Review Asus ROG Strix XG17AHPE 240Hz Portable Monitor Review: Expensive Innovation

[Admin]

As a 240 Hz portable monitor, the Asus ROG Strix XG17AHPE is in a class all its own. Besides speed, it also brings a quality IPS panel fit for gaming and work. But it’s more expensive than some of the best 240 Hz desktop monitors.

Asus ROG Strix XG17AHPE 240Hz Portable Monitor Review: Expensive Innovation : Read more

 

[diomedes.dominguez]

There is an error with the stats image:

the M14 is closer to 250 in brightness than 170.

 

[toddbailey]

Every time I'm asked what video card should I buy so I can get higher frame rates, I have to give my student a quick biology lesson. Contrary to popular belief a frame rate of much higher than 30 to 40 fps is not detectable by the human eye. Why people think otherwise is beyond me. While the specs for these monitors may be impressive they are unnecessary. My advise is set the video quality settings to max and slowly adjust downward until you hit a target frame rate of 30 to 40. if you have them all at max and getting north of 60 then great but that high frame rate isn't gonna improve your game play. In reality all you'll have is bragging rights.

 

[dotScience]

Every time I'm asked what video card should I buy so I can get higher frame rates, I have to give my student a quick biology lesson. Contrary to popular belief a frame rate of much higher than 30 to 40 fps is not detectable by the human eye.

perhaps you'd like to cite some scientific evidence for this statement based on actual experiments where a control group evaluates perceived visual quality of 4k video played at different monitor refresh rates ? and, possibly compares these responses in incandescent light vs, fluorescent light ?

 

[AlexTSG]

I was considering picking one of these up, but unfortunately while everyone will be looking at that high 240Hz refresh rate for gaming, my problem is that it doesn't seem to support a low enough refresh rate.

Although ASUS specifically mentions connecting the screen to a camera, which I'd like to use it for, it doesn't support a 24Hz refresh rate. The same would apply if you wanted to use it for Blu-ray playback, which is also at 24Hz.

Such a shame given that it covers a good color gamut, and doesn't look as expensive if you start comparing it to field monitors.

Perhaps a future model will come with the lower refresh rate support, and a 1/4"-20 mount for attaching it to your camera rig.

 

[crazycuz2k]

It actually includes a 1/4 inch mount. I hook it up to my table top tripod vs using the cover as a stand. I'm not sure about the lower refresh rate as I've only run it iat 60 and 120. It does work natively with my iPad Pro direct from the USB-C port.

 

[AlexTSG]

It actually includes a 1/4 inch mount. I hook it up to my table top tripod vs using the cover as a stand. I'm not sure about the lower refresh rate as I've only run it iat 60 and 120. It does work natively with my iPad Pro direct from the USB-C port.

Thanks for the reply!

Someone directed me to this video earlier where you can see it mounted using the 1/4"-20 (around 3m50s)

View: https://youtu.be/xiVw-q2PkC4


I really like it as an option to use with my laptop and iPad Pro, especially with the USB C support, but being able to hook it up to my camera for monitoring would make it a no-brainer.

 

[junglist724]

Every time I'm asked what video card should I buy so I can get higher frame rates, I have to give my student a quick biology lesson. Contrary to popular belief a frame rate of much higher than 30 to 40 fps is not detectable by the human eye. Why people think otherwise is beyond me. While the specs for these monitors may be impressive they are unnecessary. My advise is set the video quality settings to max and slowly adjust downward until you hit a target frame rate of 30 to 40. if you have them all at max and getting north of 60 then great but that high frame rate isn't gonna improve your game play. In reality all you'll have is bragging rights.

Sounds like you just have no talent for gaming. I can pretty easily distinguish between ~90-120fps, ~120-160fps and ~160-200fps on my 200Hz monitor. These days I can't even tolerate when a game runs under 100fps unless it's the sort of game where a controller is preferred over mouse+kb.

 

[AlexTSG]

Sounds like you just have no talent for gaming. I can pretty easily distinguish between ~90-120fps, ~120-160fps and ~160-200fps on my 200Hz monitor. These days I can't even tolerate when a game runs under 100fps unless it's the sort of game where a controller is preferred over mouse+kb.

In regard to perception of frame rates, there are a number of considerations, and differing opinions. This article covers most of it.

https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

I can certainly see the difference between 30 and 60fps, but I don't have a higher refresh rate monitor to judge differences beyond that. It's also worth mentioning that this argument depends on if we're talking about film or fps in a video game. A frame of film at 24fps is capturing all the motion that happens in a 24th of a second, including the motion blur. A video game is displaying a still image in each frame without that motion blur.

This video from LTT is worth a watch too. They get regular people and pro gamers to test 60Hz to 240Hz monitors, and measure their performance.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA

 

[Gfresh404]

What was the minimum brightness? I noticed you guys used to include that in your monitor reviews...