if it costs less than 1000 euros (probably not), im sold

"HDR-compatible", haha

I take it HDR10 means 10-bit whereas 12-bit seems to be preferred though then again true 10-bit displays cost quite a bit (Instead of 8+2 which is otherwise very common.) so true 12-bit or the newer 16-bit is likely even more expensive. Then there's the whole brightness HDR range and different specifications for that, wonder if that's going to be the new timing or black level buzz word for this generation of monitors. :P (Color bit or what it was will probably vary too, one of the Dell guys on their forums recommended the monitor model I'm currently using to a customer specifically asking for a true 10-bit display, this particular model is a 8+2 so yeah doing research before buying a particular monitor will probably be pretty important though well it kinda already is I suppose heh.)

If it's 60hz no thank you.

+1 100+ Hz and 4K is what we are waiting..

Yup totally agree. Skimmed the article looking for something along the lines of 120Hz+ or something close to that. I really like my current (new) 4k monitor which I bought as a stopgap while I wait for one that Ticks all the new tech boxes a 4K monitor Should support 🙂 I really thought we would have some by now, I got bored of waiting about 6 months back and bought the LG I have now. It can be OC'd to about 73Hz though which is not so bad I guess until the new generation of them arrive.

who cares? we all want the Asus HDR ROG monitor

delete

i don't get people complaining about it not being 100hz or more, even a TITAN X overclocked struggles to hit 60fps right now at 4k, 60hz is fine.

i don't get people complaining about it not being 100hz or more, even a TITAN X overclocked struggles to hit 60fps right now at 4k, 60hz is fine.

LOL, spot on. Still, for 60hz its funny that they call it a 'gaming display'.

Meh, call me when a Ultrawide 1440p HDR monitor drops.

i don't get people complaining about it not being 100hz or more, even a TITAN X overclocked struggles to hit 60fps right now at 4k, 60hz is fine.

60Hz is pretty painful to bear with. Most sharp people can react within a tenth of a second and they can perceive a lot in that tenth of a second, which leaves only 6 frames viewable. - it is literally like a smaller childs flickerbook for anyone that is not somewhat retarded :bang: So no, 60Hz is not alright. You do realise there are settings other than Ultra and you can even fine tune individual settings? Some settings have a big impact for relatively a small or even unnoticeable visual hit. Besides people buying a screen often keep it for a great many years if it is good, during which they can enjoy games that are of a lighter load to such a screens potential and get a faster GFx card next year etc A lot of people have been holding off to buy a high refresh 4K screen to finally upgrade from something pretty old tech and don't want to wait yet another year Again........ (and don't have enough money to just keep buying another screen for each baby step up in tech)

so it looks like the display industry is going to try and sell off their old WCG IPS panels rebadged as "HDR". These early "HDR" monitors aren't going to be good for gaming or "HDR" content sadly. If they cannot do 100% DCI-P3 and 1000 nits once calibrated, they will not be useful for content creators and unless they can offer 1000 nits and low lag it isn't a good option for gamers on PC or one consoles either. Console gamers are looking for a smaller than TV sized option that can do full spec HDR10 and PC gamers want a HDR "4K" monitor option that can go above 60Hz , offer low input lag and probably G-Sync or free-sync. Accepting a "HDR10" signal doesn't make a monitor HDR, it is just HDR ready if it doesn't also hit the 1000 nit minimum. Not even hitting 100% DCI-P3 means that it will never calibrate accurately since there is no headroom. Sadly it looks like many potential buyers will have to skip buying a new monitor for HDR until later in the year or even early 2018 and in the mean time TV buyers are going to have 2000 nit and 4000 nit display options available that do hit 100% DCI-P3 too , so while I and others I suspect might consider a using a TV as a monitor on the desk for gaming, they wont have DisplayPort and aren't going to handle RGB 4:4:4 over HDMI so it wont be a good option versus a actual HDR monitor. Maybe we really will have to wait for OLED monitors to get real HDR on the PC 🙁

4K @ 120hz+ or no deal.

If it's 60hz no thank you.

4K @ 120hz+ or no deal.

Thank you for telling us that you will not buy a 4K 60Hz monitor. Buy a 4K 120Hz mon ... oh wait where are they? When will Guru3D forumers quit these kinds of posts? I want an 8K 500Hz display with 4 Titan X5's. Else, no thank you. Sheesh, if this monitor is not for you, move along ...

Thank you for telling us that you will not buy a 4K 60Hz monitor. Buy a 4K 120Hz mon ... oh wait where are they? When will Guru3D forumers quit these kinds of posts? I want an 8K 500Hz display with 4 Titan X5's. Else, no thank you. Sheesh, if this monitor is not for you, move along ...

Was wondering when the low 60 Hz 4K monitor posts would stop sheesh. I guess we live in a mirror universe XD

Was wondering when the low 60 Hz 4K monitor posts would stop sheesh. I guess we live in a mirror universe XD

Huh? You just posted one of those posts...

Displayport 1.4 should do it regarding bandwidth to use something like 4K HDR monitor, even tho that isn't perfect I guess yet. So and then the grunt from gpu to drive that. And then I guess there is the issue of panels not really existing yet with high hz 4K. HDMI 2.1 might be other connection to drive that.

so it looks like the display industry is going to try and sell off their old WCG IPS panels rebadged as "HDR". These early "HDR" monitors aren't going to be good for gaming or "HDR" content sadly. If they cannot do 100% DCI-P3 and 1000 nits once calibrated, they will not be useful for content creators and unless they can offer 1000 nits and low lag it isn't a good option for gamers on PC or one consoles either. Console gamers are looking for a smaller than TV sized option that can do full spec HDR10 and PC gamers want a HDR "4K" monitor option that can go above 60Hz , offer low input lag and probably G-Sync or free-sync. Accepting a "HDR10" signal doesn't make a monitor HDR, it is just HDR ready if it doesn't also hit the 1000 nit minimum. Not even hitting 100% DCI-P3 means that it will never calibrate accurately since there is no headroom. Sadly it looks like many potential buyers will have to skip buying a new monitor for HDR until later in the year or even early 2018 and in the mean time TV buyers are going to have 2000 nit and 4000 nit display options available that do hit 100% DCI-P3 too , so while I and others I suspect might consider a using a TV as a monitor on the desk for gaming, they wont have DisplayPort and aren't going to handle RGB 4:4:4 over HDMI so it wont be a good option versus a actual HDR monitor. Maybe we really will have to wait for OLED monitors to get real HDR on the PC 🙁

Tbh DCI-P3 is not that good (even if it is industry standard for movies) it's similar to Adobe RGB which my monitor covers tho does not have that high nits. Rec 2020 and even more so rec 2100 will be our true HDR monitors in near future.

AFAIK the HDR-10 standard is nothing more than a minimum requirement for contrast and total brightness, along with 10 bit colour capability. My monitor meets the specs for HDR-10, so when games start supporting it I'm going to be pretty pissed if that colour mode won't activate due to my monitor not having some stupid certification. 4K HDR at 100Hz+ is going to require too much graphics power pretty much forever. As always I'm waiting for a 1440p HDR 120Hz+ screen, which implies it'd be at least as colour accurate as an IPS.

i don't get people complaining about it not being 100hz or more, even a TITAN X overclocked struggles to hit 60fps right now at 4k, 60hz is fine.

Competitive games is where it matters, and hitting high frame rates is usually possible in those. CS GO, League of Legends, Overwatch, etc can actually be ran at hundreds of frames per second.

AFAIK the HDR-10 standard is nothing more than a minimum requirement for contrast and total brightness, along with 10 bit colour capability. My monitor meets the specs for HDR-10, so when games start supporting it I'm going to be pretty pissed if that colour mode won't activate due to my monitor not having some stupid certification. 4K HDR at 100Hz+ is going to require too much graphics power pretty much forever. As always I'm waiting for a 1440p HDR 120Hz+ screen, which implies it'd be at least as colour accurate as an IPS. Competitive games is where it matters, and hitting high frame rates is usually possible in those. CS GO, League of Legends, Overwatch, etc can actually be ran at hundreds of frames per second.

Yeah i can see it mattering to competitive gaming, but competitive gamers will probably be sticking to 1920x1080 for a while, maybe moving up to 1440p eventually, its not like LoL at 4k would give you an advantage.