ASUS Republic of Gamers (ROG) Announces Swift PG27UQ

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
ASUS Republic of Gamers (ROG) today announced Swift PG27UQ, a 27-inch G-SYNC™ HDR gaming monitor that is the very first to offer stunning 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) gaming visuals at an ultra-fast 144Hz refresh rate for the ultimate gaming experience with incredible contrast, deep saturated colors, and stunning brightness. Quantum-dot display technology gives PG27UQ a wide DCI-P3 color gamut for more realistic colors and smooth color gradations. In addition, PG27UQ has a peak brightness of 1,000cd/m² and a high contrast ratio for exceptional distinction between light and dark hues. G-SYNC variable refresh rate technology provides tear-free, smooth, and low-lag gameplay. PG27UQ is built for gaming enthusiasts and pro-gamers, and is designed to take gaming visuals to a whole new level.
 

Napoleon

Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
998
And the saga for more GPU power needed to drive displays continues. That's awesome
 

Nytegard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
3,325
144 Hz at 4k or does it need to be lowered? I didn't think Display Port 1.4 could support that much bandwidth.

Either way, it looks like I know what I'll be upgrading my monitors too.

(Now hopefully their quality control is much better than their other monitors).
 

Tych-0

Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
544
Yep, I'm excited to see high Hz 4k, but I'm jumping on the pile and saying this monitor would likely be my next if only it was a a few inches bigger.
 

Blade-Runner

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,458
Its strange how for years display technology has stagnated, but now is starting to deliver massively tangible innovations at such a rapid pace. I thought I would have some degree of future proofing when I bought an X34 last year, but I can see myself lusting after a 4K ultrawide 144hz HDR monitor as soon as they become available. I guess knowing ASUS that this monitor probably won't hit retail for at least 12 to 18 months.
 

Azphira

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
1,840
I actually dropped back to 1440, so far the games and I have been a lot happier.
 

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,053
Honest question:

Why 31-31 instead of 27? That just seems so huge 2-3 feet in front of your face. I feel like i'd be moving my head all over the place while gaming.

I play on a 40" right now and gaming is glorious. It's not the feeling you would think.
Your eyes move in the same fashion as on a smaller monitor. It's not possible to see everything at once regardless of monitor size, your eyes still need to focus on something to gain perspective.

I also use my monitor for work (have about 5 windows open in a grid at any time), so the closer to 40" the better.
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,379
32 or bigger for 4K please. 40 is even better. Then again a 40' gsync 4K monitor will probably cost .... wait for it.... $ 4K! lololo
 

nightanole

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
2,013
Honest question:

Why 31-31 instead of 27? That just seems so huge 2-3 feet in front of your face. I feel like i'd be moving my head all over the place while gaming.
Kinda want to keep dpi around 100 or less or you need to use display scaling for the gui, or you just cant see the additional detail unless you are closer than 2ft.

if you go by THX standards (36 degree viewing angle) which is the point where greater = having to move your eyes/head.
you should sit 3ft away from a 27" or 3.6ft away from a 32"

If you go by 4k fidelity, for a 30" screen, closer than 2ft and you can see pixels, farther than 4ft and you might as well game at 1440p.


So yes your complaint is justified. Gaming 2ft away from a 30"+ screen is way more than 40 degrees which is way too in your face for THX standards and will require moving your head to see/read details (not movement) on the edges on the screen.
 

T_A

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
433
4K on 27" ? too small.
and if i got hardware that can push 144hz 4K i wont use 27"
 

Mav451

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
4,672
Would TXPs in SLI even be capable of driving 4K@144Hz? Pretty insane.
 

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
5,106
Would TXPs in SLI even be capable of driving 4K@144Hz? Pretty insane.

Not really.

 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
144 Hz at 4k or does it need to be lowered? I didn't think Display Port 1.4 could support that much bandwidth.

Either way, it looks like I know what I'll be upgrading my monitors too.

(Now hopefully their quality control is much better than their other monitors).
Probably does it with DSC because 10-bit 4K 144 Hz uncompressed is 35.832 Gbps, exceeding the 32.4 Gbps maximum over DP 1.4. DP 1.4 supports 8-bit 8K 60 Hz using DSC, which is 47.776 Gbps uncompressed.
 

Quartz-1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,257
Kinda want to keep dpi around 100 or less or you need to use display scaling for the gui,

And what is wrong with scaling? It makes text look visibly better. And higher pixel density has a like effect on images. I want this monitor or one like it.

Would TXPs in SLI even be capable of driving 4K@144Hz? Pretty insane.

Today's Titans fall just short, but it looks like the next generation will manage it. And there are always older games. Borderlands 2 at 4K at 144Hz should be even more fun than 60 Hz.
 

Accursed

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
445
Sounds like this panel is ahead of GPU tech. I was curious on the cost but nothing in the article. I'm guessing $1,500?
 

cortexodus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
1,614
And what is wrong with scaling? It makes text look visibly better. And higher pixel density has a like effect on images. I want this monitor or one like it..

It usually works ok. Windows 10 universal windows application stuff has helped. However, It doesn't always play nice with applications. Particularly the miscellaneous weird stuff I use as a developer. Sometimes people just don't write applications in a manner that works well with DPI scaling. Sucks, but it's still just how it is in Windows.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
And the saga for more GPU power needed to drive displays continues. That's awesome

Not so much if it has G-Sync. If it didn't have G-Sync then the cards would have to try and match the refresh rate or studder or tear, but since this is a G-Sync monitor it is instead able to adjust it's refresh rate to the system's ability to render the content. If the workload is easy it will fly, if it's demanding it will slow down and do what it can. For adaptive sync monitors, the max refresh rate is no longer a target to be reached but instead it is an upper limit that can be realized.

Or so that's how I see it at the moment.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Kinda want to keep dpi around 100 or less or you need to use display scaling for the gui, or you just cant see the additional detail unless you are closer than 2ft.

if you go by THX standards (36 degree viewing angle) which is the point where greater = having to move your eyes/head.
you should sit 3ft away from a 27" or 3.6ft away from a 32"

If you go by 4k fidelity, for a 30" screen, closer than 2ft and you can see pixels, farther than 4ft and you might as well game at 1440p.


So yes your complaint is justified. Gaming 2ft away from a 30"+ screen is way more than 40 degrees which is way too in your face for THX standards and will require moving your head to see/read details (not movement) on the edges on the screen.

So isn't that a + for a 27", if you are going to sit closer to it? And if you are sitting at the right distance for a 27", is there a problem with the pixel density that 4K will give a 27" display?
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Not really.



But isn't this where G-Sync is supposed to kick in and make this all workable?

Maybe I am looking at this wrong but it seems to me that if a guy wants to sit closer, like what some would call normal distance, and 27" is fine, (like because he has two other 27" already), that this actually works even on DP 1.2?

Won't the demand of producing 4K content on a G-Sync capable monitor force the frame rates lower, allowing you to get away with DP 1.2 bandwidth?
 
Last edited:

Napoleon

Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
998
Not so much if it has G-Sync. If it didn't have G-Sync then the cards would have to try and match the refresh rate or studder or tear, but since this is a G-Sync monitor it is instead able to adjust it's refresh rate to the system's ability to render the content. If the workload is easy it will fly, if it's demanding it will slow down and do what it can. For adaptive sync monitors, the max refresh rate is no longer a target to be reached but instead it is an upper limit that can be realized.

Or so that's how I see it at the moment.
I'm an ultra-high FPS twitch gamer, ULMB and max FPS would be preferred to lower FPS w/o tearing. Now to have the best of all worlds....?!...could be glorious :)
 

Corvette

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2002
Messages
1,269
IPS panels are faster than VA, i need to crawl out from under my rock more often, i thought speed whent tn,va,ips,oled.

For pure pixel switching I am pretty sure it's OLED, TN, IPS, VA. We just haven't seen an OLED that wasn't a TV with all of the TV overhead.

Looks like the IPS is required here for the color accuracy and contrast ratio.
 

alxnet7227

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
115
Honest question:

Why 31-31 instead of 27? That just seems so huge 2-3 feet in front of your face. I feel like i'd be moving my head all over the place while gaming.

My PC monitor is a 52" LG TV sitting two feet in front of me and the immersion is great. It does take a little getting used to with more head movement but I wouldn't trade it in for a 27". I might bite on a high-spec'd G-Sync in the mid 30 inch range though.

BTW, I'm impressed this thing is an IPS being driven at 144Hz. Not too long ago, all the 120Hz and above display were TN panels. Not looking forward to the $300 G-Sync tax though.
 

nightanole

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
2,013
So isn't that a + for a 27", if you are going to sit closer to it? And if you are sitting at the right distance for a 27", is there a problem with the pixel density that 4K will give a 27" display?


Yea you are kinda had. You need to compromise. Either you are going to have to sit close enough that you will need to move your head to read a line of text across the screen (greater than 40 degree site line, and even thx recommends 35 degree or less for greatest enjoyment) or you need to sit farther back and not be able to tell the difference between 4k and 1440p.

So based on human eyes:
closer than then point of a 35 degree viewing arc and you have to move your head
farther back than 1.5x of a 16:9 screen height and you cant see 4k.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,209
In principle, I think the ultimate LCD based monitor would be something like this:
  • 40" Viewable Screen
  • IPS based (Possibly VA, fuck TN)
  • 3840x2160 resolution
  • HDR support
  • 144Hz refresh rate
  • G-Sync capable
Obviously no such thing exists. I went with the Samsung KS8500 because I wanted something 40"+ in size that gave me excellent picture quality with a dot pitch I can live with. It's only 60Hz with UHD enabled at 3840x2160. Sure the refresh rate on the above concept would be better but we can't reliably drive newer games at those resolutions at frame rates to leverage 144Hz displays consistently if at all. My personal preference is resolution, size and image quality over other things. I came from a 144Hz capable display and although I liked it, I felt the trade for size was worth while. Even G-Sync wasn't enough to keep me on 3x27" 1440P monitors. At 4K I'd take some size reduction for 144Hz and G-Sync but I can't go back to something below 40". I can't even understand why companies bother with 4K monitors below 30".
 
D

Deleted member 134608

Guest
I play on a 40" right now and gaming is glorious. It's not the feeling you would think.
Your eyes move in the same fashion as on a smaller monitor. It's not possible to see everything at once regardless of monitor size, your eyes still need to focus on something to gain perspective.

I also use my monitor for work (have about 5 windows open in a grid at any time), so the closer to 40" the better.

I am using a 49" 4K Sony as my monitor on my desk. Its awesome and doesn't make me turn my head and cause strain like most would assume. That being said I have tried 55" and 65" inch on a desk right in front of me and that was awful.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,209
I am using a 49" 4K Sony as my monitor on my desk. Its awesome and doesn't make me turn my head and cause strain like most would assume. That being said I have tried 55" and 65" inch on a desk right in front of me and that was awful.

This is why I went with the 49" myself. I've tried my 65" as a monitor and didn't care for it.
 

DoubleTap

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
2,566
I wonder if I could run it at 1080P so I could put it into surround mode with two of my current screens...? Run 4k for single screen games, drop down for triple screen games - that would be pretty cool.
 

Accursed

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
445
I wonder if I could run it at 1080P so I could put it into surround mode with two of my current screens...? Run 4k for single screen games, drop down for triple screen games - that would be pretty cool.

I was wondering the same thing; 1080, 1440, 1600, then 4k?
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
I wonder if I could run it at 1080P so I could put it into surround mode with two of my current screens...? Run 4k for single screen games, drop down for triple screen games - that would be pretty cool.
That's a 4:1 scaling for square pixels, so shouldn't be an issue. However, the PG278Q will not run at 144 Hz unless you're using its native resolution of 2560x1440.
 
Top