Hell, 42.5inch! Now this is impressive, besides I think this is more or less a sweetspot resultuon for 2160p. Add a gsync and a curve to it and it would be amazing for high end desktop. Would need two 1080's to run it thou. 🙂

I'd be happy just with g-sync and a better response time. But please leave the 16:9 and don't curve it, people need a big 4k screen that can be use both for gaming, movies and content creation. The extra-large ratio and the curved monitor unless you like to watch movie alone in the perfect center of the screen are completely useless in my opinion.

Clearly a matter of preference, however I do agree that having a curved monitor for example in an office is unnecessary. However at home, id love that being the only user of the given monitor. Perhaps two models can be an idea solution, add a tad bit higher refresh rate on top of it, and its very attractive. However we shall see whats future holds for us as we have some new tech around the corner.

I'd be happy just with g-sync and a better response time. But please leave the 16:9 and don't curve it, people need a big 4k screen that can be use both for gaming, movies and content creation. The extra-large ratio and the curved monitor unless you like to watch movie alone in the perfect center of the screen are completely useless in my opinion.

I would be happy with even just g-sync. Jizz would be all over it while playing Witcher 3... :grin2: We need better GPUs however, one 1080 is not nearly enough. Maybe two, but even then there is still a LOT room for improvement in 4K performance.

I would be happy with even just g-sync. Jizz would be all over it while playing Witcher 3... :grin2: We need better GPUs however, one 1080 is not nearly enough. Maybe two, but even then there is still a LOT room for improvement in 4K performance.

Speaking from my own experience Technology is just being able to run modern beautiful games on 2160p on single GPU, 1080 can do it but Baarely I would say. Titan maybe will have better chances here due to larger ram. My 1080 in Rise of the Tomb Raider with everything on maximum except AA (using FXAA instead of SMAA) at 1440p eats 7.8gb vram, thats quite a lot. I can only assume that at 2160p it will eat even more vram. Hence the way I see it right now we need a GPU which can run at around 2.5k mhz, which has 12-16gb ram, and on top of that have better cooling - ideally water. Will we see a single GPU like that any time soon? Maybe, 1080Ti might show something like 12gb vram, however I doubt we will see it at 2500mhz, more like ~2200mhz. So current generation leaves it to SLI to be used with 2160p if you want 60+fps on modern titles. And SLI speaking from my own experience is Not that good especially recently. Less and less titles support it (might change, but so far that has been my observation for past couple of years, moving from 670's SLI to 980's SLI), you get much higher temperatures compared to single GPU, gameplay is less fluid due to micro stutter, latency, which of course CAN be partially fixed by Gsync but still. So the way I see this currently 1440p is best all rounder for gaming as 1080 works currently really well with it, while 2160p is a bit of too much challenger for 1 GPU. What we need is 32-36 inch 1440p screens with 100+hz, IPS (or new tech), low response and Gsync. Preferably curved (at least for me). This would be amazing. :cyclone:

Another meh 4k monitor with only hdmi 1.4.

Another meh 4k monitor with only hdmi 1.4.

Yeah this is a bit of a headscratcher.. otherwise, its a nice looking display.

Wake me up when they bring out a 4k 144hz monitor.

Wake us up in 3 years when they bring GPU power to run it.

Wake us up in 3 years when they bring GPU power to run it.

There are plenty of games that run over 60fps at 4K, even when maxed out.

There are plenty of games that run over 60fps at 4K, even when maxed out.

Depends on what games you play and what you understand by maxed out. In GTAV for example I could cripple even the upcoming Pascal Titan X on my ancient Dell U2711 (60Hz @1440p) if I cranked up shadows/grass/msaa and draw distance... So no, for new games, in no way will we have a single GPU that can drive games maxed, in 4K 144Hz, in the foreseeable future.

Depends on what games you play and what you understand by maxed out. In GTAV for example I could cripple even the upcoming Pascal Titan X on my ancient Dell U2711 (60Hz @1440p) if I cranked up shadows/grass/msaa and draw distance... So no, for new games, in no way will we have a single GPU that can drive games maxed, in 4K 144Hz, in the foreseeable future.

