Review out on the asus vg279qm

A

Alexander1986

n00b
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
33
review here: https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_tuf_gaming_vg279qm.htm



it has average response times and total display lag fully on par with great and fast TN 240hz monitors like asus pg258q and acer xf252q , but with superior image quality and colors from being an IPS panel, AND it has 280hz and can also strobe while using VRR at the same time, and even does a good job of this according to the review,



only consideration when using this strobing+VRR at same time or elmb-sync as its called, is you are recommended to manually set a overdrive setting depending on the expected range of your framerate, tftcentral seem to recommend these settings:



"Optimal Overdrive Setting for VRR


60 - 120Hz = 40
120 - 200Hz = 60
200 - 280Hz = 80"



and overdrive set to 80 at 280hz if not using VRR like gsync or freesync, seems simple and fair enough imo?



there should also be the same monitor available in 25" version, VG259QM I believe, for those who want sharper text / picture, but i'm thinking that perhaps in fps games having larger targets could actually benefit aiming and make it "easier" to aim and hit targets since they are larger than on 25" if that makes sense?



what does everyone think ? i'm now really wanting to get this monitor lol!
 
I'd say no because of the low resolution but I know that is a positive for many folks. TFTCentral has the best reviews in the industry though and I agree, it's a hell of a display for pure FPS gaming. I would prefer an LG CX48 instead though but it's 3x more money and doesn't come out until late May.
 
Pastuch said:
I'd say no because of the low resolution but I know that is a positive for many folks. TFTCentral has the best reviews in the industry though and I agree, it's a hell of a display for pure FPS gaming. I would prefer an LG CX48 instead though but it's 3x more money and doesn't come out until late May.
Click to expand...

isn't that LG monitor 4K res at max 120 fps and also 48 inches? if I did my research correctly, good luck doing any competitive FPS gaming on that is all I have to say at least if so :D

but yeah could probably play some singleplayer games and chill on that one, probably also awesome to play some console games on from the couch on the next console generation or something where 120fps will be available AFAIK..

or watch movies I guess! but for desktop gaming other than singleplayer games? IDK about that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this
Pastuch said:
I'd say no because of the low resolution but I know that is a positive for many folks. TFTCentral has the best reviews in the industry though and I agree, it's a hell of a display for pure FPS gaming. I would prefer an LG CX48 instead though but it's 3x more money and doesn't come out until late May.
Click to expand...

4K @ 48" is 91ppi, 1080p @ 27" is 88ppi, the pixel density is nearly identical. If "low resolution" is such a concern then you should avoid the CX48 too.
 
1920x1080, so that's a "no."
Alexander1986 said:
isn't that LG monitor 4K res at max 120 fps and also 48 inches? if I did my research correctly, good luck doing any competitive FPS gaming on that is all I have to say at least if so :D

but yeah could probably play some singleplayer games and chill on that one, probably also awesome to play some console games on from the couch on the next console generation or something where 120fps will be available AFAIK..

or watch movies I guess! but for desktop gaming other than singleplayer games? IDK about that...
Click to expand...
You said "best possible gaming monitor," not "best possible competitive gaming monitor."
 
Armenius said:
1920x1080, so that's a "no."

You said "best possible gaming monitor," not "best possible competitive gaming monitor."
Click to expand...

for me they are the same thing more or less haha, anything higher res where you cant maintain 200-280 fps+ is casual gaming monitor for me :D

to each their own though
 
Alexander1986 said:
isn't that LG monitor 4K res at max 120 fps and also 48 inches? if I did my research correctly, good luck doing any competitive FPS gaming on that is all I have to say at least if so :D

but yeah could probably play some singleplayer games and chill on that one, probably also awesome to play some console games on from the couch on the next console generation or something where 120fps will be available AFAIK..

or watch movies I guess! but for desktop gaming other than singleplayer games? IDK about that...
Click to expand...

It supports multiple resolutions, I'll be playing most competitive FPS at 1440P @ 120hz with low settings just like I do now.

The CX48 has it all:

1. For competitive FPS: BFI 4k@120hz, BFI 1440P@120hz & BFI 1080P@120hz
2. For all other games: Gsync/Adaptive sync support
3. The lowest input lag ever recorded on a TV. At CES LG demo'd a 5 MS input lag at 4k 120hz which is astonishing, that's better than 95% of 144hz gaming monitors!
4. Game-mode for automatically enabling HDR and low input lag settings (Pray this stuff works in Windows but it probably won't)
5. OLED picture quality in games is second to none, it's the most beautiful thing I've ever played.
6. Possible but unlikely: This could be the first TV ever capable of doing both BFI and adaptive sync (Gsync compatible) simultaneously. Right now there are only 2 gaming monitors that can do this, the Asus TUF Gaming VG27AQ (2019) and the Asus TUF Gaming VG279QM (2020).
7. OLED pixel transitions are way faster than any LCD.
 
Last edited:
Alexander1986 said:
for me they are the same thing more or less haha, anything higher res where you cant maintain 200-280 fps+ is casual gaming monitor for me :D

to each their own though
Click to expand...

If 200+ fps is your minimum requirement then gsync/freesync are completely useless and BFI is way more important.
 
I picked up one of the first gen ELMB sync monitors which was the VG27BQ and it was just awful with absurd amounts of crosstalk despite being a TN panel. This 2nd attempt at ELMB sync seems to yield better results and it even uses an IPS panel instead. I am definitely tempted to try it out.
 
Pastuch said:
It supports multiple resolutions, I'll be playing most competitive FPS at 1440P @ 120hz with low settings just like I do now.

The CX48 has it all:

1. For competitive FPS: BFI 4k@120hz, BFI 1440P@120hz & BFI 1080P@120hz
2. For all other games: Gsync/Adaptive sync support
3. The lowest input lag ever recorded on a TV. At CES LG demo'd a 5 MS input lag at 4k 120hz which is astonishing, that's better than 95% of 144hz gaming monitors!
4. Game-mode for automatically enabling HDR and low input lag settings (Pray this stuff works in Windows but it probably won't)
5. OLED picture quality in games is second to none, it's the most beautiful thing I've ever played.
6. Possible but unlikely: This could be the first TV ever capable of doing both BFI and adaptive sync (Gsync compatible) simultaneously. Right now there are only 2 gaming monitors that can do this, the Asus TUF Gaming VG27AQ (2019) and the Asus TUF Gaming VG279QM (2020).
7. OLED pixel transitions are way faster than any LCD.
Click to expand...


IDK, OLED is great that I already know, but kind of struggling to see 1080p @ 48" monitor while sitting at normal distance away (not far at all) being any kind of good for competitive FPS gaming
both in terms of having to move your eyes and head around a lot to see everything as well as it being super blurry with 1080p at 48" :S


as for the numbers I have read that OLED is the best tech for pixel transitions indeed, I just wouldnt want it in 48" TV but rather in a more normal sized gaming monitor and with higher refreshrates in this era of 240+hz monitors,
even if the pixel transition speed of OLED perhaps offsets the need for high refresh rate somewhat, (?)

we shall see though I guess when its out and there are real tests being done on it with some hard numbers,
either way I think its exciting with some progress in the monitor market for the consumers and some competition can only benefit us,

so I would say props to asus for their elmb-sync and 280hz combo as it can only help in getting other companies to speed up their process of releasing better and better tech,
im certain if there was more competition on this front we would already have 360-480hz monitors if not higher, as there are 480hz panels already out there just not in mass production, can check out blurbusters for their 480hz test a while back,

interesting stuff anyway !


Pastuch said:
If 200+ fps is your minimum requirement then gsync/freesync are completely useless and BFI is way more important.
Click to expand...


not minimum requirement, but in many competitive fps games thats the target yes :) for less competitive games where below 200 fps is more realistic then one can always turn off elmb-sync and just use strobed 120/144 hz for example
on this monitor, or just use vrr without any strobing, personally im way more sensitive to motion blur than tearing anyway but having the option of combining both vrr and strobing is really cool.
 
MistaSparkul said:
I picked up one of the first gen ELMB sync monitors which was the VG27BQ and it was just awful with absurd amounts of crosstalk despite being a TN panel. This 2nd attempt at ELMB sync seems to yield better results and it even uses an IPS panel instead. I am definitely tempted to try it out.
Click to expand...

yep, I was about to get one of the popular acer/asus/benq 240 hz monitors and just use it with 144/240hz strobing because those framerates I can keep 99% of the time in my choice of competitive games, especially 144hz,
but held off waiting for the review of this monitor, im not that sensitive to tearing but very sensitive to motion blur, but having the option to combine vrr+strobing and having it not suck totally with decent crosstalk control is really good news to me anyway,

even if I wasnt very interested in freesync/gsync it is a great tech so just for the sake of having all these different options to test on one monitor to kind of adapt
the monitor to the game/framerate/gfx settings you run at a given time is great imo, I still think so far this monitor is the best gaming choice in terms of options available,

at least when considering image quality and response times on top of vrr, strobing, and vrr+strobing.


there is no perfect monitor for a couple more years is my guess at least until ultra high refreshrates and/or also maybe a lot stronger cpu/gpu combos that can push modern games even at lower settings at very high framerates consistently,

ah well in the future this will be a problem of the past, I just hope I will still be gaming when those crazy monitors are here :D
 
It seems by "best" you mean "gaming" The "best" monitors are all the 24/25 class 240hz now. The Zowie/Beng being the best with the ASUS also being fine. GSYNC FREESYNC don't matter here cause those add latency and get turned off. That said they don't look very good so be aware.
 
SOAREVERSOR said:
It seems by "best" you mean "gaming" The "best" monitors are all the 24/25 class 240hz now. The Zowie/Beng being the best with the ASUS also being fine. GSYNC FREESYNC don't matter here cause those add latency and get turned off. That said they don't look very good so be aware.
Click to expand...

? the title of the thread is best gaming monitor, the monitor i'm talking about is available in 25" also, not sure what you mean exactly.

also gsync does not add any latency at all compared to vsync off when set up properly:

blur-busters-gsync-101-gsync-vs-vsync-off-240Hz.png


pic taken from blurbusters input lag review of gsync measured with high speed camera: https://blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/6/


theres tons of other real input lag tests with high speed cameras and true button-to-pixel delay tests with same results, just google it if interested, anyway gsync adds minimal, not noticeable amount of lag but has benefits of zero tearing and stutters.
its great for competitive games where fps is not able to be maintained 100% of the time at 240+ fps.

its true that not all pro players who compete for millions in fortnite world cup and so on are using gsync, but many of them are :) that game is a good example of game that benefits from it because its very hard to keep 240+ fps stable
in 100% of scenarios in that game, with tons of players and builds in a small endgame circle its impossible to keep 240 fps for example, and in those competitive matches its always a lot of players alive by the end,


however in games that are far less demanding like overwatch, cs:go, rainbow 6 and so on for example there is no need for gsync and there is very slight tearing at that refreshrate anyway if the fps is 100% stable at 240+,


either way with vrr AND strobing together at same time at 280 hz like on this asus monitor it seems awesome and what I been waiting for for a long time, with better image quality and colors than any other 240hz / TN panel today
and response time that can rival it too..
 
Best gaming monitor is subjective. For someone who doesn’t care about resolution and prefers as high refresh rate, sure. Seems like a very impressive one for that though I’d rather have the 25" model if it performs the same as it is sharper. 27" 1080p is very mediocre on the desktop.

Personally I would rather have the LG OLED as well as it excels in most games, though the size poses issues. On the desktop it is sharp if you can put it further back and thus a better all purpose monitor.
 
kasakka said:
Best gaming monitor is subjective. For someone who doesn’t care about resolution and prefers as high refresh rate, sure. Seems like a very impressive one for that though I’d rather have the 25" model if it performs the same as it is sharper. 27" 1080p is very mediocre on the desktop.

Personally I would rather have the LG OLED as well as it excels in most games, though the size poses issues. On the desktop it is sharp if you can put it further back and thus a better all purpose monitor.
Click to expand...


yeah I can't agree with a 48" TV on normal viewing distance at a desktop being good for general purpose gaming (not to mention competitive where its completely useless, but still) but okay, if thats your opinion then sure! :D

would be nice if there was a smaller OLED though and those will obviously come at some point, will be interesting !
 
Alexander1986 said:
yeah I can't agree with a 48" TV on normal viewing distance at a desktop being good for general purpose gaming (not to mention competitive where its completely useless, but still) but okay, if thats your opinion then sure! :D

would be nice if there was a smaller OLED though and those will obviously come at some point, will be interesting !
Click to expand...

It's a basic formula man, your face doesn't need to be 2 feet away. The optimal viewing distance for 48 inches is 40 inches away. All that really matters for competitive fps is input lag and refresh rate. Look at all the CS pros, they don't run gsync or BFI because it could ad input lag.
 
According to the review, there was some overshooting at refresh rates lower than 200hz. Are you fucking kidding me, ASUS? That's what made me return the big 32-inch VA monitor from them. Overshoot which led to discoloration in moving objects because you couldn't adjust it. EDIT - this is with ELMB (backlight strobing) Even my cheap Occasio-Cortez monitor (my AOC :D) allows me to adjust the overshoot with strobing enabled. What a joke.
 
So I'm bored out of my mind and saw one of these on sale so I bought it. I agree with the Tftcentral review on everything. I'm extremely impressed by the motion clarity with Gsync off and BFI on at 280hz. I can still clearly see the difference of BFI even at 200+ FPS and 280hz refresh rate. BFI is awesome. These new monitors are so bright that even with BFI on I still have to run the monitor at 15% brightness. I thought the low PPI would bother me but I was wrong and the additional framerate as a result of 1080P is wonderful. I sold my Samsung LC32JG52 and won't miss it. I've decided I don't like curved displays after spending a year with one, the banding was rough.
 
Last edited:
Awesome! Glad you're happy with it.

I have a 166Hz IPS. I definitely like it best out of anything I've had, but it's not perfect. Mostly the motion clarity (especially on Window desktop) is not all there compared to TN. But the image quality and colors are so much better it's a fair trade.

I think with BFI, maybe that would resolve the problem (I don't have that feature on my monitor). My old monitor had it, but it was one of the first ones so the brightness was not good. Good to see they are making progress.

1080p with proper game settings still looks great. I'd much rather play games with max settings, high refresh 1080p, than 4K at 60Hz and probably on high/mid settings.
 
cybereality said:
Awesome! Glad you're happy with it.

I have a 166Hz IPS. I definitely like it best out of anything I've had, but it's not perfect. Mostly the motion clarity (especially on Window desktop) is not all there compared to TN. But the image quality and colors are so much better it's a fair trade.

I think with BFI, maybe that would resolve the problem (I don't have that feature on my monitor). My old monitor had it, but it was one of the first ones so the brightness was not good. Good to see they are making progress.

1080p with proper game settings still looks great. I'd much rather play games with max settings, high refresh 1080p, than 4K at 60Hz and probably on high/mid settings.
Click to expand...

IPS pixel response is now directly comparable to a 2 year old TN if you look at the TFT central review above. I'm coming from a 144hz VA monitor and I can clearly see the difference between 144hz and 280hz. The input lag is so low I swear it improved my KDR noticeably in COD Warzone. The value on this display is pretty amazing for pure FPS gaming. I only paid $353 USD.
 
Is there a consensus on better choices for 2560x1440? Also, can videocards even make use of 240 Hz?
 
Yes, 240Hz is totally possible. As long as you have a relatively new GPU (last few years) you should be able to physically connect and get 240Hz in Windows.

If you want to play new games, you'll need a beefy GPU, but on older game or lower settings, you can get in that 200 fps range on even mid range cards.

To be honest, I have a 240Hz monitor and it's probably overkill. 144Hz is more than enough and you are better off spending the money on FreeSync/GSync, which will make more of a tangible difference.
 
That makes sense. So the general idea is to just go for any of the newer 144 Hz monitors with <5 ms refresh rate and some kind of Adaptive Sync (I have an Nvidia card, but it does sound like they support FreeSync as well nowadays)? Or are there crowd favorites? I get kinda lost when the reviews start talking about blacks, etc. But my old Catleap is going all of the sudden, so would be nice to buy something decent for around $400 max.
 
Depending on your video card, I think 1440p for single monitor is probably a good choice.

If you have smaller GPU budget, then 1080p is still okay. There are lots of choice here, and many monitors are affordable.

I don't have any particular picks, but I use an LG IPS ultrawide and I'm really happy with it. The ultrawides are a little more money but do add to the experience.
 
GTX 1060 6Gb. Seems fine at that resolution for now, but then again my current monitor only goes up to 60Hz.

Ended up getting LG GL83A-B as it was one of the few highly rated monitors available for purchase at the moment due to the Covid19 hitting electronic manufacturers. Will probably have to upgrade the video card as some point in the future.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top