ASUS tease their ROG Strix XG27VQ 144Hz FreeSync monitor

[WYP]

Sadly no pricing information for this display has been revealed.



Read more on ASUS' ROG XG27VQ display.

 

[Korreborg]

I really HATE that stand. Som much more fan of the old one.

 

[Ishimuro]

I'd love to see the 2k version. Got the G-sync one and would love to have them both next to each other to switch between AMD and Nvidia without loosing silky smooth refreshrates :3

 

[Dicehunter]

Ryzens 1080P performance is a bit so-so, So 1080P doesn't really make much sense if you were going for an all out AMD rig with this monitor, As I imagine many would, 1440P performance would have been a better number to shoot for IMO.

 

[MacLeod]

1080 is kinda weird as everybody wants 1440+ nowadays. For me personally, 1080 is just fine on my 27" screen and it helps in keeping the frame rates up. If I look close sometimes I can see some jagged edges but I never notice them in real world use. Anything larger than a 27 I would think you'd want 1440 but I still think 1080 is still OK for 27 and below at least to my old eyes which ain't as good as they used to be.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Ryzens 1080P performance is a bit so-so, So 1080P doesn't really make much sense if you were going for an all out AMD rig with this monitor, As I imagine many would, 1440P performance would have been a better number to shoot for IMO.

1080p doesn't make much sense in general

 

[jimma47]

1080p doesn't make much sense in general

For a lot of people it still does. Admittedly not for the people that would shell out the kind of coin you need for ROG. My parents wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 1080 and 1440 - they're in their 70s but they do like bigger screens for bigger text.

Of course for people that need precision or high fidelity then no they'd go 1440 or 4k full HDR.

I'd go 1080 up to 27", even 32" for fast response surround displays. It's relatively cheap and they're a good metre away from me when I'm driving or flying so it's more about the experience. Much like VR.

With todays GPU's there are still compromises if you want to have high refresh rates over multiple panels or if you want top quality you get less FPS.

 

[MacLeod]

For a lot of people it still does. Admittedly not for the people that would shell out the kind of coin you need for ROG. My parents wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 1080 and 1440 - they're in their 70s but they do like bigger screens for bigger text.

Of course for people that need precision or high fidelity then no they'd go 1440 or 4k full HDR.

I'd go 1080 up to 27", even 32" for fast response surround displays. It's relatively cheap and they're a good metre away from me when I'm driving or flying so it's more about the experience. Much like VR.

With todays GPU's there are still compromises if you want to have high refresh rates over multiple panels or if you want top quality you get less FPS.

I tend to agree. In a screen as small as 27" the difference between 1080 and 1440 is going to be very small and something that you're gonna have to look close and specifically for in order to spot the differences. 32" I would say 1080 is not enough for text and general PC use if you want to avoid jagged edges and so forth. If 1080 is perfectly fine for movies up to 50" TV's then it's gonna be fine for games at 27".

I'm not higher resolutions aren't better, just that they're only marginally better when talking the screen sizes we use for PC monitors. It's also gonna come at a big cost not only in price but in frame rates.

I thought about this a lot before I bought my current monitor a couple years ago. A high quality, 27" 1080 144 Hz monitor was just right and I've had no regrets with it.

Neither are "wrong" IMO. 1440 gives you a slightly sharper image especially with text but 1080 is only slightly behind and will be a lot easier on the GPU.

 

[Korreborg]

If 1080 is perfectly fine for movies up to 50" TV's then it's gonna be fine for games at 27".

You forget that distance play a huge role.

I went from 24" 1080p to 27" 1440p. I think 1440p is perfect for 27"
The size of everything is more or less the same as in 24" 1080p, there is just more room to work with.
And 1440p isn't that hard on the GPU.
1080p = 2.073.600 pixels
1440p = 3.686.400 pixels
2160p = 8.294.400 pixels

4k does IMO not make sense in screens below 30". At least not currently. The GPU's are not powerful enough.

 

[Wraith]

As is discussed in many other monitor threads, it's all about pixel density and screen real estate. The sweet spots are.

1080p 19 - 24" (24" perfect)
1440p 24 - 32" (27" perfect)
4K 32- 50"

Also don't compare TVs to Monitors while they share some features the technology is inherently different.