I'm not saying that 60hz 4K monitors don't have their place. They do. I just don't buy into the idea that a 144hz 4K display wouldn't be useful until more powerful GPU's come out. I think about the games I play currently, some old, some new -- Overwatch for example runs at ~90fps @ 4K fully maxed out. Warframe, I get ~135fps with DSR @ 4K fully maxed out. CS:GO, I get like 350 fps at QHD. In WoW I get like 160 fully maxed at QHD, so I'm sure at 4K it would be 60+ too. Not to mention just using the desktop is a better experience at 144hz. Idk, like yeah, obviously newer AAA titles with the best graphics, GPU's won't get 60+ -- but it's not like having a 144hz monitor and running it sub 60 is taking away from the experience. However if you do decide to take a break from that new AAA title and run Overwatch or something, not having the 144hz is taking away from the experience. That's how I see it anyway. I'm hoping we get 4K @ 144 in the next year or so. I'm basically buying the first monitor that's half decent with it.

I'm not saying that 60hz 4K monitors don't have their place. They do. I just don't buy into the idea that a 144hz 4K display wouldn't be useful until more powerful GPU's come out. I think about the games I play currently, some old, some new -- Overwatch for example runs at ~90fps @ 4K fully maxed out. Warframe, I get ~135fps with DSR @ 4K fully maxed out. CS:GO, I get like 350 fps at QHD. In WoW I get like 160 fully maxed at QHD, so I'm sure at 4K it would be 60+ too. Not to mention just using the desktop is a better experience at 144hz. Idk, like yeah, obviously newer AAA titles with the best graphics, GPU's won't get 60+ -- but it's not like having a 144hz monitor and running it sub 60 is taking away from the experience. However if you do decide to take a break from that new AAA title and run Overwatch or something, not having the 144hz is taking away from the experience. That's how I see it anyway. I'm hoping we get 4K @ 144 in the next year or so. I'm basically buying the first monitor that's half decent with it.

All the games you've listed are extremely light on the GPU, so no wonder you can push 4K without problems. You don't see Overwatch/Warframe/CS:GO(lol) in any GPU review for a reason. Maybe my "AAA" phrasing wasn't the best, but point is, and it was obvious from my first post, that there are several GPU demanding games, and they don't even have to be brand new, that can't even run 1440p @ 144Hz, yet alone 4K.

Mostly true. However, a lot of settings are imperceptible (especially anything to do with anti-aliasing) on a 27-32" UHD monitor due to pixel density at 4k and what a human eye can discern. The argument that is often made that you have to "sacrifice" so much in settings to get playable frame rates on a 4k monitor is not 100% accurate (not saying you said that, but it is something I hear all the time) because there is no true single 4k card yet. I spent a whole day testing this with my buddy when I got my 1080 so there was a second set of eyes on a dozen or so games (including GTAV) and it makes little if any difference visually cranking most of those settings up "to the max." Of course it will slow down and "cripple" your system just like Crysis used to do back in the day, but you aren't gaining anything visually with a few exceptions. It looks freaking awesome already. I had two monitors side by side with an ASUS 1440p monitor which was also 27", and the difference visually is very noticeable at the same settings, even giving the ASUS a bump on a few settings, the 4k looks so much better its ridiculous. Now the 144Hz vs. 60Hz refresh rate does have validity. The ASUS was 144Hz and it definitely looked smoother overall. But the Dell 4k was still very smooth at 60Hz. It was only really evident because they were next to each other. And some (like me) can tolerate the 60Hz just fine. It's arguable I know from both sides. I'm just speaking from my personal experience. And yes I have 20/20 vision. A game like BF4 (yes I know it's getting long in the tooth, but the Frostbite engine still looks freaking fantastic), at all Ultra settings, it will run a 60FPS solidly with my GTX 1080 FTW on the Dell 4k. It may run smoother on the ASUS, but it looks noticeably better on the Dell. Crazy better. But I too will be happy to see 120Hz refresh rates on UHD using DP 1.4.

There are still very few displays supporting 144 fps even on sub 4k resolutions and same applies for decent size (37"+) 4k@60. I do not think we will see 4k@120/144 anytime soon. Here we are unfortunately still depending highly on TV displays advancements. GTX 1080 is still way to far from smooth and futureproof 60fps. Existing games dips even bello 40 fps and as usualy we can expect future games getting more realistic and also more demanding which translate to even less fps.