ASUS Now Holds More Than 40% Market Share of Gaming Monitors

[Will_Man_Dude]

Yes, but is it considered a "gaming monitor?"

 

Because if not, it's sales do not count for purposes of this press release.

 

This isn't so much news as advertisment for 2357.TW

I believe it is marketed as a gaming monitor but maybe not I saw it on amazon and started looking into it a little further.

 

They do now. But they still don't have great value options. Most ASUS sales come from VG248QE.

It doesn't really make since for them to make a cheap 1080p 144hz monitor since that space is already dominated by BenQ and Asus, established names for gaming monitors. But with 1440p G-Sync 144hz there really aren't many players other than Asus and Acer, allowing them some space to carve out a bit of market for themselves.

[Castdeath97]

And what exactly makes a monitor a "gaming" monitor?

[Me1z]

They may not be 'l337 gamin' monitors, but two of my three monitors are Asus, so having 40% market share makes sense to me. Generally speaking, its hard to go wrong with an Asus or Dell monitor, they're good quality and the prices aren't terrible either.

[samcool55]

Hang on, what is even considered a gaming monitor and what isn't?
I mean where do you draw the line?

Monitors that are marketed as gaming monitors or do they need specific requirements?

 

I personally game on an IPS 24" display, 60Hz.

Nothing special and nobody would call it a gaming monitor.

But it is very good at it! I mean what monitor isn't good for gaming?

Today you can buy a new monitor, doesn't matter what it is, and you can game on it. Unless you have some really really high requirements, it's fine.

 

Oh well... Anyway i won't get a new monitor because i think the perfect monitor for me doesn't exist yet and if it does it would probably be too expensive.

[marldorthegreat]

If Dell wasn't stupid they would have made gaming monitors too.  :mellow:

They make professional monitors, in that area they probably have a much higher market share.

[Verne]

How do you decide which monitors are "gaming" monitors? Do they have to have "gaming" in the name? I'd imagine majority of PC gamers still use monitors without any "gaming" tags in them. I use Dell U2515H which is not a "gaming" monitor, but is amazing for gaming.

[SurvivorNVL]

How do you decide which monitors are "gaming" monitors? Do they have to have "gaming" in the name? I'd imagine majority of PC gamers still use monitors without any "gaming" tags in them. I use Dell U2515H which is not a "gaming" monitor, but is amazing for gaming.

I use some U2415H's right now, and they're marvelous.  My middle panel is a miracle.  Almost -no- backlight bleed on an IPS.  Very, very thin across the entire panel so you can't notice.

[ZetZet]

I believe it is marketed as a gaming monitor but maybe not I saw it on amazon and started looking into it a little further.

 

It doesn't really make since for them to make a cheap 1080p 144hz monitor since that space is already dominated by BenQ and Asus, established names for gaming monitors. But with 1440p G-Sync 144hz there really aren't many players other than Asus and Acer, allowing them some space to carve out a bit of market for themselves.

Well, you could make a cheap 1080p 144hz and make it a little cheaper than the competition. AOC tried that, but their quality sucks. If Dell managed to bring quality to value segment they would become a dominant brand in every segment. 

[kuddlesworth9419]

"overpriced g-sync monitors" you call them, yet people are buying em like hotcakes  :rolleyes:

I wouldn't say overpriced if they where good. Which they are very good.

[SurvivorNVL]

Well, you could make a cheap 1080p 144hz and make it a little cheaper than the competition. AOC tried that, but their quality sucks. If Dell managed to bring quality to value segment they would become a dominant brand in every segment. 

Even without Dell offering a G-Sync IPS or Freesync IPS monitor - I won't consider anyone but them.  The exception is BenQ.

[Valentyn]

You may want to stay up to date on AMD drivers if you're going to participate in discussions where you squirt out absolutist falsehoods.

 

Freesync now goes just as far down as G-sync

Overdrive works

Multi-monitor works

Crossfire works 

 

The only thing Freesync users don't get to enjoy compared to G-sync users is the joy of paying $80-£$150 for no additional features.

I'm planning on getting a Polaris top-end card/s, but the main reason I might not is because as of yet Freesync tops out at 35-90Hz vs my current G-Sync 35-144Hz, and Freesync doesn't have any Windowed Mode support.

Both are deal breakers for me at the moment. I hope someone 1-up's the ROG Dominator from Asus so I can get a Freesync one that's at least 1440p 144hz, and have a range over 90Hz.

[Yoinkerman]

Okay, but "gaming" monitors is a pretty specific group. 800k monitors out of what, 150 million or something?

[Doobeedoo]

Would like to see high refresh rate OLED

[Sauron]

Too bad that u mostly do overpriced Gsync monitors.

 

All right, find me a monitor that is as well built as the swift, has the same features and costs significantly less money.

 

I wouldn't buy one, way more expensive than I think would make sense to spend on a monitor (plus I have an AMD gpu), but for it to be "overpriced" it needs to either have cheaper competition or be way, way more expensive than it costs to make. Asus has never been a company that significantly overprices their products - their stuff may be a little more expensive than comparable competitors at times, but it's never anything drastic or that can't be justified with normal market fluctuations. Their tablets and phones are arguably underpriced, they were amongst the first to pioneer "cheap" uhd monitors that still offer very solid build quality (proud owner of a pb287q here) and are not afraid to offer freesync monitors that are cheaper than their own similarly spec'd gsync ones.

[iamdarkyoshi]

Too bad u mostly do overpriced Gsync monitors.

This

[Sauron]

Okay, but "gaming" monitors is a pretty specific group. 800k monitors out of what, 150 million or something?

 

if 800k is 40% I daresay the total would be 2 million "gaming" branded monitors. Even if the total number of monitors shipped is much higher, a 20% profit on an 800$ monitor is much more than what they get on a 100$ one.

[i_build_nanosuits]

ASUS Now Holds More Than 40% Market Share of Gaming Monitors

Makes sense since they build 40% of the models out there...

i guess acer hold 50% and Dell the last 10%?

[raphidy]

I think it's 40% of the estimated total of 800k+ in 2015. So 320k? Wcctech's source.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20151215PD203.html?mod=2

[Yoinkerman]

if 800k is 40% I daresay the total would be 2 million "gaming" branded monitors. Even if the total number of monitors shipped is much higher, a 20% profit on an 800$ monitor is much more than what they get on a 100$ one.

40% of 800k total "gaming" out of however many total monitors.

Its a neat number to throw out into space, but I don't know how relevant it is when we don't know how big the monitor space is. And there's a relatively small number of players in the "gaming" monitor market and the market itself is so young we'll probably see many drastic shifts.

[Prysin]

Those are probably not the cheapest Freesync monitors...

 

And yeah, like i said. It's the lacking quality control that makes people avoid it. Many people criticise Nvidia for making everything a closed system, but it's the only way you can guarantee a certain quality. Yes they can make their GPU's ready for Freesync, but they have no control over that market (and not in a nefarious way) so they can't guarantee their standard of quality. Much like not giving SLI certifications to 16x4x boards.

 

I understand their position, it's a smart position. It enforces consumer confidence (because nvidia is confident about their product), and is what makes Nvidia more succesful. Yes AMD does everything "open source" and "free". But tbh, open source is way overrated. It rarely goes anywhere and usually means the ones who want to put it onto the market have to invest the R&D, instead of AMD. With the G-sync monitors, companies can just simply create a plain monitor, add the module wholesale and put it onto the market.

 

And which person, wanting to shell out 600-800 euro for a monitor wants to run a risk of getting some 75-90hz panel. When 100 euro more would've gotten him a 1-144hz panel.

the sad thing is that Nvidia is sort of missing the market with Gsync.

Not that they are doing something wrong, but the price point doesnt make sense for the market that REALLY needs this technology.

 

If we look at the market, there is two segments that is in NEED of Adaptive sync of some sort.

- Low power systems (APUs, Laptops, OEM boxes)

- 21:9 3440x1440p and up resolutions

 

but why these two?

Because these are the two resolutions where GPU horsepower is really being put to the test. Even 144Hz 1440p isnt that hard to power, if we look at normal games like WoW, GW2, CSGO, LoL, DOTA(2) etc... Sure the big AAA titles are demanding, but they should be. However you play those for 20-30 hours/complete them, then go back to the aforementioned titles.

 

With Intel intending to support Freesync, perhaps as early as GT4e aka Skylake Iris Pro, well... things are looking good.

Also, notice how quite a few Skylake boards come with DP1.2. Coincident? perhaps, but considering their current iGPUs have no place trying to push 4k, even if you're just using MS Word on it... no, DP1.2 is prolly there for a good reason.

[zacRupnow]

40% share of gaming monitors doesn't say anything when they don't say what % of gamers are even using gaming monitors...

[Majestic]

the sad thing is that Nvidia is sort of missing the market with Gsync.

Not that they are doing something wrong, but the price point doesnt make sense for the market that REALLY needs this technology.

 

This is true. It would benefit the most to people running higher resolutions on "lower" hardware. Even people running higher hardware tbh, my 980 is usually only a few fps shy of 1440p60 at high settings. Meaning I have to drop a few settings to get locked 60. 

 

But it's that "early adopter" thing. Much like VR is missing the boat now. Since it's only for the priviliged few at the moment, but it's a means of getting it to the average person in the long run.

[EChondo]

If Dell wasn't stupid they would have made gaming monitors too.  :mellow:

And I hope they never do. I love my Dell monitors, purely because it looks absolutely flawless without all the "gaming" shit plastered all over it.

 

All these Asus monitors say to me is "Look at my cool lights!" or "hey bud, this is a Asus monitor, didn't know that? well after these 2-3 logos branded onto it you will know forever".

 

Bleh.

[ZetZet]

And I hope they never do. I love my Dell monitors, purely because it looks absolutely flawless without all the "gaming" shit plastered all over it.

 

All these Asus monitors say to me is "Look at my cool lights!" or "hey bud, this is a Asus monitor, didn't know that? well after these 2-3 logos branded onto it you will know forever".

 

Bleh.

Uhm. All these Asus monitors are gaming.

 

 

Asus makes pro grade and consumer versions of monitors too...

[Prysin]

This is true. It would benefit the most to people running higher resolutions on "lower" hardware. Even people running higher hardware tbh, my 980 is usually only a few fps shy of 1440p60 at high settings. Meaning I have to drop a few settings to get locked 60. 

 

But it's that "early adopter" thing. Much like VR is missing the boat now. Since it's only for the priviliged few at the moment, but it's a means of getting it to the average person in the long run.

the retarted thing is that Nvidia has "freesync" in their Gsync laptops. These laptops, atleast many of them, doesnt have the module. Instead they use a driver based solution, aka Freesync.

So it is beyond me why they cannot just "set the standard" by selling every 900m laptop with this technology.

I especially think AMD should have done this, as they marketed Carrizo as the "college kid laptop that can play games". And truthfully, Kaveri/Carrizo can easily power most games there is at maxed settings when we're talking about 1368x768 or whatever that fucked up resolution laptops use are...

 

If i could get a laptop with a strong iGPU and freesync for 350-400 USD.... man, that is a GOOD purchase... like seriously good.