ASUS XG438Q 43 inch 120Hz 4K announced

[Legend]

Who cares about 60fps ?

Depends what you're playing. Certain games such as Assassin's Creed, Witcher 3 etc. that don't require fast twitch responses look glorious in 4K... and at a solid 60FPS+ (which a 2080Ti can achieve), offer a very pleasant experience.

4K is not for those who play fast twitch shooters or are very sensitive to lower Hz displays.

 

[oldbanana]

if u want immersion I would reccomend ultrawide.

 

[NZXT30]

if u want immersion I would reccomend ultrawide.

But this is wider than a 34" ultrawide and double the height. How can you be more immersed with something smaller?

 

[Legend]

But this is wider than a 34" ultrawide and double the height. How can you be more immersed with something smaller?

You can't. A 43" monitor would absolutely offer greater immersion than a 34" UW, although arguably with many films an ultrawide may be the preference due to the lack of black bars. It is nice to have the picture fill the ENTIRE screen without them. Of course, for most people this isn't the primary use case for a monitor.

For gaming and everything else though, a 43" 16:9 will be more immersive than a 34" ultrawide. A 38" UW such as the upcoming LG 38GL950G would be more comparable to 43", but even that is slightly less width and of course less height.

It will be a refresh rate decision for the most part, and what someone is most happy with. It's also worth keeping in mind that PPI is comparable across all three examples. In fact, 4K @ 43" is actually the worst, although by such a small margin it probably won't be noticeable. Technically though, it would be the least sharp vs 34" and 38" UW. Ultimately, it will all depend how far you're sat from the screen.

 

[oldbanana]

But if you use a monitor as it is intended, on a table anything above 32 is too much, have tried 55 and 65 OLED TVs as monitor replacements, tried placing them abit further on a lower table behind the desk, it`s not the same, not to mention there really are no 4k 100+ hz tvs with sync for them to really be viable alternatives.

 

[Legend]

But if you use a monitor as it is intended, on a table anything above 32 is too much, have tried 55 and 65 OLED TVs as monitor replacements, tried placing them abit further on a lower table behind the desk, it`s not the same, not to mention there really are no 4k 100+ hz tvs with sync for them to really be viable alternatives.

It all depends on viewing distance. A 43" would need to be positioned further away for sure... but it's going to vary from person to person as to what feels most comfortable.

The problem with TV's is there are none even with Display Port 1.4, so even if they have Adaptive Sync tech and 100+ Hz panels (as some upcoming models will), the limits of HDMI mean that you won't be able to achieve more than 60Hz anyway. So defeats the whole purpose. HDMI 2.1 solves this, and some of LG's 2019 high end models will have this... but I'm not sure if they will also have A-Sync... not to mention will most likely only be on bigger 50"+ models anyway.

 

[NZXT30]

But if you use a monitor as it is intended, on a table anything above 32 is too much, have tried 55 and 65 OLED TVs as monitor replacements, tried placing them abit further on a lower table behind the desk, it`s not the same, not to mention there really are no 4k 100+ hz tvs with sync for them to really be viable alternatives.

There is a huge difference between 55" and 43". My 43" 4k monitor is not too much at all, in fact its awesome productivity and gaming wise. Next step is 49" (not ultrawide) curved and 8k when someone makes one.

 

[Legend]

There is a huge difference between 55" and 43". My 43" 4k monitor is not too much at all, in fact its awesome productivity and gaming wise. Next step is 49" (not ultrawide) curved and 8k when someone makes one.

I don't see many scenarios where someone could practically use a 55" in a desktop environment though. You'd have be sat 2-3m away at least, which in most typical arrangements won't be possible. I have 32" at present, and could certainly go to 43", although I may have to wall mount to push it that extra 10cm back that I think would be required. Any bigger and you're getting too far beyond the FOV of the human eye which means you're eyes and head will be moving all over the place.

I'm not sure I see a market for monitors much bigger than 43"... and even that size is going to be a niche. Heck, we've seen precious few 32" 4K monitors in recent years, with the focus being more on 27" 4K/1440p, so I don't know we'll be getting a 49" traditional 16:9 anytime soon... previous few people would be able to utilise that size outside of a lounge, hence why the 65" BFGD exists (again niche though). With TV's on the horizon with HDMI 2.1, A-Sync and 120Hz displays though, you could probably find something here if you wanted to go that big.

The Samsung CRG9 49" Super Ultrawide is intriguing, if only because it's such a crazy thing to look at, and definitely has some WOW factor.

As for 8K, give it a decade at the rate monitor tech develops!

 

[NZXT30]

I don't see many scenarios where someone could practically use a 55" in a desktop environment though. You'd have be sat 2-3m away at least, which in most typical arrangements won't be possible. I have 32" at present, and could certainly go to 43", although I may have to wall mount to push it that extra 10cm back that I think would be required. Any bigger and you're getting too far beyond the FOV of the human eye which means you're eyes and head will be moving all over the place.

I'm not sure I see a market for monitors much bigger than 43"... and even that size is going to be a niche. Heck, we've seen precious few 32" 4K monitors in recent years, with the focus being more on 27" 4K/1440p, so I don't know we'll be getting a 49" traditional 16:9 anytime soon... previous few people would be able to utilise that size outside of a lounge, hence why the 65" BFGD exists (again niche though). With TV's on the horizon with HDMI 2.1, A-Sync and 120Hz displays though, you could probably find something here if you wanted to go that big.

The Samsung CRG9 49" Super Ultrawide is intriguing, if only because it's such a crazy thing to look at, and definitely has some WOW factor.

As for 8K, give it a decade at the rate monitor tech develops!

At the distance I'm sitting at ~85cm there is definitely room for a few more inches before I have to turn my head to get a comfortable angle of view. A 49" 8k curved imo will be the absolute sweet spot. I had to RMA my first 43" monitor after a month of using it and went back to my old 30" and I found it unbearably small. Plus you have to use windows scaling below 40" at 4k which defeats the purpose of having 4k (screen real-estate).

I find most tvs laughably small at 3m distance for some proper immersion you're looking for at least a 92" projector. But each to their own I suppose. I remember 10 years ago people swearing how no monitor should be more than 24". Back then I also thought that is pathetically small. You get used to bigger sizes so quickly and as long as you don't have to turn your head all is good.

 

[Legend]

At the distance I'm sitting at ~85cm there is definitely room for a few more inches before I have to turn my head to get a comfortable angle of view. A 49" 8k curved imo will be the absolute sweet spot. I had to RMA my first 43" monitor after a month of using it and went back to my old 30" and I found it unbearably small. Plus you have to use windows scaling below 40" at 4k which defeats the purpose of having 4k (screen real-estate).

I find most tvs laughably small at 3m distance for some proper immersion you're looking for at least a 92" projector. But each to their own I suppose. I remember 10 years ago people swearing how no monitor should be more than 24". Back then I also thought that is pathetically small. You get used to bigger sizes so quickly and as long as you don't have to turn your head all is good.

The PPI of a 49" TV is 91 though... that's the same as 25" 1080p or 32" 1440p monitor!!! No way could I deal with that at around 85cm viewing distance personally. I tried 32" @ 1440p and it was way too soft.

 

[El_MUERkO]

My desk right now, perfectly readable text (close to 110 DPI), incredibly immersive games, the screen in front is 43", the one to the right is 40".

In my opinion a screen any bigger than 43" would need to be curved, any smaller and text at native 4k res's starts to become uncomfortably small.

 

[NZXT30]

The PPI of a 49" TV is 91 though... that's the same as 25" 1080p or 32" 1440p monitor!!! No way could I deal with that at around 85cm viewing distance personally. I tried 32" @ 1440p and it was way too soft.

Yeah thats why I keep mentioning 49" 8k curved which is my dream monitor.

 

[Joe_Easy]

My desk right now, perfectly readable text (close to 110 DPI), incredibly immersive games, the screen in front is 43", the one to the right is 40".

In my opinion a screen any bigger than 43" would need to be curved, any smaller and text at native 4k res's starts to become uncomfortably small.

That looks amazing and makes me look forward to my first 43” monitor even more. Thanks for sharing , made my day. I look forward to being able to use for gaming, work and occasional movie on the desktop as well Q3 seems far away, monitor timelines are harsh...

 

[NirK]

This monitor does look interesting, but I think my next monitor will be a TV with HDMI 2.1, now Nvidia supports that, it seems like it will be the best option.

 

[NirK]

Yeah thats why I keep mentioning 49" 8k curved which is my dream monitor.

You would not actually be able to run anything at 8k though!

 

[Legend]

You would not actually be able to run anything at 8k though!

By the time an 8K 49" monitor is available, there will be a GPU to run it. We're talking at least 5-10 years before such a monitor comes along. Micro LED might be the answer to something like this, but again, wouldn't hold my breath. Monitor tech moves at a snail's pace.

 

[Azrael1]

This monitor does look interesting, but I think my next monitor will be a TV with HDMI 2.1, now Nvidia supports that, it seems like it will be the best option.

Have they started supporting this ? havent checked the news lately. I just assumed the RTX were only 2.0 HDMI.

 

[azazl187]

Mine is a 40 inch 4K monitor with a 24 inch sat next to it. I love playing games on this size of monitor as it looks just stunning paired with a 1080ti.

I have had to custom scale the text for windows and slightly increased the size of my shortcuts but the rest of stuff like browsers is at default 100% and is perfectly readable.

 

[oldbanana]

But you are stuck on 60hz and have no sync, I cant see myself going back to 60hz and tearing.

 

[Legend]

Have they started supporting this ? havent checked the news lately. I just assumed the RTX were only 2.0 HDMI.

Correct, RTX cards have HDMI 2.0, so a TV with HDMI 2.1 would be useless in respect to achieving beyond 60Hz @ 4K. A TV would need to have Display Port 1.4, but I see no sign this will happen. Next gen GPUs may have HDMI 2.1, but nothing confirmed there of course. In the meantime, if you want 40"+, more than 60Hz and A-Sync, this Asus monitor will be the only choice... outside of the stupidly expensive 65" BFGD monitors of course.