4K, 144Hz G-Sync HDR Monitors May be Coming Next Month

[DooKey]

I know a lot of gamers have been waiting for some good news from Nvidia when it comes to 4K, 144Hz G-Sync HDR monitors. According to PCWorld, the wait is almost over. Sources at GDC confirmed that monitors should launch next month and we'll finally get some much needed 144Hz G-Sync HDR love in 4K flavors. Of course this means that we'll need some awesome new video cards to really push these monitors and we can always hope that Nvidia is holding out on us and plans to release new cards soon. I for one welcome our new 4K, 144Hz, G-Sync HDR monitor overlords.

Nvidia is “confident” that the first 4K G-Sync HDR displays will launch in April, the company told Anandtech during a GDC meeting. PCWorld sources in the monitor industry confirmed a similar time frame.

 

[Azphira]

So they are selling us cans of food with no can opener?

 

[Elf_Boy]

Like so many other things in life I need to know how many inches before I am interested.

Monitors really are (for me anyways) all about size.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Needs to be 32"-34" 16:9, and the HDR if FALD had better be damn good. Cheap FALD is just ugly.

 

[Dan_D]

Like so many other things in life I need to know how many inches before I am interested.

Monitors really are (for me anyways) all about size.

Exactly. If they aren't 40" or larger I'm not interested.

 

[NickJames]

ASUS is supposed to be coming out with 4K 200Hz HDR Ultrawide panels this year. This is what I am waiting for.

 

[dR.Jester]

and $1,000+ video cards to power them!

 

[Dan_D]

ASUS is supposed to be coming out with 4K 200Hz HDR Ultrawide panels this year. This is what I am waiting for.

Knowing ASUS, it will be 32" or 34" wide only. That is insufficient.

 

[Trinode]

and $1,000+ video cards to power them!

Maybe (2) Titan V's in SLI would do the trick. Or (3) 1080 Ti's

 

[Kdawg]

so what are they using? hdmi 2.1? or dual displayport?

They need to get shit out faster. hdmi 2.0 took 5+ years to become mainstream.

 

[drutman]

Funny even the titan tensor bad boy reviewed above barely hits 60 FPS on some modern titles. I'll pass.

 

[Accursed]

Knowing ASUS, it will be 32" or 34" wide only. That is insufficient.

The models they link in the article are 27"

 

[Accursed]

Maybe (2) Titan V's in SLI would do the trick. Or (3) 1080 Ti's

SLI support can be so bad. I'm thinking a monitor to grow into. Maybe for GTX2080ti or GTX3080ti.

 

[Dan_D]

The models they link in the article are 27"

Figures. ASUS has had a hard on for 27"-32" monitors forever. It doesn't seem to recognize that some of us want larger format displays.

 

[BSmith]

Hard for me to blame ASUS for those panel sizes. They are in a very competitive market where those panel sizes are available from a couple of suppliers and are pretty low cost, compared to larger panels. I would call it a decent business decision by ASUS, if they want to maintain a high volumn of sales.

Larger, more expensive panels mean lower sales. That's my spin on it.

If I still gamed, I would be happy with a 32" monitor with 3K resolution. Sooo,...this is a bit "meh!" for me.

 

[dgz]

When will people learn with nvidia. It's ALWAYS something proprietary and it's always crap but no - it's exclusive, so it must be great.

 

[Armenius]

Hard for me to blame ASUS for those panel sizes. They are in a very competitive market where those panel sizes are available from a couple of suppliers and are pretty low cost, compared to larger panels. I would call it a decent business decision by ASUS, if they want to maintain a high volumn of sales.

Larger, more expensive panels mean lower sales. That's my spin on it.

If I still gamed, I would be happy with a 32" monitor with 3K resolution. Sooo,...this is a bit "meh!" for me.

You can't blame ASUS at all. Both ASUS and Acer use the same panel sourced from AU Optronics, so blame them.

 

[Chimpee]

Exactly. If they aren't 40" or larger I'm not interested.

Guess have to wait for big format display for 40+ inch.

 

[Chimpee]

Needs to be 32"-34" 16:9, and the HDR if FALD had better be damn good. Cheap FALD is just ugly.

Should be FALD, at minimum 384 light zone for the new HDR panels. Don't know if their higher end monitors will have 512 light zones.

 

[Denpepe]

Figures. ASUS has had a hard on for 27"-32" monitors forever. It doesn't seem to recognize that some of us want larger format displays.

Nvidia did show off those 4k 65 inch ones not that long ago, that should be big enough for most I guess. No idea when they come out though.

 

[Armenius]

Should be FALD, at minimum 384 light zone for the new HDR panels. Don't know if their higher end monitors will have 512 light zones.

These will have 384 zones. The Big Fucking Gaming Displays had 512 at CES, but we don't know if that is final. It is if they are to come out in the 2H this year like NVIDIA wants.

 

[oldmanbal]

Honestly this is the closest I've ever come to replacing my FW-900 as my main pc twitch gaming monitor. I've returned and resold so many lcd/led monitors over the years that can't hold a candle to premium CRTs from 15+ years ago that I almost gave up. Only way to know is to sit one on my desktop and give it a month.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

This is a great development, and hopefully it will drive more models.

