Why are there so few 4k 144hz monitors?

[7DAYS_VLAD [RU[]

& why are they so extremely overpriced?

I found just 1 so far the Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ and its 2500 euro, complete scam

Im looking for new monitor, i looked at high resolution cuz its more pleasant to look at, and high refreshrate for fast games so i want one that combines both obviously but it seems to be cheaper to buy 2

[ericcui1]

Not many ports can handle that amount of data. Plus you probable need dual RTX 2080Ti/Titan RTX in order to game at 4K 144hz.

"The first 4K/144Hz monitors can’t support full quality at 144Hz"
https://www.kitguru.net/peripherals/monitors/damien-cox/the-first-4k-144hz-monitors-cant-support-full-quality-at-144hz-despite-2000-price-tag/

[Revelene]

Because there are very few panels made at the moment. Supply and demand. New technology. Etc.

[Autumn_]

Just get a good 1440p144hz monitor.

[Cloudy]

Consider an Asus ROG Swift PG278QR while it is on sale, you will not be disappointed. It won't be as hard to hit atleast 120fps at 1440p unlike gaming at 4K.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/cdcMnQ/asus-rog-swift-pg278qr-270-2560x1440-144hz-monitor-pg278qr

27", 1440p, 165Hz, G-Sync

[nullable]

Something out of your price range isn't a scam. Sounds like a case of supply and demand. High cost of production, low demand from users. It's the highest end at the moment, hence expensive.

[Ad Hominem]

A couple of reasons. There really isn't hardware available that can push that many pixels on high settings while gaming. AFAIK even the latest display port can't pass that much data, DP 1.2 might be able to do it, I'm not sure without looking it up. Also most displays that claim 4k 144hz use some kind of snake oil trickery like upscaling to do it, so it's not true 4k. It would be 1080p upscaled which is lame.

Also they will cost an insane amount of money for the one or two on the market that are legit.

For my money, 1440p 144hz is the sweet spot for PC gaming at desk distances. Assuming a 27" screen and sitting 3 feet away from the screen, human eyes can't tell the different between 4k and 1440p anyway because pixel density is just too high to discern.

I would go 4k for your 60" living room setup in a heartbeat though.

[The Chicagoan]

Originally posted by A very particular set of skills:

& why are they so extremely overpriced?

I found just 1 so far the Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ and its 2500 euro, complete scam

Im looking for new monitor, i looked at high resolution cuz its more pleasant to look at, and high refreshrate for fast games so i want one that combines both obviously but it seems to be cheaper to buy 2

Well personally I believe that there are few of these monitors because most people can't get 4k at 144 FPS... Like for real. 4k 60 is hard enough, 144 is hardly ever going to happen. Since it's not in high demand obviously the price is going to go up so the seller can make at least some profit off a couple people.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

There are only two manufacturers who make them - ASUS and Acer and they are not meant for your average consumer. As rare product for PC enthusiasts with not much competition they can dictate the price.

[FeilDOW]

It's not just because it is 4k 144hz, but it also has HDR1000 and Gsync that push the price up even more.

I believe they have a 4k 144hz HDR400 panel now that is cheaper but still not cheap.

[Washell]

You're paying for the development of the tooling, machinery and possibly the entire plant that manufactures the display panels. If you don't want to pay for that, don't be an early adopter.

[Meet GOD! Your Maker]

Originally posted by A very particular set of skills:

& why are they so extremely overpriced?

I found just 1 so far the Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ and its 2500 euro, complete scam

Im looking for new monitor, i looked at high resolution cuz its more pleasant to look at, and high refreshrate for fast games so i want one that combines both obviously but it seems to be cheaper to buy 2

4K 144hz? I find it to be a joke imho

I dont think theres any rig that can run AAA titles with higher than 90FPS let alone 144FPS or more on 4K.

