• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Asus ROG Swift PG278Q vs Acer XB280HK: Help meh. Can't decide.

Rakewell

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2005
2,418
1
76
First off, please be gentle: I’ve been outta the loop for a long time, and just built a new rig recently. I think I did well, but I’m stumped on a monitor choice – and this forum has never let me down. I feel like I’ve really done my due diligence here – I’ve researched, read reviews, but I don’t know which way to go.

ROG Swift:

Pluses:

1.) Reviews for the Asus ROG have been phenomenal – and, judging by the fact that they’re constantly OOS, that shows testament to its quality.

2.) Many reviewers and users have mentioned that the ASUS ROG is the current gaming “sweet spot”, with respect to refresh rate & resolution, and G-Sync.

3.) 144 refresh rate

Minuses:

???

ACER:

Pluses:

1.) 4K and GSYNC

2.) Bigger monitor

3.) AVAILABLE

Minuses

1.) Lower refresh rate than Asus

2.) Needs beefier machine. While I believe I currently have this, I’ve noticed that SLI profiles haven’t been readily available lately, and I know that a setup of this nature would need both cards to run the resolution.

3.) How future-proof will this monitor be with my setup, with new games/engines coming out in the next 2-3 years?

Honestly, I’ve been ready to pull the trigger on the ROG, but it’s been out of stock, everywhere, and I’m growing impatient. On the other hand, the Acer is now available.

I haven’t bought a new monitor in 4-5 years (this is what I currently have.)

Here are my specs:

Intel 4790K 4.0GHz @ 4.4 Air
16 GB Ram
EVO 840 1tb
2x Ref Gigabyte 980s in SLI

Here are the games I’m currently playing:

Crysis 3
Shadow of Mordor
Borderlands Pre-Sequel
Far Cry 3
Metro 2033 Redux
Batman Arkham Origins

Gonna play:
Batman Arkham Knight
Far Cry 4

What the hell do I do? Wait until the ROG is in stock? Or buy the Acer?

Thanks again, everyone-

Rakewell
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
4k is great. It's a huge increase in visual real estate.

There are a few things to watch for, some things may not scale but I've learned to use 100% scaling (no increase) and when I did have 125-150% scaling I found the stuff that I use was fine.

You can still play at 1600p or 1440p and it's like having an incredibly detailed smaller screen since it uses the native resolution but has black around the edges.

Personally I think everything under 4k is pointless and at this point (almost 2015) it's either the current 4k displays or wait until better 4k displays (IPS/120Hz etc.) are available. The one thing about 4k is that the prices are coming down so it may be worth putting off for a while.

When you keep a screen for several years it's worth going all in imo.
 

Rakewell

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2005
2,418
1
76
4k is great. It's a huge increase in visual real estate.

There are a few things to watch for, some things may not scale but I've learned to use 100% scaling (no increase) and when I did have 125-150% scaling I found the stuff that I use was fine.

You can still play at 1600p or 1440p and it's like having an incredibly detailed smaller screen since it uses the native resolution but has black around the edges.

Personally I think everything under 4k is pointless and at this point (almost 2015) it's either the current 4k displays or wait until better 4k displays (IPS/120Hz etc.) are available. The one thing about 4k is that the prices are coming down so it may be worth putting off for a while.

When you keep a screen for several years it's worth going all in imo.
Hey man thanks for the response.

With my setup and gaming repertory am I gonna like the higher refresh rates though over the resolution?

I still don't really get the difference between the higher ref rates vs higher res on 4k.
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
Refresh rate matters in e.g. FPS games the most. If you tend to play them the most and if you can instantly tell when your FPS drop below 60 then you might be able to use the higher refresh rate. I had a 120 Hz display once and maintaining 120 Hz is very hard. The current high end can't even maintain 60 in the more demanding games at 1080p.

Personally I went the 4k route since I've had 120 Hz and this is a much more apparent upgrade then I felt on my 120Hz. Unless you are a very sensitive twitch shooter high fps won't be a huge benefit. Of course I'd take 120/144 Hz async 4k if it were available. :)

From your game selection none of them are particularly demanding as far as how quick you need to turn etc...

Everyone has an opinion here and both have tradeoffs so it's hard to say what you would be better of getting. Ideally you should try them both and see for yourself.
 

