ASUS PG258Q Review

[nicklmg]

Buy ASUS PG258Q on Amazon: http://geni.us/yoNRXz

 

The new ASUS PG258Q is, hands down, the best gaming monitor we've had the opportunity to try so far...

 

 

[Guest]

Looks like a thumbnail stolen from BarnaculesNerdgasm  

[lettuce head]

am i the only one who thinks this is kind of dumb? law of diminishing returns much?

[Wolther]

13 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

Looks like a thumbnail stolen from BarnaculesNerdgasm  

Not seeing it

 

3 minutes ago, lettuce head said:

am i the only one who thinks this is kind of dumb? law of diminishing returns much?

Why do you say that? 60 to 144 is a big jump, so is 144 to 240, im sure if I tried it I'd never be able to go back to a lower hz monitor 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Wolther said:

Not seeing it

eyeballs

[Wolther]

4 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

eyeballs

Whatever you say man. I genuinely do not see how this relates closely to any of his recent thumbnails. 

[hummbug95]

At first I thought it was the 4K 144 Hz HDR monitor, but then I saw the thin bezels...

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Wolther said:

Whatever you say man. I genuinely do not see how this relates closely to any of his recent thumbnails. 

Jesus Christ. 

[lettuce head]

24 minutes ago, Wolther said:

Not seeing it

 

Why do you say that? 60 to 144 is a big jump, so is 144 to 240, im sure if I tried it I'd never be able to go back to a lower hz monitor 

the only reason i say that is because its going to take soooooo much power to run the thing. if we go by pixels per frame X frames per second (i know thats not how it works but its not horribly wrong) 1440p is 1.77x the number of pixels than 1080p. and 4k is 4x the number than in 1080p. so if we're running 240 fps at 1080p, you could (using this equation) run 4k at 60 fps or 1440p at 106 fps. and the only card out there that can handle that kind of output is a titan xp and if you have that, you probably arent running a 1080p resolution and you probably dont want to go back.

i can see the demand for games like Cs:go but other than that... i just dont get it. i think it would have been a better investment of R&D money to either work out the kinks in OLEDs or trying to make IPS type panels quality control better and IPS panel production cheaper.

[HelplmChoking]

Wow, good luck playing any games made in the past couple years at that framerate... Also, 1080p TN panel? And that ID? No no no, I'll be sticking with my ultrawide.

[Techicolors]

Just now, Rangaman42 said:

Wow, good luck playing any games made in the past couple years at that framerate... Also, 1080p TN panel? And that ID? No no no, I'll be sticking with my ultrawide.

CS:GO, overwatch at low/med settings, LoL, among a few... 

[HelplmChoking]

1 minute ago, Technicolors said:

CS:GO, overwatch at low/med settings, LoL, among a few... 

Is this a thing people do? Run old games, or new games at low settings just for higher framerates? I guess it's like people who run cars with crazy power numbers, just to have the numbers there.

Honestly, I'm fine with 75Hz, since I tend to play less competitive games (although I do play Overwatch) and I'm more interested in it looking nice than eliminating that 1ms delay. 

[Streetguru]

1 hour ago, nicklmg said:

 

You guys should check out AOC's 240hz display at some point, has free-sync as well, just ya know, maybe test the free-sync this time

http://aoc-europe.com/en/products/ag251fz

http://www.144hzmonitors.com/reviews/aoc-agon-ag251fz-review-240hz-gaming-monitor-esports/

[Wolther]

4 hours ago, lettuce head said:

the only reason i say that is because its going to take soooooo much power to run the thing. if we go by pixels per frame X frames per second (i know thats not how it works but its not horribly wrong) 1440p is 1.77x the number of pixels than 1080p. and 4k is 4x the number than in 1080p. so if we're running 240 fps at 1080p, you could (using this equation) run 4k at 60 fps or 1440p at 106 fps. and the only card out there that can handle that kind of output is a titan xp and if you have that, you probably arent running a 1080p resolution and you probably dont want to go back.

i can see the demand for games like Cs:go but other than that... i just dont get it. i think it would have been a better investment of R&D money to either work out the kinks in OLEDs or trying to make IPS type panels quality control better and IPS panel production cheaper.

Most e-sport games aren't intensive games and can be run on laptops. I myself play Osu competitively, and most of the time my fps is 1k-2k. This is a monitor targeted towards a very specific group of people. Your right, I don't see the point of getting this if you play games that max out at like 100 fps or something. But I see the point if you play games that are able to take advantage of max frame display of the monitor 

[Princess Luna]

1 hour ago, Wolther said:

Most e-sport games aren't intensive games and can be run on laptops. I myself play Osu competitively, and most of the time my fps is 1k-2k. This is a monitor targeted towards a very specific group of people. Your right, I don't see the point of getting this if you play games that max out at like 100 fps or something. But I see the point if you play games that are able to take advantage of max frame display of the monitor 

More than half of all LoL players play it because they cant afford a better game, I have friends in this situation even... it is a solid game to play online with friends and runs on potatos while being free... so yeah this monitor targets e-sports gamers but even so a very tiny amount of them.

[Goren]

I was watching this video and it got me thinking. I use a 26" 16:10 monitor and would really hate to give that up and I need to upgrade soon...

Are there any good 4k 16:10 120Hz monitors roughly the same size out there that won't cost me an arm and a leg? A quick google search didn't really reveal much...

[dalekphalm]

Really displeased about the title of the video. The thumbnail is a bit annoying but really not as bad as some of the others.

 

My problem with the title is, SERIOUSLY, please put the product Make and Model in the title! Especially for a review!

 

If the title had been:

"ASUS PG258Q Review: The BEST & FASTEST Gaming Monitor. Period."

 

Or something similar, would have been totally fine. You get the product being reviewed, and you get the stupid titles. Everyone is happy.

[2FA]

11 minutes ago, Goren said:

I was watching this video and it got me thinking. I use a 26" 16:10 monitor and would really hate to give that up and I need to upgrade soon...

Are there any good 4k 16:10 120Hz monitors roughly the same size out there that won't cost me an arm and a leg? A quick google search didn't really reveal much...

I'm pretty sure there aren't any 16:10 4K monitors at all.

[dragoon20005]

at least Linus says this monitor is useless to him

 

If not i will be screaming No all the way for suggesting 1080P TN monitors at this time of gaming monitors

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, dragoon20005 said:

at least Linus says this monitor is useless to him

 

If not i will be screaming No all the way for suggesting 1080P TN monitors at this time of gaming monitors

Indeed - is it fast? Fuck yeah.

 

But I would personally value an IPS monitor with decently fast refresh rate (up to 120/144) over this TN panel. 1080p is take it or leave it. Mostly depends on monitor size. 22" and under, 1080p is totally fine. 24" is debatable. 1440p is better, but 1080p is still okay. Anything about 24" definitely needs 1440p or 4K.

 

I'd also take FreeSync/Adaptive-Sync over G-Sync because:

1. I have an AMD GPU, and

2. I want to support open standards that operate between vendors. Since NVIDIA could literally support any FreeSync GPU any time they wanted (Older NVIDIA GPU's probably can't, but I'd be surprised if Maxwell or Pascal didn't have the physical hardware needed).

[dragoon20005]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Indeed - is it fast? Fuck yeah.

 

But I would personally value an IPS monitor with decently fast refresh rate (up to 120/144) over this TN panel. 1080p is take it or leave it. Mostly depends on monitor size. 22" and under, 1080p is totally fine. 24" is debatable. 1440p is better, but 1080p is still okay. Anything about 24" definitely needs 1440p or 4K.

also 500 bucks for a 25 inch 1080P TN is nuts

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, dragoon20005 said:

also 500 bucks for a 25 inch 1080P TN is nuts

I mean, if you're a top pro CS:GO player? Sure. Whatever.

 

But no normal gamer should buy this monitor lol

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I mean, if you're a top pro CS:GO player? Sure. Whatever.

 

But no normal gamer should buy this monitor lol

Yet there are still people buying this just for bragging rights, just like they did with an i7 6950x and Titan XP in SLI

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Yet there are still people buying this just for bragging rights, just like they did with an i7 6950x and Titan XP in SLI

Sure those people exist. They're stupid, and just throwing money at ASUS. If they really want bragging rights, they should be buying the most expensive monitor money can buy.

[skywake]

1 hour ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Yet there are still people buying this just for bragging rights, just like they did with an i7 6950x and Titan XP in SLI

Yeah, but what sort of bragging rights? Just skimming th eprices at a local retailer. For about the same price this monitor costs (Australian RRP) you can get a 27" IPS Panel with G-Sync/Freesync that's 1440p and has a fairly high refresh rate. One from Viewsonic that's 165Hz and G-Sync, another from Asus that's $100 less, 144Hz and FreeSync.

 

There's a fine line between bragging rights and laughing stock....