Unless you ONLY play CSGO then its not even worth it at all

Even my RTX2080TI cant handle BF1 / BF5 / GTA 5 on ultra settings with higher than 130FPS

Its more worth to get a 1440P Gsync / freesync ready monitor

Because if your FPS is lower than your refresh rate you will still get some really horrible tearing (worst than if your FPS is higher than your refresh rate) but with gsync it completely eliminates them

[Straw Hat]

So, having gsync enabled is the best option if you exceed the refresh rate of your monitor when you get tearing?

I'm confused. I have a 1080p Gsync 144hz monitor and I am planning to get the RTX 2080. If I play uncapped without Gsync having unlimited FPS is better than capping it with Gsync enabled? As far as I know, if you enable Gsync you get input lag. What is the best option to reduce input lag and tearing at the same time, uncapped gsync off or capped at 139fps with Gsync enaabled?

[Ad Hominem]

You could also look at some of the sexy curved ultra-wide screens. A few of them have resolutions that are roughly equal to 4k in number of pixels but in a different aspect ratio.

Originally posted by Hiroki:

I'm confused. I have a 1080p Gsync 144hz monitor and I am planning to get the RTX 2080. If I play uncapped without Gsync having unlimited FPS is better than capping it with Gsync enabled? As far as I know, if you enable Gsync you get input lag. What is the best option to reduce input lag and tearing at the same time, uncapped gsync off or capped at 139fps with Gsync enaabled?

You might have to do some testing. Using any kind of frame rate sync will add some input lag, which may or may not be an issue depending on what kind of game you play. I wouldn't want to play CSGO or some other competitive shooter with extra input lag, but playing a single player game wouldn't really bother me.

Also a 2080 is a very strong GPU and might have no problem pushing 1080p 144hz or more, so there may be no need for turning any kind of sync on at all. You could probably get away with just capping the frame rate in RTSS or something and you'd get best of both worlds, no tearing and less input lag.

[Straw Hat]

Originally posted by Ad Hominem:

You could also look at some of the sexy curved ultra-wide screens. A few of them have resolutions that are roughly equal to 4k in number of pixels but in a different aspect ratio.

Originally posted by Hiroki:

I'm confused. I have a 1080p Gsync 144hz monitor and I am planning to get the RTX 2080. If I play uncapped without Gsync having unlimited FPS is better than capping it with Gsync enabled? As far as I know, if you enable Gsync you get input lag. What is the best option to reduce input lag and tearing at the same time, uncapped gsync off or capped at 139fps with Gsync enaabled?

You might have to do some testing. Using any kind of frame rate sync will add some input lag, which may or may not be an issue depending on what kind of game you play. I wouldn't want to play CSGO or some other competitive shooter with extra input lag, but playing a single player game wouldn't really bother me.

Also a 2080 is a very strong GPU and might have no problem pushing 1080p 144hz or more, so there may be no need for turning any kind of sync on at all. You could probably get away with just capping the frame rate in RTSS or something and you'd get best of both worlds, no tearing and less input lag.

Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate it.

[Revelene]

Originally posted by Hiroki:

So, having gsync enabled is the best option if you exceed the refresh rate of your monitor when you get tearing?

I'm confused. I have a 1080p Gsync 144hz monitor and I am planning to get the RTX 2080. If I play uncapped without Gsync having unlimited FPS is better than capping it with Gsync enabled? As far as I know, if you enable Gsync you get input lag. What is the best option to reduce input lag and tearing at the same time, uncapped gsync off or capped at 139fps with Gsync enaabled?

Gsync has the least amount of added input latency than any type of frame sync available. You will not notice the latency that it adds, as it is so low that it is negligible. Using a third party frame limiter would add more latency by itself than Gsync.

If you have Gsync, leave it on. It will always work with frame rates within range of the refresh rate. If you are bothered by the tearing when frames are out of range, then use a frame limiter. Always use in-game limiters, if possible, as they always have less latency than using third party, like RTSS. But even with RTSS limiting frames, the latency is negligible.