Asus 43" 4k vs Acer 43" 4k

Zarathustra[H]

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
37,427
I started wanting to discuss the comparison of these two as of yet unreleased screens, but realized that didn't fall cleanly into either Omegaferrari 's thread on the Asus ROG XG438Q here, or Vega or Skott 's threads on the Acer Predator CG437K P here and here respectively.

Since they are both 4K (3840x2160) in resolution, 43" in size, and have refresh rates above 100hz they are begging for a head to head comparison.

A summary:

Asus ROG XG438Q:
Resolution: 3840x2160
Size: 43"
Panel Type: VA
Screen Surface: AG Coating
Max Refresh Rate: 120hz
Adaptive Refresh Standard: FreeSync 2 HDR
Refresh Range: 48hz-120hz
HDR Standard: DisplayHDR 600 with Localized Dimming
Image Processing: 10 bit
Connections: Three HDMI 2.0 and one Displayport
Other Features: Low Framerate Compensation (Automatic Interpolation at low framerates), Picture in Picture, Built in 10W speakers, Eye Comfort Certification (ensuring low blue light output and flicker-free operation, which presumably means no PWM for light dimming)
Price: UNKNOWN
Availability: UNKNOWN


Acer Predator CG437K P:
Resolution: 3840x2160
Size: 43"
Panel Type: VA
Screen Surface: UNKNOWN
Max Refresh Rate: 144hz
Adaptive Refresh Standard: AdaptiveSync
Refresh Range: UNKNOWN
HDR Standard: DisplayHDR 1000 with Localized Dimming
Image Processing: 10 bit
Connections: 3x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort and 1x USB type-C
Other Features: Light Sensor for brightness, Motion Sensor Wake from sleep, Remote control
Price: $1,200 (US), EUR 1,499.00
Availability: September



I'll update the above as more details become available.

As I see it right now, the Acer has the edge in HDR standard and max refresh rate, and hits the market in September at a fairly reasonable $1,200 USD. It lacks some details thus far regarding frame rate range, any interpolation technologies, as well as anything regarding eye comfort, and if it is shiny or has an AG coating, which the Asus all spells out. The Asus on the other hand as of yet does not have a release date or price associated with it.

So much of this actually depends on seeing the screen in action, as well as getting some test results, but even so, which is your favorite thus far and why?

I'm definitely buying one of these when they become available, unless a third alternative pops up by then. This is the size, resolution and feature set I've been craving for some time.
 
Last edited:
I second your opinion. I'm on a 40 inch screen now, 43 is still a nice size, if the local dimming and response time is on point, I'll be going with the Acer.
 
The Acer is definitely looking good so far. I read that the Asus may debut at $1600, but I'm not sure that has been confirmed.

Sure would be nice to know the refresh range on the Acer.
 
Has anyone owned any older high refresh rate displays from both ASUS and Acer? To me Acer has always been more of a budget brand whereas ASUS's high refresh rate implementations have been quite competent in my experience. I may be just biased but to me the Acer screams "one-upmanship" where they try to make it seem better on paper by having higher refresh rate and better HDR.

I really like the picture by picture and picture in picture options in the ASUS. I've been waiting for the display to come out since it was revealed because it would solve my issues working from home where now I have a single DP connector ASUS PG278Q so I have to use my work laptop without an external screen because there are no KVMs afaik that would work properly with G-Sync, 144 Hz etc. I think the XG438Q would be fantastic for showing two computer displays at once on such a big screen, making the large size more palatable to me at least. I certainly hope it comes out before September.

The Acer has its perks too though. DisplayHDR 1000 and slightly higher refresh rate. While I don't really care too much about 120 vs 144 Hz since IMO it's not a big difference, the difference in HDR could be. It's still unknown if its adaptive sync will work as well as ASUS and whether ASUS has just been more honest about the specs as there are for example 165 Hz displays where the panel response time can't quite keep up and they perform better at 120 or 144 Hz.
 
I'm really looking forward to these two monitors. The Acer in particular. $1200 is much cheaper than I thought it would be. Not that $1200 is cheap. That's pricey for many gamers out there as is $1600. HDR isnt as important to me as a higher Hz is but that's just me. On the other hand I get irritated with the fake HDR (400nit,600nit, etc.,) many manufacturers are trying to pass onto us consumers. Until we see actual benches though everything is purely speculation. Personally I'd like to see both Acer and Asus hit something out of the ball park with these two monitors.
 
Skott said:
I'm really looking forward to these two monitors. The Acer in particular. $1200 is much cheaper than I thought it would be. Not that $1200 is cheap. That's pricey for many gamers out there as is $1600. HDR isnt as important to me as a higher Hz is but that's just me. On the other hand I get irritated with the fake HDR (400nit,600nit, etc.,) many manufacturers are trying to pass onto us consumers. Until we see actual benches though everything is purely speculation. Personally I'd like to see both Acer and Asus hit something out of the ball park with these two monitors.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Personally I think I'm leaning towards Asus right now, but there are so many details we don't know about both of them. I like the fact that they are advertising comfort factors like reduced flicker, and AG coating. Their low framerate auto-interpolation seems interesting too, but it remains to be seen, as I would expect that to introduce a ton of lag. If I had to choose between low-lag and smoothness, I'd choose low lag every time. I also have greater confidence in Asus doing this right. As kasakka mentioned above, I'm just not as confident in Acer, but I am hoping I wind up proven wrong. The top level refresh rate (120hz vs 144hz) I see as little more than marketing gobbeldygook. I'm probably not going to spend much time over 75hz anyway at 4k resolutions. Those GPU's just don't exist yet, and won't for many years to come. More important to me is the AdaptiveSync/FreeSync performance at low (50hz-75hz) refresh rates

I am just thrilled that this size and resolution are finally getting the AdaptiveSync/FreeSync treatment. I have long considered 43" the perfect size for 4k. I am currently using a 2015 Samsung JS9000 at 48". it is a little on the large side, and has no adaptive sync so its all vsync at 60hz all day. I'd like something slightly smaller (43" would be perfect) but there is no way I can go back to the smaller screens I used in the past.

I'm hoping this announcement from Acer puts the pressure on Asus and convinces them to come down from the rumored $1,600 price point. I'm guessing Asus probably thought they were entering a niche with this monitor, and they'd have that space to themselves and could charge a greater margin as a result. Competition always benefits the consumer!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skott
like this
Agree very much with both of you. I think that the Asus has the potential to be the superior product, and I can see them nailing this implementation. I've never considered Acer to be a premium product...not that this particular monitor couldn't be awesome, but all else being equal I'd expect the Asus to edge it out.

It'll all depend on the final specs, quality control, and, of course, price. I think that many of us would be willing to pay a couple hundred more for the Asus if it ends up being the better of the two, but if it turns out to be a $400 difference then we may have to weigh things a little more closely and see what exactly the compromises are (if any) with the Acer. The Acer primarily interested me from a price and HDR perspective, but if I'm honest I have more faith in Asus being able to deliver the better end product. I concur that after 120Hz you get diminishing returns, so that part's a wash for me anyway.

LG needs to get into this space ASAP because they're doing some pretty awesome things with their 32" and ultrawide monitor lineup. I also wouldn't mind seeing something from Dell/Alienware. Who knows, maybe this 43" high refresh gaming sector will pick up steam and competition will benefit us all. We can certainly hope!
 
I agree Asus will probably do it better. They are more capable of doing it. I also think its great we finally are seeing some better competition in the 43" size market. Good things are happening on that front now. I would pay a few hundred dollars more for a better product but that's just me. I have the ability to pay it. Hopefully though competition will drive down price so many of my fellow gamers can benefit as well.
 
Lateralus said:
Agree very much with both of you. I think that the Asus has the potential to be the superior product, and I can see them nailing this implementation. I've never considered Acer to be a premium product...not that this particular monitor couldn't be awesome, but all else being equal I'd expect the Asus to edge it out.

It'll all depend on the final specs, quality control, and, of course, price. I think that many of us would be willing to pay a couple hundred more for the Asus if it ends up being the better of the two, but if it turns out to be a $400 difference then we may have to weigh things a little more closely and see what exactly the compromises are (if any) with the Acer. The Acer primarily interested me from a price and HDR perspective, but if I'm honest I have more faith in Asus being able to deliver the better end product. I concur that after 120Hz you get diminishing returns, so that part's a wash for me anyway.

LG needs to get into this space ASAP because they're doing some pretty awesome things with their 32" and ultrawide monitor lineup. I also wouldn't mind seeing something from Dell/Alienware. Who knows, maybe this 43" high refresh gaming sector will pick up steam and competition will benefit us all. We can certainly hope!
Click to expand...


I think you hit it spot on. If each model winds up performing and comparing sortof how I expect, I would not be opposed to paying $100-$200 more for the Asus. If they price it $400 more, I'd have to think longer and harder about it.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I think you hit it spot on. If each model winds up performing and comparing sortof how I expect, I would not be opposed to paying $100-$200 more for the Asus. If they price it $400 more, I'd have to think longer and harder about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah. For me it's not about having the ability to pay for it, I just typically approach purchases seeking the best value for my dollars spent. That's why I don't have a 2080Ti in my PC. The return on investment, to me, wasn't worth a $500 premium over what I paid for my 1080Ti and I didn't want to support the practice of such obscene launch prices.

If the Asus is $400 more and the only practical difference is that (for example) it has a slightly broader refresh range, I'd probably buy the Acer. However, if the Asus is $400 more and it has a wider refresh range, less backlight bleed, no PWM while the Acer does have it, etc. then it'd be the Asus without question.

But of course, all of this discussion on specs and pricing is largely theoretical at this point so there's no use going too deeply into the rabbit hole until we get more info.
 
You can't trust Acer. They're bottom of the barrel in terms of customer support and quality control. They have a proven history of shipping broken products that just flat out didn't work to spec. Fuck that.
 
bigbluefe said:
You can't trust Acer. They're bottom of the barrel in terms of customer support and quality control. They have a proven history of shipping broken products that just flat out didn't work to spec. Fuck that.
Click to expand...

I don't know, my x34 has been working fine for years now, however there is a real chance the Asus will be better in regards to build quality over the Acer.
 
Well at least Acer is trying. That is more than many of the other manufacturers are doing.
 
Asus has done better historically but Acer has some edge here in raw specs.
Would also point out from first hand experience that Asus support sucked the last few times I used it. I don’t trust either brand that much.
Also VA panel with non Nvidia developed backlight dimming - I would definitely wait for reviews.
 
sethk said:
Also VA panel with non Nvidia developed backlight dimming - I would definitely wait for reviews.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not too concerned by this.

I don't consider any kind of light dimming to be important. Whichever model I get, I'll check it out, and if I don't like it, I'll just disable any light dimming. Who needs it?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Honestly, I'm not too concerned by this.

I don't consider any kind of light dimming to be important. Whichever model I get, I'll check it out, and if I don't like it, I'll just disable any light dimming. Who needs it?
Click to expand...

anyone who wants HDR does :)
 
Really interested to see reviews on the Acer model. Also very happy that it sounds like it will be using 2 1.4 displayports to run it so there won't be any compression issues. Even the new Samsung 49" ultrawide has to drop down to 4:2:2 to run full res on 120 hz. This will do 4k at 144hz at 4:4:4

Add in hdr 1000 and this seems like the clear monitor to beat at this point, especially at the potentially reported price of $1,300.
 
How likely will these monitors have good support for Adaptive Sync at 45-75 Hz where most of my gaming will likely take place? I have a Nvidia 1080 Ti so I know sometimes Freesync support can be iffy with some monitors at lower refresh rates.

Right now I have no idea what I am going to get, a Samsung 40 inch TV I'm using barely lasted a year and has some defective back lighting now. I'm using the TV for my Ps4 Pro and PC and anything above 43 inches is too big. The Samsung Q60 TV would work but my last TV by them failed and the 43 inch model removes the 120 Hz panel and Freesync capability. I'm tempted to get the 34 inch UW LG Freesync 144 Hz monitor on sale right now and just keep using my defective TV for my PS4 Pro since I don't play my PS4 often lol.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Their low framerate auto-interpolation seems interesting too, but it remains to be seen, as I would expect that to introduce a ton of lag. If I had to choose between low-lag and smoothness, I'd choose low lag every time.
Click to expand...
Is this an actual interpolation of frames? Or just the basic driver feature from AMD that doubles the refresh rate when input frames get too low for the panel to run well?
 
Interesting thing is the ASUS has Freesync 2 support, so even thought th HDR specs aren’t as good as the Acer it will be able to use it with adaptive sync. I still have my doubts that the Acer will be a true HDR1000 display at that price point.
 
I wish the HDR1000 one was FALD. It would be worth spending another $300 - $500 for it.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I started wanting to discuss the comparison of these two as of yet unreleased screens, but realized that didn't fall cleanly into either Omegaferrari 's thread on the Asus ROG XG438Q here, or Vega or Skott 's threads on the Acer Predator CG437K P here and here respectively.

Since they are both 4K (3840x2160) in resolution, 43" in size, and have refresh rates above 100hz they are begging for a head to head comparison.

A summary:

Asus ROG XG438Q:
Resolution: 3840x2160
Size: 43"
Panel Type: VA
Screen Surface: AG Coating
Max Refresh Rate: 120hz
Adaptive Refresh Standard: FreeSync 2 HDR
Refresh Range: 48hz-120hz
HDR Standard: DisplayHDR 600 with Localized Dimming
Image Processing: 10 bit
Connections: Three HDMI 2.0 and one Displayport
Other Features: Low Framerate Compensation (Automatic Interpolation at low framerates), Picture in Picture, Built in 10W speakers, Eye Comfort Certification (ensuring low blue light output and flicker-free operation, which presumably means no PWM for light dimming)
Price: UNKNOWN
Availability: UNKNOWN


Acer Predator CG437K P:
Resolution: 3840x2160
Size: 43"
Panel Type: VA
Screen Surface: UNKNOWN
Max Refresh Rate: 144hz
Adaptive Refresh Standard: AdaptiveSync
Refresh Range: UNKNOWN
HDR Standard: DisplayHDR 1000 with Localized Dimming
Image Processing: 10 bit
Connections: 3x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort and 1x USB type-C
Other Features: Light Sensor for brightness, Motion Sensor Wake from sleep, Remote control
Price: $1,200 (US), EUR 1,499.00
Availability: September



I'll update the above as more details become available.

As I see it right now, the Acer has the edge in HDR standard and max refresh rate, and hits the market in September at a fairly reasonable $1,200 USD. It lacks some details thus far regarding frame rate range, any interpolation technologies, as well as anything regarding eye comfort, and if it is shiny or has an AG coating, which the Asus all spells out. The Asus on the other hand as of yet does not have a release date or price associated with it.

So much of this actually depends on seeing the screen in action, as well as getting some test results, but even so, which is your favorite thus far and why?

I'm definitely buying one of these when they become available, unless a third alternative pops up by then. This is the size, resolution and feature set I've been craving for some time.
Click to expand...

Same here. I've literally told ASUS to build this for several years now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Wag said:
Interesting thing is the ASUS has Freesync 2 support, so even thought th HDR specs aren’t as good as the Acer it will be able to use it with adaptive sync. I still have my doubts that the Acer will be a true HDR1000 display at that price point.
Click to expand...


What's "true" HDR-1000 though? It won't have FALD, that's for sure... not at this price point. Acer would be telling everyone by now if it did. I think this is going to use the same back-light solution as the Phllips 436M6VBPAB (also HDR-1000) which had 32 dimming zones. It wasn't a bad monitor by most accounts, and HDR performance was decent.

I do think the Acer is going to have the edge over the Asus, and at a cheaper price point. Not quite sure what Asus' strategy is with the XG438Q... unless they believe their own hype and genuinely think people are going to pay more for an inferior spec monitor. We'll see what reviews say I guess. :watching:

I think we'll be waiting quite some time yet for a high refresh 4K FALD monitor at this size, and when it comes it won't be cheap. If such a monitor could leverage MicroLED tech, we might be on to something pretty special.
 
Last edited:
bananadude said:
What's "true" HDR-1000 though? It won't have FALD, that's for sure... not at this price point. Acer would be telling everyone by now if it did. I think this is going to use the same back-light solution as the Phllips 436M6VBPAB (also HDR-1000) which had 32 dimming zones. It wasn't a bad monitor by most accounts, and HDR performance was decent.

I do think the Acer is going to have the edge over the Asus, and at a cheaper price point. Not quite sure what Asus' strategy is with the XG438Q... unless they believe their own hype and genuinely think people are going to pay more for an inferior spec monitor. We'll see what reviews say I guess. :watching:

I think we'll be waiting quite some time yet for a high refresh 4K FALD monitor at this size, and when it comes it won't be cheap. If such a monitor could leverage MicroLED tech, we might be on to something pretty special.
Click to expand...
Brighter HDR is nice but if you can't use it with adaptive sync does it matter? There aren't many PC games with HDR now, but they're eeking out.
 
1000-nit right in your face is too much anyway. Causes a lot of eye strain on a computer monitor when you are normal distance.
 
I have never seen an HDR solution I liked. Maybe I've just never seen a good one?

I usually just disable any local dimming settings and use a static backlight. I feel like it looks better than even the most expensive dynamic backlighting solutions.
 
Last edited:
EniGmA1987 said:
1000-nit right in your face is too much anyway. Causes a lot of eye strain on a computer monitor when you are normal distance.
Click to expand...


That's not how it works. You will never have 1000-nits across the entirety of the display, only very tiny parts, specular highlights etc. The point is to get as close to possible to real life... the glint off chrome, sunlight filtering through a tree or car headlights. Unless someone has sensitive vision to these things in real life, they will be fine.

That said, the backlight solution is one of the most important factors in this, and some screens will have poor implementation and may indeed be more likely to cause eye strain. But HDR done CORRECTLY should present no problems, and has the potential to offer a far more realistic and immersive experience

And 1,000 nits is nothing. Sony have demoed a 10,000 nit TV previously. If you want to replicate real life on a screen, 1,000 nits doesn't get anywhere near.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this
bananadude and how do you propose to only light up a very tiny part "like the glint off chrome" with no full array backlighting? Zones that are half a foot long? Dont just take a statement made about a specific monitor in question and change it into an entirely different subject on the specifics of HDR
 
It better be DP1.4, then you need a card that can drive it. None of those interfaces can do high bitrate and 4k...
If they can then I will consider buying one as it's basically what I've been waiting for. Happy to wait a bit longer though.

I want full 10bit, 120Hz+ 4k with HDR1000 and Freesync and preferably IPS. Is it too much to ask? Literally taken years to get to this point while the panels to do it have been there for a while.

Dan_D said:
Same here. I've literally told ASUS to build this for several years now.
Click to expand...
Same, even one of the high ups... zilch. Not shelling out for non-future proofed, half-assed shit with crappy connection options or having to run 6-8 bit to get high FPS.
 
EniGmA1987 said:
bananadude and how do you propose to only light up a very tiny part "like the glint off chrome" with no full array backlighting? Zones that are half a foot long? Dont just take a statement made about a specific monitor in question and change it into an entirely different subject on the specifics of HDR
Click to expand...


We have seen 1000-nit monitors and TV's without FALD before and I have not seen a load of complaints from people complaining of eye strain and blown retinas. The Philips 436M6VBPAB is a prime example, which actually didn't do a bad job with HDR content. Unless there are countless tragic souls out there rolling around and screaming in agony on the floor unable to even find their computers.
 
HDR1000 itself is just fractional HDR. Most movies are mastered at a 10,000nit color brightness ceiling, and many UHD HDR disc movies are 4000 nit currently with only a few at 10k nit so far (like blade runner 2049). I'm guessing because practically no-one has displays to show it yet.

Most of a scene stays within the SDR range like bananadude said. A lot of people are under misconceptions about how HDR works regarding that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- This is what the uninformed thinks happens:

"If you viewed SDR content on a 1,000 nit display, everything would be displayed 10x brighter than intended.

If you viewed that same SDR content on a 500 nit display, everything would be half the brightness of the 1,000 nit display."

---This is what really happens:


If you viewed HDR content on a 1000 nit display or a 500 nit display, any scene where the peaks are lower than 500 nits should look exactly the same on both displays, due to the way that brightness is now coded. It represents an exact value, not a relative value.

For scenes which have highlights exceeding 500 nits, you will have highlight clipping on the lower brightness display (everything above 500 nits turns white) which would not be present on the higher brightness display. <---- Which will show full color gradations across the color spectrum in bright highlights instead of crushing to white after hitting the sdr ceiling.


HDR enables far more vivid, saturated, and realistic images than SDR ever could.

High-brightness SDR displays are not at all the same thing as HDR displays.""

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is an example I found of a HDR scene in a game, tone mapped to show the targeted color brightness heights.

QfSF1rn.jpg
Click to expand...


I agree that you'd need a really good FALD array to get better HDR displayed. You'd likely get exacerbated flashlighting and bleed using HDR on edge lit displays, at least on the brightest highlights/screnes. OLED can do per pixel, but it's shackled down to 600nit color ceiling with ABL to avoid burn in, and the screen sizes are too big imo even for a large monitor desk setup.

In my opinion modern FALD arrays work very well but they suffer a dim or glow radiation since the backlight array isn't tiny enough. So it's a trade off between dim/glow offset on higher HDR color or a 600nit limit on oled out of burn in avoidance (with no warranty vs burn in from the mfg at all, not even 1 yr despite the built in protections), as well as the oled screen sizes.
NVsBTV1.png
Click to expand...


I was hoping that the HDR1000 version of the monitor discussed in this thread would be FALD. However there aren't that many quality HDR PC games out yet, and I wouldn't be using this monitor for movies personally. The roadmap seems to be keeping hdmi 2.1 GPUS and monitors out of reach for another year or two. In the mean time , mini LED FALD seems to be appearing in a few tvs slowly (not micro LED, but 1000 to 3000 backlights or more instead of 384 - 512). There may also be hope someday for dual layer LCD tech possibly, which uses a second LCD layer in monochrome as the backlight, much like OLED does per pixel emissive using all white oled but without the burn in risks and color brightness limitations.



I'd call these monitors good "right now" SDR gaming monitors if they perform decently, perhaps wtih some HDR enhancement gain.. but hdmi 2.1 , higher density FALD arrays, higher HDR brightness ceilings (samsung Q9fn TV's already do ~1800 - 2000nit with a 512 zone backlight array), and other improvements are going to show up in the next few years.

You can always be waiting for the next best thing. Monitor tech advancement has been relatively slow up until recently though.
 
elvn said:
I'd call these monitors good "right now" SDR gaming monitors if they perform decently, perhaps wtih some HDR enhancement gain.. but hdmi 2.1 , higher density FALD arrays, higher HDR brightness ceilings (samsung Q9fn TV's already do ~1800 - 2000nit with a 512 zone backlight array), and other improvements are going to show up in the next few years.

You can always be waiting for the next best thing. Monitor tech advancement has been relatively slow up until recently though.
Click to expand...


It will be a few years for sure... monitor tech does seem to move at a snail's pace. It will be interesting if next gen GPU's come with HDMI 2.1 though (I'm thinking they will), as there will be numerous TV's also with higher refresh, HDMI 2.1 and VRR available then. That said, we ideally want 43"-40" and below for PC use, and that's where we've seen so little focus in the monitor market. 32" 4K is largely ignored (other than more professional use cases), and outside of these two 43" options from Asus and Acer, you aren't exactly spoilt for choice if you want a 4K gaming monitor bigger than 27". There are few more 4K 32" Freesync options appearing now, but none that offer anything special, either regards refresh rate, HDR or anything else.
 
Last edited:
Gatecrasher3000 said:
Looks like we got another contender in the race:
https://www.kitguru.net/peripherals...44hz-monitor-with-display-stream-compression/
Click to expand...

Interesting. I wonder if it has the same backlight as the CG437K then? Only with the stream compression addition? If they added more zones, then that would be interesting... otherwise, really, how much of a difference does this have vs the XG438Q? Kind of makes it redundant? I wonder if this is actually the XG438Q... just upgraded. Interesting no model name was given, and other than DSC and 1000-nit, it seems and looks IDENTICAL Hard to see these two monitors existing together.... they surely won't be priced that far apart, in which case who would buy the lesser spec?

I think I've seen confirmation the Acer has dual DP 1.4 ports, so what difference does that make over a single port with stream compression? I think at 144Hz you can't run HDR with x2 DP 1.4, but really, who's going to be doing that? If the Acer comes in vastly cheaper, and all else being equal, it's still going to be the preferred option.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
It sounds like dual displayport with no compression would be best to me assuming it works without any wrinkles. The build quality between the two manufacturers is another consideration though, as well as price.
 
Could be the final version of the display we will actually get from Asus- either that or they're going to sell two versions of the same display. I

Either way, I need something to come out soon- my 2015 Samsung 4k TV is starting to blink/overheat. I'll probably end up buying whatever is available now.
 
The Acer/ASUS displays are basically going to be identical, just like with the X27/PG27UQ. Same panel, same electronics/DP 1.4 Tcon with DSC. Just housings and OSD firmware different.
 
Wag said:
Could be the final version of the display we will actually get from Asus- either that or they're going to sell two versions of the same display.
Click to expand...

That’s my thinking as well. Most likely they went further to match the Acer and this is the final form of the XG438Q. Looks like it is going to be killer - and probably expensive.

Only things they could do to make it better for me are reducing size to about 38-40" (not gonna happen) and adding at least one HDMI 2.1 port to make it more future-proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top