WYP
News Guru
A monitor that's designed for high refresh rate PC and console gaming.
Read more about ASUS' ROG Strix XG43UQ 43-inch 4K 144Hz monitor.
Read more about ASUS' ROG Strix XG43UQ 43-inch 4K 144Hz monitor.
ASUS ROG Strix XG43UQ 4K 144Hz HDMI 2.1 Gaming Monitor will launch next month
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
But its not. People keep saying first 4k 144hz HDMI 2.1 Monitor.
Its only 120hz through HDMI 2.1 So why is everyone calling it first 144hz? Its just DP that allows for 144hz, with compression mind you. Why they limited it to 120hz when it has the bandwidth for 144hz considering its very unlikely to be a true 10bit panel and more like an 8bit+FRC panel. If its a true 10bit panel, then its barely just not achievable. Still unlikely.
Its only 120hz through HDMI 2.1 So why is everyone calling it first 144hz? Its just DP that allows for 144hz, with compression mind you. Why they limited it to 120hz when it has the bandwidth for 144hz considering its very unlikely to be a true 10bit panel and more like an 8bit+FRC panel. If its a true 10bit panel, then its barely just not achievable. Still unlikely.
Dawelio
Active member
Marketing my friend, as 144Hz sounds better on paper than 120hz ^_^... And the fact that most people aren't that tech savy and hence don't know it's technically not 144Hz.
WYP
News Guru
The article says "first HDMI 2.1 monitor", not "World's first 4K 144Hz HDMI 2.1". ASUS claims that this is the first HDMI 2.1 PC monitor to hit the market.
It's a vague claim, an it isn't that big of a deal. The 144Hz confusion comes thanks to early leaks and a lack of clarity from ASUS.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
The title says "4k 144hz HDMI 2.1" too which could imply it is first when reading the article. So the matter of fact tone you got is misguided. I didn't say YOU said it specifically. I said people are saying that.
It's not a vague claim. Every website is reporting it as 144hz HDMI 2.1 in their titles and Asus CLEARLY states in their own page 120hz with 2.1.
Maybe providing accurate journalism isn't a big deal to you but it should be.
Last edited:
WYP
News Guru
The monitor supports 144Hz refresh rates and it supports HDMI 2.1. Calling it 120Hz in a headline would be underselling the monitor's feature set.
In the article, it plainly states that supports 120Hz through HDMI 2.1 and 144Hz through DisplayPort 1.4 using Display Stream Compression (DSC). Where is the inaccuracy?
It is common practice to not include commas in headlines when listing specifications and any confusion should be cleared up in the text of the article. Headlines are not meant to tell you everything, as what would be the point of full articles otherwise.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
All people do now is read headlines. It's all just click bait culture and the fact information is everywhere... different story though.
Calling it 120hz would be more accurate, it's not underselling anything if you are telling the truth about the monitor. The monitor is only capable of this, nothing more. Using DP it can do more, albeit DSC, but still not under selling it, you're talking about a feature here being 2.1, with 2.1 it can do 120hz. How is that underselling it? Once again I never brought up the article itself. You can keep bringing it up it doesn't change the inaccuracies some websites lead you to believe initially. Some websites did a good job making it clear.
You could easily change the title to *Monitor name* 4k 144hz the first HDMI 2.1 Monitor launches next month. this removes the need for a comma and avoids any long winded spec list. Sub heading with the quick description of specs and boom solved if you want an alternative. You can use commas it's not uncommon but not the norm. I can see why you wouldn't want to though.
Gives the user all the quick info they want and more information below for those interested. People leave websites very quickly and generally read a quarter of text at most on a page(average) so getting crucial accurate information across a 10 second window(at most) is necessary.
I'm not saying the article is wrong. I'm just annoyed how many at first kept implying it's 144hz HDMI 2.1 when it's not. Especially since HDMI 2.1 was specifically marketed as 4k 120hz when announced by the HDMI forum group and tech sites should know this. In addition I double checked the announcement pdf from the forum to make sure and sure enough it's there.
Calling it 120hz would be more accurate, it's not underselling anything if you are telling the truth about the monitor. The monitor is only capable of this, nothing more. Using DP it can do more, albeit DSC, but still not under selling it, you're talking about a feature here being 2.1, with 2.1 it can do 120hz. How is that underselling it? Once again I never brought up the article itself. You can keep bringing it up it doesn't change the inaccuracies some websites lead you to believe initially. Some websites did a good job making it clear.
You could easily change the title to *Monitor name* 4k 144hz the first HDMI 2.1 Monitor launches next month. this removes the need for a comma and avoids any long winded spec list. Sub heading with the quick description of specs and boom solved if you want an alternative. You can use commas it's not uncommon but not the norm. I can see why you wouldn't want to though.
Gives the user all the quick info they want and more information below for those interested. People leave websites very quickly and generally read a quarter of text at most on a page(average) so getting crucial accurate information across a 10 second window(at most) is necessary.
I'm not saying the article is wrong. I'm just annoyed how many at first kept implying it's 144hz HDMI 2.1 when it's not. Especially since HDMI 2.1 was specifically marketed as 4k 120hz when announced by the HDMI forum group and tech sites should know this. In addition I double checked the announcement pdf from the forum to make sure and sure enough it's there.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
I'd like for you to show me where it does indeed do 4k 144hz using HDMI 2.1
You've been told by another member who actually used it there was a difference in image quality. Nice bait though.
You've been told by another member who actually used it there was a difference in image quality. Nice bait though.
Last edited:
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
WYP
News Guru
Right. My job isn't to give away everything that there is not know about anything using just a headline. There is a reason why OC3D is a website with articles and not just a Twitter feed.
If you want nuance, READ THE ARTICLE. The monitor is capable of 144Hz and it features HDMI 2.1. Could it be clearer that it doesn't do 144Hz through HDMI 2.1, yes, but me saying it is 120Hz in the headline would be a falsehood.
By saying that "All people do now is read headlines", you invalidating every piece of work that I have done here. If people can't be bothered to read articles, it is their fault that they are misinformed. The monitor supports 4K, the monitor supports 144Hz and the monitor supports HDMI 2.1 inputs. /end
Complain about clickbait all you want, but you can't deny that this screen supports 144Hz. You are picking a bad hill to die on here...
Anyways, this will be my last comment regarding this topic.
Just for you, I have edited the sub-headline to "This screen is limited to 120Hz using HDMI 2.1." on the front page of the website.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
So you agree it could be clearer. That's my whole point. I'm glad you finally realized that. It's no falsehood if it's true.
Never said it couldn't do 144hz and that's funny you think that since my whole argument was it CAN DO IT but not through HDMI 2.1 like the title implies. Ain't no hill here, just wanted a better distinction.
Didn't invalidate a single thing bud. You are reaching here because all I've ever done here is tell you about how good your articles have been. Me saying all people do is read headlines is a fact. My issue was just this specific title, don't take it so personally.
@Dice, that's not going off. That last bit was because we've had that conversation before and he was already told by another respected person here his experience. I ain't going down that conversation again. It's through text so I can see how you think that however that's just how people from where I am text/talk.
Never said it couldn't do 144hz and that's funny you think that since my whole argument was it CAN DO IT but not through HDMI 2.1 like the title implies. Ain't no hill here, just wanted a better distinction.
Didn't invalidate a single thing bud. You are reaching here because all I've ever done here is tell you about how good your articles have been. Me saying all people do is read headlines is a fact. My issue was just this specific title, don't take it so personally.
@Dice, that's not going off. That last bit was because we've had that conversation before and he was already told by another respected person here his experience. I ain't going down that conversation again. It's through text so I can see how you think that however that's just how people from where I am text/talk.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Ironic since you constantly chime in whenever anything about compression comes up. Always inserting your argument when not being spoken to. Let that go as well?
looz
Active member
Similar threads
