Ultra HD monitors with G-Sync and HDR Should Arrive By Next Month

I'd love to have a 27in 4k Gsync HDR monitor but there's not a single card that can do that kind of frame output unfortunately..

Will need another 2 generations to play current gen titles with 144fps

 

For you maybe. I just bought my second G-Sync screen and would buy them again in a heartbeat.
And yes, GSync is active all the time. When it first launched, GSync wasn't active on the desktop and would only activate when launching a fullscreen app. Nvidia fixed this later and can now be active all the time and with windowed apps.

 

27 inch 1080p
32 inch 1440p
38 inch and up for 4k

 

Great, now bring me a proper 27inch 1440p Gsync HDR.

 

Is there any known downside to selecting fullscreen AND windowed to just Fullscreen? Because i find it weird you can choose between the two.

 

I haven't noticed any downside lately. When windowed compatibility was first added there were some programs that caused issues but I think most of that has been fixed.

 

Exactly.

I will likely buy the screen despite the insane price tag, but i will keep it for a long time. Got the asus pg27aq atm, which is 4k g-sync IPS, but "only" 60 hz... so would be quite an upgrade, also image quality wise with quantum dot.

 

Of course. It would be very silly if a G-Sync would only work with a Nvidia GPU... Not something that Nvidia would mind anyway...

The problem is that G-Sync is splitting the user base between those you have a Freesync or G-Sync monitor only because of Nvidia´s greed because they should also support Freesync that´s open standard, This way everyone could use their screens and GPUs without the "hassle" of worrying if the card matches the screen´s tech...

 

What's the point of buying something with features you can't use until the future? Might as well save your money and wait, there'll be something better then anyway.

 

Well I can use most of them right now. The vast majority of games I play I can run at 4K 60+fps, which means they all benefit from being on this monitor. Plus it has improved contrast ratio on every game, plus it has HDR on the few games out already, plus it has 4K 144hz on the desktop. I also think we're going to enter a lull for monitors over the next few years. 8K support isn't going to bring much over 4K at the size/sitting distance, colors can only get so good before they are perfect.

Back in like 2005 I bought an HP L2335 1080P monitor that no card could max out at the time - I had it running on a ATI X800 Pro - would get like 50fps in Farcry at 1080p. I kept that monitor for 6 years, ran it through multiple GPU launches. I still have it and it still works. During that entire time not a single monitor came out that I felt I really needed to have, not until 120/144hz became a thing. I feel the same way about this next generation of 4K 144Hz HDR monitors - besides OLED contrast ratios I can't foresee any tech in the future I'd care about to justify me not buying this immediately.

That being said $2500 is a lot of money and I probably won't buy it if it ends up at that price lol.

 

hehe like a full HD (108op) TV being baught in 2008? I still don't get 1080p through cable TV here, and I only can make use of the panel's resolution because I have a PC hooked up to it

 

I haven't played many different games on this 1080 Ti yet, but 4K (DSR) kicks it in the dick in the ones I did try. Regardless, this 4K/HDR/1xxHZ monitor is so expensive party because it is a niche item with features combined that other products won't have. You're paying a premium for that high refresh rate. Might as well buy a 4K 60Hz HDR monitor for a fraction of the price until cards can power 4K HDR @ 144Hz+ in 2077.

Also, there is no currently available DP or HDMI standard which can power 4K HDR @ 144Hz. The necessary DP and HDMI standards are set IIRC, but nothing available yet. You'd have to use two cables at the same time to power 4K HDR 144Hz+.

 

You don't need two cables - they can either utilize display stream compression or Nvidia can overclock the interface since they control both ends.

I mostly play Overwatch, R6 Siege, SC2, league of legends, also been playing some Forza H3 and Dying Light lately. I can hit 100+ FPS in the majority of those games at 4K, all of them at 60FPS+. I actually haven't played a game recently where I couldn't come close to 60fps average but the dips kill me. 1180Ti, or 2080Ti or whatever the next Nvidia card is will almost definitely push past 75fps+ on average in every game at 4K. If I do end up buying this monitor it's going to be the intent to pair it with that card. I don't need every game to hit 144hz for me to consider the extra refresh worth it, even the desktop at 144hz is a better experience. I feel like every fps over 60 is wasted FPS on a 60hz monitor, can't have that.

That's why I'm saying if they are going to price a monitor at 1500+ it needs to not only be perfect for the given technology but it needs to have features that will make it relevant for a few years otherwise there is no point in building it for that price point, no one will get it. This monitor ticks all the boxes I'd want in a monitor for the next 6 years or so with the only exception of some kind of burn-in proof OLED monitor. I bought my XB270HU 3 years ago and the 1440p 144Hz G-SYNC IPS monitors coming out today are only $200 cheaper then what I paid for it. So for $200 I've had 3 years of better monitoring and the same now of what people are buying today which I don't consider a bad deal at all.

$2500 is definitely stretching that 6 years of "value" but idk, I'd have to see the quality of the monitor in person. If they can guarantee no backlight bleed and the 384 zones come into play in non-HDR content then I may consider dropping the money. But if I'm going to have go through multiple different monitors to get one without bleed and the contrast is shitty then I'll wait for someone else to build it for cheaper/better later.

 

That highly depend on the person and how far away there veiwing. what is ideal for you might not be ideal for others, I have seen 4 threw DSR on my 24" and it looks amazing a tad to small for my taste, but 27" would fix that from where i view the monitor There for I want 27" 1440p or 4k but i wont bother till this monitor is on it last legs, maybe then it be easier to find said monitors that ARNT IPS and have gysnc and what not in it, that dont cost an arm and leg

 

For some reason I thought current cards don't output DP 1.4 signals. According to SJWPedia, it's enough if compression is used, but doesn't include HDR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Resolution_and_refresh_frequency_limits_for_DisplayPort

Don't know the math, is it still enough to work with Display Stream Compression with HDR? Also, does it cause image quality loss? And tell me more of this overclocking.

 

After using an LG B7 OLED with HDR for over a year now im really looking forward to these, HDR is more important to me than 4K, i use a single 1080Ti on my TV and it's mostly 60fps at 4K but for the games that can't manage that i just a use a custom res of 3200x1800 which it handles just fine while still maintaining a decent level of image quality.

 

DSC is visually lossless so there is no image reduction - the question people have is whether it introduces latency, which there doesn't seem to be any info on. Some people also speculated that HDR might be limited to 120hz but none of the marketing material for the monitor so far shows that and when they showed the monitor at CES they said it was running 144hz with HDR on @ 4K. On PC Perspective podcast they mentioned that because it's a G-Sync monitor, Nvidia technically controls both the DP port on monitor (G-Sync Module) and the DP port on the video card, since the monitor will most likely only be paired with a Nvidia card.. because of this Nvidia could theoretically overclock both ports to increase bandwidth and overcome the need for DSC. Of course that's speculation on their part but I guess people have done this in the past to get higher refresh rates on monitors but since Nvidia designed both, they know the limitation of the hardware and could guarantee the overclock.

 

Even if 144 hz isn't possible with HDR, or without added latency, 120 hz will be plenty for me.

 

I wouldn't mind the 120hz, the thing that might kill the monitor for me is if the zoned backlighting is disabled when HDR isn't present. I have an LG OLED TV now and combined with the LG OLED on my Pixel XL2, OLED has completely spoiled displays for me. My XB270HU black levels are garbage and anytime there is a black scene I can't help but notice it. VA Panels are now closer to 3000:1+ and those are noticeably better than the 1000:1 on my XB. These new 4K HDR 144hz are claimed at 10,000:1 but I'm pretty sure that's with the zoned backlighting/HDR enabled. If they default to 1000:1 in non-HDR content I'm skipping it.

 

Well, even AMD addind G-Sync support to their GPUs would mittigate problem somehow, but that not going to happen becaus Nvidia is just too much greedy.