Um

um

Asus PG27UQ
4K
144Hz
HDR
G-Sync

after a FreeSync model is released, are we done?

>$1200

>4k gaming?

No, friend.

I was massively impressed with my 7970 and i7 920 at 4k gaming.

>freesync
lol

>Not even 64k 1024hz gaymen

lamo @ ur life

Sure, when it reaches 300-400 dollars

>27"

Might as well not even make it.

>FreeSync model
Your retarded ass seems to forget that this screen relies on the G-sync module, the actual hardware. Same goes for the 240hz screens announced which are only G-sync as well.

Freesync 2 has 240hz in the standard.

>the panel is a single nvidia production unit

user, please stop posting

if its freesync then ill buy one

Freesync is still software retard, the screen won't magically be able to do 240hz just because it runs freesync.

Not what I said retard

cheap 8K, 240hz OLED monitors when

We can only dream, user.
We basically have to pray to LG for it happen, right?

i'll definitely buy the freesync version of this.

Why are people on this God forsaken website so damn picky? All of you prefer the worst shit

>Freesync is still software
It's part of the VESA standard. It's not just software.

Does it literally project some red lights onto the bottom?

Yes. It projects the ROG logo onto the desk beneath it.

Of course.
When you buy ASUS™ Republic Of Gamers™ (R.O.G)™ hardware, you get exclusive tacky leds. And you thought she coudln't get any worse

>No red LEDs
>No gaymer mode
>No aerodynamic armor
>Not named after a predatory animal
0/10 would not buy.

Satisfaction is degeneracy.

4k 144hz would require what, dual Titan X?

Now worth it. 1440p and 144Hz is something I would pay for with all of that. Maybe 500-600 dollars.

the point is you can play 144hz 1440p or 60fps 4k on that monitor, you can just choose what you prefer at the moment

Counter Strike

Thats normal nowadays, even Dell has a monitor with those specs +gsync i think. Still a bit too expensive imo.

There's literally no 4k monitors with these specs. Stop talking out of your ass

Really expensive though. Plus I would always prefer 144Hz.

talking about 1440 144hz you spaz

> not ultrawide

Because when I play games in 4K, my framerates are so high that I'm desperate for 144hz.

Product is being released before a market for the product actually exists, I bought a 4k60hz for the fraction of the price and will buy a 4k144hz to accompany it down the line once prices go down and 4k144hz gaming becomes a realistic notion.

$1,200 for a product I can't actually use outside of old fucking games without my computer bursting into flames isn't worth it. This will only be bought by the type of people that SLI Titan X's.

I'd even be excited for a 4K 75Hz Freesync IPS monitor.
Anything but being stuck at 60Hz.

Well I'm probably getting an OLED TV from them.
Just not sure if I want to shell out another $1000 for 4k. I doubt it'll look much different from full hd from a normal viewing distance.

but how does it look scaling down like that? wouldn't it get a bit blurry even considering that density?

1440p can't be displayed natively though, and a 1440p 144hz monitor would give better image quality.

So we're back to the same problem that the monitor can't really do anything that a 4k60hz or 1440p 144hz monitor can't do as well or better, yet it costs $1200.

Product is simply ahead of its time. I don't see a market for it other than people that fart money. If you had enough money to seriously consider a product like this, why not just buy 2560x1440 144hz now since its gonna overall look better in most games? If you want to buy into 4k, why not go 4k60hz and pair it with a better monitor later when 144hz gaming becomes more plausible?

If the price difference was insignificant I might buy it anyways, but the price difference is totally significant. Again I only see this monitor being bought by people that find a $500 difference in price or so trivial.

There's also the aspect that OLED and QLED technology is maturing rapidly and will hit the monitor market soon, so buying this doesn't really make much sense for future proofing. Seems kind of insane to spend $1200 for a product that's gonna look obsolete in a couple of years that you can't even really use yet without Titan X SLI.

playing quake 3 i'm sure.

oops, meant for

why would 1440p look bad on a 4k monitor? they have the same aspect ratio dont they?

Why not just 1080p and a PG248Q with 120Hz ULMB?
Its perfect for hardcore gaming and I already have a €2000 monitor for serious work.

if you have say a 1920x1080 monitor, try switching to 1366x768 for example

see how bad it looks

for perfect downscaling you always need to merge a square of 4 pixels so you can only do 1/2^n of your current resolution (1920x1080 -> 960x540)

You serious?

Try figuring out how to fit 2560 pixels into 3840 pixels. You can't do it without streching shit over multiple pixels. It can't be natively displayed, it always results in one pixel being stretched out over multiple pixels. That results in worse image quality than just using a monitor that can render 2560x1440 natively.

The reason 2560 is popular is that it can display 720p content natively by making 4 pixels = 1 pixel, and the reason 4k is popular is it can display 1080p content natively by making 4 pixels = 1 pixel.

It's not quite that bad. The pixel density of 4K means that the artifacting isn't as noticeable.
I'm using a Dell P2715Q and upscaled 1440p video and images don't look terrible on it, they still look great. It's my Linux work PC though, and I haven't tested any games.

What kind of downscale filter is usually applied?

Not sure. The monitor does the upsampling instead of the radeon driver.
It's a bit more than nearest neighbor though, edges that should be sharp look slightly blurred. It looks like a simple gaussian blur.

>4k
>144hz


SIGN ME UP


TAKE MY FUCKING MONEY