Asus ROG Swift PG32UQX Review: True HDR 4K Gaming Monitor

R00sT3R

Posts: 478   +1,312
$3K !!

These PC monitor manufacturers really do take the piss on a cosmic level, If they weren't being targeted at the gullible gamer crowd, who seem to take great delight in throwing ever more ludicrous amounts of money down the drain, They wouldn't get away with it, not for a second.

..not worth a cent over $1k
 

Xex360

Posts: 131   +162
Stupid monitor, still using old technologies for no reason other than stupidity, but given how Asus ruined their whole Laptop line-up this year it's not surprising.
Then the price, this monitor is still using outdated LCD technology yet it costs more than a bigger far superior OLED TV. This monitor shouldn't be more than 800€.
 

Geralt

Posts: 557   +777
This is too rich for most people.

I have been using a 32" 4K HDR monitor (60Hz) for the last 2 years, and very happy with it. I purchased it for $850 back then. I always wanted to up the HDR and frame rates on it, but not by paying 4 times as much money for it.
I am in your exact position regarding monitors. My BenQ 32" and AOC 32" are good monitors, but I need something for gamers. Anyway, with that MSRP I have to pass.
 

Pastuch

Posts: 85   +86
This monitor is a joke, no HDMI 2.1 is a deal breaker. The issues with miniled are clear, if you want 4k and HDR buy an LG c11 OLED 48" or wait for the 42 inch later this year. Once you try gaming on OLED everything else looks like crap.
 

Abaidor

Posts: 7   +14
This monitor is a joke, no HDMI 2.1 is a deal breaker. The issues with miniled are clear, if you want 4k and HDR buy an LG c11 OLED 48" or wait for the 42 inch later this year. Once you try gaming on OLED everything else looks like crap.

I really wonder how on earth did this get the green light for release? No HDMI 2.1? Seriously what crap is this.........and the price is ridiculous vs an OLED TV........let them eat their stock!
 

godrilla

Posts: 264   +136
FYI the CX 48 incher is going for $1199 . The input lag and response times will put this monitor to shame!
 

godrilla

Posts: 264   +136
So... WHAT single gpu is capable of delivering 144fps at 4K, other than Indie games?

This monitor seems pretty pointless.
The question I asked myself is why is higher refresh monitors better? Then I seen a Linus video reviewing a bunch of high refresh rate monitors and concluded its the input lag and response times matters more than the higher frame rate. I recall he reviewed the CX and mentioned the response times was close to a 240hz panel.
 

VitalyT

Posts: 5,831   +5,883
So... WHAT single gpu is capable of delivering 144fps at 4K, other than Indie games?

This monitor seems pretty pointless.
Doom Eternal, for one, averages 160fps@4k, using either RTX3090 or RTX3080Ti. And there are a few games that can easily hit 144fps@4k.
 

ddferrari

Posts: 522   +260
TechSpot Elite
Doom Eternal, for one, averages 160fps@4k, using either RTX3090 or RTX3080Ti. And there are a few games that can easily hit 144fps@4k.
Correct. A few.

But unless you plan to only play "a few" certain games for a year or more until the RTX 4xxx series comes out, the full potential of this monitor still seems out of reach in 2021. And $3K- with HDMI 2.0 lol? PASS
 
Last edited:

ddferrari

Posts: 522   +260
TechSpot Elite
The question I asked myself is why is higher refresh monitors better? Then I seen a Linus video reviewing a bunch of high refresh rate monitors and concluded its the input lag and response times matters more than the higher frame rate. I recall he reviewed the CX and mentioned the response times was close to a 240hz panel.
Some people notice, some don't that going from 60Hz to say, 120Hz looks and feels a lot smoother.

I, for one, am a fan. Been in both experiences and speaking from just my own personal experience.
 

godrilla

Posts: 264   +136
Some people notice, some don't that going from 60Hz to say, 120Hz looks and feels a lot smoother.

I, for one, am a fan. Been in both experiences and speaking from just my own personal experience.
true also cx is has 120hz which is the sweet spot in terms resources spent and smoothness but 120 fps on the CX and 120 fps on this monitor might yield different subjective experiences. The input lag on the CX competes with the super high refresh rate monitors at 240hz as well as response times.
By going with asus monitor you are paying a premium 2 fold
1 for the monitor
2 for the resources needed to get to 4k 144hz.


When comparing my previous Asus 100hz 3440by1440p GSYNC ips monitor to the cx even though the cx is 20hz higher the experience equates to super competitive in top multiplayer online shoothers as well as Vermitide 2 coop due to better input lag.
The only time I would except 60 fps is in a single player game for maximum eye candy.
 

godrilla

Posts: 264   +136
How much would it cost nvidia to update their gsync module with hdmi 2.1?

It feels like nvidia don't believe it has a future.
I believe gsync module officially only supports Dispay port. Gsync comparability works over hdmi 2.1 technically gsync is supported but the monitor vendors has to pay for the license which is still cheaper for the end user vs gsync moduled monitors. I believe it comes down to cost if the monitor is already so expensive it would probably be even more expensive.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 584   +488
I believe gsync module officially only supports Dispay port. Gsync comparability works over hdmi 2.1 technically gsync is supported but the monitor vendors has to pay for the license which is still cheaper for the end user vs gsync moduled monitors. I believe it comes down to cost if the monitor is already so expensive it would probably be even more expensive.

Remember "Gsync Compatible" is really just saying " uses some other form of VRR". For example, LGs TVs support Freesync Premium and HDMI VRR; hell, NVIDIA backported HDMI VRR to the 1600/2000 series so the LG C9 series could get VRR working while waiting for 3000 series GPUs to come out.

That's the issue with these monitors: They are, frankly, worse then high-end TV sets these days, while costing twice as much.
 

Austinturner

Posts: 269   +317
I guess a lot of the price difference with tvs is just volume, LG expects to ship what…8 million oled tvs this year. This is low volume niche product, they will probably lose money on it at the volumes they sell.
 

godrilla

Posts: 264   +136
Remember "Gsync Compatible" is really just saying " uses some other form of VRR". For example, LGs TVs support Freesync Premium and HDMI VRR; hell, NVIDIA backported HDMI VRR to the 1600/2000 series so the LG C9 series could get VRR working while waiting for 3000 series GPUs to come out.

That's the issue with these monitors: They are, frankly, worse then high-end TV sets these days, while costing twice as much.
Yep some people believe that boycotting Nvidia makes Nvidia learn some kind of lesson. But in reality when competition like Vesa open standards vrr and freesync steps up Nvidia had no choice but to support it. I recall hardware unboxed said they actually did it for their own benefit too the gsync compatible lineup pays royalties to Nvidia and took the thunder away the freesync marketing. In the end gamers won.
I have no regrets with my previous
pg348q asus monitor ( 3440 x1440p @ 100hz ips gsync monitor) because back then nothing came close. But now you are just paying a higher premium and now it can be considered inferior to hdmi 2.1 vrr standard until dp 2.0. I still thank Nvidia for making vrr gsync compatible because without that my CX would not be compatible to my 3090 xc3 ultra hybrid for gsync.
 
Last edited:

gamerk2

Posts: 584   +488
Yep some people believe that boycotting Nvidia makes Nvidia learn some kind of lesson. But in reality when competition like Vesa open standards vrr and freesync steps up Nvidia had no choice but to support it. I recall hardware unboxed said they actually did it for their own benefit too the gsync compatible lineup pays royalties to Nvidia and took the thunder away the freesync marketing. In the end gamers won.
I have no regrets with my previous
pg348q asus monitor ( 3440 x1440p @ 100hz ips gsync monitor) because back then nothing came close. But now you are just paying a higher premium and now it can be considered inferior to hdmi 2.1 vrr standard until dp 2.0. I still thank Nvidia for making vrr gsync compatible because without that my CX would not be compatible to my 3090 xc3 ultra hybrid for gsync.
It is worth noting nobody cared about VRR until NVIDIA spent good time and effort to come up with the best design possible.

Note there are some cases that Gsync handles better then other VRR methods, due to being able to do significant per-frame post-processing thanks to having an embedded chip in the display. For example, the VRR gamma issues that LGs TVs can have as you move away from 120Hz is cleanly solved by Gsync. [Freesync has the same problem, but hasn't been as noticeable as most freesync implementations thus far have been 60Hz maximum].

It's also worth noting Freesync remains optional in Displayport 2.0, where HDMR VRR is part of the standard HDMI 2.1 spec.
 
The article states" HDMI 2.1 has been utilized in TVs for several generations now... "

What manufacturer has been using HDMI 2.1 for several generations?

This monitor is definitely over priced. Way over priced. ASUS' high end monitor are often over priced as far as I remember.
This monitor does get super bright, for HDR anyway. I guess HDR might actually good for once but not worth $3 grand.
The biggest draw back for OLED is burn in. Using one for gaming comes with much higher risk. I've seen it other people's TV but I've never owned one.

I have a Samsung C49RG90, which I am extremely happy with. I never use HDR on it. It only has 10 lighting zones, plain and simple HDR looks terrible on it. I would like to upgrade to the G9 but I'll most likely wait to see the next generation. I've heard it will have more significant improvements compared to G9 over C49RG90.

I was planning to get a LG OLED TV, like the C1 48".
But I've been reading the reviews of the new Samsung QN90A QLED 50", it seems like it could be a viable alternative to C1 OLED. Rtings gives a positive review. In Canada the 48" C1 OLED besides being impossible to find in stock is often priced higher than the 55". I understand why it is I'm just saying.
I mostly want something that's better for TV shows and movies. The curved super ultrawide isn't the best for movie watching.

Good review. It's always nice to see a honest review of a sub par product rather just schilling for a big company's expensive product.