Let me guess...

Asus figured out how ridiculous their previous announcement was:

www.techpowerup.com/265506/asus-announces-two-new-full-hd-75hz-ips-gaming-monitors

So they came up with this. :laugh:

1ms MPRT, ELMBB, BSBA, OTAP, GAGR, and so on = anything but GTG = fake spec.

RegenerationLet me guess...

Asus figured out how ridiculous their previous announcement was:

www.techpowerup.com/265506/asus-announces-two-new-full-hd-75hz-ips-gaming-monitors

So they came up with this. :laugh:

1ms MPRT, ELMBB, BSBA, OTAP, GAGR, and so on = anything but GTG = fake spec.

Indeed! GTG response times are omitted from specs about as often as panel type when it's budget TN;

"Call it anything else - Easyview, Readybrite, Clearpicture, Turboview - but you're fired if I see TN listed anywhere"
- PHB at MonitorCorp

I also wonder if there's scope for a class-action lawsuit against any monitor manufacturers claiming 1ms because when tested by reputable reviewers with the right testing hardware, they never even get close to 1ms.

www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_tuf_gaming_vg27aq.htm#detailed_response

1ms? No. Actually 3-7ms - and even then, the overshoot error is almost 30% for those 3ms transitions, which is so wrong, you can't really call that a valid pixel response in the first place.

With displays its actually very simple. You can just assume by rule of thumb that its utter shit, and maybe, just maybe you might be surprised here and there.

If this IPS actually has low ghosting and a decent peak brightness it looks pretty good. ELMB is a nice feature. But for 250 bucks... doubtful.

They need to get that on sale for close to 200 (€/$) in order to be competitive.

OK, so TUF motherboards series all the time was labeled as "highest reliability" series, while ROG series was marked as "maximum performance series"

It is clear that all motherboards has +/- same reliability. I had ability to play with Sabertooth Z97 Mark 1 and I can say that it is regular motherboard with "Thermoshield" on it ant two additional fans which can blow air inside that plastic... And actually it is the only one motherboard which was broken out of the box. Two RAM slots were dead :D So basically they are regular motherboards, which use certified components (but doesn't mean that better components):



To prove that realibility is not the case:
1. www.hardware.fr/articles/862-2/cartes-meres.html

-Average the most reliable manufacturer (AsRock) fault ratio: 1,75%
-Average Asus motherboard fault ratio: 3,71%
-ASUS Sabertooth X58 fault ratio: 6,69% (5th worst rank that year, 4th worst motherboard among Asus products)

2. www.hardware.fr/articles/920-2/cartes-meres.html

-Average the most reliable manufacturer (Gigabyte) fault ratio: 2,02%
-Average Asus motherboard fault ratio: 2,31%
-ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 fault ratio: 4,95% (4th worst rank that year, 2nd worst motherboard among Asus products)

3. www.hardware.fr/articles/934-2/cartes-meres.html

-Average Asus motherboard fault ratio: 2,31% . This time Asus had the best score in reliability
-ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 fault ratio: 5,31% (8th worst rank that year, 2nd worst motherboard among Asus products)

So I believe that we can conclude: Asus TUF motherboards are not better and not not worse than others in terms of reliability. But OK, lets forget it now. Lets talk about monitors again

TUF monitor? Seriously? What it does mean? What it should stand for? More reliable monitor? What differences are among TUF monitors and regular monitors? Looks like the regular monitor with expensive badge which even doesn't fit for this market...

LTUGamerOK, so TUF motherboards series all the time was labeled as "highest reliability" series, while ROG series was marked as "maximum performance series"

It is clear that all motherboards has +/- same reliability. I had ability to play with Sabertooth Z97 Mark 1 and I can say that it is regular motherboard with "Thermoshield" on it ant two additional fans which can blow air inside that plastic... And actually it is the only one motherboard which was broken out of the box. Two RAM slots were dead :D So basically they are regular motherboards, which use certified components (but doesn't mean that better components):



To prove that realibility is not the case:
1. www.hardware.fr/articles/862-2/cartes-meres.html

-Average the most reliable manufacturer (AsRock) fault ratio: 1,75%
-Average Asus motherboard fault ratio: 3,71%
-ASUS Sabertooth X58 fault ratio: 6,69% (5th worst rank that year, 4th worst motherboard among Asus products)

2. www.hardware.fr/articles/920-2/cartes-meres.html

-Average the most reliable manufacturer (Gigabyte) fault ratio: 2,02%
-Average Asus motherboard fault ratio: 2,31%
-ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 fault ratio: 4,95% (4th worst rank that year, 2nd worst motherboard among Asus products)

3. www.hardware.fr/articles/934-2/cartes-meres.html

-Average Asus motherboard fault ratio: 2,31% . This time Asus had the best score in reliability
-ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 fault ratio: 5,31% (8th worst rank that year, 2nd worst motherboard among Asus products)

So I believe that we can conclude: Asus TUF motherboards are not better and not not worse than others in terms of reliability. But OK, lets forget it now. Lets talk about monitors again

TUF monitor? Seriously? What it does mean? What it should stand for? More reliable monitor? What differences are among TUF monitors and regular monitors? Looks like the regular monitor with expensive badge which even doesn't fit for this market...

I've said this before to describe the clusterf^$k that continues to be the Asus TUF series GPUs, most notably being the RX 5700 XT, but I'll say it again. TUF stands for The Ultimate Flop :D

In all seriousness though, I'm not even sure what makes Asus' earlier TUF branded mobos necessarily "better" than other boards at the time. A board can be built with high quality components, but that doesn't necessarily make it any less fragile than a board built with meh components. Motherboards are just delicate any way you slice it.