ASUS Intros ROG Strix XG248Q Monitor with 240 Hz Refresh-rate

[btarunr]

ASUS today introduced the Republic of Gamers (ROG) Strix XG248Q, a 24-inch gaming grade monitor. If its Full HD (1920 x 1080 pixels) resolution is a put-off, wait till you hear its other specs - 240 Hz refresh-rate, support for AMD FreeSync, 1 ms (GTG) response time, and 400 cd/m² maximum brightness (though not meeting DisplayHDR 400 standards). The anti-glare TN film panel also features 170°/160° (H/V) maximum viewing-angles, and dynamic mega-contrast ratio. The monitor features RGB LED elements at the suspended base of the stand, and a circular diffuser at the back, capable of working as mood-lighting. The company didn't reveal pricing.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I like these intros to new products up until I start looking for the missing price/price range.

 

[kastriot]

Toyah-"Obsolete"

 

[Th3pwn3r]

I like these intros to new products up until I start looking for the missing price/price range.

Agree,it's dumb to not have the price. With a price people ca be more interested or less,with no price people often ignore things. Like buying a car,if there's no price a lot of people ignore them.

 

[Dr_b_]

Do you really notice anything going from 120 to 240Hz refresh? This would be more impressive if it was an IPS and had a 1440p or 4K resolution and was a 27"+ and had GSYNC

 

[Th3pwn3r]

Do you really notice anything going from 120 to 240Hz refresh? This would be more impressive if it was an IPS and had a 1440p or 4K resolution and was a 27"+ and had GSYNC

Ha, you want it all and that'll be very pricey.

 

[Manu_PT]

Do you really notice anything going from 120 to 240Hz refresh? This would be more impressive if it was an IPS and had a 1440p or 4K resolution and was a 27"+ and had GSYNC

To answer that question, yes you do notice. Going to 120hz/144hz after using 240hz for a while, feels exactly like going from 144hz to 60hz.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Do you really notice anything going from 120 to 240Hz refresh? This would be more impressive if it was an IPS and had a 1440p or 4K resolution and was a 27"+ and had GSYNC

i see people always asking for gsync be added to this or that monitor, its like asking please add $200 to the price its just not priced right for greenie owners.

 

[Th3pwn3r]

i see people always asking for gsync be added to this or that monitor, its like asking please add $200 to the price its just not priced right for greenie owners.

Freesync is the only thing that makes me want to go with AMD. However, Freesync itself is a bit of a gimmick in the sense that there's no standard of what it actually is from what I had read.

 

[INSTG8R]

Freesync is the only thing that makes me want to go with AMD. However, Freesync itself is a bit of a gimmick in the sense that there's no standard of what it actually is from what I had read.

It’s no different than G-Sync in that respect. I will say earlier monitors like mine have a very wacky range(35-90) but mine is as I said wacky. Most are full refresh for high Hz monitors and usually 75Hz on the budget offerings.

 

[B-Real]

Do you really notice anything going from 120 to 240Hz refresh? This would be more impressive if it was an IPS and had a 1440p or 4K resolution and was a 27"+ and had GSYNC

There is a reason why manufacturers go mostly for Freesync: people need it more.

Freesync is the only thing that makes me want to go with AMD. However, Freesync itself is a bit of a gimmick in the sense that there's no standard of what it actually is from what I had read.

There are sites that detail the range of Freesync, so you can choose the perfect one for you. A much better option compared to G-Sync if you take their price into account.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Freesync is the only thing that makes me want to go with AMD. However, Freesync itself is a bit of a gimmick in the sense that there's no standard of what it actually is from what I had read.

well good thing Freesync2 is on the way in.

There is a reason why manufacturers go mostly for Freesync: people need it more.

if those manufacturers had a "free" choice between Freesync and Gsync, most would prolly go with the Nvidia option.

 

[Caring1]

Add at least $100 for the Asus name, plus a wad of cash for the RGB crap and you end up with an over priced cheap monitor

 

[BadFrog]

Do you really notice anything going from 120 to 240Hz refresh? This would be more impressive if it was an IPS and had a 1440p or 4K resolution and was a 27"+ and had GSYNC

They already have those monitors. Asus ROG Swift monitors. PG278 and 9q and their recent 4K 144hz monitor that’s prob going to retail for 2k!

 

[Totally]

Ha, you want it all and that'll be very pricey.

Not really there are several monitors that almost are completely reasonable but unfortunately are almost always g-sync monitors with the accompanying tax which inflates the price tag for no real reason.

 

[BadFrog]

Not really there are several monitors that almost are completely reasonable but unfortunately are almost always g-sync monitors with the accompanying tax which inflates the price tag for no real reason.

When you put proprietary hardware inside, it's going to raise the price tag of any product.

 

[Totally]

When you put proprietary hardware inside, it's going to raise the price tag of any product.

I'm aware but I doubt g-sync costs them the $200-300 mark-up on a g-sync monitor that has vs the same specs as a non-gsync/freesync monitor. That's the cost of a CPU, an upper-budget or mainstream video card it just doesn't add up. Everytime I shop monitors I can't justify not taking that difference and spending it on better upgrades.

 

[BadFrog]

I'm aware but I doubt g-sync costs them the $200-300 mark-up a g-sync monitor has vs a same spec non-gsync/freesync monitor. That's the cost of a CPU, an upper-budget or mainstream video card it just doesn't add up. Everytime I shop monitors I can't justify not taking that difference and spending it on better upgrades.

I agree, the price for monitors for G sync is crazy, but it's something I don't upgrade often. So I just bite the bullet and pay for it as I have a nvidia card. If you built it, they will buy it. Look at Apple... they charge a premium for their products and people still pay it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I'm aware but I doubt g-sync costs them the $200-300 mark-up on a g-sync monitor that has vs the same specs as a non-gsync/freesync monitor. That's the cost of a CPU, an upper-budget or mainstream video card it just doesn't add up. Everytime I shop monitors I can't justify not taking that difference and spending it on better upgrades.

Duuude, go shop monitors with more care, really dig into the specs! you would be surprised what consumers are getting handed at checkout courtesy of gsync/Nv. .

 

[Th3pwn3r]

Not really there are several monitors that almost are completely reasonable but unfortunately are almost always g-sync monitors with the accompanying tax which inflates the price tag for no real reason.

To me your post was contradictory. Anyway, 240hz, 4k, Gsync is pricey.

 

[Totally]

Duuude, go shop monitors with more care, really dig into the specs! you would be surprised what consumers are getting handed at checkout courtesy of gsync/Nv. .

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?CompareItemList=20|24-009-847^24-009-847,24-009-874^24-009-874

Besides G-sync what else is being given to the consumer for $200($300 if going by list)?

To me your post was contradictory. Anyway, 240hz, 4k, Gsync is pricey.

Read my other comments for more context, I said all other things equal and g-sync no reason for g-sync to cost as much as. Pretty much as Bad Frog says if people are willing without batting an eye to spend without knowing/caring what they are buying and submitting and approving of such an anti-consumer practice. Who's to blame Nvidia.