Asus announces 35-inch ROG Swift PG35VQ display with quantum dots and 200Hz refresh rate

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,253   +192
Staff member

Asus earlier this week at Computex unveiled nearly half a dozen new laptops. Now, they’ve added a high-end gaming monitor to their portfolio.

The Asus ROG Swift PG35VQ is a 35-inch ultra-wide curved quantum dot LCD monitor with a 3,440 x 1,440 pixel resolution (21:9 aspect ratio) and a ridiculously fast refresh rate of 200Hz. Nvidia’s G-SYNC technology ensures a smooth, tear-free experience while HDR capabilities afford what Asus calls “lifelike” contrast and color with bright whites and dark blacks.

The screen also supports the cinema-standard DCI-P3 color gamut which enables a 25 percent wider color range than sRGB and affords a “retina-searing” 1,000 nits of brightness. Asus additionally highlights the fact that the panel is illuminated by 512 individual LEDs that can be controlled independently to darken specific portions of the picture.

According to The Verge, the PG35VQ uses the same exact AU Optronics panel found in the Predator Z35P monitor that Acer announced last week although oddly enough, Acer’s monitor isn’t capable of the 200Hz refresh rate like the Asus offering.

The Asus ROG Swift PG35VQ doesn’t yet have a price point although I can assure you, it won’t come cheap. For comparison, the ROG PG348Q – a 34-inch ultra-wide panel with Nvidia’s G-SYNC tech – currently commands $1,199.90 over on Amazon while the aforementioned Predator Z35P carries a $1,099.99 asking price.

Asus is targeting a fourth quarter 2017 release date, Nvidia tells us.

Permalink to story.

 
I have owned 5 x pg348q, all with gsync defects like scanlines, horizontal waves running down the screen and 3 had slight coilwhine. Asus ended up admitting they where not able to deliver a not defect pg348q monitor and gave refund after 4 month.

This one should be better. But I would rather wait for a non gsync model, gsync dosnt matter at 144hz or more anyway..and I dont want the typical drawbacks from gsync. 200hz is awesome :p
 
Overpriced indulgences like this have never made any sense to me when you consider 99% of PC video games are just shoddily ported console games full of bugs that never get ironed out and and a maximum refresh rate of 60 Hz, that's if the devs were feeling energetic at the time.
 
Overpriced indulgences like this have never made any sense to me when you consider 99% of PC video games are just shoddily ported console games full of bugs that never get ironed out and and a maximum refresh rate of 60 Hz, that's if the devs were feeling energetic at the time.
I know of very little games that don't work properly past 60Hz. Care to explain?
 
Overpriced indulgences like this have never made any sense to me when you consider 99% of PC video games are just shoddily ported console games full of bugs that never get ironed out and and a maximum refresh rate of 60 Hz, that's if the devs were feeling energetic at the time.
I know of very little games that don't work properly past 60Hz. Care to explain?

Lego batman.
 
Overpriced indulgences like this have never made any sense to me when you consider 99% of PC video games are just shoddily ported console games full of bugs that never get ironed out and and a maximum refresh rate of 60 Hz, that's if the devs were feeling energetic at the time.

That's why I haven't built a new rig yet after selling my old one.
 
Lego batman.
I think you're getting refresh rate and frame rate mixed up, a framerate cap doesn't change the refresh rate of the screen (unless g-sync or freesync is used of course).

I just tried Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge (the oldest game I have installed) at 144Hz and it's absolutely fine.
 
Overpriced indulgences like this have never made any sense to me when you consider 99% of PC video games are just shoddily ported console games full of bugs that never get ironed out and and a maximum refresh rate of 60 Hz, that's if the devs were feeling energetic at the time.
But, the Witcher 3 is life, so none of those shoddy games really matter.
 
I think you're getting refresh rate and frame rate mixed up, a framerate cap doesn't change the refresh rate of the screen (unless g-sync or freesync is used of course).

I just tried Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge (the oldest game I have installed) at 144Hz and it's absolutely fine.
Yeah I guess I am. I've seen titles (Batman Arkham Knight, Mafia 3) on my rig supposedly capped at 60 fps play easily and smoothly at much, much higher framerates without any tearing, and I'm just using a regular 60 Hz, PLS panel.
 
Is a single title worth blowing such a wad on? Well I guess everybody has different perceptions.
Definitely an over-exaggeration with TW3, but coming from years and years on console to now using a QHD monitor up to 150 fps on games that I grew up playing at sub 30 fps is like a whole new experience.
 
Definitely an over-exaggeration with TW3, but coming from years and years on console to now using a QHD monitor up to 150 fps on games that I grew up playing at sub 30 fps is like a whole new experience.
The problem with that is that you become very used to it very quickly then want a bigger rush. In the end, if you're not careful and frugal, you wind up with a sad looking bank balance and a bad addiction which is just what the tech doctor ordered. New tech is nice to have but it's really nothing more than a high... for a while.
 
This is the type of monitor I have been waiting for. What type of panel? VA?
Ultrawide, high res, no TN. Very high refresh.
I almost bought a 1080p gsync to get me by until these arrived. Glad I didn't.
I won't buy this screen right away, I will be waiting until I upgrade my gpu to high end Volta.
Also, what DP version will this screen have?
 
Dream monitor.

Until I read it's VA.

RIP the dream.

Was never so excited then so letdown in such a short amount of time.

IPS or bust. VA panels are not suited to ultrawide monitors at all due to their inherent problems. I had a 24" 16:9 VA and it was terrible (FG2421; quality monitor), so an ultrawide would be even worse. TN's aren't even part of the equation. If it aint VA, it's a stupid resolution for its size (2560x1080 35").

Until we see an IPS monitor of this caliber, us 21:9 enthusiasts will continue to be forced to wait until one to come to market.. and boy how long we've been waiting already.
 
Last edited:
Dream monitor.

Until I read it's VA.

RIP the dream.

Was never so excited then so letdown in such a short amount of time.

IPS or bust. VA panels are not suited to ultrawide monitors at all due to their inherent problems. I had a 24" 16:9 VA and it was terrible (FG2421; quality monitor), so an ultrawide would be even worse. TN's aren't even part of the equation. If it aint VA, it's a stupid resolution for its size (2560x1080 35").

Until we see an IPS monitor of this caliber, us 21:9 enthusiasts will continue to be forced to wait until one to come to market.. and boy how long we've been waiting already.

is there a problem with VA and viewing angles with curved 21:9 or something? What's the big issue?
 
is there a problem with VA and viewing angles with curved 21:9 or something? What's the big issue?
VA's have terrible off center contrast shift.

A 21:9 VA panel is one of the worst things you can buy, because you'd need to sit far, far back to have to look right. A curve might help, but I've never actually seen one in person, so I can't judge.

VA's also suffer from black crush, which ruins the image even further.

VA's main advantage, ie; black levels/contrast ratio are completely countered by its own inherent issues. I'd rather use a TN, and that's coming from someone who refuses to use anything but IPS.
 
VA's have terrible off center contrast shift.

A 21:9 VA panel is one of the worst things you can buy, because you'd need to sit far, far back to have to look right. A curve might help, but I've never actually seen one in person, so I can't judge.

VA's also suffer from black crush, which ruins the image even further.

VA's main advantage, ie; black levels/contrast ratio are completely countered by its own inherent issues. I'd rather use a TN, and that's coming from someone who refuses to use anything but IPS.

Oh lord, if you put it that way!!! I am in the process of getting a new setup overhaul. Could ya help me out? I've been posting on forums and what not but really want the most ideal screen.

Off-Topic
____________________
Budget: £700 to £1100
Purpose: Web Design, UX, UI, Web Development, Light Video Editing, After Effects, Movies/TV Shows & Casual Gaming (in that order).
Requirement: IPS or equivalent, 21:9 G-Sync, 3840x1600 or 3440x1440 however I heard the former is better for Movies/TV Shows. Wall mounted.
Options: LG 38uc99, Acer XR382CQK, AOC Agon AG352UCG, Predator X34 or latest, ROG Swift PG35VQ (upon release)

Pretty self explanatory however choosing monitor seems to be the biggest task there. Trade offs include IPS vs high refresh rate vs ultrawide vs hdr (coming soon) vs true 4k ultrawide (not out yet afaik). Urgh options...
 
Options: LG 38uc99, Acer XR382CQK, AOC Agon AG352UCG, Predator X34 or latest, ROG Swift PG35VQ (upon release)

Trade offs include IPS vs high refresh rate vs ultrawide vs hdr (coming soon) vs true 4k ultrawide (not out yet afaik). Urgh options...
Struggling with that myself, so I can't help much. :)

I'm still waiting for the new monitors to come out.. as I was back with my 1920x1200 display manufactured in 2001. There wasn't a single 120Hz 16:10 monitor over 1680x1050, and I was forced to switch to 21:9 because 16:9 was a downgrade in every single way. There were no high refresh rate 21:9 monitors back then.

I would've picked up the X34 on release if I had the GPU hardware to power it (and money), but that needed a 1080 Ti.. and here we are now. It's been so damn long that many new monitors are coming out with new tech (HDR/Quantum Dot) and I'm just holding out for a true 120Hz 21:9 IPS with Gsync (I don't use AMD) and potentially HDR to fully futureproof myself.

Been using my PB298Q for 4 years now.. waiting is extremely hard.
 
VA's have terrible off center contrast shift.
I'm very suspicious that is caused by the pixel wall thickness, not the design of the monitors. The further you go away from the 90 degree axis, the more you're looking through the pixel cell wall, which isn't quite transparent. I've noticed the same thing with IPS panels. I doubt you'd notice anything like that in a 1080p large screen TV, as the pixel itself is much larger in relation to the cell wall. I'd write the whole issue off to "resolution greed", and realize you're getting what you asked for, on the maker's terms, of course.

A 21:9 panel is one of the worst things you can buy,
.
A 21:9 aspect ratio panel is one of the worst things you can buy, period. Other than for CinemaScope movies, 2.35 to 1.00 is patently useless for any other kind of imaging work.

Given that 35 mm still camera film has an aspect ratio of 1.5 to 1.0, and is still pretty much the gold standard for visualizing photographic images, I'd say ultra wide angle monitors aren't really useful for any portrait work, until you hit about 60" wide. Try it for yourself, get a standard 11" x 14" piece of photo paper, and see just how big the UWA monitor has to be, to get 14" in height from it. And you certainly can't stand a turd like the one being discussed in this thread on end for portrait work. I think the aspect ratio would be something on the order of a $6.95 Walmart bathroom door mirror.

And BTW, IPS suffers from back light bleed, VA doesn't, at least not the ones I've seen / own.
 
Last edited:
A 21:9 aspect ratio panel is one of the worst things you can buy, period.
gr8 b8 m8.

21:9 supports all 16:9 content just fine and offers its own advantages on the desktop/in applications, in games that support it, and watching actual movies; it's objectively better in every conceivable way. After experiencing it, I will NEVER go back to a narrow aspect ratio, and recommend 21:9 displays to everyone. If a 21:10 aspect ratio comes out some day, we'd have the golden aspect ratio, as 16:10 once was.

Also, IPS glow isn't backlight bleed (that's a build quality issue with monitor manufacturers). IPS glow is annoying and the main thing I hate about IPS (makes dark media consumption less enjoyable), but other panel types have worse issues.

Until something equivalent to OLED is mainstream for PC monitors, IPS is the best we have.
 
Back