Asus Intros PB287Q True 4K/UHD Monitor

Status
Not open for further replies.

icrf

Honorable
Mar 22, 2012
20
0
10,510
0
HDMI 1.4, not 2.0, so only 30 Hz there. The only way to get 60 Hz is over DisplayPort, and even then, only using MST, which isn't exactly ideal, as consistency can be finicky.

I know, no video cards output HDMI 2.0, either, but something has to be first, right?
 

knowom

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2006
780
0
18,990
1
I wouldn't pay $400's for it let alone $800 marginally more resolution space than 2x1080p displays which can be had for $100's-$150 routinely now.

It's real world value worth is more like $200-$300's if comparing objectively especially taken into account it's certainly cheaper to mass produce a fair amount of less of both glass and plastic involved.
 

David Dewis

Honorable
Jul 6, 2013
217
0
10,710
7


I wouldn't say that 4x the resolution of 1080p is marginal. That is what it is. 3840 x 2160. My samsung u28d590d is due for delivery tomorrow and I intend to run it with my r9 290 which will be xfired withing the next month or two. It cost me £480, only slightly more than the cost of a decent 1440p monitor in the UK.
 

blaint

Reputable
Apr 30, 2014
13
0
4,520
1
HDMI 1.4, not 2.0, so only 30 Hz there. The only way to get 60 Hz is over DisplayPort, and even then, only using MST, which isn't exactly ideal, as consistency can be finicky.

I know, no video cards output HDMI 2.0, either, but something has to be first, right?
Yeah, at this point I am starting to feel like video card companies are playing a game of chicken with the display manufacturers. I understand a fair amount of R&D and product design goes into each respective release, but let's face it, HDMI 2.0 wasn't just sprung on us a couple weeks ago. It's been in the works for quite a while now, and the consortium finalized it many months ago.

To some excuse I will forgive the card companies, The length of time between their major chip refreshes is longer (relatively speaking), but even they only get a minor pass since the math on 4K bandwidth requirements didn't require the Rosetta Stone to interpret.

It isn't exactly an industry secret that 1.4 does not have the bandwidth to support the specs they are touting (4K@60) so the fact that they to waltzed right passed 2.0 and settled is frankly baffling to me. It is utterly beside the point that there are no 2.0 video cards out yet. There WILL be soon enough, and when there finally are, THIS panel will not be on my list of candidates.

Nice waste of resources, Asus.
 

David Dewis

Honorable
Jul 6, 2013
217
0
10,710
7


I guess GPU manufactures are happy to rely on display port at this time instead of adding hdmi2.0. Most enthusiasts have a monitor that supports DP as will most 4k displays. Why add a new tech which could bump up price if it's not really required by the market just yet.
 

lancelot123

Distinguished
May 12, 2008
135
1
18,695
1
I'm happy with the pixel density of my current monitor, 24" 1200p. This makes a 28" 4K too small in my opinion. I would love to see a cheap 48" 4K monitor.
 

blaint

Reputable
Apr 30, 2014
13
0
4,520
1


I guess GPU manufactures are happy to rely on display port at this time instead of adding hdmi2.0. Most enthusiasts have a monitor that supports DP as will most 4k displays. Why add a new tech which could bump up price if it's not really required by the market just yet.
And by all counts, DP is a barely passable solution at best. Honestly, I don't care if they bump the price, so long as it works without any of the screwy quirks present with the current offering.

All they are doing is hurting themselves by not pushing the tech forward. I am not about to drop a couple grand for a decent 4K setup when it isn't truly decent and without bugs. I scaled back from a pair of 780ti cards to a single one because 2 would have been overkill. And I won't buy a 4k display until I have the cards to drive it with the quality I want.

And yes, more GSync please.
 

mrmez

Splendid
I wouldn't pay $400's for it let alone $800 marginally more resolution space than 2x1080p displays which can be had for $100's-$150 routinely now.

It's real world value worth is more like $200-$300's if comparing objectively especially taken into account it's certainly cheaper to mass produce a fair amount of less of both glass and plastic involved.

What an idiot.

Firstly, doubling the x and y pixels results in 4x the pixels. Not double. You'd have to cram 4 1080 monitors into one.

Secondly, ever heard of diminishing returns? Especially on new tech.

Lastly, i don't know where you are getting your prices, but in Aus I can get a rubbish BenQ 1080 27" for a little under $300, so I'm not sure on what planet I could get a bigger screen with 4x the pixels for the same price or less.
 

David Dewis

Honorable
Jul 6, 2013
217
0
10,710
7


These monitors technically fall under the UHD brand, which most of the industry are accepting as 4k. Only a couple of movie studios are using the actual 4000pixels horizontal standard which seems like a waste considering most monitor and tv manufactures are supporting the UHD standard so very few people will ever see the extra 200 or so lines.
 

jasonelmore

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2008
622
6
18,995
3
What an idiot.

Firstly, doubling the x and y pixels results in 4x the pixels. Not double. You'd have to cram 4 1080 monitors into one.

Secondly, ever heard of diminishing returns? Especially on new tech.

Lastly, i don't know where you are getting your prices, but in Aus I can get a rubbish BenQ 1080 27" for a little under $300, so I'm not sure on what planet I could get a bigger screen with 4x the pixels for the same price or less.
It's 4X the Pixels' NOT 4X the resolution. lrn2square
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50


These monitors technically fall under the UHD brand, which most of the industry are accepting as 4k. Only a couple of movie studios are using the actual 4000pixels horizontal standard which seems like a waste considering most monitor and tv manufactures are supporting the UHD standard so very few people will ever see the extra 200 or so lines.
i don't call 3800 something "4K" . not in my pay check, especially before taxes. nobody calls their 3.8 GHZ cpu "4K" either. there is a price tag affixed to those labels for a reason one of which HDMI is NEVER going to fulfill...other wise graphics cards would still be on AGP #X
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50


These monitors technically fall under the UHD brand, which most of the industry are accepting as 4k. Only a couple of movie studios are using the actual 4000pixels horizontal standard which seems like a waste considering most monitor and tv manufactures are supporting the UHD standard so very few people will ever see the extra 200 or so lines.
i don't call 3800 something "4K" . not in my pay check, especially before taxes. nobody calls their 3.8 GHZ cpu "4K" either. there is a price tag affixed to those labels for a reason one of which HDMI is NEVER going to fulfill...other wise graphics cards would still be on AGP #X
 

mrmez

Splendid


According to Tom's GFX bench, the only single card capable of playing BF4 at 1080 above 120fps is the AMD R295x2.
In addition to a kilowatt power supply, I'm not too sure how many gamers have ~$1,500 to spend on a single GFX card.

Games like Thief and Hitman can't even crack 100fps with that card, so I'm not sure how much use a 120Hz monitor will be.
 

EsposRafy

Reputable
Apr 9, 2014
2
0
4,510
0
It's been confirmed that the price is going to be 650 USD in the end by a LinusTechTips forum member that contacted an ASUS rep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS