
This site is quite good for keeping an eye on whats coming up. Very informative site too. https://www.displayninja.com/new-monitors/

I myself just received one of those V expensive 27 inch monitors this week.

Folk who just come out and say no PC will run it clearly do not understand that you can use ALL those settings offered in game under video, to get a very decent performance and image quality. People who read reviews and look at the low FPS in the 4k bench don't seem to understand that the easiest way to replicate and compare resolutions is turn everything to ultra and put blur on, max anti aliasing, post processes and so on. Many of the post processes are to help smooth out or mitigate picture quality particularly for lower resolutions. You don't need much anti aliasing - Motion Blur on with a high hz monitor is pointless as you bought a high hz monitor so you don't need blur to cover the low hz judder and associated tear from fast moving images. Anyway, enough of the people who don't know what they are on about and just repeat verbatim what they read on forums from other 'console come PC gamers' and don't understand reviews and gaming benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the in-depth post. Couldn't agree more on the above point.
 
Woodsta888 said:
What they do? Just greater distance or do they do higher bandwidth? Interested cheers.
Click to expand...

High bandwidth over a long distance. 144 Hz 4K over 10 metres. This means that I can have my PC in a cupboard in the corner where its noise can be dampened.
 
Keeping my eyes open this year for a new monitor. 30-34", UHD 16:9, 120hz+, flat. fingers crossed one comes in at a reasonable price lol.
 
Quartz said:
High bandwidth over a long distance. 144 Hz 4K over 10 metres. This means that I can have my PC in a cupboard in the corner where its noise can be dampened.
Click to expand...

Ah right, cheers.

Rossi~ said:
Keeping my eyes open this year for a new monitor. 30-34", UHD 16:9, 120hz+, flat. fingers crossed one comes in at a reasonable price lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah I reckon they'll be due in 2020 and I was trying to hold off ( guess there's always something else round the corner). The price drops on some of the current 4k 144hz monitors did make me think that they are moving stock for newer monitors, but my itch was too itchy and I do feel guilty for not waiting and paying the horrendous price for the available technology, but 'tis done now and I wasn't paying another £500+ for the ones with FALD panels. Yeah I reckon 32 inch is the ideal size for a desktop monitor. Price wise, anything bigger you may aswell go TV when HDMI 2.1 on gfx cards come out or they put display port on them.

In a few years everything will be OLED or it's equivalent and cheap enough most people will want to afford it. I did consider one paying the extra for one of those 43 inch VA panels when my current monitor was £899 but I broke now they are £750. Got extra 2 years warranty for £15 too. Need a deep desk for 43inches I think. After looking at a 28 inch for 6 years I do notice the loss of the extra inch. Even my Mrs thought it looked smaller physically. Then she's probably more sensitive to an extra inch or so :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom