• 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.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

linster

Senior member
Aug 20, 2000
925
0
76
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).
Yah, but like I said, the resistance seems to go beyond scaling and GPU power.

I don't play FPS due to getting nauseous in every single FPS game I've tried. I wonder if high fps and G-sync will correct this for me. Hmm...
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Yah, but like I said, the resistance seems to go beyond scaling and GPU power.

I don't play FPS due to getting nauseous in every single FPS game I've tried. I wonder if high fps and G-sync will correct this for me. Hmm...
I used to get nausea too, but powered through it because I liked 1st person games. Though I did limit myself to how often I did it. When I purchased a 120hz monitor, and started using higher end GPU's, I found it all went away with high FPS.

The resistance on this board seems to be about: 1) GPU power (though probably over board due to thinking max settings is all that is acceptable), 2) Price, and 3) scaling.

My reason for not going 4k, is 60hz. I need at least 80hz. Although, it may be possible that my nausea could be fixed at lower FPS if using G-sync. When I get g-sync/freesync some day, I'll be able to test that theory out.
 

yhlee

Senior member
Jun 15, 2000
342
0
0
Rakewell, go to this site: http://www.nowinstock.net/computers/monitors/asus/ and pick it up. It looks like it has been going in and out of stock (quickly). Your local best buy and Frys might have it as well. I went to my local Frys to check out 27" WQHD, 27" FHD, and 32" 4K (something I recommend you do as well if it has been a while since you upgraded) to make sure the resolutions were comfortable for me. I'm around your age so I just needed the wife to sign off and picked this up with the gtx 970 :)

you don't "need" SLI. I'm running one 970 and playing league, dota, civ4/5, some fps. It has also been pretty good for work. No eye strain after hours of reading text and colors are pretty solid (side by side with my dell u2412m), my two main concerns "downgrading" from IPS, albeit not the greatest one. Metro2033 (original) still drops to 30 fps in the benchmark test though.. Such an odd game! But it's super smooth even when it drops.
 
Last edited:

Mondozei

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2013
1,043
40
86
ROG Swift. Easily.

The display on the Acer is good, but the Swift's display is just amazing. Better even than many IPS displays. Secondly, getting 144 Hz is just unforgivably good. I got a 1080p 144 Hz display and it is simply impossible to go back. Even things as simple as moving your mouse in everyday use such as on your desktop is so much smoother. Games - is there a need to even go into that? Amazing.

Getting 100+ fps consistently on high settings even on 1080p is far from easy on the most demanding games like Metro: LL. Getting 120-140 fps on 1440p is more or less impossible on ultra settings with a single card today. So you'd need SLI or have some patience. The point is that there is still a lot of legroom left for growth.

And then there's the issue of G-Sync, even though I'd argue that that is more suitable for 4K monitors as it stands, it can still be useful if you play with a single GPU on 1440p at ultra on the newest games(think Witcher 3, Star Citizen, those kinds of games), where you'd likely dip into the 40s or even 30s and where G-sync is golden.

So yeah, Swift. Easily.
 

Eric1987

Senior member
Mar 22, 2012
748
22
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.
My hardware disagrees with you.
 

Rakewell

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2005
2,418
1
76
Rakewell, go to this site: http://www.nowinstock.net/computers/monitors/asus/ and pick it up. It looks like it has been going in and out of stock (quickly). Your local best buy and Frys might have it as well. I went to my local Frys to check out 27" WQHD, 27" FHD, and 32" 4K (something I recommend you do as well if it has been a while since you upgraded) to make sure the resolutions were comfortable for me. I'm around your age so I just needed the wife to sign off and picked this up with the gtx 970 :)

you don't "need" SLI. I'm running one 970 and playing league, dota, civ4/5, some fps. It has also been pretty good for work. No eye strain after hours of reading text and colors are pretty solid (side by side with my dell u2412m), my two main concerns "downgrading" from IPS, albeit not the greatest one. Metro2033 (original) still drops to 30 fps in the benchmark test though.. Such an odd game! But it's super smooth even when it drops.
Yhlee: Thank you for this.

I don't live near a Fry's unfortunately, but that link will help tremendously.

And thank you also for the eye strain report - it's the reason I'm not going with 4K, mos def.

Cheers-

Rakewell
 

dmoney1980

Platinum Member
Jan 17, 2008
2,453
23
81
I'm in the same boat as OP, but I don't get the "if you're a competitive gamer" argument point for getting a ROG over the Acer 4k. Competitive as in you make a living gaming or competitive as in you play BF / other online shooters a few hours a week? I'd like to believe that the majority of the population falls in the latter category, myself included.

I have a Dell u2713hm 1440p monitor. It's an IPS, 1440p, and is benchmarked as having response timings on the lower side of the chart, yet I have no issues playing shooters online, happily at 60 fps with vsync. The same goes for any other game.

I get the appeal of the Swift, and it's a niche product that is heavily marketed towards "competitive" gamers. But I don't see how the average gamer who has the GPU power to play games at 1440p over 90 FPS, or most games @ 4k in the 40-60 fps range would somehow be at a heavy disadvantage because they don't own a ROG monitor.

Also, consider what the majority of other players that play online game on. Chances are, they are rocking 1080p's and actually turn down the graphical detail to get a competitive advantage by reducing environment details.

I'm only making these points so people understand that owning a 4k gysnc monitor at "only" 60hz won't make you the online whooping boy for online shooters all of a sudden. You can still go online and play "competitively" and enjoy the game.

Having said that, I am still intrigued by the swift, but I'm leaning towards 4k since I already own and experienced 1440p. I honestly don't see how 144hz would impress me more than the jump to 4k, but I do wish that I had a local store that had the swift on display so I can see it first hand.

My 3 cents
 
Last edited:

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,846
1,233
136
And then there's the issue of G-Sync, even though I'd argue that that is more suitable for 4K monitors as it stands, it can still be useful if you play with a single GPU on 1440p at ultra on the newest games(think Witcher 3, Star Citizen, those kinds of games), where you'd likely dip into the 40s or even 30s and where G-sync is golden.

So yeah, Swift. Easily.
ULMB and high FPS for old or multiplayer games (reduce gfx settings), G-Sync for new and especially single-player games settings maxed.
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
639
126
Why is everyone acting like the Acer doesn't also have G-Sync???

Both monitors are going to be very stutter free in comparison to non G-Sync monitors, the Swift will be smoother still at above 60 FPS but it is going to be less dramatic than on a non G-Sync monitor. Because the G Sync is going to take away some of the pain of dipping below 60 fps, I wouldn't worry all too much about your GPU power. 2x 980 is going to power 4k enough to let G Sync keep it smooth.

For the same price I just can't see shelling out for the Swift when you can get Gsync AND 4k with the Acer
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
I'm in the same boat as OP, but I don't get the "if you're a competitive gamer" argument point for getting a ROG over the Acer 4k. Competitive as in you make a living gaming or competitive as in you play BF / other online shooters a few hours a week? I'd like to believe that the majority of the population falls in the latter category, myself included.

I have a Dell u2713hm 1440p monitor. It's an IPS, 1440p, and is benchmarked as having response timings on the lower side of the chart, yet I have no issues playing shooters online, happily at 60 fps with vsync. The same goes for any other game.

I get the appeal of the Swift, and it's a niche product that is heavily marketed towards "competitive" gamers. But I don't see how the average gamer who has the GPU power to play games at 1440p over 90 FPS, or most games @ 4k in the 40-60 fps range would somehow be at a heavy disadvantage because they don't own a ROG monitor.

Also, consider what the majority of other players that play online game on. Chances are, they are rocking 1080p's and actually turn down the graphical detail to get a competitive advantage by reducing environment details.

I'm only making these points so people understand that owning a 4k gysnc monitor at "only" 60hz won't make you the online whooping boy for online shooters all of a sudden. You can still go online and play "competitively" and enjoy the game.

Having said that, I am still intrigued by the swift, but I'm leaning towards 4k since I already own and experienced 1440p. I honestly don't see how 144hz would impress me more than the jump to 4k, but I do wish that I had a local store that had the swift on display so I can see it first hand.

My 3 cents
One of my fraternity brothers is a competitive gamer (Counter-strike,) and absolutely everyone has 144hz monitors. G-sync isn't really important in competitive gaming, because everyone has the hardware to keep their frame rate steady. Being able to push more frames to your screen than the other guy (144 vs 60) is a huge advantage though.

And when we talk about competitive gamers, we're talking about people who make a living gaming. Why do you think Asus Swifts are going for $1500 on ebay & craigslist?
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
745
126
A lot of users have issues with the ROG monitor. This review on Amazon highlights some of them:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/B...rsor=1&sort=rd

"The second and probably the biggest issue I have found is something called "Pixel Inversion" others have referred it it as a couple other names. Essentially the jist of the problem is that brighter colored objects (light blues and light greens especially) become distorted when in motion"

For an $800 monitor that's only 27" and not IPS, I think artifacts and performance degradation over time is a huge concern.
 

amenx

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,871
639
136
On a side note, one good thing about 4k monitors is that you can have a dozen dead pixels and you wont even see them (unless all clustered together) :D.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
you have a single 290x last time I looked so reality disagrees with you if you think thats enough for playing demanding games at 4k.
There was a post a while back with someone using a 4k monitor on a single 780ti. He played with 50+ in all games with settings of high or better. Including Crysis 3 if I recall correctly.

I realize a lot of people seem to believe you can't play a game if it isn't maxed out, but you really don't have to. Using 4K is also like using a higher setting, so you compromise one higher end setting for another. What is better is an opinion.

Edit: I found a review that tested the 290x and 780ti at 4k. All but Crysis 3 was good at High to Ultra settings. Crysis 3 was set to medium with very high textures: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/11/geforce_gtx_780_ti_vs_radeon_r9_290x_4k_gaming/1#.VEhEVvldV8E
 
Last edited:

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
There was a post a while back with someone using a 4k monitor on a single 780ti. He played with 50+ in all games with settings of high or better. Including Crysis 3 if I recall correctly.

I realize a lot of people seem to believe you can't play a game if it isn't maxed out, but you really don't have to. Using 4K is also like using a higher setting, so you compromise one higher end setting for another. What is better is an opinion.
um most demanding games are NOT playable on high settings and above at 4k.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/11/geforce_gtx_780_ti_vs_radeon_r9_290x_4k_gaming/1#.VEhEVvldV8E

Metro: Last Light, Far Cry 3, Tome Raider were. I was wrong on Crysis 3, but that was the only one and how many games are more demanding than Crysis 3?

they are playing Metro with all settings on medium except tessellation. its still dropping in the 40s way too much with few dips in the 30s.

Crysis 3 cant even average but low 40s on just medium.

Far Cry 3 is only averaging 41 fps on high.

Tomb Raider is on mix of medium and high mostly and still only gets 41 fps for average.

those averages would make me cringe and those games except for Metro are in 30s nearly half the time. with gsync it would probably be just fine though but Eric does not have that.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
they are playing Metro with all settings on medium except tessellation. its still dropping in the 40s way too much with few dips in the 30s.

Crysis 3 cant even average but low 40s on just medium.

Far Cry 3 is only averaging 41 fps on high.

Tomb Raider is on mix of medium and high mostly and still only gets 41 fps for average.

those averages would make me cringe and those games except for Metro are in 30s nearly half the time. with gsync it would probably be just fine though but Eric does not have that.
While I personally agree. I would not do it, as I too like high FPS. I get motion sickness otherwise, but it is an option for some. It is an opinion deal and 4K is just as much a setting as any other. Some of us may have forgotten what it was like to game in the CRT days. We used lower FPS all the time, and balanced settings and resolution all the time (the benefits of not having a native resolution). I recall some games looked better at lower settings and higher resolutions, while others were the opposite.

In the end, it is a personal preference. One I wouldn't choose, but others are quite happy with.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,846
1,233
136
Why is everyone acting like the Acer doesn't also have G-Sync???

Both monitors are going to be very stutter free in comparison to non G-Sync monitors, the Swift will be smoother still at above 60 FPS but it is going to be less dramatic than on a non G-Sync monitor.
It's not about g-sync. The advantage in FPS is due to ULMB, eg. strobing. This reduces "blur" any LCD display has almost to CRT levels. That's also why IPS displays suck for faced paced FPS games. All you see is a blurry mess in very nice colors. I don't own one but considering that changing my mouse almost helped a bit and turning of v-snyc almost doubled my KDR I'm sure this would have a huge effect. Ever played against that guy you were certain is cheating but wasn't?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY