Asus Rog Swift PG278Q

[Madpacket]

If I were to buy this monitor I will enable light boost for older games like quake live, TF2, L4D etc. For newer more demanding games enable Gsync and crank the settings where my minimum framerates hit around 40. This is where Gsync belongs. If you can push more than 85 FPS you use Light boost as it'll give you a superior gaming experience.

Pretty clear to me.

 

[Mand]

Motion clarity and screen tearing are unrelated. At least in the sense that most are using it. Tearing doesn't change blur or color production at all. It just allows two partial frames to be seen on one refresh, which I suppose to be considered to degrade the clarity of your frame production.

You suppose?

What does it matter if you aren't seeing faint afterglow if the object you're looking at is chopped in half?

 

[Mand]

use V-Sync to eliminate tearing + framerate cap to reduce/eliminate input lag

refreshrate = 120
framerate cap = 118
maximum pre-rendered frames = 1

just have to be prepared to throw lots of hardware at the problem, and even then be willing to massively tweak settings (can't just blindly crank everything to ultra) in order to try and maintain such a demanding frame rate for full benefit of LMB

I'd like to hear your assessment of what hardware and settings would be needed to get a minimum framerate of 118 FPS.

You're still going to get stutter with this configuration. That stutter will only get worse if you ever have a framerate drop. Are you really telling me you're going to so vastly overpower your system that no programmer's shoddy code will ever cause a framerate drop?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Gsync is what's making this monitor cost $800. It's so you don't have to maintain the refresh rate. LMB is just an added feature that you can use when the game isn't demanding enough to need Gsync. Which for most cards at that res isn't going to happen often.

no, G-Sync is just one thing causing this monitor to cost $800, if it didn't have G-Sync it would still be expensive enough for most people to complain about (probably ~$650 or so)

I'd like to hear your assessment of what hardware and settings would be needed to get a minimum framerate of 118 FPS.
You're still going to get stutter with this configuration. That stutter will only get worse if you ever have a framerate drop. Are you really telling me you're going to so vastly overpower your system that no programmer's shoddy code will ever cause a framerate drop?

1. I struggle to believe you actually have extensive experience with such hardware to be making these comments, because this is simply not the case, duplicating 2 frames out of 120 is pretty much imperceptible

2. no, I'm not saying that its possible to overpower and tweak any/every game to be able to run 120. For those that can't there's 100 and 85Hz for ULMB, or G-Sync, I've conceded as much and even have given examples of when one would definitely want to use G-Sync over ULMB if you've been keeping up with my posts. But the ideal scenario is getting the game to run flawlessly for ULMB, not G-Sync. G-Sync is the easy/lazy way out.

 

[3DVagabond]

no, G-Sync is just one thing causing this monitor to cost $800, if it didn't have G-Sync it would still be expensive enough for most people to complain about (probably ~$650 or so)

Well, I disagree with you. The big headline for this monitor is Gsync and without the nVidia tax I think it would be $500. We'll just have to agree to disagree though since we don't have the non nVidia version to know.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Well, I disagree with you. The big headline for this monitor is Gsync and without the nVidia tax I think it would be $500. We'll just have to agree to disagree though since we don't have the non nVidia version to know.

Except I don't think you have the evidence to support your opinion, which I think is affected by personal biases and hopes

1. we know the G-Sync module costs $199 for a DIY upgrade, and that cost to manufacturers to include directly into the monitor should be considerably less than that. That right there is evidence enough to suggest the monitor should be no less than $600 without G-Sync

2. even without G-Sync it would still have hardware to support nVidia 3D and stroboscopic operation. Combine that with the fact that this is an 8bit 1440p144Hz TN panel that has no equal on the market and we're easily justified in adding back on another $50 for that premium

3. ASUS' 4K 10bit TN monitor goes for $650. While its 4K 10bit TN vs. 1440p 8 bit TN, its resolution vs. speed and other features geared towards gaming even without G-Sync.

4. ASUS' ROG branding would have an affect on increasing the price as well

 

[blackened23]

If you don't like the price, don't buy it, it's that simple. Fact of the matter is, based on market share numbers of GPUs (as an example) are not based anywhere near the "opinions" expressed from those who think to the bottom pricing is all that matters - the real world is a complete polar opposite. If cheap pricing was the only factor that mattered, things would be so different. But people buy based on other things as well such as features and experience. Anyway, the real world doesn't care merely about dirt cheap pricing and nothing else.

Unsurprisingly, people are willing to pay for features they want. If you don't like the price, don't buy it, it's really that simple. Then the manufacturer has a choice of lowering the price or doing nothing. But i'm guessing it will sell just fine. Asus doesn't randomly assign prices, this is something they put a lot of thought and weight behind.

Fact of the matter is, the price really isn't terrible. It isn't an amazing price, but not terrible, either. As a baseline, there are 27 inch 1080p lightboost monitors on the market now for around 450-500$. Imagine that, lightboost has a price premium. Not all of them, but a few. So that's for a 1080p, this screen is in a class of its' own with 1440p, 8 bit panel, and g-sync/ULMB. The price is high, but not seemingly outrageous to me. Personally, i'm going to wait for asus to get a bit more competition before buying into a monitor like this. But again...the price isn't outrageous given that lightboost monitors already have a price premium, and those aren't 1440p or 8 bit panels. IMO. But of course, if you don't like it, don't buy it. It's really that simple. If the manufacturer sees it isn't selling, they will face choices with the pricing. Aside from which, the price would slowly lower over time anyway - new tech is generally more expensive at launch. Of which you can, again, exercise your right to vote with your wallet. But like I said....it won't even matter because people don't buy based solely on low pricing. The market has shown this time and time again, and not just with GPUs. The same applies to a wide array of products: If the market bought solely on "to the bottom" dirt cheap pricing, Apple would not exist as a company.

 

[3DVagabond]

Except I don't think you have the evidence to support your opinion, which I think is affected by personal biases and hopes

1. we know the G-Sync module costs $199 for a DIY upgrade, and that cost to manufacturers to include directly into the monitor should be considerably less than that. That right there is evidence enough to suggest the monitor should be no less than $600 without G-Sync

2. even without G-Sync it would still have hardware to support nVidia 3D and stroboscopic operation. Combine that with the fact that this is an 8bit 1440p144Hz TN panel that has no equal on the market and we're easily justified in adding back on another $50 for that premium

3. ASUS' 4K 10bit TN monitor goes for $650. While its 4K 10bit TN vs. 1440p 8 bit TN, its resolution vs. speed and other features geared towards gaming even without G-Sync.

4. ASUS' ROG branding would have an affect on increasing the price as well

It's fine if you don't want to agree to disagree. It doesn't matter to me. At least I'm not resorting to claiming you have a personal bias and am willing to accept what you say at face value. I'll just use $1K and $3K Titan(Z) to base my opinion on that nVidia simply charges extra and it has little to do with costs.

If you don't like the price, don't buy it, it's that simple. Fact of the matter is, based on market share numbers of GPUs (as an example) are not based anywhere near the "opinions" expressed on this forum and are a complete polar opposite. The real world doesn't match, not even close by a mile.

Unsurprisingly, people are willing to pay for features they want. If you don't like the price, don't buy it, it's really that simple. Then the manufacturer has a choice of lowering the price or doing nothing. Yet, I suspect, since the real world market is a polar opposite to what's expressed on this forum, i'm guessing it will sell just fine. Asus doesn't randomly assign prices, this is something they put a lot of thought and weight behind.

Fact of the matter is, the price really isn't terrible. There are 27 inch 1080p lightboost monitors on the market now for around 500$. Wow, imagine that, lightboost has a price premium. Not all of them, but a few. So that's for a 1080p, this screen is in a class of its' own with 1440p, 8 bit panel, and g-sync/ULMB. The price is high, but not seemingly outrageous to me. IMO. But of course, if you don't like it, don't buy it. It's really that simple. If the manufacturer sees it isn't selling, they will face choices with the pricing. Aside from which, the price would slowly lower over time anyway - new tech is generally more expensive at launch. Of which you can, again, exercise your right to vote with your wallet. But like I said....it won't even matter because people don't buy based solely on low pricing. The market has shown this time and time again, and not just with GPUs. The same applies to a wide array of products: If the market bought solely on "to the bottom" dirt cheap pricing, Apple would not exist as a company.

See, I don't care how many people buy nVidia stuff. Never mentioned it. You go ahead and bask in nVidia's retail success. As far as "If you don't like the price, don't buy it" let's not make it personal. It's childish to take something as trivial as this and use it to attack someone.

The rest tl;dr

 

[Black Octagon]

Well, I disagree with you. The big headline for this monitor is Gsync and without the nVidia tax I think it would be $500. We'll just have to agree to disagree though since we don't have the non nVidia version to know.

I also disagree with you. As I understand monitor production, the panel is the biggest contributor to cost (to the manufacturer). The 2560x1440 27-inch, 144Hz-capable panel in this ASUS is an industry first, out only this year. Add to that the fancy backlight needed in order for ULMB to work. The G-Sync modile is not free, for sure, but no way does it cost hundreds of dollars.

That's the cost to the manufacturer. The cost to the end consumer is basically whatever the manufacturer and their retailer can get away with. In this case, you're paying for a novelty: yes, it's a unique combination of out-of-th-box features of which G-Sync is 1. But really, you're paying for that feature that is not available anywhere else: the PANEL.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

It's fine if you don't want to agree to disagree. It doesn't matter to me. At least I'm not resorting to claiming you have a personal bias and am willing to accept what you say at face value.

I'm just going on the evidence rather than just throwing around baseless guesses, which is why I don't "agree to disagree" because I provided quite a bit evidence whereas you provided none.

I'll just use $1K and $3K Titan(Z) to base my opinion on that nVidia simply charges extra and it has little to do with costs.

1. we can make a judgement that nVidia charges extra for the Titans because we have evidence of what is nearly the same hardware going for significantly less in the GTX 780/780Ti.

2. we know the cost of the standalone G-Sync modules and yet have only one instance of a monitor like the Swift. Until we have more options, there's little reason to believe it would be significantly less than $600

Heck, even more evidence to spoil your $500 pipe dream is the fact that the XL2720Z debuted a couple months ago above $500, and that's a 27" 6bit 1080p monitor, not a 27" 8bit 1440p.

 

[3DVagabond]

And we've got 4K 10bit 1ms monitors for $600. It's not like a 1440 screen of ~ the same size and specs is a great technical achievement.

 

[wand3r3r]

Too much for what it is imo. They should try get a 4k screen with it, then it would actually be a far better selling point since going by the [h] 780 SLI / 290x crossfire review, they actually spend a lot of time between 30-60 FPS.

 

[Spin5000]

The BenQ XL2720Z is what, $500 give or take $50??...

Like the ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q, the BenQ XL2720Z is 3D capable, has both strobing modes (Lightboost primarily for 3D, and Blur Reduction Mode, which ASUS calls ULMB, primarily for 2D), is 27 inches, offers some of the lowest input lag on the market, offers some of the lowest pixel response times on the market, and is capable of refresh rates as high as 144 Hz.

The ROG Swift, on top of all that, is 1440p instead of 1080p, has an 8-bit panel instead of 6-bit, and includes G-Sync instead of not including it.

When compared to the price of the BenQ XL2720Z, I can see why the ASUS PG278Q is $800.

I really do hope the ROG Swift price goes down eventually though, it really adds up especially when purchasing 3. Not to mention, on a bit of a side-note, NVIDIA (or other GPU companies) has to really get off their butts and start making GPUs with 3 or 4 DisplayPort / Mini-DisplayPort outputs like AMD has been doing for years now. This way, we would have the OPTION to purchase 1, 2, 3, or 4 GPUs while using triple screens rather than being FORCED TO HAVING to purchase 3 GPUs (3?!! Are you kidding me? What a money-grabbing joke).

 

[Black Octagon]

And we've got 4K 10bit 1ms monitors for $600. It's not like a 1440 screen of ~ the same size and specs is a great technical achievement.

You mean the ASUS PB287Q? If so:

1) Isn't $650 the more typical price?
2) Despite the '1ms GTG' quoted response time, the black-to-white transition has been measured as closer to 20ms, despite the fact that it is TN
3) It's not true 10-bit but rather 8-bit/FRC. True 10-bit would cost a small fortune (not that 10-bit colour depth is very relevant in a thread about what is very much a gaming monitor...)

If really wanting to game on a 4k screen, I'd recommend that people at least wait and see how the Acer XB280HK (which will support G-Sync) turns out...at that resolution, nearly everyone will benefit from G-Sync

 

[bunnyfubbles]

And we've got 4K 10bit 1ms monitors for $600. It's not like a 1440 screen of ~ the same size and specs is a great technical achievement.

how can you make that claim when this is the first time we're seeing a monitor with the specs and performance of the Swift?

if the achievement is nothing to commend, why are we not seeing more manufacturers produce a competitive product?

also, the 28" 4K 10bit ASUS PB287Q is $650, and its definitely not as fast as the Swift

 

[3DVagabond]

You mean the ASUS PB287Q? If so:

1) Isn't $650 the more typical price?
2) Despite the '1ms GTG' quoted response time, the black-to-white transition has been measured as closer to 20ms, despite the fact that it is TN
3) It's not true 10-bit but rather 8-bit/FRC. True 10-bit would cost a small fortune (not that 10-bit colour depth is very relevant in a thread about what is very much a gaming monitor...)

If really wanting to game on a 4k screen, I'd recommend that people at least wait and see how the Acer XB280HK (which will support G-Sync) turns out...at that resolution, nearly everyone will benefit from G-Sync

I meant the Samsung, but I haven't seen a proper review of that one. Don't mix black to white with G2G. 0-255 (black to white) on the Swift measured 19ms. Pretty much the same. Never meant to imply it was true 10 bit. Sorry if it sounded that way. Like you say, that wouldn't make sense for a gaming monitor anyway.

 

[Black Octagon]

Don't mix black to white with G2G. 0-255 (black to white) on the Swift measured 19ms. Pretty much the same.

Correct, but that's at the slow 60Hz mode. But if you own the Swift you are going to run it at a higher refresh rate. TFTCentral determined that the best overall mode for response time is at 144Hz with Overdrive set to 'normal.' There, the average 0-255 (B2W) response time measurements was 3.4ms...

Perhaps it's not 'fair' to compare the ASUS 4K (60Hz-only) screen to the Swift at anything other than 60Hz, but as I said, I really don't think anyone buying the Swift - and in their right mind - will run it at 60Hz for games

 

[Black Octagon]

I meant the Samsung.

Ah ok, me neither but Adam Simmons (pcmonitors.info) is apparently in the process of reviewing that one. Curious to see how it compares to the ASUS.

 

[3DVagabond]

Yes, it's faster but it's not because of the panel being better. I can't find the 3.4. What I found was 5.5 Still fast though because of the refresh rate and the OD.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_rog_swift_pg278q/response_6.png
Can't get the image to display???

That's not my point though. Specs by themselves don't make something costlier. It's just too expensive for what it is. You are entitled though to pay those prices. I know that competition will bring it down to where it belongs (hopefully we get it). We need it not to be an exclusive for nVidia feature though. nVidia will never reduce the price on their own. That's just not their MO.

 

[3DVagabond]

Ah ok, me neither but Adam Simmons (pcmonitors.info) is apparently in the process of reviewing that one. Curious to see how it compares to the ASUS.

Thanks for the info. I'll watch out for it.

 

[Black Octagon]

Yes, it's faster but it's not because of the panel being better. I can't find the 3.4. What I found was 5.5 Still fast though because of the refresh rate and the OD.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_rog_swift_pg278q/response_6.png
Can't get the image to display???

That's not my point though. Specs by themselves don't make something costlier. It's just too expensive for what it is. You are entitled though to pay those prices. I know that competition will bring it down to where it belongs (hopefully we get it). We need it not to be an exclusive for nVidia feature though. nVidia will never reduce the price on their own. That's just not their MO.

From the image you posted, the 3.4ms is there ('average rise time'). 5.5ms is 0-255-0, not 0-255.

In any case, I'm not trying to promote the Swift. I will not be buying it at this price. What prompted these posts from my side was when you pointed to '600-dollar 4K 10-bit 1ms' screens as an implied more sound alternative...and given the target market of the Swift, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) a more sound alternative for gaming.

We all know that manufacturers' declared G2G response times are rubbish, so we started discussing actual measured response times. Only having found 0-255 rise time measurements for the 4k ASUS, I compared it to the average rise time of the Swift, at its optimal settings and as measured by TFTCentral.

What I'm trying to say is perhaps the obvious: that '1ms G2G' on the ASUS 4K versus '1ms G2G' on the Swift is a pretty significant difference

Since you weren't even referring to the ASUS 4k but a Samsung 4k for which I'm unaware of any response time measurements (yet), it's hard to take this much further.

 

[96Firebird]

Specs by themselves don't make something costlier.

Lol wut.

The hardware that goes into achieving specs makes something costlier.

 

[3DVagabond]

Thanks for pointing out the 0-255-0

 

[3DVagabond]

Lol wut.

The hardware that goes into achieving specs makes something costlier.

Since when is a 1440 panel costlier than a 4K?

If you think $800 is a fair price that's fine. Get a Titan-Z while you're at it to drive it if you want too.

 

[stahlhart]

Get a Titan-Z while you're at it to drive it if you want too.

Agree to disagree, and let it go. You've made your point.
-- stahlhart