Monitors

ASUS Computex 2016: 27-inch 4K IPS 144Hz Gaming Monitor

By June 7, 2016 64 Comments

ASUS 4K 144Hz gaming monitorASUS revealed some interesting displays at Computex 2016, including a 180Hz monitor, a 240Hz monitor (first of its kind ever) and we have also gotten information about a 4K 144Hz gaming monitor with IPS panel, which is also the first of its kind. There’s not much information out yet regarding this particular monitor, but we’ll make sure to update this post once we receive information from ASUS or other reliable sources. This monitor is apparently the world’s first 144Hz 4K monitor. The size of the display is 27-inches.

What we do know about this monitor is that it has an amazing maximum native resolution of 3840 x 2160, also known as 4K, 2160p, Ultra HD or just UHD. This will put some heavy weight on your graphics card as it requires a lot of computational power to render such high-quality graphics at a high frame rate. With the release of the upcoming AMD R490X and NVIDIA GTX 1080, you can most likely get higher frame rates than 60 frames per second in high-end games at UHD resolution and therefore take advantage of this monitor. Whether or not you can reach 144FPS is up for debate.

The maximum supported refresh rate for this 27-inch 4K 144Hz IPS gaming monitor is 144Hz at 4K resolution, so you can enjoy a smooth and stunning gameplay even with amazing visuals if your graphics card (or cards) have enough power. The panel type is IPS, meaning that the UHD visuals will be even more stunning with great color quality and viewing angles. The panel itself is from AU Optronics (AUO) and according to ASUS’ down description, the screen will deliver stunning photo-realistic visuals.

We have not yet received information about Adaptive-Sync support yet, so we can’t say for sure if this monitor supports G-SYNC or FreeSync, or perhaps none of them. It is also uncertain whether or not the monitor will join the ASUS Republic of Gamers (ROG) brand.

The monitor stand itself has full ergonomic features including tilt, height, swivel and pivot adjustment options. As previously mentioned, we will update this article as soon as ASUS reveals more information about this prototype gaming monitor.

ASUS 144Hz 4K Monitor
Buy online on Amazon
Screen Size27"
Resolution3840 x 2160
Panel TypeIPS
Aspect Ratio16:9
Refresh Rate144Hz
Response Time4ms (unconfirmed)
Adaptive SyncUnknown
SpeakersUnknown

Related Posts

  • Tyrann

    30″ for 4k minimum. 27″ is the sweet spot for 1440p just like 24″ is the sweet spot for 1080p.

  • boe_d

    Too small but otherwise the specs are nice.

  • Rian Holayter

    Would prefer 30″ but would take 27″ 4K 144hz over 1440p of the same any day. I can still see pixels at 27″ 1440p

  • sebastianer

    I hope it has FreeSync! I won’t upgrade my 970 before having an UHD monitor with variable refresh rate, and I was planning to switch to AMD after many years using Nvidia.

    I think the best gaming investment you can do is a variable refresh rate monitor, you no longer need to worry about stuttering, just set up the game properties to work something near your monitor’s refresh rate and good to go.

  • John Handcock

    why?

  • wargamer1969

    27 inches wat too small for 4k. WI’ll wait for the 4k 40 inch versions to.hit soon after.

  • Solariis

    You’ll be paying at least twice the price of an already expensive monitor for it too. This one even at 27″ will likely already be $1000+ considering it’s brand new technology at that resolution & refresh rate.

  • tophat1234

    A 240hz monitor is absolutely useless. ITs almsot impossible to tell the difference between 120fps and 140 fps and they think 240 fps is goign to look different? No wonder we dont have 4k ips 144hz already, they are wasting their time with useless stuff.

  • lozandier

    Don’t speak in absolutes people said the same things about content over 60FPS; we all know that was a bunch of nonsense, right?

  • lozandier

    It will likely be sold with FreeSync & GSync variants with the GSync one (as always) having the highest refresh rates.

    Nvidia’s variable refresh rate is better, but it does lead to a higher cost. That’s fine for such an item.

  • lozandier

    I wish there will be an ultra-wide variant. That’s monitor nirvana.

  • sebastianer

    Yup. But I’m ok with [LFC-100hz] for 4K. Maybe 120 for 1080p.

  • doxiMAN_MAN

    When will the 4k 144hz screen come out? I WANNA BUY IT YA HEAR ME?!?!?!

  • lozandier

    You shouldn’t in 2016-2017, IMO; Displayport 1.3+ is more than enough for that.

    That said, you would want to have more weighted on OLED & HDR.

  • Tyrann

    Probably next year. It takes them like 6 months to get it out after announcement.

  • xostrowx1991

    You gotta remember that 4K is a MUCH larger jump in resolution compared to 1440p than 1440p is to 1080p. 1440p resolution is only 66% larger than 1080p pixel-wise; whereas 4K is DOUBLE the size of 1440p (1440p is 33% larger vertically and 33% larger Horizontally compared to 1080p, multiplying up to 77% larger. 4K is 50% larger than 1440p both vertically and horizontally, which multiplies up to 225% larger.)

    So this also means that the sweet spot screen size is ALSO a larger difference going to 4K than it is moving from 1080p to 1440p. The 1.77x resolution hike of 1440p makes the “sweet spot” increase by 3 inches, from 24″ to 27″. So a 2.25x resolution hike would mean 40% more screen increase.

    So: 3″ x 1.48 = A (A = sweet spot size for 4K)

    3″ x 1.48 = 4.44 inches.

    So we add 4.2 inches to 27 inches and we get 31.44 inches. And since nobody really makes ~31.5″ monitors we can just round up and say that 32″ is the sweet spot for 4K. Which is exactly why Acer made the XB321HK the way it is, which is a 32 inch 4K G-Sync IPS 60hz 4ms etc.. panel. Basically the exact same thing as the infamous Acer XB271HU but moving to 60hz, 4K, and 32″.

    I could die happy if ASUS/Acer etc.. could make a monitor that has:

    30-32 inch
    4K
    100hz+
    G-Sync
    IPS panel
    Curved

    They’ve already made some 1080p/1440p curved 30″ monitors that aren’t ultra-wides (normal 16:9) so it might be coming soon now that we have DP1.3 out

  • Lucas

    don’t forget ultra-wide. and instead of ips, make that oled. Oled>all. Scratch that, make that a QD-OLED. This has to happen (but god it will take a while)

  • Lucas

    they need to drop the little game of QD vs OLED already. QD-OLED already exists in labs. IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. PRAISE THE ALMIGHTY 31.2” 21:9 BEZEL-LESS 4K 144HZ G-SYNC QD-OLED DISPLAY!!!

  • Lucas

    For anyone wondering about the resolution race, highest achieved res for any display is 10k, by chinese manufacturer BOE. Also, if anyone’s wondering where the resolution race will end, it’s 27k. According to the Clarkvision Photography’s research, the resolution equivalent to the detail in the human eye is 576 mega pixels. And according to wikipedia (don’t know if that information is true, if not then just consider the 576mp), the human eye aspect ratio is 4:3.075. So I put that in a megapixel-and-aspect-ratio-to-resolution caculator and got 27373 x 21043. So whatever the final display technology is, it will have that resolution. So, decades (or less, who knows) from now, you’ll be putting your 27k 1000+hz contact-lenses-screen on your eyes XD

  • ShaneMcGrath

    Agree totally.
    I would pay a pretty penny for a 32inch 4k IPS 100hz+ G sync 4ms(no curve for me though).
    I own one of the first affordable 4k monitors to hit the market a while back Samsung 28 inch 4k 60hz TN, Great panel for the price but I can tell any of you now 4k desktop monitors need to be over 30 inches otherwise you need a magnifying glass to read text, Scaling isn’t perfect in many programs and games.
    40 inches is around the size where you don’t need scaling at all but that is just too big for most peoples desktop pc’s, 32 is ideal in my opinion.
    Ended up going back to 1440p 27 inch ROG IPS 165hz as I can’t stand 60hz, Just to used to high hz monitors that anything lower just seems to give me eyestrain and headaches.
    Mind you the 4k on the Samsung is stunning in terms of picture quality and colours even for a TN panel, Has better colours than My ROG IPS to be honest, Just need them to get over 4k 60hz barrier with new display port now here.

  • ShaneMcGrath

    I can tell the difference on desktop dragging an open folder around, Can’t in games though.
    Can even tell the difference between 144hz and 165hz on my IPS ROG, Dragging mouse with open folder around desktop seems like it doesn’t even have a refresh rate at all it’s so smooth on overclocked 165hz.
    Agree on your 240hz point though, Rather they focus on 4k above 60hz.

  • FynntheHuman

    I’m using a 32″ 1440p currently and would defiantly prefer a 40″ at 4k. A 40″ 4k display has perfect 100% text scaling with windows. Combine that with 120+hz display and it would be bliss. I would settle for a 32″ 1440p with 144hz though.

  • 🕶️🕶️☀️☀️⛱️ REIMU ⛱️☀️☀️🕶️🕶️

    PA QUE QUERI ESA PANTALLA SI IGUAL NO TENI MANOS MALO QL

  • Zanzakigus on zick

    Acá

  • gigu

    Asus release it please! I wait…..

  • Andrew B

    that 576MP is based on 120 degrees of vision, though. If we were further or closer, that number would change

  • Andrew B

    that arguement has been used for decades. ‘no one can tell the different between beta max and dvd!” “no one can tell the difference with anything beyond 24hz” “No one can tell the difference between insert x and y”

    I can tell a difference between a car passing at 120mph and 240mph so pretty sure I for one will be able to notice the difference between 120hz and 240hz.

  • alex

    you’ve got a source for that “qd-oled” business?

  • tophat1234

    seein a car drive at 120 mph and 240 mph in real life has absoluitely nothing to do with movement on a monitor at 120 hz and 240 hz….

  • Andrew B

    It’s called an analogy.

  • Roman Traistari

    Really? What kind of eagle eyes do you have? 😀 1440p on 27″ seems quite small to me and I’d prefer a 32″ 1440p any day. I can’t even think of 4K on anything smaller than 42″

  • Roman Traistari

    Make it 34″ and it’s purrrfict

  • Rian Holayter

    Roughly 20/10 I believe with my glasses- my job is detecting small visual details though so I am trained to pick up on these things, likely why the pixels on the 27″ 1440p are still noticeable to me.

  • Darryn Frost

    Um, 4K is double 1080P, not double 1440p

  • xostrowx1991

    lol, no. sorry. 1080p is 1920 x 1080 which = 2,073,600 pixels (that’s just a bit over 2 million pixels. grab a calculator and do the math, 1,920 multiplied by 1,080). 4K is 3840 x 2160 which = 8,294,400 (roughly 8.3 million pixels) 8.3 million divided by 2.073 million = 4 Exactly 4, because it’s four times more pixels.

  • Darryn Frost

    I am still right. It has no relationship to 1440p – 4k is twice as wide and twice as tall as 1080p. Yes, that’s four times the pixels, but my point was the relationship was to 1080p, not 1440.

  • xostrowx1991

    No. You are not right. 4K and 1080p are RESOLUTIONS, therefore pixels is all that matters here. And what you aren’t realizing is that you have to MULTIPLY the 100% extra width and 100% extra height, not ADD them together.

    Think of it this way, if i have a monitor that is 20 inches tall and 20 inches wide, you would have 400 square inches of space. But if you had a monitor that was 40 inches wide and 40 inches tall (which is “only twice as wide and twice as tall) you STILL have 1,600 square inches of space! Which is FOUR times more than 400 square inches, this is because you are dealing with two dimensions here; for every extra inch of height you gain you get one more inch of height but you ALSO get TWENTY more inches of width as well on the 20″ x 20” panel.

    Ntot sure why this isn’t ob to you but whatever. Point is, when discussing resolution you have to deal in pixels, and the FACTS are: 4K “IS” 2.25x larger than 1440p, and 4K “IS” four times larger than 1080p. Period.

  • Darryn Frost

    You can’t read very well, can you? I even said it was four times the pixels.

  • xostrowx1991

    And you can’t think very well lmao. You clearly are stating 4K is double 1080p which IS NOT TRUE. END OF STORY. Jeez, some people lol.

  • Darryn Frost

    You are a moron – I clearly said it was “Twice as wide and twice as high, which is four times the pixels”.

    Please tell me how that is wrong. Is 4k not 2x the width and 2x the height and 4x the pixels of 1080p and not 2x 1440p?

    You did not say 4k was more than double 1440p, you said it WAS double 1440p. Which is clearly wrong.

  • boniek

    I would prefer 24 inch 4k monitor due to PPI density. PPI density is really important to picture quality. I don’t know why people would want 30 freaking inches on a monitor – it is so uncomfortable, your gaze would constantly jump around because you can’t see whole screen at the same time – that also makes perceived resolution a lot less than 4k.

  • boniek

    Spotting individual pixels may be tough but small PPI artifacts such as aliasing is easily seen.

  • Roman Traistari

    I don’t know why, but I like when objects look just a little pixelated, that way they appear more clear to me. That’s why I turn off AA in absolutely all games. Also I’m not sure I know what PPI aliasing looks like.

  • Piiitabyte

    Right now, there’s a 30″ 4K Panel out that is OLED and has 0.1ms response time, along with 120Hz (DP 1.3). It’s going for $5,000

  • White Lotus

    This is very true. proffesional gamers especially professional fps gamers prefer smaller monitors for this very reason

  • Steam Condenser

    They actually said it was 225% larger. Which is exact. (3840*2160)/(2560*1440)*100 to get the percentage. 4K UHD resolution is 2.25 times greater than 1440p. 4K UHD resolution is 4 times greater than 1080p.

    You originally stated 4k was double 1080p, which is only correct if you refer to either the vertical or the horizontal resolution. xostrowx1991 was correct throughout, you were only correct after the second post, but still incorrect in your assessment of their correctness.

  • Yossarian

    Only reasoning I could think of is if you wanna move your monitor farther back. Still, I agree, definitely prefer PPI. Also greatly improves perceived IQ in my experience.

  • Tadas

    According to the official website – this is not a 144Hz monitor

  • samljer22

    Please, dont tell me what my sweet spot it…
    i completely disagree with what “my” sweet spot is.
    as ive found it, and its NOT that.

    when will ppl just stop re-spewing shit they read somewhere else.

  • eric planting

    and then you need to go to holography

  • Roy LaPoutre

    Great for you if it’s YOUR sweet spot. 1440p on anything above 25″ is pure crap to me in terms of PPI. The image is NOT crisp except when standing 2 meters away from your screen. FOR ME, anything from 20″ to 25″ should be 1440p to enjoy a nice crisp image but anything above should get 4K to impress me. Why do people absolutely think 1440p is the sweet spot for 27″ ? I need at least 1080p to enjoy my 5,5″ phone but somehow 1080p should be enough for 25″ x)

  • Dargonplay

    Are you clinically retarded? That’s a genuine inquiry to decide if I should either explain it to you in a way you can understand or downright block you for being too stupid and not being able to think clearly.

    And just in case your attention spawn is really that low, here let me quote what you said: “Um, 4K is double 1080P, not double 1440p”

  • Darryn Frost

    Talk about retarded. 4K is not double 1440p. It is 2.25. That is not double. Duh.

    4k is exactly DOUBLE the width, and DOUBLE the height of 1080p. That makes it four times the pixels, Such easy math even you can figure that out.

  • Tripin S

    They also said the Human eye can’t detect the difference between 60hz and 120hz;

    You can see a HUGE difference between the two.

  • shadowhedgehogz

    Rubbish, they won’t go that far. We will have other displays like possibly Vector displays. There are already people working on a Vector video codec. Tech will advance and change, in 12 years we will have AI that is conscious and be average human level intellegence according to Ray Kurzweil. And i am fairly inclined to believe him.

    Also the eye can only see so much detail depending on distance, having pixels you literally cant see until your eyes are pressed up against the screen is completely pointless.

  • shadowhedgehogz

    If by “They” you mean random fools, then yea. Actually the difference between 60hz and 120hz is 8ms in frame time. 30hz/fps is 33ms, 60hz/fps is 16ms and 120hz is 8ms.. So while the motion clarity isn’t as big as a jump from 30fps to 60fps it is still at least 50% better, it’s a pretty big difference in overall smoothness.

    Furthermore, to get down to 4ms frame time you would need 240hz/fps, which is major diminishing returns, that’s a lot more power needed over 120hz for just a 4ms drop.

  • shadowhedgehogz

    Dat IPS back light bleed tho, hardly any on my TN screen.. and the motion is better, better response time.

  • Lucas

    AI can never be human. Human consciousness will never be duplicated. The consciousness is not a physical thing, it’s not possible to make it. Rationally, probably, emotionally/psychologically, never.

  • Lucas

    The total average resolution of the human eye is 576mp, assuming 20/20 vision. It doesn’t vary on distance.

  • Lucas
  • Lucas

    About the eyes pressed against screen thing, I clarified that in the last sentence (contact lenses that are displays). The way I see it now, there are 4 possible options for the singularity’s display technology:
    1.Image data transferred directly to the brain. It could work by doing the reverse of what we already have, the sensors that receive and interpret brain waves (although they’re still not perfect). It would be the most ideal option, as sense emulation is the basic principle of VR. Then we would just need to emulated all other human senses to put one’s consciousness in a virtual environment, effectively achieving the VR dream. No, what we have now is not “VR”.

    2. Light-field projected onto the retina, a concept in development by company Magic Leap. The concept is nice, but it would be very hard to make a perfect display that doesn’t hurt your eyes with the light.

    3. The “contact-lenses-screen” idea. Would also be difficult to produce perfect color and brightness with no consequences to the eyes.

    4. Some other option. The future is almost completely unpredictable. All we can say is that it always gets better: that’s what we can clearly see by looking at our obviously worse past.

  • Lucas

    Also, found out the eye aspect ration listed on wikipedia is false. Since there is also an average eye resolution, there is also an average eye aspect ratio, but I couldn’t find what it is on the internet.

  • Claire AwesomeSauce

    I don’t think the actual effect is a 50% increase as the paper would suggest. Linus did a experiment that changed a monitor from 60hz, 120hz, and 144hz and a casual player was unable to detect the difference. He, having constantly used a 144hz monitor, could tell the difference, but most of the time it was quite subtle and took him a bit to make the call. The switch from 30hz to 60hz on the otherhand is pretty big.

    Still, no one would turn down an increase from 60hz to 144hz.

  • Wirxaw

    A good attempt, but I think VR and AR would overtake the industry faster than 4K becomes mainstream. And when you can actually don’t have to look at the screen and, potentially, wear glasses – I doubt that a whole lot of people would be interested in the resolution race.