Asus ROG Swift PG258Q Monitor Review

[ahnilated]

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 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.

Well we shall then have to agree to disagree. I, like a lot of other computer buyers, don't bother wasting my time or money upgrading CPU's or GPU's every version any more. Hell, I don't even bother every 3 now, because the returns on it are not worth my money. Using the excuse of the tick tock environment just means your drinking the cool aid these companies are pushing out now.

 

[zodiacfml]

Wow, THG this is bad! The article was a nice, standard monitor review but you did not go out of your way test in testing if there is value in a 240Hz versus a 120Hz. I know no video card can sustain 240 fps but at least it can approach it many times especially on light games such as Overwatch.

I've seen reviews without telling a definitive answer. The best I found was from NCIX Tech tips in Youtube where the only noticeable difference is on very fast movement such as the flick of the guns during reload sequence in first person shooting games.

 

[Sam Hain]

1080P, *sigh* who wants this anymore! Get me a 4K monitor at 30-32" with good specs and G-Sync that isn't $4000.

DSR-modes allow up sim-4K rez when gaming. Yes, it's not the same thing... However, when two monitors, side-by-side that do not give away model, spec, etc. one running native 1440p/4K the other DSR matched and ALL settings are same-same w/GPU and game graphics settings etc., it's a hard-sell to tell one from the other.

The desktop scale/rez is where you'll only notice it without really looking. With a quality panel that's zeroed-in @ or under 27", 1080p is livable and quite usable (unless vid/photo edits demand higher rez) without pixels being seen unless your face-planted to it.

I will say this though, that price. Over the top for 1080p, regardless of the specs.

 

[ahnilated]

1080P, *sigh* who wants this anymore! Get me a 4K monitor at 30-32" with good specs and G-Sync that isn't $4000.

DSR-modes allow up sim-4K rez when gaming. Yes, it's not the same thing... However, when two monitors, side-by-side that do not give away model, spec, etc. one running native 1440p/4K the other DSR matched and ALL settings are same-same w/GPU and game graphics settings etc., it's a hard-sell to tell one from the other.

The desktop scale/rez is where you'll only notice it without really looking. With a quality panel that's zeroed-in @ or under 27", 1080p is livable and quite usable (unless vid/photo edits demand higher rez) without pixels being seen unless your face-planted to it.

I will say this though, that price. Over the top for 1080p, regardless of the specs.

The problem is, gaming is not all we do. I want something 4K in 30" so I can do all my other work. I don't want to be limited by my choosing to game also.

 

[Sam Hain]

1080P, *sigh* who wants this anymore! Get me a 4K monitor at 30-32" with good specs and G-Sync that isn't $4000.

DSR-modes allow up sim-4K rez when gaming. Yes, it's not the same thing... However, when two monitors, side-by-side that do not give away model, spec, etc. one running native 1440p/4K the other DSR matched and ALL settings are same-same w/GPU and game graphics settings etc., it's a hard-sell to tell one from the other.

The desktop scale/rez is where you'll only notice it without really looking. With a quality panel that's zeroed-in @ or under 27", 1080p is livable and quite usable (unless vid/photo edits demand higher rez) without pixels being seen unless your face-planted to it.

I will say this though, that price. Over the top for 1080p, regardless of the specs.

The problem is, gaming is not all we do. I want something 4K in 30" so I can do all my other work. I don't want to be limited by my choosing to game also.

Hence why I included the second paragraph, i.e. the parenthesis portion in particular as certain workloads and/or individual such as yourself deem higher resolutions, although I did not run the gamut of what all those where

 

[JackNaylorPE]

First off, while there's no comparing TN to a quality IPS screen, it must be said that there are very, very few quality AU Optronic models out there. So while 'Id gladly take a $700 1440p 165 Hz monitor over a TN, I'd rather have a quality TN that any other IPS that is not equipped with that expensive optronics panel. If the budget for a 27" 1440p monitor is under $500, I'm going to be using a TN. Don't much care about viewing angles as i don't have a pair of sidekicks on either side of me when gaming.

Nice to see G-sync get down from 30 to 24 fps; while no one wants to play at an acerage fps of 30 .... nice having the range for when minimum fps gets < 40. I expect someday soon we'll see Freesync screens drop similarly from the current 40 fpss. However, I don't really much care about G-Sync support at > 80 fps or so as at that point, I have probably switched to ULMB. However, if 165 Hz brings us 120 hz (73%) w/ ULMB, seems 240 Hz outta bring us up around 175 Hz under ULMB.

My problem is w/ it's price tag, it's a bit too much for a 1080p screen.... I'd be more inclined to move to a 1440p IPS 165 Hz, (AU Optonics) screen w/ 120 Hz ULMB

Finally, I find the following statement disingenuous:

G-Sync is still a premium technology that adds around $200 to the price of any monitor. And we aren’t prepared to declare it superior to FreeSync. When video card performance is properly-matched to a monitor, the experience is the same with either technology

That statement is like comparing the performance of two SUVs and saying that 4 WD adds $ xxx to the cost of any SUV but that you aren't prepared to say that either 2WD or 4WD is superior. One provides the option to go off road if one chooses to. One provides the option to travel with a degree of confidence in a snow storm if one needs to.

And no, G-Sync, in and of itself, does not add $200 to the price of any monitor. With G-Sync you get the strobing functionality of ULMB ... with Freesync you do not. There are Freesync monitors that provide motion blur reduction where the monitor manufacturer has added it via the addition of a hardware module to do so ... but putting in this hardware module also carries a price premium.

As for the LED thing, the marketing guys in the corner offices have declared 2017 as the 'breakthrough technology of 2017" ... and like every other fad, the rallying cry will be 'if we don't act now the product will be doomed to failure" .. and in a year, it will all be passe.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

I've seen reviews without telling a definitive answer. The best I found was from NCIX Tech tips in Youtube where the only noticeable difference is on very fast movement such as the flick of the guns during reload sequence in first person shooting games.

When looking for monitor reviews, 1st place i look is here:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg258q.htm#conclusion

 

[__Isomorph__]

@apertotes: who cares about the bezel??!

Right? And who wants more lights shooting out the bottom to distract from the screen? Lame.

LMHO you made my day, Kridian!