Yes there's no refresh rate listed for the 32" model I'm afraid, while the 27" is listed with 144hz and also specifically appears in the gaming lineup range. Things could change though. No bandwidth reason it couldn't work if they can do it with 27"
Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ 4K IPS 144Hz G-Sync HDR
- Thread starter Huggie86
- Start date
32" for 4k? Deal-breaker. Otherwise, would be the dream next monitor, outside of G-sync (I really couldn't care less and don't feel like it's worth the premium) and not having a remote (bigger screen works better at distance).
A bigger monitor needs bigger resolution. I currently have 27" 1440p and I feel the pixel density is too high, so 32" for 4k would be worse. Still, I'd be willing to cough up for such a monitor if it ever did have the perfect size (minus G-sync) and specs.
A bigger monitor needs bigger resolution. I currently have 27" 1440p and I feel the pixel density is too high, so 32" for 4k would be worse. Still, I'd be willing to cough up for such a monitor if it ever did have the perfect size (minus G-sync) and specs.
Having used about every monitor size and resolution available, I definitely think 32" 4K is the best combination of resolution-clarity/size/immersion. Kinda bummed this new display is 27" but worse things could happen!
Badass, what size of 4K do you prefer?
Badass, what size of 4K do you prefer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IOTz-oleko
Can anyone that speaks German translate any info that we might not already know?
A couple things from the video I've noticed:
1. The HDR vividness is amazing.
2. The display is quite deep (as expected with FALD).
3. The reflections make it look like semi-gloss which is great!
Can anyone that speaks German translate any info that we might not already know?
A couple things from the video I've noticed:
1. The HDR vividness is amazing.
2. The display is quite deep (as expected with FALD).
3. The reflections make it look like semi-gloss which is great!
IPS really needs the glossy coating i am just worried 27 inch is going to blur the line between tv and monitor and the ppi is needed now with games ditching aa. In the future they could move to 27 inch and large screens with my blessing but they are doing it now because microsoft dropped the ball along with game devs not willing to re-patch thier games for a UI fix. Nice monitor though reminds me of this FG2421 if it is indeed with G-Sync/ULMB and HDR we better start saving. I already eyed up a 27 inch monitor bag. ^_^
I am still very happy though For Honor with 120fps 4K DSR with all the post processing off is a thing of utter beauty. I just need HDR and 4K native with ULMB to pull off the same again but right now GPU horsepower is my primary concern as i only wish i could get the 120fps i need to enjoy that stunning looking game.
I am still very happy though For Honor with 120fps 4K DSR with all the post processing off is a thing of utter beauty. I just need HDR and 4K native with ULMB to pull off the same again but right now GPU horsepower is my primary concern as i only wish i could get the 120fps i need to enjoy that stunning looking game.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 780
- Location
- JARRA!
Vega, check this out. It's not a very good interview but they're targeting £2000, Product Manager Gavin Tsai says.
You can just run it at higher DPI scaling, right? Like laptops with 4K displays that look pretty good.
The other issue is immersion though. At 27", especially if someone is coming from an ultrawide, they will be giving up a significant amount of screen real estate. As an X34 owner, no way could I do that... whenever I sit in front of a 16:9 monitor now I feel like nearly half my screen is missing, it just feels wrong. A 32" would definitely go a long way to mitigate that and really is going to be the preference under any circumstance, unless someone literally has no room for it. And really, you spend £2000 for a monitor and you don't have a desk big enough to take 32"?! Sort it out!!
The scaling isn't the point. At 27" you have to lean in and squint at the monitor to appreciate the really fine detail. At 32" you can appreciate it all from your normal seating position.
That said, I haven't used a 32" 4k monitor. It may even be too dense itself, and 40" is really the standard...
Yes agreed, 32" really is the minimum for 4K unless you sit in a box room with your face smashed up to the screen. But this really defeats the purpose of 4K. It's MEANT to be experienced on a big screen. The whole idea of sitting really close to a smaller one is just nonsensical really.
40" would be my preference also, but I can see how it may be too much for some people depending on their seating arrangement. The argument for 27" is really poor though when 32" trounces it in every respect. Still, for someone coming from a smaller 16:9 I'm sure they won't complain, but I do wish Asus had focused more on the bigger sizes because if the 27" is going to be £2K, a 32" is going to be at least £2500-3000.
I'm still sceptical of 4K on Windows - the UI scaling doesn't make best use of the extra pixels so you can scale up the UI and have nice smooth, crisp edges and using the extra pixels for screen estate I've never found a compromise where I'm happy with mouse precision for smaller pixel moves while still able to effortlessly get from one side of the screen to the other without resorting to horrid mouse acceleration. Some games I find the same problem though it comes into its own for stuff like racing games where you are using a controller.
Echo the above that you need a bigger screen to truly appreciate 4K - its nice on my 28" 4K monitor but seeing it on a 40+" display is a whole different story and at the end of the day I'll still be using 2560x1440 for my main monitor.
Echo the above that you need a bigger screen to truly appreciate 4K - its nice on my 28" 4K monitor but seeing it on a 40+" display is a whole different story and at the end of the day I'll still be using 2560x1440 for my main monitor.
I absolutely refuse to accept the "4K is too much for 27-inch" argument. I have a 27-inch 1440p, and I can really see the pixels and it is not sharp enough at 109ppi. Your "ideal" 4K at 40-inches is also 110ppi. This is not good enough. 4K at 27-inches is still 163ppi. It's still not ideal. I've seen the 5K 27-inch iMac as well, the difference in sharpness is day and night in comparison. Even compared to a 27-inch 4K, it's noticeably sharper, without you needing to squint because that's not the point. This seems to me to be of the same old variety of "your eyes can't see beyond 720p" argument. By your logic, any laptop with better than 720p screen makes you squint and it's not good. Of course that is not the case.
Regardless, if you're happy with the sharpness of typical 110ppi displays at 27-inches, you'll see no benefit to going higher, you won't see a benefit in going 4K at 32 either. You'll have to go 40-inches to keep pixel density around 110.
Obviously coming from an ultrawide to any 27-inch monitor is a big downgrade in real-estate, but it's not an argument against a 27-inch having 4K resolution. It's an argument for having high resolution ultrawides as well! Which should be coming in the coming years.
I for one definitely prefer having more than one monitor than an ultrawide monitor. That's how I increase real-estate. Three 27-inch monitors. It gives me much better flexibility. Making them 32-inches will make them more or less unusable in this configuration because they get out of my visual depth of field. I'd either have to use two 32-inches or give up real-estate or flexibility and symmetry. I've found 3x27-inches to be the ideal sweet spot of having the best of all worlds.
Way I see it - I've a phone at 5.7" 2560x1440 and 27" monitor at 2560x1440 - the phone makes good use of the pixels to make text look crisp and smooth but watching a proper full res 1440p video on it you just don't appreciate some of the detail that you can see with the same video on the monitor - same thing (though not quite as extreme) with 27-28" versus 40+" 4K IMO - playing proper 4K content or a game at 4K you don't get the full effect.
+1 to what haco said.
People like 4k for the increased sharpness/clarity it brings and this is generally because of the higher PPI. A 4k 40" will have about the same sharpness/PPI as a 27" 1440 screen.
Another thing that the majority of people often overlook when it comes to sharpness/PPI is viewing distance, the closer you sit, the more likely you are to notice pixels, this is why 50+" 1080P TVs still look very good as you are sitting much further away where pixels are not an issue (+ not having any matte anti glare coating also helps with sharpness/clarity)
EDIT:
And lol at the £2000 price tag, still cracks me up every time
People like 4k for the increased sharpness/clarity it brings and this is generally because of the higher PPI. A 4k 40" will have about the same sharpness/PPI as a 27" 1440 screen.
Another thing that the majority of people often overlook when it comes to sharpness/PPI is viewing distance, the closer you sit, the more likely you are to notice pixels, this is why 50+" 1080P TVs still look very good as you are sitting much further away where pixels are not an issue (+ not having any matte anti glare coating also helps with sharpness/clarity)
EDIT:
And lol at the £2000 price tag, still cracks me up every time
My contention to that is Windows just doesn't do a good enough job of exploiting that on the desktop, etc. (though looks like they are starting to pay a bit of attention to it with more recent updates to Windows 10).
This is a fair point, but it's gotten a lot better since the days of Windows 7 and 8.1. It's still not at the level of OS X. But now that Microsoft themselves are releasing laptops and desktops with high resolution displays, it's getting better and better with each update. Soon they'll be at the same level.
Perhaps we're coming from different angles here. For gaming, 4k is wasted on 27". When I had the acer 4k I was playing archage. The draw distance was impressive and I had to lean in to the monitor to pick out the details in the distance. However, if I as suspect you are referring to the sharpness during productivity then the higher the PPI the better, absolutely. I don't care about that and I am solely motivated by gaming visuals.
I think you're right. For gaming, I agree. But the sharpness is very noticeable for daily use especially since I deal with a lot of text and I love the sharp, crisp image that you get with higher pixel density displays. But as games will continue to optimize their textures for 4K contents (rather than using upscaled textures), we'll continue to see improvements even at 27-inches. I want a display that can do both very well.