Rakewell

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2005
2,418
1
76
Refresh rate matters in e.g. FPS games the most. If you tend to play them the most and if you can instantly tell when your FPS drop below 60 then you might be able to use the higher refresh rate. I had a 120 Hz display once and maintaining 120 Hz is very hard. The current high end can't even maintain 60 in the more demanding games at 1080p.

Personally I went the 4k route since I've had 120 Hz and this is a much more apparent upgrade then I felt on my 120Hz. Unless you are a very sensitive twitch shooter high fps won't be a huge benefit. Of course I'd take 120/144 Hz async 4k if it were available. :)

From your game selection none of them are particularly demanding as far as how quick you need to turn etc...

Everyone has an opinion here and both have tradeoffs so it's hard to say what you would be better of getting. Ideally you should try them both and see for yourself.
You make a compelling argument - and while I *twitch*, I don't do so when gaming. :awe:

Would say the quote from Linus' review of the XB280HK to be accurate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfrQ6UAEmU

“If you’re a ‘sightseer’, and most of your gaming is done in third person or casually competitive scenarios where lighting fast response times are not critical, the Acer XB280HK gets the nod. If you’re looking for the best gaming monitor on the planet for competitive gaming, the ROG Swift gets my vote”.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
I have the Swift, and a GTX 780ti. It's pretty neat that you never notice slowdowns (now that I really did anyway) but what I really notice coming from a 60hz monitor is how clear things are in FPS games while you're turning\spinner. And that's just in g-sync mode. I haven't even tried the ultra low motion blur mode.

I came from a 28" 1080p monitor, so I wish the swift were slightly larger, but I have no real complaints. Getting ahold of one was a bear though.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
My understanding of g-sync is that it basically allows you to play more smoothly even at high settings or with lower end hardware. You don't get tearing from your hardware being too fast, and you don't get choppiness from your hardware being too slow.
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
I think the Swift is better. A smaller resolution gives you more freedom with the settings and with 144Hz there is a lot of room to get pass the Hz limit and the switch to V-Sync like behaviour.
 

Rakewell

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2005
2,418
1
76
The more I read reviews, the more I may not bite on the Acer.

Lot of these reviewers have 980 SLI configs, but mentioned having to scale back their game settings at 4K res to reach better framerates.

Am I cray-cray?
 

Eric1987

Senior member
Mar 22, 2012
748
22
76
Yeah I would definitely get the 4k monitor without a doubt. My 290x plays most games at 30 FPS+
 

yhlee

Senior member
Jun 15, 2000
342
0
0
In addition to everything else here, one thing to consider is the amount of real estate you have for your resolution. For example, I went from using two Dell u2412m (IPS 24" 1920x1200, pixel pitch 0.27mm) to using one of those and a rog swift (27" 2560x1440, pix pitch 0.233mm). When I drag anything from one screen to the next (like a browser window), everything on the rog swift is smaller. My main concern with the acer is that everything will be really really small. I have pretty good eyes, but if the text were much smaller at native resolution on the swift, I'm not sure I'd like it. I have the surface pro 2 which is (10.6", 1920x1080, .122mm) and for non-optimized programs it's a bit of a strain to use after a few hours.

On another thread, someone recommended the benq bl3200pt, which I was planning on getting but then my local frys happened to get a new stock of the swift while I was there so I bought one :)
 
Last edited:

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
you're playing lots of shooters/action oriented games = the Swift hands down


Personally I think everything under 4k is pointless and at this point (almost 2015) it's either the current 4k displays or wait until better 4k displays (IPS/120Hz etc.) are available.
Personally I think everything stuck at 60Hz is pointless and at this point (almost 2015) it's either the current 120+Hz displays or wait until better 120+Hz displays (4K/IPS/OLED, etc.) are available.

Refresh rate matters in e.g. FPS games the most. If you tend to play them the most and if you can instantly tell when your FPS drop below 60 then you might be able to use the higher refresh rate. I had a 120 Hz display once and maintaining 120 Hz is very hard. The current high end can't even maintain 60 in the more demanding games at 1080p.
that's why we turn settings down, motion fidelity >>> detail fidelity when you're on the hunt. All the extra IQ nonsense can also be a detriment or even an eyesore (artificial motion blur / overdone depth of field / excessive bloom, etc.)


Opinions on the here and now aside, I would put money down that a ROG Swift will maintain a higher resell value in the future when we have DP1.3 and 120+Hz 4K displays. The Acer will very much be obsolete being stuck at 60Hz, whereas there will always be an enthusiast looking for speed over pixels. Just have to look at all the 120+Hz 1080p displays out there right now going for at least twice as much as the average 1080p60Hz display. 4K60 will be commonplace, 120+Hz is going to remain a niche for a while.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
I don't see the point of 4k yet unless you are doing photoshop or something that actually needs screen real-estate. Hardware isn't up to snuff yet, not to mention lack of GUI compatibility. If you are a gamer you'd be nuts not to get the ROG Swift IMO.
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
Well, based on what I've been seeing in 4k, I would rather play 4k with low/medium than e.g. 1080p with ultra. 1200p doesn't look good anymore and I've been playing bf4 for a while after 4k and just can't get over how pixelated and 2007 it looks.

I agree with the essence of your post and motion is critical IF that's your focus. That's the thing, beauty vs. function and everyone has an opinion.

Have you even tried 4k?
 

linster

Senior member
Aug 20, 2000
925
0
76
Would say the quote from Linus' review of the XB280HK to be accurate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfrQ6UAEmU

“If you’re a ‘sightseer’, and most of your gaming is done in third person or casually competitive scenarios where lighting fast response times are not critical, the Acer XB280HK gets the nod. If you’re looking for the best gaming monitor on the planet for competitive gaming, the ROG Swift gets my vote”.
I think he summed it up well.
 

Rakewell

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2005
2,418
1
76
Well, based on what I've been seeing in 4k, I would rather play 4k with low/medium than e.g. 1080p with ultra. 1200p doesn't look good anymore and I've been playing bf4 for a while after 4k and just can't get over how pixelated and 2007 it looks.

I agree with the essence of your post and motion is critical IF that's your focus. That's the thing, beauty vs. function and everyone has an opinion.

Have you even tried 4k?
Ugh, that's the thing wand3r3r, I've seen neither any 4K nor the ROG Swift.

So everything I'm reading is subjective.

This is what I know:

-Yes, I do like to play fast paced games.
-No, I don't compete. I don't stand a chance out there.
-I'm 41, and my eyes are startin' to wig out on me. Which means that tiny print will madden me.
-But... I love texture, and beauty.
-And like everyone else, I loathe stuttering.

Question: Wouldn't it be fair to say that games 1-2 years from now (2015-16) will begin to choke any current GPU Setup (Like mine at 980 SLI) forcing settings to be lowered, taking away from quality?
 

Rakewell

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2005
2,418
1
76
I don't see the point of 4k yet unless you are doing photoshop or something that actually needs screen real-estate. Hardware isn't up to snuff yet, not to mention lack of GUI compatibility. If you are a gamer you'd be nuts not to get the ROG Swift IMO.
If you can find it, that is :eek:
 

njdevilsfan87

Platinum Member
Apr 19, 2007
2,161
147
106
This is what I know:

-Yes, I do like to play fast paced games.
-No, I don't compete. I don't stand a chance out there.
-I'm 41, and my eyes are startin' to wig out on me. Which means that tiny print will madden me.
-But... I love texture, and beauty.
-And like everyone else, I loathe stuttering.
1) ROG for fast paced games
2) 4K for non-competitive games
3) Doesn't matter on either as you can increase font-sizes on everything
4) 4K for beauty
5) ROG for 90+ fps and no stuttering

Sorry but need more bullets because right now it's tied! Sorry to be not helpful at all.

I feel like it will always come down to high refresh rate vs high resolution. When 4K is common place, people will be asking the same question "4K at 120-144Hz or 8K at 30-60Hz?" :p It's really not a panel quality thing, but just what GPUs are capable of pushing. You can't have both due to GPU limitation. Same scenario here. 120-144Hz at 1440P is just as demanding as 60Hz at 4K.

And even if you could have both right now (say 4K at 120-144Hz), by the time any GPUs can push that, there will be fairly better displays out.
 
Last edited:

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,846
1,232
136
ROG Swift:

Minuses:

???
Vendor lock-in. The features (G-Sync, ULMB) only work with NV GPU.

Still I would prefer it over low refresh rate 4K. Refresh rate is especially important in FPS games and even more n multi-player.
 

Pia

Golden Member
Feb 28, 2008
1,563
0
0
IMO, the ROG Swift is currently the only worthwhile buy if you want G-Sync. The Acer would have to be significantly cheaper to be worth considering. It's physically too small to take proper advantage of 4K resolution on desktop, especially considering Windows' scaling issues. For games the 4K res is largely a liability as well, draining an absurd amount of GPU power for incremental benefit.

Here's hoping some non-TN G-Sync displays come soon, so we'd have a real alternative. 21:9 1440p IPS or VA G-Sync would be an insta-buy for me.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Ugh, that's the thing wand3r3r, I've seen neither any 4K nor the ROG Swift.

So everything I'm reading is subjective.

This is what I know:

-Yes, I do like to play fast paced games.
-No, I don't compete. I don't stand a chance out there.
-I'm 41, and my eyes are startin' to wig out on me. Which means that tiny print will madden me.
-But... I love texture, and beauty.
-And like everyone else, I loathe stuttering.

Question: Wouldn't it be fair to say that games 1-2 years from now (2015-16) will begin to choke any current GPU Setup (Like mine at 980 SLI) forcing settings to be lowered, taking away from quality?
Based on this, I'd say Asus ROG.

If your eye sight isn't great, the higher resolution will be less impressive and make things harder due to text size.

Higher FPS has a tendency to reduce stuttering, and in general, makes all games feel better. I really don't agree that it's a fast paced FPS thing. To me, it is a fluidity thing. All games feel better with higher FPS. Of course I get different degrees of simulator sickness (nausea) the lower my FPS goes below 80.
 

linster

Senior member
Aug 20, 2000
925
0
76
I've never understood the resistance toward higher ppi on desktop displays. It seems to go beyond just windows scaling and lack of GPU power to drive it (both valid points). The ROG Swfit is at 109 ppi and the XB280HK is at 157 ppi. Not exactly a huge increase but cries of 4k at such a low display size, 28 inches, can be heard everywhere. Meanwhile, cell phone and tablet ppi has increased at much higher rates and have been pretty much universally embraced. Cell phones are in the 500s ppi scale now with the Galaxy Note 4 at 515 ppi. I remember going from an iPad 1 at 132 ppi to an iPad 3 at 264 ppi was a huge noticeable difference for me and a much higher ppi increase than what we're talking about here. I for one thinks it's great that the ppi increase is coming to desktops. If they iron out scaling and GPU power issues, give me the higher ppi, no matter how small the screen is, as long as i can notice a difference.

Going back to the topic, at hand, the choice really comes down to if you want/need to game at high fps or if lower fps is okay for your needs. To even approach a consistent frame rate close to the ROG Swift's 144 Hz refresh, you'll need SLI anyway. So to fully take advantage of both displays, GTX 980/970 SLI is a given. Remember G-Sync really smooths out motion, especially at lower fps/refresh where tearing and stutters are more noticeable. nVidia's own pendulum demo only has settings of 40, 50, and 60 fps, probably because this is where the difference is really noticeable. So don't discount G-sync at lower fps, which is where you'll be at with the xb280hk. In fact, it's a huge plus. I for one, is leaning toward the xb280hk. But I don't play fps games.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
I've never understood the resistance toward higher ppi on desktop displays. It seems to go beyond just windows scaling and lack of GPU power to drive it (both valid points). The ROG Swfit is at 109 ppi and the XB280HK is at 157 ppi. Not exactly a huge increase but cries of 4k at such a low display size, 28 inches, can be heard everywhere. Meanwhile, cell phone and tablet ppi has increased at much higher rates and have been pretty much universally embraced. Cell phones are in the 500s ppi scale now with the Galaxy Note 4 at 515 ppi. I remember going from an iPad 1 at 132 ppi to an iPad 3 at 264 ppi was a huge noticeable difference for me and a much higher ppi increase than what we're talking about here. I for one thinks it's great that the ppi increase is coming to desktops. If they iron out scaling and GPU power issues, give me the higher ppi, no matter how small the screen is, as long as i can notice a difference.
You can blame part of the problem on developers. Everything I've ever seen on a phone scales to your screen size perfectly. In Windows, many dev's do not consider different PPI (almost never considered in games). While most high end desktop apps scale, many custom and smaller named apps don't. This can make things very problematic for the user if they can barely read what is on the screen. In games, the UI is almost never scaled, making things difficult.

This is one of the big problems with every day uses, and in games you are hit with the added problem of needing more power to run games. Though this part could be a little over blown, as you can lower settings. But no matter how low the settings are set, I will never have 100+hz at 4k, which I pretty much require due to me need for smoothness (causes nausea if not).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY