Asus PB287Q 28-Inch 4K Monitor Review: Ultra HD For $650
Tags:
-
Asus
-
Monitors
-
Tom's Hardware Top Picks
-
Display
Last response: in Reviews comments
ceberle
May 27, 2014 8:42:21 AM
We've seen plenty of buzz about the beauty of gaming at 3840x2160. Up until now, though, that meant spending several grand on a 4K monitor. Asus drives the price down to $650 with its 28-inch PB287Q. But are there sacrifices made in the process?
Asus PB287Q 28-Inch 4K Monitor Review: Ultra HD For $650 : Read more
Asus PB287Q 28-Inch 4K Monitor Review: Ultra HD For $650 : Read more
More about : asus pb287q inch monitor review ultra 650
oudmaster
May 27, 2014 9:26:51 AM
whiteodian
May 27, 2014 9:44:05 AM
Related resources
WINTERLORD
May 27, 2014 9:47:31 AM
ceberle
May 27, 2014 10:22:13 AM
WINTERLORD said:
what does it mean that "even though most users will use a 8bit signal chain" it is a 10bit monitor. why would most people use a 8bit signal chain? not sure what it ment by thatWindows may report that your monitor is rendering 32-bit color but it is in actuality 24-bits (8-bits per sub-pixel) with an additional 8 bits devoted to transparency information. 8-bits per primary color = 256 shades. 256 x 256 x 256 = 16,777,216 colors. To have a full 10-bit signal path, you need a video card capable of 1024 shades per primary color. 1024 x 1024 x 1024 = 1.07 billion colors.
I realize the terminology is confusing. Typical graphics boards output 8-bit color plus the transparency layer. 10-bit native panels like the PB287Q up-sample that signal to a 10-bit color depth.
-Christian-
Score
8
red77star
May 27, 2014 11:20:55 AM
@CaedenV
There will not be a 16:10 variant as televsion/cinema standards have essentially replaced computer standards for monitor manufacture. 16:9 is the broadcast HDTV standard while 16:10 was a computer-only standard. It's a whole lot cheaper for manufacturers to optimize to only one aspect ratio. Look at what 2048x1536 4:3 displays cost if you are curious as to what a roughly equivalent not-16:9 unit would run.
@red77star
You can't see the difference between 60 and 120 Hz anyway so there is nothing to worry about. At best humans can only see something slightly better than 30 Hz/30 fps so 60 Hz units like this one are more than good enough for actual usage. 120 Hz is simply a marketing ploy. If you think I am wrong, consider that movies are shot at "only" 24 fps and broadcast TV is 29.997 fps. Very few people complain about "lag" with these media but the world is full of computer gamers who "swear" they can tell a difference between 180 fps and 200 fps, probably just because FRAPS is running...
There will not be a 16:10 variant as televsion/cinema standards have essentially replaced computer standards for monitor manufacture. 16:9 is the broadcast HDTV standard while 16:10 was a computer-only standard. It's a whole lot cheaper for manufacturers to optimize to only one aspect ratio. Look at what 2048x1536 4:3 displays cost if you are curious as to what a roughly equivalent not-16:9 unit would run.
@red77star
You can't see the difference between 60 and 120 Hz anyway so there is nothing to worry about. At best humans can only see something slightly better than 30 Hz/30 fps so 60 Hz units like this one are more than good enough for actual usage. 120 Hz is simply a marketing ploy. If you think I am wrong, consider that movies are shot at "only" 24 fps and broadcast TV is 29.997 fps. Very few people complain about "lag" with these media but the world is full of computer gamers who "swear" they can tell a difference between 180 fps and 200 fps, probably just because FRAPS is running...
Score
-7
bryanlarsen
May 27, 2014 1:45:51 PM
Doug Lord
May 27, 2014 1:57:20 PM
Totally Man
May 27, 2014 1:57:35 PM
@red77star - You are a retard. Have you seen Lord of the Rings in HFR? 48fps vs 24fps and the thing is so smooth its like its in fast forward. The same goes with my old CRT - 60hz to 120hz dragging those windows around was super silky smooth.
I cannot believe how dumb you are. You are so dumb. So incredibly dumb. Worlds dumbest fool.
I cannot believe how dumb you are. You are so dumb. So incredibly dumb. Worlds dumbest fool.
