Asus ROG Swift PG42UQ Review: 42-Inch Gaming OLED

dangh

Posts: 858   +1,451
With this text representation it is not good for standard monitor if you plan to work on it, and you work is related to typing. As programmer, this is not for me. Still, good to see some progress and I might be able to get myself full pixel oled 38-42 inch 5k ultrawide. Until this wont happen, I'm happy with lg 38gn950... but would really enjoy a proper oled.
 

m3tavision

Posts: 1,117   +946
4k on a 42in screen... 1/3 less pixel density on 32" 4k screen from 18-24in. away... No thanks.

You do not sit close to a display like this.... but imagine being stuck at 27", thinking pixel density matters (said no gamer ever). When 32" 1440p monitors are superior to 27" 4k monitors on ability to see movement and pick out targets.

Nobody cares if your opponent's helmet has 16 more pixels.....

 

nnguy2

Posts: 651   +1,498
You do not sit close to a display like this.... but imagine being stuck at 27", thinking pixel density matters (said no gamer ever). When 32" 1440p monitors are superior to 27" 4k monitors on ability to see movement and pick out targets.

Nobody cares if your opponent's helmet has 16 more pixels.....

Pixel density matters. Optimal pixel density anyway which involves optimal viewing distance. For a monitor of that size and resolution, you'd want to be at least 35" away. The author tested it at "normal viewing distances." which is about 18-24" away depending on desk depth. You think people are gonna put this monitor on a wall across the room much less on a desk 35" away? 1)Good luck trying to read any menu or text even if a 200% scaling. 2) good luck finding an office desk over 2ft deep (not that they don't exist, but commonly only drafting desks are that deep so the point is moot).

everything about your point tells me you don't know how screen size, resolution, viewing distance, and scaling works. You wrote: '32" 1440p monitors are superior to 27" 4k' that's a$$ backwards. there is no case where that is remotely true to be debated. It's 32" 4k vs 27" 1440p that was debate on which is better. /endrant
 
Last edited:

bandit8623

Posts: 459   +251
Pixel density matters. Optimal pixel density anyway which involves optimal viewing distance. For a monitor of that size and resolution, you'd want to be at least 35" away. The author tested it at "normal viewing distances." which is about 18-24" away depending on desk depth. You think people are gonna put this monitor on a wall across the room much less on a desk 35" away? 1)Good luck trying to read any menu or text even if a 200% scaling. 2) good luck finding an office desk over 2ft deep (not that they don't exist, but commonly only drafting desks are that deep so the point is moot).

everything about your point tells me you don't know how screen size, resolution, viewing distance, and scaling works. You wrote: '32" 1440p monitors are superior to 27" 4k' that's a$$ backwards. there is no case where that is remotely true to be debated. It's 32" 4k vs 27" 1440p that was debate on which is better. /endrant
its not totally backwards. a 32 inch 1440p monitor can do 240hz or higher. if you put the monitor 2 ft away from you you wont see any pixels anyway. so the 32 inch 240hz is better for gaming.

now you can put that 27inch 4k monitor closer to your face making it look bigger wituout seeing pixels. but the refresh rate isnt there yet. and thats if you dont care about desk space

as for this 4k @ 42 I would place that 2 ft back on my desk and would be 3 to 4ft away from my face. saves desk space and would look great.

so yes the 1440p 32 can be better
 

nnguy2

Posts: 651   +1,498
its not totally backwards. a 32 inch 1440p monitor can do 240hz or higher. if you put the monitor 2 ft away from you you wont see any pixels anyway. so the 32 inch 240hz is better for gaming.

now you can put that 27inch 4k monitor closer to your face making it look bigger wituout seeing pixels. but the refresh rate isnt there yet. and thats if you dont care about desk space

as for this 4k @ 42 I would place that 2 ft back on my desk and would be 3 to 4ft away from my face. saves desk space and would look great.

so yes the 1440p 32 can be better
high refresh rating isn't the end all be all of gaming. if you're not playing competitive online shooters, for the most part you don't "need" 240hz. you sit a 1-2 ft away from your desk? how are you gonna reach the mouse and keyboard? speaking of desk space you don't think the base takes up space? the monitor won't be at the very back of your desk, the feet/base takes up space. but keep making stuff up as you go along.
 

godrilla

Posts: 626   +339
Interesting how an overclocked lg panel at 138 hz has worse input lag than the same lg panel in the c2 and same response times. Does display port 1.4 add latency in comparison to Hdmi 2.1?
 
With this text representation it is not good for standard monitor if you plan to work on it, and you work is related to typing. As programmer, this is not for me. Still, good to see some progress and I might be able to get myself full pixel oled 38-42 inch 5k ultrawide. Until this wont happen, I'm happy with lg 38gn950... but would really enjoy a proper oled.
I've had this monitor for over a month now.
I'm a software engineer and the text is perfect.
2 vs code windows across the bottom, chrome upper left, and select developer top right.
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,431   +2,999
Staff member
Interesting how an overclocked lg panel at 138 hz has worse input lag than the same lg panel in the c2 and same response times. Does display port 1.4 add latency in comparison to Hdmi 2.1?
Probably more to do with the fact that the LG C2 achieves its lower latency when in Game Optimizer mode and the Prevent Input Delay is set to Boost. The Asus model doesn't have these features.
 

m3tavision

Posts: 1,117   +946
Pixel density matters. Optimal pixel density anyway which involves optimal viewing distance. For a monitor of that size and resolution, you'd want to be at least 35" away. The author tested it at "normal viewing distances." which is about 18-24" away depending on desk depth. You think people are gonna put this monitor on a wall across the room much less on a desk 35" away? 1)Good luck trying to read any menu or text even if a 200% scaling. 2) good luck finding an office desk over 2ft deep (not that they don't exist, but commonly only drafting desks are that deep so the point is moot).

everything about your point tells me you don't know how screen size, resolution, viewing distance, and scaling works. You wrote: '32" 1440p monitors are superior to 27" 4k' that's a$$ backwards. there is no case where that is remotely true to be debated. It's 32" 4k vs 27" 1440p that was debate on which is better. /endrant


No, pixel density doesn't matter to gamers, it is a "thing" for Artists and Office Productivity (text). As I said earlier, nobody cares if when another Soldier peaks his head around the corner, that is has 23 more pixels....

Try playing COD at both 400x600 and then at 3840x2160 on a 4k monitor and tell me what gives you more information....



Also, people who buy a 42" gaming monitor usually have a gaming chair and have no need for a monitor in their face, they did that when they were a kid. Also, the only reason people game at 27" is because of price.. when 32" (at same resolution) allows you to see your pixels better... it magnifies them, so that you can sense motion better...

You really do not know anything about gaming... perhaps you mean movie/video enthusiasts..?
 
Last edited:

nnguy2

Posts: 651   +1,498
No, pixel density doesn't matter to gamers, it is a "thing" for Artists and Office Productivity (text). As I said earlier, nobody cares if when another Soldier peaks his head around the corner, that is has 23 more pixels....

Try playing COD at both 400x600 and then at 3840x2160 on a 4k monitor and tell me what gives you more information....



Also, people who buy a 42" gaming monitor usually have a gaming chair and have no need for a monitor in their face, they did that when they were a kid. Also, the only reason people game at 27" is because of price.. when 32" (at same resolution) allows you to see your pixels better... it magnifies them, so that you can sense motion better...

You really do not know anything about gaming... perhaps you mean movie/video enthusiasts..?

I think you're confused. No gamer wants to see pixels and that's what a low pxiel density does. A 27in 4k monitor will have a sharper image than a 32in 4k monitor.

Speaking of gaming chairs... Just because something has "gaming" attached to it doesn't make it the best product for gaming. I can assure you my Herman Miller Aeron office chair is 10x more comfortable than gaming chair on the market.
 

m3tavision

Posts: 1,117   +946
I think you're confused. No gamer wants to see pixels and that's what a low pxiel density does. A 27in 4k monitor will have a sharper image than a 32in 4k monitor.

Speaking of gaming chairs... Just because something has "gaming" attached to it doesn't make it the best product for gaming. I can assure you my Herman Miller Aeron office chair is 10x more comfortable than gaming chair on the market.

If you only play casual cinematic movie style games and sit with your face stuck to your 25" monitor < then you are doing it wrong.

How would you have ever managed, 15 years ago... watching TV..?



Pixel density on a phone, is not the same as on a 42" Monitor. Your focal length and requirements are much different. Additionally you are forgetting what pixel density means, and how higher resolution have more pixels (representing an image), even if they are not packed as dense..

Please understand, that a 4k display has 78% more pixels than a 1440p display, and even if they have the same, or similar pixel density, the 4k display still has 78% more pixels...

Lastly, pixel density matters most for lower resolution displays, where PD smooths out 1080p text, and UI elements, etc. Understand that 4k has 4x the pixels as 1080p... and a monitors pixel density variance doesn't matter, or as much, if at all.... because 4k.


ps: Yes, "Gaming" chairs are important.
 
Last edited:

nnguy2

Posts: 651   +1,498
If you only play casual cinematic movie style games and sit with your face stuck to your 25" monitor < then you are doing it wrong.

How would you have ever managed, 15 years ago... watching TV..?



Pixel density on a phone, is not the same as on a 42" Monitor. Your focal length and requirements are much different. Additionally you are forgetting what pixel density means, and how higher resolution have more pixels (representing an image), even if they are not packed as dense..

Please understand, that a 4k display has 78% more pixels than a 1440p display, and even if they have the same, or similar pixel density, the 4k display still has 78% more pixels...

Lastly, pixel density matters most for lower resolution displays, where PD smooths out 1080p text, and UI elements, etc. Understand that 4k has 4x the pixels as 1080p... and a monitors pixel density variance doesn't matter, or as much, if at all.... because 4k.


ps: Yes, "Gaming" chairs are important.
A 27in 4k screen will have a sharper image than 32in 4k screen. Are you dense? I'm not talk about 27in 1440p vs 32 4k. Same size resolution on a smaller screen.

Also yeah pretty sure I'm not doing it wrong with asus Pg32uqx for my monitor and LG c2 65 oled for TV if you want to get into person attacks and pissing contests. I stand by what I said about the aeron. Herman Miller is making money off *****s buying "gaming" chairs.
 
Last edited:

m3tavision

Posts: 1,117   +946
A 27in 4k screen will have a sharper image than 32in 4k screen. Are you dense? I'm not talk about 27in 1440p vs 32 4k. Same size resolution on a smaller screen.

Also yeah pretty sure I'm not doing it wrong with asus Pg32uqx for my monitor and LG c2 65 oled for TV if you want to get into person attacks and pissing contests. I stand by what I said about the aeron. Herman Miller is making money off *****s buying "gaming" chairs.

So why are you not educating all the people who play on 25" & 27" Monitors that are 1080p and 1440p...? (How do they do it..?) And reserve that consternation for those who are 4x (4 times) the pixel count... ?

32" 4k and a 42" 4k... is essentially the same at 31"~ inches away... I game at about 38" away..


Lastly, I have had a Herman Miller Aeron for 16 years (just had it repaired), but also have an Embody Gaming chair... both allow you to sit back from your desk and game... I recommend both.
 

bandit8623

Posts: 459   +251
high refresh rating isn't the end all be all of gaming. if you're not playing competitive online shooters, for the most part you don't "need" 240hz. you sit a 1-2 ft away from your desk? how are you gonna reach the mouse and keyboard? speaking of desk space you don't think the base takes up space? the monitor won't be at the very back of your desk, the feet/base takes up space. but keep making stuff up as you go along.
I have a mouse and jeyboard pull out tray. the monitors is back a foot on my desk as well. and I lean back in my chair comfy. I still have a foot behind my monitor for my pc. so yes my eyes are 2-3 ft away from my 32 inch. also gives me space to work on my desk in front of my monitor for other tasks. my desktop is a solid wood 3 ft deep desk. so plenty of room.

we were talking about gaming right? 240hz is better.... take the same monitor and compare 120hz and 240. 240 wins.

most people dont have as big of a desk as I have I get that.
 

bandit8623

Posts: 459   +251
I think you're confused. No gamer wants to see pixels and that's what a low pxiel density does. A 27in 4k monitor will have a sharper image than a 32in 4k monitor.

Speaking of gaming chairs... Just because something has "gaming" attached to it doesn't make it the best product for gaming. I can assure you my Herman Miller Aeron office chair is 10x more comfortable than gaming chair on the market.
you realize that the pro gamers dont play at 4k. they play typically 1080p still and the highest refresh possible.

the new oleds may change that because of the response time, but for the most part throughout history comp gamers play at lower res and higher refresh. they also are not gaming on huge monitors the smaller the better so the entire game can be seen at once. so the pixel density isnt a problem. hell some gamers still use black bars on the sides and play 4:3....

its fine you dont play games as serious as others, but dont come in here saying you need the higher pixel density... pro gamers dont really give 2 poops about that. they want lowest latency and frames.
 

m3tavision

Posts: 1,117   +946
you realize that the pro gamers dont play at 4k. they play typically 1080p still and the highest refresh possible.

the new oleds may change that because of the response time, but for the most part throughout history comp gamers play at lower res and higher refresh. they also are not gaming on huge monitors the smaller the better so the entire game can be seen at once. so the pixel density isnt a problem. hell some gamers still use black bars on the sides and play 4:3....

its fine you dont play games as serious as others, but dont come in here saying you need the higher pixel density... pro gamers dont really give 2 poops about that. they want lowest latency and frames.

Many Pros are almost now all moving to 1440p, because it offers wider FOV and better clarity. Matter of fact, AMD hinted at what is coming early next year with 500Hz+ monitors.

I play at an extremely high level & have wagered thousands, over a single match/game. Our pilots, were actual helicopter pilots and have $20k+ simulators.... for gaming.


And then there are those who play Cyberpunk w/RT and call themselves a Gamer. When nothing in their lives have to do with gaming...

120Hz Gaming is when the game movement becomes unhindered, or a level of ease in movement takes place. Most know what I am talking about. And at about 244Hz ~ 266Hz... that same "easy movement" feeling happens again, but it is MUCH MORE subtle... but can be felt.

At that level, (in FPS games) your Character's movement and reaction to things in game, are near instant. Everything becomes instinctual, like in RL and playing becomes addictive....

800Hz monitors are coming.... and they will be many 1440p monitors in that group.
 

bandit8623

Posts: 459   +251
Many Pros are almost now all moving to 1440p, because it offers wider FOV and better clarity. Matter of fact, AMD hinted at what is coming early next year with 500Hz+ monitors.

I play at an extremely high level & have wagered thousands, over a single match/game. Our pilots, were actual helicopter pilots and have $20k+ simulators.... for gaming.


And then there are those who play Cyberpunk w/RT and call themselves a Gamer. When nothing in their lives have to do with gaming...

120Hz Gaming is when the game movement becomes unhindered, or a level of ease in movement takes place. Most know what I am talking about. And at about 244Hz ~ 266Hz... that same "easy movement" feeling happens again, but it is MUCH MORE subtle... but can be felt.

At that level, (in FPS games) your Character's movement and reaction to things in game, are near instant. Everything becomes instinctual, like in RL and playing becomes addictive....

800Hz monitors are coming.... and they will be many 1440p monitors in that group.

The most comp game ever not the case