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

Baddass · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:00

Vega said:
Great review as always from TFTCentral.

A few questions I'd like to ask:

1. You mention the AR film as "moderate". Would you consider the matte-film on par with Asus's other offerings such as on the very popular VG248QE G-Sync compatible screen? That AR film I found was quite annoying.

not actually seen the VG248HE, but the coating was very similar to other TN Film panels i've seen, including the BenQ XL2720Z most recently. I'd call it "normal TN Film coating" overall.

2. That input lag number provided, can you say what mode that was in? Was that in default non G-Sync 144 Hz? The reason I ask as the different modes can vary input lag number as we saw on the Eizo FG2421. If you still have the sceen, would it be possible to get an input lag number on 144Hz G-Sync and on 100% brightness/pulse width duration ULMB mode?.

that input lag number was just in normal mode, but remained consistent at 60Hz - 144Hz. damn, i forgot to check it with ULMB enabled and it's all boxed up now! although thinking about it, because it is measured with a CRT in clone mode, i dont think you can actually enable G-sync in the graphics card as the second monitor doesnt support it. not sure if i could have enabled ULMB on the Asus from the menu or not. annoyed i forgot about that!

Random Guy Esq. · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:01

Made a small donation too. Indepth reviews like this are all too rare on tech sites. A lot of the big name reviewers only give a token effort towards monitor reviews, but this is on another level. Kudos Badass - your hard work is appreciated!

Baddass · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:03

1kiwi said:
Can anyone explain why ULMB suffers from brightness problems?

it's only because the strobing means the backlight is actually only turned on for a very short amount of time. if you look in the review, at the maximum ULMB setting the backlight is only turned on for 1.875ms, and then off for about 6.458. that means the brightness of the display takes a big hit. you could theoretically increase the brightness when ULMB was on by either

1) increasing the maximum brightness capability of the panel./backlight. bearing in mind it already reaches over the sepcified 350 cd/m2 it's pretty bright by current standards! maybe using a backlight rated up to 500 or something would allow for a brighter image with ULMB on.

2) increasing the "on" portion of the strobe. but that in turn reduces the benefits of the blur reduction. the longer the "off" period, generally the more blur is removed.

I would say though that at default ULMB the resulting 123 cd/m2 is perfectly fine for most users. and in fact about right for "recommended" brightness in normal lighting conditions for an LCD screen.

Baddass · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:04

Random Guy Esq. said:
Made a small donation too. Indepth reviews like this are all too rare on tech sites. A lot of the big name reviewers only give a token effort towards monitor reviews, but this is on another level. Kudos Badass - your hard work is appreciated!

cheers, we aim to please

one day i will have to start cutting the review content bacl. i swear every review gets bigger and bigger with more and more stuff tested!

Rofflay · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:07

120 brightness is SRGB spec is it not? I would take 120cmd IF they gave a glossy coating because this is a gaming monitor not an office monitor. If you have to give feedback to Asus point them to 120hz.net and thier post on Asus coatings and how they think thier customer base does not care.

Personally it is borderline at 120 for me, But without Gloss with the lights out forget it. My IPS is bad enough it is like someone put the picture through a washing machine. The lights on with the grainy AG is actually better looking even with the black crush that happens. But i cannot imagine gaming under 120cmd in the day with no gloss at all.

Baddass · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:21

you can still use the screen at brighter of course, just not with the ULMB mode thats all. you can still enjoy 2560 x 1440 goodness at 144Hz, with very fast response times and no lag

Vega · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:23

Baddass said:
I'd call it "normal TN Film coating" overall.

that input lag number was just in normal mode, but remained consistent at 60Hz - 144Hz. damn, i forgot to check it with ULMB enabled and it's all boxed up now! although thinking about it, because it is measured with a CRT in clone mode, i dont think you can actually enable G-sync in the graphics card as the second monitor doesnt support it. not sure if i could have enabled ULMB on the Asus from the menu or not. annoyed i forgot about that!

Ya, I don't like "normal TN coatings" lol.

I know input lag numbers would have been harder in G-Sync mode, but should have been the same as when you did the input lag tests on the FG2421 when the Swift is in ULMB mode since the refresh rate is constant. I was just curious to know what the ULMB input lag would be going through all those extra circuits.

Rofflay said:
Personally it is borderline at 120 for me

And Badass is right, typically for reading and photo work 120 cd/m2 is fine in a light controlled room. But for gaming, in which a lot of games are dark and you have to pick out enemies etc in hidden areas etc in a room with any sort of light in it won't be optimal. Of course the contrast settings can also help out with that if set properly.

Just a little disappointed the highest brightness ULMB is generally the only usable mode unless you are in a pitch black room, and that the epic motion clarity of those low pulse duration settings are pretty much unusable. I guess LED's that can pulse really bright for short duration's either don't exist or are too expensive still for these consumer displays.

Although, I routinely see high-def TV's that have cd/m2 luminescence levels in the 500-1000 range, so not sure.

Maybe there is some way to replace the Swift's stock edge lit LED strip with "omega powered" ones and then you could get .25ms motion clarity at actual view able light levels. Now that would be epic!

I'm just amazed at how well the Eizo does brightness and picture quality in Turbo240 mode. If they just scaled up the FG2421 to 2560x1440 27", it would wreck the Swift.

stephenb · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:26

Thanks for the comprehensive review. If I were in the market for a new gaming monitor this would definitely be at the top of the list.

Ayahuasca · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:29

Surprised so many are focusing on the ULMB mode, surely if you aren't going to be using GSYNC just wait for a 1440p 120/144hz monitor?

Vega · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:33

For high end gaming enthusiasts and competitive gamers, ULMB is far more useful than G-Sync. G-Sync's real value is people with slower machines or who don't care about motion clarity and want to always jack graphics to their max and stay in the 30-80 variable FPS range. Solid 120+ FPS of ULMB is where it's at. The usefulness of G-Sync drops of dramatically the higher your FPS goes.

Ayahuasca · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:45

I understand the benefits ULMB offers but if you aren't going to be using GSYNC at all I think you're definitely overpaying.

Lets be honest here how many people can keep 120 fps minimums at 1440p as well.

If you were to use it in both modes say, ULMB for competitive gaming and GSYNC for those singleplayer titles like Metro that tank your fps then I could fully understand.

Vega · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:52

ULMB is tied to G-Sync, so not really overpaying on anything. This is the only 2560x1440 strobing backlight monitor in the world.

1kiwi · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:56

Ayahuasca said:
Surprised so many are focusing on the ULMB mode, surely if you aren't going to be using GSYNC just wait for a 1440p 120/144hz monitor?

I think the point Baddass was trying to make is that those that can afford this monitor who plan on using it for hardcore gaming probably have highend systems. Gsync really shines when your getting allot of variability in your framerate whereas ULMB may provide a better experience for those that can maintain close to or constant frames.

EDIT: Baddass, while we are on that subject can you comment on the BF4 performance with that 780?

sas.wlv · 17 Jul 2014 at 16:57

Ayahuasca said:
Lets be honest here how many people can keep 120 fps minimums at 1440p as well.

If you were to use it in both modes say, ULMB for competitive gaming and GSYNC for those singleplayer titles like Metro that tank your fps then I could fully understand.

Yup, for me I can quite happily get 120 fps (and waaaaay more if I didn't cap it) in UT where I play competitively or, say, QL for others. But for newer games where I want settings nice and high I'm hoping G-Sync is as good as its been claimed.

28th July can't come soon enough

Vega · 17 Jul 2014 at 17:43

I finally found a way to enjoy my Swift's epic .25ms strobe motion clarity:

James J · 17 Jul 2014 at 17:45

I use gsync for everything and barely touch ULMB on my modded asus 24 inch monitor. With ULMB you get marginally less motion blur (the panel is already extremely fast and has very little motion blur to start with) but trade off all the advantages of completely tear free gaming, regardless of FPS or even the game type.

1kiwi · 17 Jul 2014 at 17:55

James J said:
I use gsync for everything and barely touch ULMB on my modded asus 24 inch monitor. With ULMB you get marginally less motion blur (the panel is already extremely fast and has very little motion blur to start with) but trade off all the advantages of completely tear free gaming, regardless of FPS or even the game type.

What games do you play? Do you find g-sync useful when hitting max frames?

Vega · 17 Jul 2014 at 18:03

James J said:
With ULMB you get marginally less motion blur (the panel is already extremely fast and has very little motion blur to start with)

Actually, technically 10% LB has almost 500% less motion blur than G-Sync 144 Hz...

InSync · 17 Jul 2014 at 18:18

James J said:
I use gsync for everything and barely touch ULMB on my modded asus 24 inch monitor. With ULMB you get marginally less motion blur (the panel is already extremely fast and has very little motion blur to start with) but trade off all the advantages of completely tear free gaming, regardless of FPS or even the game type.

Nice to hear as I wont be bother with the ULMB stuff myself, all I care about is g-sync and of course have an nice superfast screen as possible without ULMB would be optimal, so I think this one will do more then plenty for me

As the review stated, this in one superfast monitor with great motion clarity and to have g-sync with that will truly be a game changer for me

InSync · 17 Jul 2014 at 18:24

Baddass said:
20% brightness was used to achieve a luminance of around 120 cd/m2 after profiling, so anything around that mark out of the box should deliver a comfortable luminance of the screen. whites remained white, and the colour temperature / white point was reliable at 6500k even out of the box

Alright, really nice to hear

Thanks a lot for the answer Baddass, much appreciated!