Associate
Acer Predator CG437K P - 43", 4K, 144Hz, HDR-1000
- Thread starter Legend
- Start date
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.
Soldato
Honestly, with LG dropping the ball on the 38GL950G pricing and miserable HDR400, this and the equivalent ASUS have jumped to the top of my list. I did want to stick with the 21:9 format but I think the size of the 43" and having 144hz AND HDR (however well that's implemented) might sway me to go back to 16:9, unless there's any other 21:9's coming up that look to beat the LG?? None I've heard of at any rate..
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 526
Is it even possible to push 144hz at 4k on AAA titles? Serious question
Soldato
Not on any single GPU at the minute. Even next gen cards I expect will only be able to bounce around the 100 mark tbh.
It depends upon what you're willing to turn off. Turning RTX off helps a lot, for instance.
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:
Soldato
Aye, but who knows when/if the PG35 and X35 will ever materialise. They were on my list like 2 years ago and I've heard literally NOTHING about them since. And yeah, I was an early 4k adopter, then 21:9 came out and it was just far superior - and luckily required less grunt so I could get rid of my FuryX xfire, lol.. But with high refresh rates and GPUs having more oomph now, a big 4k might be more acceptable.. I'm still pretty torn tbh, I'd have preferred to stay on 21:9 but the market's just not giving me any options
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,950
Aye, but who knows when/if the PG35 and X35 will ever materialise. They were on my list like 2 years ago and I've heard literally NOTHING about them since. And yeah, I was an early 4k adopter, then 21:9 came out and it was just far superior - and luckily required less grunt so I could get rid of my FuryX xfire, lol.. But with high refresh rates and GPUs having more oomph now, a big 4k might be more acceptable.. I'm still pretty torn tbh, I'd have preferred to stay on 21:9 but the market's just not giving me any options
My guess is that they've lost money big time on the 4k/144hz HDR monitors (they've been dropping gradually for a while) and have been looking/waiting for a way to reduce costs before manufacturing them. That's the only logical explaination I can think of given the complete lack of info or progress on them!
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?!
Soldato
Remember when near £1000 for 4k/21;9 was considered expensive? I miss those days...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,950
I don't know what they're smoking if they think it's going to sell in numbers vastly higher than the PG27UQ did?!
I'm assuming the very slow sales of the PG27UQ have made them re-think their focus a bit, unless they really are just that stupid!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,950
At 650/700 the likes of the Acer X35P is a veritable bargain!! And not a bad option for many tbh, which the majority of performance UW seekers will opt for.
Associate
Just wait 6 months after the release for the sales etc.....
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 2,483
Pg35vq £2699 for pre order on ocuk...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?!
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...1000-ultra-wide-gaming-monitor-mo-0a5-as.html
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,194
I was looking to get a new monitor as my 24 inch 1080p LG from 2008 i think is really old now, but omg I am getting really dissappointed with the prices I see on monitors. I can get a proper 65 OLED TV for that money and have spare money. I should kiss my hopes for the Asus 43 inch one goodbye I guess.
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.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,194
You are right but seeing now the prices Asus charges I won't keep my hopes up. Maybe I will wait for the Acer one to drop in price a bit and then buy it.
Dang though when I bought my LG it was a really expensive monitor, the first ever with fullHD 16:10 and was around 600 Euros while most monitors back then were around 300.
Now i have to spend double or triple that to get a monitor and hope to bingo gods I get a good one. Unfortunatelly I strugle to justify that much money for a monitor, not when my 58 inch tv cost less a few years back.
I almost bit the bullet on a philips 43 inch monitor but then read horrible reviews about some issues it has. Oh well I will keep waiting.
I remember spending £500 on a 17" (maybe 19") Iiyama CRT way back when (early 90s?), then a like amount on a 22" Iiyama CRT. I've always taken the view that my eyes are worth protecting. £500 back then is over £1000 now.