Score
-4
phate
May 27, 2014 1:59:13 PM
nitrium
May 27, 2014 2:05:58 PM
MU_Engineer said:
There will not be a 16:10 variant as televsion/cinema standards have essentially replaced computer standards for monitor manufacture. 16:9 is the broadcast HDTV standard while 16:10 was a computer-only standard. It's a whole lot cheaper for manufacturers to optimize to only one aspect ratio. Look at what 2048x1536 4:3 displays cost if you are curious as to what a roughly equivalent not-16:9 unit would run. Actually a standard DOES exist for higher resolution at the 16:10 aspect: WHXGA - which is 5120 × 3200.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
Score
0
Anri
May 27, 2014 2:47:42 PM
$650 for TN is ULTRA-LOW price???
Buy IPS for $330 - http://techreport.com/review/23291/those-27-inch-ips-di...
Buy IPS for $330 - http://techreport.com/review/23291/those-27-inch-ips-di...
Score
-8
larsoncc
May 27, 2014 4:06:11 PM
What's the refresh rate of this monitor at lower resolutions, like 1080p? Is it still 60hz, or is it faster (120hz for example)? I ask, because even though it's not quite the same, some TVs have been advertising higher refresh rates at lower resolutions (frame interpolation, of course, but still). Further, it's a TN panel, if it's got the right chip, the panel tech would support it just fine. So, what's the word? Doesn't seem to be on any site that I can find.
Score
1
Spriggan43
May 27, 2014 4:08:59 PM
larsoncc
May 27, 2014 4:33:18 PM
Spriggan43
May 27, 2014 4:37:00 PM
Spriggan43
May 27, 2014 4:38:28 PM
ceberle
May 27, 2014 4:52:47 PM
larsoncc said:
What's the refresh rate of this monitor at lower resolutions, like 1080p? Is it still 60hz, or is it faster (120hz for example)? I ask, because even though it's not quite the same, some TVs have been advertising higher refresh rates at lower resolutions (frame interpolation, of course, but still). Further, it's a TN panel, if it's got the right chip, the panel tech would support it just fine. So, what's the word? Doesn't seem to be on any site that I can find.60 Hz is the max refresh at all resolutions. Over HDMI, 30 Hz is the max at 3840 x 2160. For 60 Hz at full-res, you have to use DisplayPort 1.2.
-Christian-
Score
2
Spriggan43
May 27, 2014 5:03:55 PM
Quote:
Quote:
No DP 1.2a? So no freesync from VESA? Why be cheap on freesync is it no longer free?Even if DP 1.2a was used, AMD has stated it'd be another 6-12 months before monitors would hit the market that would support freesync.
If Asus added the 1.2a spec port, the support could come later in a firmware update, this monitor is asking too much for what is going to replace it in 3-4mouths; they had the chance to add the 1.2a spec port, but Asus have decided to hold off on dp1.2a so making the next monitor with same spec but with a DP1.2a port seeming like magic.
I don’t upgrade monitors that often, the Nvidia people are screaming g-sync and the AMD people are complaining on a TH post board, nothing changes in IT.
Just seems like a lost change to have a monitor on the market that would not be touched in specs from competitors for the next 3-4mouths.
Score
1
Duckhunt
May 27, 2014 6:43:45 PM
dogmang
May 27, 2014 7:20:24 PM
krobjack
May 27, 2014 8:45:39 PM
@MU_Engineer
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about in regards to refresh rate. Its quite well known that a higher refresh rate directly affects the smoothness of motion in a video game to a degree that extremely noticeable. Stop all the nonsense about we only see 30fps lol. Eyes dont view the world in FPS, they view a monitors refresh rate in FPS. AND, if you're using a 3d monitor you NEED a 120hz monitor to push 60 to each eye.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about in regards to refresh rate. Its quite well known that a higher refresh rate directly affects the smoothness of motion in a video game to a degree that extremely noticeable. Stop all the nonsense about we only see 30fps lol. Eyes dont view the world in FPS, they view a monitors refresh rate in FPS. AND, if you're using a 3d monitor you NEED a 120hz monitor to push 60 to each eye.
Score
2
xiinc37
May 27, 2014 9:26:37 PM
WINTERLORD
May 27, 2014 9:58:59 PM
falchard
May 28, 2014 1:20:24 AM
2160 res is not something that is super spectacular for the PC market. Right now in this size, 1440 is common and at 1080, the pixel difference is not vastly noticeable. One thing I would point out is that this is a cheap TN panel, not a good quality TN panel. There are not many differences between a good quality TN panel and an IPS panel outside of viewing angle. There is with a cheap TN panel. So it might be wiser to just go with a 1440 res monitor at this point instead of trying to push into 2160.
For graphics, there is a point where the resolution difference is negligible; especially with modern cards that oversell on memory. It really depends on the complexity of the pixel shader pass and deferred lighting effects. You can get increase performance by not using AA and AF since there should not be a point at this resolution. If the game does more on other passes, like having very complex geometry than the screen dimensions will not make a huge impact.
For graphics, there is a point where the resolution difference is negligible; especially with modern cards that oversell on memory. It really depends on the complexity of the pixel shader pass and deferred lighting effects. You can get increase performance by not using AA and AF since there should not be a point at this resolution. If the game does more on other passes, like having very complex geometry than the screen dimensions will not make a huge impact.
Score
0
xiinc37 said:
@MU_Engineer The only people who still say this are the ones who have never taken the time to compare 30 and 60 fps side by side, and/or have never seen actual 120 fps IRL with their own eyes, OR trolls. Anyone who has, becomes an instant believer in high frame rates.This is totally true. Also, if you have a video card setup that pushes framerates above the 60fps mark and a monitor capable of 120Hz+, perceivable tearing is lessened at faster refresh rates (above 60fps). This is a well-known fact.
This is one of the reasons I won't buy a higher res monitor (above 1080p) until they release one with 120Hz+ refresh or G-sync. Going back to 60Hz monitors is painful when you're not used to the tearing. V-sync is effective at reducing the tearing, but introduces input lag (on top of that which higher res IPS monitors already inherently have) that no one needs in a multi-player fps if they want to stay competitive.
Score
0
Displayport 1.3 will support 4K @ 120Hz
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/34240/displayport-1-3-sta...
The bad news is that Displayport 1.3 probably won't make it to the consumer level devices until Spring of 2015
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/34240/displayport-1-3-sta...
The bad news is that Displayport 1.3 probably won't make it to the consumer level devices until Spring of 2015
Score
0
@ Spriggan43...Freesync is not "Free". What AMD has failed to inform the masses is that Freesync requires a monitor to have a specialized PCB (just like Nvidia's G-Sync technlogy) in order to support the V-Blank technology that allows for dynamic refresh rates. Monitors that are Freesync capable are expected to cost in the same range as G-Sync monitors. So, yes AMD lied to us all.
Score
0
DasBoot
May 28, 2014 7:13:44 AM
Quote:
$650 for TN is ULTRA-LOW price???Buy IPS for $330 - http://techreport.com/review/23291/those-27-inch-ips-di...
You do know that those are not 4k monitors right?
Score
0
DasBoot
May 28, 2014 10:28:40 AM
lp231 said:
It's difficult to accept that a resolution of 3840x2160 is consider as 4K, when 3840 isn't anywhere near the 4K mark. Don't know if anyone else feels the same.All 4K screens should have a starting resolution of 4096 to be truly called 4K.
You are correct if you are talking about the Digital Cinema Initiatives consortium definition of 4K.
4096 × 2160 which turns out to be roughly 17:9 or a 1.9:1 ratio screen.
However since this monitor is made from a 16:9 or 1.78:1 panel, that does come out to 3840x2160 pixels.
These displays are known as UHD and is what will be used as a home format.
Score
0
DasBoot
May 28, 2014 10:35:05 AM
Some more valid formats:
UHD-1 3840 × 2160 1.78:1 (16:9) 8,294,400 pixels
UHD 5120 × 2160 2.37:1 (21:9) 11,059,200 pixels
WHXGA 5120 × 3200 1.60:1 (16:10) 16,384,000 pixels
DCI 4K 4096 × 2160 1.90:1 (17:9) 8,847,360 pixels
DCI 4K 4096 × 1716 2.39:1 7,020,544 pixels
DCI 4K 3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360 pixels
UHD-2 7680 × 4320 16:9 33,177,600 pixels (also known as 8K)
UHD-1 3840 × 2160 1.78:1 (16:9) 8,294,400 pixels
UHD 5120 × 2160 2.37:1 (21:9) 11,059,200 pixels
WHXGA 5120 × 3200 1.60:1 (16:10) 16,384,000 pixels
DCI 4K 4096 × 2160 1.90:1 (17:9) 8,847,360 pixels
DCI 4K 4096 × 1716 2.39:1 7,020,544 pixels
DCI 4K 3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360 pixels
UHD-2 7680 × 4320 16:9 33,177,600 pixels (also known as 8K)
Score
0
John Fak
May 28, 2014 10:35:22 AM
"This is a true 10-bit panel; no frame rate conversion or interpolation is used to increase the bit depth"
Christian, please don't spread misinformation: this is a 8bit+FRC panel. Don't get me wrong, its still amazing for a TN panel. Pretty much all TN panels used to have 6bit+FRC.
Even the expensive IGZO IPS ones still do 8bit+2bit from FRC.
Christian, please don't spread misinformation: this is a 8bit+FRC panel. Don't get me wrong, its still amazing for a TN panel. Pretty much all TN panels used to have 6bit+FRC.
