ASUS PG27AQ ROG Swift 27" 4K Monitor Review

tinytomlogan

The Guvnor
Staff member
11103208965l.JPG



As 4K is quickly becoming the technology of choice, we take a look at the G-SYNC enabled ASUS ROG Swift.


ASUS PG27AQ ROG Swift 27" 4K Monitor Review
 
Last edited:
IMO Asus have released this too soon. Maybe they should have waited for Pascal....

Also, whilst I accept that it's probably nice quality the asking price is plain daft. You can get an Acer with pretty much the same spec for half the price. Not only that, but it's 60hz, which once we do get the graphical power to run 4k properly will soon be left in the dust for higher frequency models.

A strange choice from Asus IMO though I guess it will cater to a niche :)
 
IMO Asus have released this too soon. Maybe they should have waited for Pascal....

Also, whilst I accept that it's probably nice quality the asking price is plain daft. You can get an Acer with pretty much the same spec for half the price. Not only that, but it's 60hz, which once we do get the graphical power to run 4k properly will soon be left in the dust for higher frequency models.

A strange choice from Asus IMO though I guess it will cater to a niche :)

The Acer one isnt half the price and I actually have one. Its great on paper4 but the Asus image and build quality is much better,

60Hz is actually a display port limitation on 4K so right now you cant go higher.
 
With the G-Sync IPS 4k Acer at £690 I think it's a sensible place and time to bring it in. People will pay a premium for ROG products and rightly so, already they have an excellent reputation for high quality gaming panels. I guess the IPS factor will open it up to a wider audience although it's not something that bothers me in this kind of product, had it been a little faster and TN I think that would be the right tech for the market audience however more difficult to justify the price to all the FB trolls who think they are pro photoshop.

For those with a beastly GPU set up this has got to be the thing to have. I would be raging for my paycheck to come in if it was a 32". I still think 4k is wasted on 28", definitely 27" and so it doesn't really do much for me personally, I can't understand why the market is pushing for small 4k panels. It's going to take something very interesting to strike the UP3216Q from the top of my wishlist. Perhaps the 32" G-Sync Acer is it, have to admit I would prefer it coming from ASUS though.

JR
 
I think 4k 30-32" would be spot on aswell although youd need a REALLY deep desk!

I thought £799 was lower than I was expecting for a ROG screen considering the original swift was £750+ at launch
 
Just recently my XB280HK was around £430 or so on Overclockers. I paid £500 for it this time last year. The Asus is £799. So that's almost double the price.

And the thing is, by the time you add the GPU power really needed for 4k (two 980ti or Titan X) and then realise how many issues SLI has with G-sync?

As I said, I just think it's still too early for all of these "Gaming" 4k monitors.

As I said though this will appeal to a niche. Those willing to spend a thousand pounds on GPUs alone, then another £800 for the monitor. But for most of us it's completely out of touch IMO.

60Hz is actually a display port limitation on 4K so right now you cant go higher.

Yup, and so every time you can't play a game at 4k properly due to SLI issues, CFX issues and whatever else you are then limited to 60hz when you drop to 1440p.

If anything people should just be moving to 1440p, considering you can now get a single GPU like the 970 and 390 that can chuck it around OK on one card. 4k is still not something that can be done properly on one GPU and won't be until Pascal. And the problem will remain because the Pascal GPUs that can run it single handedly will cost £700 and more.

It's just my opinion dude but if anything I feel quite trapped owning a 4k G-sync monitor and wish I'd never bothered. I could have saved the £1400 I wasted on two Titan Blacks and be running my Fury X at 1440p watching it smash games all over the place instead of struggling.

I thought the reason Asus had taken so long to do a 4k G-sync was common sense tbh.
 
Last edited:
I personally prefer 1440p too but its a bit mental to be telling people what panels they must buy or a manu what they should sell.

As far as 4K screens goes this one is chuffing epic and £799 isnt that bad considering the Acer version is around £650. Ive used both and if I had to use my own beer tokens Id buy the Asus every time
 
I think 4k 30-32" would be spot on aswell although youd need a REALLY deep desk!

I thought £799 was lower than I was expecting for a ROG screen considering the original swift was £750+ at launch

I guess it depends what and how you play, having had triple monitors i'm sure I would be fine with 32" on a normal desk. GTA and racing games with a pad are a bit more relaxed than FPS/MMO.

Yeah against the price of the current IPS 1440p Swift it's really not excessive for ROG. Although I didn't find £750 insane at the time either, I suppose it is different now they are trailing their competitors.


Just recently my XB280HK was around £430 or so on Overclockers. I paid £500 for it this time last year. The Asus is £799. So that's almost double the price.

And the thing is, by the time you add the GPU power really needed for 4k (two 980ti or Titan X) and then realise how many issues SLI has with G-sync?

As I said, I just think it's still too early for all of these "Gaming" 4k monitors.

There is now an IPS Acer that is pretty much the same spec as the 4k Swift so it would only be fair to compare it against that rather than the TN equivalent, that is currently ~£690.

