GIGABYTE Unveils New AORUS Gaming Monitors

Peter_Brosdahl

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
8,713
Points
113
gigabyte-aorus-fi32q-gaming-monitor-front-1024x576.jpg
Image: GIGABYTE



GIGABYTE has debuted a new lineup of AORUS gaming monitors. Ranging from 27 to 43 inches, they cover a wide range of gaming needs and include features such as Super Speed IPS, HDR, high refresh rates, low response times, and, for content creators, a KVM switch. The premium AORUS FV43U is expected to launch this month; one retailer has already listed it for approximately $1,516 USD in Japan. The M32 Gaming monitor swaps HDR technology for a KVM switch...
Click to expand...

Continue reading...


 
May be worth a look. Honestly I'm still loving my Predator 27". It still looks pretty good to my old eyes and I like the 240 Hz refresh rate even though most of my games are in the 140 range. I do kinda toy with moving up to a 32" eventually though but since pretty much all I'm playing these days is Call of Duty, a 1080, fast 27" screen seems to be the best fit for me.
 
MacLeod said:
May be worth a look. Honestly I'm still loving my Predator 27". It still looks pretty good to my old eyes and I like the 240 Hz refresh rate even though most of my games are in the 140 range. I do kinda toy with moving up to a 32" eventually though but since pretty much all I'm playing these days is Call of Duty, a 1080, fast 27" screen seems to be the best fit for me.
Click to expand...

Even though I have a1440P monitor I still find myself playing shooter at 1080P with maxed graphics at or greater than 144 FPS. It just feels a lot smoother.
 
Brian_B said:
Hmm.. that or a 48" OLED. It's a tough call honestly.
Click to expand...

I'd say the Aorus has better specs. The 48" is only 120hz and HDR10, where the 43" Aorus is 144hz and HDR1000.

I know some people are going to mention black levels. Well, when's the last time you sat there and watched a black screen? Or paused a game and went "hey, look at those crispy black levels!" or "man, I wish the black levels in the bright *** game were better". For me, never.
 
Riccochet said:
I'd say the Aorus has better specs. The 48" is only 120hz and HDR10, where the 43" Aorus is 144hz and HDR1000.

I know some people are going to mention black levels. Well, when's the last time you sat there and watched a black screen? Or paused a game and went "hey, look at those crispy black levels!" or "man, I wish the black levels in the bright *** game were better". For me, never.
Click to expand...
Well, TV's don't follow the monitor HDR monikers - HDR10 is a video format, HDR1000 is a monitor specification, so they aren't talking about the same thing.

You are correct about 120 vs 144Hz, but I don't know how much difference that makes honestly. And there's the burn in issue, it doesn't really concern me, but it does some and I won't discount it.

The biggest hangup for me is just size - 48" is really too big. Even 43" in too big for my desk honestly. But OLED is **** nice to look at...
 
Riccochet said:
I'd say the Aorus has better specs. The 48" is only 120hz and HDR10, where the 43" Aorus is 144hz and HDR1000.

I know some people are going to mention black levels. Well, when's the last time you sat there and watched a black screen? Or paused a game and went "hey, look at those crispy black levels!" or "man, I wish the black levels in the bright *** game were better". For me, never.
Click to expand...
Black levels make a lot of difference for details in dark scenes in movies and games. Games aren't all bright images - many RPGs have dark underground areas for one example. I have 3 OLEDs, including a CX48 as my main monitor, because they are the best screens for the job at those locations. I went with a Samsung "QLED" for a brighter room because it was a better screen fit that location.

I can't say I'd notice a difference between 120Hz and 144Hz. 43" is a more manageable size than 48" for a monitor, but I've gotten used to the 48. The multiple inputs and remote are very handy with 3 computers connected to the CX48.

For $1500+, I'll take the CX48 every time. If it was $1200, I might go for the 43" LCD.
 
hubaduba said:
Black levels make a lot of difference for details in dark scenes in movies and games. Games aren't all bright images - many RPGs have dark underground areas for one example. I have 3 OLEDs, including a CX48 as my main monitor, because they are the best screens for the job at those locations.
Click to expand...
Yup. The HDR1000 'spec' refers to 1000 nits peak brightness, and well, that's bright enough to force a flinch for anyone not expecting!

Most don't seem to realize that ~200 nits is actually pretty bright for desktop work, and that desktop operating systems have some pretty glaring limitations when it comes to employing HDR. I'll take an OLED 'monitor' that hits HDR400, so long as it can maintain color accuracy and motion resolution without burn-in!

hubaduba said:
I can't say I'd notice a difference between 120Hz and 144Hz.
Click to expand...
Perceptually, they're essentially equal, and it'd only be arguably different if both panels were OLED; as it stands, the 'slower' OLED probably has far higher motion resolution. You'd need a much larger jump to make a real difference, and believe me when I say that I'm on board for 240Hz+ OLEDs, I really could give a rats about 'faster' LCD panels. Nice to have, sure, but after 120Hz that's literally the last spec I'm looking for.

I already have two 165Hz panels that aren't even close to being capable of keeping up with the refresh rates they support. Newer panels are better, yes, but they still suffer from the same basic LCD limitations.

hubaduba said:
I went with a Samsung "QLED" for a brighter room because it was a better screen fit that location.
Click to expand...
I'd still buy an LCD TV for a bright room too. Granted, I wouldn't choose to have a room so bright in the first place, but that's neither here nor there really; I get that 'we' don't always get to determine what's optimal or what a particular space is dedicated to.
hubaduba said:
For $1500+, I'll take the CX48 every time. If it was $1200, I might go for the 43" LCD.
Click to expand...
If I'm spending a grand, I'll spend a grand and a half to get the right tool for the job, rather than having stopped short and wishing I did. If I have to use it, at least!
 
Who the f watches movies on their monitor? I suppose some people do, but I don't. I have a 65" QLED for that.

As for games. If I'm not immersed in the game enough that I stop and look at how every pixel is reacting then the game sucks. Basically, black levels in games mean diddly squat to me.
 
Riccochet said:
Who the f watches movies on their monitor? I suppose some people do, but I don't. I have a 65" QLED for that.
Click to expand...
I'd have scoffed at this comment years ago, but an aging back and a bony arse have 'bent' me toward enjoying movies best when not sitting in an office chair :)

Riccochet said:
As for games. If I'm not immersed in the game enough that I stop and look at how every pixel is reacting then the game sucks. Basically, black levels in games mean diddly squat to me.
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying, but think of it this way: for many games, being able to identify changes in darker areas is advantage, and the lack of that ability a distinct disadvantage. I went from an IPS monitor to a VA for the 'better blacks'. Only managed to shoot myself in the foot really, as VA response times turn blacks into impenetrable mud. This is where I'd appreciate OLED blacks... not just the ability to get dark, but the ability for detail and motion to still be discernable in those blacks!
 
As a chronic display junkie, I'm tempted by that 43" one too. It checks most of the boxes for an ideal display. Hopefully, more detailed specs will be unveiled when it gets to the US but as is, it looks impressive. Things like dimming zones, adaptive sync/G-sync are among things I'm curious about with it, not to mention real-world gaming reviews with it. Even with these specs, the quality of the panel will play a big factor but it completely blows the $2K-$4K prices we've been seeing for 4K high refresh HDR1000 monitors out the water. At that size, it's still manageable for many on a desktop as well.
 
Peter_Brosdahl said:
Even with these specs, the quality of the panel will play a big factor
Click to expand...
The biggest; I can bring up reviews for the 32" LG 1440p 165Hz that explain away all its 'issues'.

Let me be frank: I'm no longer interested in VA displays. The technology falls short at its very best, and is an abomination at its worst.

If this is a VA, as all 43" panels in the last... decade?... have been, no spec-sheet trickery is going to be enough.

Peter_Brosdahl said:
At that size, it's still manageable for many on a desktop as well.
Click to expand...
And this is why I'm still on this page :)

I have a 32" 4k as well, and that DPI and screen size just doesn't seem to work out. I get 27" and 4k, as the scaling results in super-sharp perceived output, and you can do the same with the 32" (I do), but then it's like... why get the 32" in the first place?

43" is big enough that it can be effectively run at 100% on the desktop at 4k, so long as the panel itself is up to snuff!
 
The 43" is a Samsung panel, since it's quantum dot. Which kind of points to it being a VA panel. But, if you've looked at Samsung's latest QN displays they solved a lot of the previous VA panel issues. Wide angle viewing with nearly no color shift, excellent black levels and very bright, vibrant colors. Pretty much everything that IPS has been praised for without the washed out blacks.

We'll see in a few months once they start getting reviewed.
 
Riccochet said:
The 43" is a Samsung panel, since it's quantum dot. Which kind of points to it being a VA panel. But, if you've looked at Samsung's latest QN displays they solved a lot of the previous VA panel issues. Wide angle viewing with nearly no color shift, excellent black levels and very bright, vibrant colors. Pretty much everything that IPS has been praised for without the washed out blacks.

We'll see in a few months once they start getting reviewed.
Click to expand...
My CRG9 is a good example, except its HDR implementation. I'm constantly amazed at how good it looks for a VA. I think IPS is still better but they've really closed that gap by quite a bit with their quantum display tech. It's good enough that even this 43" wouldn't really win me over even if the reviews painted a stellar picture but if I didn't have it, this would be at the top of the list.
 
Riccochet said:
The 43" is a Samsung panel, since it's quantum dot. Which kind of points to it being a VA panel.
Click to expand...
Samsung's panel tech (once known as 'S-PVA' and more recently 'PLS') is pretty well divorced from mainstream VAs.

If the panel is a Samsung panel, then I can't see myself painting it with the VA brush. Problem is, if it is a Samsung panel, why wouldn't Samsung make a monitor with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top