Thursday, March 22nd 2018

NVIDIA Expects Partners to Release 4K, 144 Hz G-Sync Displays With HDR in April

Reports have started doing the rounds that users might finally see NVIDIA's dream for 4K, 144 Hz gaming come to fruition as early as next month. NVIDIA's approach towards establishing a platform of a premium 4K gaming experience meant that manufacturers - of which ASUS and Acer are two of the foremost examples for this story - were forced to opt for a single panel solution, based on AU Optronics' M270QAN02.2 AHVA panel. This is because NVIDIA wanted gamers to be treated to a fully integrated solution, that boasted of features such as 3840×2160 resolution, a 144 Hz refresh rate, a 1000-nits brightness, a direct LED backlighting system with 384 zones, and feature a quantum dot film to enable HDR10 and coverage of the DCI-P3 color gamut.

However, with such stringent requirements, NVIDIA monitor partners would have to accept what constraints might arise from the panel manufacturer's side of the equation, which ultimately, resulted in a delay for the manufacturer's models - Acer Predator X27 and ASUS ROG Swift PG27UQ - from a 2017 release date to what is now expected to be a firm, April 2018 one. Gamers might thus be in for the impending release of some of the best monitors in the industry when it comes to a premium, high refresh-rate gaming experience. Now, where are those mainstream OLED panels with at least 900 nits brightness I wanted to get my hands on?
Source: AnandTech
Add your own comment

64 Comments on NVIDIA Expects Partners to Release 4K, 144 Hz G-Sync Displays With HDR in April

#1
the54thvoid
With those stats, these will be so expensive. GSync will not add a huge cost but 4k at 144Hz and the 1000nit brightness for proper HDR 10 certification wont come cheap. I also do not see the point at 4k on 27"......
Posted on Reply
#2
ShurikN
Ahhhh the perfect $3000 monitor to compliment your $3000 GPU.
Posted on Reply
#3
TheLostSwede
the54thvoid
I also do not see the point at 4k on 27"......
Have you used one? I'd say it's just about right, but each to their own...
Posted on Reply
#4
Patriot
A bit more interested in the Big "format" gaming displays.... and more freesync TVs for that matter.
Posted on Reply
#5
robert3892
To have such a monitor would need an equally powerful GPU and the GTX 1080ti despite its strength won't be able to handle it. So does that mean a new GPU announcement also in tandem with the April release of the new monitors? Prepare yourself for sticker shock.
Posted on Reply
#6
Crustybeaver
the54thvoid
I also do not see the point at 4k on 27"......
I have been gaming at 4K on a 27" monitor for over two years now and completely disagree with your opinion.
With a screen size of 27" at a resolution of 3840 x 2160 the visual acuity distance is 0.52m (1.7ft)
stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator
As someone who sits approximately 1.5 to 2ft from my screen I'd say the 27" monitor is optimal for my viewing experience.
Posted on Reply
#7
Nordic
My grandfather cant tell the difference between 480p and 1080p at any distance. A persons vision is a big factor.
Posted on Reply
#8
Imsochobo
the54thvoid
With those stats, these will be so expensive. GSync will not add a huge cost but 4k at 144Hz and the 1000nit brightness for proper HDR 10 certification wont come cheap. I also do not see the point at 4k on 27"......
I have 4K on 28" freesync and I run pretty much without AA due to no 1080TI power,anyways,
It looks absolutely stunning!
1440P on 27" looks like outright pixelated crap after a year on 4K.
Posted on Reply
#9
BrainCruser
the54thvoid
... I also do not see the point at 4k on 27"......
The point is that text looks great. The point of moving to 4k is to get out of the 80PPI range and move into the 150-250PPI range, which looks a lot better. Especially for text. Text looks the same as if it was printed in a book.
Posted on Reply
#10
Axaion
too bad 4k gaming wont happen at that fps for quite a while, at the very least not at high setting or even stable
Posted on Reply
#11
Vayra86
I'm gonna be a happy camper for a while on a simple 120 hz 1080p, that is for sure.

Not missing a thing. Much rather spend cash on actual content. 4K in a moving image is so much detail lost, its added value is diminished in a big way - especially if you also lose tons of FPS.
Posted on Reply
#12
Recon-UK
So multi GPU going down the drain + 4K 144hz ? can anybody else see what i am seeing? i dunno, no card in existence can drive 144hz in 4K res.
But if SLi is what you depend on, sure go for it :)
Vayra86
I'm gonna be a happy camper for a while on a simple 120 hz 1080p, that is for sure.

Not missing a thing. Much rather spend cash on actual content. 4K in a moving image is so much detail lost, its added value is diminished in a big way - especially if you also lose tons of FPS.
Similar situation here, 1680x1050 130hz.
Posted on Reply
#13
ZoneDymo
ShurikN
Ahhhh the perfect $3000 monitor to compliment your $3000 GPU.
that wont even be able to do it... more like 2 x 3000 dollar gpu...
Posted on Reply
#14
the54thvoid
Crustybeaver
I have been gaming at 4K on a 27" monitor for over two years now and completely disagree with your opinion.
With a screen size of 27" at a resolution of 3840 x 2160 the visual acuity distance is 0.52m (1.7ft)
stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator
As someone who sits approximately 1.5 to 2ft from my screen I'd say the 27" monitor is optimal for my viewing experience.
I'm never one to deny science....

I sit 80cm away from my 27" 1440p screen.



As someone else said - each to their own :D

If I moved to 4k at 27", I'd need a smaller desk.

And to be fair, when I reduce res to 1080p, I notice no tangible gaming difference - which is really what I mean for the size. For productivity and text, it's very different but the post is about gaming monitors. Also, it's well reviewed in the larger TV screen space that moving from HD to 4K isn't really that different for most people. The biggest advent of change is the HDR contrast ratio which makes the image far sharper and 'pop' out more.
I have an OLED 55" 4K HDR (& Dolby Vision) TV and watching a plain old blu-ray or a 4k one has little impact on apparant clarity but the HDR makes for a cleaner look.
Posted on Reply
#15
jabbadap
the54thvoid
With those stats, these will be so expensive. GSync will not add a huge cost but 4k at 144Hz and the 1000nit brightness for proper HDR 10 certification wont come cheap. I also do not see the point at 4k on 27"......
Well for games try any 27" with DSR resolution scaled to UHD. And being native, it won't have any caveats of using DSR.
Posted on Reply
#16
Vego
another thing that we do not need to spend money for

im sold but i will use it at 100Hz,
144Hz maybe only for LoL
Posted on Reply
#17
jabbadap
Vego
another thing that we do not need to spend money for

im sold but i will use it at 100Hz,
144Hz maybe only for LoL
It's Gsync monitor, if you use Gsync on gaming(Why would you even consider it if not using that though). The refresh rate will be equal to FPS on range 40-144 and double on range 30-40.
Posted on Reply
#18
silentbogo
Raevenlord
This is because NVIDIA wanted gamers to be treated to a fully integrated solution, that boasted of features such as 3840×2160 resolution, a 144 Hz refresh rate, a 1000-nits brightness, a direct LED backlighting system with 384 zones, and feature a quantum dot film to enable HDR10 and coverage of the DCI-P3 color gamut.
I'm afraid to ask what's gonna be the retail price of such a beast... :fear:
the54thvoid
I also do not see the point at 4k on 27"......
Running 24" 4K 60Hz for over a year now. Just the everyday strain on my vision from 10+ hours/day of work with text and schematics went from "really bad" on my 1080p Dell to "non-existent" after I bought my 2160p Samsung.
Posted on Reply
#19
Franzen4Real
I am so ready for the Asus PG35VQ ultrawide version of this monitor... been waiting since last summers announcement. 1440p, 21:9, 35", 200hz refresh. Will be a day 1 purchase. I actually expected (hoped) that one would release before the 4k due to panel issues.
Posted on Reply
#20
Captain_Tom
Hmmm only 1 month away, and yet no prices yet?

Why wouldn't they want to talk about the price right away?! :)
Posted on Reply
#21
BadFrog
TheLostSwede
Have you used one? I'd say it's just about right, but each to their own...
28+ inch seems to be the best for 4k. 27 inch is good for 1440p
Posted on Reply
#23
TheLostSwede
BadFrog
28+ inch seems to be the best for 4k. 27 inch is good for 1440p
Are you saying that extra one inch is the deal breaker between 1440p and 4k?
Posted on Reply
#24
0x4452
I saw the display at the NVIDIA booth at GDC yesterday. It was running Destiny 2 on a 1080 Ti at around 55 fps (not sure what game settings).

Looked truly stunning, the HDR, the latency, the smoothness. But yeah, I fully expect the premium price :-)
Posted on Reply
#25
jabbadap
TheLostSwede
Are you saying that extra one inch is the deal breaker between 1440p and 4k?
Scratching my head on that too. I would be rather picky with those enormous bezels than some 2.54 cm larger diameter(hmm is it diameter in English for rectangles :().
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment