ASUS Plans a 27-Inch, 144Hz, 4K, IPS Gaming Monitor

Subject: Displays | June 9, 2016 - 02:55 AM |
Tagged: asus, 4k 144hz, ips

Well this will be an impressive set of features some day. People have been asking for high-refresh, 4K panels with good colors for quite a while. It was almost a running joke in some of our comments. Apparently, ASUS took it seriously, and they are looking to release a 144Hz, 4K, IPS Gaming monitor, and they had a prototype on the show floor at Computex 2016.

View Full Size

Image Credit: VR-Zone

Okay then. That checks off just about every box on the enthusiast wishlist, except maybe OLED (depending on whether the specific enthusiast loves its contrast or fears it color accuracy). Also, it is unclear whether they will support the FreeSync or G-Sync, but either could happen -- or both! Or neither.

We won't know until they make an official announcement... again, some day.

Source: VR-Zone

June 9, 2016 | 03:24 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

It would cost an arm and a leg otherwise the uniformity would be very bad and feature a lot of dead pixels... I am wondering where are VA panels to provide a better trade-off for gamers?

June 9, 2016 | 03:59 AM - Posted by Spunjji

For me the ideal would be 24"/25" for cost and density reasons, but honestly..? I could 'settle' for this. Assuming I could ever afford it. :D Also Freesync plz kthxbai.

Incidental: can current G-Sync hardware even DO 4k 144hz? Methinks a new revision would be needed. Many cost such expense wow.

June 9, 2016 | 11:27 AM - Posted by patrickjp93 (not verified)

It can if the DisplayPort port can handle the bandwidth: perks of having used an FPGA as the central chip with gates to spare.

June 9, 2016 | 05:44 AM - Posted by krohm (not verified)

27, meh. where are the 32 - 40s

June 9, 2016 | 06:24 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

In your dream of being rich enough to afford it...

June 9, 2016 | 07:58 AM - Posted by sucka in a 3 piece (not verified)

More than $15k then? Wonder why they would make a monitor so expensive?

June 9, 2016 | 12:22 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Why so ridiculous?

YOu can get a sweet 4K60/1080p120 TV with 4:4:4 chroma for around a grand. 17ms, HDR, built in chromecast, fine grain calibration tools... Why even consider a large "monitor" when you can get a tv like this?

June 9, 2016 | 01:24 PM - Posted by JackG (not verified)

Problem with the Vizios is: "'HDMI Color Subsampling' needs to be turned on for 4k @ 60Hz @ 4:4:4 which is only available on HDMI 1-4. For all resolutions and refresh rates, 4:4:4 is blurrier than on other TVs that support it."

June 9, 2016 | 09:57 AM - Posted by Bakath

I agree man, one day maybe they will learn 27 is far to small for 4K, 32" min I would say.

Also real 10bit not 8bit+ garbage.

June 9, 2016 | 10:12 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Dude, you should learn more about the resolving power of the human eye...

June 9, 2016 | 10:35 AM - Posted by Bakath

Will that remove the color banding

I have a 30" 10bit next to a 27" 8bit+ both IPS and calibrated.

Take the same pic of moonlight through some clouds and the 10bit is smooth the 8bit+ has color banding all over the place.

June 9, 2016 | 10:58 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Do you know dithering? Manufacturers could even market their screens for 16 bits per component using dithering.

Actually most screens don't provide true 8 bits per component, only 6 bits with dithering to emulate over 16M colors. This scam is pretty common in the market...

June 9, 2016 | 12:23 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Don't be dumb.

June 9, 2016 | 12:33 PM - Posted by Bakath

Keep babbling BS my man

June 9, 2016 | 07:48 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

What about your moonlight BS in the darkness of the night?. Nobody cares of your smooth radiographs if not doctors... keep masturbating with your greyscale pictures of your fat neighbour. :o)

June 9, 2016 | 10:43 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I would prefer smaller size with higher pixel density. I have a 30 inch Dell UltraSharp 10 bit panel at 2560x1600 (U3011). It looks great for most things, but small text is rendered badly due to the very low pixel density. I have to make the text quite large before it is readable, which waste a lot of space. I think the pixel density is only about 92 compared to 200-350 dpi for a cell phone. I was experimenting with some Unicode stuff recently, and CJK characters are probably unreadable at the same large font size I use for ASCII.

A higher pixel density is always better for text. The only reason to not want a higher pixel density is if the OS or application doesn't scale the UI properly. This is probably still more common than it should be, but I think it is a lot better than it was.

November 17, 2016 | 03:53 AM - Posted by Pudding (not verified)

Yeah I would love to see a 32" Flat pannel 16:9 ratio 144hz Monitor. They simply don't exist. Acer have a predator that is 32" flat panel but is only available in a 60hz 4k model, I would prefer a 144hz 1440p model ( I currently have the 27" Acer predator 1440p 144hz Monitor)

June 9, 2016 | 06:22 AM - Posted by JackG (not verified)

Yeah - I'm running 32" 4K IPS now and couldn't step down to 27" (which is somewhat pointless for a 4k monitor). Luckily nVidia now allows 3-4 way SLI for GTX 1080, so maybe there's your 4k @144Hz. ;)

June 9, 2016 | 06:31 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

UHD means Ultra High Definition which is all about pixel density to see realistic pictures.

I guess you prefer to shine with a bigger screen for immersion but less realistic... maybe you should better buy a VR headset.

June 9, 2016 | 09:07 AM - Posted by JackG (not verified)

Nahh - pixel density is very high at 32" but requires less scaling - makes much more sense.

June 9, 2016 | 10:09 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Not even as high as a photographic printer.

You could still distinguish pixels at a mean viewing distance of 50 centimeters between your eye and the screen.

With a resolving power of 1' by eye and a 32" UHD screen, you should be at least over 1,27 meters to be unable to separate two points.

This kind of screen is more suiting for TV than computers.

June 9, 2016 | 11:38 AM - Posted by JackG (not verified)

And 27" 4k is a quantum leap above that?

June 9, 2016 | 12:36 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

For a 27" UHD screen you should be at least over 1,07 meters.

Only for a less than 12" 4K UHD or 24" 8K UHD screen you couldn't distinguish 2 points over 50 centimeters of distance.

Actually this is not going to happen tomorrow... however a 24" FHD or a 50" 4K UHD TV could be enough for your living room with a sofa over 2 meters far. For what benefit? The immersion.

June 9, 2016 | 11:58 AM - Posted by JackG (not verified)

No SLI for me anyway, all good.

June 9, 2016 | 08:05 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Needs to be 40 inches, otherwise, perfect.

June 9, 2016 | 10:42 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Facepalm. 27 inch? You need 30+ for 4k 144hz. What a farce.

June 9, 2016 | 10:50 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Yeah needs to be 30"+. 27" is perfectly fine with 1440p

June 9, 2016 | 01:35 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

At 3840x2160 resolution with 144Hz refresh rate and 8-bit per color channel, that monitor will require 31.35Gbps of bandwidth. Too bad DP 1.4 uncompressed only provides 25.92Gbps.

As such, this monitor is either only providing 6-bit per color channel (terrible color), must run using some kind of chroma subsampling (4:2:2 or 4:2:0) (terrible picture), must use two DP 1.2/1.3/1.4 connectors (split screen problems), or must use Display Stream Compression (terrible picture, but so called "visually lossless"...).

June 9, 2016 | 06:59 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

DP1.4 supports up to 4K/120Hz/10-bit/HDR

If money was no object I'd take those exact specs (plus GSYNC) on a 32" or higher diagonal screen.

It's likely I'd end up with a 2560x1440 plus higher refresh rate due to pricing though.

I'm pretty happy with my 2560x1440, IPS screen, and frankly it's GSYNC that interests me most. Just waiting for pricing to drop.

As for HDR that's neat but content also must support it. I suspect HDR will add far too much to the price of the monitors initially.

June 10, 2016 | 09:49 AM - Posted by OLDIRTYPRIEST

What's the response time for this thing?

June 10, 2016 | 02:19 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Which response time to do you want? The real (black-to-black) or the wrong (grey-to-grey)? With ou without the overdrive technology enabled producing ghost images?

This lead me to the ultimate question: do you really need a clean picture for playing RTS or a dirtier for FPS?

June 16, 2016 | 11:42 AM - Posted by natepayne

Would much prefer a 4K on 30" screen.

Then again, I am looking to get the Asus ROG

October 25, 2016 | 11:39 PM - Posted by Larryguy

This is what everyone has been waiting for. Kind of strange when you pull up monitor guides (like this) and see a 1440p monitor being touted as the best gaming monitor...

But I guess for hardcore gamers, the 144Hz is a must have and so it makes sense.

December 4, 2016 | 02:54 PM - Posted by Marc (not verified)

This would be awesome can't wait. I think 144Hz is a must for every gamer and 4K also very important. Add HDR and it would be the best monitor ever. I found a German website, it shows the best 144Hz Monitor

We will see, what is coming up next.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.