ASUS and Acer UHD G-Sync HDR Monitors Forced to Use Color Compression at 120/144 Hz

#5558487 Posted on: 06/19/2018 05:34 AM

---

To all the publicity people of
NVIDIA
, addicted to the nonsense of
NVIDIA
Read and cry how they work on you !!!

" when using a high refresh rate, the image quality dropped significantly. "

" DisplayPort 1.4 has too little bandwidth available to drive 4k, 144 Hz without compression "

" There's no real solution for this, other than new display connectors and graphics cards that do support such high bandwidth connections - HDMI 2.1. "

Nvidia working on you again !!!
Too bad for every dollar
It's a junk
How could it be that nobody checked it before selling these screens?

#5558511 Posted on: 06/19/2018 08:09 AM

---

This depends on your setup. For example i sit around 60cm away from screen. The point where you can't see pixels for 27" 1440p is 81cm and for 27" 4K is 53cm. So i don't think that 4k is too much for 27"

#5558513 Posted on: 06/19/2018 08:17 AM

---

To all the publicity people of
NVIDIA
, addicted to the nonsense of
NVIDIA
Read and cry how they work on you !!!

" when using a high refresh rate, the image quality dropped significantly. "

" DisplayPort 1.4 has too little bandwidth available to drive 4k, 144 Hz without compression "

" There's no real solution for this, other than new display connectors and graphics cards that do support such high bandwidth connections - HDMI 2.1. "

Nvidia working on you again !!!
Too bad for every dollar
It's a junk
How could it be that nobody checked it before selling these screens?

Screens aren't manufactured by Nvidia. Also, just wait for later revisions of this technology with the proper connection available some time down the road, then it works. As you said yourself, the problem are display port limitations mostly. Please go troll somewhere else.

#5558527 Posted on: 06/19/2018 08:38 AM

---

Weird that this makes the news only now, because it was known even before release.

#5558539 Posted on: 06/19/2018 09:17 AM

---

When DP 1.5 and above is released, can the display manufacturer release a Firmware update? really keen on this on monitor, been saving for a couple of years, HDR is great.

#5558564 Posted on: 06/19/2018 10:52 AM

---

Nope. DP 1.5, which no-one has a clue when will be released, will require new silicon. The realities of this monitor is that if you want full 4:4:4, you're limited to 120hz for SDR content, and 98hz for HDR content. Which, honestly, is fine for me. Although I'm not trying to apologize for ASUS and Acer's blatant dishonest marketing concerning these things. Even though the press material had informed us of this over a month ago. The marketing is really thumping that 4K 144Hz 10-bit HDR thing.

#5558690 Posted on: 06/19/2018 06:31 PM

---

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat!?!?!?!?

So glad I gave up the beta guinea pig role of being an early adopter....

It's been a bit over four years since my last build and I am still happy to stay there until.something truly game changing comes along.

#5558760 Posted on: 06/19/2018 10:23 PM

---

I don't know how you would hit over 100fps @ 4k hdr enabled game anyway, kinda pointless for these monitors to even have that high of a refresh rate.
They could have left them at 60 and saved us all some $$

#5558769 Posted on: 06/19/2018 11:50 PM

---

I don't know how you would hit over 100fps @ 4k hdr enabled game anyway, kinda pointless for these monitors to even have that high of a refresh rate.
They could have left them at 60 and saved us all some $$
When using g-sync, 144Hz has lower input lag than 60Hz, even when running 60FPS games. The higher the refresh rate, the better, regardless of what FPS you get.

#5559736 Posted on: 06/22/2018 10:07 PM

---

Yes we all know you want the very best for pennies.
Anyways. There are already Freesync 1 monitors for that price.
Why do you want FS 2? FS2 Adds HDR support and forces manufacturers to use LFC(which you can find on Freesync 1).
Do you think you'll get a high refresh rate with HDR support for cheap?
You'll be waiting a long time, probably indefinitely; even if they were that cheap I can guarantee they would be junk monitors as all are generally at that price point.
I have one with FS1 and it's good, I'm thinking in a future upgrade.
FS2 is a way of getting in the HDR certification range so I'm guaranteed too be HDR and not some manufacturer claim.
I'm not interested in anything over 100/120hz, mine is 75hz and is good enough for now.
Well, I'm sorry to be poor and can't afford the "good" +1000€ monitors.

#5559948 Posted on: 06/24/2018 12:46 AM

---

I dont understand what they done with the extra year wait ? When they should of been working on making this monitor perfect ,They should of been making it run on two Dports not one to booster the power ,Or maybe thats all ready done this, and this is phase one of the money making ,Then phase two will come later this year or early next with two Dports working as one to get true 4k hrd 144hz at 4:4:4 .They need to save something or what can they do next RIGHT !!! But for the money they want for this monitor its insane when its not really a true 4K HDR 144HZ monitor as showed on the TIN ...

But Ill be happy to play games at 4k SDR and 120hz at 4:4:4 ..HDR is over rated

#5559960 Posted on: 06/24/2018 03:31 AM

---

I don't know how you would hit over 100fps @ 4k hdr enabled game anyway, kinda pointless for these monitors to even have that high of a refresh rate.
They could have left them at 60 and saved us all some $$
The vast majority of older games do that easily on a 1080Ti and even less.

Some newer games easily do 80FPS as well. Not every title worth playing is a AAA title with graphics rendering techniques that shatter the Earth in terms of performance required.

It's also a $2000 monitor that's supposed to last for a very long time. We need maybe 2 complete generations of GPUs to have GPUs that can do 4K 100FPS+ even on the latest AAA titles. 27" 4K 144Hz HDR IPS LCD is literally the monitor beyond which you encounter severe diminishing returns in terms of everything (resolution, refresh rate, color quality, contrast) and perhaps the only thing that could be improved upon sufficiently would be when OLED / microLED becomes mature enough to replace LCDs for desktop monitors, preventing the need for FALD and hitting even wider color gamuts at much lower response times / with strobing.

As it stands, $2000 for a monitor that will be fully fed, even with the latest games, at its 4:4:4 refresh rate of 98Hz in mostly a few year's time and essentially "bottleneck" your system from shooting for higher framerates even when that technology is available does not seem very well thought out.

#5560043 Posted on: 06/24/2018 07:27 PM

---

I dont think so, as long as its real HDR. I play on a HDR10 tv and the games that support HDR look incredible. Its gimmicky in the way that there are not a huge amount of games that support it yet. Many more games on console support HDR compared to PC which is unfortunate. The brights are brighter, the darks are darker while keeping the detail, no color banding and overall just a more realistic picture. I personally feel that its still new so there are quite a few kinks as some games just do a much better job than others. Far Cry 5 and Destiny 2 are the two best looking HDR games I have seen so far. Assassins Creed Origins is not too far behind. The colors are improved for sure.

Having said that, a non HDR screen can still look really good if calibrated properly. I have also sacrificed high refresh rate and frame rate for 4k HDR 60 fps. At this point it is a trade off that you have to decide if its worth it. I really miss my 120hz gsync ultrawide in that regard, but considering most games I play are single player these days, the immersion is worth more than the latter.