Monday, January 11th 2021

ASUS Teases ROG Gaming Monitors with HDMI 2.1

ASUS teased a new line of Republic of Gamers (ROG) branded gaming monitors that feature HDMI 2.1 connectivity. With 48 Gbps of bandwidth and the latest data-stream compression technologies at hand, HDMI 2.1 enables ASUS to do 4K high refresh-rate monitors, complete with support for 10-bit color, the most feature-rich HDR implementations, G-SYNC, FreeSync Premium, and other variable refresh-rate technologies, and lots more. HDMI 2.1 can herald resolution configurations such as 5K 120 Hz and 8K 60 Hz; we also predict the likes of 4K 175 Hz, or 1440p 360 Hz. Currently, NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 30-series "Ampere" and AMD Radeon RX 6000 "Big Navi" graphics cards support HDMI 2.1. We'll learn more during ASUS CES event.
Add your own comment

11 Comments on ASUS Teases ROG Gaming Monitors with HDMI 2.1

#1
watzupken
Wow. But I wonder how much will it cost considering the Asus premium + the >10% price increase they recently announced. While that applies to GPU and motherboard, I am not surprise that they will do the same with monitors.
Posted on Reply
#3
Valantar
About time. Now to see if it'll still be cheaper to buy a 55" LG CX and sit 10 feet away from it with 400% resolution scaling on the desktop.

Edit: two observations:
-That's an Xbox 360 controller. Way to use 10+-year-old stock images, Asus!
-That central monitor is weirdly tall. I assume they aren't launching a 16:10 or 4:3 HDMI 2.1 gaming monitor, so that's some rather questionable photoshop decisions they've made there.
Posted on Reply
#4
Vayra86
Valantar
About time. Now to see if it'll still be cheaper to buy a 55" LG CX and sit 10 feet away from it with 400% resolution scaling on the desktop.

Edit: two observations:
-That's an Xbox 360 controller. Way to use 10+-year-old stock images, Asus!
-That central monitor is weirdly tall. I assume they aren't launching a 16:10 or 4:3 HDMI 2.1 gaming monitor, so that's some rather questionable photoshop decisions they've made there.
On point nr 2 you might be surprised, I can imagine that's an ultrawide next to a 16:10, possibly
Posted on Reply
#5
goodeedidid
Can't wait for the Alienware series.. I think they make the best gaming monitors.
Posted on Reply
#6
Valantar
Vayra86
On point nr 2 you might be surprised, I can imagine that's an ultrawide next to a 16:10, possibly
It might be, but I sincerely doubt it. Didn't Asus already tease their HDMI 2.1 monitors like half a year ago? That post mentioned 27", 32" and 43" monitors, none of which are normal panel sizes for 21:9 or 32:9 monitors, so I'm betting they're all 16:9 UHD, just with some overeager use of the Photoshop transform tool to make whatever individual product PR renders they had lying around conform into something like a useable composition for a group shot.

If pricing is okay, that 32" would be mighty tempting. Though knowing Asus, pricing definitely won't be okay.
Posted on Reply
#7
tomc100
Won't buy any new monitor unless it has hdmi 2.1 or displayport 2.0.
Posted on Reply
#8
photonboy
Valantar
About time. Now to see if it'll still be cheaper to buy a 55" LG CX and sit 10 feet away from it with 400% resolution scaling on the desktop.

Edit: two observations:
-That's an Xbox 360 controller. Way to use 10+-year-old stock images, Asus!
-That central monitor is weirdly tall. I assume they aren't launching a 16:10 or 4:3 HDMI 2.1 gaming monitor, so that's some rather questionable photoshop decisions they've made there.
If the screen is larger you just sit a proportionately larger distance away and keep the same scaling for the desktop.
For example, on my 27", 2560x1440 monitor I use 125% scaling. If you used 200% scaling on a 27", 4K monitor then you'd still use 200% scaling on a 55", 4K screen if you sat double the distance which is ideally about the same as the diagonal or slightly less for a 16:9 monitor... so FOUR FEET is probably ideal for a 55" HDTV acting as a monitor though obviously that's not practical as it's too close for a TV (usually) and too far for a computer screen as your desk isn't that wide usually.
(sure, you need 400% scaling if you sit ten feet away from a 55" screen likely but then you defeat the purpose of getting a high resolution screen largely as the human eye would have a hard time getting much benefit from those extra pixels at that distance.)

HDTV vs MONITOR:
Just FYI, but it can be more expensive to make SMALLER screens compared to larger screens. That's why some monitors that are similar to HDTV's in most respects might cost more and come later to the market.
Posted on Reply
#9
Vayra86
Valantar
so I'm betting they're all 16:9 UHD, just with some overeager use of the Photoshop transform tool to make whatever individual product PR renders they had lying around conform into something like a useable composition for a group shot.
That does sound a lot more plausible :D
Posted on Reply
#10
Valantar
photonboy
If the screen is larger you just sit a proportionately larger distance away and keep the same scaling for the desktop.
For example, on my 27", 2560x1440 monitor I use 125% scaling. If you used 200% scaling on a 27", 4K monitor then you'd still use 200% scaling on a 55", 4K screen if you sat double the distance which is ideally about the same as the diagonal or slightly less for a 16:9 monitor... so FOUR FEET is probably ideal for a 55" HDTV acting as a monitor though obviously that's not practical as it's too close for a TV (usually) and too far for a computer screen as your desk isn't that wide usually.
(sure, you need 400% scaling if you sit ten feet away from a 55" screen likely but then you defeat the purpose of getting a high resolution screen largely as the human eye would have a hard time getting much benefit from those extra pixels at that distance.)

HDTV vs MONITOR:
Just FYI, but it can be more expensive to make SMALLER screens compared to larger screens. That's why some monitors that are similar to HDTV's in most respects might cost more and come later to the market.
You have a penchant for stating the obvious, it seems. It's widely known that smaller (and lower volume) premium displays are far more expensive than their high-volume large size counterparts. And I never mentioned changing scaling as a function of both screen size and viewing distance, just that having the display further away necessitates higher scaling at a give size and resolution at any given size. Pixel density and thus perceived resolution is a function of actual resolution and the field of view taken up by the display after all, the latter of which is largely down to panel size and viewing distance, so in theory scaling can be kept at the same level for any two displays of the same resolution but any size as long as viewing distance is adjusted accordingly. My HTPC is set to 250% scaling, which I find comfortable and usable at ~10 feet, 55" display size and UHD resolution.

As for using a 55" display at four feet? No thanks. That would make something like 3/4 of the screen essentially useless, as you'd need to crane your neck to see anything on it. That's a recipe for neck and back problems. Just as an example, the THX recommendation for movie viewing (which mostly assumes a focal point at the centre of the display, with edges relegated to peripheral vision, unlike PC monitors which are typically actively used across the majority of their surface), a 4-foot viewing distance would mean a 36" recommended panel size. For a 55" display size, the recommended THX viewing distance is 6 feet. Factoring in the different use cases of PCs vs. movie watching, even 6 feet for a 55" monitor would be an ergonomic nightmare, and would make the vast majority of the panel essentially useless as you wouldn't be able to use more than a tiny portion of it at a time. Humans are able to keep roughly a 5-8° field of view in focus at any time, and comfortable eye movement expands that a little, but nowhere near the 53° of a 55" display at 4' (even if our total field of view is ~210°). That means that you'd need to actively move your head to even be able to perceive what is actually going on on the rest of the display. Use cases like that work in highly dynamic workflows (where a lot of data needs sporadic monitoring) or highly static workflows (where work is done on one area for a while, then moves on to another, like in multi-monitor setups), or where the peripheral areas can be used for peripheral, non-specific information (colored labels indicating various data, etc.). For gaming? It would be terrible, as you'd need to rapidly move your head around to both gain an overview of the field of play as well as simple tasks like monitoring the GUI. A few hours of that and your neck muscles would be hurting badly. That's why I said 10' for a 55" panel - as that results in a 22.6° field of view coverage for the panel, which makes it relatively accessible. 8-10' would likely be fine, with 6' good for movies but not gaming or work, and 4' essentially unusable for anything unless you're happy treating the monitor as if it's a multi-screen setup where only a small portion is used at a time.



Seems like we have some more details on the 32" one, which is called the PG32UQ (no pricing, NA availability in Q2):
www.engadget.com/asus-rog-swift-pg32uq-4k-120hz-gaming-monitor-184020493.html

32" HDR600, 98% P3, 120Hz HDMI 2.1/144Hz DP 1.4 DSC

It's probably going to be ridiculously expensive, but I still want one. Looks pretty much exactly like what I want in my next monitor.
Posted on Reply
#11
photonboy
Valantar
You have a penchant for stating the obvious, it seems. It's widely known that smaller (and lower volume) premium displays are far more expensive than their high-volume large size counterparts. And I never mentioned changing scaling as a function of both screen size and viewing distance, just that having the display further away necessitates higher scaling at a give size and resolution at any given size. Pixel density and thus perceived resolution is a function of actual resolution and the field of view taken up by the display after all, the latter of which is largely down to panel size and viewing distance, so in theory scaling can be kept at the same level for any two displays of the same resolution but any size as long as viewing distance is adjusted accordingly. My HTPC is set to 250% scaling, which I find comfortable and usable at ~10 feet, 55" display size and UHD resolution.

As for using a 55" display at four feet? No thanks. That would make something like 3/4 of the screen essentially useless, as you'd need to crane your neck to see anything on it. That's a recipe for neck and back problems. Just as an example, the THX recommendation for movie viewing (which mostly assumes a focal point at the centre of the display, with edges relegated to peripheral vision, unlike PC monitors which are typically actively used across the majority of their surface), a 4-foot viewing distance would mean a 36" recommended panel size. For a 55" display size, the recommended THX viewing distance is 6 feet. Factoring in the different use cases of PCs vs. movie watching, even 6 feet for a 55" monitor would be an ergonomic nightmare, and would make the vast majority of the panel essentially useless as you wouldn't be able to use more than a tiny portion of it at a time. Humans are able to keep roughly a 5-8° field of view in focus at any time, and comfortable eye movement expands that a little, but nowhere near the 53° of a 55" display at 4' (even if our total field of view is ~210°). That means that you'd need to actively move your head to even be able to perceive what is actually going on on the rest of the display. Use cases like that work in highly dynamic workflows (where a lot of data needs sporadic monitoring) or highly static workflows (where work is done on one area for a while, then moves on to another, like in multi-monitor setups), or where the peripheral areas can be used for peripheral, non-specific information (colored labels indicating various data, etc.). For gaming? It would be terrible, as you'd need to rapidly move your head around to both gain an overview of the field of play as well as simple tasks like monitoring the GUI. A few hours of that and your neck muscles would be hurting badly. That's why I said 10' for a 55" panel - as that results in a 22.6° field of view coverage for the panel, which makes it relatively accessible. 8-10' would likely be fine, with 6' good for movies but not gaming or work, and 4' essentially unusable for anything unless you're happy treating the monitor as if it's a multi-screen setup where only a small portion is used at a time.



Seems like we have some more details on the 32" one, which is called the PG32UQ (no pricing, NA availability in Q2):
www.engadget.com/asus-rog-swift-pg32uq-4k-120hz-gaming-monitor-184020493.html

32" HDR600, 98% P3, 120Hz HDMI 2.1/144Hz DP 1.4 DSC

It's probably going to be ridiculously expensive, but I still want one. Looks pretty much exactly like what I want in my next monitor.
Wow.
No need to throw a hissy fit. My point about sitting at four feet from a 55", 4K screen was that it's EXACTLY where most people would sit if using it as a computer monitor which is what this thread was about. I'm sitting about TWO FEET from my 27", 1440p monitor and I find this perfect... this thread is about a GAMING MONITOR and since you mentioned "desktop" and "resolution scaling" I assumed you were using the HDTV as a gaming monitor but still I mentioned it wouldn't be ideal if using it more as a TV.

If you prefer to sit way further back than I do then fine. Not sure why you need to get all upset about my comments.

So if you think TEN FEET is ideal to sit from a screen that is meant to replace a gaming monitor then you must also think FIVE FEET is the ideal distance to sit from a 27" screen?

Suit yourself, and have a nice day.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment