https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/acer-predator-cg437k-p-4k-gaming-monitor,news-60365.html
Colour me interested...
Colour me interested...
Acer Predator CG437K P - 43", 4K, 144Hz, HDR-1000
- Thread starter Legend
- Start date
If it has just ONE Display Port 1.4 connection, then I don't think it can achieve 144Hz @ 4K unless overclocked. That's how the PG27UQ and X27 achieved it. The bandwidth limitations of DP 1.4 also meant that at 144Hz you had to drop to 4:2:2 chroma sub-sampling on those monitors.
The Acer XV273K (another 4K 144Hz monitor) had TWO Display Port ports though, so if you used both (connected to two DP ports on your GPU) then there was no need to OC and it would run 4K @ 144Hz with 10-bit colour and full RGB range.
If the feature list is correct for the CG437K P though, and there is only ONE DP 1.4 port, this means 144Hz will be on an overclock and have the chroma sub-sampling issue also.
Unless there have been some technological advancements I am unaware of, in which case I may be wrong.
Yes, they could, but they only hit 144Hz due to an overclock (and hence the 4:2:2 Chroma), given the Display Port 1.4 bandwidth max of 120Hz at 4K.
If this 43" also only has the one DP 1.4 port, it will be the same. Only x2 DP 1.4 connections would resolve this.
I know reducing the chroma has nothing to do with an overclock, I didn't say it did. It's a bandwidth limitation. And the bandwidth of 4K with DP 1.4 is 120Hz. My understanding was that the reason the chroma had to be reduced was precisely because this bandwidth is being exceeded at 144Hz. Which makes sense, because why else would it need to be reduced?
I am only quoting @Baddass who stated as such on his website... "On the first wave of 27" 4K 144Hz screens like the Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ that we tested, and Acer's equivalent Predator X27 screen, there were some limitations to how 144Hz was used. On those G-sync enabled screens the 144Hz mode was actually achieved through an overclock setting in the OSD menu. You had to enable that before you could select 4K @ 144Hz in your graphics card control panel. Then, because of the bandwidth limitations of the DisplayPort 1.4 connection, you had to make some sacrifice to the colours if you wanted to reach the resolution and refresh rate of 4K @144Hz that we've talked about above. You always had to drop to 4:2:2 chroma sub-sampling to use 144Hz on those displays."
Consequently, I expect this to function exactly the same on the CG437K.
Last edited:
That's exactly what I understood to be happening, and what I thought I'd described... i.e bandwidth allowance was being used up at 144Hz, hence the chroma change... and also what Badass described on his site when discussing the two monitors in question. I don't know what else 'overclocking' would mean other than taking the display beyond its operational rating, as you say. I mean, that's EXACTLY what I would assume anyone would think overclocking was. It's the same when overclocking a CPU... you take the CPU beyond its rated speed. No technical comparison of course, but in its simplest terms, that's what overclocking is.
Vega said "Reducing chroma to 4:2:2 so it fits within DP 1.4 bandwidth has nothing to do with an "overclock"" Only it does... because by taking a monitor beyond its rated speed, this meets the definition of an overclock, and as a result, the chroma needs to be reduced.
Last edited:
Granted, but 144Hz is a bit of a marketing gimmick, given that there is no indication of the limits being exceeded here. That is, it can only achieve 144Hz by reducing chroma to 4:2:2 as a result of available bandwidth with DP 1.4, which would be exceeded with 4:4:4 chroma at 144Hz. In the context of operation, it is impossible to run it as such, therefore something has to give... i.e the chroma reduction.
The use of the word 'overclock' I can see could be up for debate, but there's definitely a lack of transparency as to what is actually possible here.
Of course, with an HDMI 2.1 connection (and the same on the GPU, which we don't have yet), there would be no issues whatsoever.
The use of the word 'overclock' I can see could be up for debate, but there's definitely a lack of transparency as to what is actually possible here.
Of course, with an HDMI 2.1 connection (and the same on the GPU, which we don't have yet), there would be no issues whatsoever.
With 4:2:2 chroma, is there ANY noticeable difference in any game you played?
