Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ 4K IPS 144Hz G-Sync HDR

[Baddass]

further news piece summarising it all here:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/37.htm#asus_rog_swift_pg27uq

 

[peahead]

full array 384-zone backlights... interesting

 

[HACO]

full array 384-zone backlights... interesting

Given this, the $1200 price is actually quite reasonable. This could be as good as desktop gaming monitors get before we see OLED.

 

[MooMoo444]

The UK price on this is truly going to be immense, although if you can afford the GPU grunt to power 4k, then this monitor is clearly in your budget.

 

[PCM2]

Given this, the $1200 price is actually quite reasonable. This could be as good as desktop gaming monitors get before we see OLED.

Indeed. And all these people harping on about 'IPS glow' don't seem to realise the implications of such technology. IPS glow is greatly reduced at low luminances, which is exactly what some of those zones will be doing for dark content. At least, for HDR content.

 

[Nexus18]

Well that changes my opinion a bit, originally I thought it was just going to be a bog standard IPS panel with HDR tacked on, it will certainly be interesting to see how it performs now.

For those who aren't sure on what the "full array 384-zone backlights" term means, this is a decent post:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...ll-array-local-dimming-s-all-about-zones.html

Still though, for an extra few hundred pounds, give me OLED over LCD every day....

 

[Quartz]

Would be fun trying to power this.

Not really. A single 1080 or Titan XP will fully crank it on older games. I would enjoy Borderlands 2 at 144 Hz with GSync. Newer games will be more demanding, of course, but in time Nvidia will release the 1180 and 1280 and so on and AMD will release equivalent Radeons.

 

[JediFragger]

More mainstream HDR monitors are at least 2 years away, maybe 3. If you want a headstart then you have to pay for it, fair enough

 

[Amraam]

4K at 27" is utterly pointless IMO.

It's all done to convince us to buy the latest GPUs...

 

[wunkley]

True blacks and properly implemented HDR are the 2 things I'm most looking forward to now in monitor tech.

Currently gaming on an x34 so 1440p superwide, 100Hz and Gsync has all the bases covered for me that can be for the moment.

Also, having tried 4k and 144Hz gaming, I'm more than happy with 1440p and 100Hz. Also, and as ever was thus - the graphics card, or cards that will be required to power 4k, 144Hz are still way way way off.

 

[PCM2]

4K at 27" is utterly pointless IMO.

It's all done to convince us to buy the latest GPUs...

It isn't utterly pointless at all, especially not for a gaming monitor. I absolutely agree that the resolution works best for larger screens, with ~32" being optimal in my view. However; even on a 27" UHD screen you get considerable benefit from the excellent pixel density. No more so in my experience than a 32" UHD screen, but certainly a benefit compared to 27" models with lower resolutions. Scaling issues and general desktop work can be a pain, but for those with decent eyesight it's likely you can get away with just using in-application zoom to make text a bit larger. And you maintain a good deal of real-estate even after doing so.

Well that changes my opinion a bit, originally I thought it was just going to be a bog standard IPS panel with HDR tacked on, it will certainly be interesting to see how it performs now.

For those who aren't sure on what the "full array 384-zone backlights" term means, this is a decent post:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...ll-array-local-dimming-s-all-about-zones.html

Still though, for an extra few hundred pounds, give me OLED over LCD every day....

Indeed. I feel this will bring nice benefit over traditional LCDs with a single BLU (Backlight Unit) and that shouldn't be understated. But with OLED or other backlightless technology you get as many 'dimming zones' as you have pixels and exceptional contrast regardless of whether the contrast is HDR or not.

 

[Doogles]

Good news is I won't be able to run 4k @144hz for a good 2 years so stick with the 1070 and my monitor and upgrade them later

Anyone who says 4k 27" isn't worth it needs to try it, I have and if it wasn't for TN and 60hz they are amazing, which this seems to totally fix but at a huge premium.

 

[VEGACORTEZ]

Don't think they'll be a rush for this. Running 60fps max settings on new titles even on the Titan XP is quite rare never mind over 90fps. You can also count the PC's HDR games on one hand. 1440p high hz for high end gpu's is still the go to thing IMO at the moment. It's going to be a while to get gpu's to run high hz 4k like how the Titan XP runs 1440p high hz now.

 

[keyser]

The TV and monitor sizes are all relative to how close you are from them anyway. I'd like to try one of those gaming keyboard mouse lap things for sofa gaming, then I could surf from the sofa on a 50" 4K TV and then switch to the 27"+ future gaming monitor for a serious FPS game...

so just get a 27" 4K monitor and push it waaay forwards on the desk or go to Specsavers (in my case ;()

I have actually tried my mates ASUS TN 27" 1440 gaming monitor with TF2 and that was pretty awesome. As close to CRT as can be. The first thing I said was 'is that higher PPI?' 'wot?' I took a glance and said 'yes it is' Still readable @ 27" 1440 but I think 4K will need to be at least 30" ideally. We shall see what the reviews say I guess.

 

[skipper847]

Think it be some years be for I'm gaming in 4k. At least with 1440p seemed to be have skipped that the prices may come down now and still better then 1080p.

 

[BluD]

Would prefer 32" myself also so it is easier on the eye keeping 100% windows scaling, but not sure what you mean 27" does not show the benefit of 4K. I either do not understand what you mean, or it is a ridiculous statement. Higher PPI is better is it not? It definitely makes things look better in games, so much sharper which I really like

I guess its just down to peoples eyes, i know some people say they cant tell much difference between 60hz and 144hz so i guess its just as likely that people cant see the difference between pixel densities. I blame specsavers

 

[TNA]

I guess its just down to peoples eyes, i know some people say they cant tell much difference between 60hz and 144hz so i guess its just as likely that people cant see the difference between pixel densities. I blame specsavers

I suppose. Funny thing is I easily see the difference from a 27" 1440p screen to 2160p 27" screen, image quality difference is night and day for me. Yet I did not appreciate the extra hz going from 60 to 144. I find 60 fluid enough, but I think that is because I do not play online fps games, so the benefit was wasted on me. That said I would obviously prefer a 144hz 4K over 60hz one. Even with my 1070 say if I play Dota 2 or FIFA 17 I can easily get 144fps and benefit from that, even if it is a small one

I will have had my Dell 4K 60hz monitor for 3 years by the time these screens come out and I think I will get a 4K 144Hz HDR Freesync 2 monitor next which will last another 2-3 years until proper HDR OLED ones are out. Hell, by then I may even get a 8K one

 

[JediFragger]

Hell, by then I may even get a 8K one

And Windows scaling will still be ****

 

[TNA]

And Windows scaling will still be ****

Yes, this is my worry. Even at 27" 2160p I use 100% scaling and can deal with it. Only thing I set manually from within the app is Firefox and Thunderbird to scale to 150%. But with 8K unless I see a big enough jump in image quality for games in order to convince me to use windows scaling, I will stick to 4K.

 

[Quartz]

Don't think they'll be a rush for this. Running 60fps max settings on new titles even on the Titan XP is quite rare never mind over 90fps.

Don't forget older and less resource-intensive games. Games like Borderlands 2 and Doom.