ASUS Announces the ROG Swift PG329Q Monitor: 32" Fast IPS, Quantum Dot, 2560 x 1440, 175 Hz, 1 ms, HDR 600

[Raevenlord]

ASUS at its Asia ROG event announced a new monitor, approaching stores and shores (eventually). The ROG Swift PG329Q is being launched with a "Super Kill" marketing line, which aims to showcase just how impressive this monitor will be in aiding users' gaming capabilities. The ROG Swift PG329Q features a 32" "Fast IPS" panel - fast IPS here meaning that it's capable of running at 175 Hz whilst keeping a 1 ms Gray-to-Gray response time - all of this with IPS' renowned color rendition.

The monitor features a sane 2560 x 1440 resolution and HDR 600 certification from VESA, and thanks to the usage of Quantum Dot tech, will be able to offer 98% DCI-P3 color gamut coverage and 160% sRGB ultra-wide color gamut coverage. The monitor supports Adaptive Sync tech (whether via FreeSync or G-Sync compatible), as well as ASUS' ELMB SYNC technology. There's also the usual RGB tech going on in the back of the monitor. The ASUS ROG Swift PG329Q will be released in the fourth quarter of this year. No word on pricing, but expect a monitor with these features to be leaning heavily on the $ side of the equation.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[cucker tarlson]

hdr1000 or go home
I wonder if a 32 inch IPS has more backlight bled area alone than my whole 24 inch

 

[Animalpak]

Considering the size also his features fits perfect as a single monitor/TV for both PC or console.

 

[Vayra86]

Yawnfest

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Not 4k? Okay Asus

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Not 4k? Okay Asus

Asus is supposedly coming out with a 32" 4k 144hz IPS monitor sometime this year. It was showcased at CES in January. I am eagerly awaiting that. If it is too expensive, I probably will be getting this monitor.

 

[Space Lynx]

32" 1440p is still too pixelated for me. i only sit an arms length away, and i don't want to sit further than that, otherwise it ruins the immersion

 

[Object55]

I've got 32" 1440p and it's fine. There's nothing pixelated about it.

 

[Cobain]

When I hear IPS and 1ms on the same sentence... I've tried some IPS panels and it was the worst experience I ever had on first person shooters. Cool for Witcher ir Assassin's Creed only.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Asus is supposedly coming out with a 32" 4k 144hz IPS monitor sometime this year. It was showcased at CES in January. I am eagerly awaiting that. If it is too expensive, I probably will be getting this monitor.

Yes that's what I'm anticipating as well. Excited to see it. I didnt see its showcase at CES though. Do you know of the model name for it? I plan on getting a 3080 right away. Id like to get a 4k soon after to go with it.

EDIT: This guy https://rog.asus.com/articles/gamin...livers-the-best-4k-hdr-gaming-experience-yet/

I suspect price will be minimum $1200. Id still buy it...

 

[Prime2515102]

Well for me... Change this to 40", get rid of the rear LED BS, bump it to 4k, something that's not IPS, and I would be willing to accept a lower gamut (90% DCI-P3 is fine with me) and a >100Hz refresh rate.

As far as the HDR level... I'm not sure about that. There is something about 1000 dynamic nits (or even 400, see below) 2-3 feet from my face that makes my eyeballs ache just thinking about it. For a TV maybe, but not on my desk.

I'm imagining playing a game or watching a movie in a relatively dark room and a dark scene is going on for awhile around 50-100 nits until my pupils are wide open then BAM!--a thousand nits burning my retinas out so I have to squint or even close my eyes and I'm sounding like Mallory Knox in the wedding scene saying "fuuuck youuu!" at the monitor. This doesn't sound entertaining to me at all.

I used to have an HDR 400 TV on my desktop and I had to turn the backlight down to around 50%-60% or so when watching movies and playing games at night in a completely dark room (which you're not supposed to do anyway, but ya know). So, yeah, not sure how useful those high levels of brightness are for a monitor, unless of course you're in a very well-lit room most of the time. On the other hand, I never turned the backlight back up during the day and it seemed just fine - HDR Blu-Rays were still a significant improvement over SDR.

I give up on response times. If the screen can go from one shade of grey to another (that's grey-to-grey response, right? going from one shade of grey to another?) in 1/1000 of a second (1ms) shouldn't the refresh rate be 1000Hz? If the screen doesn't refresh, how can the shade change? It seems like it should be something like 5.714ms-ish. Is this an internal processing spec? Or can the panel do it but the internal processing can't? Maybe I just don't get it...

Anyway... Is it still Monday?

 

[Wolfkin]

Yes that's what I'm anticipating as well. Excited to see it. I didnt see its showcase at CES though. Do you know of the model name for it? I plan on getting a 3080 right away. Id like to get a 4k soon after to go with it.

Acer got their new 32" 4K IPS 144Hz XB323QK NV so I'm guessing Asus will build something with the same panel rather soon as well.

Acer Predator XB323QK NV with 31.5" 4K IPS Panel and 144Hz Refresh Rate - TFTCentral

Share this contentNews piece updated 8/1/21 with further information Acer announced back in June 2020 their forthcoming Predator XB323QK NV display which is 31.5″ in size and features a 3840....[click link for more]

www.tftcentral.co.uk

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Yes that's what I'm anticipating as well. Excited to see it. I didnt see its showcase at CES though. Do you know of the model name for it? I plan on getting a 3080 right away. Id like to get a 4k soon after to go with it.

EDIT: This guy https://rog.asus.com/articles/gamin...livers-the-best-4k-hdr-gaming-experience-yet/

I suspect price will be minimum $1200. Id still buy it...

That is the exact monitor. If it's 1200, id buy it too. I got my Acer Predator x34 for that price. And im happy to sell that to put the money towards this new 4K monitor.

Im banking Amazon points for when the new 3000 series GPUs come out. I plan on getting the 3080Ti.

Acer got their new 32" 4K IPS 144Hz XB323QK NV so I'm guessing Asus will build something with the same panel rather soon as well.

Acer Predator XB323QK NV with 31.5" 4K IPS Panel and 144Hz Refresh Rate - TFTCentral

Share this contentNews piece updated 8/1/21 with further information Acer announced back in June 2020 their forthcoming Predator XB323QK NV display which is 31.5″ in size and features a 3840....[click link for more]

www.tftcentral.co.uk

I would get that monitor too.

 

[Searing]

When I hear IPS and 1ms on the same sentence... I've tried some IPS panels and it was the worst experience I ever had on first person shooters. Cool for Witcher ir Assassin's Creed only.

You clearly haven't used a superior LG IPS panel.

High speed IPS started with the PG279Q from Asus using the AUO panels, and they are VERY fast, faster than all VA and almost as fast as TN. Problem was quality was abysmal. I mean buy 3 keep one kind of quality. Luckily LG has none of those problems.

I've had nothing but excellent quality out of the box for every LG GL850 monitor, and it is even faster than the PG279Q. LG makes the best right now, outside of contrast, and if you get a dark uniform panel, it's more than enough.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

That is the exact monitor. If it's 1200, id buy it too. I got my Acer Predator x34 for that price. And im happy to sell that to put the money towards this new 4K monitor.

Im banking Amazon points for when the new 3000 series GPUs come out. I plan on getting the 3080Ti.


I would get that monitor too.

Right, I have the Dell S3220DGF, but id like to take it into the office at work when we are done working from home and replace one of the 24s I have there. And get a 4k around the time when these cards come out, but it needs to be at least 144Hz for competitive fps I also play. 4k for single player games where visuals matter to me.

 

[Mussels]

the 32" market is pretty limited to VA, so this looks awesome to me

 

[Space Lynx]

the 32" market is pretty limited to VA, so this looks awesome to me

the dpi is equal to a 24" 1080p correct? that isn't bad, I own one of the new 1080p 24" 144hz ips panels and it looks decent, but i still say 27" 1440p dpi is the sweet spot. 4k messes up the UI in a lot of older games and I don't feel like messing with mods a lot of the times... so 27" 1440p high refresh + perfect UI in every game I have ever played, old or new. it just works. i'm just sad 240hz IPS 1440p isnt here yet...

edit: also the Asus tax is always the highest of any of the companies... so its going to be hard pass for me right away just because of that

 

[Basard]

32" 1440p is still too pixelated for me. i only sit an arms length away, and i don't want to sit further than that, otherwise it ruins the immersion

 

[Mussels]

Either you used a really bad screen or you have binocular vision, 24" 1080p and 32" 1440p seem perfect and crystal clear to me unless i jam my eyes right into the bezels

 

[Chrispy_]

I'll wait for a review. The problem with monitors these days are that VA panels are a crapshoot because the overdrive tuning in firmware is vital for a good experience, and IPS panels are a crapshoot because it's so difficult to make one with decent black levels, uniformity, and no backlight bleed.

32" 1440p is still too pixelated for me. i only sit an arms length away, and i don't want to sit further than that, otherwise it ruins the immersion

Whether you like it or not, absolutely loads of content is designed for 96 ppi. That is considered 100% or "target dpi" when making the content to be viewed on screen in the first place. Especially text, but not only text - iconography and game HUDs also follow a similar principle. The science behind it is far older than computers, based on centuries of research and empirical data from text readability on paper.

At 93.2 ppi, this screen (and all 32" 1440p screens) are really close to the optimum pixel density (within 3% of target).
Likewise, a 24" 1080p screen is 92.5 ppi so really close to the ideal 96 dpi too (within 4% of target).

Some people like the extra density of 27" 1440p or 28" 4K but those are 13% and 64% off target. 27" 1440p is especially frustrating because it perfectly straddles the 100 and 125% scale factors in Windows so you can never get the text the right size if you're trying to do professional text-based work. I had a 27" 1440p for years and it was nice and sharp for gaming but readability did suffer. I found myself subconsciously hunching forward to compensate. Your mileage may differ, but my eyesight is still good now and my eyeballs were 10 years younger back when I first bought my 27" 1440p screen.

Yeah, just checked my eyesight on the Snellen test - 20/20 in my 'bad' eye and I can roll back three feet and still make out the bottom row with my good eye.

 

[TheUn4seen]

Well for me... Change this to 40", get rid of the rear LED BS, bump it to 4k, something that's not IPS, and I would be willing to accept a lower gamut (90% DCI-P3 is fine with me) and a >100Hz refresh rate.

Well, there is the Asus XG438Q. 43", 4K, 120Hz, VA and 90% DCI-P3. It's fairly expensive at around 1100USD and quite hard to actually buy, at least in Europe, but I bought it and love it. Previously I used the Philips 4065UC as my main monitor (4K, VA, 60Hz) and the density is just a tiny bit better looking, but it is only visible side by side.

 

[Vayra86]

I'll wait for a review. The problem with monitors these days are that VA panels are a crapshoot because the overdrive tuning in firmware is vital for a good experience, and IPS panels are a crapshoot because it's so difficult to make one with decent black levels, uniformity, and no backlight bleed.



Whether you like it or not, absolutely loads of content is designed for 96 ppi. That is considered 100% or "target dpi" when making the content to be viewed on screen in the first place. Especially text, but not only text - iconography and game HUDs also follow a similar principle. The science behind it is far older than computers, based on centuries of research and empirical data from text readability on paper.

At 93.2 ppi, this screen (and all 32" 1440p screens) are really close to the optimum pixel density (within 3% of target).
Likewise, a 24" 1080p screen is 92.5 ppi so really close to the ideal 96 dpi too (within 4% of target).

Some people like the extra density of 27" 1440p or 28" 4K but those are 13% and 64% off target. 27" 1440p is especially frustrating because it perfectly straddles the 100 and 125% scale factors in Windows so you can never get the text the right size if you're trying to do professional text-based work. I had a 27" 1440p for years and it was nice and sharp for gaming but readability did suffer. I found myself subconsciously hunching forward to compensate. Your mileage may differ, but my eyesight is still good now and my eyeballs were 10 years younger back when I first bought my 27" 1440p screen.

Amen, sir. You understand things. More is not always better.

 

[Chrispy_]

When I hear IPS and 1ms on the same sentence... I've tried some IPS panels and it was the worst experience I ever had on first person shooters. Cool for Witcher ir Assassin's Creed only.

I genuinely wish VA, TN, and IPS manufacturers would stop using the '1ms' rubbish. None of them come remotely close to 1ms pixel response even for that one particular best-case scenario. Only OLED (and Plasma - RIP) can genuinely boast 1ms response times.

I mean, the best IPS panels can get ~4ms with overshoot errors or ~6ms with minimal errors. And by this, I mean the extremely expensive, depressingly-rare best IPS panels. So many of them are mediocre or backed up by lousy firmware with inadequate overdrive control.

Courtesy of RTINGS, here is possibly the fastest pixel response time possible in any IPS panel to date, period.

4ms with some overshoot 5-10ms without overshoot

Not only is it silly-fast, it's also extremely consistent. Yet it's still at least four times slower than the advertised/quoted '1ms' rubbish that ends up on every monitor box these days.
ULMB is not response time, damnit!

 

[Vayra86]

I genuinely wish VA, TN, and IPS manufacturers would stop using the '1ms' rubbish. None of them come remotely close to 1ms pixel response even for that one particular best-case scenario. Only OLED (and Plasma - RIP) can genuinely boast 1ms response times.

I mean, the best IPS panels can get ~4ms with overshoot errors or ~6ms with minimal errors. And by this, I mean the extremely expensive, depressingly-rare best IPS panels. So many of them are mediocre or backed up by lousy firmware with inadequate overdrive control.

Courtesy of RTINGS, here is possibly the fastest pixel response time possible in any IPS panel to date, period.

View attachment 163694 4ms with some overshoot View attachment 163695 5-10ms without overshoot

Not only is it silly-fast, it's also extremely consistent. Yet it's still at least four times slower than the advertised/quoted '1ms' rubbish that ends up on every monitor box these days.
ULMB is not response time, damnit!

ULMB tends to even increase the response time, lol. Yes, I always chuckle a bit when I see gamurs defending TN for the super fast response times as if that is somehow going to affect their gameplay. Sure, boyo, whatever you want to believe... Good luck on your Fortnite with lower tickrate than you have FPS. Keep chasing the dream.

4-8ms is a good baseline IMO, and 'feels' consistent enough. The true outliers, like VA"s smearing in darker hues are the ones you notice. That is why IPS up to 120-144hz is generally a somewhat safer choice, VA truly relies on lots of careful calibration to get right, and panel quality has a higher impact.

 

[Vinushka]

Better have FALD at least. I'm not really interested in anything that isn't rocking 4K IPS 144hz, FALD, HDR1000 with DP 2.0 / HDMI 2.1 ports.