Asus VG248QE a good choice right now?

[DejaWiz]

My monitor (in sig) is starting to go. I've been wanting a 120+ Hz as a replacement, and a local store has it on sale for cheaper than Amazon or Newegg.

I know Gsync monitors are just on the horizon, but will the difference be worth the wait and added cost for one vs a high refresh rate gaming oriented monitor?

Also...Is the VG248QE an 8-bit panel like the upcoming 27"?

 

[gzboli]

If you can wait until the Gsync monitors release (hopefully) sometime this summer I think you should. I got the VG248QE at release and recently added the gsync DIY. The tech is as good as reviewers have said. On games where I can't max out the refresh rate it feels a lot better. The DIY kit is far from a perfect implementation so I'll likely be buying one of the official first gen gsync monitors.

This monitor is not 8-bit. It's also not really good at anything except having a high refresh rate. It's predecessor the VG236HE is arguably a better monitor.

As for the 27" ROG Swift... Sure to be a great, expensive monitor. I'm personally hoping for a 24" 1080p with a better panel than the VG248QE.

EDIT: Since budget is always concern... The first 24" 1080p gsync monitor is coming out next week in the UK for £349. (Guessing) $350-$400 US.

 

[DejaWiz]

Thanks for the info. I may try to ride it out, then. Hopefully my current monitor won't go kaplooey until then.

 

[Godmachine]

I don't think G-sync is going to take off anymore. Now that Freesync has had its required spec added to Displayport standard and Nvidia is dragging ass on deploying G-sync (or as rumored can't come up with the numbers to meet possible demand) I just don't think the premium price will work anymore. If Freesync works as flawlessly as G-sync does (which I kinda doubt) then it will immediately dominate G-sync without question. Even if it doesn't however Its still a true standard that Nvidia could adopt if it abandoned G-sync , so its the best in execution for the industry since Nvidia refuses to share its proprietary tech with AMD.

Right now is not a great time to buy a gaming/high end monitor frankly. We are moving to 4k now and 1440p is becoming the enthusiast gaming standard (albeit slowly). The round of monitors that will show up next year by this time and in Christmas 2015 should be very interesting. We might finally get a nice quality 4k monitor for under $500 by then. And we'll likely have some kind of 1440p 120hz G-sync/Freesync monitor as well.

 

[icor1031]

I wanted one of those gsync, lightboost monitors - but none are semi-glossy.

 

[DejaWiz]

I'm really torn on this... get the monitor now at a comparatively good price, or wait and see what becomes of G-sync and Freesync.

$260 seems to be a really high price for a 24" 1080p monitor, but I also understand that 120/144 Hz is still in niche territory. Problem is, we can all guarantee ourselves that native G-sync monitors or going to carry an even higher premium price...when they are actually released. :/

I don't want to possibly risk missing out on this monitor only to be stuck with even higher price points if all future high-refresh rate models are to be laden with the upcoming techs. Decisions, decisions...

 

[DejaWiz]

Not sure when the sale ends at my local store...really really considering pulling the trigger tonight and picking it up tomorrow.

 

[daveop]

I have been considering this monitor for a while as well to compliment my Korean 1440 specifically for gaming. If you end up getting it, hit me up and let me know how you like it!

 

[DejaWiz]

Fact of the matter is this: I go very long times between upgrades...5-7 years for MoBo and CPU, 3-4 years for GPU.

Getting this monitor now with 144 Hz would likely be a huge difference over my current 60 Hz. I don't care about being able to maintain 120-144 Hz since I use adaptive Vsync. Not like I have the GPU horsepower for that anyway.

I'm a bit perturbed that we have only gotten tidbits about the upcoming 27" G-sync for $800...and to hell with that price point. If there was a 24" version planned with the exact same specs as the 27" bar maybe 1080p vs 1440p, but for a way more reasonable price ($300-330 tops, perhaps?), then I would definitely wait.

Anyway, that's my "on the fence"-iness, if you will.

 

[ShadowKntSDS]

The G-sync kits for the VG248Qe were $200 when it was in stock. Add that to the price of a VG248QE to get a ballpark idea of what a 24" version of the ASUS ROG Swift would cost.

 

[DejaWiz]

The G-sync kits for the VG248Qe were $200 when it was in stock. Add that to the price of a VG248QE to get a ballpark idea of what a 24" version of the ASUS ROG Swift would cost.

So, it'll be around $450-490, then. Fuck that....even if it does turn out to be a 1440p with a true 8-bit panel.

I'm thinking G-sync monitors will be priced that will move them from obscurity to extinction in a rapid fashion if that's the case. At least they may get a short run of fame with the first native models coming out within the next month (rumor has it), while Freesync enabled monitors with the new DP 1.2a likely won't be out en masse for close to a year from now.

I'm probably going to pull the trigger on this and enjoy now while the upcoming mushroom clouds and fallout take place over the next year or two in the G-sync Vs Freesync war. When the dust finally settles and there's a true victor for widespread adaptation, then I may wait a year after that and look at getting a larger diagonal and much higher resolution monitor if prices are acceptable to me. At least by then I'll likely also be shopping for a replacement GPU that would have the horsepower to properly feed such a monitor.

 

[Odellus]

buy a vg236h from ebay for $200-$250 if you want the best image quality of any high refresh rate monitor by far, or buy vg248qe for $270-$470 if you want lightboost, gsync, and god awful image quality.

 

[DejaWiz]

buy a vg236h from ebay for $200-$250 if you want the best image quality of any high refresh rate monitor by far, or buy vg248qe for $270-$470 if you want lightboost, gsync, and god awful image quality.

Sorry, but I don't buy used or refurbished monitors at steep prices.

Besides, I currently have a aging VW246H, so a VG248QE couldn't possibly be worse, right?

 

[Odellus]

Sorry, but I don't buy used or refurbished monitors at steep prices.

Besides, I currently have a aging VW246H, so a VG248QE couldn't possibly be worse, right?

$200 is cheap as fuck for that monitor, used or not. there aren't any legitimate reviews for your vw246h so i can't tell you.

 

[computerESCOBAR]

thats pretty good price for that monitor. try looking up Nixeus products if you want a nice 2560x1440 27" for gaming

 

[elvn]

...

I don't think G-sync is going to take off anymore. Now that Freesync has had its required spec added to Displayport standard and Nvidia is dragging ass on deploying G-sync (or as rumored can't come up with the numbers to meet possible demand) I just don't think the premium price will work anymore. If Freesync works as flawlessly as G-sync does (which I kinda doubt) then it will immediately dominate G-sync without question. Even if it doesn't however Its still a true standard that Nvidia could adopt if it abandoned G-sync , so its the best in execution for the industry since Nvidia refuses to share its proprietary tech with AMD.

Right now is not a great time to buy a gaming/high end monitor frankly. We are moving to 4k now and 1440p is becoming the enthusiast gaming standard (albeit slowly). The round of monitors that will show up next year by this time and in Christmas 2015 should be very interesting. We might finally get a nice quality 4k monitor for under $500 by then. And we'll likely have some kind of 1440p 120hz G-sync/Freesync monitor as well.

To quote Scooby doo: "Ruh roh?" http://vr-zone.com/articles/death-spiral-nvidias-g-sync-begun/77368.html

With this coming forward, what could that mean long term for this monitor and other NVidia G-sync ones to follow?

It's always been said that amd or monitor mfg's themselves could make their own versions of dynamic hz, just that nvidia got the jump on it.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/174371-amd-claims-it-can-offer-the-benefits-of-nvidias-g-sync-with-a-free-driver-update-nvidia-rebuts-fight(Jan 8th, 2014)
"It’s entirely possible that both companies are telling the truth on this one. AMD may be able to implement a G-Sync-like technology on supported panels, and it could work with the manufacturers of scalar ASICs if G-Sync starts catching on for Nvidia. Nvidia, meanwhile, is probably telling the truth when it says it had to build its own hardware solution because existing chips for desktop displays weren’t doing the job."

"In the long run, if panel makers start building variable refresh rates into their own displays, than the need for Nvidia-specific G-Sync technology may fade out — but that doesn’t mean the company can’t make a pretty penny off the concept while it lasts. And since it’ll take time for panel manufacturers to adopt the capability if they choose to do so, it means Nvidia has a definite window of opportunity on the technology."

That article you linked quotes

What’s important about this announcement is that Adaptive-Sync is now part of the DisplayPort standard and will now be enhanced with AMD’s FreeSync technology, enabling the stutter-free experience that Nvidia showed off with G-Sync to be experienced. Since this technology is part of the VESA DisplayPort standard, most display manufacturers will be launching screens that support this standard later this year.

-which is very similar to what they said about g-sync monitors coming soon after press releases/tech articles and where are they? I doubt you will see freesync until next year if that. Also notably absent from all the freesync blurbs is any mention of ulmb/backlight strobing zero blur modes, which are a standard issue optional mode with g-sync monitors afaik.

We have a lot of things changing by year end. 800 series gpus, displayport 1.3 (cards and monitors), g-sync+ulmb monitors. Within 2015 we will prob see a 90hz-100hz 1080p oled with blur elimination tech consumer release of the oculus rift too.

I disagree about the 4k monitors for gaming. 120hz-144hz monitors will be greatly superior for 1st/3rd person gaming and g-sync/ulmb just makes that an even wider gap between a 60hz desktop ips and a real gaming monitor. Displayport 1.3 spec allows for 120hz at 4k but I wouldn't hold your breath on someone making one any time soon.
web-cyb.or 120hz-fps-compared

Also worth noting, when the first 27" 120hz 1080p monitors came out they were almost $600, which many early adopters paid. To really utilize a 2560x1440 at high hz~fps (let alone a 4k panel) you would probably be spending $600 - $700, or nearly twice that, on gpu(s) too.
GTX 780Ti Benchmarks 1x-4x SLI (Work in Progress)

 

[CHANG3D]

...

I disagree about the 4k monitors for gaming. 120hz-144hz monitors will be greatly superior for 1st/3rd person gaming and g-sync/ulmb just makes that an even wider gap between a 60hz desktop ips and a real gaming monitor. Displayport 1.3 spec allows for 120hz at 4k but I wouldn't hold your breath on someone making one any time soon.

Right now, we have cheap, but crappy color quality 4K 60 Hz monitors for $500. So you're right, 120 Hz will be greatly superior... but you're also forgetting one thing. These crappy 4K monitors could do 120 Hz at 1080p. Better 4K monitors are coming out later this year. Vizio, for example, stole this year's CES by showing up a good and cheap 4K TV lineup and every single one of them could do 120 Hz at 1080p.

Now, I doubt that those Vizio TV's will have DisplayPort 1.3, but I'm also pretty sure, if a good quality 50" 4K TV's fully capable of 120 Hz 1080p at $999, there will be a 36" monitors with good colors doing 4K with DisplayPort 1.3 at $1000.

 

[elvn]

I doubt those TV's are 120hz input, which is a huge difference and useless for gaming imo. TV's are all 60hz input in that back and use interpolated frames which cause input lag and screen abberations to fake 120hz/240hz etc.

120hz-144hz gaming monitors input those unique, more current world action slices as frames from the computer, and also cut FoV blur of the entire viewport by 50% and 60% respectively without using input laggy hz fakery circuitry.

I was talking about displayport 1.3 allowing for 4k 120hz INPUT, which is something to look forward to if anyone ever makes one someday(someyear). Again it would require big gpu horsepower (and budget) to get the most out of it though. G-sync/dynamic hz and ulmb/backlight strobing are also very appreciable tech advances that would be missing on 4k for quite awhile, if it ever happens on a 4k monitor. The 4k monitors are priced way higher than the TVs. I doubt the tv's will ever have more than 60hz input or have dynamic hz and backlight strobing.

I think 4k adds a lot of desktop real-estate for desktop/apps even now, but the virtual camera in 1st/3rd person games will be the same scene and scene elements at the same aspect ratio regardless of the pixel density. 4k will be inferior for 1st/3rd person gaming compared to a real gaming monitor for a long time yet imo (lacking higher Hz, motion definition/tracking, animation definition, blur reduction/elimination, dynamic hz, and the gpu power/budget required to utilize it). They make for nice still screenshots but you don't play a screenshot in a 1st/3rd person gaming viewport with continual movement keying + mouse-look pathing.

web-cyb.org 4k_21x9_2560x-27in-and-30in_1080p_same-ppi.jpg
.
web-cyb.or 120hz-fps-compared

GTX 780Ti Benchmarks 1x-4x SLI (Work in Progress)

 

[CHANG3D]

Dude, DP 1.3 only goes up to 4K at 60 Hz. So we're definitely only talking about 1080p @120Hz. And these cheap Seiki does do true 120hz. Pretty much all 4K @ 30 Hz TV could do true 120 Hz at 1080p. It's all in the mathematics...

And this is what this topic is referring to anyway, gaming at 1080p. Question is to lightboost, G-Sync, free sync, or not.

No one is talking about trying to game at 120 Hz 4K.

 

[elvn]

I most definitely am referencing the displayport 1.3 spec as being able to handle 4k at 120hz from what I read, that is if anyone ever decides to make a 4k computer monitor with 120hz input someday(someyear).. It's said to support 8k at 60hz, two 4k at 60hz on the same line, or a 4k at 120hz. I wasn't saying anyone was trying to game at 120hz input at 4k on the 4k desktop monitor displays today, let alone on the TV versions. In fact that was the point among others regarding why they are inferior to a real gaming display.

HDMI 1.4 increases the maximum resolution to 4K × 2K, i.e. 3840×2160 (4K Ultra HD) at 24 Hz/25 Hz/30 Hz or 4096×2160 at 24 Hz (which is a resolution used with digital theaters);

HDMI 1.4b was released on October 11, 2011.[153] One of the new features is that it adds support to 3D 1080p video at 120 Hz -allowing frame packing 3D format at 1080p60 per Eye (120 Hz total)

HDMI 2.0 increases the maximum TMDS per channel throughput from 3.4 Gbit/s to 6 Gbit/s which allows for a maximum total TMDS throughput of 18 Gbit/s.[156][157] This allows HDMI 2.0 to support 4K resolution at 60 frames per second (fps)

The goal of DisplayPort 1.3 is to support 8K resolution, possibly with light compression (HDMI can use color channel compression). The bandwidth of DisplayPort 1.3 is said to reach 8.1 Gbps per channel or 32.4 Gbps in total. For comparison, HDMI 2.0 caps out at 18 Gbps. Besides 8K support (7680 × 4320 and 8192 × 4320), it will enable users to power two 4K displays with a single cable, and it will also add support for modes such as 4K@120 Hz and 3D in 4K resolution. It will, like DisplayPort 1.2, also support color depths higher than 8-bit, such as 10-bit and 12-bit per primary color. In other words; amazing picture quality.

 

[elvn]

The conversation in the thread was moving from a "wait if you can" for a better g-sync monitor to not just waiting for g-sync, but for higher resolution "gaming" monitors including mention of 4k. There was also talk of freesync being "imminent" and making g-sync obsolete in a short timeframe. Someone also seemed confused about 120hz input computer monitors vs fake 120hz tv tech. I didn't really bring it up but I disagree with most of what was said (other than waiting for a good g-sync/ulmb monitor if possible) for the reasons I mentioned so posted my replies about it.

 

[elvn]

yeah you can game at 1080p at 120hz on some of the 4k sets, and still get the benefit of the increased desktop real estate when you drop back to desktop. I'd still go for the g-sync/ulmb and hope for a real 120hz 4k someyear. Personally I'm looking at the 27" asus 2560x1440 g-sync one but hopefully in the long run some competiting g-sync monitors will come out at lower sizes (and even resolutions) and a little competition vs prices. The 27" 1080p 120hz monitors were almost $600 bux for a long time when they first game out though.