Well, not bad, yet it doesn't have 1440p like I hoped, to see some competition for the Asus Swift. Also, for that price, spending 100€ more to get 1440p isn't such a bad deal anymore, at least imho.

Im waiting on DisplayPort 1.2a standard. Adaptive-Sync and the forthcoming DisplayPort 1.3 standard port before I upgrade my monitor. I want to compare between the 2 types and make my choice between gsync and freesync and then I will make the correct choice without regret.

For a 27" display, I require greater than 1080P. That's fine for a television where I sit four metres away from it. It's not sufficient on a screen of that size when it's 50cm away from my face. If I pay for a 27" screen, it's because I want to make use of the real estate. I can't make full use of it if the resolution is still that of a smaller screen. Even my 24" is 1920x1200 and I certainly don't intend to downgrade! Other features may be nice, but they are the things I would use to decide between monitors once I'd picked size and resolution, not before.

Bleh another 144Hz Gsync. Show me a 60Hz 1080p IPS with Gsync/Freesync and I'll be interested. Stop being greedy keeping frame sync technology exclusive to high end monitors. Make it cost effective to adopt already.

I 100% agree !... Give me IPS G-SYNC and you will have my money ! Even 60Hz, I don't care... Let's be realistic, I have a GTX780ti, I play most of the new AAA games at 1080p with everything at ULTRA (SGSSAA for DX9, DSR now for DX11), which means I have from something like 40fps to 70fps max... So, 60Hz G-SYNC is far more "logical" for me than 144Hz G-SYNC... I am a gamer and I hate TN, why play a game with amazing graphics if you have have a monitor with dark gray instead of true black, with eye-burning white,... I sent back my new AOC G-Sync monitor because it was so terrible compared to my 5 years old DELL IPS... Just give me IPS G-Sync damn !!

If this monster had QHD i maybe consider buying it, and sold my Samsung S27A950D.

Bleh another 144Hz Gsync. Show me a 60Hz 1080p IPS with Gsync/Freesync and I'll be interested. Stop being greedy keeping frame sync technology exclusive to high end monitors. Make it cost effective to adopt already.

IPS/60 Gsync Id actually consider buying. Ill have none of this TN trash.

1440p, 120hz, IPS please and you'll find my money in the post.

Megabiv - beat me to it. That's exactly what i'm waiting for! Although having tried a G-Sync panel recently I might opt for one of the new Asus ROG panels in the interim, don't think we'll be seeing anything IPS/G-Sync/120 until next year.

It must be a truly engrossing experience to have a 144hz monitor drop 70 frames every other minute because of cpu bottlenecks and poor optimisation in games. I doubt even CS:S would maintain a 144 frame minimum on any hardware, they just aren't optimised to that level. Factor in the sheer number of video cards you need to get those framerates ( which is even more of a cpu bottleneck ) and it just wouldn't be worth the trouble. Something that is better on paper than in RL I imagine. Just like 4K monitors, when you need tri-sli 980s to get 60 frames in all the latest games ( Crysis 3? ). We have a lot of tech that is ahead of what the other hardware can supply.

Hitting 120/144 consistently is difficult but that's not entirely the point of displays with a high refresh rate. Even if your graphics card is outputting less than 120 FPS, maybe even less than 60 FPS, the display still refreshes at 120 Hz thereby giving you a smoother experience. Sure some of those frames are going to be repeats but the effect is the same. 4K of is a different story but since this is new technology this isn't exactly surprising. Actually one of the more realistic benefits of 4K right now is that you don't necessarily need to force any additional AA when running at native. As for CS:GO, I wouldn't be surprised if you were able to average well above 200 FPS at 1080p, even with a single GTX 980... you could test 😉

It must be a truly engrossing experience to have a 144hz monitor drop 70 frames every other minute because of cpu bottlenecks and poor optimisation in games. I doubt even CS:S would maintain a 144 frame minimum on any hardware, they just aren't optimised to that level. Factor in the sheer number of video cards you need to get those framerates ( which is even more of a cpu bottleneck ) and it just wouldn't be worth the trouble. Something that is better on paper than in RL I imagine. Just like 4K monitors, when you need tri-sli 980s to get 60 frames in all the latest games ( Crysis 3? ). We have a lot of tech that is ahead of what the other hardware can supply.

You do not need Tri SLI for most top end cards to get 60FPS at 4k in most games I tried even at Ultra settings. with some tweaking. You also need less "filler" effects on to make them look amazing when your gaming at 4k. See the Guru 3D results on the subject for accurate figures. This is speculation rather from someone that actually does game with this sort of hardware so doesn't add much (sorry but it is pretty obvious to anyone that does). I have machines which hit 199 ceilings in BF3 and BF4 if I play at 1920x1080 or 2560x1440. I have high end hardware but a lot of people have something equivalent. I play on Ultra with a few options like Motion Blur turned off because I don't like them. When playing on a 4k screen I turn down AA because it doesn't seem to matter so much. I will get a 144ghz screen or better yet a GSynch enabled monitor at some point in the near future also. I cant speak for Crysis 3 as I did not rate the engine greatly being more diluted by cross platform ambitions than truly state of the art but the problem you refer can typically be traced to one problem. Cheap assed console ports. Your right there, they will never work properly for the very reasons the Ubisoft guys said recently. They aim to reuse as much of the code as possible. The aim of the game is cheap, not with reasonable quality. Crap console ports are crap console ports. Shadows of Mordor although a good game is still a game troubled by being a port and performance issues for example. No SLI support and a very bad field of view (because consoles can do nothing else). I would argue that bad performance, limited field of view and all those other things are not the PC gaming experience. Just a small subset caused by unethical companies doing what companies with very short term objectives caused by poor strategy likely to bite them on the ass eventually. Games like DR3 and anything on ID Tech 5 are never going to run well (perhaps until we get DX12) because they are coded for another platform and it is far cheaper (as the Ubisoft guy said) to use as much code as possible. However, we get games and experiences far in excess of the odd console port. Personally, I get the occasional console port but they are not my focus. Games I can mod and which use the hardware properly are more the bread and butter of my gaming experience and other designed for purpose engines such as Frostbyte 2 and others are the thing that keeps me gaming. If it was left to console ports for gaming I would have stopped buying games years ago.

I got my Swift for that suggested retail price. I wouldn't pay more than 500 for a 1080p part.

Does not matter. Irrelevant if game companies are dumbing everything down to 30fps because of "limitations". Haha.

I got my Swift for that suggested retail price. I wouldn't pay more than 500 for a 1080p part.

Agreed.

It's way too expensive. Also, 1920x1080 at 27" will result in huge pixels.