It's interesting a few sites have this in the blurb, and it sounds almost as though it could be from Acer themselves (I've seen the same quote in multiple places), yet from images of the monitor, it's clear that it only has the one Display Port. As Baddass says though, this could change come final production and they might go the way of the XV273K.
What significance does this have?
Does the Nitro XV273K have DSC? I couldn't see any mention in Baddass's review of that, yet it obviously has the x2 Display Port and says that it achieves 144Hz @ 4:4:4 Chroma.
I have seen no information suggesting the Asus is FALD. Where are you seeing this? If that were true, I don't see why Asus wouldn't be shouting from the rooftops about it, as this would be a huge deal (not to mention result in a huge price tag). I'd also say that it's pretty obvious from the footage of the Asus in action that it isn't.
There is the mythical PG35VQ, 35” 21:9 (3440 x 1440), FALD 512 Zones, 1000nits, 200Hz... supposedly out this year. There's also the AGON AG353UCG, with a similar spec. These fall short of 4K screen real estate though, if that's what you were hoping for, not to mention they are going to be insanely expensive. I'm already at 4K myself and while the spec of these 35" monitors is appealing in many ways, when it comes to productivity I'd really miss those extra pixels. The 38GL950G is closer in that respect, so it's a real shame this has fallen short of what we hoped... more so in respect to the crazy price we know it will be.
No, but 100+ is certainly achievable in some of the better optimsed ones, and next gen cards are only going to push that. 4K is obviously for those who want to be at the bleeding edge at any cost though, and it's nice to at least see more high refresh 4K monitors coming to the market, although personally I wish they hadn't ignored 32", which would be far more practical for most (and you'd think cheaper).
The thing is, as I've always had at the back of my mind, the PPI of a 4K 43" monitor is the same as 34" UW (3440x1440), and the upcoming 38" (3840x1600), so assuming the distance you're sat from the monitor is the same in all instances, the sharpness will be identical across them all. There is no longer any advantage to 4K in this sense (like you get at 32")... you just get more pixels, which therefore puts more demand on your GPU in games. Something to consider I would say.
Last edited:
Asus have said the PG35VQ will be more expensive than the PG27UQ though, so it seems they haven't learned anything lol! I know this is going to be a more desirable monitor for many, but at a price in excess of £2K (perhaps even closer to £3K) I don't know what they're smoking if they think it's going to sell in numbers vastly higher than the PG27UQ did?!
Price info for the Acer indicated it should land around the £1500 mark hopefully, but that could creep up. It certainly won't be as much as the PG35VQ though.
If it does end up circa £1500 though, it will be very interesting to see where Asus price their XG438Q, and therefore how that compares with the PG35VQ, because minus FALD, they aren't that far apart.
I see this is on a UK site now for £1299 (albeit not in stock)... not sure it’s worth £200 over the Asus XG438Q (if that price sticks), but it is HDR-1000 (vs HDR-600 on the ASUS) with an extra DP 1.4 port, so I guess down to end user. I’ll await reviews though.
I would guess there won't be much in the HDR performance anyway given the lack of FALD, and both will probably have very similar back-light solutions. Hard to see an argument for the Acer at this point, unless reviews highlight something particular.
Yes, the XG438Q is 120Hz. Asus have another 43" on the way, which doesn't yet have a model designation or release date, which is 144Hz, HDR-1000 and has Display Stream Compression technology.
https://www.kitguru.net/peripherals...44hz-monitor-with-display-stream-compression/
I expect this one to be through the roof regards price, so probably makes sense the XG438Q is coming in a bit cheaper.
You'd also have to ask yourself how likely 144FPS is at 4K in the games you play.
Something to be gleaned from that however... the Acer 43" (and the Asus version) will do HDR better than the LG does (poor showing for such an expensive monitor), and the advantages pointed out vs the PG35VQ (more screen real estate etc.) hold true... not to mention an even bigger price delta.
Very intrigued to see actual reviews of these 43" options... namely TFT Central and PCM... only ones I'll actually pay attention to really.
Very intrigued to see actual reviews of these 43" options... namely TFT Central and PCM... only ones I'll actually pay attention to really.