Asus MG279Q 27-Inch FreeSync Monitor Review

[ceberle]

Today we're reviewing Asus' MG279Q FreeSync gaming monitor, looking at how well it compares to Acer's XB270HU IPS G-Sync monitor?

Asus MG279Q 27-Inch FreeSync Monitor Review : Read more

 

[Kridian]

I'll buy one when they get to the $300 mark. Come on OLED, let's push some prices down!

 

[moogleslam]

Any 21:9 3440x1440p G-Sync/FreeSync monitor reviews on the horizon? Thanks

 

[ceberle]

Any 21:9 3440x1440p G-Sync/FreeSync monitor reviews on the horizon? Thanks

I've just finished testing the Acer XR341CK. Look for the review soon!

-Christian-

 

[moogleslam]

Any 21:9 3440x1440p G-Sync/FreeSync monitor reviews on the horizon? Thanks

I've just finished testing the Acer XR341CK. Look for the review soon!

-Christian-

Awesome Christian - thank you! This week? Will you be reviewing the G-Sync version when it comes out also? It's supposedly a little different in that it will be 100Hz whereas the FreeSync is 75Hz. Thanks

 

[nate1492]

You tested a $600 144hz ips monitor with a $150 graphics card and you didn't push the framerates?

I don't see the validity of this review, why would you use such a middle range graphics card for a high end monitor? I don't see many people shelling out $600 for monitor and $150 for a gfx card!

It almost sounds like you chose the amd 285 because you realized it couldn't push the monitor to the upper 100s FPS.

 

[nate1492]

You tested a $600 144hz ips monitor with a $150 graphics card and you didn't push the framerates?

I don't see the validity of this review, why would you use such a middle range graphics card for a high end monitor? I don't see many people shelling out $600 for monitor and $150 for a gfx card!

It almost sounds like you chose the amd 285 because you realized it couldn't push the monitor to the upper 100s FPS.

 

[TechyInAZ]

Looks good, at least free sync users now get an IPS monitor for themselves.

 

[picture_perfect]

why would you use such a middle range graphics card for a high end monitor?.

The results will probably be more in line with people's experience. Great review. I prefer fps over resolution so will pass on this monitor.

 

[hannibal]

The problem in image quality is when the frame rate drops too low, so not too powerfull GPU is good for testing that. If you have GPU that can run 144 FPS all the time, it does not need G-sync of Freesync...
And I personally would put any day more money to monitor than graphic card. Good monitor is so much better deal in the long run!

 

[skit75]

You tested a $600 144hz ips monitor with a $150 graphics card and you didn't push the framerates?

I don't see the validity of this review, why would you use such a middle range graphics card for a high end monitor? I don't see many people shelling out $600 for monitor and $150 for a gfx card!

It almost sounds like you chose the amd 285 because you realized it couldn't push the monitor to the upper 100s FPS.

What would be the point of that? It is a QHD IPS panel with a known sync range. If you have a monster GPU, just get a 144Hz monitor and be done. You likely don't need Free-Sync or G-Sync if all your games play at 100FPS +.

 

[eklipz330]

let's get that 20hz-144hz freesync in motion, and we'll be seriously in business.

it's funny. there is a LOT of room for improvement, but the industry seems to be in some agreement to milk the innovation for every penny...

think about it. over the past 15 years post CRT, we got expensive flat screens, then we moved to 16:10, then for some god forsaken reason 16:9, borders slowly shrank but we saw basically no improvement for like 7 years, then we get slowly get 120hz in the market, then 144hz. then we get 3D which was modded into blur reduction which really turned things on it's head. we get real blur reduction, but now gsync and freesync without blur reduction, ultra widescreen monitors without any of the bells and whistles, then freesync and gysnc ultra wide, curved with IPS. blur reduction takes a back seat. why can't they just implement it ALL? the technology exists. blur reduction with freesync gysnc IPS ultra wide 144hz curved/flat what's the delay?

 

[eklipz330]

i hope you guys have plans in reviewing the NX-VUE24A

 

[Sekeira]

Here in France this monitor is almost 300€ cheaper than the Acer. Also, by all accounts, it has much better quality control.

Reading several reviews and even user reviews on Amazon and forums I realize Acer seems to have some quality control issues, a lot of people get defective screens at start and need to rma once or twice till they get one with no dead pixels and minor light bleed. Also the build quality is far from remarkable.

The Asus one on the other hand seems to have much better quality control and build quality! Mine came perfect first try.

The difference between these 2 monitors (price and quality/issues) made me go with the Asus and an Amd Fury X. I wanted to buy a 980 ti but, by buying the Asus MG279Q and the XFX Fury X i saved more than 400€ vs buying the Acer monitor + the Gtx 980ti.


I am perfectly happy with my choice. I payed my rent and then some with what the money i got left over .

 

[FritzEiv]

i hope you guys have plans in reviewing the NX-VUE24A

Any 21:9 3440x1440p G-Sync/FreeSync monitor reviews on the horizon? Thanks

I've just finished testing the Acer XR341CK. Look for the review soon!

-Christian-

Awesome Christian - thank you! This week? Will you be reviewing the G-Sync version when it comes out also? It's supposedly a little different in that it will be 100Hz whereas the FreeSync is 75Hz. Thanks

Magic 8 Ball says: Don't Count On It.

 

[FritzEiv]

i hope you guys have plans in reviewing the NX-VUE24A

Magic 8 Ball Says: Outlook is good.

Also, we'll be pestering EIZO for its 27 inch IPS 144Hz (Freesync) display as well -- as soon as it's out.

(Also, someone please make quoting and responding to multiple comments at once work easier. Oh wait, that'd be us.)

- Fritz Nelson, Editor-in-chief

 

[Xorak]

Thanks for the review! I already own this monitor and I agree that the 90hz cap seems like a non-issue. The thing I find puzzling though, is why do you guys keep testing freesync screens, especially this one, with v-sync off? I can see no benefit to pushing above 90fps if you're dropping out of the variable refresh range. Especially given that anything above 45 or so fps is already so smooth on this screen. And the fact that you save a little power and heat by capping it off at times when you would actually be able to go faster.

The one gripe I have, that you guys glossed over in the review is sharpness. To my eye, the image is noticeably more detailed in other modes (which are all useless, as you did point out more politely) where sharpness can be adjusted. I think 50 or 60 look OK, where the default setting in racing mode is probably around 40. But since they only give you 10 step increments, I'm not sure either look quite right. If sharpness were unlocked in racing mode and had 1 step increments, I think it would look noticeably better somewhere around 55. At 60, I notice some color shifting on certain shades. What do guys think?

Also, I don't seem to see a difference either way if I set vivid pixel to 0 or 25. (so I leave it off) At the next step of 50, it's way, way too harsh. Can you give any more detailed thoughts what it does or why set it to 25? Thanks!

 

[Anheanz]

I just picked up this monitor a few days ago and have it paired with my saaphire r9 Fury and absolutely love it. Even going over the 90 hz so far does not seem to cause any issues with any of the games ive played on it.

 

[Rishi100]

The specification sheet doesn't mention the version of HDMI and Display port offered by monitor. Please do include a line to know whether HDMI 2.0 / Display Port ver 1.3 is present or not?

 

[OmGzZZz]

I have a question: how can a display refresh the image 144 times per second and at the same time have a response time of 8 milliseconds? 1000/144 = 6.94

 

[nate1492]

What would be the point of that? It is a QHD IPS panel with a known sync range. If you have a monster GPU, just get a 144Hz monitor and be done. You likely don't need Free-Sync or G-Sync if all your games play at 100FPS +.

The point is simple. If you buy a $599 monitor you won't be spending 1/4 on a GFX card.

Also, if you have a 144hz monitor, you want it to perform at all ranges below, if the game isn't maxing at a stable 144 hz, then gsync or freesync will improve the FPS tearing. If you play a game at 95 fps and it is varying frame rates, the entire point of this technology is to stop tearing.

Tearing happens even at 144hz, so no need to make excuses for FreeSync, just admit it, the limitation is bad and needs to be fixed before this is a quality tech to get behind.

 

[skit75]

What would be the point of that? It is a QHD IPS panel with a known sync range. If you have a monster GPU, just get a 144Hz monitor and be done. You likely don't need Free-Sync or G-Sync if all your games play at 100FPS +.

The point is simple. If you buy a $599 monitor you won't be spending 1/4 on a GFX card.

Also, if you have a 144hz monitor, you want it to perform at all ranges below, if the game isn't maxing at a stable 144 hz, then gsync or freesync will improve the FPS tearing. If you play a game at 95 fps and it is varying frame rates, the entire point of this technology is to stop tearing.

Tearing happens even at 144hz, so no need to make excuses for FreeSync, just admit it, the limitation is bad and needs to be fixed before this is a quality tech to get behind.

The effects of variable refresh rate technology aren't nearly as obvious once you are above 100 FPS on a 144Hz display. Tearing does still happen but that frame isn't up there long enough to detect it as much, when compared to 100FPS on a 60Hz display. In the former example, you really have to force unnatural mouse movements to detect the tearing.

 

[nate1492]

The effects of variable refresh rate technology aren't nearly as obvious once you are above 100 FPS on a 144Hz display. Tearing does still happen but that frame isn't up there long enough to detect it as much, when compared to 100FPS on a 60Hz display. In the former example, you really have to force unnatural mouse movements to detect the tearing.

Unnatural mouse movements?

No way are FPS games unnatural. They tear all the time, even at 144 FPS without vsync or gsync or freesync.

If you can't see it, this isn't your monitor. Stick with 60hz and not know any better.

Honestly, some people can't see it, and some can. If you can, you buy a 144hz monitor and get free/gsync.

If not, stay 60!

 

[CaptainTom]

I love how the author of this article danced around saying the G-Sync counterpart was just the same thing for nearly 50% more money.

Just admit it - G-Sync is already inferior.

 

[skit75]

The effects of variable refresh rate technology aren't nearly as obvious once you are above 100 FPS on a 144Hz display. Tearing does still happen but that frame isn't up there long enough to detect it as much, when compared to 100FPS on a 60Hz display. In the former example, you really have to force unnatural mouse movements to detect the tearing.

Unnatural mouse movements?

No way are FPS games unnatural. They tear all the time, even at 144 FPS without vsync or gsync or freesync.

If you can't see it, this isn't your monitor. Stick with 60hz and not know any better.

Honestly, some people can't see it, and some can. If you can, you buy a 144hz monitor and get free/gsync.

If not, stay 60!

This is the same display used in the FreeSync Vs. G-Sync Pepsi challenge. I was there and tested it (didn't know it was this monitor until the end of the day). For the most part it was dialed into the Freesync range. I'm not saying tearing is gone above 100 FPS. I'm saying you can only see it on things with high contrast values, such as a telephone pole in a daylight map in BF4, and then... only when you have a friggin' hand-seizure with the mouse (rapid movements made to blur the screen... not real gaming movements FPS or otherwise). It was pretty difficult to see any tearing with normal\competitive mouse movements.

Free-Sync and G-Sync are more for lower frequency tearing, where it is way more obvious.