ASUS and Acer UHD G-Sync HDR Monitors Forced to Use Color Compression at 120/144 Hz
Click here to post a comment for ASUS and Acer UHD G-Sync HDR Monitors Forced to Use Color Compression at 120/144 Hz on our message forum
GxCx
ok
Mda400
Correct, YCbCr is not the same as RGB. It is a way of encoding/compressing uncompressed RGB color to save bandwidth.
The difference between YCbCr 4:4:4 and RGB 4:4:4 is just the way they are structured. No data is lost in either.
Y/Signal (green) Chroma blue (blue) Chroma red (red) versus the straight-forward Red-Green-Blue that our display's pixels are most commonly structured by.
Everything sent to a fixed-pixel display will eventually have to be converted to RGB. Leaving it untouched (at the source) is the best way to transfer it to the display (YCbCr for Cable TV/DVD/Blu-Ray, RGB for computers/game consoles with digital connections)
Both HDMI and Displayport support YCbCr as an alternate color space.
Geforce Pascal and later, can render DirectX and OpenGL applications in 10-bit color, but only OpenGL in exclusive fullscreen mode.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/12
Stingray
On a 27" monitor to boot. 4K should be 32" minimum.
MrBonk
Good god, more display drawbacks to add to the pile of problems with modern displays and all the problems HDR adds on top.
Moonbogg
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?
drac
Ehh they can have their overpriced tiny 4k screens for now. Waiting. 😕
Going to jump on the 21:9 train when those new 200hz monitors drop soon. Will be overpriced but at least not as badly hopefully. Still a nice high res, awesome for movie watching, windows use, and gaming immersion factor over 9000. It's too temping to not see what the fuss is about and get one.
Rx4speed
Well, I have a P279Q (1440p, 165hz, g-sync, IPS), and while for gaming, it's fantastic, my old 60hz IPS Dell U2412M looks better. I'm using a 13' long DP cable. It is version 1.4 to maintain 1440p@ 165hz.. HDR may help gaming monitors look better, but if HDR overloads the current cabling bandwidth, what's the point?
RavenMaster
Well, this has been anti-climactic. £2200 for a botched, tiny 27" monitor that can't even do 10bit. Guess i'll wait until HDMI 2.1 monitors come out next year.
Pimpiklem
Does the fact nvidia drivers install on a limited rgb setting have anything to do with this ?
Is there a hardware limitation showing its head here ?
I here people have to go into the settings and select the full rgb manually because its set to limited by default.
[youtube=7JYZDnenaGc]
Neo Cyrus
Agreed, you'd have to sit pretty close to a 27" 1440p monitor for the individual pixels to be obvious at all times. 4K monitors really should be 32" or more.
dfsdfs1112
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?
Snorgrind
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"
fantaskarsef
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.
RealNC
Weird that this makes the news only now, because it was known even before release.
ATXReset
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.
Pale
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.
DeskStar
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.
mastaful
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 $$
RealNC
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.
Silva
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.
