Monday, January 7th 2019

ASUS Announces Trio of ROG Strix XG Monitors Supporting AMD's FreeSync 2

ASUS at CES showcased their upcoming lineup of ROG Strix gaming monitors specifically crafted for usage with AMD's FreeSync 2. The new monitors look to cater to most of the market with their diagonals and resolutions. These are premium solutions, with the smallest, the XG32VQR, sporting a 32" 1440p panel, 144 Hz native refresh rate, and VESA's HDR400 certification. The XG438Q ups the ante to a 43" panel and 4K resolution screen, with a 120 Hz base refresh rate (overclockable up to 144 Hz) and HDR 600, while the XG49VQ is of the ultra wide variety, featuring a DFHD (3840 x 1080) resolution, 144 Hz base refresh rate, and HDR 400.

All monitors feature a FreeSync 2 range of 48-120/144Hz, all employ a VA panel and a 4 ms response rating. The 43-inch sports 10-watt speakers, the 49-inch model has a pair of 5-watt speakers and the 32-inch XG32VQR lacks the completely. No pricing was available at time of writing, but these are ASUS' premium offering s for the FreeSync ecosystem, and with those specs, they likely won't come cheap.
Source: Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

9 Comments on ASUS Announces Trio of ROG Strix XG Monitors Supporting AMD's FreeSync 2

#1
ZoneDymo
Why cant that damn freesync range not atleast go as low as 30? come on now.
Posted on Reply
#2
Octopuss
Monitors with speakers? Really? What year is it, 2001? Jesus.
At least they are not TN, wow...
Posted on Reply
#3
Nxodus
What's with this 32"+ trend lately? What happened to good old 27". I'm seeling less and less 27" monitors which kinda got me worried, 27"-28" is the perfect size for gaming IMO
Posted on Reply
#4
Bruno Vieira
Nxodus, post: 3971743, member: 183665"
What's with this 32"+ trend lately? What happened to good old 27". I'm seeling less and less 27" monitors which kinda got me worried, 27"-28" is the perfect size for gaming IMO
I two 27 4k displays that i use for work, and at least for me 27 is too small for 4k. 32 would be ideal, but i think that 40+ is for couch gaming or a big table.
Posted on Reply
#5
Mistral
Nxodus, post: 3971743, member: 183665"
What's with this 32"+ trend lately? What happened to good old 27". I'm seeling less and less 27" monitors which kinda got me worried, 27"-28" is the perfect size for gaming IMO
32" is OK for desk use (have one at the moment)... Go bigger than that and you need to sit like a meter away from it.
Posted on Reply
#6
Nxodus
Bruno Vieira, post: 3971762, member: 166716"
I two 27 4k displays that i use for work, and at least for me 27 is too small for 4k. 32 would be ideal, but i think that 40+ is for couch gaming or a big table.
you're multi-monitor folks, Of course 27" isn't enough for you:)

Mistral, post: 3971764, member: 49446"
32" is OK for desk use (have one at the moment)... Go bigger than that and you need to sit like a meter away from it.
never had anything larger than 24", but I checked out 32" in stores and...those are colossal. I'd say 32" is still human compared to larger sizes for desk use. I might have to get used to 32" when it becomes the new 27"
Posted on Reply
#7
MrAMD
Nxodus, post: 3971743, member: 183665"
What's with this 32"+ trend lately? What happened to good old 27". I'm seeling less and less 27" monitors which kinda got me worried, 27"-28" is the perfect size for gaming IMO
Love my 32" panel for 4K. 1440p is perfect for 27 inch.
Posted on Reply
#8
Basard
I love my 32, it's 'only' 1080p, but I don't really mind it a bit--I sit between two feet and a yard away.

I'd rather run a nice 144hz 1080p at this size though, at least at this res I know I'd be good for 144fps for a while to come with this GPU.

I almost jumped on a 144hz 32" MSI that was 1080p for $229 a week ago.... Spent all my money on Christmas though. :(
Posted on Reply
#9
Mad_foxx1983
ZoneDymo, post: 3971736, member: 66089"
Why cant that damn freesync range not atleast go as low as 30? come on now.
That's where low framerate compensation comes in...lfc
Posted on Reply