Tuesday, April 10th 2018

4K Ultra HD Monitors with 144 Hz Refresh-rate and G-SYNC HDR Start Being Available

As we reported in March, the first 4K monitors with 144 Hz refresh-rate began showing up in stores. This summer, PC gamers and enthusiasts up for a monitor upgrade, are in for a treat. An increasing number of companies are preparing to launch monitors with not just 4K Ultra HD resolution (3840 x 2160 pixels), but also staggering 144 Hz refresh-rates, and support for adaptive sync technologies, such as AMD FreeSync and NVIDIA G-Sync. To push 4K at 144 Hz, you'll need your graphics card to feature DisplayPort 1.4 (or above) connectivity, as DisplayPort 1.2, or even the newer HDMI 2.0, lack the required bandwidth.

Among the first blazing fast 4K UHD + 144 Hz monitors, are the 2018 Acer Predator X27 (UM.HX0EE.009) first unveiled in 2017, and soon to be joined by the ASUS ROG Swift PG27UQ. Both monitors feature 4K Ultra HD resolution, 144 Hz refresh-rate, IPS quantum-dot panels, and support for the new NVIDIA G-SYNC HDR standard. The monitors take input from DisplayPort 1.4 and HDMI 2.0, although you will need DisplayPort 1.4 to get 4K @ 144 Hz to work correctly. The IPS quantum-dot panels feature DCI-P3 color-standards, 99% Adobe RGB coverage, and 10 bpc (1.07 billion-color) palette, in addition to 384 LED elements backlighting the panel. The ROG Swift PG27UQ starts at 2,445€ and the Predator X27 at 18,475 DKK Sounds good? Get ready to foot upwards of USD $3,000 for either of them, to go with your $3,000 TITAN V, for a 3,000-inch e-p.
Add your own comment

43 Comments on 4K Ultra HD Monitors with 144 Hz Refresh-rate and G-SYNC HDR Start Being Available

#1
bug
To this day I'm not sure why we're discussing 144Hz refresh rates. To do 144 refreshes a second, a 7ms response time is needed. Across all color (and gray) transitions. No known consumer panel can do that. And I'm pretty sure with only 7ms to do the job, even overdrive doesn't work as well as it does at 60Hz.
Ok, faster panels are supposedly needed (I'm taking people's words for granted, I haven't look at the difference too much), but it would be darn nice if reviewers would take their time, do their measurements and draw a line between what a monitor can do and what the box/manual says it can do.
Posted on Reply
#2
evernessince
bug said:
To this day I'm not sure why we're discussing 144Hz refresh rates. To do 144 refreshes a second, a 7ms response time is needed. Across all color (and gray) transitions. No known consumer panel can do that. And I'm pretty sure with only 7ms to do the job, even overdrive doesn't work as well as it does at 60Hz.
Ok, faster panels are supposedly needed (I'm taking people's words for granted, I haven't look at the difference too much), but it would be darn nice if reviewers would take their time, do their measurements and draw a line between what a monitor can do and what the box/manual says it can do.
What are you talking about? Many gaming monitors have a pixel response time of 1ms g2g and IPS panels can go all the way down to 3ms.
Posted on Reply
#3
Upgrayedd
If this is $3k I dread what they want for the ultrawides.
Posted on Reply
#4
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
bug said:
To this day I'm not sure why we're discussing 144Hz refresh rates. To do 144 refreshes a second, a 7ms response time is needed. Across all color (and gray) transitions. No known consumer panel can do that. And I'm pretty sure with only 7ms to do the job, even overdrive doesn't work as well as it does at 60Hz.
Ok, faster panels are supposedly needed (I'm taking people's words for granted, I haven't look at the difference too much), but it would be darn nice if reviewers would take their time, do their measurements and draw a line between what a monitor can do and what the box/manual says it can do.
Of course 144Hz works. I've had a 144Hz monitor since 2012 and it works very well, making a real difference to lag and smoothness. The later BenQ monitor I got with a strobing backlight is even better. I just wish these new gen monitors didn't start out so friggin' expensive, as they're completely out of my price range.

Check out this website for everything you could possibly ever want to know about high refresh monitors and strobing backlights. This guy is a pro and really knows his stuff.

https://www.blurbusters.com
Posted on Reply
#5
bug
evernessince said:
What are you talking about? Many gaming monitors have a pixel response time of 1ms g2g and IPS panels can go all the way down to 3ms.
Yeah, no. They don't. http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_strix_xg35vq.htm#response

Edit: @qubit What I've said is those monitors mostly rely on the fact that the GPU usually can't push 144fps because they can't show that nicely. They will do probably 100Hz, that's what you can see and looks better than 60Hz. Of course, if what you're saying is that you're constantly pushing 144fps and the image doesn't artifact, then I stand corrected.
Posted on Reply
#6
SetsunaFZero
without G-Sync this monitor would probably be 500 bucks less expensive
Posted on Reply
#7
Manu_PT
After using 240hz for months 144hz seems laggy and full of blur lol

If you want my advice, never ever buy 240hz monitor, it will ruin your experience with any inferior refresh monitor! Your brain/eyes get used to ultra smoothness ecen on windows desktop
Posted on Reply
#8
bug
SetsunaFZero said:
without G-Sync this monitor would probably be 500 bucks less expensive
Neah, the GSync module is like 100 bucks. The cost doesn't vary with color depth, refresh rate and whatnot. But my main problem with GSync, besides the proprietary nature, is that it limits the number of inputs. Not that much of a hassle in practice, but it feels like an arbitrary limitation.
Posted on Reply
#9
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
bug said:
Edit: @qubit What I've said is those monitors mostly rely on the fact that the GPU usually can't push 144fps because they can't show that nicely. They will do probably 100Hz, that's what you can see and looks better than 60Hz. Of course, if what you're saying is that you're constantly pushing 144fps and the image doesn't artifact, then I stand corrected.
You were talking about the response time of the LCD panels, so I replied to that and I stand by it.

As far as the GPU pushing 144Hz at 4K, that's a different story, as you say. Indeed, even a GTX 1080 Ti often couldn't manage it* for modern AA games maxed out. I suspect that the next gen 1180 or whatever it's gonna called will be able to do 144fps+ at 4K with ease, though. Shame about the high cost of all this fancy new hardware. :ohwell:

*It can where the load is smaller, as even my GTX 1080 can go well above 144fps at 4K in such instances. I used NVIDIA DSR if you're wondering how I managed it on a 1080p monitor. :)
Posted on Reply
#10
Hugh Mungus
Manu_PT said:
After using 240hz for months 144hz seems laggy and full of blur lol

If you want my advice, never ever buy 240hz monitor, it will ruin your experience with any inferior refresh monitor! Your brain/eyes get used to ultra smoothness ecen on windows desktop
I have a similar experience with amoled/mediocre tn-panels. Now I have a s9+, I hate my current monitor for its lack of contrast and actually kinda like the display of my mom's laptop! Also, slow response times suddenly seem like a huge sin, so a faster, likely 75hz capable monitor pretty much is certain for my system upgrade, which could make me hate 60hz... Once you know what decent hardware feels like, your old, crappy stuff somehow, as if by magic, just ends up in the bin! XD
Posted on Reply
#11
Moofachuka
Upgrayedd said:
If this is $3k I dread what they want for the ultrawides.
I think usually the msrp in USD is similar to euro. So I believe it'll be around 2500... But I'm not spending that much on this or ultrawide version...
Posted on Reply
#12
TristanX
Worse than expected, more expensive than expected, just reality
None shop have it for now
Posted on Reply
#13
EzioAs
qubit said:
As far as the GPU pushing 144Hz at 4K, that's a different story, as you say. Indeed, even a GTX 1080 Ti often couldn't manage it* for modern AA games maxed out.
qubit said:
I suspect that the next gen 1180 or whatever it's gonna called will be able to do 144fps+ at 4K with ease, though.
Depends on your definition of modern and type of game. I doubt AAA games released within the last 2-3 years that tried to push image quality will run at 144fps+ with ease.
Posted on Reply
#14
Manu_PT
Hugh Mungus said:
I have a similar experience with amoled/mediocre tn-panels. Now I have a s9+, I hate my current monitor for its lack of contrast and actually kinda like the display of my mom's laptop! Also, slow response times suddenly seem like a huge sin, so a faster, likely 75hz capable monitor pretty much is certain for my system upgrade, which could make me hate 60hz... Once you know what decent hardware feels like, your old, crappy stuff somehow, as if by magic, just ends up in the bin! XD
Exactly mate. Before I got a 240hz monitor I had a 144hz one and I would think that 240hz was useless and with "diminishing returns". How wrong was I, got an Alienware model on sale on amazon and was totally blown away. One of these days played on a friend´s 144hz monitor and it seemed like 30fps, was totally shocked. The good news are, if you never get that crazy refresh rate, you won´t notice because your brain won´t trick you. So just stay at 144hz and save money lol.
Posted on Reply
#15
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
EzioAs said:
Depends on your definition of modern and type of game. I doubt AAA games released within the last 2-3 years that tried to push image quality will run at 144fps+ with ease.
Yes, it's not a precise metric, obviously.

I remember trying one of the older CoD games (could have been Ghosts, but don't hold me to it) where the framerate was really high, 144fps+. I don't use several special effects though which would have slowed it down such as AA, depth of field, motion blur and ambient occlusion.

A really old game such as Unreal Tournament 2004 positively flew.
Posted on Reply
#16
Therion_I
Far far too much money. Surely they should be £1500 absolute MAX. Current top tier ultawides should then also come down in price.
Posted on Reply
#17
BorisDG
Guys, I think all of us here still have two kidneys.. am I right? :D Well this is about to change. :D
Posted on Reply
#18
bug
BorisDG said:
Guys, I think all of us here have still two kidneys.. am I right? :D
Generalizations are bad. Have you seen how many users here own SLI/Crossfire setups with exotic cooling and several monitors? :D
Posted on Reply
#19
THE_EGG
Ahhhh I was not expecting $3k USD fahk. I need one though o_O
Posted on Reply
#20
Beastie
bug said:
To this day I'm not sure why we're discussing 144Hz refresh rates. To do 144 refreshes a second, a 7ms response time is needed. Across all color (and gray) transitions. No known consumer panel can do that. And I'm pretty sure with only 7ms to do the job, even overdrive doesn't work as well as it does at 60Hz.
Ok, faster panels are supposedly needed (I'm taking people's words for granted, I haven't look at the difference too much), but it would be darn nice if reviewers would take their time, do their measurements and draw a line between what a monitor can do and what the box/manual says it can do.
My monitor will happily do 165hz with no artifacting, no issues whatsoever.

With most games my GPU can't push that many hz at 1440p but that is not the monitor's fault.

If high refresh is not for you, that is your choice. But I would highly recommend you try it for yoursef rather than just write it off out of hand.
Posted on Reply
#21
bug
Beastie said:
My monitor will happily do 165hz with no artifacting, no issues whatsoever.

With most games my GPU can't push that many hz at 1440p but that is not the monitor's fault.

If high refresh is not for you, that is your choice. But I would highly recommend you try it for yoursef rather than just write it off out of hand.
You're the second people that says I have a problem with high refresh, my English must be failing me. I've said it already, high refresh probably has its benefits. It's ridiculous refresh that I have a problem with. You can't tell me a monitor will do 144 (or 165) Hz with no artifacts, when there's no panel that can actually refresh that fast. If there is, please link it, I'd really like to know.
Posted on Reply
#22
Beastie
bug said:
You're the second people that says I have a problem with high refresh, my English must be failing me. I've said it already, high refresh probably has its benefits. It's ridiculous refresh that I have a problem with. You can't tell me a monitor will do 144 (or 165) Hz with no artifacts, when there's no panel that can actually refresh that fast. If there is, please link it, I'd really like to know.
I'm sitting in front of the monitor now.. the monitor's model number is in my specs, feel free to google reviews of it.

P.S. the refresh is only listed as 144hz in Acer's specs, but mine is the revised model which "overclocks" to 165

Edit- here you go http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm#response_times
Posted on Reply
#23
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
SetsunaFZero said:
without G-Sync this monitor would probably be 500 bucks less expensive
I wouldn't pay $2500 for a monitor without G-Sync.
Posted on Reply
#24
windwhirl
Manu_PT said:
After using 240hz for months 144hz seems laggy and full of blur lol

If you want my advice, never ever buy 240hz monitor, it will ruin your experience with any inferior refresh monitor! Your brain/eyes get used to ultra smoothness ecen on windows desktop
Okay, I'll keep my vintage 1080p 60 Hz monitor, then
:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#25
Slizzo
Apparently we're all dumb for purchasing 144hz+ refresh rate monitors and using them to game on etc.

I'd like to know what all those pro gamers think of the whole higher refresh rate monitors being smoke and mirrors. I am willing to wager that they actually notice a big difference from the 240Hz monitors to a bog standard 60Hz or 100Hz panel.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment