4K for $649: Asus’ PB287Q monitor reviewed

A couple of years ago, I got an energized, slightly crazy look in my eyes when folks in Korea started selling some truly gorgeous 27″ IPS monitors on eBay for dirt cheap. Word spread quickly among PC enthusiasts about the visual glory that could be had for about 300 bucks. I promptly ordered one and did my part to spread to word about its crystal-clear, colorific virtues.

Little did we know back then that the sleepy world of PC displays was about to be awakened by a series of disruptive technologies. Since then, the first wave of 4K panels arrived based on a mind-shatteringly beautiful 31.5″ panel—with an equally sanity-threatening $3,500 price tag attached. Next came G-Sync, or at least the early prototypes, with a variable display refresh capability that makes in-game animation look silky smooth. I also briefly freaked out over a tantalizingly cheap 39″ TV with 4K resolution—but sadly, it only worked at a pokey 30Hz refresh rate.

In truth, all of those developments were simply a portent of better things to come. The really exciting part is when these new technologies go mainstream—when we can get our grubby little hands on mature versions of new tech at affordable prices. We’ve reached one of those happy milestones with the introduction of Asus’ new 4K monitor, the innocuously named PB287Q. This monitor represents the maturation of 4K display tech, and wow, 4K has grown up faster than Miley Cyrus went from Hannah Montana to whore o’ Babylon.

The PB287Q measures 28″ from corner to corner, and inside of its rectangular frame is a grid measuring 3840×2160 pixels. Unlike almost every other 4K display on the market, the PB287Q is capable of treating that grid as a single, coherent surface. That’s a huge deal for reasons I’ll explain in more detail shortly, but the bottom line is that dual-tile 4K is just a bag of hurt.

Even so, the second punch in this combo is the knockout: Asus is asking only $649 for this monitor ($699 in Canadia.) That’s… way less than three grand, I’m pretty sure, although I do have a liberal arts degree.

The value here is a thick and viscous slurry that clings to everything it touches. It’s practically inescapable. Yet for the PC display purist, there is one big, shiny, green fly struggling helplessly in the ointment of 4K goodness. Metaphorically speaking, I hope. The PB287Q is so affordable in part because it’s based on a 28″ panel of the twisted nematic variety.

Yep, it’s the dreaded TN panel type. You’ve seen them in laptops, attached to cheap desktops, and most recently perhaps in one of those $60 Android tablets they sell at Walmart. TN panels have a lousy reputation, and they’ve earned every inch of it by combining horrid color reproduction with crummy contrast ratios and narrow viewing angles. For me, thinking about them can induce rage, probably because of how many otherwise-decent laptops they have sabotaged.

Frankly, I would have written off the PB287Q as uninteresting if I weren’t vaguely aware of the fact that not all TN panels are created equal. When I came face to face with an early version of the PB287Q during CES, it was shockingly not awful. Downright decent, even.

I don’t even know who I am anymore.

But I do know that the PB287Q hosts the best TN panel on which my eyes have ever fixed their gaze. In fact, it’s a pretty darned good display.

About the whole 4K thing

There’s really nothing magic about “4K” resolutions. They’re not even terribly well defined. 4K has something to do with packing about four thousand pixels from left to right across the screen. That’s weird, since 720p and 1080p consider vertical resolution, but not so weird, since marketers like bigger numbers.

I am a fan of high resolutions, especially when they’re combined with high pixel densities. Most of the 4K monitors out there are moving the ball forward substantially in terms of pixel density, and that is a little bit magical. Here’s how Asus’ new 28″ wonder stacks up against a number of common displays.

Given how PPI works, the PB287Q crams about three times as many pixels into a square inch as your “typical” PC monitor, represented above by a 24″ 1080p panel.

The Q, as I like to call it, is also substantially denser than its spiritual predecessor, the Asus PB278. The PB278 is a 27″ IPS panel with a 2650×1440 resolution, and it’s basically just a nicer, better-packaged version of those 27″ Korean IPS monitors. In my view, the crucial and decisive question about the PB287Q is how it stacks up against those 27″ IPS displays. On the pixel density front, at least, the PB287Q is clearly in another class.

This panel isn’t as crazy-dense as some of the smaller tablet displays, including Apple’s 9.7″ iPad “Retina” panels, but it’s also not meant to be viewed six inches from your face. Which I remind myself every time I start slouching again. I’d say the Q qualifies for “retina” status when viewed from a reasonable distance (for a desktop display) of 20-24″. That is, you’re not likely to be able to pick out individual pixels, and text takes on a “printed” look with smoothly contoured edges. It’s purty.

Just monitor stuff

I have lots more to say about the PB287Q’s super-dense panel, but we should pause to take a look at some of this monitor’s other features first. That’s especially important because this product shares the same panel type with some competition, including the Samsung U28D590D.

Asus believes it has one-upped Samsung by setting a $50-lower list price and providing a more upscale physical configuration. I’m inclined to agree. The Samsung monitor offers only a tilt adjustment, while the PB287Q can swivel, tilt, change height, and….

Yes, it pivots into portrait mode, making a triple-4K portrait config a live option. The stand feels sturdy and well balanced, too. If you’d rather put the monitor on a wall mount or the like, the included base attaches via a standard 100-mm VESA mount, so the Q should be compatible with a broad range of mounting hardware.

There are several inputs on the back of the monitor. Oddly, access to them is partially blocked by a long, plastic shroud visible in the picture above the, er, one above. With the shroud popped off, the ports are easier to access. Those ports include a single DisplayPort input, two HDMI sockets, and an analog audio jack.

99.9% of the time, you’ll want to use the DisplayPort input, which is the only way to get 4K at 60Hz. The HDMI inputs can drive the whole display at lower resolutions or refresh rates, but they’re probably most useful as aux inputs for the monitor’s picture-in-picture capability. The first HDMI port also supports MHL 2.0, so it can receive a 1080p video signal from a phone or tablet and supply power to that device over the same connection. Kinda nifty, in theory, although I haven’t tried it yet.

Menus and such

Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of the menu systems in most monitors. They’re not exactly paragons of UI design, and too often, they seem to be missing obvious features. Asus, however, has done a reasonably good job with the PB287Q’s on-screen display and menu options. Nothing really obvious is missing. If anything, the firm went overboard with the choices in a few places, such as the “Splendid” color profile menu, which includes modes dubbed scenery, standard, theater, landscape, game, night view, sRGB, reading, and darkroom.

Ain’t nobody got time for that.

The sRGB option does produce colors that appear to be closer to our post-calibration settings than the default “standard” mode, for what it’s worth.

Most OSD menu systems make me feel kind of clumsy. I always hit “back” when I want “select” or vice versa. That problem is made worse in the PB287Q by the placement of the array of seven navigation buttons on the back side of the enclosure. Associating them with the white dots on the front of the monitor, which must then be associated with on-screen action icons, is almost beyond me. I’m never sure my finger’s in the right place. It’s like being 17 all over again.

The PB287Q experience

This monitor’s ability to handle 4K resolutions as a single tile at 60Hz (via DisplayPort 1.2 SST) is a Really Big Deal for one simple reason: using 4K with two tiles stinks, for reasons I’ve explained at length here (under the second subhead.)

Running games at 4K requires tons of GPU horsepower, yet dual-tile displays don’t support simple scaling. As a result, you can’t drop back to obvious subset resolutions like 2560×1440 or 1920×1080 in order to keep frame rendering times low. For gaming, it’s 3840×2160 or bust—and you’ll need two of the fastest GPUs with tons of VRAM to keep up in recent games. Even then, it’s sometimes a stretch. I once hoped GPU makers would alleviate this problem by supporting GPU-based scaling for dual-tile displays in their drivers, but that’s never happened. I now think it’s unlikely to ever happen, sadly.

That’s just one problem among many. BIOS screens and pre-boot utilities are a problem for dual-tile configs. Some games can’t handle them properly, either. Multi-GPU configs often struggle to perform as well when driving two logical displays instead of one. The list goes on.

And single-tile 4K at 30Hz stinks worse, especially for gaming.

The PB287Q solves almost all of those problems. I say “almost” because there are a couple of snags along the way to 4K bliss.

The first one is simple and not really a big deal in the grand scheme. The monitor comes out of the box in DisplayPort 1.1 mode, which limits the refresh rate to 30Hz at full resolution. You’ll have to poke through the on-screen menus in order to switch it into DP 1.2 mode. After that, the 60Hz refresh rate becomes available. I think Asus would have preferred to ship this thing with DP 1.2 enabled by default, but at least one GPU maker didn’t have proper driver support for single-stream 4K working until just this week.

The other snag we experienced with our review unit has to do with the display resolutions exposed to the host system by the monitor’s firmware. As you can see above, some very important options are missing, including lower resolutions with the same aspect ratio, like 2560×1400 and 1920×1080. These modes are absent in the Windows control panel and in a bunch of the games I tried, too. As I said above, you’re going to want those lower resolutions sometimes for gaming.

Happily, the PB287Q’s built-in scaler chip is quite capable of scaling either mode cleanly up to 3840×2160. I know this because I attached a second monitor with a native resolution of 2560×1440 to my test system, and suddenly, more resolutions became available for the primary display, too. Once it was exposed, I was able to use 2560×1440 and 1920×1080 for the Windows desktop and for gaming, using both display-based resolution scaling and GPU scaling. It looks nice and works well. There are other workarounds possible, like creating a custom resolution in the Nvidia control panel. That works nicely, too.

Such measures shouldn’t be necessary, though. Asus tells me it plans to fix this problem with a firmware update for shipping versions of the PB287Q, and we should have an updated monitor to test here in Damage Labs soon. We’ll update this article once we’ve confirmed the fix.

Another improvement I’d like to see in the firmware is the exposure of a higher refresh rate at 2560×1440 for gaming. If the bandwidth is available for 4K at 60Hz, then there should be sufficient bandwidth for 2560×1440 at up to 120Hz—although not every panel may be up to the challenge. Even a 75Hz mode would be welcome. Think about it, Asus. Call me.


More pixels in your fonts, yo

I think it’s worth saying that buying the PB287Q means buying into a whole bunch of teething problems with Windows, Windows applications, and high-PPI displays. Microsoft has worked out many of the worst problems in Windows 8.1. 4K monitors usually are set automatically to the 150% scaling mode, which looks just about right on the PB287Q. System fonts and dialogs are generally scaled up to, well, their normal “size,” just with more pixels.


Err, what?

Many Windows applications haven’t caught up yet, though, so you’re bound to encounter some weird-looking stuff. Just look at that Fraps UI screenshot above. Look at it. It’s totally hosed. Even when things aren’t hosed, in older applications, you’ll see a lot of that blurry, soft-edged text, an artifact of scaling up fixed-resolution lettering. Heck, you’ll see it in brand-new applications, too.

Web browsers can be a problem. You may want to choose Internet Explorer rather than Chrome, since Microsoft has clearly done more work to support high-PPI configs. However, note that IE ditches the ClearType sub-pixel antialiasing scheme and snap-to-grid GDI font rendering in favor of simple greyscale antialiasing. As a result, the effective text resolution with IE at high PPIs isn’t a huge leap from other browsers with ClearType on conventional displays.


Greyscale AA in IE (left) vs. ClearType in Chrome (right)

That’s kind of getting into the weeds, though. At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter, because this panel’s 157-PPI density makes everything better. You will look at it and like it, instantly. Heck, I think Microsoft probably made the right choice in switching to the new font rendering and AA methods.

Bottom line, the hardware is now capable, and with the dual-tile mess sorted, the remaining quirks aren’t the hardware’s fault. I’m sure the software problems will be sorted out with time. Just be aware that, at present, being an early adopter means feeling some pain now and then.

I have more to say about the experience of using the PB287Q, but before we get into my subjective impressions, let’s look at some objective quality measurements.

Brightness and contrast

I said earlier that I think those 27″ IPS panels, like the ones in the bargain-priced Korean jobs, are the perfect foil for the PB287Q. That’s why I’ve tested the PB287Q against its IPS-based sibling, the Asus PB278. The PB278 will currently set you back $466 at Amazon, so it’s a cheaper, lower-res option based on in-plane switching technology. The PB287Q will have to acquit itself well in order to justify its higher price.

The PB287Q’s illumination is provided by a WLED backlight, and it uses DC-based dimming to avoid flicker. Asus rates the monitor’s peak brightness at 300 candelas per square millimeter, which is roughly the same as the surface of the sun. Seriously, for indoor use, desktop monitors have gotten to the point where brightness is in ample supply. Although the PB287Q doesn’t emit quite as much light at peak as the PB278, it’s plenty bright. It even exceeds its own spec for light output slightly. (Both of these monitors have matte coatings on them, by the way, so they shouldn’t have to work too hard to overcome reflections.)

Our “typical” readings were taken with both monitors normalized to 200 cd/m² at the center of the screen. Oddly enough, both of them slightly surpassed that value during this test.

The IPS-based PB278 produces slightly brighter whites and darker blacks, so it has a higher overall contrast ratio than the PB287Q. So, yes, the TN panel doesn’t achieve quite the same contrast levels. (And it really does come down to the panel. Remarkable how little changes from the lowest to highest backlight brightness levels.) Still, the PB287Q’s roughly 635:1 net contrast ratio is pretty decent.

Color reproduction

Click through the buttons below to see the color gamuts for these two displays, both before and after calibration. Color gamut has to do with the range of colors the display can produce. These things tend to vary pretty widely from one monitor to the next. The gray triangle on each diagram above represents the standard sRGB color space.


For a TN panel, the PB287Q performs scandalously well in this test. Yes, the IPS-based PB278 offers a slightly wider color range, but the PB287Q very nearly encompasses the entire sRGB color gamut, only missing out on some of the reds and deepest blues. To give you some idea of how well the PB287Q performs, you can click over to our review of the T100 convertible and see the results there. (Note that Geoff used the smaller NTSC gamut as a reference in his plots.) After calibration, the PB287Q’s color gamut almost exactly matches that of the widely lauded IPS panel in the iPad 3. This thing is no joke.

The spec sheet for the PB287Q says it’s capable of displaying 1.073 billion colors, which is the equivalent of 10 bits of info per color channel. That’s a lot more than the standard 16.7 million colors possible with eight bits per channel, and it’s well above the limits of the usual TN panel. Asus tells me the panel itself is eight-bit capable, and the additional intermediate colors are achieved via FRC, or frame-rate control, a form of temporal dithering.

I only discovered this 10-bit color capability late in the game, when collecting the specs in the final stages of putting this review together. None of the Windows or graphics driver control panels exposes 10-bit color as an option with this display connected, and I haven’t had time to futz around with the registry settings that might enable it. As a result, all of our tests were conducted at eight bits per channel, which is surely how this monitor will be most commonly used.


Our copy of the PB287Q came out of the box a little out of whack, as the ~7000K color temperature we measured indicates. That’s a little cool. Reds looked too orange, and yellows contained too much green. The PB278 is much better behaved at its default settings.

After calibration, the PB287Q became more consistent across a range of gray levels, nearer to our 6500K target. The calibrated settings easily look better to my eye. I strongly recommend buying or borrowing a colorimeter for use with all of your monitors. You’ll be surprised how much it helps—and if our review unit is any indicator, that’s particularly true for the PB287Q.

Delta-E is a measure of color difference—or error—compared to a reference. Smaller delta-E values generally mean more accurate colors. In this case, we measured delta-E in the sRGB color space with a D65 white point, both before and after calibration.

We can go into more detail and see what the sources of error were for each display. Our gamut measurements have already revealed that the PB287Q can’t quite produce all of the reds in the sRGB color space, and reds are unsurprisingly one of its key weaknesses here. Calibration helps some on that front. After calibration, the PB287Q represents colors slightly more accurately overall than the IPS-based PB278.

Display uniformity

Displays typically don’t produce the exact same image across their entire surface. We’ve quantified the uniformity of the PB287Q by taking a series of luminance readings in different regions of the panel. We set the brightness level at 200 cd/m² at the center of the screen before starting.

170
cd/m²

(85%)

176 cd/m²

(88%)

199 cd/m²

(99%)

174 cd/m²

(87%)

200 cd/m²

(100%)

196 cd/m²

(98%)

175 cd/m²

(88%)

176 cd/m²

(88%)

192 cd/m²

(96%)

There’s a 15% variance from the darkest region, at the top left corner of the screen, and the center. These results surprised me, honestly, because my eyes couldn’t detect the differences in white levels. For what it’s worth, the PB278 has very similar light distribution; the luminance of its darkest region is 86% of the center’s.

I’ve chosen to convey backlight bleed using a picture rather than a series of measurements. The PB287Q’s black levels are fairly uniform, with only a bit of light bleed at the bottom left corner of the screen.

Viewing angles

Asus rates this monitor’s optimal viewing angles at 170° of vertical range and 160° of horizontal range. I pushed past that a bit and took some pictures.

The color shift is pretty dramatic if you’re looking at the screen from way above or below. Then again, I have no idea why you’re looking at your desktop monitor from the ceiling like that. Maybe you should come down from there.

I should say in this context that the PB287Q’s viewing angles, though clearly not as wide as an IPS panel, appear to be wider than a lot of TN panels. Also, the consequences of going beyond them aren’t as dire. Notice how, in the shots from well above and below the screen, the image doesn’t begin to turn inverted and get that “film negative” look like some TN panels do. From the sides, the display just looks dimmer, with no apparent color shift.

Input lag

TN panels tend to be quick, and this one is no exception. Asus says it’s rated for a gray-to-gray transition time of one millisecond or less, quite a bit less than the five-millisecond rating for the PB278. The thing is, input lag comes from many sources, including the scaler chip inside the monitor. The PB287Q’s single-tile, 4K-ready scaler ASIC is brand new, so we’ll want to see how it performs. To find out, we compared both of our test subjects against my old Dell 3007WFP-HC. The 3007WFP-HC’s IPS panel isn’t particularly fast, with an 8-ms gray-to-gray spec, but this monitor has no internal scaler chip, so there’s no input lag from that source.


Dell 3007WFP (left) vs. Asus PB278


Dell 3007WFP (left) vs. Asus PB287Q

Our screenshots of the timers tell the story. The PB278 keeps pace with the 3007WFP almost exactly, while the PB287Q runs 16 milliseconds, or a single frame at 60Hz, behind the big Dell. The GPU-based display cloning mode we’re using here has some lag of its own built in, so a difference of one frame in the final output is almost nothing.

Power consumption

Here’s power consumption. Dunno what else to say about that.

My subjective impressions

Now you’ve seen the nerdy empirical measurements of the PB287Q versus its 27″ IPS sibling. One could cynically page through the results and conclude that the traditional TN panel weaknesses remain: lower contrast ratios, a narrower color gamut, and color shift at less-than-optimal viewing angles.

That’s not the whole story, though. I spent many hours peering at the PB287Q and the IPS-based PB278 during this review process. My basic impression is that, on a whole host of fronts, the contest between the two is incredibly close.

The traditional TN weaknesses are substantially muted in the PB287Q. This thing really is nothing like one of those terrible, cheap laptop displays. Most folks simply won’t notice any issues with contrast and viewing angles during seated desktop use.

My son and I cycled through a series of landscape pictures from InterfaceLift on the PB287Q and the PB278, side by side, trying to discern the differences between the two. They were really hard to pick out. With most images, the color reproduction was essentially equivalent. Having seen our color gamut readings, I was able to select an image with lots of deep reds and blue-violet tones that stressed the PB287Q’s weak points. Then we could detect some differences, but that was kind of cheating.

The flip side of that coin is that the PB287Q’s higher pixel density can be hard to discern when you’re sitting ~24″ from the screen. One reason: even though lots of cameras can outstrip this monitor’s eight-megapixel resolution, not all of the images they capture are sharp enough to take full advantage of the extra resolution. You’ll notice the increased pixel density in some photographs by concentrating on sharp, high-contrast edges, where individual pixels are easier to see at conventional PPIs. In rare cases, with the right source image, the difference between the two monitors can be striking.

Gaming is another story. Taking advantage of 4K requires the right game, with the right assets. With older or lower-fidelity games, what you may notice most often is sharper edges and more easily discernible polygon intersections in lower-poly models. You’ll see that your sniper scope is octagonal rather than round, which is a little disappointing. Games that have higher-poly models are more visually rewarding.

The added sharpness possible in textures and shaders is the candy, the really sweet thing about 4K. Some titles have it. For instance, the PB287Q’s single-tile goodness banished the screen-centering problems I saw in Tomb Raider on a dual-tile setup with the Radeon R9 295 X2, and the Radeon responded by pumping out some of the most gorgeous visuals you’ll see anywhere in real-time graphics. I’ve attached a couple of screenshots in the image gallery below from Call of Duty: Ghosts that demonstrate its every-pixel detail, too.

Every pixel in Ghosts adds new detail

Seriously, though, even in the best games, you’ll have to stop and peer into the screen in order to take in the difference between 4K and 2560×1440. During fast action, it’s almost impossible to perceive. What you will notice, even on some of the fastest GPU hardware like the GeForce GTX 780 Ti SLI and Radeon R9 295 X2 configs I used for testing, is the performance hit when going to 4K.

Not that there’s a real problem here. In some cases, like Tomb Raider, one or two of today’s best GPUs will be fast enough that the 4K performance hit simply doesn’t matter. The game will still run fluidly. In others, well, the PB287Q looks awfully nice when scaling games up from 2560×1440. You’re free to enjoy the high-PPI goodness in desktop applications, where the benefits are clear, and switch into a lower-PPI mode for gaming—as long as, you know, Asus updates the firmware to expose the correct video modes.

Conclusions

You’ve gathered by now that the PB287Q and monitors like it represent a new class of desktop display. If you’re looking to upgrade or to build an all-new system, this monitor should definitely be on your radar. The core display technology, as we’ve seen, is surprisingly good for a TN panel, and Asus has wrapped a nice set of externals and extras around it. A year ago, I would have recommended a 27″ IPS panel for a PC enthusiast considering this class of desktop monitor. Now, I’d recommend the PB287Q for most folks, instead. The added resolution and slightly larger screen are obvious and worthwhile upgrades.

The one thing that may freeze you from pulling the trigger right now on the PB287Q is, oddly enough for the monitor market, the promise of better things coming soon. Acer has already announced a 4K monitor with G-Sync that may be based on this very same panel. It’s supposed to ship this quarter, and we wouldn’t be shocked to see others following suit eventually. There’s also the prospect of cheaper 4K monitors based on IPS and other display technologies, and eventually we should see monitors that implement the new VESA Adaptive-Sync spec, as well. Any such products are likely to cost more than the PB287Q, though, and none of them are available today.

I have less to say on Twitter.

Comments closed
    • fredsnotdead
    • 5 years ago

    Some wouldn’t call this true “4K” but rather UHD since it’s 3840X2160. True 4K is >4000 pixels, necessary to display widescreen video like 2:1 (4320X2160) or 2.35:1 (5076X2160) and many more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen) which I guess is important when you’re editing your bigscreen movie.

    • Taco
    • 5 years ago

    hell yeah buddy great miley cyrus joke there on page 1

    *skateboards along Great Wall, spray painting “NOOOOOOOT” for 3 miles*

    • anotherengineer
    • 5 years ago

    This may have been commented on already, but I didn’t feel like reading through 102 posts.

    From the review (preview)
    “Asus tells me the panel itself is eight-bit capable, and the additional intermediate colors are achieved via FRC, or frame-rate control, a form of temporal dithering.

    I only discovered this 10-bit color capability late in the game, when collecting the specs in the final stages of putting this review together. None of the Windows or graphics driver control panels exposes 10-bit color as an option with this display connected, and I haven’t had time to futz around with the registry settings that might enable it. As a result, all of our tests were conducted at eight bits per channel, which is surely how this monitor will be most commonly used. ”

    The monitor does not have 10-bit color capability, it is 8-bit+FRC, the FRC algorithms give it the ‘appearance’ of a true 10-bit monitor.

    Also usually gaming cards are limited to 8 bits and workstation cards are 10-bit capable (another one of the differences between gaming and workstation cards) You can get even further into that as sometime programs themselves have to be programmed to support 10-bit workflow.

    One other thing I noticed is that none of the testing methods/equipment were not listed in the review.

    Maybe if TR starts getting into monitor reviews, we can get some nice technical monitor info like this [url<]http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_up3214q.htm[/url<] with the fine TR editorial we've all grown fond of.

    • virkgale
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]Even so, the second punch in this combo is the knockout: Asus is asking only $649 for this monitor ($699 in Canadia.)[/quote<] lol Canada ... unless you can buy a monitor from an extinct worm ( [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia_%28genus%29[/url<] ) with a name that kinda sounds like a yeast infection .... Candida

    • jihadjoe
    • 5 years ago

    Chassis, even the stand and hinge looks exactly like what Dell uses in their Ultrasharp line.
    Which is to say not bad at all.

    • Chrispy_
    • 5 years ago

    How long with the Windows/high-PPI problems exist for?

    It’s a big problem, and one that not even Mircrosoft can fix. Pretty much [b<]THE WHOLE INTERNET[/b<] is designed to work at 100% scaling. The isntant you shift that dpi slider in Windows, almost the entirety of the web starts to look wrong. This is probably why 1366x768 still exists, and why 1080p has had such an unusually long reign.

    • eitje
    • 5 years ago

    I really liked the side-commentary during this review. Lots of laughs; good job!

    • itachi
    • 5 years ago

    “4K has grown up faster than Miley Cyrus went from Hannah Montana to whore o’ Bab” Mauhahah bro you made my day 😀

    Not sure how to interprete the part on input lag, does that mean there is pretty much no ghosting ?

    Nice review by the way.. as always.

      • Damage
      • 5 years ago

      Ghosting is a related but separate issue. We will try to add tests for ghosting to our suite next time out. All I can say for this display right now is that I had a good gaming experience on it, with no noticeable problems.

        • itachi
        • 5 years ago

        Cool, thanks for the answer, on another website that I read called lesnumériques, or digitalversus in english, they had a nice extended article on ghosting it was interesting, I learned alot !

        One of the test was to run a little software with an animation and simply take a picture to show if there is ghosting, but from what I understood input lag was part of it, or maybe I was just confused, clarifications are always welcome and yea more tests about that would be awesome :).

          • Cannonaire
          • 5 years ago

          Input lag is the sum total of the time between when the video card sends the next frame to the display and when that image is shown. This aspect is crucial to gamers any anyone who requires precise timing because there can be a significant delay on some displays, generally ranging from almost no delay up to 80+ ms, which at 60hz/fps would be a delay of almost 5 frames. One of the biggest factors contributing to input lag is the processing handled by the display hardware, such as the scaler and hardware color correction.

          Ghosting has to do with the response time of the actual pixels, i.e. how fast each pixel can change from one color to the next. When pixels don’t change quickly enough, you will notice smearing and blurring on moving images. Pixel response times generally range from <1ms to about 16ms depending mostly on the panel type – with faster response for TN and slower response for IPS, though there are exceptions and workarounds. Slow pixel response adds perceived latency to the image display in addition to the actual input lag.

          Both of these issues can cause problems, but for games in which you need to respond quickly, such as in a twitch shooter like CS: GO, having low input lag can be a more serious concern.

    • Grape Flavor
    • 5 years ago

    Scott, please try to get your hands on an Asus ROG Swift PG278Q which is supposed to be coming out in June, and tell us whether it uses the same kind of impressively good TN as this one does.

    I’m sure I’m not the only one here who would probably trade the 4K resolution of this monitor for a 1440p panel with G-Sync, and that’s exactly what the ROG Swift offers. But I’m dying to know if the supposedly “very high quality” TN panel it uses is of the same standard as this one.

    • Rectal Prolapse
    • 5 years ago

    Damage, et al.: Any chance of you guys testing input lag when the monitor scaling is in use? For example, set the resolution to 1920×1080, with one monitor being an actual low-input-lag 1080p monitor, and the other being this 4K one?

    Would be nice to know how much input lag there is in this use-case (ie. hooked up to a gaming console).

    Just an FYI: It appears that the Dell UP2414Q 24 inch 4K monitor has massive input lag when the monitor scaler is being used. I estimated 80+ milliseconds, while tomshardware measured about 100 milliseconds. :O

    EDIT: you compared against the Dell 3007 so I guess you kind of did this test already. But, would be interested to know if the 1080p scaling is as good for input lag.

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      Use GPU scaling. Call it done.

        • Rectal Prolapse
        • 5 years ago

        Sure, in SST!

    • chµck
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]three times as many pixels into a square inch as your "typical" PC monitor, represented above by a 24" 1080p panel. [/quote<] I'm typical? :c

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 5 years ago

    I have a 30″ Dell and am tired of seeing pixels. I use a denser but smaller 28″ at work and it is noticably smoother. Though I think 32″ 4K would probably be my preference.

    I had always wanted a PLP setup. With the maturity of 4K over the next couple years I may yet get my dream, a 52″ 4K center monitor with flanking 30″ 1600p in portrait 🙂

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      I’d have a PLP setup with a 30″ flanked by 20″ panels if Nvidia had ever gotten off their tail and made it work for games…

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 5 years ago

        I’ve got a 1200×1600 UltraSharp 2001FP to the left of the 2560×1600 UltraSharp 3007WFP. Most of my games run in windowed fullscreen mode on the 30″ monitor, leaving the 20″ available for a browser and other things.

          • Airmantharp
          • 5 years ago

          Well yeah, I have three monitors surrounding my 30″ for other stuff- that’s easy. The point of a PLP setup with matched vertical resolution would be to stretch games across them.

    • ne999
    • 5 years ago

    What stores in Canada have this in stock?

    • internetsandman
    • 5 years ago

    I was surprised to hear that opinion on gaming fidelity. I can understand how visuals take a backseat during frantic moments of a game, but to say a difference was difficult to detect is surprising. I suppose I’ll keep waiting for LG’s 21:9 1440p behemoth to become available in Canada

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      Consider what you actually use the extra resolution for- in my case, with large-world shooters (Battlefield), higher resolution literally translates into view distance. For most games, especially single-player console crossovers, such fidelity really is lost.

      But I’m also into photography as well, so it’s easier for me to make a case for higher-resolution displays to myself.

    • xeridea
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]The PB287Q crams over 50% more pixels into a square inch than your "typical" PC monitor, represented above by a 24" 1080p panel.[/quote<] 50% higher PPI results in 125% pixels per square inch... you square it. (ex 10x10=100, 15x15=225, or 92x92=8464, 140x140=19600)

      • Damage
      • 5 years ago

      Yeah, my bad. I’ve revised the text to:

      Given how PPI works, the PB287Q crams about three times as many pixels into a square inch as your “typical” PC monitor, represented above by a 24″ 1080p panel.

    • yokem55
    • 5 years ago

    My question is, with higher resolution and pixel density, how much less AA can you get away with? Is 2X MSAA sufficient for most circumstances, or is there still a lot of benefit from 4x or 8x?

      • esterhasz
      • 5 years ago

      Would really like to have some informed commentary on this as well!

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      Probably depends on the type of AA, and how well it’s implemented in the game in question/how well it works with said game.

      Derivatives of FXAA are probably the best bet, but understand that if there are pixels, you will still be able to see their effects if you look for them.

        • Pwnstar
        • 5 years ago

        FXAA is horrible, though.

          • Airmantharp
          • 5 years ago

          The initial implementations were without a doubt, but the technology behind it, i.e. shader-based AA, is absolutely necessary. MSAA/SSAA and other types of ‘hardware’ AA aren’t going to cut it with the pixel level complexity going on in modern games; they’re actually detrimental for the most part if they’re not slaved to a shader-based algorithm to keep them from blurring all the wrong stuff.

            • Cannonaire
            • 5 years ago

            The problem with FXAA and other pure-post forms of AA is that they tend to blur everything without regard for the actual geometry (or detail, as in textures and shaders). They also exaggerate temporal pixel crawling and blinking, which I find to be much worse than hard aliasing in many cases. I believe TXAA was made in part to address the latter problem (temporal effects), but I have not seen how well it works aside from a short nVidia demo on YouTube.

            On older games I tend to enable SGSSAA, but that’s obviously not practical with newer games and UHD displays. There are some other promising and more efficient AA techniques which do various things, including sampling pixels in post-process (as in FXAA), but based on the geometry data which the video card used to build the scene in the first place. Unfortunately, most of these have not been implemented into anything other than simple demonstrations.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            The idea would be for AA to be a part of the entire rendering process throughout the shader stages, using different techniques at different points in the render process as needed. Harsh geometry and contrast transitions, as well as transparencies, can be tagged for extra post effort without ‘blurring everything’ or imparting harsh performance costs.

            But that’s going to take developers actually paying attention during development instead of trying to hack features in after the fact.

            • Cannonaire
            • 5 years ago

            Yeah. The current implementation isn’t very good, but the concept has great potential.

            It’s sad that developers don’t seem to have the opportunity to dedicate time to this sort of feature. Good and efficient AA has the potential to make everything just look better, but it is easier to market visually conspicuous effects, which are more likely to elicit ‘oohs’ and ‘ahhs’.

      • Rectal Prolapse
      • 5 years ago

      Depends on the size of the screen. I find that on my 24″ 4K Dell, disabling AA makes it look like 4x AA at 1080p.

      • Chrispy_
      • 5 years ago

      AA stopped being about visible pixel edges a long time ago; We’ve moved on from the days of 800×600 gaming and geometry is complex enough in games now that there aren’t as many obviously straight edges to worry about distracting “pixel crawl”.

      The type of AA seems to matter more than the strength of it, and after a certain threshold I’d definitely choose AA over increasing resolution; Increasing resolution does absolutely nothing to prevent distracting visual patterns – pixel crawl or shimmer – they’re just [i<]smaller[/i<].

        • Airmantharp
        • 5 years ago

        Eh, I see crap tons of pixel crawl, even with 2x MSAA, on my 2560×1600 panel.

          • Chrispy_
          • 5 years ago

          Oh sure, it’s still there, it’s just not the most distracting feature anymore;

          Most people set Aniso up to 8x or 16x these days because it’s “free” and that gives you massive amounts of texture-shimmer. Pixel-crawl pales into insignificance against the weird effects you get with Aniso filtering enabled.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            I’m going to have to try turning Aniso down- I see tons of that mess in BF4, and it is distracting as hell!

            • Chrispy_
            • 5 years ago

            Aniso is good to crank up if you’re using FXAA or similar post-process AA because they tend to blur textures anyway.
            It’s MSAA (the best kind of AA in my opinion) which suffers from texture shimmer if Aniso is cranked up too high.

            I’m actually finding with these newer game engines that have decent draw distance AND high-res textures, that 4xMSAA and 4xAniso gives me the most pleasing image. Sure, some of the distant textures are a little muddier than I’d like, but they’re not shimmering and crawling around like a distant pit of snakes, either 😉

            Think of Anisotropic filtering like an “overdrive” so 2x AA is twice as sharp as the game-engine defaults. There is such a thing as “too sharp” so there’s no shame in not setting AF to 16x.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            I remember some ancient 3DMark tests that showed the quality differences between different levels of AF, so when the highest settings became essentially free, I just started topping them off and calling it a day.

            But I *do* see way too much shimmering, and as you say above, I’d gladly give up some smoothness in the distance if it makes for a consistent image. Thanks for bringing it up!

    • Dposcorp
    • 5 years ago

    Awesome review as usual.
    +2 for the “whore o’ Babylon” and “ain’t nobody got time for that references.” 🙂

    I have been telling my brother for years that I love my 37″ 1080P Westinghouse Monitor, and the main reason is because of the Picture-in-Picture (PiP) and Picture-by-Picture (PbP) modes.

    Works great for having multiple things going, although, on my Westy the low rez makes it sucky, but at least I dont have to dig up another LCD when I need to hook up a second device.

    Scott, can you run something in the Picture-by-Picture (PbP) mode, and give us a idea of what the max rez is on each side, as well as a guess at what the used display size, corner to corner, on each side?

    I looked at this pic on the Asus website,and it look like you would get the equivalent of a 17″ or 19″ display on each side.

    [url<]https://www.asus.com/websites/global/products/bEYaxjLkHf2PJuiM/PB287Q-09b.png[/url<]

    • Bensam123
    • 5 years ago

    Are we going to get any love for high refresh rate monitors at some point?

    I know 4k and IPS panels are drooltastic for everyday use and watching vids, but us gamers like our twitchy pixels.

      • NeelyCam
      • 5 years ago

      You don’t need high refresh rate since you have an NVidia GPU and a G-Sync enabled monitor… right?

        • moose17145
        • 5 years ago

        I understand why Bensam wants a 120+Hz 4k monitor (honestly, I do, who wouldn’t), but given the other glaring issues they are currently working to resolve with 4k panels, such as finally having a ASIC that can handle a single massive panel vs two virtual panes, resolution scaling issues ironed out, having to soon integrate G / Free / Adaptive sync into them, along with just having to get over the 30Hz hurdle, I am more than willing to say that 60Hz is extremely good right now. Granted the 60Hz thing shouldn’t have been as big of a deal as it was considering DP 1.2 has been out for a while now… but for some reason it was. Getting up to 120Hz would require dual DP 1.2 connections similar to how getting 60Hz on HDMI requires two connections (and honestly IDK how well those type of implementations work or if there are any weird issues that present themselves when doing something like that since I have never had to run a setup like that. Otherwise getting over 60Hz with a single cable is going to require a new standard for connecting monitors to computers. Like DP 1.3 maybe, or HDMI 2.0. Idk what the actual bandiwdths of those standards will be, but as it currently stands we would need to have a standard that is capable of at least 2x the bandwidth DP 1.2 can provide, or 4x what current HDMI can provide.

        Overall though I think a G / Free / Adaptive sync 4k monitor that peaks out at 60hz would be extremely enjoyable to use though. If you need faster refresh rates though, then you are going to have to sacrifice some resolution. Just like everything with computers, it is a give and take relationship. The same applies to HDDs Vs. SSDs, sacrificing storage for speed (heck that one even dates back to before SSDs were around when people were buying smaller capacity 10k RPM raptor drives for extra speed). Or in processors, if you want the fastest there is you do it at the expensive of having to have a hotter running more power hungry chip. All give and take in this industry. The key is knowing what you are willing and able to sacrifice for what you want.

          • NeelyCam
          • 5 years ago

          You don’t have to sacrifice anything if you go with NVidia hardware.

          Right, Bensam?

            • Bensam123
            • 5 years ago

            If you’re hinting at something I’m not getting it. :l

          • Bensam123
          • 5 years ago

          I was just talking about high refresh, low latency, fast response panels in general…

          I’d love if the above mixed with the words IPS and 4k, but I doubt that’s going to happen anytime soon. So I was asking for the flip side of the coin.

          Having used and gamed on a high refresh rate panel, I wouldn’t go back even for 4K or IPS. It makes that much of a difference for me.

      • cynan
      • 5 years ago

      Could just be that if/once adaptive sync becomes standard, pursuing refresh rates (and frame rates) above 60 Hz will be more or less moot.

      If adaptive sync catches on by both the green and red team (and enough monitor makers) that’s when I’m upgrading my main display (if it works as well as gsync).

        • Airmantharp
        • 5 years ago

        I think that while adaptive V-Sync technologies lessen the need for higher refresh rate displays to some degree, actually pushing the technology toward it’s full potential will require even faster displays. Thankfully, the panels are up for it- it’s the electronics that need the makeover, and that’s what’s getting made over :).

    • Krogoth
    • 5 years ago

    Great workstation monitor, not so hot for gaming use.

    I’ll wait at least another three years before considering to jump onto 4K bandwagon.

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      If you have the GPU grunt and aren’t looking for G-Sync et al., how could this not be hot for gaming use?

        • Krogoth
        • 5 years ago

        It is too slow for a LCD panel if you are a FPS junkie. The vast majority of games UI don’t properly handle 4K rendering. If you go far back enough. 4K resolutions don’t even exist in default choices and you have edit certain files or put in console commands to force to it make it. It may lead to odd stuff with UI and FOV.

    • oldDummy
    • 5 years ago

    Nice review.
    With my recent purchase of a Korean 27″ won’t upgrade for a bit.
    Still, good to know.
    single/twin 680’s might have problems with 2GB memory.
    That would be interesting.

    • DPete27
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]eventually we should see monitors that implement the new VESA Adaptive-Sync spec, as well.[/quote<] Yeah...I'll hold off until then.

    • footman
    • 5 years ago

    I’d like to see official support of 120hz 2560×1440.
    IMO this would make for a better gaming experience than 60fps at 4K.
    The Asus ROG Swift was announced at CES in January, still waiting!!!

      • moose17145
      • 5 years ago

      I suspect the panel itself peaks out at 60hz. So it is probably a limitation of the physical LCD hardware panel itself more than it is a firmware or DP 1.2 bandwidth issue.

    • the
    • 5 years ago

    So who is going to get three of these to try Eyefinity/Surround vision?

      • UnfriendlyFire
      • 5 years ago

      Who’s going to pay for the water-cooled GPUs to run three 4K monitors at 60 FPS?

        • moose17145
        • 5 years ago

        You say that like someone out there isn’t going to try it…

          • Airmantharp
          • 5 years ago

          You’ll probably find some [H]Forum’ers that already have the setup and are awaiting delivery of the monitors :).

    • meerkt
    • 5 years ago

    Can/does the monitor scale 1920×1080 using simple pixel doubling? Softened upscaling isn’t always a nice thing.

    Or maybe it’s better to let the graphics card handle the scaling.

      • Damage
      • 5 years ago

      It does soft upscaling, and so do the Radeon/GeForce drivers. I’d like to see a pixel-doubled option, but I’m not aware of one.

        • meerkt
        • 5 years ago

        Thanks.

        Alas. Bilinear and such are good for non-integer scaling, but I think in most other cases I’d want plain ol’ square pixels. Does anyone else feel the same?

    • bryanlarsen
    • 5 years ago

    “The color shift is pretty dramatic if you’re looking at the screen from way above or below. Then again, I have no idea why you’re looking at your desktop monitor from the ceiling like that. Maybe you should come down from there.”

    That’s important when the monitor is in a portrait mode, especially if you have more than one monitor.

    • allreadydead
    • 5 years ago

    So, can we say 4k is the official death of 16:10 ratio ?

      • Wirko
      • 5 years ago

      Yes. Is 35 cm of height too little, is 2160 pixels too little, or is 3840 too much?

        • allreadydead
        • 5 years ago

        The real estate problem is really irritating when coupled with windows mentality. At bottom, we have tasbar. Everything is on top of the every window and now, they are not only menus but “ribbons”. All of those design choices actually requires vertical pixel. When you add low res to this (read, 1366×768 horror), the vertical pixel count is just too low to work efficently in windowed mode with having multiple windows open. Yes, I could change taskbar’s position and use fullscreen but I have never been able to get used to it. Maybe because, I’m using a 24″ 1920×1200 monitor at home and I LOVE it. Maybe, I just can’t ignore the fact that 16:10 is better than 16:9 in windows environment.

        With that many vertical pixel, wider aspect ratio shouldn’t cause such problems. However, aestetically, it just feels too narrow and long to me. When I look at such display, I cannot be entirely comfortable as I feel like there are pixels below and top of the screen that I cannot see. Prolly, my sub-consicousness is pushing me towards golden ratio, I don’t know. All I know, it makes me feel not ok after a while.

          • moose17145
          • 5 years ago

          I have to agree… I have a 1920 x 1200 24″ monitor at home and LOVE the thing. It’s basically the perfect aspect ratio for desktop computing imo. Now that I have a new job that actually pays decent I am thinking I might take the chance to perform and upgrade to my system by getting a couple more 1920 x 1200 displays and running a tri monitor setup. It wouldn’t really be for eyefinity, though I would probably try it out just for the lulz. I am just a multi-monitor junkie at heart is all lol

          • Wirko
          • 5 years ago

          I agree … up to a point, and that point must be at 1200p. My LCDs are 24″ 1920×1200 at work and 21″ 1600×1200 at home. I’ve kept taskbars at left since ever and optimized vertical space in every way possible.
          However, at larger sizes, wider aspect ratios make more sense. Must be physiology or something. If I could buy a 28″-30″ monitor with any aspect ratio, I’d choose 16:9 or even wider over 16:10. That 34″er by LG looks lovely too at 21:9 (never seen one in the wild though).
          It’s possible that your sub-consciousness would like 21:9 better than 16:9, which indeed is a bastardized golden section. Have you put it to the test?

            • allreadydead
            • 5 years ago

            I tried to work with 2 1080p monitors at work. It wasn’t really “working” with 2 monitors. First, all I could achieve put main monitor in front of me and move other windows that has lower priorities to 2nd monitor. After a while I realised those windows I moved could stay minimized anyway. After that, I started to put analytics things (gadgets that monitor servers performance, hardware temps, load etc, firewalls stats etc) to 2nd monitor. And I also moved myself to closer to 2nd monitor to be able to use it more efficently. That worked out better when I write code and steal (ahem, read, online search) some from browser windows that stays on 2nd monitor. And also, It’s more productive when i need excel&access tables open while I do SQL stuff.
            Still, it was way too wide for me. I tend to not use most of the space that stays on left and right corners. Maybe I just need to move away from monitors a little more but I tend to lean forward and focus the window I mainly work on.

      • hbarnwheeler
      • 5 years ago

      I hope not. I like the extra vertical real estate.

    • chuckula
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]We take a long, hard look and come away impressed.[/quote<] LMFTFY: We take a long, hard look and come away unKrogothed.

    • Ryszard
    • 5 years ago

    What’s going on with the images in the review? All of the fonts look bad.

    • davidbowser
    • 5 years ago

    Best line from the review:

    [quote<]I'm never sure my finger's in the right place. It's like being 17 all over again. [/quote<]

      • UberGerbil
      • 5 years ago

      Maybe the single most [i<]outré[/i<] couplet ever included in a TR review.

        • esterhasz
        • 5 years ago

        Wasson sen. was obviously high on pixels when writing this.

        BTW, does 4k on 28 still require AA?

          • Airmantharp
          • 5 years ago

          Matter of taste (and personal visual acuity), I’d think.

          Corrected, my eyes are damn sharp- I expect I’d need some form of AA to completely remove aliasing artifacts (at the display pixel level, at least, no accounting for textures…) at normal viewing distances. At the same time, I’m not the graphics whore I once was, so I could really give a damn as long as I can see my opponent and put a round between his/her eyeballs across the map.

          • Pwnstar
          • 5 years ago

          4k still requires AA but you don’t have to crank it up as high. 16x AA is not needed at all. To my eyes, 2x AA looks good enough, but some might like 4x AA.

      • gerbilspy
      • 5 years ago

      This comment resulted in hot coffee spewed onto my display. It hit soooo close to home! I laughed so hard I almost cried.

      • Voldenuit
      • 5 years ago

      [quote<]Best line from the review: I'm never sure my finger's in the right place. It's like being 17 all over again. [/quote<] The little raised nub tells you where home [s<]base[/s<] row is.

    • davidbowser
    • 5 years ago

    One of the previous mentions availability as Q2 (“When will then be now?”), and since review units are rolling, I am guessing it will be any day.

    I just decided to upgrade my monitor config and this will do nicely. I have two cheap 1600×900 20in on either side of a 2560×1440 27in. I just got the ASUS PB278, so now I just have to wait for this new beast so that I can have 4K center and two 2560×1440 on either side.

      • Damage
      • 5 years ago

      Oops. Meant to say that they’ll be selling on 6/10.

        • davidbowser
        • 5 years ago

        Thanks much. I will put it on my calendar.

    • godforsaken
    • 5 years ago

    the slight irony of scaling the backlight bleed image to fullscreen to check it out as clearly as possible without any bleed from other light, just to realize that i cant tell if I’m looking at the bleed from the picture of the monitor or my own monitor… -shrugs-

    • Ravynmagi
    • 5 years ago

    I had a Dell 3007 (which I killed, oops) and am now using a Korean 27 inch 1440p monitor, which I love.

    This looks tempting. Though I admit, even after Scott tells how great of a TN panel this is, I still have a fear of TN panels. Maybe if Best Buy or Fry’s ever sells this in a retail store I’d love to check it out, because I need extra convincing.

    Also after having a 27 inch screen for a while and a 30 inch before that. I’d really like to have at least a 30 inch screen again.

    So I’d love a “4K” monitor with IPS panel in the 30 or 32 inch size, 60 Hz of course, and under $1000. Haha… I know I’m asking for too much though, probably won’t see anything like this for quite a long time at that price.

    • adampk17
    • 5 years ago

    Very tempting!

    I have a single GeForce GTX 680. I wonder if it could even hope to handle 4K with any semblance of play-ability?

    Also, are there any gotchas regarding running a 4K, single-tile, monitor like this along side a second 1080p monitor?

      • Damage
      • 5 years ago

      I need to try the 680/770 at 4k to answer your first question, but I suspect it would work well enough with some games as long as you were willing to drop the quality settings a bit. 2560×1440 is your friend, though.

      The second one, well, mixed PPI configs aren’t great in Windows. You generally get one scaling level for the whole desktop and apps. IE handles different zoom levels on different screens OK, but I don’t think much else does.

        • Airmantharp
        • 5 years ago

        Largest issue will be hitting the VRAM limit at inopportune times- but as Damage mentions, when the game outstrips your hardware, you always scale back settings to your personal taste of fidelity vs. playability balance.

        My single GTX670 2GB runs BF4 quite nicely at 2560×1600 with sane settings, for example.

      • trog69
      • 5 years ago

      If you play some of the less-demanding titles like either Fallout, you’ll run them just fine at ultra. Nowadays, however, even my 780 card can’t push pixels in games like Assassins Creed 4 without lowering some shadows and other tweaks, and that’s on a 1440p monitor, and an OCed i7.

      EDIT: If you can, two 680s should do quite well for 4k. That’s the route I plan to take pretty soon, though I just got this monitor, so I’m not in a hurry for 4k just yet. Lemme finish ohhh and ahhhing over the graphics on this one, will ya?

        • Airmantharp
        • 5 years ago

        Just make sure you have/get the 4GB versions. 2GB of VRAM for 4k is asking for a world of hurt.

    • JustAnEngineer
    • 5 years ago

    Under $1000: Check.
    3840×2160: Check.
    Single-tile: Check.
    60 Hz: Check.
    [url=https://techreport.com/news/26451/adaptive-sync-added-to-displayport-spec<]DisplayPort 1.2a[/url<] with Adaptive-Sync: Not yet. IPS: Not yet.

      • Laykun
      • 5 years ago

      [url<]http://www.adrenaline-gaming.net/data/MetaMirrorCache/www.nudze_sie.pl_wp_content_uploads_2012_04_ko_C5_84_soon.jpg[/url<]

      • UnfriendlyFire
      • 5 years ago

      Regarding the IPS, read the conclusion:

      “That’s not the whole story, though. I spent many hours peering at the PB287Q and the IPS-based PB278 during this review process. My basic impression is that, on a whole host of fronts, the contest between the two is incredibly close.

      The traditional TN weaknesses are substantially muted in the PB287Q. This thing really is nothing like one of those terrible, cheap laptop displays. Most folks simply won’t notice any issues with contrast and viewing angles during seated desktop use.”

      • meerkt
      • 5 years ago

      So now 60Hz is a good thing?

      I’d want >60Hz at least in lower resolutions.

        • the
        • 5 years ago

        60 Hz is good when before 30 Hz was all you could get under certain modes of operation.

          • moose17145
          • 5 years ago

          Yea I was gonna say… 60Hz for THIS resolution is very good. I think what will ultimately be the icing on the cake though will be when we can get these bad boys with G / Adaptive Sync since I have a feeling that (except for in older games) these monitors are going to be spending most of their time below the 60Hz / FPS mark anyways.

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      G-Sync is my only missing requirement (adaptive-sync’d fly too, since I’d be up for a GPU upgrade for 4k).

      But I’m all cool with an AdobeRGB-gamut TN that has better than average uniformity and viewing angles. At worst, my 30″ HP IPS can handle the color-critical photo work as my second monitor :).

    • Deanjo
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]($699 in Canadia.)[/quote<] Tell me more about this new country!

      • jensend
      • 5 years ago

      [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwtB1zkSNTY[/url<]

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 5 years ago

        [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA[/url<] (NSFW language)

      • NeelyCam
      • 5 years ago

      It’s east of [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFJ62vlZbls&feature=kp<]Cocainum[/url<]

    • Airmantharp
    • 5 years ago

    This is so very tempting- but I don’t think I could do another ‘gaming’ monitor without some form of adaptive syncing. Still, the color accuracy and pixel density is enticing, given that your average camera is already at 16MP and most are 24MP with 36MP fast becoming standard, and even my 20MP camera easily outstrips my current 30″ IPS.

    We’ll see if Acer’s QC is anywhere as near as good as ASUS, I guess!

    • humannn
    • 5 years ago

    I want 32-40″, so I won’t have to do any scaling. I love the idea of having 3 full web pages open, side by side, and viewing without strain at normal desktop distances.

    • NeelyCam
    • 5 years ago

    I’d by [u<][b<]1[/b<][/u<]... but my IGP couldn't drive it well.

      • xeridea
      • 5 years ago

      It would be fine for desktop, if playing a game, set res to 1080p (1/4 res, so there would be no scaling artifacts).

        • NeelyCam
        • 5 years ago

        [quote<]if playing a game, [b<]set res to 1080p[/b<][/quote<] Um... I have a Sandy Bridge... And I'd generally prefer playing games at above 10FPS

          • SonicSilicon
          • 5 years ago

          1280 by 720 divides evenly into 3840 by 2160, as well. Presumably this should be handled as easily as 1080p; perhaps Scott could test this?

          • UnfriendlyFire
          • 5 years ago

          You’re going to need liquid nitrogen on the Sandybridge CPU and the RAM if you want to get any decent FPS with some graphic eyecandy.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            …?

            A water-cooled Sandy still outpaces most gaming requirements for the CPU-side.

            • UnfriendlyFire
            • 5 years ago

            I was referring to the IGP. The CPU is great, but gaming on its IGP is questionable.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            From experience I can state that it can handle Source games at the lowest of settings, as well as Blizzard games, but I agree that that’s the limit :).

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This