The Asus ROG SWIFT PG278Q – a 27” 1400p 144Hz Monitor with G-SYNC
- Thread starter whyscotty
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 18
The question is....1, 2 or 3?
Just got my new rig up and running, and it's pretty epic. Just need the final few pieces of the jigsaw.
Just got my new rig up and running, and it's pretty epic. Just need the final few pieces of the jigsaw.
I read elsewhere that 1440p increases contrast ratio and colour vibrtook due to higher resolution, and therefore pixel density, is there any truth in this?
So if you took the same panel but one at 1080 and one 1440 would 1440 actually have better characteristics as mentioned above?
So if you took the same panel but one at 1080 and one 1440 would 1440 actually have better characteristics as mentioned above?
Soldato
No. Resolution has no affect on perceived contrast or colour vibrancy when comparing 1080p and 1440p. Differences in colour gamut and panel type are a different matter and it just so happens that current 1440p models tend to use backlights with a slightly broader colour gamut than any 1080p model. I'm not sure if the SWIFT will use such a backlight, however.
Soldato
By using different phosphors and in extreme cases (not what I'm talking about here) different diodes (see this article). It is the backlight or light source that dictates the colour gamut of a monitor, nothing else.
There's no reason why they'd disseminate any information before CeBit.
CeBit starts on Monday ... if they don't announce pricing and final availability there, you can expect it to be delayed past its April window.
Not sure if this has already been posted:
Sauce: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-2034634/news-asus-rog-pg278q.html
Sauce: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-2034634/news-asus-rog-pg278q.html
Soldato
I posted about this back in Janaury and you saw that post, although I don't blame you for not remembering - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=25747990&postcount=150. It's based on information I confirmed on my website a while back. Not sure who that 'pretender' is on Tomshardware saying that he got confirmation on all of this from JJ. He didn't, he ripped it straight off my website without attribution.
Soldato
I knew I'd seen some of the information before.
I actually thought the no LED bit was new info, but nope, its already in your post
I think it might have been the least memorable fact of the lot.
Led to show its powered when off (so you know its not dead).
No LED when on as you have a picture on screen.
Not sure why TV's etc. have had to shine a bright LED in our faces for decades.
My Last LG you could set it to turn off after a few sec's of powering on, a good start at least.
My WD Live box had a really bright white LED, you can turn it off but then it will not flash while indexing or building the Media Library to let you know its working on it.
No LED when on as you have a picture on screen.
Not sure why TV's etc. have had to shine a bright LED in our faces for decades.
My Last LG you could set it to turn off after a few sec's of powering on, a good start at least.
My WD Live box had a really bright white LED, you can turn it off but then it will not flash while indexing or building the Media Library to let you know its working on it.
Soldato
I really like the LEDs seen on modern Philips monitors myself. A tiny white pinhead LED. Does the job but doesn't annoy you. 
Soldato
It helps to confirm that the monitor is receiving power even if the screen isn't displaying an image. This could be due to a signal issue or issue with the GPU. Although with many monitors that would put them into a low power state which would have its own LED symbology. I guess having a power indicator is just what users have come to expect from electronic devices, even though its use is limited on a screen when it's on as you say.
Associate
The blue LED on my DGM is so bright and annoying I put some black insulating tape over it