Please let that standard die already. Putting IPS and high refresh rate on 27 inch monitor with terrible res is silly. Especially at that price. The market is saturated with these displays and no one likes that.
I would reccomend against it for competitive games. If you want buttery smooth looking game play go ahead. But the measured response time by 3rd parties indicates that it is still significantly behind tn in terms of pixel response.
I have zero interest in 4K monitors. I want to be able to game with smooth frame rates on a mid-range graphics card. 19 x 10 @ 27" is perfect for me, and there are plenty of options for people who don't game and want higher resolutions.
There’s “go cheap on” and then there’s the cost of high-refresh rate 4K gaming monitors. They cost maybe 5x as much just to hit 144Hz, the difference in resolution won’t be that high in games, and there are no 240Hz 4K monitors, so compared to this display you must lose out on refresh rates. That’s why people don’t buy 4K monitors.
I considered one, briefly, before deciding I’d rather spend 500-700 CAD on a monitor for 1440p at 144Hz than 2000-2500 CAD just to get 4K at 144Hz.
Pretty much anyone who cares about their framerate. 1440p with FXAA/MSAA looks nearly flawless on a 27" display and has considerably better performance.
4K gaming displays are really only valuable to people who play slow paced games at 60hz and value image quality over all else. If you play any kind of fast paced or competitive shooters etc, 4K is an enormous waste.
Sadly, the statement about 1440p is true. 27" 1440p at 144-200Hz is currently the best option. I bought the Asus 4K HDR 144Hz monitor, expecting the "RTX" line of cards to provide a 75% performance increase over the last generation of cards, as Nvidia had previously done. But as a result, I can no longer play any of my FPS games comfortably. I have to use lower internal resolution scale and etc...i wish I could go back to my 165Hz 1440p monitor and put the $2000 price of the new monitor back in my pocket. Lol.
Nvidia has really effed us. Or arguably...AMD has effed us, by not being competitive enough to force Nvidia to put out better cards.
I agree man. Nvidia chose to sacrifice performance per dollar for extra silicon supporting ray tracing and ai. In retrospect and actually even pre launch to anyone who knew the demand of actual good raytracing it was a bad idea. The super cards have regained some value. And this is directly related to amd forcing them to.
nVidia recently added integer scaling to their newest cards, so you could try treating that display as 1080p for gaming purposes. Though I’m not sure that would look better than 1440p using interpolated scaling.
But this isn't 1440p...lol No one is saying 4k for everything, I play PUBG, fast paced FPS on 35inch 120Hz monitor and have zero issue. I've also played apex legends for a little bit on my 4k just fine.
The same people who bought into $1200 RTX cards that offer 40-60fps at 1080p with ray tracing. Then again...this is too much refresh rate at 1080p for the latest generation Nvidia cards. Woah is me. 1st world problems. lol.
As well as people who want lower resolutions so that they can run games smoother and at higher framerates, 4k displays of the same quality in other aspects are considerably more expensive.
While I agree, 1080p should be on the way out, you need to remember that 4K gaming can only be run smoothly at 60fps if you're rocking a 2080 Ti. Now if you're trying to run 4K @ 240Hz... good luck. 2.5k @ 120Hz, sure, but 240 is a butt load of frames to crank out.
Any mathematicians out there wanna do the math on the bandwidth required for 4K@240Hz? It'll blow all your minds.
DisplayPort 1.4 can handle around 25Gbit/s after encoding (2.0 can do 77Gbit/s) HDMI 2.0 can do a little less than 15Gbit/s. The 2080ti has DP1.4 and HDMI 2.0b Doing this monitor at 4k is not possible at 240Hz
Note: 1440p @ 240hz is over 30Gbit/s, so still not an option
Workarounds for DisplayPort bandwidth limitations: using two DisplayPort streams instead of one, using display stream compression, using chroma sub sampling, using DisplayPort 2.0. Now, some of these things either aren’t available (DP2 isn’t yet, and has anybody ever seen DSC in the wild? It was optional in DP 1.4) or have an impact on visual fidelity, but people plugged two DP cables in to drive 4K monitors in the past, so there’s no reason why that can’t still be done.
It's not so bad, in terms of bandwidth. It's the same as 8K at 60Hz, which is doable by splitting the display input across 2 separate inputs using HDMI 2 or Displayport 1.4. Or with a single input on HDMI 2.1 and Displayport 2.
GPU power to handle that though? Lol...impossible. You'd need the power to render a 1080p image at 1000fps to be able to hit 240Hz at 4K. That would require a card that has the rendering power of 3-5 RTX Titan cards to be able to maintain that frame rate in competitive fps titles.
Again, i'm not saying 4k has to be it, more better options than this monitor, but i have played Apex Legends on 4k on my 1080TI and played just fine on it. Do people not know computers have so many options to scale anymore..
If you're running at 4k, do you really need FSAA or any amount of AA? Wouldn't the sheer quadrupling of available pixels be enough to mitigate any problems with FSAA? Also, do competitive gamers actually use any AA in their games? Or is FPS truly king?
Dont support GPU producers in their strategy to make 2k and 4k capable GPUs too expensive or still too slow. Push them, by pushing out more 2k and 4k monitors.
That said, the XG270QG sounds much more interesting.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
35 Comments
Back to Article
imaheadcase - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
27-inch panel featuring a 1920×1080Please let that standard die already. Putting IPS and high refresh rate on 27 inch monitor with terrible res is silly. Especially at that price. The market is saturated with these displays and no one likes that.
surt - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
Yeah i'm baffled about who would buy any display without 4k these days.PeachNCream - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
It's in the first line of the article. The buyers are obviously "demanding hardcore and esports gamers" ... whatever the hell those are anyway.Opencg - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
I would reccomend against it for competitive games. If you want buttery smooth looking game play go ahead. But the measured response time by 3rd parties indicates that it is still significantly behind tn in terms of pixel response.sorten - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
I have zero interest in 4K monitors. I want to be able to game with smooth frame rates on a mid-range graphics card. 19 x 10 @ 27" is perfect for me, and there are plenty of options for people who don't game and want higher resolutions.jabber - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
Yep I like the look of this too.imaheadcase - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
So get a better monitor and scale it to whatever game you play for better fps. Desk/Chair/Monitor are the three things you never go cheap on.Guspaz - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
There’s “go cheap on” and then there’s the cost of high-refresh rate 4K gaming monitors. They cost maybe 5x as much just to hit 144Hz, the difference in resolution won’t be that high in games, and there are no 240Hz 4K monitors, so compared to this display you must lose out on refresh rates. That’s why people don’t buy 4K monitors.I considered one, briefly, before deciding I’d rather spend 500-700 CAD on a monitor for 1440p at 144Hz than 2000-2500 CAD just to get 4K at 144Hz.
peevee - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
I would.inighthawki - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
Pretty much anyone who cares about their framerate. 1440p with FXAA/MSAA looks nearly flawless on a 27" display and has considerably better performance.4K gaming displays are really only valuable to people who play slow paced games at 60hz and value image quality over all else. If you play any kind of fast paced or competitive shooters etc, 4K is an enormous waste.
Socius - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
Sadly, the statement about 1440p is true. 27" 1440p at 144-200Hz is currently the best option. I bought the Asus 4K HDR 144Hz monitor, expecting the "RTX" line of cards to provide a 75% performance increase over the last generation of cards, as Nvidia had previously done. But as a result, I can no longer play any of my FPS games comfortably. I have to use lower internal resolution scale and etc...i wish I could go back to my 165Hz 1440p monitor and put the $2000 price of the new monitor back in my pocket. Lol.Nvidia has really effed us. Or arguably...AMD has effed us, by not being competitive enough to force Nvidia to put out better cards.
Opencg - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
I agree man. Nvidia chose to sacrifice performance per dollar for extra silicon supporting ray tracing and ai. In retrospect and actually even pre launch to anyone who knew the demand of actual good raytracing it was a bad idea. The super cards have regained some value. And this is directly related to amd forcing them to.imaheadcase - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
This monitor isn't 1440p..Guspaz - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
nVidia recently added integer scaling to their newest cards, so you could try treating that display as 1080p for gaming purposes. Though I’m not sure that would look better than 1440p using interpolated scaling.imaheadcase - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
But this isn't 1440p...lol No one is saying 4k for everything, I play PUBG, fast paced FPS on 35inch 120Hz monitor and have zero issue. I've also played apex legends for a little bit on my 4k just fine.Socius - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
The same people who bought into $1200 RTX cards that offer 40-60fps at 1080p with ray tracing. Then again...this is too much refresh rate at 1080p for the latest generation Nvidia cards. Woah is me. 1st world problems. lol.Tams80 - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
As well as people who want lower resolutions so that they can run games smoother and at higher framerates, 4k displays of the same quality in other aspects are considerably more expensive.imaheadcase - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
It doesn't even have to be 4k, just so many better monitors than this.StevoLincolnite - Monday, September 30, 2019 - link
At-least make it 1440P so you don't notice the screen door effect as much.peevee - Monday, September 30, 2019 - link
The right solution to screen door effect is the high pixel-to-interpixel space ratio, not useless resolution which robs performance and power.Drkrieger01 - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
While I agree, 1080p should be on the way out, you need to remember that 4K gaming can only be run smoothly at 60fps if you're rocking a 2080 Ti. Now if you're trying to run 4K @ 240Hz... good luck. 2.5k @ 120Hz, sure, but 240 is a butt load of frames to crank out.Any mathematicians out there wanna do the math on the bandwidth required for 4K@240Hz? It'll blow all your minds.
Robert Pankiw - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
No need to do the math. Wikipedia has it all, as do the DisplayPort and HDMI websites.1080p@240hz is 17.5Gbit/s
4k@240Hz is 68.5Gbit/s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Refresh_...
DisplayPort 1.4 can handle around 25Gbit/s after encoding (2.0 can do 77Gbit/s)
HDMI 2.0 can do a little less than 15Gbit/s. The 2080ti has DP1.4 and HDMI 2.0b
Doing this monitor at 4k is not possible at 240Hz
Note: 1440p @ 240hz is over 30Gbit/s, so still not an option
Guspaz - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
Workarounds for DisplayPort bandwidth limitations: using two DisplayPort streams instead of one, using display stream compression, using chroma sub sampling, using DisplayPort 2.0. Now, some of these things either aren’t available (DP2 isn’t yet, and has anybody ever seen DSC in the wild? It was optional in DP 1.4) or have an impact on visual fidelity, but people plugged two DP cables in to drive 4K monitors in the past, so there’s no reason why that can’t still be done.Socius - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
It's not so bad, in terms of bandwidth. It's the same as 8K at 60Hz, which is doable by splitting the display input across 2 separate inputs using HDMI 2 or Displayport 1.4. Or with a single input on HDMI 2.1 and Displayport 2.GPU power to handle that though? Lol...impossible. You'd need the power to render a 1080p image at 1000fps to be able to hit 240Hz at 4K. That would require a card that has the rendering power of 3-5 RTX Titan cards to be able to maintain that frame rate in competitive fps titles.
imaheadcase - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
Again, i'm not saying 4k has to be it, more better options than this monitor, but i have played Apex Legends on 4k on my 1080TI and played just fine on it. Do people not know computers have so many options to scale anymore..erple2 - Tuesday, October 15, 2019 - link
If you're running at 4k, do you really need FSAA or any amount of AA? Wouldn't the sheer quadrupling of available pixels be enough to mitigate any problems with FSAA? Also, do competitive gamers actually use any AA in their games? Or is FPS truly king?Haswell1150 - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
Agreed!!! 24" at 1080P or 27" at 1440P.lilkwarrior - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
Dolby Vision or GTFOlilkwarrior - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
*On top of HDR10+Guspaz - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
HDR10+ and DolbyVision are pointless on a display with a 1000:1 contrast ratio.Soulkeeper - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
I too was excited untill I saw 1080.mobutu - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
What a pity, this should have been near perfect with 1440-1600p.Well, 1200p on 27" is minimum, below is unacceptable.
I'm sure there;ll be some model/brand that will nail it soon.
edzieba - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
"a 1000:1 contrast ratio"Or in other words, not HDR. Not in any way, shape, or fi6rm.
edzieba - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
*form.Beaver M. - Sunday, September 29, 2019 - link
Meh, 1080peh.Dont support GPU producers in their strategy to make 2k and 4k capable GPUs too expensive or still too slow. Push them, by pushing out more 2k and 4k monitors.
That said, the XG270QG sounds much more interesting.