Asus ROG Swift PG278Q now available to preorder

[Mungri]

And it should be released this month:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=MO-070-AS

27"
TN 8 bit
2560x1440 WQHD
144 Hz
Nvidia Gsync
3D vision ready.

Finally a monitor upgrade for my ancient Acer G24.

And pre ordered it is, the price is silly, but I've been waiting ages for a monitor upgrade.

[Nizzen]

In Norway it cost only 70$ more than Evga 780ti classified

[Mungri]

I really wanted 2560x1600 with all the rest of the specs, but 16:10 is dead now, and I just have to accept that QQ.

And I wont be able to afford a GTX 800 series upgrade after this, so I wont be running at max settings for a while

In Norway it cost only 70$ more than Evga 780ti classified

Amazon recently had the Asus Matrix ROG 780 tis on preorder for ?540, but now they are back up to over ?600. I was also looking into high end dell monitors for 2560x1600 but those were even more expensive than this asus, and only 60 hz and definitely no Gsync, but they were IPS.

After using my G24 for such a long time and how good it is, Im fine with TNs. That was the best quality TN panel at the time, and now it seems this Asus one is too. I'll still use both of them and remove my 12 year old Sony 19" monitor. Neither are even worth selling, I wouldnt even get ?100 for my G24 now, and they both cost ?350 but lasted ages.

[zalbard]

I really wanted 2560x1600 with all the rest of the specs, but 16:10 is dead now, and I just have to accept that QQ.

This is a gaming monitor, and for gaming 16:9 is standard (in fact, some console ports don't run correctly with different ARs).

There are plenty of productivity-oriented monitors around with 16:10 AR, though.

[Vicey]

Pricey. It's 1/3rd to 1/4th more expensive than a 4K 28" display so it's kind of a tough sell in my opinion. For me I'd prefer the 2560x1440 @ 144Hz vs 4K @ 60Hz but there is a 150-200 GBP price premium for this over a 4K panel.

I think I'll just wait before replacing my displays. See what other manufacturers come out with over the rest of the year.

[Kersh]

another tn crap, no thanks

[GoldenTiger]

I went 4k 60hz ips panel.... great for productivity and gaming. Gsync would be awesome but the low resolution, tn panel, high price, and poor warranty due to being Asus, all make this a nonstarter.

[SinOfLiberty]

Hmm, now sure if this is a review thread or not but according to the feedback, the monitor sux.

[TRANCEFORMER]

First Review:

http://www.kitguru.net/peripherals/m...ti-rog-matrix/

[Mungri]

This is a gaming monitor, and for gaming 16:9 is standard (in fact, some console ports don't run correctly with different ARs).

There are plenty of productivity-oriented monitors around with 16:10 AR, though.

Actually 16:9 was a standard for movies and TV's, computer monitors simply followed the popular trend. Before 1080p became a standard, PC monitors were mostly 16:10, and yes this resolution is much better for gaming.

2560x1600 on a gaming monitor like this would have been much better, I dont really see how having less vertical pixels would make a monitor worse for gaming.

Hmm, now sure if this is a review thread or not but according to the feedback, the monitor sux.

According to what feedback when no one has the monitor yet? It was news that the monitor is up for pre order, and there didnt seem to be any other threads for it yet.

[DedEmbryonicCe1]

This is a gaming monitor, and for gaming 16:9 is standard (in fact, some console ports don't run correctly with different ARs).

There are plenty of productivity-oriented monitors around with 16:10 AR, though.

I can't recall ever having difficulty playing a game in 16:10 unless it was in an early beta stage. I know I've read about some old (90's) games ported to modern OSes not working well but it was only because the people doing the porting scaled the UI for 16:9 and didn't bother accounting for other users.

[Vicey]

I can't recall ever having difficulty playing a game in 16:10 unless it was in an early beta stage. I know I've read about some old (90's) games ported to modern OSes not working well but it was only because the people doing the porting scaled the UI for 16:9 and didn't bother accounting for other users.

Just to backup what you've said, I have a 2560x1600 display right now which is 16:10 and I have never found a game that didn't work with it, period.

[zalbard]

I can't recall ever having difficulty playing a game in 16:10 unless it was in an early beta stage. I know I've read about some old (90's) games ported to modern OSes not working well but it was only because the people doing the porting scaled the UI for 16:9 and didn't bother accounting for other users.

Just to backup what you've said, I have a 2560x1600 display right now which is 16:10 and I have never found a game that didn't work with it, period.

Using recent examples, Dark Souls 1 and 2 both letterbox you to 16:9 and you can't do much about that.
Same for Assassin's Creed 1 and 2 (not sure about later games...).

[Vicey]

Like I said, I've never found a game that didn't work with my panel. Even rollercoaster tycoon with its fixed 4:3 aspect ratio runs perfectly.

[TRANCEFORMER]

Another Review By OC3D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgquRkMHgwE

I really like the details about this monitor

[Lanek]

First Review:

http://www.kitguru.net/peripherals/m...ti-rog-matrix/

Its just too bad, they dont test when you dont want to reduce the quality setting if g-sync do a real difference in the 60 to 33.3ms range ( g-sync dont work under 33.3ms second ( 30fps ), when you hit it, it will completely redraw the frame ). because with a 2560x1600monitor if you dont want to sacrify the quality of the game ( low AA or textures resolution ), you will play mostly around 60fps even with SLI and CFX .... ( hence why, im not really sure 144hz on a 2560x1440 resolution is really good thing, with high resolution, you need make a choice, fast hz or high quality rendering ) ..

Anyway, here's the question, outside g-sync.. do we need a 2560x1440-1600 monitor with 144hz ? ... Actually the Rolls Royce of the 27-30" for gaming is the Dell U3014 with his gaming mode ( 0 hardware lag latency ( bypass electronic and OSD ) with a 3ms full input latency ( pixel response time + hardware input lag ).. 100%sRGB / 99%RGB .. 10bit ( 14bit LUT Preprogrammed ( Nvidia only support 8bit so dont wait about this anyway ) . But it cost nearly 2x the price of this monitor anyway.

I can imagine this is a choice, i dont want to sacrify the quality of the game setting so im set with 2x 7970 on my 27" 2560x1440p, certainly around 60fps in most modern games ( BF4 ).. For some stay between 100-120hz will maybe be most important.. ( i dont put g-sync in the equation )..

[NKrader]

im gonna be getting one regardless of the fact that im paying like 150$ for gsync that i dont want.

Its just too bad, they dont test when you dont want to reduce the quality setting if g-sync do a real difference in the 60 to 33.3ms range ( g-sync dont work under 33.3ms second ( 30fps ), when you hit it, it will completely redraw the frame ). because with a 2560x1600monitor if you dont want to sacrify the quality of the game ( low AA or textures resolution ), you will play mostly around 60fps even with SLI and CFX .... ( hence why, im not really sure 144hz on a 2560x1440 resolution is really good thing, with high resolution, you need make a choice, fast hz or high quality rendering ) ..

not really with 1920x1080 i can pretty much get 100+ with a single 290x, now add a second or a third or run a single 295x2? (or gasp, 780ti sli which would be even better than Dual290x) you could max most games at this res and get at or dang close to 144fps.

and thats not even including GPU's that are going to be released in the near future, as monitors are used for multi years before replaced (by most users) they need to be ahead of the gpu as to scale with the ability of newer gpus.

just like how my ASUS VG248QE is still a great monitor today, and it was released when?

I can't recall ever having difficulty playing a game in 16:10 unless it was in an early beta stage. I know I've read about some old (90's) games ported to modern OSes not working well but it was only because the people doing the porting scaled the UI for 16:9 and didn't bother accounting for other users.

i do agree, as my old monitor was 1920x1200 (if that is relivant) i never had letterboxing and every game I ever played worked fine at that res.

[cx-ray]

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/...ift_pg278q.htm

[DFI pit bull]

So so expensive.

[Mungri]

For people who say that 4K is better or acceptable for gaming, it simply isnt:

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/18...gaming-nirvana

I like to be able to read things when I play games, very important when I mostly play strategies and RPGs.

[STEvil]

That is their opinion, others seem to think it is acceptable. Is your opinion based on actual use or just based on what you read in that article?

[zalbard]

For people who say that 4K is better or acceptable for gaming, it simply isnt:

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/18...gaming-nirvana

I like to be able to read things when I play games, very important when I mostly play strategies and RPGs.

Don't buy a 24" 4K display for gaming... Use a 32" or larger and everything is easily readable.

[kromosto]

what about samsung u28ud590?

I am on the buying a new monitor but cant decide which... 4K at this price is tempting of course...

[trans am]

Just to backup what you've said, I have a 2560x1600 display right now which is 16:10 and I have never found a game that didn't work with it, period.

same here. Never had any issues at 16:10 1920x1200

[Mungri]

That is their opinion, others seem to think it is acceptable. Is your opinion based on actual use or just based on what you read in that article?

Actual use. I tried using downscaling several strategy games, both AAA and Indie and they become completely unplayable / unreadable due to UI shrinking. Same would happen on a 4K monitor.

Also any old game isnt going to adapt its UI to 4K, and I still play RPGs from Baldurs Gate up to today, none of those are going to work on a 4k.

Two of the first games I want to replay on my new monitor are NWN2 and Gothic 3, good luck getting those scaling well with 4k displays, even if they are 32".

I suppose if all you play are the latest FPS games, then 4k works great. But for just about anything in the strategy and RPG genre which tend to be heavily UI and text driven, too many games are going to lack 4k scaling, and thats a fact. I wouldnt be able to read any text or see any of the menus.

Don't buy a 24" 4K display for gaming... Use a 32" or larger and everything is easily readable.

I really doubt that. Again in games that completely lack UI and text scaling for 4k, 32" 4k would not be readable, you would also literally need an equally scaled monitor.

Far far many more games run perfectly fine without letterboxing on a 16:10 screen, as opposed to how few old games, and even current RPGs / Strategies support correct scaling on 4k.

Other than for FPSs, 4k monitors are not ideal for gaming in text / UI driven genres.

Also replaying all those old games is going to be a far better experience at 144 hz G sync or ULMB mode than it would be on a 60 hz 4k panel.