Associate
That's exactly what I'm after. Already have a 780ti. Just thinking ahead :/
The Asus ROG SWIFT PG278Q – a 27” 1400p 144Hz Monitor with G-SYNC
- Thread starter whyscotty
- Start date
That's exactly what I'm after. Already have a 780ti. Just thinking ahead :/
Soldato
Then the SWIFT is for you my friend.
Associate
Will wait a bit. Not paying the premium.
You have a 780Ti. You are a Premium lol
Caporegime
Noticed a lot of people going for this are only running single cards, whats the point going 120-144hz monitor if you're running sub 60fps on maxed out modern titles at 1440p? Yes gsync will help but the real benefit of high hz is when it coincides with high fps.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 2,647
Asus have managed to get us a lot more stock, so no need to for two separate SKU's now, but stock will still be very tight so the early adopter price is still a bit higher than usual.
Once stock is free flowing we should be able to do deals on them around the £659.99 Inc. VAT mark.
That is a bit better - think it will still need an additional 10% off to get me hitting that buy button though!
Soldato
Most people dont run max settings on next gen titles. You don't need Ultra @ 2560x1440.
Here's my benchmark from BF4:
windows is better @ 120hz and eventually we will get better GPUS so 120fps @ 1440p will be viable....
Caporegime
Erm what? Just because you play BF4 at low settings for competitiveness doesn't mean everyone else does.
What's the point getting a decent monitor and making the image look terrible through low settings or no AA
Same can be said for 4k eventually...
Associate
What's the point getting a decent monitor and making the image look terrible through low settings or no AA
Don't really need a lot of AA for 1440p, 2xmsaa at most maybe. Plus Asus have said themselves that 120hz 4k is long way off.
Caporegime
I've heard this is nonsense, I'm sure Gregster even said with 4k he uses 2xAA still.
Associate
I only use 4x at 1080p which is fine, Im sure 2x will be enough and still maintain 90+ frames.
Erm what? Just because you play BF4 at low settings for competitiveness doesn't mean everyone else does.
What's the point getting a decent monitor and making the image look terrible through low settings or no AA
Same can be said for 4k eventually...
It's true though, people don't run max settings on next gen games because by definition any games out are current generation, and you can't run games that aren't actually out.
It depends on the individual, and the game. Some games are fine at 2AA at 2560x1440, some games look rough with 2AA.
Even UHD (3840x2160 isn't 4K) at 28" isn't particularly high resolution, so AA will be required depending on the game and how susceptible people are to jagged edges.
Now personally, I am actually happy with the pixel size on my 27" 2560x1440 monitors, obviously more sharpness is better, however a larger display at the same pixel pitch is preferable, so for my next upgrade, I will actually be looking at 3x 40" UHD TVs, as they have a pixel pitch slightly smaller than 27" 2560x1440 displays. I can just sit a bit further back.
Caporegime
Haha good point
On your 2nd post that's true I've found some games aliasing isn't a problem on others it is really rough.
12k is the rez required to irradicate aliasing completely without any form of AA apparently iirc.
Caporegime
I meant 12k on current sized monitors.... I thought that was quite obvious.
Anyways enjoy your preorder I'll probably be joining you shortly after unless something similar is announced.
Anyways enjoy your preorder I'll probably be joining you shortly after unless something similar is announced.
Associate
It's not about resolution, it's about pixel density. 1080p on a phone doesn't need 8x AA to look smooth
Regardless, preordered
Exactly. literally cannot wait until it ships!
The problem here is that "current size is quite vague as there's quite a large difference in the size of monitors. 12K, actual 12K because with how people class 3840x2160 as 4K, "12K" would end up being about 500 pixels short of 12,000 horizontal.
But anyway, That sort of resolution on a 22" monitor would be noticeably sharper than the same resolution on a 30-32" monitor.
11520X6480 @ 22" is 600 DPI which is just over the limit we need to eliminate pixel visibility completely. Anything below that isn't noticeable in how you would expect, but you'd still notice artefacts in some form, whereas 600DPI would be like looking through a window, rather than at a monitor.
At 32", 11520x6840 is about 400DPI (just over) and there would be a noticeable difference side-by-side in sharpness compared to a 22" of the same resolution. The 32" wouldn't look bad by any means at all, but it would certainly look softer/less sharp, and the illusion of looking through a window wouldn't be as convincing.
I know Apple have made claims that 300 DPI is the density required for it to be "retina" (which is just a marketing term) However 300 DPI is just the density required for the black gaps between pixels to no longer be noticeable at the distance you would be expected to use your phone at. The displays on their phones at 300 DPI look noticeably soft when compared to 440 and 540 DPI screens, and the same for 440 compared to 540. Of course it very much becomes a massive case of diminishing returns when you're hitting densities of 540, but it's all about the end goal, and I am very much looking forward to the day where your typical display looks no different than looking through a window.
Last edited: