Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ 4K IPS 144Hz G-Sync HDR

Legend · 9 Apr 2017 at 19:31

HACO said:
I think you're right. For gaming, I agree. But the sharpness is very noticeable for daily use especially since I deal with a lot of text and I love the sharp, crisp image that you get with higher pixel density displays. But as games will continue to optimize their textures for 4K contents (rather than using upscaled textures), we'll continue to see improvements even at 27-inches. I want a display that can do both very well.

That's relative though... as games optimize more for 4K, the bigger 4K screens (when they appear and with equivalent PPI) will net those rewards too, while offering a more immersive experience. And the significance of that is not to be sniffed at. Having experienced 1440p at both 16:9 and 21:9, it really is a big step up when a game takes full advantage of that extra width. I'm sure the PG27UQ is going to make a lot of people happy, but it's soon going to be at the bottom rung of an HDR 4K gaming experience as bigger screens come out. There's also a big question mark over a GPU capable of pushing it... again, by the time we have a card capable of that, we may have bigger and better monitors available.

As to your earlier point, while I certainly can appreciate the flexibility x3 monitors can provide in some situations, it's not for me personally, I'd prefer one big 40" 4K HDR 144hz screen (I can dream). Besides, you will find you are VERY MUCH in a tiny niche (with perhaps some Sheikh millionaires to keep you company) if you would be considering buying x3 £2000 monitors lol!!

pre · 9 Apr 2017 at 20:02

So am I correct in thinking there's no replacement for the 34" X34A/PG34Q on this year?

Rofflay · 9 Apr 2017 at 20:27

Legend said:
That's relative though... as games optimize more for 4K, the bigger 4K screens (when they appear and with equivalent PPI) will net those rewards too, while offering a more immersive experience. And the significance of that is not to be sniffed at. Having experienced 1440p at both 16:9 and 21:9, it really is a big step up when a game takes full advantage of that extra width. I'm sure the PG27UQ is going to make a lot of people happy, but it's soon going to be at the bottom rung of an HDR 4K gaming experience as bigger screens come out. There's also a big question mark over a GPU capable of pushing it... again, by the time we have a card capable of that, we may have bigger and better monitors available.

As to your earlier point, while I certainly can appreciate the flexibility x3 monitors can provide in some situations, it's not for me personally, I'd prefer one big 40" 4K HDR 144hz screen (I can dream). Besides, you will find you are VERY MUCH in a tiny niche (with perhaps some Sheikh millionaires to keep you company) if you would be considering buying x3 £2000 monitors lol!!

Talk about efficency for one second. You want to move back from a "box room" monitors setup to 40 inches wth man? Why? You need double the pixels to get an equal image to be sitting closer. You need the extra GPU power and you still have the same 16.9 FOV! You are tricking your brain into thinking wow big is better when its the opposite. And this is actually a shiekh luxury no one wants because you kill 4K. 4K is sharper images not an excuse to double screen size and keep the same ppi. How is this not madness? Name one pro about going bigger please that is not this subjective "immersion" arguement.

If this happened in that we stayed with 109ppi, I could not enjoy ugly grainy games for me 4K is a base standard not a luxury!

Nexus18 · 9 Apr 2017 at 20:37

I'm not one for big 'monitors' at all. 32" 16.9 and 34" 21.9 is the absolute max I would go.

Legend · 9 Apr 2017 at 22:43

Rofflay said:
Talk about efficency for one second. You want to move back from a "box room" monitors setup to 40 inches wth man? Why? You need double the pixels to get an equal image to be sitting closer. You need the extra GPU power and you still have the same 16.9 FOV! You are tricking your brain into thinking wow big is better when its the opposite. And this is actually a shiekh luxury no one wants because you kill 4K. 4K is sharper images not an excuse to double screen size and keep the same ppi. How is this not madness? Name one pro about going bigger please that is not this subjective "immersion" arguement.

If this happened in that we stayed with 109ppi, I could not enjoy ugly grainy games for me 4K is a base standard not a luxury!

Immersion is pretty much ALL about how much of the visual image fills your peripheral. Just look at VR... graphically nothing revolutionary, but immersion on a whole new level. So that is THE reason to go bigger... you're right if you're suggesting there isn't much else. But it's a damn good reason, and I don't see how it's subjective? Bigger = more immersion, that's just how it is.

First and foremost, I am coming at this as an X34 owner. A 40" screen is pretty much the same width as a 34" 21:9 1440p monitor... it's not some unwieldy colossal behemoth, it's basically just a bit taller. I would NOT sacrifice screen real estate for 4K... and I'm not alone in that. However, I should be more clear, I'm not actually advocating 4K until we have a single GPU sufficient to drive it comfortably. When that day comes, I would lose out at 32" 16:9, so a 40" screen would be the only way I'd maintain my horizontal screen real estate. As 21:9 gains further popularity, this sentiment will only grow stronger, and 40" is where many people will actually want to be. We've even got 38" 21:9 screens now. I don't see your madness argument at all... in fact it makes perfect sense in light of the current trend. Furthermore, why you think games at 40" 4K would be ugly and grainy is beyond me? They certainly wouldn't.

But again, I emphasise that I'd never go 4K myself until such time that I didn't fear a stuttering jerky mess as my GPU puffed, struggled and wheezed to push a high enough frame rate. We're not there yet, so I'm happy with my X34 for the foreseeable future.

Vega · 9 Apr 2017 at 23:03

Legend said:
I'm sure the PG27UQ is going to make a lot of people happy, but it's soon going to be at the bottom rung of an HDR 4K gaming experience as bigger screens come out.

Bottom of the rung? lol, it literally destroys every other gaming monitor in existence or that has been announced for the future as an actual product.

Sure, I would have preferred 32". But being 27" doesn't take away the fact of its just amazing spec sheet. 1000-nit HDR FALD blacks/contrast with QD IPS color vibrancy, all running at 144 Hz 4K and G-Sync smoothness? Nothing announced for the future even comes close. As a matter of fact, there isn't even a single monitor announced for the future that goes over 4K 60 Hz, let alone with 1000-nit FALD etc. This monitor is literally the zenith of single layer LCD technology.

Nexus18 · 9 Apr 2017 at 23:08

TBH, I'm not sure how HDR will play out for small monitors because of the peak brightness. I and a few others already find that HDR can be overwhelming bright at times and that is sitting at quite a distance, imagine what it would be like for a monitor where you sit arms length from it.... Personally I can't stick anything higher than 100 luminance on my monitor.

Quartz · 9 Apr 2017 at 23:54

D3K said:
At 27" you have to lean in and squint at the monitor to appreciate the really fine detail.

I'm sorry, but I do not find this to be true. Yes, in sneak-em-ups like Far Cry I can indeed squint and make better use of the sniper rifle, but mostly I sit normally and just enjoy the better quality graphics.

Quartz · 9 Apr 2017 at 23:55

Legend said:
I'm sure the PG27UQ is going to make a lot of people happy, but it's soon going to be at the bottom rung of an HDR 4K gaming experience as bigger screens come out.

ITYM as better screens come out. Of course it will: it's the first.

Legend · 10 Apr 2017 at 00:09

Vega said:
Bottom of the rung? lol, it literally destroys every other gaming monitor in existence or that has been announced for the future as an actual product.

Sure, I would have preferred 32". But being 27" doesn't take away the fact of its just amazing spec sheet. 1000-nit HDR FALD blacks/contrast with QD IPS color vibrancy, all running at 144 Hz 4K and G-Sync smoothness? Nothing announced for the future even comes close. As a matter of fact, there isn't even a single monitor announced for the future that goes over 4K 60 Hz, let alone with 1000-nit FALD etc. This monitor is literally the zenith of single layer LCD technology.

Bottom of the rung of 4K HDR monitors yes, when a bigger one comes with identical spec. That's what I said. Of course it's amazing, I'm not taking anything away from it, but bigger would be better and bigger will be. No doubt it won't be the last 4K HDR monitor that we see. Plus at £2000, it's clearly going to be out of the price range for most. That will of course change as the tech matures and they can lower production costs.

peahead · 10 Apr 2017 at 00:31

How many actual games support HDR on the pc ? im all for HDR but £2000 wow.

Vega · 10 Apr 2017 at 01:33

Legend said:
Bottom of the rung of 4K HDR monitors yes, when a bigger one comes with identical spec. That's what I said. Of course it's amazing, I'm not taking anything away from it, but bigger would be better and bigger will be. No doubt it won't be the last 4K HDR monitor that we see. Plus at £2000, it's clearly going to be out of the price range for most. That will of course change as the tech matures and they can lower production costs.

Every other HDR 4K monitor announced for eventual release has been 60 Hz. I wouldn't even put a 60 Hz monitor in the same category as this. 60 Hz is just dreadful.

Legend · 10 Apr 2017 at 03:15

Vega said:
Every other HDR 4K monitor announced for eventual release has been 60 Hz. I wouldn't even put a 60 Hz monitor in the same category as this. 60 Hz is just dreadful.

I'm not talking about those. The PG27UQ is hardly going to be the only of its kind. HDR is a game changer, more monitors will follow and doubtless larger ones and/or ultrawide, at some point in the future. The only question is when.

mahius · 10 Apr 2017 at 06:43

Dave2150 said:
27" 4k is horrible IMO, way too high pixel density.
32" is the bare minimum for me, 40" preferred for 4k.

Agreed. 32" if sitting right in front of the monitor like a normal desk, 40" for a bit further away (considering there's 40"+ 4k TVs around).

But to be fair, desk space needs to be taken into consideration, which is what some folks are worried about. In my current set-up 27" just about fits, so I'd need to get a new place if I ever wanted to get a 4k monitor lol.

GTA767 · 14 May 2017 at 14:53

asus release this damn thing i want to buy it

would be happy if it will be maxs 1200$

and i hope it will be

27 4k 144hz and hdr perfect for me i dont dont 32 or wide screen

Legend · 15 May 2017 at 01:22

GTA767 said:
asus release this damn thing i want to buy it

would be happy if it will be maxs 1200$

and i hope it will be

27 4k 144hz and hdr perfect for me i dont dont 32 or wide screen

It's all but confirmed to be £2000 (near as anyway) from all released info so far, so keep dreaming lol. Given the spec, there is really no way it was ever going to be £1200 or close.

TNA · 16 May 2017 at 11:08

Legend said:
It's all but confirmed to be £2000 (near as anyway) from all released info so far, so keep dreaming lol. Given the spec, there is really no way it was ever going to be £1200 or close.

Yeah, what a shame really. I could not spend that kind of money on a monitor knowing OLED monitors with much superior colours is around the corner.

jeff83nz · 16 May 2017 at 11:39

TNA said:
Yeah, what a shame really. I could not spend that kind of money on a monitor knowing OLED monitors with much superior colours is around the corner.

Currently top of the range TVs the colours are better on the LCD based TV's, having the ability to go brighter. It is the contrast ratio and true blacks which OLED provide.

Here is a link showing as much from a 2016 shootout.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/shootout-hdr-201608054331.htm

*link updated

TNA · 16 May 2017 at 11:49

jeff83nz said:
Currently top of the range TVs the colours are better on the LCD based TV's, having the ability to go brighter. It is the contrast ratio and true blacks which OLED provide.

Here is a link showing as much from a 2016 shootout.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/shootout-hdr-201608054331.htm

*link updated

I don't know man, I have seen top end 2016 QLED TVs and was not all that impressed relative to OLED. In my opinion if one if going to spend that kind of money, it has to be OLED. But that is just me.

jeff83nz · 16 May 2017 at 11:57

TNA said:
I don't know man, I have seen top end 2016 QLED TVs and was not all that impressed relative to OLED. In my opinion if one if going to spend that kind of money, it has to be OLED. But that is just me.

There were really only two top end LCD tvs of 2016, the KS9500 and the Panasonic DX902b, both with 512 zones of FALD, not to be mixed up with what most Curry's carried (KS8000 / KS9000 was most stores peak). In a colourful HDR scene they definitely outplayed the OLED, non HDR though would agree with you.

The thing is though we may get close to that in a monitor this year, but realistically OLED is not just around the corner, at least if you have a normal pay packet. Which is a pity considering Samsung have been making AMOLED screens for phones which kick arse since the S2, which I bought in 2011.