ASUS announces Swift PG27UQ 4K IPS 144Hz G-Sync HDR monitor

Armenius said:
Why would you run with a static refresh rate on a monitor equipped with variable refresh rate? Might as well save money and get something from BenQ.
Click to expand...

Because one might prefer ULMB to G-Sync in any number of scenarios.
 
384 zones across 27" is insane. this should be the end-all-be-all monitor for some time, unless OLED makes an unprecedented transition into the monitor realm or panasonic's 1000000:1 contrast ratio IPS actually sees the light of day.
 
Anyone complaining about the price needs to think about the cost of that 1080Ti SLI setup they will need to purchase just to TRY and push 144hz.

I personally think 1440p @ 27" 144hz IPS is just right for gaming. Excellent visuals, reasonable cost, and great performance.
 
Waste of time. why not 30 inch? we've already got 27 inch 1440. i was hoping for 30-32 inch 4k 144hz.
 
I'd love a larger version option but to be clear - we've got nothing like this available
.
This is the first monitor with FALD (full array local dimming) and 384 zones at that! It's also 1000nit HDR and quantum dot/P3 color. If you aren't excited about FALD in a gaming monitor you probably don't understand quite how good of a thing that is, let alone 1000nit HDR FALD with such a high number of zones.

No other monitor is going to match this or the acer version of it feature wise until they get that combined with 144hz, g-sync and low input lag (at least for several years until full featured gaming OLED monitors become existent and relevant to consumers). FALD HDR is huge. HDR using edge-lit flashlights are a joke. I can't wait to see the contrast ratio on this in dynamic FALD mode even though it's an IPS rather than VA. It should blow away typical TN and IPS which have 860:1 to 980:1 contrast ratio and .13 - .15 black depth, and probably 350nit peak brightness.

1440 scales nicely on 4k too so you can shoot for that on demanding games. You still need dual 1080 to hope for 100fps-hz average even at 1440p on the most demanding games though, as detailed in examples in my previous post. The one game that does get almost 100fps-hz even at 4k rez with dual gtx 1080's is GTA V.
 
Last edited:
Ya I am almost certainly getting this monitor. I would prefer it was 30-32" but you can't win them all! If it were 32" and $1500, they would absolutely fly off the shelves.
 
If running 4K at 1440p is as good as you're all saying, I think this might be worth it for me. I had my mind set on the PG348Q but the extra resolution for all non-gaming things would be great.
 
Something like this will be my next monitor. I really like 27" 4K, I sit close to the screen and don't want to be turning my head all over the place. Currently using a 1440p 24" and I love it, way way way better than 1440p 27".

I don't play maxed out AAA new titles, so even a 1070 would be fine with a Gsync range that wide for me. I can't say I'll get the Asus but the other brands have to be working on similar stuff.
 
ijozic said:
So, a 144Hz version of their 4K 32" AHVA screen might be coming as well. I'll wait for that, 4K on 27" is too much IMHO.
Click to expand...

If they can keep the colors good, I might move to one of these, supposing GPU performance is good (probably wait for the GTX 11xx series and AMD counterparts). My 27" 1440p monitor just looks so small next to the 30" 1600p monitor it replaced :D.
 
criccio said:
If running 4K at 1440p is as good as you're all saying, I think this might be worth it for me. I had my mind set on the PG348Q but the extra resolution for all non-gaming things would be great.
Click to expand...

Ultrawide all the way baby! Never plan on going back to 16:9 if I don't have to.
 
Blade-Runner said:
Ultrawide all the way baby! Never plan on going back to 16:9 if I don't have to.
Click to expand...

I looked long and hard at the 21:9 monitors, but man, increased price and decreased game support compared to 16:9 (your failover is basically a 27" 1440p area, at best) led me to believe that the time just isn't that right.

What games are you playing that make the monitor worth it, and what hassles have you had to overcome?
 
Obviously its a value judgment based on your individual needs, but for me the increased price is worth it from a productivity perspective alone. If your work is document or multitasking intensive then its simply fantastic being able to display everything on screen without having to flip between apps or documents.

In terms of gaming, just about everything I play supports 21:9 natively except for a handful of games where the devs have a retarded bee in their bonnet about ultrawide support (specifically Blizzard) or where its from ass backward Japanese devs like Konami or Capcom. Looking back through what I have played since buying my X34, all of the following support 21:9:

GTA V
Shadow of Mordor
Doom
Arkham Knight
Metro Last Light
Homeworld Remastered
Titanfall 2
The Witcher 3
Steep
Assassins Creed Unity
Unreal Tournament 4
Shadow Warrior 2
Star Citizen
BF1
BF4

Edit: couple of extras

Alien Isolation
Darksiders Warmastered Edition
Shadow Warrior 2

Booting up a game like Witcher 3 or GTA V in ultrawide is just so incredibly immersive that everyone I demonstrate it to is left in absolute awe. Support is becoming more common than not, but honestly I am not all that bothered by black bars on the few games where it isn't supported.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the detailed response; it's been a while since I looked at it, and I'll keep it in mind going forward!
 
I would know about color accuracy.
Those gaming monitors has some brillant features but what about color accuracy for amateur photography?
 
sblantipodi said:
I would know about color accuracy.
Those gaming monitors has some brillant features but what about color accuracy for amateur photography?
Click to expand...

I mentioned this above, but to speak to color accuracy directly, TFTCentral is a good source here, and I'd be hitting them up before making any sort of purchase. They put 'gaming' displays through the same rigors as the professional displays.
 
Vega said:
Ya I am almost certainly getting this monitor. I would prefer it was 30-32" but you can't win them all! If it were 32" and $1500, they would absolutely fly off the shelves.
Click to expand...

32inch is a TV not a monitor.
how can you sit on a desk in front on a 32 inch display?
 
sblantipodi said:
I would know about color accuracy.
Those gaming monitors has some brillant features but what about color accuracy for amateur photography?
Click to expand...
just about any properly calibrated monitor is more than fine for amateur photography.
 
sblantipodi said:
as far as I know gaming monitors usually are no properly calibrated :)
Click to expand...
FWIW, my PG278Q was nearly perfect out of the box. It just needed the blue channel lowered a little (and the brightness, of course).
 
Odellus said:
yes, which is why i said properly calibrated, as in do it yourself with a calibration tool.
Click to expand...

As you see I use EIZO monitors with calibration tools, but are gaming monitors ables to be calibrated?
How good is calibration process with such a cheap hardware?
 
sblantipodi said:
As you see I use EIZO monitors with calibration tools, but are gaming monitors ables to be calibrated?
How good is calibration process with such a cheap hardware?
Click to expand...
HjHBapE.png

pretty much anything worth buying can be calibrated to essentially perfect color accuracy, with few exceptions. as you can see by this image, even high-end TN panels can be calibrated to be as accurate or even more accurate than some IPS panels.
 
sblantipodi said:
32inch is a TV not a monitor.
how can you sit on a desk in front on a 32 inch display?
Click to expand...

I think 30 to 32 inch at desk distances height wise is about my limit for gaming considering HOR+ and game engine zooming limitations, interface layouts. However, if I had an up to 40" one I'd use the wall of resolution for desktop/apps and videos similar to muti-monitor use, and run games 21:9 with bars and other windowed ,less than 4k resolutions.
 
Last edited:
ASUS stated the price was wrong. It is not $1,200. It will be sold in Germany for 1,999 Euro, so expect about the same in USD.
 
Vega said:
ASUS stated the price was wrong. It is not $1,200. It will be sold in Germany for 1,999 Euro, so expect about the same in USD.
Click to expand...

Where did you read it?
2000€ for a gaming monitor seems to be ridiculous.

It's strange since they said that the pro art 32 HDR will cost from. 1500 to 2000€.
I think you are wrong.
 
C1hqXhvUkAASAAO.jpg


Is it just me or does HDR just make most images look over saturated? Also difficult to tell whether the left display has been intentionally set to a much lower brightness to accentuate the difference.
 
Blade-Runner said:
Is it just me or does HDR just make most images look over saturated? Also difficult to tell whether the left display has been intentionally set to a much lower brightness to accentuate the difference.
Click to expand...

Its you, totally you!
 
Blade-Runner said:
C1hqXhvUkAASAAO.jpg


Is it just me or does HDR just make most images look over saturated? Also difficult to tell whether the left display has been intentionally set to a much lower brightness to accentuate the difference.
Click to expand...

The image on the left looks like they made it too dark to me. Also, HDR isn't just about extra brightness, it's also about better color and contrast.
 
You can't see HDR without a true (1000nit peak to .05 nit depth and P3 color) HDR monitor, so any HDR vs non HDR picture comparisons made to be viewed on a non HDR monitor as a simulation of the difference of HDR are not going to be accurate. That goes for what's shown as a "regular" monitor as well as the "HDR monitor" in cases where they keep the hdr monitor at normal brightness levels and dim the "regular monitor".

Cameras also have a lot of brightness and saturation bias. Next to a brighter screen, a screen will look much dimmer than in person in most photos, and vice versa. This can also affect how the camera perceives saturation. I wonder what the max nit brightness and black depth a typical phone camera or non-professional digital camera is capable of even capturing anyway(no idea).

Our eyes also have their own bias, which is why looking at a flashlight in bright daylight is a lot different than looking at a bright flashlight in very dim/dark conditions, for example, and why you have to adjust your phone, tablet or other screens to suit different lighting conditions.

LCD HDR standard has 1000nit vs a 350nit regular monitor (or 400 on some monitors), and local dimming HDR makes the bottom end of the scale a lot lower too, down to .04 or .05 most likely (.05 is the HDR premium spec).

I wouldn't put much stock in a HDR comparison picture's accuracy. It would have to be taken with a HDR range capable camera, and would need to be two separate, isolated monitor pictures so the monitor's didn't give the camera bias bewteen them. Then you'd need to view them on a HDR premium spec monitor, at least the photo of the HDR one :b . It still wouldn't be accurate but would be a lot closer than a useless picture like that.
 
Last edited:
They had me until the whole 27" part.

Needs to be 34"+ for serious gamers with deep desks
 
Vega said:
ASUS stated the price was wrong. It is not $1,200. It will be sold in Germany for 1,999 Euro, so expect about the same in USD.
Click to expand...

Yep, just saw that they removed the price from the web page. If it's $1,999 it will have to be near perfect for me to take the plunge and buy it.
 
GameLifter said:
Yep, just saw that they removed the price from the web page. If it's $1,999 it will have to be near perfect for me to take the plunge and buy it.
Click to expand...

2000€ is simply too much.
Their top tier gaming monitor now costs 800€, there is no reason to put another top tier at 2000€.

1200€ is the reasonable price to me.
 
Blade-Runner said:
C1hqXhvUkAASAAO.jpg


Is it just me or does HDR just make most images look over saturated? Also difficult to tell whether the left display has been intentionally set to a much lower brightness to accentuate the difference.
Click to expand...
Misleading, whether intentional or not. Even the dark parts of the image are clearly brighter on the HDR monitor, which is not how it's supposed to work.
 
Whoa, forget the PG279Q, this thing here just became my monitor goal! It's pretty much got everything and the kitchen sink from the sound of it.

Too bad I probably won't be able to afford it until next year, and even if I could, their QA had better be on point for the sums they're going to be charging for these things. I've seen enough complaints about all the AHVA 1440p 144-165 Hz monitors as it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top