Is 240 Hertz SWIFT enough for you? The new ASUS ROG gaming monitor

Subject: Displays | March 20, 2017 - 01:25 PM |
Tagged: tn monitor, SWIFT PG258Q, gsync, ASUS ROG, 1080p

As we wait for connectivity and GPU horsepower to catch up to the new technology available in monitors, those who are upgrading face a choice.  If you want incredibly high refresh rates then you have to sacrifice resolution, whereas if 4K is your need then you will have to be satisfied with lower refresh rate ranges.  The ASUS ROG SWIFT PG258Q is one of the former, offering 1080p resolution but with G-SYNC capable of a refresh rate reaching 240Hz.  That extremely high refresh rate also requires the use of a TN panel, so if you prefer 4k IPS then this display is not the one you are looking for. 

Kitguru provides a full review of the monitor here, including a look at the new style of asymmetrical ROG stand which can tilt farther than you might think at first glance.

View Full Size

"Gaming monitors are clearly going through a bit of a growth spurt, and ASUS is a company particularly focusing on this area. The ROG SWIFT PG258Q is a 24.5in screen with a whopping 240Hz top refresh and NVIDIA G-Sync, plus a host of other features specifically tailored for serious gamers."

Here are some more Display articles from around the web:


Source: Kitguru

March 20, 2017 | 01:29 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Wouldn't you run into CPU bottleneck trying to achieve 240fps at 1080p ?

March 20, 2017 | 01:56 PM - Posted by superj (not verified)

I think the point is with G-Sync you could be anywhere up to 240hz and stay synced. You don't have to run at a solid 240hz to make it a benefit.
This is something that helps justify otherwise overkill GPU setups.

March 20, 2017 | 02:32 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Take a look at all the 1080p benchmarks done over the last couple weeks due to the Ryzen release. There are plenty of games that play between 144fps and 240fps at that resolution. I've got the 180hz swift and it's so smooth, but the panel quality isn't great.

March 20, 2017 | 08:08 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I wasn't talking about keeping consistent frame . High frames at 1080 cpu becomes bottlneck and hold back why somthing like 1080 ti

March 20, 2017 | 09:49 PM - Posted by arbiter

The point of these monitors is for people that are pro gamers. Like competitive CS:GO players. For most normal people can get 144hz monitor and its more then good enough.

March 20, 2017 | 09:45 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Don't forget that it's not just the refresh rate, but the refresh speed. A panel that can do 240 FPS can do a top-to-bottom refresh in 4.1 milliseconds. Compared to a 60 FPS panel (16.6 ms), this faster panel can update a given portion of the screen 4x sooner after the frame is completed rendering. Objects at the center (vertically) of the screen would be updated ~6 milliseconds sooner. Even faster if the 60 Hz panel you were comparing against was IPS.

March 20, 2017 | 10:34 PM - Posted by orvtrebor

Thanks for that explanation, I honestly did not think there was any point to going passed 144hz.

March 21, 2017 | 11:41 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Perceived motion blur would also be 4x less versus 60 Hz. According to Blurbusters, 1000 pixels/second of motion would result in ~16.7 pixels of blur behind a moving object at 60 Hz, versus ~4.2 pixels of blur at 240 Hz. Personally I prefer motion blur reduction (Lightboost, ULMB)/ strobing backlights that can get perceived motion blur down to 1.4 pixels at 120 Hz (according to Blurbusters).

March 20, 2017 | 03:04 PM - Posted by Danny (not verified)

I'm already happy with BenQ Zowie XL2540. From my experience, I can easily tell a difference between 144Hz and 240Hz in terms of smoothness of animation effect, input lag is very slow, tearing is barely noticeable, and overall incredibly responsive. I am also satisfied that it doesn't come with GS, even though it has less benefit with extremely high refresh rate. Not to mention, more frames stored in buffer means more input lag which is very bad while leaving V-Sync Off and G-Sync On (200 frames per second or above). Besides, it's $100 cheaper than GS version. But I can see that some people cannot live without GS. Nonetheless, everything comes down to personal preference.

March 20, 2017 | 03:07 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

"extremely high refresh rate also requires the use of a TN panel"
OLED can do even better.

March 20, 2017 | 03:46 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

True, also rare as hen's teeth and far more expensive. 

March 20, 2017 | 06:33 PM - Posted by kenjo

yes dell apparently is not going to release the UP3017Q oled monitor as they could not get it to work. So saying that oled solves the refreshrate problem is not really helping when it has so many other isssues that there is none on the market.

March 21, 2017 | 05:35 AM - Posted by Theodore Thompson (not verified)

Is it me or does this monitor make no sense?
If you can push 240hz at 1080p, why would you have a 1080p monitor? Surely you'd recognise that your setup is capable of pushing 1440p upto 120hz.
What a waste of money.

March 21, 2017 | 10:06 AM - Posted by Anonymously Anonymous (not verified)

Pro Gaming is the reason why.

March 22, 2017 | 12:45 PM - Posted by PeterG (not verified)

Nah this is more likely for people that think they are pro, but arent.

March 22, 2017 | 04:02 PM - Posted by quest4glory

That's one way to look at it. Another would be personal experience - moving from a 1440p/60Hz monitor to 1440p/144Hz, my K/D ratio in certain FPS games improved dramatically. With no other changes. If someone is big into something like CS:GO, whether Pro or not, a monitor such as this would be an equalizer of sorts, all other things being equal.

March 21, 2017 | 11:11 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Wouldn't ever buy.

March 21, 2017 | 06:13 PM - Posted by Godrilla (not verified)

So where are those HDR ips gsync monitors already​?

The benefit from 30 to 60 hz is night and day, the benefit from 60 to 120 hz is still good but not as good as the 1st one and so forth. The diminishing benefits of higher refresh rate. Most pc gamers would​ rather settle for a 120hz 1440p display.

March 22, 2017 | 12:44 PM - Posted by PeterG (not verified)

1080p, TN / No HDR, ugly and overpriced.

Yeah, no thanks.

April 13, 2017 | 07:26 PM - Posted by natepayne

Guys over at MN were slating this monitor a few days ago.

Tbh TN and 1080 is all kinds of meh... Bare minimum would be 1440p and IPS