• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Asus Rog Swift PG278Q

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
bystander36 said:
We'll see, it has been said many times that ULMB will not require Nvidia. The rest of those items will. Heck, even Lightboost doesn't need it with a hack. The review likely made a slip up.
Click to expand...

Got a reliable source for that then? I've read anecdotes on both sides and none of them come from ASUS, NVIDIA or a professional review site (until this TFTCentral review, of course).

Note that I'm talking here about ULMB, not equivalent technologies like Eizo's 'Turbo 240' or whoever.
 
Last edited:
3DVagabond said:
I know that. What would you drive a 4K 144Hz monitor with? I believe you need DP1.3?

The screen is fast enough. Making it 144Hz (or 120Hz) wouldn't increase the cost significantly.
Click to expand...

Displayport 1.3 has sufficient bandwidth for 2x 4k transmission so it should support 120hz 4k, but since the specification isn't finished yet we can't know for certain but its a fair assumption that it will be supported. But because the specification isn't even finished yet we aren't going to see monitors with the capability for at least a year after the spec is finished.
 
BrightCandle said:
Displayport 1.3 has sufficient bandwidth for 2x 4k transmission so it should support 120hz 4k, but since the specification isn't finished yet we can't know for certain but its a fair assumption that it will be supported. But because the specification isn't even finished yet we aren't going to see monitors with the capability for at least a year after the spec is finished.
Click to expand...

I've heard dp1.3 @ 4K 1st Q next year. I haven't heard a thing though about 120/144 Hz yet. We still need cards to have DP 1.3 anyways.

That wasn't my point though. $800 for a 1440 TN panel is too much. Even if it's advanced features were universal among hardware, which they're not.
 
In terms of colour quality this is basically an IPS quality screen. The Tftcentral review shows the difference that true 8 bit colour is making. I don't think in this case TN is an important factor other than the colour change when off angle, it is a higher quality TN screen than we have seen before and its 100% SRGB just like many of the IPS monitors. Infact its dV and gamma is better than many of the very expensive IPS monitors, this is not a typical TN screen.

So this does change what pricing category makes sense. Even so its +£200 for monitors with similar colour quality capabilities, so its quite a premium for 144hz, ULMB and gsync. Its also the best gaming monitor ever created and we know of nothing else like it this year. Hopefully it will come down in price. Lightboost 2 used to cost about £100 more than equivalent monitors, it was the cost of 3D and 144hz with low motion blur. Gsync has added quite a bit more to that premium, but I can't fault what they did with lightboost 2, it really was worth its premium for pro gamers and I suspect this screen will be worth its premium as well, despite it being quite a big premium.
 
Last edited:
It will come down in price as soon as competitor manufacturers release similarly-spec'd screens. This is an early-adopters' price, and though the screen looks great it is, for me, too expensive
 
Black Octagon said:
It will come down in price as soon as competitor manufacturers release similarly-spec'd screens. This is an early-adopters' price, and though the screen looks great it is, for me, too expensive
Click to expand...

I think so as well. Generally TN screens at this resolution are fairly cheap, maybe $300 or so, the gsync functionality is not worth another $500. Asus does charge a premium for anything ROG branded though. But I agree we will see prices drop as competitors come in. Not sure this model will drop much because of the ROG branding, but better options may come out.

As it stands though $800 is fairly over the top for a TN panel.
 
Grooveriding said:
I think so as well. Generally TN screens at this resolution are fairly cheap, maybe $300 or so, the gsync functionality is not worth another $500. Asus does charge a premium for anything ROG branded though. But I agree we will see prices drop as competitors come in. Not sure this model will drop much because of the ROG branding, but better options may come out.

As it stands though $800 is fairly over the top for a TN panel.
Click to expand...

Well you also have the "new tech" tax. First 1440p 144hz panel. First 8 bit tn panel. Gsync.

I don't see it dropping below $500 anytime soon.
 
I thought the $300 and less 120hz+ TN displays were all 24" or so. The 27" ones are quite a bit more and aren't 1440p either.
 
the Asus 144hz 24 inch has been 250 bucks off and on for a year now. this monitor is more than 3 times the cost which is insane. I can understand 600 for 27 inch 1440 and gsync but 700 is a stretch and 800 is nuts.
 
I understand that ULMB and similar modes are relatively expensive to implement, too. You need a very bright, very fast backlight that can switch on-and-off at very precise and small intervals
 
Grooveriding said:
Generally TN screens at this resolution are fairly cheap, maybe $300 or so
Click to expand...

Generally crappy TN screens at this resolution are fairly cheap. This is not a crappy TN screen, hence it costs more. The others don't have 144Hz. They don't have 8-bit color.

G-Sync is not adding a $500 premium all on its own, there are other features that are eating up big chunks of the difference, with a healthy margin for including all of the never-before-seen features into one product.

To the people insisting that this will have bad color because it's TN:

LL


What, exactly, would better color look like? This is, objectively and absolutely, fantastic performance.
 
Last edited:
toyota said:
the Asus 144hz 24 inch has been 250 bucks off and on for a year now. this monitor is more than 3 times the cost which is insane. I can understand 600 for 27 inch 1440 and gsync but 700 is a stretch and 800 is nuts.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think it will be $600 before the year is over.
 
This may be an exceptional TN, but you still have TN viewing angles and this is a lot of $$$ for a TN.

That said, this is an exceptional gaming monitor. Personally, I would rather have the OC IPS gaming monitor myself. Even if I only got ~100mhz, IPS is just so much better for me. I like gaming, but do an equal amount of photo editing. Even with good color reproduction, this just can't stand vs. a good IPS color-calibrated screen.

This is just a personal thing, but I cannot stand TN viewing angles. Just too used to IPS and the brightness/color shift of TN panels drives me nuts.

If you need/want G-sync, this is pretty much the best option around tho, definitely.
 
exar333 said:
Even with good color reproduction, this just can't stand vs. a good IPS color-calibrated screen.
Click to expand...

Got some data to back that up to compare to the TFT color results?

I mean when I compare the Swift:

LL


to the Overlord Tempest X270OC:

X270OC-chroma-post.jpg


13-colorde.png


Is that really enough of a difference to claim that there's a major advantage for IPS still? At an average delta E of 0.6, it easily beats all the other TNs and is comparable to good IPS and better than some IPS.
 
Last edited:
Mand said:
Got some data to back that up to compare to the TFT color results?

I mean when I compare the Swift:

LL


to the Overlord Tempest X270OC:

X270OC-chroma-post.jpg


13-colorde.png


Is that really enough of a difference to claim that there's a major advantage for IPS still? At an average delta E of 0.6, it easily beats all the other TNs and is comparable to good IPS and better than some IPS.
Click to expand...

If you have done a lot of photo editing, viewing angle is very important. TNs just don't allow the same flexibility to work from, as you have to maintain the perfectly-direct working location. This gets really bad if you want multiple monitors....TNs just don't give you that flexibility to add more and still have good viewing angles without a washed-out view.

The evidence you link is absolutely important, but sometimes non-empirical details are just as critical.
 
exar333 said:
If you have done a lot of photo editing, viewing angle is very important. TNs just don't allow the same flexibility to work from, as you have to maintain the perfectly-direct working location. This gets really bad if you want multiple monitors....TNs just don't give you that flexibility to add more and still have good viewing angles without a washed-out view.

The evidence you link is absolutely important, but sometimes non-empirical details are just as critical.
Click to expand...

Well, the color shift on viewing angle should be and is empirical as well. I have not done a lot of photo editing, but I can see how viewing angle color shifts could be important. I mean, yeah, this is rather awful (from the TFT review linked in OP):

LL



However, that's not what is often claimed about "TN color is crap." At least, not just what is claimed - there are those who say that even looking at it dead on, the colors are still inherently inferior to IPS. And with prior 6-bit FRC dithered TN, they were right. Going to true 8-bit seems to have eliminated that problem rather completely.

And as someone who does actually look at my display dead on, while gaming, I really don't care about viewing angle shifts.
 
Last edited:
I was certain i would buy this but the price is just very, very high. I would prefer a version for $200 less without gsync.

But it shows nvidia marketing/proprietary tech is working. If I pay for gsync in my display I also want to use it. -> Also buy nv gpu.
 
96Firebird said:
What makes you think it is G-sync that is causing the monitor to cost so much?
Click to expand...

Uh...

It's certainly a contributing factor. It's not the whole reason for the price premium, but it's certainly a hefty chunk.

What makes him think that is not just that it's new tech that's never been integrated into a monitor before that provides a fundamentally new feature that a display manufacturer can feel perfectly justified charging for. There's also the part where the DIY upgrade kit for the earlier Asus monitor went for $200, on its own.
 
Mand said:
Uh...

It's certainly a contributing factor. It's not the whole reason for the price premium, but it's certainly a hefty chunk.

What makes him think that is not just that it's new tech that's never been integrated into a monitor before that provides a fundamentally new feature that a display manufacturer can feel perfectly justified charging for. There's also the part where the DIY upgrade kit for the earlier Asus monitor went for $200, on its own.
Click to expand...

But they did claim that the manufacturer costs were going to be more like $100, and not nearly as costly as the DIY kits.

It could also be much more expensive as it is a new type of monitor in general. It is the 1st 1440p or 8-bit TN panel produced. I imagine that would cause a R&D cost and production cost not seen on most monitors.

I'm not going to bitch about the price. It is what it is. I will, however, wait until I feel I can afford to buy one.
 
It's a perfect storm about price, basically. Three fundamentally new technologies all included in one panel, with one, G-Sync, being the first anywhere? Yeah, that's going to exact quite the substantial early adopter fee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top