Asus readies impressive PG27UQ monitor: 4K at 144 Hz, HDR, G-Sync

Scorpus

Posts: 2,007   +231
Staff member

Asus isn't quite ready to share official details of their next-generation ROG Swift PG27UQ monitor, however a press release has leaked ahead of schedule, revealing an incredibly impressive display with technology that hasn't been seen in PC monitors before.

The 27-inch PG27UQ is the first monitor to support 4K at 144 Hz. Every other 4K monitor up to this point has been limited to 60 Hz, so Asus is really raising the bar here. Even more impressive is the fact that this display uses IPS technology, which has historically lagged behind VA and TN technologies in refresh rates.

Asus is advertising the PG27UQ as a HDR monitor, and the leaked press release hints at the inclusion of Nvidia "G-Sync HDR" technology, which hasn't been announced by Nvidia at the time of writing. This monitor achieves a peak brightness of 1,000 nits, and it supports the DCI-P3 color gamut for a 25% wider gamut than sRGB. The panel's LED backlight can be locally dimmed in 384 zones for higher-than-usual contrast, and we're even seeing the use of quantum dot technology.

As this display is targeted at gamers, Asus has used a stand with aggressive red highlights and 'gamer style' patterns. The monitor packs two DisplayPort 1.4 ports along with HDMI, although it's unclear how the monitor supports 4K at 144 Hz as DisplayPort 1.4 is capped at 4K at 120 Hz.

There's no word on pricing or a release date for the PG27UQ, however you can bet it will be a very expensive monitor when it hits the market.

Permalink to story.

 

Greg S

Posts: 1,607   +442
And I thought the DPI was too high on 32" 4k montiors, and they're shrinking it down 27"? Give me a 40" 4k montior with 120hz+ refresh rate.

There isn't really a thing as too high of DPI until it's completely impossible to tell the difference, at which point power usage is what will determine what is the reasonable limit. 1000ppi would be great assuming it doesn't use a few hundred watts of power.
 

theBest11778

Posts: 298   +127
And I thought the DPI was too high on 32" 4k montiors, and they're shrinking it down 27"? Give me a 40" 4k montior with 120hz+ refresh rate.
Diminishing returns under 32", but people will still buy it, so they're gonna make it.
 

jonny888

Posts: 135   +226
Some genuine questions to people saying that you need to have at least 32/34" for a 4k monitor:
Do you guys only use one monitor, or more?
Where do you place your monitor(s) in relation to where you sit/how far away from your monitors are you sat?

I ask as someone who has never owned a 4k monitor but uses other 27" 1440p monitors. My main concerns being that my setup is something I would think is pretty normal. Monitors are sat at the back of a desk, and myself in a standard chair and sitting position.
And there are times that even with 27" I feel like I'm slightly too close to the monitor to fit everything comfortably within my peripheral vision. So I struggle to see how it can be comfortable or easy to use a monitor larger than that and still be sat in a regular desk/chair position.
 

dualkelly

Posts: 133   +122
Some genuine questions to people saying that you need to have at least 32/34" for a 4k monitor:
Do you guys only use one monitor, or more?
Where do you place your monitor(s) in relation to where you sit/how far away from your monitors are you sat?

I ask as someone who has never owned a 4k monitor but uses other 27" 1440p monitors. My main concerns being that my setup is something I would think is pretty normal. Monitors are sat at the back of a desk, and myself in a standard chair and sitting position.
And there are times that even with 27" I feel like I'm slightly too close to the monitor to fit everything comfortably within my peripheral vision. So I struggle to see how it can be comfortable or easy to use a monitor larger than that and still be sat in a regular desk/chair position.

I use a 32inch 4k Samsung and the probelm your going to run into with a 27 inch 4k is that everything will be way to small for you to read or see.. 32inch 4k is barely large enough you still need to blow up text on webpages and to some extent on windows. the sweet spot for a 4k monitor would be about 38 inchs.
 
I'm stoked they broke the 60hz barrier - I'm still waiting for the 32" 4K at 144+ Hz though as 27" at 1440p is a sweet spot for me, but would want more screen size for a 4k rez!
 

madboyv1

Posts: 1,672   +581
Some genuine questions to people saying that you need to have at least 32/34" for a 4k monitor:
Do you guys only use one monitor, or more?
Where do you place your monitor(s) in relation to where you sit/how far away from your monitors are you sat?

I ask as someone who has never owned a 4k monitor but uses other 27" 1440p monitors. My main concerns being that my setup is something I would think is pretty normal. Monitors are sat at the back of a desk, and myself in a standard chair and sitting position.
And there are times that even with 27" I feel like I'm slightly too close to the monitor to fit everything comfortably within my peripheral vision. So I struggle to see how it can be comfortable or easy to use a monitor larger than that and still be sat in a regular desk/chair position.

I use a 32inch 4k Samsung and the probelm your going to run into with a 27 inch 4k is that everything will be way to small for you to read or see.. 32inch 4k is barely large enough you still need to blow up text on webpages and to some extent on windows. the sweet spot for a 4k monitor would be about 38 inchs.
In a perfect world, proper DPI scaling would be program agnostic and would turn that into a non-issue, but I doubt that day will ever happen lol...

Still, holy crap this monitor!!! <3
 

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,153   +752
Some genuine questions to people saying that you need to have at least 32/34" for a 4k monitor:
Do you guys only use one monitor, or more?
Where do you place your monitor(s) in relation to where you sit/how far away from your monitors are you sat?

I ask as someone who has never owned a 4k monitor but uses other 27" 1440p monitors. My main concerns being that my setup is something I would think is pretty normal. Monitors are sat at the back of a desk, and myself in a standard chair and sitting position.
And there are times that even with 27" I feel like I'm slightly too close to the monitor to fit everything comfortably within my peripheral vision. So I struggle to see how it can be comfortable or easy to use a monitor larger than that and still be sat in a regular desk/chair position.

I use a 32inch 4k Samsung and the probelm your going to run into with a 27 inch 4k is that everything will be way to small for you to read or see.. 32inch 4k is barely large enough you still need to blow up text on webpages and to some extent on windows. the sweet spot for a 4k monitor would be about 38 inchs.
In a perfect world, proper DPI scaling would be program agnostic and would turn that into a non-issue, but I doubt that day will ever happen lol...

Still, holy crap this monitor!!! <3
Biggest problem is all the existing apps we use would need GUI rewrites for a proper scalable interface.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,789   +3,996
Some genuine questions to people saying that you need to have at least 32/34" for a 4k monitor:
Do you guys only use one monitor, or more?
Where do you place your monitor(s) in relation to where you sit/how far away from your monitors are you sat?

I ask as someone who has never owned a 4k monitor but uses other 27" 1440p monitors. My main concerns being that my setup is something I would think is pretty normal. Monitors are sat at the back of a desk, and myself in a standard chair and sitting position.
And there are times that even with 27" I feel like I'm slightly too close to the monitor to fit everything comfortably within my peripheral vision. So I struggle to see how it can be comfortable or easy to use a monitor larger than that and still be sat in a regular desk/chair position.

I use a 32inch 4k Samsung and the probelm your going to run into with a 27 inch 4k is that everything will be way to small for you to read or see.. 32inch 4k is barely large enough you still need to blow up text on webpages and to some extent on windows. the sweet spot for a 4k monitor would be about 38 inchs.
In a perfect world, proper DPI scaling would be program agnostic and would turn that into a non-issue, but I doubt that day will ever happen lol...

Still, holy crap this monitor!!! <3
Biggest problem is all the existing apps we use would need GUI rewrites for a proper scalable interface.
Maybe. Windoze (specifically, WPF) has built-in functionality to accomplish that; however, developers (speaking as one) tend to develop at a particular resolution, and that is typically the problem. However, what I have seen is that a dev will develop a UI at say, 1920x1024 (an example) as the minimum resolution, and someone comes along and runs it on a system that is 1024x768; the result is the UI will not fit on the screen.
 

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,153   +752
Maybe. Windoze (specifically, WPF) has built-in functionality to accomplish that; however, developers (speaking as one) tend to develop at a particular resolution, and that is typically the problem. However, what I have seen is that a dev will develop a UI at say, 1920x1024 (an example) as the minimum resolution, and someone comes along and runs it on a system that is 1024x768; the result is the UI will not fit on the screen.
Yeah that is an approach and framework problem. If supporting different resolutions was natively part of the dev process rather than something you had to learn and build your app to do, things would be different.

Also let's not talk about WPF. Microsoft have been really poor at creating new dev framework directions and WPF is not technically abandoned but it is safe to say Microsoft isn't exactly recommending new projects on that platform.