Even the expensive IGZO IPS ones still do 8bit+2bit from FRC.
Score
0
John Fak
May 28, 2014 10:40:37 AM
milkod2001
May 28, 2014 10:54:30 AM
When it comes to monitors it would not harm to throw something like 2 min. video where you guys show us how monitor looks like: front, back, connectors etc =quick overall preview and then run some apps to show how it could be used for productivity work(word, excel, PS, Illustrator, 3D studio max or other modeling programs), then how it works with browser/s and maybe 1-2 games with description(GPU, CPU,RAM used ect).
All that linked to Youtube so you guys might get more users coming to your site and also it will save load time to ones who are too busy to spend 1 hour reading it.
All that linked to Youtube so you guys might get more users coming to your site and also it will save load time to ones who are too busy to spend 1 hour reading it.
Score
0
John Fak
May 28, 2014 10:54:53 AM
John Fak
May 28, 2014 10:59:17 AM
husker
May 28, 2014 12:58:34 PM
Quote:
When it comes to monitors it would not harm to throw something like 2 min. video where you guys show us how monitor looks like: front, back, connectors etc =quick overall preview and then run some apps to show how it could be used for productivity work(word, excel, PS, Illustrator, 3D studio max or other modeling programs), then how it works with browser/s and maybe 1-2 games with description(GPU, CPU,RAM used ect).All that linked to Youtube so you guys might get more users coming to your site and also it will save load time to ones who are too busy to spend 1 hour reading it.
It may be okay for some kid in his basement to throw together a utube video, because he doesn't care if the quality and commentary are laughably amateurish. If Tom's is going to begin producing videos, regardless of the length or purpose, there is a certain standard of production values that they would need to maintain in order to protect their brand. This would be a business decision not to be taken lightly by any media company whose finances depend largely on its image.
Score
0
milkod2001
May 29, 2014 3:55:45 PM
@Husker
I do believe that author of this article would not have any problem to talk about product he's reviewing for 2 mins and Toms guys would be able to put video together up to Toms standards without any problem. But yeah it does require some setup, investments, time etc.
well this is just an idea, thanks
I do believe that author of this article would not have any problem to talk about product he's reviewing for 2 mins and Toms guys would be able to put video together up to Toms standards without any problem. But yeah it does require some setup, investments, time etc.
well this is just an idea, thanks
Score
0
ceberle
May 30, 2014 9:32:02 AM
John Fak said:
"This is a true 10-bit panel; no frame rate conversion or interpolation is used to increase the bit depth"Christian, please don't spread misinformation: this is a 8bit+FRC panel. Don't get me wrong, its still amazing for a TN panel. Pretty much all TN panels used to have 6bit+FRC.
Even the expensive IGZO IPS ones still do 8bit+2bit from FRC.
Thanks for helping me catch this error. I was hasty in my interpretation of Asus press materials when I wrote the article. You are indeed correct that the PB287Q uses an 8-bit/FRC panel. We are correcting the article to reflect this and we appreciate you bringing this to our attention.
-Christian-
Score
0
eriko
June 1, 2014 2:50:53 AM
footman
July 30, 2014 2:23:17 PM
ceberle
July 30, 2014 3:39:06 PM
footman said:
Hey Christian, have you tried overclocking this monitor? It's a 1ms TN panel, so my guess is that it might be possible. I know that you overclocked the Tempest monitor using Toasty X's utilities. Any chance you test this panel? :-)I'm afraid I no longer have the monitor. I sent it back to Asus already.
-Christian-
Score
0
footman
July 30, 2014 4:21:10 PM
ceberle said:
footman said:
Hey Christian, have you tried overclocking this monitor? It's a 1ms TN panel, so my guess is that it might be possible. I know that you overclocked the Tempest monitor using Toasty X's utilities. Any chance you test this panel? :-)I'm afraid I no longer have the monitor. I sent it back to Asus already.
-Christian-
That's a shame.
I really appreciate your tips and hints regarding calibration of the monitors you review. As someone who does not have access to calibration tools the information is key in making a decision.
I'm looking for a new gaming monitor to go with my CF R9-290's. I just gave my old Dell U2711 to the wife. So 2560x1440 (120hz) or 4K (60hz). I read your review of the Tempest OC, seems like a lot of hoops to go through to get a reliable overclock, the only alternative is the Asus ROG Swift, which will do the 120-144hz out of the box but is too expensive, and G sync is lost on me as I run with AMD.
So if you were a gamer would you spring for the Tempest and take a chance on getting a decent oc or spring for the Asus 4K.
Cheers,
Score
0
!