do i go for the asus rog swift?

Status
Not open for further replies.

barryt1991

barryt1991

barryt1991

Associate
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Posts
64
hi everyone so im looking to buy a new monitor but stuck with which on to get, ive got the money to pre order the asus rog swift but do i really need it? i only really use my computer for games like diablo and wow maybe some cod every so often, atm my build is an i7 4770k and evga gtx 780 classy but i will be upgrading the gpu to a top end 800 series sli when released, so should i get the asus rog swift or should i just go for a 1440p monitor or should i get a 144hz 1080p monitor? thanks in advance
 
You can get a 40" UHD (3840x2160) TV for the same price as the ROG Swift, I know which one I'd prefer!

I'd wait if I were you, ROG Swifts are silly money for what you get.
 
thanks for the reply but im not looking for a tv im looking for a monitor :), also price doesnt matter i need a monitor asap and if i waited for something better there would be something even better coming out a few months later so i would never have a new monitor
 
Last edited:
I know you're not, I was just pointing out that for the same money, you can get a huge 40" display that has slightly smaller pixels than the ROG Swift, so will look every bit as sharp, but will be much bigger, have better colours and won't suffer from colour shift.

If it helps, think of it as a 40" monitor with better image quality and pixel density than the ROG Swift. The only place it doesn't match is the refresh rate, but personally panel quality > panel speed.
 
Last edited:
spoffle said:
I know you're not, I was just pointing out that for the same money, you can get a huge 40" display that has slightly smaller pixels than the ROG Swift, so will look every bit as sharp, but will be much bigger, have better colours and won't suffer from colour shift.

If it helps, think of it as a 40" monitor with better image quality and pixel density than the ROG Swift. The only place it doesn't match is the refresh rate, but personally panel quality > panel speed.
Click to expand...

yeah i might get a 40" tv for cheaper the the rog swift but 1 i dont want to sit miles away from the screen and 2 i dont wanna be buying 3 titans before i get decent fps
 
It was more the suggestion of how poor value for money the ROG swift is, than a suggestion that you get one. However, you wouldn't need 3 Titans to power one, UHD isn't that much more demanding than 2560x1440, in fact it's probably just as demanding as 2560x1440 at 144FPS. 40" also isn't that much of a jump in size, you could comfortably sit about 60-70CM away. I have 3x 27" monitors and they take up more space and are significantly wider together than one 40".

However, I'm just pointing out the facts and highlighting that the ROG Swift really isn't something to go for over telling you to get a 40" display.
 
Found a link. http://www.displaylag.com/oled-4k-2014-input-lag-results/
70+ms on pretty much all 4k tvs. Makes them pretty useless in terms of gaming.

Edit: I would also add 90fps @ 1440p is a lot better than 40fps @ 4k. Which is probably what you will be looking at running a decent card with both screens. Just because a monitor is 144hz doesn't mean you need to get 144fps from it to benefit. In fact most big games won't get near 144fps with full textures and abit of AA, However it does mean you can turn vsync off, remove the stutter it causes and not worry about screen tearing when you get over 60fps.
 
Last edited:
That test doesn't cover the model that I'm talking about, and I'm not sure how it handles input lag as it's a fairly new model.

I've just found a review on the 55" model (UE55HU6900) that's claiming it has 31ms input lag.
 
Last edited:
Honestly forget 4K TVs I don't even know why spoffle mentioned it - most of them can only be driven at 30Hz currently from a PC so utterly useless for any real gaming like COD, etc. (even on a casual basis) and the performance hit is much much bigger than 2560x type resolutions (Source: I have an AOC 2868PQU and various 2560x1080-1600 res panels).

The ROG swift looks like a serious contender but its too early really to be making a reccomendation concerning it. From your original post I would probably hazard on looking at good quality 2560x1440 IPS panels as they will be worth it for stuff like WoW and diablo, etc. where the image quality will produce more benefits than the performance. (EDIT: 144Hz panels are nice to have but are going to be of a lesser benefit to you unless you take COD, etc. fairly seriously).
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Honestly forget 4K TVs I don't even know why spoffle mentioned it - most of them can only be driven at 30Hz currently from a PC so utterly useless for any real gaming like COD, etc. and the performance hit is much much bigger than 2560x type resolutions (Source: I have an AOC 2868PQU and various 2560x1080-1600 res panels).

The ROG swift looks like a serious contender but its too early really to be making a reccomendation concerning it.
Click to expand...

You do know why I mentioned them, I've already explained it, and you are making the assumption that I am talking about ones that can only be driven at 30Hz, that's on you, not me. I'm talking about ones with HDMI 2.0, which means 60Hz.

I know what sort of performance hit it'll be (source: I have 3x 2560x1440 displays, and 7680x1440 is more demanding than UHD). You need to stop being so condescending.
 
spoffle said:
You do know why I mentioned them, I've already explained it, and you are making the assumption that I am talking about ones that can only be driven at 30Hz, that's on you, not me. I'm talking about ones with HDMI 2.0, which means 60Hz.

I know what sort of performance hit it'll be (source: I have 3x 2560x1440 displays, and 7680x1440 is more demanding than UHD). You need to stop being so condescending.
Click to expand...

There are no GPUs with support for 4K over HDMI 2.0 currently and I'm not really sure what your seeing but the performance hit from 4K is significantly larger than 2560x1440, my intention isn't to be condescending - your talking absolute rubbish. (PS if your gonna complain about being condescending would have been nice if you'd shown me the same consideration in the past when I was wrong).

I was hedging my bets with the "most of them" comment as afaik there are none currently due to the HDMI2.0 requirement which no GPU can currently do but I might have missed the odd model. (See thread here http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18601229 ).
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
There are no GPUs with support for 4K over HDMI 2.0 currently and I'm not really sure what you're seeing but the performance hit from 4K is significantly larger than 2560x1440, my intention isn't to be condescending - your talking absolute rubbish.
Click to expand...

I'm talking rubbish when you aren't even reading my posts? DERP. Lawd where is your head at? You'd know what I'm talking about if you paid attention. Triple 2560x1440 is more demanding than 4K, so I have an idea of how the performance will be at 4K. As for GPUs, it doesn't need GPU level support, it just needs the available bandwidth, which DP1.2 covers, adapters may not be out at the moment, but since the TVs with HDMI 2.0 are just out, it's hardly a surprise.

Additionally, UHD ISN'T that much more demanding than 2560x1440, it depends on the game and what's getting saturated. UHD is 2.25x the pixels as 2560x1440 but the performance fall off is closer to 30-40% on average depending on the game and how bandwidth heavy it is, and you have the luxury of being able to back off on the AA due to the smaller pixels or further distance away you might sit. You're acting like it's the performance hit going from 1080P to UHD which is big.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_295_X2/5.html

Don't let those facts get in the way though.
 
Last edited:
No it's not most of them at all. One of them, yeah, most of them? No. It was one game, that went from 50FPS to 26FPS, Crysis 3, why bother even lying when the link is there for people to see?
 
spoffle said:
why bother even lying when the link is there for people to see?
Click to expand...

AC4: 61(max)>40
BF3: 131>73
BF4: 85>48
Crysis3: 48>26
Metro: 80>48
Thief: 146>83
WOW: 155>108

All ballpark performance difference to what I posted about and thats not even the complete list. (Sure they aren't exactly 50>26 in every case but the percentage difference is ballpark similar hence my addition of "or similar ratios").

Sure there are some there which show hardly any change at all and others that seem to show abnormal results such as higher fps at 4K (probably due to having no AA at 4K but AA at 2560x in games where AA is a big component of the fps hit).

Not even going to bother addressing your pathetic attempt to wiggle out of the HDMI2.0 thing.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
AC4: 61(max)>40
BF3: 131>73
BF4: 85>48
Crysis3: 48>26
Metro: 80>48
Thief: 146>83
WOW: 155>108

All ballpark performance difference to what I posted about and thats not even the complete list. (Sure they aren't exactly 50>26 in every case but the percentage difference is ballpark similar hence my addition of "or similar ratios").

Sure there are some there which show hardly any change at all and others that seem to show abnormal results such as higher fps at 4K (probably due to having no AA at 4K but AA at 2560x in games where AA is a big component of the fps hit).
Click to expand...


NOPE. What you actually said is that most are showing drops from 50FPS to 26FPS, only one shows this.

I'll do the percentages too, as you clearly can't see that they're not all ball park figures to what you said.

AC4: 61(max)>40 = 33%~
BF3: 131>73 = 44%~
BF4: 85>48 = 44%~
Crysis3: 48>26 =46%~
Metro: 80>48 = 40%~
Thief: 146>83 43%~
WOW: 155>108 = 30%~
Batman AO: 151.4>97.3 = 35%~
Bioshock Infinite: 131.6>69.6 = 47%~
Crysis: 72.8>49.1 = 33%~
Farcry 3: 66.5>57.1 = 15%~
Grid 2: 98.4>98.8 = no change
Splinter Cell: 73>69 = 5%~
Tombraider: 61>74 anomaly - though it happens with all cards

Oh look at that, an average FPS fall off of 35%, right in the middle of the 30-40% I said before. I even discounted Grid 2 and Tombraider due to their weird numbers, if I hadn't, the average performance fall off would have been closer to 30%.

So what was your point again? How far do you go when we're talking about games that are out now and the performance fall off they experience when going from 2560x1440 to 3840x2160?

Not even going to bother addressing your pathetic attempt to wiggle out of the HDMI2.0 thing.
Click to expand...

Why are you being so aggressive? Are you having issues?
 
I also appended what I said with "or similar ratios" its the percentage that counts not the actual fps numbers themselves hence as in your list theres quite a few at around 43-47%.

In any game where performance is going to be significant excluding abnormalities and games that aren't graphically heavy or are CPU bound rather than GPU the average is over 40% which is by anyones book quite a significant performance difference.

spoffle said:
Why are you being so aggressive? Are you having issues?
Click to expand...

Not liking a taste of your own medicine huh. (Not sure why you'd expect any difference when you've previously taken great delight in trying to belittle me when I've been wrong, been condescending, accused me of lying, petty highlighting of gramatical mistakes, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
I also appended what I said with "or similar ratios" its the percentage that counts not the actual fps numbers themselves hence as in your list theres quite a few at around 43-47%.
Click to expand...

You do realise that I said "on average" right?

Well isn't "or similar ratios" quite the cop out? I'd already said 30-40% on average at that point. How is 33% similar to 47% exactly? Also, what's with the exaggerating? There is one at 47% and one at 46, how is that "quite a few"? It isn't even a few, it's a couple. There's one a 43% and 2 at 44%.



In any game where performance is going to be significant exluding abnormalities and games that aren't graphically heavy or are CPU bound rather than GPU the average is over 40% which is by anyones book quite a significant performance difference.
Click to expand...

So "or similar ratios" works for you, at up to a 14% deviance, but you're moaning about 4% on my behalf?

Either way, bar a small number of the games, they're all still pulling playable FPS at around the level of fall off I estimated before. So I still don't get what you're moaning about.

Also I said "not that big a performance drop" as we've already established, the pixel count is 2.25 times, the performance drop off is quite far from that, that was pretty much my point

Not liking a taste of your own medicine huh. (Not sure why you'd expect any difference when you've previously taken great delight in trying to belittle me when I've been wrong, been condescending, accused me of lying, petty highlighting of grammatical mistakes, etc.).
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. You're the one that started with the aggression, I haven't been aggressive, I am blunt but not aggressive, so that one isn't really working. I'm pointing out why what you're saying is incorrect, it's not aggressive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom