Asus VG278HE 144 Hz 27" 1080P and Samsung S23A750D 23" 120 Hz comparison:
The Asus comes in a nice thick sturdy box and is well protected. Asus does a nice job on presentation. The monitor has a nice black gloss bezel that is matte on the inside edge to alleviate any glare from the screen. The stand is very sturdy and has a real nice height adjustability. As a tall *******, I think this may be my first monitor that I've had since the HP ZR30W that can adjust to my viewing height without having to prop up anything underneath it. That is a huge plus!
The base of the stand is also gloss black, but alas it has a very large IMO silly 3D symbol. The monitor also swivels and tilts which is nice. Three connection options (really only one as the first one is the only one that can run 144 Hz), DL-DVI, HDMI and VGA D-Sub 15. Not sure who or why anyone would use the VGA connection. One thing I dislike about the connections is the DVI port is very close to the body of the monitor. My big-daddy 24 gauge Monoprice high quality cable barely fits on there at an angle. Feels like it's going to break that DVI connection. No need for it to be so close to the back of the monitor.
The screen is a matte screen, but it does not have a large amount of diffusion and sparkle like an LG IPS panel. If the Apple cinema display (which has the glossiest screen I've used) was a 10, and a U2711 was the worst matte nastiness at 1, I'd rate this panel's anti-glare around a 3.5. I prefer glossier panels as will be discussed below. The Samsung isn't quite as reflective as the Apple, but it is still pretty strong at an 8.5. I would rate the Yamakasi Catleap about a 7. So to break gloss levels down:
Apple Cinema Display: 10
Samsung 120 Hz line: 8.5
Gloss Catleap's and variants: 7
Asus 144 Hz: 3.5
LG IPS (like U2711) 1
The on-screen display on the Asus could be better. It feels a bit clunky in the manner you switch different configuration options. The key's are tactile and work good. Nothing beats good old tactile buttons. The touch-sensitive buttons on the Samsung can be quite annoying. The power LED on the monitor is ingeniously lit underneath the bottom right portion of the bezel. This means it is not in your view-able area in a normal sitting position. I don't like bright LED's shining right at me on the edge of a screen. I usually darken those out with a permanent marker.
Now the Asus does have some back-light bleed around the edges, mostly on the bottom but the bleed does not extend out far. I would rate BLB low on my priority list as it usually does not affect normal viewing and I rarely view anything with very dark or solid black images. My unit did come with zero dead nor stuck pixels. Hopefully that is a good sign that Asus does some quality control on these panels as they are priced fairly high. Of course I could have always gotten lucky in the panel lottery.
Back to the anti-glare coating. While using the monitor in the day-lit room here, it was a pleasure to really not see any reflection besides a minimal diffused glow that was barely visible. On the other hand, the Samsung next to it reflects quite a bit and can be quite distracting. Gloss screens should really only be used in pretty light controlled environments. Now here comes the trade-off. There is always a trade off when it comes to LCD tech. While you virtually eliminate the reflections with the Asus, you also lose a lot of the subjective "pop" and "wet-look" of the colors and the deeper perceived blacks. Blacks just look a lot better on the Samsung. Now I didn't take any fancy colorimeter readings or any of that jazz, this is entirely subjective of someone who has tested dozens and dozens of monitors down through the years.
The Samsung has a bit of a better picture quality. The better blacks, the colors pop more and the contrast just seems to edge out the Asus. Whether that is entirely up to the gloss coating or Samsung wizardry I do not know. So that brings us to pixel pitch. 1920x1080 at 27" just doesn't work for me if I sit too close. You can clearly see that text is rougher and sharpness is decreased at this large of a size. Everything appears clearer and sharper on the 23" Samsung, allowing you to sit close. Now you can alleviate some of that problem with the Asus simply by pushing the monitor further back on your desk, but then you lose the "immersion" factor that having a larger screen is suppose to provide. For a normal viewing distance from the eyes of around 24-30 inches, 27-30" monitors should solely be the realm of 1440 or 1600P. Although, the larger pixels are more noticeable in Windows and in web pages than they are in games. Since in games, there usually isn't a lot of text or compartmentalized information all over the place.
Text size in a side-by-side:
So the big question: How is 144 Hz ?!?! Honestly, the jump from 120 Hz to 144 Hz is not as great as I was expecting. Definitely getting into the point of diminishing returns. I tried to capture any "measurable" differences using Pixperpan and other means but they did not "pan out". Pixperan would crash always at 144 Hz but would work fine at 120 Hz. So I could only get reading for the Samsung. I then set upon taking high film speed shots of each monitor in Skyrim during the AFK fast camera spinning. Due to monitor cloning limitations that set both to 120 Hz, I was unable to do a side-by-side in one shot. Also due to different LED back-light modulation, high ISO settings produced view-able images on one monitor and not the other. Change the ISO settings and the monitors would flip-flop. I did not get any conclusive images. So that brings it back to my subjective observations. As a pretty good long time FPS player I think I have a decent grasp of how a monitor "handles".
Just for a point of reference, let's say I feel a jump from 60 Hz to 120 Hz produces about a 50% increase in the images "smoothness". Of course the faster the image is displayed, the % of return in smoothness feel will decrease exponentially. While an increase from 120 Hz to 144 Hz is a mathematical 20% speed increase, I would put my subjective increase in smoothness feel around 5 to 8%. Now whether that is getting into placebo territory, or simply the larger image versus the 23" Samsung is making a "perceptual" difference, I could not say. I would honestly say though after playing BF3 and Guild Wars 2 (which is silky smooth) at 144 Hz and 144+ FPS, that the Asus does have a small edge on the Samsung. If you are expecting this monitor to have a large difference in play-ability over 120 Hz due to it's extra 24 Hz, you will be disappointed.
I also did notice on scrolling web pages using smooth scroll that the Asus smeared just a tad less than the Samsung. I truly got spoiled with the FW900 as smooth scrolling text, even fast was crystal clear. LCD'd don't handle that too well. Although, this is the LCD that has handled for me smooth scrolling text the best. Even a somewhat quick IPS screen like my 120 Hz Catleap smeared pretty bad and did not make viewing smooth scrolling text all that enjoyable.
Input lag:
SMTT 2.0, ISO 500, Samsung left Asus Right.
I would say the Asus starts a new frame about 8 milliseconds faster than the Samsung. I believe the last I read the Samsung panels are around 12-15ms of input lag, which would put my readings pretty close to Prad's rating of the 120 Hz version of the Asus at ~4ms. That is pretty quick and basically zero input lag.
Aesthetically, I would give the nod to the Samsung's. Especially the 950D line. Full brushed aluminum/gloss black enclosures, with nice clear/black gloss trim. I think they are very stylish. While not unattractive, the Asus is your pretty typical black square rectangle that virtually all monitors adhere to.
Images of the Samsung next to the Asus:
So where does the 144 Hz Asus fit in the grand scheme of things? Until we get the perfect display technology, you will always have to compromise with LCD. You just have to rate the priorities of the monitors design to fit you. Vega's crude and simple rating system:
In order of: Samsung S23A750D, Asus VG278HE, 2B Yamakasi Catleap.
Image Quality: |<- - - - - - 7 - - ->| |<- - - - - 6 - - - ->| |<- - - - - - - - 9 ->|
Motion Smoothness: |<- - - - - - - 8 - ->| |<- - - - - - - - 9 ->| |<- - - - - - 7 - - ->|
Text/OS: |<- - - - - - 7 - - ->| |<- - - - - - 6 - - ->| |<- - - - - - - - 9 ->|
Games: |<- - - - - - 7 - - ->| |<- - - - - - - 8 - ->| |<- - - - - - - 8 - ->|
Aesthetics: |<- - - - - - - 8 - ->| |<- - - - - - 7 - - ->| |<- - - - - 6 - - - ->|
Totals (As a gamer, motion has 2x score weight): Samsung (7.5) - Asus (7.5) - 2B Catleap ( 7.66).
For an overall monitor that does a lot of things well and nothing really bad (besides a flimsy stand that will be corrected in upcoming versions), I'd still have to give the nod to the 120 Hz Catleap. It has a great IPS picture and 1440P resolution to go along with it's decent motion. Short of getting yourself a FW900, the Asus will do you quite well for competitive gaming. I don't think there is a better LCD out there for that. Just don't sit too close to it.
One thing to note about the 2B Catleap and it's future Overlord Tempest OC models: only select hardware configs can run it optimally. You see, a single overclocked GTX 680 or 7970 can handle the 1080P Asus or Samsung fairly well. With ~85% more pixels on the Catleap, not so much. This forces you into SLI or crossfire. SLI and NVIDIA are ruled out as they have adapted a 330 MHz pixel clock limit in their drivers and refuse to budge. This limits your Catleap to around 82 Hz. Really, the only combination of hardware and (modified drivers mind you) in order to "over clock" the DL-DVI port is the AMD 79xx series. And to push that many pixels to do a 1440P Catleap justice required at least two of them.
The sweet spot for optimal gaming for a decent budget is an IB CPU, 2x 7970's and an Overclock Catleap or it's upcoming variations. Let me know if you have any questions. :thumb:
The Asus comes in a nice thick sturdy box and is well protected. Asus does a nice job on presentation. The monitor has a nice black gloss bezel that is matte on the inside edge to alleviate any glare from the screen. The stand is very sturdy and has a real nice height adjustability. As a tall *******, I think this may be my first monitor that I've had since the HP ZR30W that can adjust to my viewing height without having to prop up anything underneath it. That is a huge plus!
The base of the stand is also gloss black, but alas it has a very large IMO silly 3D symbol. The monitor also swivels and tilts which is nice. Three connection options (really only one as the first one is the only one that can run 144 Hz), DL-DVI, HDMI and VGA D-Sub 15. Not sure who or why anyone would use the VGA connection. One thing I dislike about the connections is the DVI port is very close to the body of the monitor. My big-daddy 24 gauge Monoprice high quality cable barely fits on there at an angle. Feels like it's going to break that DVI connection. No need for it to be so close to the back of the monitor.
The screen is a matte screen, but it does not have a large amount of diffusion and sparkle like an LG IPS panel. If the Apple cinema display (which has the glossiest screen I've used) was a 10, and a U2711 was the worst matte nastiness at 1, I'd rate this panel's anti-glare around a 3.5. I prefer glossier panels as will be discussed below. The Samsung isn't quite as reflective as the Apple, but it is still pretty strong at an 8.5. I would rate the Yamakasi Catleap about a 7. So to break gloss levels down:
Apple Cinema Display: 10
Samsung 120 Hz line: 8.5
Gloss Catleap's and variants: 7
Asus 144 Hz: 3.5
LG IPS (like U2711) 1
The on-screen display on the Asus could be better. It feels a bit clunky in the manner you switch different configuration options. The key's are tactile and work good. Nothing beats good old tactile buttons. The touch-sensitive buttons on the Samsung can be quite annoying. The power LED on the monitor is ingeniously lit underneath the bottom right portion of the bezel. This means it is not in your view-able area in a normal sitting position. I don't like bright LED's shining right at me on the edge of a screen. I usually darken those out with a permanent marker.
Now the Asus does have some back-light bleed around the edges, mostly on the bottom but the bleed does not extend out far. I would rate BLB low on my priority list as it usually does not affect normal viewing and I rarely view anything with very dark or solid black images. My unit did come with zero dead nor stuck pixels. Hopefully that is a good sign that Asus does some quality control on these panels as they are priced fairly high. Of course I could have always gotten lucky in the panel lottery.
Back to the anti-glare coating. While using the monitor in the day-lit room here, it was a pleasure to really not see any reflection besides a minimal diffused glow that was barely visible. On the other hand, the Samsung next to it reflects quite a bit and can be quite distracting. Gloss screens should really only be used in pretty light controlled environments. Now here comes the trade-off. There is always a trade off when it comes to LCD tech. While you virtually eliminate the reflections with the Asus, you also lose a lot of the subjective "pop" and "wet-look" of the colors and the deeper perceived blacks. Blacks just look a lot better on the Samsung. Now I didn't take any fancy colorimeter readings or any of that jazz, this is entirely subjective of someone who has tested dozens and dozens of monitors down through the years.
The Samsung has a bit of a better picture quality. The better blacks, the colors pop more and the contrast just seems to edge out the Asus. Whether that is entirely up to the gloss coating or Samsung wizardry I do not know. So that brings us to pixel pitch. 1920x1080 at 27" just doesn't work for me if I sit too close. You can clearly see that text is rougher and sharpness is decreased at this large of a size. Everything appears clearer and sharper on the 23" Samsung, allowing you to sit close. Now you can alleviate some of that problem with the Asus simply by pushing the monitor further back on your desk, but then you lose the "immersion" factor that having a larger screen is suppose to provide. For a normal viewing distance from the eyes of around 24-30 inches, 27-30" monitors should solely be the realm of 1440 or 1600P. Although, the larger pixels are more noticeable in Windows and in web pages than they are in games. Since in games, there usually isn't a lot of text or compartmentalized information all over the place.
Text size in a side-by-side:
So the big question: How is 144 Hz ?!?! Honestly, the jump from 120 Hz to 144 Hz is not as great as I was expecting. Definitely getting into the point of diminishing returns. I tried to capture any "measurable" differences using Pixperpan and other means but they did not "pan out". Pixperan would crash always at 144 Hz but would work fine at 120 Hz. So I could only get reading for the Samsung. I then set upon taking high film speed shots of each monitor in Skyrim during the AFK fast camera spinning. Due to monitor cloning limitations that set both to 120 Hz, I was unable to do a side-by-side in one shot. Also due to different LED back-light modulation, high ISO settings produced view-able images on one monitor and not the other. Change the ISO settings and the monitors would flip-flop. I did not get any conclusive images. So that brings it back to my subjective observations. As a pretty good long time FPS player I think I have a decent grasp of how a monitor "handles".
Just for a point of reference, let's say I feel a jump from 60 Hz to 120 Hz produces about a 50% increase in the images "smoothness". Of course the faster the image is displayed, the % of return in smoothness feel will decrease exponentially. While an increase from 120 Hz to 144 Hz is a mathematical 20% speed increase, I would put my subjective increase in smoothness feel around 5 to 8%. Now whether that is getting into placebo territory, or simply the larger image versus the 23" Samsung is making a "perceptual" difference, I could not say. I would honestly say though after playing BF3 and Guild Wars 2 (which is silky smooth) at 144 Hz and 144+ FPS, that the Asus does have a small edge on the Samsung. If you are expecting this monitor to have a large difference in play-ability over 120 Hz due to it's extra 24 Hz, you will be disappointed.
I also did notice on scrolling web pages using smooth scroll that the Asus smeared just a tad less than the Samsung. I truly got spoiled with the FW900 as smooth scrolling text, even fast was crystal clear. LCD'd don't handle that too well. Although, this is the LCD that has handled for me smooth scrolling text the best. Even a somewhat quick IPS screen like my 120 Hz Catleap smeared pretty bad and did not make viewing smooth scrolling text all that enjoyable.
Input lag:
SMTT 2.0, ISO 500, Samsung left Asus Right.
I would say the Asus starts a new frame about 8 milliseconds faster than the Samsung. I believe the last I read the Samsung panels are around 12-15ms of input lag, which would put my readings pretty close to Prad's rating of the 120 Hz version of the Asus at ~4ms. That is pretty quick and basically zero input lag.
Aesthetically, I would give the nod to the Samsung's. Especially the 950D line. Full brushed aluminum/gloss black enclosures, with nice clear/black gloss trim. I think they are very stylish. While not unattractive, the Asus is your pretty typical black square rectangle that virtually all monitors adhere to.
Images of the Samsung next to the Asus:
So where does the 144 Hz Asus fit in the grand scheme of things? Until we get the perfect display technology, you will always have to compromise with LCD. You just have to rate the priorities of the monitors design to fit you. Vega's crude and simple rating system:
In order of: Samsung S23A750D, Asus VG278HE, 2B Yamakasi Catleap.
Image Quality: |<- - - - - - 7 - - ->| |<- - - - - 6 - - - ->| |<- - - - - - - - 9 ->|
Motion Smoothness: |<- - - - - - - 8 - ->| |<- - - - - - - - 9 ->| |<- - - - - - 7 - - ->|
Text/OS: |<- - - - - - 7 - - ->| |<- - - - - - 6 - - ->| |<- - - - - - - - 9 ->|
Games: |<- - - - - - 7 - - ->| |<- - - - - - - 8 - ->| |<- - - - - - - 8 - ->|
Aesthetics: |<- - - - - - - 8 - ->| |<- - - - - - 7 - - ->| |<- - - - - 6 - - - ->|
Totals (As a gamer, motion has 2x score weight): Samsung (7.5) - Asus (7.5) - 2B Catleap ( 7.66).
For an overall monitor that does a lot of things well and nothing really bad (besides a flimsy stand that will be corrected in upcoming versions), I'd still have to give the nod to the 120 Hz Catleap. It has a great IPS picture and 1440P resolution to go along with it's decent motion. Short of getting yourself a FW900, the Asus will do you quite well for competitive gaming. I don't think there is a better LCD out there for that. Just don't sit too close to it.
One thing to note about the 2B Catleap and it's future Overlord Tempest OC models: only select hardware configs can run it optimally. You see, a single overclocked GTX 680 or 7970 can handle the 1080P Asus or Samsung fairly well. With ~85% more pixels on the Catleap, not so much. This forces you into SLI or crossfire. SLI and NVIDIA are ruled out as they have adapted a 330 MHz pixel clock limit in their drivers and refuse to budge. This limits your Catleap to around 82 Hz. Really, the only combination of hardware and (modified drivers mind you) in order to "over clock" the DL-DVI port is the AMD 79xx series. And to push that many pixels to do a 1440P Catleap justice required at least two of them. The sweet spot for optimal gaming for a decent budget is an IB CPU, 2x 7970's and an Overclock Catleap or it's upcoming variations. Let me know if you have any questions. :thumb:
