Thursday, April 4th 2019

ASUS Announces Three New G-Sync Compatible Monitors With 0.5 ms Response Times and 165 Hz Refresh Rates

ASUS has launched three new monitors that are being marketed as G-Sync compatible - not as FreeSync-capable. These span three diagonal sizes in the form of the 27-inch VG278QR, the 24.5-inch VG258QR, and the 24-inch VG248QG. All share the same 1,920 x 1,080, TN panels that boast of blazing fast response times (ASUS quotes 0.5 ms), and high-ceiling refresh rates of 165 Hz for fluid gameplay. Additionally, ASUS claims they take their G-Sync Compatible monitors through a two-stage certification process in close communication with NVIDIA, which ensures these are some of the best Adaptive Sync monitors you can buy for usage with NVIDIA's cards.

All monitors feature ASUS' GameVisual presets that adjust screen settings according to the type of game you're playing. They also feature ASUS Extreme Low Motion Blur (ELMB) for flickering reduction. On the ergonomics side of the equation, all three monitors support tilt, swivel, pivot, and height adjustments, and I/O is handled by 1x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x HDMI (v1.4), 1x Dual Link DVI-D, 1x Earphone Jack Audio in.
Sources: via Hardware Zone, via Menafn
Add your own comment

33 Comments on ASUS Announces Three New G-Sync Compatible Monitors With 0.5 ms Response Times and 165 Hz Refresh Rates

#1
Vayra86
That's a LOT of polish for TurdNematic

natr0n said:
The 0.5 ms is impressive to me.
I agree on that! They certainly do push the high refresh barrier these days. Its not the first 0.5ms panel though is it?
Posted on Reply
#2
natr0n
The 0.5 ms is impressive to me.

Im not sure if its first 0.5ms; I havent kept up with monitors in a while.
Posted on Reply
#3
danbert2000
I'd like to point out that response time is the amount of time it takes for the monitor to shift a pixel, but it does not describe the amount of time that the monitor takes from receiving the pixel data from the computer to displaying it. So this is not some sort of magical sub-millisecond input latency. It's probably pretty low, like 5 ms, but I detest that monitor companies continue to bandy about the response times like they mean more than anti-ghosting.
Posted on Reply
#4
kastriot
i wonder how much unused G-sync modules has Asus in their supply.
Posted on Reply
#5
koaschten
How can a 27" and a 24" display share the SAME panel? there is 2 inches difference between them?
Posted on Reply
#6
Cr4zy
natr0n said:
The 0.5 ms is impressive to me.

Im not sure if its first 0.5ms; I havent kept up with monitors in a while.
Lenovo announced one a few months ago with 240hz, 0.5ms, 1440p. Im sure a lot more will appear on the market this year.
Posted on Reply
#7
PooPipeBoy
natr0n said:
The 0.5 ms is impressive to me.

Im not sure if its first 0.5ms; I havent kept up with monitors in a while.
Definitely not the first 0.5ms monitor as such, since CRT response times were more like one nanosecond.
Apparently OLED and plasma screens also have ridiculously quick response times.
Posted on Reply
#8
Manu_PT
What??? These models exist for some time, I already had a VG258QR lol. Lowest input lag monitor I tried but the overdrive was awful
Posted on Reply
#9
Fluffmeister
Yeah not sure what the big deal is, Freesync monitors... but with at least a token effort to confirm that aren't terrible.

Or certified not completely shit.
Posted on Reply
#10
B-Real
Fluffmeister said:
Yeah not sure what the big deal is, Freesync monitors... but with at least a token effort to confirm that aren't terrible.

Or certified not completely shit.
Well at least you have the possibility to buy G-Sync monitors for at least 200$+. And yes, if it's G-Sync certified, it's not completely shxx... Before trying to say something smart, check it first. Love the NV boys.
Posted on Reply
#11
Fluffmeister
B-Real said:
Well at least you have the possibility to buy G-Sync monitors for at least 200$+. And yes, if it's G-Sync certified, it's not completely shxx... Before trying to say something smart, check it first. Love the NV boys.
Yeah all credit to Nv for trying to raise the standard, and luckily today NV boys have the choice and in turn the best of both worlds.
Posted on Reply
#12
Caring1
How much did Nvidia marketing pay Asus to only mention G-Sync compatibility?
Posted on Reply
#13
Vayra86
danbert2000 said:
I'd like to point out that response time is the amount of time it takes for the monitor to shift a pixel, but it does not describe the amount of time that the monitor takes from receiving the pixel data from the computer to displaying it. So this is not some sort of magical sub-millisecond input latency. It's probably pretty low, like 5 ms, but I detest that monitor companies continue to bandy about the response times like they mean more than anti-ghosting.
Pixel response is even just a tiny part of the pipeline, total you're looking at a good 15ms button to pixel lag. Offline. That is one of the reasons I feel this push for faster isn't much use beyond 120hz/fps and a 4-6ms overall pixel response. That is at 8.3ms to show a frame, even... looks like good balance to me.
Posted on Reply
#14
lexluthermiester
Vayra86 said:
They certainly do push the high refresh barrier these days.
Which is weird because science has already proven that the human eye can not perceive individual frames above 40FPS and can barely notice a difference in frame rate above 100fps. It's the human eye's persistence of vision thing.
Vayra86 said:
Its not the first 0.5ms panel though is it?
It's not. The first one was in 2011. Can't remember who made it.
PooPipeBoy said:
since CRT response times were more like one nanosecond.
Incorrect. Pixel refresh rates for a CRT are directly linked to the scan-line interval. For example, if the monitor is set to 60hz each "pixel" will be updated every 1/60th of a second when the electron gun refreshes that scan-line. This certainly isn't one nano-second or 1/1,000,000,000th of a second.
Posted on Reply
#15
JediMindTricks
1080p resolution, don't care. Must be at least 2k to be a worthwhile upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#16
lexluthermiester
JediMindTricks said:
1080p resolution, don't care. Must be at least 2k to be a worthwhile upgrade.
Ok then don't buy it. Clearly this isn't for you. These displays are intended for those who want the most performance out of their gaming experience, not the highest resolution.
Posted on Reply
#17
robb
In 2007 I used a 144 hz TN 1080p monitor so how in the hell is this tiny improvement supposed to be impressive in 2019? And you could not pay me to use TN garbage anymore.
Posted on Reply
#18
JediMindTricks
lexluthermiester said:
Ok then don't buy it. Clearly this isn't for you. These displays are intended for those who want the most performance out of their gaming experience, not the highest resolution.
You mean a 2k monitor that is not TN, has 144mhz+, good quality, maybe g-sync and other features is too much to ask for in 2019? I'm pretty sure that gets you more performance for your gaming experience than this trash....
Posted on Reply
#19
lexluthermiester
robb said:
In 2007 I used a 144 hz TN 1080p monitor so how in the hell is this tiny improvement supposed to be impressive in 2019? And you could not pay me to use TN garbage anymore.
JediMindTricks said:
You mean a 2k monitor that is not TN, has 144mhz+, good quality, maybe g-sync and other features is too much to ask for in 2019? I'm pretty sure that gets you more performance for your gaming experience than this trash....
Are the two of you done trolling?
Posted on Reply
#20
Tsukiyomi91
.5 ms on TN is something but TN is not one of the best displays imo... rather settle with IPS & "slow" response time coz I'm not a competitive player.
Posted on Reply
#21
lexluthermiester
Tsukiyomi91 said:
.5 ms on TN is something but TN is not one of the best displays imo... rather settle with IPS & "slow" response time coz I'm not a competitive player.
TN is a gamers panel type. While color gamut and viewing angles are not the best, the pixel response times are! For high speed/competitive gaming there is no substitute. That is where these new panels from ASUS shine! This is what the complainers fail to understand. So naturally, an IPS panel is going to be a better choice for you and those who do not need/want bleeding edge performance.
Posted on Reply
#22
Tsukiyomi91
ASUS also released a 240Hz G-Sync monitor that's also TN btw, called the PG258Q if I remembered but at 1ms. Releasing a 165Hz panel with 0.5ms response is ok but higher refresh rate should compliment the response time much better imo but that's just me.
Posted on Reply
#23
Manu_PT
lexluthermiester said:
Which is weird because science has already proven that the human eye can not perceive individual frames above 40FPS and can barely notice a difference in frame rate above 100fps. It's the human eye's persistence of vision thing.
I can perceive a difference in frame rate even above 200. Since I got used to 240hz/200fps+, everytime I play at lower fps or refresh rate on friends house, I immediatly notice it.

JediMindTricks said:
You mean a 2k monitor that is not TN, has 144mhz+, good quality, maybe g-sync and other features is too much to ask for in 2019? I'm pretty sure that gets you more performance for your gaming experience than this trash....
You have many with those specs too. Aorus AD27 just released. But while you consider IPS superior, I would never get an IPS. Glow and sluggish pixel response times on shooters are enough to exclude it from my options.

See how the market is different for everyone and how everyone has different needs? Crazy isn't it.
Posted on Reply
#24
lexluthermiester
Manu_PT said:
I can perceive a difference in frame rate even above 200. Since I got used to 240hz/200fps+, everytime I play at lower fps or refresh rate on friends house, I immediately notice it.
While that's true, one can not distinguish individual frames, nor can someone identify the specific framerate.
Posted on Reply
#25
Manu_PT
Tsukiyomi91 said:
ASUS also released a 240Hz G-Sync monitor that's also TN btw, called the PG258Q if I remembered but at 1ms. Releasing a 165Hz panel with 0.5ms response is ok but higher refresh rate should compliment the response time much better imo but that's just me.
0,5ms with strobing/ELMB. It is rated 1ms otherwise.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment