Monday, November 27th 2017

ASUS Launches ROG STRIX XG258Q Monitor: 24.5" TN, 1080p, 1ms, 240 Hz FreeSync

ASUS has added yet another monitor to its already long list of display solutions for customers. The ROG STRIX XG258Q monitor, as the "Strix" name implies, has been designed with gamers in mind, and is one of ASUS' eSports-designed offerings, promising unmatched fluidity in fast frame-rate titles with its 240 Hz refresh rate and 1 ms response time. To add even more smoothness to the picture, ASUS has also fitted this Strix monitor with FreeSync support (in the 48 Hz to 240 Hz range), which means there is now another high refresh-rate solution for AMD users.

To achieve this kind of refresh rate speeds, ASUS has made use of a 1080p, TN-based panel, which will deliver better gaming performance at the cost of viewing angles and (usually) color accuracy and contrast when compared to other technologies (contrast is set at 1000:1 and the panel is a 6-bit type with FRC). Added technologies include ASUS' ELMB (Extreme Low Motion Blur), as well as ASUS' Aura RGB lighting effects on the back of the monitor, with an added red ROG logo being projected on to the users' desk from the base of the display. Brightness is being touted at a higher than average 400 nits, but there's no mention of HDR support. Connectivity includes 1x HDMI 1.4 (refresh rates up to 140 Hz), 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The ASUS ROG Strix XG258Q is available for $449, which is slightly more than $50 cheaper than the current market price of the ROG Swift PG258Q, which substitutes FreeSync for NVIDIA's G-Sync.

Source: AnandTech
Add your own comment

19 Comments on ASUS Launches ROG STRIX XG258Q Monitor: 24.5" TN, 1080p, 1ms, 240 Hz FreeSync

#2
P4-630
The Way It's Meant to be Played
You'll need a future gen AMD card if you'd like to run your AAA games at @ 240fps.....:p

Yeah I know it's freesync but hey you don't buy a 240Hz monitor to play your games at 60fps!!
Posted on Reply
#3
bug
I don't get marketing. I just don't get it. If you have 1ms response time, you can do 1,000 refreshes a second. If you can "only" do 240Hz, clearly you don't have a 1ms response time.
Edit: And light placed in a place you never look at is yet another genius move.
Posted on Reply
#4
RejZoR
1ms refers to pixel response time for grey to grey transition. This is independent of panel's ability to refresh the image which is in this case 240Hz.

The light in the back reflects from the wall, creating effect similar to Ambilight on Philips LCD TV's.

I like ASUS monitors, only downside I can already see is lack of VESA mounts for wall. Why is this such an exotic feature? If you spend so much money on monitor you'd expect it to at least have VESA mount points on it along with other stuff...
Posted on Reply
#5
Freez
1080p with TN in 2017, lul. No deal. :p
p.s. no VESA :fear:
Posted on Reply
#7
RejZoR
Freez said:
1080p with TN in 2017, lul. No deal. :p
p.s. no VESA :fear:
Get me a 1ms IPS and I'll look at that. Also, I see nothing wrong with 1080p. At least you can reach high framerate needed for high refresh. What't the point of I don't know, 120Hz 4K when graphics cards are having problems hitting even 60fps...
Posted on Reply
#8
bug
RejZoR said:
1ms refers to pixel response time for grey to grey transition. This is independent of panel's ability to refresh the image which is in this case 240Hz.
And how does that 1ms help if it doesn't refresh faster than 240Hz? It's just an irrelevant, technical detail.

RejZoR said:
The light in the back reflects from the wall, creating effect similar to Ambilight on Philips LCD TV's.
:puke:
Posted on Reply
#9
Crustybeaver
4K 144Hz HDR or 3440 x 1440 200Hz HDR, now stop wasting our time and give us what we want.
Posted on Reply
#10
RejZoR
bug said:
And how does that 1ms help if it doesn't refresh faster than 240Hz? It's just an irrelevant, technical detail.


:puke:
You're confusing pixel refresh rate with actual pixel state shifting. Pixels don't fire back and forth 144 times a second on 144Hz screens. It just means pixel can receive so many updates a second. The time you initialize this "firing" of pixel changes is the pixels response time. Which is 1ms in this case. The difference may not sound like much, but years ago I had a gaming LCD with 2ms and using 5ms or god no, 8ms screens felt like I'm living in slow motion. Everything just felt so blurry and sluggish and they were all 60Hz (well, mine could go up to 75Hz).

Easiest way to test this is full white cursor moving fast across full black background. Same refresh rate, just different pixels response time. You'll see what I mean.
Posted on Reply
#11
bug
RejZoR said:
You're confusing pixel refresh rate with actual pixel state shifting. Pixels don't fire back and forth 144 times a second on 144Hz screens. It just means pixel can receive so many updates a second. The time you initialize this "firing" of pixel changes is the pixels response time. Which is 1ms in this case. The difference may not sound like much, but years ago I had a gaming LCD with 2ms and using 5ms or god no, 8ms screens felt like I'm living in slow motion. Everything just felt so blurry and sluggish and they were all 60Hz (well, mine could go up to 75Hz).

Easiest way to test this is full white cursor moving fast across full black background. Same refresh rate, just different pixels response time. You'll see what I mean.
Seriously, you can't get how an LCD works straight? :facepalm:
Posted on Reply
#12
RejZoR
That indeed didn't come out correctly or what I wanted to say. What I was trying to say is the response time affects the time needed for pixel to shift from one color to another when being refreshed. When you fire the refresh cycle across the panel, how long it takes each pixel to transition within that one single cycle (one out of 60 refreshes in a second on a 60Hz panel). If that makes sense now.
Posted on Reply
#13
JackOne
P4-630 said:
You'll need a future gen AMD card if you'd like to run your AAA games at @ 240fps.....:p

Yeah I know it's freesync but hey you don't buy a 240Hz monitor to play your games at 60fps!!
Nah, Vega 64 or even RX 580 can easily do 240 FPS in CS:GO. This monitor is intended for competitive eSports titles such as CS:GO, LoL, Dota 2 and some others, titles that usually do not need the fastest GPUs.
Posted on Reply
#14
bug
RejZoR said:
That indeed didn't come out correctly or what I wanted to say. What I was trying to say is the response time affects the time needed for pixel to shift from one color to another when being refreshed. When you fire the refresh cycle across the panel, how long it takes each pixel to transition within that one single cycle (one out of 60 refreshes in a second on a 60Hz panel). If that makes sense now.
It make more sense now, but it's still not how it works.
If the monitor would do 240Hz and all pixels would have a response time of 1ms, then yes, you'd be spot on. Unfortunately for the consumer, that's not how monitors are being built. Many transitions are way slower than the advertised response time, slower than it is required to achieved the advertised refresh rate. That's why we have overdrive, to try and corral all those transitions inside the needed interval. That is what matters and that's why the advertised response times are useless in practice.
For example, look at the actual response times for a 144Hz, 1ms display: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/samsung_c32hg70.htm#response
And here is a 100Hz, 4ms display: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_alienware_aw3418dw.htm#response
Posted on Reply
#15
DragonAstaXiel
monitor makers need to be more clear so they are not practically/legally lying to their potential customers.

1ms GtG is all fine and well, but that is not the entire range that pixel is capable of, industry standard or not.
if the full range would be WtW or BtB that is what should be being used, as well legally they should be "forced" to follow a minimum refresh rate or something like that.

What I mean is taking everything into account input lag, pixel refresh rate etc etc. 1ms GtG is the "average" time for all the pixels to transition, not a will always be that fast or faster, and in this case 240Hz is all well and good, but, does that Hz really matter when there will be a bottleneck happening that your graphics adapter cannot keep the display fed quickly enough or the graphics adapter is seriously capable of out pacing what the display is capable of showing?

Also at least IMO while I like the stand, the extra lighting effects burn power for nothing, and they should have rated the maximum power consumption at full brightness or something bing the 400cd/2 not at 200cd/2 65w is still a fair amount when only at 1/2 brightness going by full specs (to me anyways) I wonder how much of that is being wasted for those extra "look at my gaming monitor" l33t teenager lighting bs lol.
Posted on Reply
#17
Freez
RejZoR said:
Get me a 1ms IPS and I'll look at that. Also, I see nothing wrong with 1080p. At least you can reach high framerate needed for high refresh. What't the point of I don't know, 120Hz 4K when graphics cards are having problems hitting even 60fps...
Probably, i don't like TN. Like VESA. And don't mind against 1080\60-240, but not TN - for sure.:shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#18
RejZoR
Have you people even seen any recent TN's? This isn't stuff from 10+ years ago. The color shift at angles is so small it's entirely irrelevant unless you're a graphic designer. In which case you're already on widest color gamut Adobe/RGB certified and calibrated IPS anyway.
Posted on Reply
#19
bug
RejZoR said:
Have you people even seen any recent TN's? This isn't stuff from 10+ years ago. The color shift at angles is so small it's entirely irrelevant unless you're a graphic designer. In which case you're already on widest color gamut Adobe/RGB certified and calibrated IPS anyway.
Fwiw, even 10 years ago I was fine with TN Film for games. It was only when I started photo editing that TN Film drove me nuts.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment