Wednesday, November 28th 2018

The New 32-inch ASUS ROG Strix XG32VQR Features 1440p, 144 Hz, and FreeSync 2 HDR

ASUS has a new premium display about to be released: the 32-inch ASUS ROG Strix XG32VQR is already listed on its website, and it is an evolution of its existing ROG Strix XG32VQ. Both share 1440p resolution, VA panel, 4ms grey-to-grey response time and 1800mm curvature. The difference between both is the HDR support: the new XG32VQR has both DisplayHDR 400 and FreeSync 2 HDR certifications. The latter offers improvements in usability but also in gaming scenarios that are not covered in the VESA DisplayHDR specifications.

The peak brightness of the new monitor also goes further than its predecessor and goes from 300 to 450 nits. The display has support for a range of FreeSync refresh rates ranging from 48 to 144 Hz, which allow it to work seamlessly with Low Framerate Compensation (LFC) technology from AMD. Company spokepersons clarified a few weeks ago the confusion with the FreeSync 2 certification, and explained that "it is possible for a display to meet the FreeSync 2 HDR requirements but fail the DisplayHDR 600 minimums. Such a display may have the DisplayHDR 400 logo and the FreeSync 2 HDR logo, but it would be exceeding the minimum requirements of DisplayHDR 400".
The display supports the ASUS Aura Sync RGB lighting system, and its stand allows the user to adjust the swivel (+50 to -50 degrees), tilt (+20 to -5 degrees) and height (0 to +100 mm). The panel delivers DCI-P3 94% color gamut and features an HDMI 2.0 connector, two USB 3.0 ports, DisplayPort 1.2 and Mini DisplayPort, as well as a headphone connector. We don't have the final price of the product yet, but it will probably be more expensive than its predecessor, which can be found now at $489.99 at NewEgg, for example. Source: Overclock 3D
Add your own comment

13 Comments on The New 32-inch ASUS ROG Strix XG32VQR Features 1440p, 144 Hz, and FreeSync 2 HDR

#1
Rahnak
I wish we could get these nice panels on more sober looking monitors. Not a fan of the ROG looks and all the rgb (heathen, I know).
Posted on Reply
#2
Vayra86
Seems a tad large for 1440p, no?
Posted on Reply
#3
TheGuruStud
Vayra86 said:
Seems a tad large for 1440p, no?
Yeah, must look pretty bad above 30.
Posted on Reply
#4
The Quim Reaper
Why'd they have to go and ruin it with a curved screen...:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#5
Lauen
Rahnak said:
I wish we could get these nice panels on more sober looking monitors. Not a fan of the ROG looks and all the rgb (heathen, I know).
I'm fairly certain this uses a Samsung VA panel as similar ones can be found in Samsung's own monitors and some AOC products. Maybe they will be more to your liking.
Posted on Reply
#6
atomicus
32" is definitely on the large size for 1440p. Having used one myself, coming from a 27" 1440p, everything definitely looks softer and less crisp. It's not terrible by any means, but far from optimal. Monitor manufacturers seem to be genuinely confused about what sizes are right... this 32" 1440p isn't the only of its kind, and there are also far too many 27" 4K monitors around which is just too small (32" is actually far better here.)
Posted on Reply
#7
Robcostyle
2160p >144Hz IPS/VA/IGZO screen release fails once again - so manufacturers are at a loss.

One thing I'm still curious though - why do they still stamp all this crap, instead of focusing on existing models, lurking out every single issue? It could both boost sales (I wouldn't mind chaning my MG279Q on something the same, for ~500$ price tag, but without quality issues) + it could really help them out when time will come to release 4k144Hz - in order to make really high-quality, non-compromise products.
Posted on Reply
#8
ZoneDymo
sooo same specs as that samsung monitor of last year then, good stuff
Posted on Reply
#9
tvamos
Vayra86 said:
Seems a tad large for 1440p, no?
Actually, 24 inch 1080p and 32 inch 1440p have almost identical pixel density.
Posted on Reply
#10
Mistral
TheGuruStud said:
Yeah, must look pretty bad above 30.
I have the AOC Q3279VWFD8. It's about the same dot-pitch as a 24inch 1080p screen.
Looks pretty sharp, as long as you don't dig your nose into when using. If you sit 2+ feet away from it, it's quite good. Not like 4K gaming is realistic yet.

A 29" 1440p @ 120Hz would be ideal value for gaming, but nobody makes that...
Posted on Reply
#11
Vayra86
tvamos said:
Actually, 24 inch 1080p and 32 inch 1440p have almost identical pixel density.
Yes but 1080p is already at the very bottom of ideal PPI ranges at the lower 90s.
Posted on Reply
#12
tvamos
Vayra86 said:
Yes but 1080p is already at the very bottom of ideal PPI ranges at the lower 90s.
Also 24" 1080p is most common screen today, so I believe majority would never see this as downside.
Posted on Reply
#13
Vayra86
tvamos said:
Also 24" 1080p is most common screen today, so I believe majority would never see this as downside.
Agreed, but this is not a majority oriented product, its a high end gaming product. You'd expect a different balance.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment