ROG Swift PG32UQX mini LED DisplayHDR™ 1400 4k

willhub said:
That's subjective and not factual.
Click to expand...


Sorry you’re right I should have been more careful to qualify that statement. What I meant was for fast FPS type games or competitive esports. There is an obvious and significant difference with high refresh rates in terms of frame rate support and importantly sample and hold display motion clarity. That’s not just subjective, it’s objectively measurable and quantifiable.

Not everyone needs that though of course and may be playing RTS games or older consoles etc where 60Hz is all you need, or all that is supported.
 
I think 32" 4K/144Hz would be my personal sweet spot for gaming, but I could never justify the price of this. I'd stick with 1440P except for the fact that I'm gaming on PS5 now too. Unfortunately I just don't have the space for a 48" OLED tv in my set-up. Looks like I'll have to get a cheaper/poorer quality 32" until gaming specced OLEDs of that size are available.
 
JohnG7 said:
I would not pay £2k+ for any LCD tech this late in the day no way it it worth it.
Click to expand...
Same, give me a proper OLED monitor for under a 1000 pounds please.

Also my RTX 3080 see still isn't really powerful enough for 4K particularly with raytracing, I'd very much prefer 1440P with a high refresh rate and great HDR.
 
None so just pay £2-3K for a tech that has and always will be crap compared to nearly 90-100 year old CRT never mind Plasma or do what I have and find a fill gap that is suffice (but not perfect) till something better comes along and try and enjoy it not look for issues.

This is the reason why I got rid of the Odyssey G7 and now have a LG GN600 for half the price with no real issues but it is a basic monitor at end of the day.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately this monitor is no good for fast paced or multiplayer gaming due to horrible motion blur and pixel response

the active cooling fan in the back is also very noisy
 
I really don’t think I can trust that review. The suggestion that the optimal response time mode is “off” is silly, and no wonder that leads to motion blur. Other early reviews have stated that opposite that the “extreme” mode is even usable. It’s leading a lot of people to assume this is DOA, but I would be amazed if that were true and NVIDIA had let this out of the door. Knowing their stringent testing and thorough involvement in the development

I will have one with me within a week or so and will carry out some detailed response time testing to clarify. But I can’t trust that review right now
 
I need to stop thinking of upgrading from my PG35VQ to this monitor, Hoping someone does a review comparing this to the PG35VQ as that would really be the closet monitor to it
Not even sure if i could class this as an upgrade or just a side grade or even a down grade with it being a 16:9 ratio monitor :confused:

Am not even sure if i want to go back to a 16:9 monitor after using 34" & 35" UW monitors for 5 years,
I feel it be the same as changing my TV back to an old 4:3 screen :cry:
 
Last edited:
Participant said:
So the price is high because the demand is low? Guess I'd better get back to economics class!
Click to expand...

I think he means TV's are bought in higher bulk because they know they are going to sell. Monitors on the other hand are bought in less numbers so the price can be high sometimes especially high price items like £2000 monitors.
eg a certain store might buy 10,000 LG 48" OLED's for all their stores which gives them big reduction on cost price but they only might buy 1000 PC 4k monitors which doesnt give them a big discount on cost price. TV's far outsell monitors which are probably a tiny amount in sales too. This is how low demand can keep prices high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom