GIGABYTE Releases Full Specifications of AORUS FO48U Gaming Monitor: 4K OLED, HDMI 2.1, 120 Hz

[Tsing]

Image: GIGABYTE



GIGABYTE has published the landing page and full specifications for one its most highly anticipated HDMI 2.1 gaming monitors, the AORUS FO48U. A relatively large display, the AORUS FO48U features a 47.53-inch OLED panel offering 4K UHD resolution (3840 x 2160 px), 120 Hz refresh rate, 1 ms GTG response time, 98 percent DCI-P3 color coverage, 130 percent sRGB color coverage, and 135000:1 contrast ratio. Unfortunately, GIGABYTE’s AORUS FO48U does not appear to offer any level of HDR support. Pricing and dates of availability are also unknown at this time.



AORUS FO48U Gaming Monitor Specifications



Panel Size (diagonal)47.53″ OLEDDisplay Viewing Area (HxV)1052.16×591.84(mm)Panel Backlight/ TypeOLEDDisplay Surface(non-glare/ glare)Anti-ReflectionColor Saturation98% DCI-P3/130% sRGBTrue Resolution3840 X 2160 (UHD)Pixel Pitch0.274(H) X 0.274(V)...

Continue reading...

 

[SeymourGore]

I'm not really a monitor guy, but doesn't 135 cd/m2 seem low?

(Feel free to ridicule and mock if this is a simple answer!)

 

[Brian_B]

Interesting that it's HDMI 2.1, but only DP 1.4 - which I guess is fine, that can support 4K HDR @ 120Hz.

But I have to say, this is the first, and maybe only, OLED display I've seen without HDR support since ... 2015? A very curious omission.

I'm not really a monitor guy, but doesn't 135 cd/m2 seem low?

Maybe that is why they aren't HDRing -- they are keeping the lighting level low. Maybe to mitigate burn in?

It's a very good point to bring up, since you need at least 400 cd/m2 peak to qualify for the crappy HDR specification. Granted, on OLED, where black is absolute zero, you still would have decent contrast ratios, and for most content, 132 cd is going to be... dim, but not unusable.

Yeah, questionable.

The appear to be using the "use the TV panel as a speaker" thing that Sony does often and sometimes is on the higher end LGs. So it's almost certainly the LG 48" panel, which in the LG C1 package can peak around 750 cd/m2 in HDR content

 

[kcthebrewer]

The original press release for this said HDR1000 support but then was quickly edited out.
So it may end up having support for HDR but definitely not 1000 as it's an OLED.

 

[Niner51]

Hopefully it's not overpriced like some of their other hardware is at times.

 

[Brian_B]

Hopefully it's not overpriced like some of their other hardware is at times.

Since this is "Gaming", I fully expect it to be significantly more than an LG C1... and the only thing it really has over that is a DP 1.4 port, and a whole lot of things the C1 has that this doesn't - the least of which would be HDR.

 

[Niner51]

Since this is "Gaming", I fully expect it to be significantly more than an LG C1... and the only thing it really has over that is a DP 1.4 port, and a whole lot of things the C1 has that this doesn't - the least of which would be HDR.

True. I ended up getting a CX instead of waiting for their monitors and I'm happy with my purchase, especially for the price.

 

[Endgame]

Hits a lot of the marks I want in a gaming monitor, but it’s tv size, not monitor size. That 4K display should be somewhere between 30” and 34” to actually fit on a desk.

 

[Niner51]

Hits a lot of the marks I want in a gaming monitor, but it’s tv size, not monitor size. That 4K display should be somewhere between 30” and 34” to actually fit on a desk.

I was hoping for a monitor in OLED in that size as well, but I'm surprised how well I've adapted and like my 48" CX as a monitor. My desk is a tad larger and deeper than most I believe though. Looking at my 34" Alienware Ultrawide which I thought at the time was perfect now seems just okay.

 

[LazyGamer]

Hits a lot of the marks I want in a gaming monitor, but it’s tv size, not monitor size. That 4K display should be somewhere between 30” and 34” to actually fit on a desk.

Can't get much smaller or you'll have to scale stuff. With our 32" 4k (16:9) monitor, I have to run it at 150% scaling (exactly 1440p equiv.) and the wife does 200% (1080p equiv., she's blind).

Currently using a 38" 21:10, 3840x1600 panel, and it's almost too fine of a pitch. Have a pair of 24" 1080p monitors side by side above it (they're all on a 'tree' stand), and those are more than readable.

 

[Brian_B]

Can't get much smaller or you'll have to scale stuff. With our 32" 4k (16:9) monitor, I have to run it at 150% scaling (exactly 1440p equiv.) and the wife does 200% (1080p equiv., she's blind).

Currently using a 38" 21:10, 3840x1600 panel, and it's almost too fine of a pitch. Have a pair of 24" 1080p monitors side by side above it (they're all on a 'tree' stand), and those are more than readable.

I may be in the minority here. I like my 27" 4K, I run scaling at 150%. I might be able to go up to 32" without too many issues, but much larger and I have to rethink my entire layout.

Scaling doesn't bother me at all - on OS X it's seamless. It's ~nearly~ there on Windows -- you still hit the occasional bad actor that doesn't play well with scaling, but far and away most things do.

Scaling ~shouldn't~ result in fuzzier image or lesser image quality. When done right, it just results in a larger, still sharp, image on screen. Vector vs Bitmap is the proper use.

I can respect those that like ultrawide or large screens, or just prefer to not run scaling. When I hit those occasional bad actors that don't like to use it (EA Origin...) I do grumble a bit, but 95% of the time it's pretty seamless and allows me to enjoy the best of both worlds - high PPI from higher resolution, without sacrificing text size or readability.

 

[Brian_B]

I was hoping for a monitor in OLED in that size as well, but I'm surprised how well I've adapted and like my 48" CX as a monitor. My desk is a tad larger and deeper than most I believe though. Looking at my 34" Alienware Ultrawide which I thought at the time was perfect now seems just okay.
View attachment 1087

That actually doesn't look nearly as big as I thought it would.

(same thing my GFs always say...)

 

[LazyGamer]

I may be in the minority here. I like my 27" 4K, I run scaling at 150%

That's basically 27" 1440p, of which I have at least one of... so I like it too .

Scaling doesn't bother me at all - on OS X it's seamless. It's ~nearly~ there on Windows -- you still hit the occasional bad actor that doesn't play well with scaling, but far and away most things do.

Scaling ~shouldn't~ result in fuzzier image or lesser image quality. When done right, it just results in a larger, still sharp, image on screen. Vector vs Bitmap is the proper use.

Scaling isn't bad, you just have decades of software that isn't 'scaling aware' to get past, and on the Microsoft side you don't have the command of the ecosystem that Apple has to force the issue.

I can respect those that like ultrawide or large screens, or just prefer to not run scaling. When I hit those occasional bad actors that don't like to use it (EA Origin...) I do grumble a bit, but 95% of the time it's pretty seamless and allows me to enjoy the best of both worlds - high PPI from higher resolution, without sacrificing text size or readability.

I'm really, really digging 21:10. It's just wide enough, while still having enough resolution to get the job done.

 

[Riccochet]

I already think my 27" is too big for the way I play FPS's. Can't imagine a 48". I'd just give up online FPS's since I'd be dogpoo.

 

[Endgame]

I may be in the minority here. I like my 27" 4K, I run scaling at 150%. I might be able to go up to 32" without too many issues, but much larger and I have to rethink my entire layout.

Scaling doesn't bother me at all - on OS X it's seamless. It's ~nearly~ there on Windows -- you still hit the occasional bad actor that doesn't play well with scaling, but far and away most things do.

Scaling ~shouldn't~ result in fuzzier image or lesser image quality. When done right, it just results in a larger, still sharp, image on screen. Vector vs Bitmap is the proper use.

I can respect those that like ultrawide or large screens, or just prefer to not run scaling. When I hit those occasional bad actors that don't like to use it (EA Origin...) I do grumble a bit, but 95% of the time it's pretty seamless and allows me to enjoy the best of both worlds - high PPI from higher resolution, without sacrificing text size or readability.

I’m currently running a Dell U3011 from… 2011. It’s a 30” 2560x1600 IPS display and I would like a sharper dot pitch (20/15 vision here) but I can’t complain about what I’ve got dot pitch wise. I would likely run without scaling at 4K, but I wouldn’t be bothered by 150%.

The big, big drawback to the 3011 is 60hz. That didn’t bother me in 2011, but I would like to go 144hz now, and have been waiting to purchase what I thought would be the obvious 4K display that everyone under the sun would make. You know - 34”, 4K, HDR, 144hz, IPS.
I’m starting to think that there may never be a monitor made with those specs.

 

[LazyGamer]

I’m currently running a Dell U3011 from… 2011. It’s a 30” 2560x1600 IPS display and I would like a sharper dot pitch (20/15 vision here) but I can’t complain about what I’ve got dot pitch wise. I would likely run without scaling at 4K, but I wouldn’t be bothered by 150%.

My HP ZR30w, same panel with no scaling, is still going strong, and still tests to 99% SRGB. And still heats up the room.

Biggest issue aside from the refresh rate is also the response time on those old IPS panels. We made it work but next to one even a few years newer my old HP looks like straight up mud.

The big, big drawback to the 3011 is 60hz. That didn’t bother me in 2011, but I would like to go 144hz now, and have been waiting to purchase what I thought would be the obvious 4K display that everyone under the sun would make. You know - 34”, 4K, HDR, 144hz, IPS.
I’m starting to think that there may never be a monitor made with those specs.

They stopped at 32", and generally speaking if you're not getting one of LGs OLEDs (as rehoused by Gigabyte here) 16:9 panels above 32" are VA, many with inverted TV-style sub-pixel layouts that can make text blurry, blocky, and otherwise difficult to read. I didn't think that was possible on LCD screens until I bought a few.

If you're willing to go wider than 16:9, either with a 21:9, 21:10, or 32:9, you can still get IPS panels or one of Samsung's latest that is... loosely related to VA but not in any way that matters. I strongly considered one of those myself before grabbing an Alienware 38" panel (21:10, 3840x1600), and mainly chose the Alienware because I felt that 32:9 was too wide for my immediate and foreseeable usecases.

 

[Brian_B]

I’m currently running a Dell U3011 from… 2011. It’s a 30” 2560x1600 IPS display and I would like a sharper dot pitch (20/15 vision here) but I can’t complain about what I’ve got dot pitch wise. I would likely run without scaling at 4K, but I wouldn’t be bothered by 150%.

Yeah I'm currently running a pair of Dell P2715Q's. IPS 4K @ 60Hz

Image and text quality is fantastic - and that's most of what I do. Gaming is ... meh. Not bad, but no where near great. I don't run terribly demanding games, and to date I've been willing to live with 30+ FPS (for most MMOs non competitively it doesn't hurt me). My wife just got a cheap 144Hz 1440p Viewsonic - not the best monitor in the world by any means, but I admit the higher refresh rate is noticeable and nice.

Not sure I'd trade 4K image and text clarity for the motion smoothness of 120+Hz, but it is tempting. If i were masochistic, I'd run two different monitors, a 2K 120Hz gaming one, and a 4K side monitor for my web browser and text -- except I know that mismatching resolutions on a multimonitor setup is asking for pain.

 

[LazyGamer]

except I know that mismatching resolutions on a multimonitor setup is asking for pain.

I've been doing it for a decade... if you can match them in one dimension, it ain't all that bad.

 

[Endgame]

I've been doing it for a decade... if you can match them in one dimension, it ain't all that bad.

I found it difficult to get games to support the odd resolutions. I tried playing with 2x 1600x 1200 displays in portrait along with the U3011 for 4960x1600, and probably only half of games worked?

 

[LazyGamer]

I found it difficult to get games to support the odd resolutions. I tried playing with 2x 1600x 1200 displays in portrait along with the U3011 for 4960x1600, and probably only half of games worked?

If you're talking about 'surround' support, I've honestly not tried it. I had something similar set up that Nvidia never supported. I use my two other monitors for other things