MMM
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: Asus ROG Swift PG278Q now available to preorder

  1. #1
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,635

    Asus ROG Swift PG278Q now available to preorder

    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.
    Last edited by Mungri; 07-03-2014 at 03:04 AM.

  2. #2
    RAIDer
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    697
    In Norway it cost only 70$ more than Evga 780ti classified

  3. #3
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,635
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nizzen View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Mungri; 07-03-2014 at 04:20 AM.

  4. #4
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    8,829
    Quote Originally Posted by bhavv View Post
    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.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  5. #5
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    150
    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.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    74
    another tn crap, no thanks

  7. #7
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,967
    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.

  8. #8
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    307
    Hmm, now sure if this is a review thread or not but according to the feedback, the monitor sux.

  9. #9
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    144
    i7 4930k @ 4.4 Vcore 1.39
    Custom Water Cooling Setup
    Rampage IV BE
    Dominator GT 2133mhz @cas 9 16G
    Samsung 850 Pro 512GB SSD
    2 x Evga GTX 780 Ti SC SLI @ 1120mhz
    Corsair AX1500i
    2 x WD 6TB Caviar Green

  10. #10
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,635
    Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by SinOfLiberty View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by DedEmbryonicCe1 View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    8,829
    Quote Originally Posted by DedEmbryonicCe1 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vicey View Post
    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...).
    Last edited by zalbard; 07-06-2014 at 01:29 AM.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  14. #14
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    150
    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.

  15. #15
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    144
    Another Review By OC3D

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

    I really like the details about this monitor
    Last edited by TRANCEFORMER; 07-08-2014 at 09:30 AM.
    i7 4930k @ 4.4 Vcore 1.39
    Custom Water Cooling Setup
    Rampage IV BE
    Dominator GT 2133mhz @cas 9 16G
    Samsung 850 Pro 512GB SSD
    2 x Evga GTX 780 Ti SC SLI @ 1120mhz
    Corsair AX1500i
    2 x WD 6TB Caviar Green

  16. #16
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    1,960
    Quote Originally Posted by TRANCEFORMER View Post

    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 )..
    Last edited by Lanek; 07-08-2014 at 03:42 AM.
    CPU: - I7 4930K (EK Supremacy )
    GPU: - 2x AMD HD7970 flashed GHZ bios ( EK Acetal Nickel Waterblock H2o)
    Motherboard: Asus x79 Deluxe
    RAM: G-skill Ares C9 2133mhz 16GB
    Main Storage: Samsung 840EVO 500GB / 2x Crucial RealSSD C300 Raid0

  17. #17
    Crunching For The Points! NKrader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Renton WA, USA
    Posts
    2,903
    im gonna be getting one regardless of the fact that im paying like 150$ for gsync that i dont want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanek View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by DedEmbryonicCe1 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by NKrader; 07-08-2014 at 03:56 PM.

  18. #18

  19. #19
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North West London
    Posts
    775
    So so expensive.

  20. #20
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,635
    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.

  21. #21
    c[_]
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    20,374
    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?

    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.

  22. #22
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    8,829
    Quote Originally Posted by bhavv View Post
    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.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  23. #23
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,657
    what about samsung u28ud590?

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


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  24. #24
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    10009
    Posts
    3,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Vicey View Post
    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

  25. #25
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,635
    Quote Originally Posted by STEvil View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Mungri; 07-25-2014 at 08:44 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •