No thanks. The price is out of this world. It costs more than a premium TV.
HDR will remain out of reach for 99.9% of people with these prices and along with it developers won't care much to implement it correctly.
Prices must go down faster.
Probably won't be until MicroLED displays start getting pushed in phones. Apple is supposedly launching a MicroLED Apple Watch next year.
No offense to display manufacturers, but I don't know why they keep forcing dimming zones nonsense onto consumers (which also adds extra cost). This feature will NEVER be good, unless dimming zones = pixels on screen, aka OLED.
No offense to display manufacturers, but I don't know why they keep forcing dimming zones nonsense onto consumers (which also adds extra cost). This feature will NEVER be good, unless dimming zones = pixels on screen, aka OLED.
Because it's the next best thing and is a lot cheaper to produce than OLED is right now. Asus is selling a PQ22UC 21 inch 4 k OLED display right now for the measly sum of € 4999,-. So all things considered the 3 monitors with FALD aren't too expensive right now.
Guys , you forget one thing HH has begun wrapping this huge thing and it will go under the Christmas tree 🙂
Jocking aside I still hold my ground as 4k it's just to much for today graphics and graphic cards !
So from the review we can conclude that the screen of this thing is amazing, out of this world! This alone makes me want this thing so badly it hurts! But then the review also says the monitor uses color compression, only has an one HDMI and one DisplayPort (really???) and a fan!... And to make things even better, it only costs 2750€!!!???
I´m gonna hold on to my LG screen until a similar monitor hits the market with that amazing screen and without the fan and color compression and priced around 500€. Yes, i know i´m going to wait a very long time before this happens but that´s okay, i´m patient man.
Pointless as I see it. I mean, when u play game at 100fps and 144hz monitor, there is more noticeable stutter than playing same game at 120hz. Double that to 240hz and u have stutter mess. Best is always to have 120fps and 120hz or 144hz/fps combo. OFC fps preferably should be higher anyway, but...playing game with less fps than hz is PITA.
This is why still FHD screens are so popular in esports. Just notch resolution higher and loss of fps is unacceptable and hurts your aim, and game feel. 4k is no go still.
Finally my dream monitor, ill buy either this one or Acer x35, whichever is cheaper, I contacted both companies and they should be available by the end of August over here.
Thank god we live in credit world,almost every shop offers 12 or 24 and big chains 36 payments, no credit
Guys , you forget one thing HH has begun wrapping this huge thing and it will go under the Christmas tree 🙂
Jocking aside I still hold my ground as 4k it's just to much for today graphics and graphic cards !
My RTX 2080Ti handles 4K on ultra settings in all my games at around 70-100fps. The next gen cards RTX 3080Ti will absolutely destroy those results no doubt. 4K is here and there are cards out there that can and do handle it. 8K is where the struggle is.
My RTX 2080Ti handles 4K on ultra settings in all my games at around 70-100fps. The next gen cards RTX 3080Ti will absolutely destroy those results no doubt. 4K is here and there are cards out there that can and do handle it. 8K is where the struggle is.
Finally my dream monitor, ill buy either this one or Acer x35, whichever is cheaper, I contacted both companies and they should be available by the end of August over here.
Thank god we live in credit world,almost every shop offers 12 or 24 and big chains 36 payments, no credit
Yeah but why pay £2600 for a 35" (not quite 4K) monitor when you can buy this 43" proper 4K monitor for half the price: https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/computing/pc-monitors/pc-monitors/acer-predator-cg437k-4k-ultra-hd-43-led-gaming-monitor-black-10192548-pdt.html
Granted its not 200Hz or G-sync but you're getting slightly higher resolution and the difference between 144hz and 200hz is barely noticeable. The 43" Acer is also Free-sync 2/G-sync compatible so you're not shelling out an extra £500 for that noisy G-sync module with the active cooling fan. And the price? It's half of what you'd for the 35" Asus monitor.
Be under no illusions here, Asus are insulting our intelligence here and are blatantly trying to rip gamers off.
Yeah but why pay £2600 for a 35" (not quite 4K) monitor when you can buy this 43" proper 4K monitor for half the price: https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/computing/pc-monitors/pc-monitors/acer-predator-cg437k-4k-ultra-hd-43-led-gaming-monitor-black-10192548-pdt.html
Granted its not 200Hz or G-sync but you're getting slightly higher resolution and the difference between 144hz and 200hz is barely noticeable. The 43" Acer is also Free-sync 2/G-sync compatible so you're not shelling out an extra £500 for that noisy G-sync module with the active cooling fan. And the price? It's half of what you'd for the 35" Asus monitor.
Be under no illusions here, Asus are insulting our intelligence here and are blatantly trying to rip gamers off.
I want Acer Predator x35, its same as Asus just 2500USD in USA [for example, on newegg] Im not from USA so i have no idea how much it will be but cheaper then ASUS for sure, maybe we will get normal regional price
I dont care about high FPS, i mean if a monitor has 120hz mode thats enough for me and even if it has more i wont use it for technical reasons
Acer Predator CG437K P was on my shortlist but it doesnt have: FALD with 512 zone, it doesnt have real Gsync module instead cheap software variable refresh [GSYNC Ultimate is a better solution then FreeSync, no matter what AMD fanboys say, its a much better solution all around that does amazing things, you get what you pay for]
I also kinda want to go sub 4K resolution for RTX [Since 2016 i been using 55inch OLED tv as my PC monitor so 4K is just everyday for me]
people say 21:9 is amazing experience, so thats too
P.S.Im not an idiot, I wont pay same amount of money for a monitor as for new 2019 OLED that has HDMI 2.1 and 4k/120hz with freesync, if the price will be similar ill either get the monitor you linked Or Ill get new OLED C9 [Or i might say screw it and keep using my oled until next year models come out with more features, since tehre is no reason to buy HDMI 2.1 TV now
i wont be able to use the 4K/120 nor freesync, so why waste money, i rather wait untill next gen GPU with HDMI 2.1 comes out and get a new OLED to replace mine, but if the monitors will cost reasonable and its soemthing I can use right now ill get one. The one you listed is my number 2 choice after Predator x35]
According to FRAPS, yeah.I just opened Mass Effect Andromeda on ultra settings + HDR10 and FRAPS reports 77-100fps. It fluctuates between those numbers, which is absolutely playable and buttery smooth. And that game uses the Frostbite engine. Dota 2 on ultra settings fluctuated between 156-205 on 4K ultra preset depending on how much action was going on.
I'm not kidding around and neither is the RTX 2080Ti. Take a look at Hilbert's review - look at those number in 4K ultra on Battlefield 1: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_rtx_2080_ti_founders_review,18.html
@RavenMaster
Ok .. in BF ... At 4K you have 105 FPS .... But you forget this monitor has a refresh rate of 200 Hz ... So you need 200fps or more ... Constant ... No dropping not fluctuating .... No hiccup !
And keep in mind the word ... Constant
P.s. I am not trying to argue with you ... Maybe just to trick my mind into not caving in and buying this ! 😀
I want Acer Predator x35, its same as Asus just 2500USD in USA [for example, on newegg] Im not from USA so i have no idea how much it will be but cheaper then ASUS for sure, maybe we will get normal regional price
I dont care about high FPS, i mean if a monitor has 120hz mode thats enough for me and even if it has more i wont use it for technical reasons
Acer Predator CG437K P was on my shortlist but it doesnt have: FALD with 512 zone, it doesnt have real Gsync module instead cheap software variable refresh [GSYNC Ultimate is a better solution then FreeSync, no matter what AMD fanboys say, its a much better solution all around that does amazing things, you get what you pay for]
I also kinda want to go sub 4K resolution for RTX [Since 2016 i been using 55inch OLED tv as my PC monitor so 4K is just everyday for me]
people say 21:9 is amazing experience, so thats too
P.S.Im not an idiot, I wont pay same amount of money for a monitor as for new 2019 OLED that has HDMI 2.1 and 4k/120hz with freesync, if the price will be similar ill either get the monitor you linked Or Ill get new OLED C9 [Or i might say screw it and keep using my oled until next year models come out with more features, since tehre is no reason to buy HDMI 2.1 TV now
i wont be able to use the 4K/120 nor freesync, so why waste money, i rather wait untill next gen GPU with HDMI 2.1 comes out and get a new OLED to replace mine, but if the monitors will cost reasonable and its soemthing I can use right now ill get one. The one you listed is my number 2 choice after Predator x35]
Yeah I got tired of waiting for new monitors to come out so i bought an LG 55SM9000 a couple of weeks ago while it was in the summer sale for £1100. Its a 4K Nanocell TV with 4x HDMI 2.1 sockets on it. The colours are very similar to the C9 OLED when i compared the two TV's in the store. Of course the OLED has unbeatable blacks but i was a bit apprehensive about using an OLED as PC monitor due to screen burn-in. The next gen graphics cards will most likely have HDMI 2.1 but for now i can either run the TV in 4K 60hz or 1440p 120hz over the GPU's HDMI 2.0 port. But eventually when the new GPU's come i'll be able to switch it to fully fledged 4K 120hz. Another reason i opted to go for the Nanocell was because i have a well lit room and the OLED panels are full gloss, very reflective. The Nanocell is semi-gloss and doesn't reflect much at all.
According to FRAPS, yeah.I just opened Mass Effect Andromeda on ultra settings + HDR10 and FRAPS reports 77-100fps. It fluctuates between those numbers, which is absolutely playable and buttery smooth. And that game uses the Frostbite engine. Dota 2 on ultra settings fluctuated between 156-205 on 4K ultra preset depending on how much action was going on.
I'm not kidding around and neither is the RTX 2080Ti. Take a look at Hilbert's review - look at those number in 4K ultra on Battlefield 1: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_rtx_2080_ti_founders_review,18.html
I also own 2080Ti and such numbers are just unreal, maybe in some games, maybe that andromeda is not demanding, but I Play mainstream games, Tomb Raider, Metro etc, even without RTX the FPS is borderline above 60 in latest TR, with nvidia upscling you can get to 80 maybe more, but with RTX it will drop back
When I moved to 4K I started to buy high end cards: 780ti>970SLI>980ti>1080>1080ti>2080ti, but I never had acceptable 4K experience, I hoped that 2080ti will be THE 4K card but i guess it will be 3080Ti
@RavenMaster
Ok .. in BF ... At 4K you have 105 FPS .... But you forget this monitor has a refresh rate of 200 Hz ... So you need 200fps or more ... Constant ... No dropping not fluctuating .... No hiccup !
And keep in mind the word ... Constant
Sure but you're not going to notice the difference between 120hz or 200hz. Going from 60hz to 120hz is like night and day. But from 120hz to 200hz the difference is negligible. 120hz is the sweet spot. You get excellent colour coverage at 10-bit and buttery smooth gameplay at 120hz. G-sync and Free-sync will also help keep the game running smooth at lower fps.
is this the first Gsync Ultimate panel to support DSC?it is not, strange given they added it to Turing....