Asus ROG Swift PG258Q Monitor Review

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just don't get it. How can you leave the contrast (arguably the most importante feature on a screen after the resolution) out of the first page of the article? I couldn't care less about the bezel width, but please, state the contrast!
 


Because that's the reality of GPUs at the moment. GPUs can get you a solid 4K/60 or a solid 1080p/144. You're not going to get 4K/144 in any modern games on any PC at the moment (unless you're only playing 20-year-old games). So there's not a lot of sense in wanting to invest in a 4K/144 monitor now, only in anticipation of when GPUs can finally push that many pixels, because you'll be wasting the monitor while you wait, and when such GPUs finally do arrive, the monitors will be better and cheaper.
 
Do we know if this monitor is 3dVision capable?

I would assume so, but I've learned some very expensive lessons by making purchases based on assumptions. : /
 


The reason you won't get it is because the GPU's won't do it, not because the games won't. Game developers want to make more realistic games but the GPU's are lagging way behind. Nvidia hasn't had any real competition for many years so there was no need for them to push to 4K gaming at 144Hz or higher. I am hoping AMD's cards will force Nvidia to get off their buts as it seems the consumers aren't going to pull their money from Nvidia until Nvidia gets back on the ball.
 
I agree with AHNILATED! DSTARR3 says, "Because that's the reality of GPUs at the moment". I say let's have some serious change! Asus and Nvidia are "milking the cow" with these old relics. Everything is now going 4K, 6K and 8K. It's time to stop milking the cow and people's wallets and put out the new technology. It's 2017, not 1980. We all know the new tech is already here.
 
Based on the performance bump we saw from the 1080 Ti, I don't think it's fair to say that nVidia's slouching when it comes to GPU performance. Pricing, sure, they could use more competition. But something like 4K/144 is a seriously enormous amount of processing to do. The DisplayPort and HDMI interfaces themselves had to be updated to transfer that much data. I'm amazed we got 4K/60 out of GPUs as quickly as we did. Give it another generation and we should be hovering around 4K/144. But you ask why there's no 4K/144 gaming monitors coming out yet, and this is why. There aren't any 4K/144 GPUs out yet, either. And it's not because any particular company is stagnating. It's because pushing that many pixels to a monitor is a huge, huge task.
 
I use an Eizo EV 2336W. It has incredibly accurate and incredibly deep and vidid colors right out of the box. It also has a very deep picture and for an IPS screen very deep blacks. And to top it all off, it has extremely nice viewing angles, no color-shifts and it retains a ton of brightness at very steep angles. Motion performance is very OK for a 60 Hz screen.

My current hardware isn't really capable of producing more than a reliable 1080p60. (GTX 970, i5-4590). So I see no reason to switch to a higher res screen or higher refresh rate screen.
 
Right? And who wants more lights shooting out the bottom to distract from the screen? Lame.
aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS8zL0UvNjY4ODU4L29yaWdpbmFsL2EtbGlnaHQuanBn


 


TFT Central's got their review up and they love it, too. TN panel, yes, but apparently just a really damn good TN panel.
 


I understand it is a huge task but we have been sitting on getting low quality upgrades in GPU versions. It is only recently because AMD came back into the market and scared Nvidia that we got a good bump in the 10XX series. If you don't get at least a 30% improvement it is a waste. Game developers have been waiting for years for GPU's that can push the stuff they want to put out.
 


That's not a new problem at all. It's a problem that's probably as old as computer gaming itself. I remember back in the days of Doom development in 1993, they were lamenting how underpowered PCs were and how hard they had to work to get Doom to play well on reasonable machines. The problem is not recent and has nothing to do with nVidia. There's just always some developers out there that're pushing the limits, and there will never be enough computing power for them. And that's fine, that's how we make progress. But to blame technology for not keeping up with demands is a bit unfair, because there will always be a demand for more than what's possible at any given point.

Also, "if you don't get at least a 30% improvement it is a waste" is rubbish. It's the tick-tock cycle. One generation improves compute power, the next generation improves efficiency. Those efficiency-boosting generations are not even slightly wasteful just because they didn't produce "a 30% improvement" in performance.
 
Ehm... GSync... Bane of my PC planning existence at the moment. You've never seen a panda as sad as this one that wants to upgrade to a really good monitor now and doesn't like proprietary shit. Why did I buy that NVidia card? Why!?

I'm jumping ship back to AMD when Vega and Freesync2 comes. Can't stand this walled garden with all its little greedware shrubs anymore. They can keep their 5-10 extra fps.

And if AMD alone ends up supporting Freesync then fine - At least it wont be just because some other company decided not to support an open standard.
 
I agree that 4k is probably impractical for most gamers, but at this price point I would at least expect 1440p. I just can't justify dropping $600 on a 1080p display in 2017, even if it is a quality product.
 
SIGH... such strange comments. Oh, why can't it be 4K? I just want an inexpensive, high refresh, high quality, high res monitor...

*This monitor fits a NICHE. A very budget friendly (for the specs) monitor aimed at people who play fast SHOOTERS who care more about response times, minimum blur, and game smoothness.

Playing CSGO at 200FPS with GSYNC enable would be incredibly smooth. Just amazing to the point where you would pull your HAIR out going back to a 4K, 60Hz monitor without GSYNC.

(as for the "walled garden" with GSYNC, I've heard rumors that FREESYNC HDR (slash Freesync 2) may be licensed thus closer to GSYNC in that respect. They WILL need to do a lot of work to get HDR working properly... in fact, it's possible, in fact LIKELY that the GSYNC module will make it much easier so prices may end up being similar with GSYNC 2 vs FREESYNC 2 because NVidia charges more for the module (which will get cheaper with mass product) but can save money developing the monitor since they've done a lot of the work already.)

I have a GSYNC GPU, but when I heard that the XBOX Scorpio is going to support 4K Freesync HDR I was a little annoyed. That's great news, but if I want the best experience I would need both GSYNC HDR and Freesync HDR. One for my PC, and one for the Scorpio. SIGH. Please just make it universal.
 
Nobody wants a 1080p TN panel anymore. Especially not for what these crazy people are asking for it. I'm not really seeing any positive comments from people either.

The resolution sucks. The color quality sucks. $600? You're going to offend people.

-------E
 
Great review. Was looking to pick this up for my friend. He's rocking a 970 and i think this will be a great monitor for his birthday this july.
 


It's very much a niche product for the hardcore CS:GO players. There are few other titles where getting 240FPS is even practical. For anything outside of those eSports type titles you're better off getting a 1440p 144Hz monitor instead if you're willing to spend that much on a monitor.
 
1080@240hz tn crap resolution or 1440@144hz ips descent res makes it a choice between good speed fidelity vs extreme speed crap fidelity and i for one would choose better fidelity as its already already above the 120ish hz mark where i consider it really smooth (as long as it don't stutter)

That said i can understand the pro-gamers who live on their gaming where that extra refresh-rate/input responsiveness can give that little extra needed to beat the competition - Used to play quake back in the days vs quite extreme opponents and know a fast screen/gfx card @ lower res can give an slight edge in responsiveness. Fun part is that it was 240hz as well... but @320x200 vs fidelity 640x400 :)
 
I have to confess, even as a person that takes refresh rate seriously, I struggle to believe there's that much perceptible difference between 144Hz and 240Hz. There must be huge diminishing returns after 144Hz. I'm not eager to say "the human eye can't tell the difference," but if it can't, that point has gotta be somewhere near the 200Hz mark. But, I don't know, I've never looked at 240Hz. I could be totally wrong.

But anyway, I think the big selling point is the 144Hz ULMB. That's a big deal for me. That's why I want this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom