4K 144Hz monitors are crap

[BFG10K]

Just a heads up if you’re considering one of these things.

They have a fan. Yep, a fan. Even dinosaur CRTs didn’t have a fan. And apparently it’s quite loud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YCldvmZ6QA&feature=youtu.be

Now it turns out they can’t really do 144Hz without blurry chroma subsampling. You have to drop back to 120Hz if you want a proper picture: https://www.techpowerup.com/245231/latest-4k-144-hz-monitors-use-blurry-chroma-subsampling

"144Hz", just like the 970 was "4GB".

Two thousand bucks for this garbage? No thanks.

 

[moonbogg]

And $2000 only for 27 inches. That's about $75 per inch. So, If Nvidia wanted to cut costs and offer a cheaper variant, they could literally sell us a 1" monitor for about $100. I might buy that.

 

[EXCellR8]

Wasn't this was already discussed here: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...vered-acers-new-4k-gsync-hdr-monitor.2548517/

 

[n0x1ous]

As an owner of the PG27UQ, I can say the fan is a complete non-issue. I can't even hear it over background noise. As far as 27inch, I think its perfect. I want the pixel density when im sitting a foot or two away from the screen

 

[KeithP]

As an owner of the PG27UQ. I can say the fan is a complete non-issue. I can't even hear it over background noise.

In the video linked, the guy states the fan was a problem if you used the VESA mount. Although I don't know how much weight I would put in a video where a noise complaint is made without dB numbers.

Some of his other criticisms seem to fall into the "problems you see when testing, but not in use" category. It is also unclear if he made any attempt to determine if there was a problem with the fan in this particular unit.

I might be alone in this but I got the feeling from the video that he had a negative opinion of the monitor before he opened the box. Of course criticizing a long awaited product probably makes for lots of views.

Personally I think a good quality 1440P monitor makes more sense but to each, their own.

-KeithP

 

[n0x1ous]

In the video linked, the guy states the fan was a problem if you used the VESA mount. Although I don't know how much weight I would put in a video where a noise complaint is made without dB numbers.

Some of his other criticisms seem to fall into the "problems you see when testing, but not in use" category. It is also unclear if he made any attempt to determine if there was a problem with the fan in this particular unit.

I might be alone in this but I got the feeling from the video that he had a negative opinion of the monitor before he opened the box. Of course criticizing a long awaited product probably makes for lots of views.

Personally I think a good quality 1440P monitor makes more sense but to each, their own.

-KeithP

I know the Acer version had an issue with VESA mounting bracket having no ventilation for the fan, but apparently they are now shipping an updated bracket with it that fixes the issue. The PG27UQ includes standoffs for VESA mount to give breathing room for the fan

 

[Oyeve]

So, why would someone get this over, say, a high quality 4K HDTV at 55" or so?

 

[thilanliyan]

So, why would someone get this over, say, a high quality 4K HDTV at 55" or so?

Because of 144Hz. I don't think there are any normal TVs that can do that at 4K.

 

[Oyeve]

Because of 144Hz. I don't think there are any normal TVs that can do that at 4K.

Ah, i see.

 

[mnewsham]

Because of 144Hz. I don't think there are any normal TVs that can do that at 4K.

I mean, it's not like this panel is going to deliver you true 4k 144hz anyway.

DP 1.4 and HDMI 2.0 simply don't have the bandwidth. So you're limited to 4k @ 98hz when using 4:4:4 chroma subsampling and 10-bit HDR, or 4k @ 120Hz when using 4:4:4 & 8-bit SDR.
The only way you can run it at 144hz 4k is if you run 4:2:2 chroma subsampling meaning every group of four pixels you are getting 4 luma samples and 2 chroma samples. Better than going all the way to 4:2:0, but still, 4:2:2 is NOT ideal.


It will take HDMI 2.1 or whatever the next displayport standard gets called, should be on the market in 2019.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

I mean, it's not like this panel is going to deliver you true 4k 144hz anyway.

DP 1.4 and HDMI 2.0 simply don't have the bandwidth. So you're limited to 4k @ 98hz when using 4:4:4 chroma subsampling and 10-bit HDR, or 4k @ 120Hz when using 4:4:4 & 8-bit SDR.
The only way you can run it at 144hz 4k is if you run 4:2:2 chroma subsampling meaning every group of four pixels you are getting 4 luma samples and 2 chroma samples. Better than going all the way to 4:2:0, but still, 4:2:2 is NOT ideal.


It will take HDMI 2.1 or whatever the next displayport standard gets called, should be on the market in 2019.

Can also use 2 DP 1.4 cables and have more than enough bandwidth, just like Dell was doing with DP 1.2 when its first 5K monitor came out. Acer just chose not to Engineer in that capability. It's a shame given the price, but given the performance issues at 4:4:4/144, it's a good chance the panel couldn't support it anyways even if the interface could.

 

[repoman0]

I mean, it's not like this panel is going to deliver you true 4k 144hz anyway.

DP 1.4 and HDMI 2.0 simply don't have the bandwidth. So you're limited to 4k @ 98hz when using 4:4:4 chroma subsampling and 10-bit HDR, or 4k @ 120Hz when using 4:4:4 & 8-bit SDR.
The only way you can run it at 144hz 4k is if you run 4:2:2 chroma subsampling meaning every group of four pixels you are getting 4 luma samples and 2 chroma samples. Better than going all the way to 4:2:0, but still, 4:2:2 is NOT ideal.


It will take HDMI 2.1 or whatever the next displayport standard gets called, should be on the market in 2019.

I had to write a chroma subsampling algorithm for an image processing class. At least for a still image, it was impossible to tell the difference between 4:4:4 and 4:2:2, even flipping back and forth for pixel to pixel comparison. Video may be different, but I doubt it.

I still wouldn't pay that kind of price premium for something limited by a nearly out of date display interface, but still. Your brain cares about luminance resolution a lot more than color

 

[Hans Gruber]

Going out on a limb here but I do not think the 2.1 standard is official and if you buy a 144hz 4k monitor it will most certainly not support HDMI 2.1 because it's not done. Yes we all know it will support at least 120hz @ 4k. They do not as of yet make monitors that can update the HDMI port software on the fly.

 

[mnewsham]

it was impossible to tell the difference between 4:4:4 and 4:2:2, even flipping back and forth for pixel to pixel comparison. Video may be different, but I doubt it.

You can notice it fairly easily with normal desktop usage, hard lines seen with text, as well as application GUIs just look a bit fuzzy and wrong. It's not nearly as drastic as 4:2:0, but it's still not ideal, and i'd certainly want to run 4:4:4 if possible. Most games, and video/pictures should look fine at 4:2:2 (or even 4:2:0) because there aren't very many hard straight lines with bright backgrounds like you get with desktop PC usage.

When the panel price comes down a bit, and the display interfaces catch up to the bandwidth we'll see some new models worth buying, I personally don't feel the current 4k144hz are particularly worth investing in unless you've just got the money to burn and need to satisfy that itch NOW.

 

[repoman0]

You can notice it fairly easily with normal desktop usage, hard lines seen with text, as well as application GUIs just look a bit fuzzy and wrong. It's not nearly as drastic as 4:2:0, but it's still not ideal, and i'd certainly want to run 4:4:4 if possible. Most games, and video/pictures should look fine at 4:2:2 (or even 4:2:0) because there aren't very many hard straight lines with bright backgrounds like you get with desktop PC usage.

When the panel price comes down a bit, and the display interfaces catch up to the bandwidth we'll see some new models worth buying, I personally don't feel the current 4k144hz are particularly worth investing in unless you've just got the money to burn and need to satisfy that itch NOW.

Yeah I never looked at text, just images. Definitely makes sense that higher spatial frequency stuff like text and lines would make it more obvious.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I have a 43" 4K TV sporting 4:4:4. I can't understand why someone would want anything less than 40" for 4k.

 

[n0x1ous]

@Hans Gruber - because when your sitting a foot away from it and dont want to be able to see any pixels, 27 inch is spot on.

@mnewsham I am able to run @ 120hz, 4k, hdr, 4:4:4 and 8-bit. Verified in settings of windows and panel OSD and it is glorious. In games, I can't tell the difference between 8 bit and 10 bit so ill take the extra 22 hz.

I also have a 65 inch LG Oled 4k and its nice to game on for certain games with good HDR, contrast, and perfect blacks, but the input lag and 60hz cap are deal breakers for fps games for me.

 

[mnewsham]

65 inch LG Oled 4k and its nice to game on for certain games with good HDR, contrast, and perfect blacks, but the input lag and 60hz cap are deal breakers for fps games for me.

This is why I have a 43" 4k 60hz wall mounted, and off to the side a 27" 1440p 144hz.
The only thing the 4k 27" 144hz would give me over the 1440p 144hz is higher pixel density, and lower framerate (120 or 98hz vs 144hz). At $450 for the 1440p 144hz, and $480 for my 43" 4k. I spent under $1000. Half the cost of JUST the PG27UQ, and the only thing the PG27UQ has over my setup, is higher brightness due to HDR, and higher pixel density (109 PPI vs 163 PPI). If that extra pixel density provided by the 4k panel is worth $1300+ over a 1440p 144hz G-sync panel, by all means, enjoy your purchase. But you should understand why most people would consider that a waste of money. The benefits are extremely minimal compared to what's already on the market for much less.

 

[n0x1ous]

This is why I have a 43" 4k 60hz wall mounted, and off to the side a 27" 1440p 144hz.
The only thing the 4k 27" 144hz would give me over the 1440p 144hz is higher pixel density, and lower framerate (120 or 98hz vs 144hz). At $450 for the 1440p 144hz, and $480 for my 43" 4k. I spent under $1000. Half the cost of JUST the PG27UQ, and the only thing the PG27UQ has over my setup, is higher brightness due to HDR, and higher pixel density (109 PPI vs 163 PPI). If that extra pixel density provided by the 4k panel is worth $1300+ over a 1440p 144hz G-sync panel, by all means, enjoy your purchase. But you should understand why most people would consider that a waste of money. The benefits are extremely minimal compared to what's already on the market for much less.

Fully understand why it won't interest most people, and Im coming from a 1440p 144hz 27inch. The density, FALD, and HDR are what I was after and for me worth the cost. The only thing I'm not thrilled with is tying myself to Gsync for the foreseeable future. But on the other hand its not like AMD has anything coming anytime soon that could drive this thing properly anyway.

 

[mnewsham]

Fully understand why it won't interest most people, and Im coming from a 1440p 144hz 27inch. The density, FALD, and HDR are what I was after and for me worth the cost.

Yeah fair enough, if you know what you're getting into with it, and it sounds like you do, then not really a problem. There will always be early adopters, if I had the money to burn on that kind of purchase I would probably do similar myself. But i've got other priorities at the moment, and my current setup is good for me for awhile.

By the time I invest in higher PPI monitors I hope Windows has managed to sort out all of the windows scaling issues, which while they're much less than a few years ago, are still a problem compared to MacOS scaling.

 

[gdansk]

I use Mac OS on and Windows 10 on high PPI displays on a daily basis. I think it works well on Windows. I don't expect it to get much better. The only scaling issues I have encountered are with very old programs that will not be updated. I wish LG or Dell would make a reasonably priced 32" 5K monitor. I like high refresh rates, it looks fluid, but most often I'm staring at largely static text and clearer text is what I prefer.

 

[mopardude87]

I think i will be fine with with my GN246HL that i paid a whole $100 out the door for.Minus $6 for a dual link dvi cable so $106. It works lol. How in the heck is something so expensive so flawed? Minus CSGO perhaps is there any other good popular games that can be ran at 144hz at 4k without the need for triple "sli" RTX2080TI cards?I know they rid of the sli bridge but whatever you get the point i am making i am sure.

Hit me up when you find a 1440p IPS panel that does 144hz and i will upgrade my 1070ti asap and get that monitor as well. Oh and that does not cost the price of rent for 3 months.

 

[PlanetJosh]

I knew something was up with that. Anyway I guess I'm a staunch 60hz 4k guy for now but patiently waiting for Samsung to come out with 40" 4k monitors (not just TVs) with 144hz. Worth the wait because of the IQ of Samsung.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I think your best bet if a 60hz panel for 4k. Until more capable hardware becomes available.

 

[Batmeat]

I am able to run @ 120hz, 4k, hdr, 4:4:4 and 8-bit. Verified in settings of windows and panel OSD and it is glorious. In games, I can't tell the difference between 8 bit and 10 bit so ill take the extra 22 hz.

What monitor do you have?