** ASUS DO IT AGAIN: IPS, 144Hz & FREESYNC!!! Asus MG279Q thread **

[Nexus18]

So any idea yet Jim or gibbo about how long this will take? I am guessing we are in for at least a months wait?

Also, this might be a good thing in some ways as it now means that asus can check most of the screens for back light bleed, severe IPS glow and dead pixels etc.

 

[carrot1401]

So any idea yet Jim or gibbo about how long this will take? I am guessing we are in for at least a months wait?

Also, this might be a good thing in some ways as it now means that asus can check most of the screens for back light bleed, severe IPS glow and dead pixels etc.

And maybe sort out the freesync limits.

It may be worth doing a poll Gibbo/Jim on how many prefer 35-90 to 40-144. As my friend put it, if you're spending £500 on a monitor, you should have the tools to get over 40fps on games as well

 

[Nexus18]

Yeah it would be interesting to see what is the preferred range, I imagine most people on these types of forum will prefer 40-144hz though, I would prefer 35-90 but I am happy enough with either one.

 

[Doogles]

And maybe sort out the freesync limits.

It may be worth doing a poll Gibbo/Jim on how many prefer 35-90 to 40-144. As my friend put it, if you're spending £500 on a monitor, you should have the tools to get over 40fps on games as well

I'd prefer 40-144hz, if 35-90hz then no deal. Going to sit on the sidelines for awhile was hoping for freesync to work properly and no issues with screens because I really wanted to get one of these.

Asus informed us today, when our stock landed, hence why they nearly shipped but have now all being re-called for a firmware update.

Why can't manufactures allow the customer to update the firmware like we do with all our other hardware? This would stop them needing them back

 

[wunkley]

Why would anyone want 35-90hz over 40-144hz?

I use a rog swift, and even though gsync is great and it works down to 30 I think, I still consider framerates under 50fps to be a bit of a fail. 40fps would be my absolute minimum for occasional dips.

 

[Nexus18]

With my rig in sig, I drop to 35 FPS every now and then in the latest demanding games i.e. gta 5 and I can't get a constant 90+FPS with max settings (no aa) so 144hz freesync would be wasted for myself.

From what I have read about gsync, even when dipping to as low as 30-40FPS, the game still feels pretty smooth and the drop in fps is much less noticeable than without the the sync tech.

 

[Jim99]

Why would anyone want 35-90hz over 40-144hz?

I use a rog swift, and even though gsync is great and it works down to 30 I think, I still consider framerates under 50fps to be a bit of a fail. 40fps would be my absolute minimum for occasional dips.

If you consider something like GTA V (@ 1440p given that's the res we're discussing), then even a 290X which can run at 54 fps on average can momentarily drop to 31 fps in near-worst case scenario (source: http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1905-gta-v-pc-fps-benchmark-graphics-cards)

It's those momentary drops that made a big difference in our testing with this monitor. And further to that point, how many rigs are pushing 100 fps in the same circumstances?

If you can absolutely guarantee that your minimum frame rate never drops below 40 fps, then fair enough, but it seemed that for the majority of our customers they would occasionally experience that drop and the knock-on effect was severe. And as I said, the effect over 90 Hz was far less pronounced.

The point is, as you say, to find the monitor that's right for you. I'm not going to say this is the right one for everybody, because it obviously isn't - but I do believe it will suit the majority in this arrangement.

 

[Rexton]

If you consider something like GTA V (@ 1440p given that's the res we're discussing), then even a 290X which can run at 54 fps on average can momentarily drop to 31 fps in near-worst case scenario (source: http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1905-gta-v-pc-fps-benchmark-graphics-cards)

I assume most people spending £500 would want it to last a fair few years- by which time AMD will have hardware capable of pushing games above those averages.

40-144 is a much better selling point than 35-90 IMO. This monitor was a no-brainer purchase for me until I heard of the limitation. Now I'm more tempted by the g-sync equivilent.

 

[DrBombcrater]

The obvious solution is to make the Freesync range selectable in the OSD.

 

[badogblue]

What I want to know is why does reducing the min framerate from 40 to 35, result in the max framerate dropping from 144 to 90.

The Maths doesn't add up, should be 35-139.

So per 1 fps reduction on the min, equates to 11fps off the max.

I'd much prefer 37 - 112 then.

 

[wunkley]

If you consider something like GTA V (@ 1440p given that's the res we're discussing), then even a 290X which can run at 54 fps on average can momentarily drop to 31 fps in near-worst case scenario (source: http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1905-gta-v-pc-fps-benchmark-graphics-cards)

It's those momentary drops that made a big difference in our testing with this monitor. And further to that point, how many rigs are pushing 100 fps in the same circumstances?

If you can absolutely guarantee that your minimum frame rate never drops below 40 fps, then fair enough, but it seemed that for the majority of our customers they would occasionally experience that drop and the knock-on effect was severe. And as I said, the effect over 90 Hz was far less pronounced.

The point is, as you say, to find the monitor that's right for you. I'm not going to say this is the right one for everybody, because it obviously isn't - but I do believe it will suit the majority in this arrangement.

I get what you're saying, but the difference at the low end is only 5hz (35 vs 40) but the difference at the top end is massive (90hz vs 144hz).

It's therefore a total no brainier to get the 40-144 one.

The obvious question is, if they can do 40-144, why can't they do 35-144, or better still 30-144 like gsync??? It's hardly a massive leap is it?

 

[andyr]

So wont the firmware update fix the 144Hz issue , I thought that was what it was about

 

[Goose]

I get what you're saying, but the difference at the low end is only 5hz (35 vs 40) but the difference at the top end is massive (90hz vs 144hz).

It's therefore a total no brainier to get the 40-144 one.

The obvious question is, if they can do 40-144, why can't they do 35-144, or better still 30-144 like gsync??? It's hardly a massive leap is it?

I really wanted to get this monitor but with all the delays and such i'm just gonna stick it out and wait until someone releases a version of this monitor with a 30-144hz range. Hopefully by that time AMD will have sorted out the drivers too for Xfire support.

 

[Nexus18]

I wish DELL would release a version of this monitor, love them!

 

[wunkley]

Yep. Dell could totally clean up at the moment if they played their cards right.

 

[passenger]

@ Jim - ASUS

Jim tell us please, when can we expect MG279Q in shops again?!

 

[Vade]

I contacted Asus for an update yesterday and they advised me to contact OCUK for details, so I did, and OCUK told me they were waiting to hear from Asus.

I've had this monitor on preorder since April and I don't see myself getting it any time soon.

 

[PCM2]

It is likely that poor Jim doesn't know the answer to that. He is just the messenger, it isn't his decision and probably wouldn't be discussed with him until quite soon before it happens.

 

[Jim99]

What I want to know is why does reducing the min framerate from 40 to 35, result in the max framerate dropping from 144 to 90.

The Maths doesn't add up, should be 35-139.

So per 1 fps reduction on the min, equates to 11fps off the max.

I'd much prefer 37 - 112 then.

We had exactly the same thought as you, and asked during discussions with AMD and engineering, but apparently it doesn't work like that. Indications are as well that comparing IPS ranges to TN ranges is not a fair comparison, as it's harder to have a wide range on IPS.

I get what you're saying, but the difference at the low end is only 5hz (35 vs 40) but the difference at the top end is massive (90hz vs 144hz).

It's therefore a total no brainier to get the 40-144 one.

The obvious question is, if they can do 40-144, why can't they do 35-144, or better still 30-144 like gsync??? It's hardly a massive leap is it?

Honest answer, I don't know. It doesn't sound like a massive leap, but I guarantee that if we could have done it we would have done - it was something they had to do, not something they wanted to do. As I said above, the information I've been provided with suggests that it's partly a factor of IPS - AFAIK the 40-144 FreeSync monitors are TN rather than IPS? Though please send me over the info if I'm wrong there.

It is likely that poor Jim doesn't know the answer to that. He is just the messenger, it isn't his decision and probably wouldn't be discussed with him until quite soon before it happens.

So harsh. Yet probably true. That's why I think OcUK will likely be the best source of info on this, though naturally if I come across any info I'll share it.

 

[andyr]

Well if this arrives first then i might just go for it , as it ticks most of the boxes for me and waiting for freesync is getting on my nerves right now !
http://www.asus.com/uk/Monitors_Projectors/PB258Q/