Asus ROG Swift PG32UQ Review: 32-inch 4K 144Hz IPS Gaming Monitor

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 928   +821
Fantastic review and thank you for spending time to do colour testing. As a photo editor and gamer I need a wide gamut panel. This looks to be a good candidate to replace my old 2013 Dell 27" Ultrasharp which has 97% AdobeRGB gamut and no HDR capabilities, only 60Hz, only 2560 x 1440. I'd probably just run this at 120Hz for normal work and my GPU certainly couldn't do 4K > 60fps for AAA titles unless it has DLSS 2 support.
 

ddferrari

Posts: 534   +266
TechSpot Elite
I may be wrong, but gaming monitors seem to be getting pretty far ahead of current GPU's capabilities.

What GPU existing today, even the mighty RTX 3090, can drive a AAA game (at good settings) in 4K at 144/155 FPS consistently? Have I lost pace?

My understanding is that under roughly 40", the difference between 4K and 1440p is almost imperceptible amongst equally spec'd monitors. I'm tired of wondering, so I'm going to confirm this myself in real-time, and I'll comment on my "perceived" results.

Once I get a bigger desk so I can do a side-by-side with identically-sized models, I'll go for it and give my opinion. :)

 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,868   +1,919
I may be wrong, but gaming monitors seem to be getting pretty far ahead of current GPU's capabilities.

What GPU existing today, even the mighty RTX 3090, can drive a AAA game (at good settings) in 4K at 144/155 FPS consistently? Have I lost pace?
You have.
High refresh monitors cater to multiplayer and competitive gamers where response time and input latency are king and image quality takes a back seat. They are also high saturation out of the box because gamers prefer it because it improves player visibility and who cares if the colours are perfect. As long as red isn't orange or pink, gamers are happy.

If you're playing mainly single player games and/or you're just a casual multiplayer gamer, there is no reason for you to purposely hunt for a monitor over 120Hz/144Hz. High refresh has benefits outside of gaming too, but too high of a refresh is a waste if you're not putting it to good use.

Shroud has an RTX 3090 and plays at 1440p on a 240Hz monitor at Low and Medium image quality. It's the thing now. My perfect setup would be an RTX 3070 to go with my 165Hz 1440p monitor using a mix of low and medium in the multiplayer games I play. I can settle for the ~120fps I get in Warzone with a 2070 Super for now though. Other MP games I have fair much better with and without reduced image quality.
 
Last edited:

ddferrari

Posts: 534   +266
TechSpot Elite
You have.
High refresh monitors cater to multiplayer and competitive gamers where response time and input latency are king and image quality takes a back seat. They are also high saturation out of the box because gamers prefer it because it improves player visibility and who cares if the colours are perfect. As long as red isn't orange or pink, gamers are happy.

If you're playing mainly single player games and/or you're just a casual multiplayer gamer, there is no reason for you to purposely hunt for a monitor over 120Hz/144Hz. High refresh has benefits outside of gaming too, but too high of a refresh is a waste if you're not putting it to good use.

Shroud has an RTX 3090 and plays at 1440p on a 240Hz monitor at Low and Medium image quality. It's the thing now. My perfect setup would be an RTX 3070 to go with my 165Hz 1440p monitor using a mix of low and medium in the multiplayer games I play. I can settle for the ~120fps I get in Warzone with a 2070 Super for now though. Other MP games I have fair much better with and without reduced image quality.
Thanks for the insight! Just a thought though... you're reply refers to 1440p, but what about- as I mentioned- 4K?

You're right- I was viewing the specs from my own perspective. I'm an offline (normally) campaign player with a 120Hz (3440x1440p) IPS monitor, and I like the eye candy. My EVGA Hybrid 1080Ti is still doing really well on most games at this resolution. I'll LOOK at 4K next time around, but I'm very pleased with this resolution and FPS.

Much appreciated, hahahanoobs!
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,868   +1,919
Thanks for the insight! Just a thought though... you're reply refers to 1440p, but what about- as I mentioned- 4K?

You're right- I was viewing the specs from my own perspective. I'm an offline (normally) campaign player with a 120Hz (3440x1440p) IPS monitor, and I like the eye candy. My EVGA Hybrid 1080Ti is still doing really well on most games at this resolution. I'll LOOK at 4K next time around, but I'm very pleased with this resolution and FPS.

Much appreciated, hahahanoobs!
4K, yes, forgive me.

FPS does not have to match the refresh rate of a high refresh monitor to get the benefits. You just get more of them if you can maintain a steady fps which can only be done by locking your frame rate, but that's for MP and competitive gamers. For you, you just want to be as close as you can get to 120/144Hz for the type of gamer you are. Anything higher than 120/144 would be a complete waste if you're paying more for it thinking you'll notice a difference.

Higher than that at 4K is just there if you want to take advantage of it. 5 years ago no one probably would have thought competitive players would embrace 1440p, but they are starting to. Then you have regular MP gamers that want 4K and a high refresh and are willing to drop image quality for it.
 
Last edited:

ddferrari

Posts: 534   +266
TechSpot Elite
So for me, the not-too-distant-future is still 1440p. It just seems like the sweet spot for now, based on a single player utilizing off-line mode. Max eye candy and 120FPS is all I want at the moment :)

This is the best balance I've found, considering the current GPU market.
 
Last edited: