EnGenius ECS2512FP. 8-port 2.5G Cloud Switch review
Deepcool CG560 chassis review
Fractal Design Torrent Black RGB TG review
Core i9 12900K DDR4 3600 vs DDR5 5200 performance review
Corsair H150i Elite LCD review
Seasonic Syncro Q704 chassis + Connect PSU review
Fractal Design Ion+ 2 Platinum 860W PSU Review
Crucial P5 Plus PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe review
Fractal Design Lumen S28 RGB review (LCS)
WD Red SN700 NVMe SSD review
ASUS and Acer UHD G-Sync HDR Monitors Forced to Use Color Compression at 120/144 Hz
We've mentioned the new Ultra HD G-Sync HDR ACER and ASUS monitors a couple of times already. Over the weekend some reported the ACER one got in the news due to a loud ventilator, today more news reaches the web, in high-refresh-rate modes, the displays fall back to color compression.
A few early adopters of these HDR, local dimming monster monitors noticed and reported on Reddit that when using a high refresh rate, the image quality dropped significantly. The story now is that the ASUS and Acer screens make use of color compression at 120 and 144 Hz, not because the panel couldn't handle it, but the main limitation is signal bandwidth over DisplayPort 1.4. This also means you pretty much need to run your Windows desktop at 60 Hz for a bit of a quality readable view.
DisplayPort 1.4 has too little bandwidth available to drive 4k, 144 Hz without compression. To bypass that, the screen monitor signal reverts to 4:2:2 chroma subsampling. basically your brightness information will remain intact, however, the color information will be based on half the resolution, 1920 x 2160 pixels. All is good up to 98 Hz, after that, it's 4:2:2 chroma subsampling ... on your 2500 Euro / 2000 USD Screen. Lovely. 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.
chroma subsampling. (Picture: Wikimedia )
VPNFilter malware targets ASUS and DLINK routers now also and injects code into WWW - 06/07/2018 08:13 AM
A week or two ago we reported about VPNFilter malware. A command and control server was recently caught by the FBI, however now it malware appears to target new router types and does so with new feat...
AM4 Motherboards ASUS and Gigabyte Go Online - 02/21/2017 01:48 AM
On the web new photos appeared on several socket AM4 motherboards, this round it is ASUS and Gigabyte (Aorus). There are four models based on the B350 chipset and one with X370....
ASUS and MSI tease Custom Radeon RX 480 cards - 06/29/2016 08:47 PM
Both ASUS and MSI are teasing with a custom design Radeon RX 480. Asus announced that the manufacturer will soon release a Radeon RX 480 Strix. The video card is equipped with the DirectCU III cooler...
ASUS and MSI place focus on own-brand desktop PCs - 08/06/2014 08:43 AM
Following Asustek Computer's increased investments in the branded desktop industry, Micro-Star International (MSI) also has started developing new own-brand traditional desktops, all-in-one PCs and g...
ASUS And Acer Merger Rumor - 09/20/2013 11:03 AM
Here's something to discuss. Apparently, there are whispers going around that Acer and ASUS could potentially merge. Both of these companies hail from Taiwan, and ASUS Chairman Johnny Shih did respo...
yasamoka
Junior Member
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2009-08-29
Junior Member
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2009-08-29
#5559960 Posted on: 06/24/2018 04:31 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 $$
The vast majority of older games do that easily on a 1080Ti and even less.
Some newer games easily do 80FPS as well. Not every title worth playing is a AAA title with graphics rendering techniques that shatter the Earth in terms of performance required.
It's also a $2000 monitor that's supposed to last for a very long time. We need maybe 2 complete generations of GPUs to have GPUs that can do 4K 100FPS+ even on the latest AAA titles. 27" 4K 144Hz HDR IPS LCD is literally the monitor beyond which you encounter severe diminishing returns in terms of everything (resolution, refresh rate, color quality, contrast) and perhaps the only thing that could be improved upon sufficiently would be when OLED / microLED becomes mature enough to replace LCDs for desktop monitors, preventing the need for FALD and hitting even wider color gamuts at much lower response times / with strobing.
As it stands, $2000 for a monitor that will be fully fed, even with the latest games, at its 4:4:4 refresh rate of 98Hz in mostly a few year's time and essentially "bottleneck" your system from shooting for higher framerates even when that technology is available does not seem very well thought out.
I don't know how you would hit over 100fps @ 4k hdr enabled game anyway, kinda pointless for these monitors to even have that high of a refresh rate.
They could have left them at 60 and saved us all some $$
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.
DerSchniffles
Senior Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 2009-01-21
Senior Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 2009-01-21
#5560043 Posted on: 06/24/2018 08:27 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.
So is HDR for gaming kind of gimmicky? I get the impression that the "improved" colors themselves aren't where the improvement is, but rather the shiny backlight that makes your games look like a Thomas Kinkade painting on steroids. I've been told my PG348 is a piece of washed out trash compared to these things and everyone who doesn't have one of these new monitors is lacking color in their games and they all looked like washed out garbage unless using the $2,000 monitor. True or not? No one has true, accurate colors anymore unless using the $2,000 monitor? True?
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.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2018-06-24
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