Monday, June 6th 2016

ASUS Readying a 144 Hz 4K Ultra HD Monitor

ASUS is readying with what could be the world's first 4K Ultra HD monitor with 144 Hz refresh-rate. The monitor features a 27-inch AHVA panel by AU Optronics. The monitor relies on DisplayPort 1.3 for sufficient bandwidth to push its advertised resolution (3840 x 2160 @ 144 Hz). There's no word on whether the monitor supports adaptive sync technologies such as G-SYNC or FreeSync. DisplayPort 1.3 support can be found on some of the latest GPUs, such as the GeForce GTX 1080 and the Radeon RX 480.
Source: PCGH
Add your own comment

76 Comments on ASUS Readying a 144 Hz 4K Ultra HD Monitor

#1
RejZoR
Now that's a nice monitor. 4K at 144Hz. And it's not even TN which is surprising. Once you go 144Hz there is no way going back. If I'm forced to use 60Hz it literally makes my eyes hurt, everything feels so sluggish. When I hooked my old 4K LCD TV to my PC, the lag at 30Hz (it only supports such input) was so bad I just couldn't use it at all.

This won't be cheap though. I have a 1080p 144Hz and it was super expensive as it is, this is freaking 4K AHVA lol :D
Posted on Reply
#2
Xzibit
You can see the prototype monitor at the start
Posted on Reply
#3
EzioAs
RejZoR said:
Now that's a nice monitor. 4K at 144Hz. And it's not even TN which is surprising. Once you go 144Hz there is no way going back. If I'm forced to use 60Hz it literally makes my eyes hurt, everything feels so sluggish. When I hooked my old 4K LCD TV to my PC, the lag at 30Hz (it only supports such input) was so bad I just couldn't use it at all.

This won't be cheap though. I have a 1080p 144Hz and it was super expensive as it is, this is freaking 4K AHVA lol :D
While I have not tested any 120/144 Hz monitor yet, I can understand the "no going back" notion. For me, it's watching videos at 60 FPS with motion interpolation. I know not a lot of people agree, but once I got used to it, it's almost unbearable to watch videos at 24
Posted on Reply
#4
D007
Ooooohhhhh seexxxyyyyy. :D
Posted on Reply
#5
Chaitanya
There aren't too many GPUs capable of handling 4k at 60fps, I hope display makers push GPU manufacturers to seriously make faster GPUs.
Posted on Reply
#7
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
would be nice to see this in a 32-34 inch version.
Posted on Reply
#8
deemon
Why is this thing 27" ffs? for 4k give us 32" minimum. 40" preferably.

nvm really... it's asus. they have no sense.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheLostSwede
Chaitanya said:
There aren't too many GPUs capable of handling 4k at 60fps, I hope display makers push GPU manufacturers to seriously make faster GPUs.
Isn't that what SLI/Crossfire is for? :p
Posted on Reply
#10
TheLostSwede
deemon said:
Why is this thing 27" ffs? for 4k give us 32" minimum. 40" preferably.

nvm really... it's asus. they have no sense.
Because most people sit within 50cm from their screen?
I found 4k 28" to be almost too big, but each to their own I guess...
Posted on Reply
#11
cobhc
Isn't 120hz at the bandwidth limit of Display port 1.3 at 3840x2160?
Posted on Reply
#12
Vayra86
4K below 30 inch really is worthless imo, the PPI is way too high, such a dramatic waste of performance for a detail you can never really see

Wait and see, the people that buy this monitor will be downscaling all the time so they can actually enjoy 60+ fps :) But... when you downscale to 1080p on 27 inch, it looks like shit. Yep. Great monitor.
Posted on Reply
#13
techy1
Chaitanya said:
There aren't too many GPUs capable of handling 4k at 60fps, I hope display makers push GPU manufacturers to seriously make faster GPUs.
thhere are... precise 0 GPUs that can run everything at 4k 60fps, but we are close - 1080Ti and AMD vega could be... then you crosfire/sli those biatches and here you go... but those top GPUs x2 (or x3) + top system will be a fraction of that monitor price tough :(
Posted on Reply
#14
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
This is more like it. I've got a 144Hz 1080p monitor so I just need a 4K version of it now. It's a BenQ XL2720Z which has got some nifty features, so I'm waiting for the 4K version from BenQ which will hopefully have the same features and more.
Posted on Reply
#15
TheDeeGee
Id like a 1440p OLED 144Hz please!
Posted on Reply
#16
atomicus
27"?? WTF?? NO! 16:9?? WTF?? NO! It's 2016, we want 21:9. 16:9 is old tech, it's like 4:3 was to widescreen. Die already!
Posted on Reply
#17
xorbe
TheDeeGee said:
Id like a 1440p OLED 144Hz please!
I cooled my heels on OLED when I found out that brightness drops fairly rapidly with time powered on.
Posted on Reply
#18
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
I want HDR + 4K + 144 Hz + IPS + adaptive sync for no more than $400.

Edit: This appears to be the closest available on the market but it is 60 Hz, not 144 Hz, and it is $700, not $400. :(
LG 27UD88-W 27”
Posted on Reply
#19
deemon
TheLostSwede said:
Because most people sit within 50cm from their screen?
I found 4k 28" to be almost too big, but each to their own I guess...
so do I. and I want 40" monitor to be 50cm from my face. for immersion you know... right now I have 3x 27" "around" me with bezels and crap... and isn't good enough to be honest.

ideally I would like some 32:9 54" curved display with 500R curvature and working nvidia (or AMD alternative) Simultaneous Multi Projection bent over the curve:


so the curve doesn't bend/distort the picture, but you feel like being inside the scene (you know like... every vertical row of pixels rendered from it's own unique angle). with deep color (10/12/16 bpc) and HDR support and adaptive sync and 144Hz.

Or oculus/Vive without the f***ing cables.
Posted on Reply
#20
TheinsanegamerN
Chaitanya said:
There aren't too many GPUs capable of handling 4k at 60fps, I hope display makers push GPU manufacturers to seriously make faster GPUs.
or slaps them awake and reminds them that dual GPU exists and needs support.
Posted on Reply
#21
Vayra86
TheinsanegamerN said:
or slaps them awake and reminds them that dual GPU exists and needs support.
God no, Dual GPU needs to die ASAP if I'm totally honest. Give us a solid foolproof implementation of DX12's asymmetric GPU scaling instead. Mix and match, game/engine independant support. At that point we can talk about anything other than single GPU imo - and that is entirely up to the lacking support on several big titles in the recent years. Both NV and AMD have dropped the ball countless times because they (also) rely on developer time for each specific game. We had just survived the Frame Pacing issue, and AMD had just gotten Crossfire on point... and then we get DX12 that destroys the dual GPU market again with a vague 'DIY' implementation, with MS putting the final nail in the coffin of multi-GPU altogether with that abomination they call UWP.

Too bad that is utopia, just like dual GPU and great support, it will always be a painful exercise at some point, sooner or later and always in the games where you want that horsepower the most (remember The Division just now? they waited until Pascal before they came with a fix). I still have very fresh non-existant SLI support for The Elder Scrolls Online in my memory too :)
Posted on Reply
#22
PP Mguire
Had me at 144Hz and 4k, lost me at 27".
Posted on Reply
#23
droopyRO
RejZoR said:
If I'm forced to use 60Hz it literally makes my eyes hurt, everything feels so sluggish.
Out of curiosity for the 144Hz master race, what rigs do you use to play Witcher 3 for example at 144 fps minimum ? what do you do when games don`t have >60 fps support like Fallout 4 had ? 10x
Posted on Reply
#24
PP Mguire
droopyRO said:
Out of curiosity for the 144Hz master race, what rigs do you use to play Witcher 3 for example at 144 fps minimum ? what do you do when games don`t have >60 fps support like Fallout 4 had ? 10x
I played Witcher 3 with 2 Titan Xs on an ROG Swift. Coming from somebody who went from 144 to 60 just to go to 4k with a bigger screen I think most of it is an exaggeration. I caught my best friend in the act complaining about waiting for his RMA'd screens when he was running 60 on the desktop the whole time. That's just how I see it though. 120-165Hz is fantastic but I'd rather place my money on GPU power after using 120-144Hz for 2 years.
Posted on Reply
#25
Vinska
Isn't DP1.3 max bandwidth not enough to run 4K@144Hz?
3840×2160×24×144=28.67Gbit/s
DP1.3 goes up to 25.92Gbit/s for data. Which is enough for 4K@120Hz, but not enough for 144Hz.
I guess it must be using DP1.4, then. As DP1.4 adds stream compression (DSC), which would allow it to push those those extra few frames
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment