The Asus ROG SWIFT PG278Q – a 27” 1400p 144Hz Monitor with G-SYNC

[Fruitbooter]

The annoying thing about 4k is although the panels are affordable I think a lot more people including myself would prefer the 1440p screen due to simply not having the hardware to push 4k. Weather or not its worth investing one now for when better GPUs come out I don't know, think I'll stick to 1440p atm..

 

[BaDBoY_uK]

The annoying thing about 4k is although the panels are affordable I think a lot more people including myself would prefer the 1440p screen due to simply not having the hardware to push 4k. Weather or not its worth investing one now for when better GPUs come out I don't know, think I'll stick to 1440p atm..

Weather? It's sunny here mate

Secondly

1440p+144Hz >>>>>> 4k+60Hz for gaming

 

[llamadal]

Weather? It's sunny here mate

Secondly

1440p+144Hz >>>>>> 4k+60Hz for gaming

That's not strictly true - it's all subjective on what the individual prefers.

Input lag? some people notice it more than others and lets be honest here, unless you are talking serious professional gaming where you are competing for first place, then you could get by on a standard setup.

 

[Twirlywoos]

The annoying thing about 4k is although the panels are affordable I think a lot more people including myself would prefer the 1440p screen due to simply not having the hardware to push 4k. Weather or not its worth investing one now for when better GPUs come out I don't know, think I'll stick to 1440p atm..

What pushes hardware more 4k@60Hz or 1440p@144hz?

 

[Jeps]

What pushes hardware more 4k@60Hz or 1440p@144hz?

3840x2160 = ~8.3m pixels for 4K
2560x1440 = ~3.7m pixels

So your pushing over double the pixles on a 60hz 4k screen but you are pushing over double the fps on a 144hz 1440p screen, GPU grunt would have to be similar for both I would think. 4K will use much more vram though and if you get drops to 60fps on the 1440p screen its not as big a deal as drops to 30 or less on the 4k

 

[dowcow]

The way I see it, 27 inch 1080p needs a good bit of AA.
27 inch 1440p doesn't need AA, or very little anyway.

But at 120 or 144hz on a fast moving game, you will hardly notice anyway, unless you are standing still admiring the graphics or taking screen shots.

I see no point in 4k resolution unless you are running over 30 inches on your desktop screen, or if using it in your living room, you are using a projector and getting a screen 80 or 100 inches accross. I don't understand why there is such enthusiasm for it, especially seeing the PC magazines posting screen shots.

Is it some sort of dick measuring contest? Are they just trying to justify tri-sli GTX Titans? Maybe I'm just out of the loop and the big trend in PC gaming at the moment is to play with a joypad whiles't sitting on your couch with the whole family in front of a display that fills an entire wall, rather than the idea I had in my head that we were all huddled over a keyboard in darkened rooms under the stairs, attics and cellars?

I used a 40inch 1080p screen on my desktop for years. It was okay, a bit more resolution would have helped certainly but the immersion was good.

 

[1kiwi]

The way I see it, 27 inch 1080p needs a good bit of AA.
27 inch 1440p doesn't need AA, or very little anyway.

But at 120 or 144hz on a fast moving game, you will hardly notice anyway, unless you are standing still admiring the graphics or taking screen shots.

I see no point in 4k resolution unless you are running over 30 inches on your desktop screen, or if using it in your living room, you are using a projector and getting a screen 80 or 100 inches accross. I don't understand why there is such enthusiasm for it, especially seeing the PC magazines posting screen shots.

Is it some sort of dick measuring contest? Are they just trying to justify tri-sli GTX Titans? Maybe I'm just out of the loop and the big trend in PC gaming at the moment is to play with a joypad whiles't sitting on your couch with the whole family in front of a display that fills an entire wall, rather than the idea I had in my head that we were all huddled over a keyboard in darkened rooms under the stairs, attics and cellars?

I used a 40inch 1080p screen on my desktop for years. It was okay, a bit more resolution would have helped certainly but the immersion was good.

High resolution smartphones, and their popularity, kind of debunks you views.

High PPI is always better - regardless of the screen size.

 

[Sin_Chase]

High resolution smartphones, and their popularity, kind of debunks you views.

High PPI is always better - regardless of the screen size.

So you would take a 1920x1080 4.7" display to game on over a 1920x1080 24" display?

Nope, did not think so

A balance is always best, High PPI alone is not always better.

 

[Sasahara]

High resolution smartphones, and their popularity, kind of debunks you views.

High PPI is always better - regardless of the screen size.

Only if you have the hardware to cope with it.

Even an 8K (7680x4320) 24" monitor would only have a 367.15 PPI compared my Z1 @ 440 PPI.

I can't imaging what specs I'd need to run a screen like that.

There is a level were you want to take performance over higher PPI.

 

[1kiwi]

My comment was in the context of all things being equal. So a 4.7inch smartphone with higher PPI is better than a 4.7inch smartphone with lower PPI. Assuming stuff like performance stays equal which would clearly need to scale with the increased resolution. So when I said "regardless of the screen size" I meant from a 4.7inch to 100inch TV when comparing like for like.

 

[mmacarthur]

Damn I wish this monitor would hurry up and get here!

 

[rpggamesplayer]

Damn I wish this monitor would hurry up and get here!

+1 100%

 

[1kiwi]

Would be good to get more information such as pricing.

 

[Cooper]

Damn I wish this monitor would hurry up and get here!

This is the problem with trade show announcements, the gap between first unveiling and being able to actually buy the damn things is usually months.

 

[MrMoonX]

Damn I wish this monitor would hurry up and get here!

I want it gimme gimme gimme now now now waaaaaahhh

 

[jimbaw]

I'm kind of glad that it got delayed because after all this time, my enthusiasm has died down a bit and I'm not that bothered anymore so i'll just wait until there is more choice and the prices go down.

 

[Fruitbooter]

I just wish we had an official update as they said start of Q2 originally!

 

[Dave777]

One good point of Apple is their new items are normally available a few weeks after announcement.

Come on Asus throw us a bone!

 

[jumbo]

The way I see it, 27 inch 1080p needs a good bit of AA.
27 inch 1440p doesn't need AA, or very little anyway.

But at 120 or 144hz on a fast moving game, you will hardly notice anyway, unless you are standing still admiring the graphics or taking screen shots.

That does make sense with normal monitor sync but some early reviewers of G-Sync said that because there was less motion blur that the jaggies became more obvious (e.g. reading text on the g-sync swinging pendulum demo). In fact some cynics suggested that nvidia was pushing g-sync for that very reason, so that people would decide to spend a bit more for GPUs that prettified the display. It sounds a bit like speculation to me and I'd always go for increased frame rate over AA for multiplayer games anyway.

 

[pgi947]

One good point of Apple is their new items are normally available a few weeks after announcement.

Come on Asus throw us a bone!

This. I know we have an Asus rep on this forum too, where's he at?

The longer this drags out the more inclined I am to wait that little longer to check out the competition.