Your definitely right in the 1440p argument, it's the most comfortable place to be for enthusiasts prepared to throw down £500-£1k and gamers alike. Games get on well with it, you don't need to SLI and life is pretty good and smooth, it's also probably the optimal resolution for the size monitor most people would want on their desk. I have a 290X with a U2515H, which for £470 (GPU and monitor) is the absolutely business from all angles.

With triple 780's and the original Swift, so about £1700, 1440p is also bang on the money just at insane refresh rates. Not that three 780's is the most cost effective way of running a Swift, it is good. A single 980Ti is probably the way now, two if you love ultra-grass.

In my opinion though right now there is room for the next tier, two 980Ti's or Titan X's run 4k very convincingly and I think with a G-Sync panel it would be a genuinely nice experience. Obviously that's getting past £2k but it's not totally mad. You could run them on air in a normal ATX rig quite happily without a huge PSU. Not like in the past where you needed to watercool 4x 290X's and it still ran a bit poopy. 27" doesn't have the visual impact to justify that level of effort for me though!


I haven't personally had any G-Sync issues with SLI, even with 3 cards (Kepler too) it's very smooth. I would guess the problem was more just related to 4k optimization with games and drives. More cards and higher settings generally exaggerates that problem, I tried to run GTA V with quad Titan X's and in the end just running two was better in FPS and overall smoothness.

JR
 
Apparently DSR does not work with G-sync and SLI, even if you disable G-sync. Kinda sucks. I also had lots of issues with SLI and G-sync whilst I still had the Titan Blacks (awful motion flicker).

I think after Christmas is over during the sales I will either buy another Fury (Nano) or just use that money and buy a more sensible monitor. Having witnessed 1440p @ around 15 feet on a 65" TV I can safely say that Fallout 4 looks no better or worse than it does at 4k.

Which of course is another issue, how many games come with real, proper 4k textures out of the box?

Witcher 3 did look better at 4k having tried it on both though.
 
Apparently DSR does not work with G-sync and SLI, even if you disable G-sync. Kinda sucks. I also had lots of issues with SLI and G-sync whilst I still had the Titan Blacks (awful motion flicker).

I think after Christmas is over during the sales I will either buy another Fury (Nano) or just use that money and buy a more sensible monitor. Having witnessed 1440p @ around 15 feet on a 65" TV I can safely say that Fallout 4 looks no better or worse than it does at 4k.

Which of course is another issue, how many games come with real, proper 4k textures out of the box?

Witcher 3 did look better at 4k having tried it on both though.

15 feet is a long way no wonder that it doesn't really noticec! But i'm with THX on all matters regarding viewing distance and angle, and they generally side with overkill. If i'm gaming on my 47" TV I sit ~4 feet away as if its a desk.

Most games i've tried do look better in 4k, well not better, just if the screen is big enough they allow you to sit closer which is what i'm all about.

DSR is not for me, if things aren't native or exactly half native then it seems wrong but i'm not surprised it doesn't work with G-Sync. I guess G-Sync disabled is really like fixed G-Sync still using the module in a different state rather than skipping it and treating it as a normal monitor. Free-sync should be able to do DSR though right? I think i'd sooner go for a decent Free-sync 1440p monitor rather than a Nano Fury X combo and try to run 4k.

JR
 
I'm firmly in the 1440p camp here, I think it's the sweet spot right now for high end single GPU systems and I'm especially a big fan of the ultrawide 3440x1440 monitors out there right now - especially the Acer Predator 34" Freesync. Now that's a monitor that's worth blowing £800 on.
 
I'm firmly in the 1440p camp here, I think it's the sweet spot right now for high end single GPU systems and I'm especially a big fan of the ultrawide 3440x1440 monitors out there right now - especially the Acer Predator 34" Freesync. Now that's a monitor that's worth blowing £800 on.

Ultrawides are a PITA and not all games come with support for them. Otherwise I'd have bought one ages ago. I don't want issues any more and I'm tired of them. So no SLI* no Crossfire no whacky resolutions that Fallout 4 won't work at and so on.

That's half of the problem with the PC industry, companies keep making things that are not guaranteed to work every time and don't work alongside the game devs to make sure that games support it all out of the box.

*OK I did buy the Mars but it was so cheap and I checked to make sure it would be OK with the only game I want to play on it.
 
Ultrawides are a PITA and not all games come with support for them. Otherwise I'd have bought one ages ago.

The sheer number of ultrawides available now means that it's quickly becoming a standard resolution. No not every game will support them out of the box (is that still a thing? Out of the node maybe?) but the list is growing.

Of course if you play flight/space/driving sims then they seem to be more open to wider aspect ratios than other types of games. The other thing is you can always run it windowed @1440p 27" effective size with black bars down the side. Think ten years ago when 16:9 TV's came out and most terrestrial broadcasts were still 4:3.

Agreed anything non-vanilla bog standard will have more potential for issues but Ultra-wide is where I see my future at least.

Back on topic this looks really good. Can't wait to see a video and quality versus price is pretty compelling when you're shelling out that much. Tempted with the ACER but you spend so much time looking at a monitor and typically upgrade less frequently than other components you don't want to regret not spending an extra two hundred dollars.
 
Back
Top