MSI Announces a Trio of Optix MPG Series Gaming Monitors

[btarunr]

MSI, the world's leading manufacturer for true gaming hardware, is proudly expanding the hardware possibilities for all gamers. Today, we are honored to introduce 3 new Esports Series monitors: Optix MPG341QR, Optix MPG321UR-QD, and Optix MPG321QRF-QD. QD stands for our Quantum Dot and both QD monitors are equipped with Quantum dot technology for improved color performance in gaming.

All of these 3 models feature an IPS panel with a 32-inch screen or 34-inch screen, high resolution, high refresh rate, next-gen console compatibility, gaming intelligence, and many gamer-friendly features. Customers can choose the monitors based on their preferences. The Optix MPG341QR has a 34-inch IPS screen with UWQUHD (3440 x 1440) resolution with a 21:9 aspect ratio which is a great option for widescreen gaming. This monitor has many MSI exclusive monitor features like Gaming Intelligence. Users are also allowed to choose PBP mode with 16:9 and 5:9 aspect ratio for PC gaming and gaming on smartphones.



Both Optix MPG321UR-QD and Optix MPG321QRF-QD are 32-inch monitors with Quantum Dot technology. Optix MPG321UR-QD features UHD (3840x2160) resolution and supports up to 144 Hz with HDMI 2.1. This beast is a great companion for next-gen consoles. Also, MSI's exclusive KVM 3.0 feature allows gamers to adjust monitor settings with a console controller.

On the other hand, the Optix MPG321QRF-QD is equipped with a rapid IPS panel with WQHD (2560x1440) resolution and a 175hz refresh rate. This is a great option for gamers who prefer gaming on a 32-inch WQHD monitor and are looking for low response time and great color. A monitor with a 175 Hz refresh rate can provide a better gaming experience and smoother gameplay performance than regular 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitors. To understand each monitor's spec and differences, please refer to the spec comparison table.

Always improving, MSI will keep on challenging itself in the design of gaming monitors, and ensure that you are always ahead of your opponents.



For more information, visit the product page.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Space Lynx]

i really don't get 32" qhd... though i guess i shouldn;t knock it until i try it. best buy might have one on display, i'll have to give it a visit someday.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

i really don't get 32" qhd... though i guess i shouldn;t knock it until i try it. best buy might have one on display, i'll have to give it a visit someday.

The PPI is too low, I have tested few screen sizes and resolutions 24", 27", 32", 1440p and 4k, 4k is always better but 32" is the sweet spot.

 

[Space Lynx]

The PPI is too low, I have tested few screen sizes and resolutions 24", 27", 32", 1440p and 4k, 4k is always better but 32" is the sweet spot.

Yeah. 27" 1440p is great imo. i want 27" 1440p 165hz or 240hz OLED... sadly OLED only focuses on 4k panels

 

[Valantar]

That 32" 2160p monitor looks promising. Decent specs overall, nice I/O, HDR600, USB-C with kvm functionality, lots of nice features there. Good color gamut coverage too (though I'd like an AdobeRGB number). Let's hope it had good color calibration and well tuned overdrive modes. Hopefully pricing is significantly below $1000 as well.

 

[Dammeron]

That 32" 2160p monitor looks promising. Decent specs overall, nice I/O, HDR600, USB-C with kvm functionality, lots of nice features there. Good color gamut coverage too (though I'd like an AdobeRGB number). Let's hope it had good color calibration and well tuned overdrive modes. Hopefully pricing is significantly below $1000 as well.

MSRP is 1K $.

From the specs it looks like it uses the same panel, as Asus PG32UQ. The latter seems a bit lacking, so I hope for this one to do better.

 

[ixi]

That 32" 2160p monitor looks promising. Decent specs overall, nice I/O, HDR600, USB-C with kvm functionality, lots of nice features there. Good color gamut coverage too (though I'd like an AdobeRGB number). Let's hope it had good color calibration and well tuned overdrive modes. Hopefully pricing is significantly below $1000 as well.

Vesa 600... why not 1000..?

 

[ZoneDymo]

"A monitor with a 175 Hz refresh rate can provide a better gaming experience and smoother gameplay performance than regular 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitors."

would love to meet the person who can tell 165hz and 175hz apart....

 

[ixi]

"A monitor with a 175 Hz refresh rate can provide a better gaming experience and smoother gameplay performance than regular 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitors."

would love to meet the person who can tell 165hz and 175hz apart....

Between 144 and 175 too .

 

[Valantar]

Vesa 600... why not 1000..?

...because it doesn't have HDR1000? 600 is certainly miles better than 400, which was what I was pointing to.

 

[Space Lynx]

"A monitor with a 175 Hz refresh rate can provide a better gaming experience and smoother gameplay performance than regular 144 Hz or 165 Hz monitors."

would love to meet the person who can tell 165hz and 175hz apart....

I can tell the difference between 144 and 165 in a blind test. I doubt if I can do that with 165 and 175 though.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Vesa 600... why not 1000..?

might as well ask why its not microled....

 

[ixi]

might as well ask why its not microled....

Don't buy outdated stuff ;}

 

[ZoneDymo]

Don't buy outdated stuff ;}

vesa 600 is hardly outdated atm, there is only like 1? 2? monitors with 1000 rating, that Asus ProArt thing.

 

[Chomiq]

The PPI is too low, I have tested few screen sizes and resolutions 24", 27", 32", 1440p and 4k, 4k is always better but 32" is the sweet spot.

32" at 1440p is the same PPI as 24" at 1080p so please explain how come it's too low?

You would have to use 20" 1080p display to match a 27" 1440p display's PPI value.

 

[Dammeron]

Vesa 600... why not 1000..?

I guess You don't need Your money then... This MSi costs 1K, give it HDR1000 (which needs miniLED backlight) and the price goes 2-3x.

 

[Valantar]

32" at 1440p is the same PPI as 24" at 1080p so please explain how come it's too low?

You would have to use 20" 1080p display to match a 27" 1440p display's PPI value.

As someone who uses a secondary 24" 1080p monitor next to a primary 27" 1440p one, I can attest to 24" 1080p being on the low side. At the same viewing distance there is a noticeable difference in the sharpness of text rendering and the smoothness of graphics overall. On the other hand I think 1440p is too much for 24", so it's a bit of a balancing act.

 

[Dammeron]

32" at 1440p is the same PPI as 24" at 1080p so please explain how come it's too low?

As someone who uses a secondary 24" 1080p monitor next to a primary 27" 1440p one, I can attest to 24" 1080p being on the low side.

Exactly - nobody said, that 24" 1080p is good, cause it's not. Good resolution for 24" would actually be 4K (pixels small enough to not use any antialiasing), however we're stuck with lots of apps that cannot scale their interface, so either we have nice, sharp graphics, but with everything being to small to see without gouging our eyes, or what we have right now - jagged edges.

 

[Chomiq]

Exactly - nobody said, that 24" 1080p is good, cause it's not. Good resolution for 24" would actually be 4K (pixels small enough to not use any antialiasing), however we're stuck with lots of apps that cannot scale their interface, so either we have nice, sharp graphics, but with everything being to small to see without gouging our eyes, or what we have right now - jagged edges.

I'm curious to find out what's your typical distance between eyes and monitor. Because for me it's almost a full arms length and that's almost a meter.

 

[blabla]

MPG321UR-QD 8Bit + FRC ?

 

[Asni]

This picture is extremely misleading. There isn't such a thing as "HDMI 2.1 cable", just "Ultra High Speed HDMI cable" up to 48Gbps trasmission.
Companies selling video equipment should be aware of this: cables don't get the name of the interface, both HDMI and Displayport (HBR speeds in this case).

 

[BSim500]

i really don't get 32" qhd... though i guess i shouldn;t knock it until i try it. best buy might have one on display, i'll have to give it a visit someday.

It's for those who want 1440p and are comfortable with the same 92ppi as 24" 1080p with a balance of decent high framerates. Not everyone has a top-end GPU to avoid "enjoying" a 4K slideshow. And not everyone wants +130ppi displays either, especially for older games or applications with non-scaling UI's. Not everyone sits at the same distance, not everyone sits at just one distance (eg, a bedroom PC monitor that could double as a TV viewed from 8ft away). And not everyone has the same preferences, hence why some people have no problem with lower 82ppi (1080p @ 27") whilst others turn their nose up at anything less than 4k @ 20" (+200ppi).

 

[Dammeron]

This picture is extremely misleading. There isn't such a thing as "HDMI 2.1 cable", just "Ultra High Speed HDMI cable" up to 48Gbps trasmission.
Companies selling video equipment should be aware of this: cables don't get the name of the interface, both HDMI and Displayport (HBR speeds in this case).

What's easier to understand for a normal consumer - the well-known standard it fully supports, or it's bandwidth, that nobody knows apart from enthusiasts/specialists? (clue: the former)

 

[Valantar]

What's easier to understand for a normal consumer - the well-known standard it fully supports, or it's bandwidth, that nobody knows apart from enthusiasts/specialists? (clue: the former)

Exactly. IMO labeling based on bandwidth and not the matching standard is a major misstep. I mean, sure, you can still technically be using HDMI 2.1 with a 20Gbps cable, but ... so what? Who cares? HDMI 2.1 to most people will mean 2160p120+ (with VRR and all the rest). If they're running 1080p or 2160p60, then they're "not using" HDMI 2.1, even if the source, display and cable are all 2.1 compatible. That's the only sensible way of looking at this. Who the heck knows the bandwidth requirements of any given resolution and refresh rate off the back of their head?

 

[Space Lynx]

It's for those who want 1440p and are comfortable with the same 92ppi as 24" 1080p with a balance of decent high framerates. Not everyone has a top-end GPU to avoid "enjoying" a 4K slideshow. And not everyone wants +130ppi displays either, especially for older games or applications with non-scaling UI's. Not everyone sits at the same distance, not everyone sits at just one distance (eg, a bedroom PC monitor that could double as a TV viewed from 8ft away). And not everyone has the same preferences, hence why some people have no problem with lower 82ppi (1080p @ 27") whilst others turn their nose up at anything less than 4k @ 20" (+200ppi).

i do not like forward to the days when my vision declines... ah youth... what a fleeting joy