I won't be buying these though.

Both the Asus and Acer models are only 27", and IMHO that is WAY too small for 4k.

4k only starts making sense over 40"

If someone makes one of these in the 40"-44" range, I'll replace my 48" Samsung JS9000 immediately.

 

[Nookie420]

Like so many other things in life I need to know how many inches before I am interested.

Monitors really are (for me anyways) all about size.

Exactly. If they aren't 40" or larger I'm not interested.

Knowing ASUS, it will be 32" or 34" wide only. That is insufficient.

The models they link in the article are 27"

Yup. I'm gaming on a budget display, Samsung k40" 4K ku6300. It's a very good display for $350.

While I have wanted to step up to a 120+ Hz display, there is no way I would trade off 12+ inches for 60+hz.

40" 4K is way to awesome to ever go back to 27" or even 30" for that matter.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Should be FALD, at minimum 384 light zone for the new HDR panels. Don't know if their higher end monitors will have 512 light zones.

Main problem is that I got a 55" LG OLED from a Newegg fire sale this year, and well, that's a rough comparison point for FALD!

512 zones? My TV has a 'zone' for every one of its 8.3 million pixels! /s, mostly...

But yeah, it'll have to be effective. At least HDR standards also imply some level of calibration and proper spectrum coverage too.

 

[JosiahBradley]

I'm plenty happy at 1440p@144. What I want is my 1080 ti to support freesync, which my monitor has. I don't want to spend additional monies that could go towards a higher end video card upgrade or even better monitor on the G-sync module when the technology has been figured out to do it without one. I will gladly pay the gsync tax towards a 1180/2080 ti whatever if it was built in.

 

[Sancus]

The biggest question is whether the FALD can be used in SDR mode. If not, forget about it. There are something like <30 TOTAL games that support HDR on PC and a lot have underwhelming implementations. The price for this thing has always been rumored to be $2000+ and if you want to buy specialized hardware purely for an HDR experience you're better off with an OLED TV and a PS4 Pro.

Now, if the FALD DOES work in SDR mode, the price is more like $1500, and they have the super laggy haloing from the Dell and Asus FALD monitors under better control with this thing, it could be a fantastic display.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Yup. I'm gaming on a budget display, Samsung k40" 4K ku6300. It's a very good display for $350.

While I have wanted to step up to a 120+ Hz display, there is no way I would trade off 12+ inches for 60+hz.

40" 4K is way to awesome to ever go back to 27" or even 30" for that matter.

Couldn't agree more (though I paid WAY more for my 48" Samsung JS9000)

The fact that th eonly models available at least at launch are 27" completely kills it for me.

IMHO, my 48" is a little bit on the large side. I think it would be absolutely perfect if it were between 42" and 44"

Make either of these two screens with the identical specs, but in the 42-44" range, and I'll buy one immediately at launch. Make one anywhere else in the 40-48" range, and I'll consider it very carefully, and probably buy it./

 

[Accursed]

IMHO, my 48" is a little bit on the large side. I think it would be absolutely perfect if it were between 42" and 44"

Make either of these two screens with the identical specs, but in the 42-44" range, and I'll buy one immediately at launch. Make one anywhere else in the 40-48" range, and I'll consider it very carefully, and probably buy it./

I currently game on a 27", 1440p 144hz g-sync. Briefly went to a 35" ultrawide but didn't care for it so back to my 27". I sit about two feet away from my monitor, I cant imagine anything bigger than even a 32" on a desk without it just being too big. I assume your sitting across the room? Or not at a desk?

And as other have pointed out, their Big Format Gaming TVs will be out soon, 4k 140hz 65" g-sync, etc etc. Cant imagine how much those are gonna be.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

I don't want to spend additional monies that could go towards a higher end video card upgrade or even better monitor on the G-sync module when the technology has been figured out to do it without one.

Well, it hasn't been. FreeSync is still inferior to G-Sync, and FreeSync 2 which purports to mostly close the gap will require G-Sync-like hardware to do so.

Nvidia solved this problem from the beginning, and FreeSync was a halfassed attempt to do 'something'. It also happens to be cheap, but that's really all that FreeSync 1 has going for it.


[Now, in theory, Nvidia could support DP Adaptive Sync and the additional signaling features that AMD has added, but then they'd have to put up with the wide range of poor FreeSync implementations...]

 

[XoR_]

As expensive as it is this the only upgrade path for me.

After all selling drugs was always an option, just till now did not feel the real need to do it...

 

[ScuNioN]

Eh 4k, what does it get you for gaming?

This is my order of needs in a monitor:

Frame rate > 3D vision > Cost > Better color reproduction > Resolution above 1080p

Frame Rate - No reason to go to 4k because you can't keep a consistent 100+ frame rate (if you do you are breaking the bank and dealing with SLI woes). G-sync seems like a failure here also, if you want to keep frame rate over 100 then why do you need G-sync? It is terribly hard to drive 4k, why not just accept 1080p for higher consistent frame rate?

3D Vision - Like now, it's there and it is supported and totally changes how you play games so much that I don't want to play well supported titles any other way. You might say VR / AR is the next thing but both of those don't have depth cues like 3D Vision. Compare a VR racing title experience with a 3D Vision one, no contest.

Color Reproduction - 6 bit dithering sucks (TN panels), 8 bit is better but where is the HDR?

I held on to my FW-900 for ages, swapped to some HP IPS 19x12 goodness then finally to a 24" Acer that supported 3D Vision then to the bigger brother 27" Acer 3D Vision. 3D Vision truly is worth every penny for single player gaming.

IMHO monitor tech has been jerking off for the past decade when it comes to the gaming arena. There has been no revolutionary gaming monitor technology. All of the new tech still does not beat CRT if you compared apples to apples on refresh, delay, gamut, and so many other stats.

 

[memememe]

cant wait

 

[Twisted Kidney]

When dual 4K 144Hz VR headsets are available (and attainable + functional) the game will completely change.

 

[Elf_Boy]

Knowing ASUS, it will be 32" or 34" wide only. That is insufficient.

I have a curved 48 on my main machine now. 4k is very nice. My MMO's and whatever else I feel like playing look very nice. Taking up the refresh rate and/or getting some adaptive sync is nifty - expanding the color pallet would be awesome, I suppose 10 bit is too much to wish for? How does the 25% in crease of data per frame affect the whole system?

I'm kinda excited about the new monitors while at the same time prepared to be disappointed.

 

[Spidey329]

Of course this means that we'll need some awesome new video cards to really push these monitors

"We have moved on from the supply chain story. Instead, we're going to focus on making sure our suppliers have a difficult time supplying anything else. A story that we're also moving on from, so I'd like to thank you for not asking. Now, go f*** yourself." - Nvidia probably

 

[Parja]

I currently game on a 27", 1440p 144hz g-sync. Briefly went to a 35" ultrawide but didn't care for it so back to my 27". I sit about two feet away from my monitor, I cant imagine anything bigger than even a 32" on a desk without it just being too big. I assume your sitting across the room? Or not at a desk?

Nope, at a desk and about three-ish feet away.

Remember, your monitor and a 40" 4k have almost exactly the same PPI.

 

[Derangel]

Couldn't agree more (though I paid WAY more for my 48" Samsung JS9000)

The fact that th eonly models available at least at launch are 27" completely kills it for me.

IMHO, my 48" is a little bit on the large side. I think it would be absolutely perfect if it were between 42" and 44"

Make either of these two screens with the identical specs, but in the 42-44" range, and I'll buy one immediately at launch. Make one anywhere else in the 40-48" range, and I'll consider it very carefully, and probably buy it./

Yeah. I've got a 43" TV for my gaming needs. Its almost perfect on my desk. I'd actually love to replace my 24" secondary with another 43" screen. That would be perfect.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Knowing ASUS, it will be 32" or 34" wide only. That is insufficient.

The article links to the only two models being launched, one by Acer and one by Asus. Both are 27". I'm going to go ahead and make an educated guess that they are using the same panel, as the global supply chain isn't exactly overflowing with high refresh rate 4k panels.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Eh 4k, what does it get you for gaming?

This is my order of needs in a monitor:

Frame rate > 3D vision > Cost > Better color reproduction > Resolution above 1080p

Frame Rate - No reason to go to 4k because you can't keep a consistent 100+ frame rate (if you do you are breaking the bank and dealing with SLI woes). G-sync seems like a failure here also, if you want to keep frame rate over 100 then why do you need G-sync? It is terribly hard to drive 4k, why not just accept 1080p for higher consistent frame rate?

3D Vision - Like now, it's there and it is supported and totally changes how you play games so much that I don't want to play well supported titles any other way. You might say VR / AR is the next thing but both of those don't have depth cues like 3D Vision. Compare a VR racing title experience with a 3D Vision one, no contest.

Color Reproduction - 6 bit dithering sucks (TN panels), 8 bit is better but where is the HDR?

I held on to my FW-900 for ages, swapped to some HP IPS 19x12 goodness then finally to a 24" Acer that supported 3D Vision then to the bigger brother 27" Acer 3D Vision. 3D Vision truly is worth every penny for single player gaming.

IMHO monitor tech has been jerking off for the past decade when it comes to the gaming arena. There has been no revolutionary gaming monitor technology. All of the new tech still does not beat CRT if you compared apples to apples on refresh, delay, gamut, and so many other stats.

I guess that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

4k on a large screen is fantastic and very immersive, especially in the large large grand milsims that I enjoy. 3D Vision does nothing for me. Nor does framerate. 60fps is more than sufficient for anything I've ever played. I wouldn't mind having a little bit above 60hz just to give it a little overkill, but 90 hz is maybe as high as I would go. I see absolutely no point to adding multiple cards in SLI while trying to chase 144hz, especially since each extra GPU you add adds input lag