Wednesday, August 18th 2021

ASUS Announces TUF Gaming VG28UQL1A Monitor

ASUS today announced the availability of TUF Gaming VG28UQL1A, a gaming monitor designed for PC and next-generation consoles. This 28 inch display has a Fast IPS panel and supports up to 4K 144 Hz gaming with a 1 ms gray to gray (GTG) response time as well as Display Stream Compression (DSC) technology, and it offers native 4K 120 Hz gaming without chroma subsampling on the latest consoles via HDMI 2.1. Compatible with NVIDIA G-SYNC, it also supports AMD FreeSync Premium and ASUS Extreme Low Motion Blur Sync (ELMB Sync) to eliminate smearing and motion blur for fluid and responsive gameplay. In addition, ASUS Variable Overdrive technology ensures consistently smooth visuals at variable frame rates.

TUF VG28UQL1A has an HDMI 2.1 port that enables native 4K 120 Hz visuals (4:4:4) when playing on the latest gaming consoles. An Auto-Low-Latency mode helps reduce input lag to ensure extremely fluid gameplay, and Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) technology prevents tearing and stuttering for a completely immersive next-gen console gaming experience. In addition, a DisplayPort 1.4 connection offers stable 144 Hz visuals, with DSC technology handling ultra high-definition video streams at high speeds so there's no perceptible loss in image quality when gaming on PC.
Supersmooth gameplay
TUF Gaming VG28UQL1A features ASUS ELMB Sync technology and a 1 ms gray-to-gray (GTG) response time. ELMB Sync enables the use of ELMB and variable-refresh-rate technologies simultaneously for fluid and responsive gameplay. Compatible with G-SYNC, the monitor can also use a combination of FreeSync Premium and Variable Overdrive technologies to ensure supersmooth gaming at variable frame rates.
Outstanding colors with hardware-based Low Blue Light technology

High Dynamic Range technology with VESA DisplayHDR 400 certification and a 90% DCI P3 color gamut ensure outstanding color performance with TUF Gaming VG28UQL1A. Additionally, built-in Low Blue Light technology helps to protect users' eyes from potentially harmful blue light, without compromising image quality. There's also Flicker-Free technology that helps prevent low brightness levels that lead to high-speed flashing of the LED backlight, minimizing instances of eyestrain for a more comfortable viewing experience.

For more information, visit the product page.
Add your own comment

22 Comments on ASUS Announces TUF Gaming VG28UQL1A Monitor

#1
lynx29
I don't understand this obsession with 28" 4k. 32" is the sweet spot for 4K gaming immersion... 25-27" for 1440p, and 21.5" to 23.8" max for 1080p.

a shame no one understands this...
Posted on Reply
#2
Cheese_On_tsaot
Price?

Are we talking 4K cost for monitor + GPU too?

As above yeah 1440p is super crisp on 27 inch, 4k is just pointless at 28 inches.
Posted on Reply
#3
Metroid
It's not bad but like lynx said, 32inch is minimum for 4k, 28inch is yesterday. I liked the specs overall, needed the price though.
Posted on Reply
#4
TumbleGeorge
You buy smartphones with below 7" screen size and resolution close to 1440p. Must hate your self!
Posted on Reply
#5
TheLostSwede
lynx29I don't understand this obsession with 28" 4k. 32" is the sweet spot for 4K gaming immersion... 25-27" for 1440p, and 21.5" to 23.8" max for 1080p.

a shame no one understands this...
That's your opinion. Been using a 27" 4K screen for a good few years now and it's big enough.
Cheese_On_tsaotPrice?

Are we talking 4K cost for monitor + GPU too?

As above yeah 1440p is super crisp on 27 inch, 4k is just pointless at 28 inches.
NT$23,888, so ~US$860. So pretty much par for the course for a 144Hz 4K display.
Posted on Reply
#6
robb
TheLostSwedeThat's your opinion. Been using a 27" 4K screen for a good few years now and it's big enough.


NT$23,888, so ~US$860. So pretty much par for the course for a 144Hz 4K display.
You clearly do not even comprehend what he is saying. 27 inch is TOO SMALL for 4k is his point and the vast majority would agree. Unless you have super human vision you would have to use crappy Windows scaling just to make proper use of the desktop thus defeating the purpose of the higher res in the first place. And when it comes to games the difference between native 1440p and native 4k at 27 inches would be nearly indistinguishable if they were side by side. Bottom line is MOST people agree that 32 inches is the size that 4k would start to actually matter.
Posted on Reply
#7
The Quim Reaper
robbAnd when it comes to games the difference between native 1440p and native 4k at 27 inches would be nearly indistinguishable
Not true at all.

There is a vast difference in pixel clarity when gaming at 4K on a 27in monitor compared to 1440p.

I'm currently playing through Doom Eternal with my new 3080FE, and on my 27in 4K HDR monitor, the picture definition is on a whole new level compared to my previous 27in 1440p IPS Dell monitor.

I do agree however that for Windows desktop use, a 27in 4K monitor, is too small without Windows scaling, setting it to 125%, giving an effective 1620p image, is still very clear and perfectly usuable without any visible artefacts.

For the best of both worlds, gaming and desktop, a 32in panel is the sweet-spot for 4K.
Posted on Reply
#8
robb
The Quim ReaperNot true at all.

There is a vast difference in pixel clarity when gaming at 4K on a 27in monitor compared to 1440p.

I'm currently playing through Doom Eternal with my new 3080FE, and on my 27in 4K HDR monitor, the picture definition is on a whole new level compared to my previous 27in 1440p IPS Dell monitor.

I do agree however that for Windows desktop use, a 27in 4K monitor, is too small without Windows scaling, setting it to 125%, giving an effective 1620p image, is still very clear and perfectly usuable without any visible artefacts.

For the best of both worlds, gaming and desktop, a 32in panel is the sweet-spot for 4K.
you are comparing different quality monitors and even then are probably just fooling yourself. I have no doubts the average gamer could not tell the difference between a native 1440p and native 4k screen at 27 inches. I have actually had them side by side myself and had to stare at the screens trying to find something to stand out. only some games with horrible aliasing could I see any difference and even then had to focus on some specific part of the game such as tree limb or fence. on the other hand I sure as hell know they could tell the difference in framerate.

but yes at least we agree that 32 inches is what most want for a desktop 4k screen. I think even a 37 inch would be fine but anything any bigger is just too physically large for a typical desk imo. I tried using a 42 inch screen for a while and for gaming it was horrible for me. plus first person games look stupid on a screen that big when its nearly right in front of you as things are just unnaturally large.
Posted on Reply
#9
Fourstaff
robbyou are comparing different quality monitors and even then are probably just fooling yourself. I have no doubts the average gamer could not tell the difference between a native 1440p and native 4k screen at 27 inches. I have actually had them side by side myself and had to stare at the screens trying to find something to stand out. only some games with horrible aliasing could I see any difference and even then had to focus on some specific part of the game such as tree limb or fence. on the other hand I sure as hell know they could tell the difference in framerate.

but yes at least we agree that 32 inches is what most want for a desktop 4k screen. I think even a 37 inch would be fine but anything any bigger is just too physically large for a typical desk imo. I tried using a 42 inch screen for a while and for gaming it was horrible for me. plus first person games look stupid on a screen that big when its nearly right in front of you as things are just unnaturally large.
Average gamer is at 1080p at the moment tho, I don't think they are bothered with 1440p/4K. source: store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

I am currently using 1440p at 27 inch, I think its perfect. 4k at 28 inch, maybe there will be someone who appreciates it but based on the comments its seems like it will not be for everyone.
Posted on Reply
#10
dyonoctis
lynx29I don't understand this obsession with 28" 4k. 32" is the sweet spot for 4K gaming immersion... 25-27" for 1440p, and 21.5" to 23.8" max for 1080p.

a shame no one understands this...
Well it's too bad for the pure gamers, if the price is right, that might be a good cheap alternative for creators on a budget who like to game on the sides :D that DCI-PI3 @90% seems interesting
When you work on big pictures that are down scaled, some details and effect don't quite look right, (it even gets blurry at some % sometimes) the closer you can get to native, the better
Posted on Reply
#11
TheLostSwede
robbYou clearly do not even comprehend what he is saying. 27 inch is TOO SMALL for 4k is his point and the vast majority would agree. Unless you have super human vision you would have to use crappy Windows scaling just to make proper use of the desktop thus defeating the purpose of the higher res in the first place. And when it comes to games the difference between native 1440p and native 4k at 27 inches would be nearly indistinguishable if they were side by side. Bottom line is MOST people agree that 32 inches is the size that 4k would start to actually matter.
Again, this is an opinion. I've used my monitor for something like five years now and I'm not having any issues. No-one's forcing you to buy one.
Posted on Reply
#12
tehehe
robbYou clearly do not even comprehend what he is saying. 27 inch is TOO SMALL for 4k is his point and the vast majority would agree. Unless you have super human vision you would have to use crappy Windows scaling just to make proper use of the desktop thus defeating the purpose of the higher res in the first place. And when it comes to games the difference between native 1440p and native 4k at 27 inches would be nearly indistinguishable if they were side by side. Bottom line is MOST people agree that 32 inches is the size that 4k would start to actually matter.
I don't agree. I wouldn't mind buying 25-26 inch 4k monitor, because 27 is slightly too big for me. Higher PPI equals sharper picture. Windows scaling is fine unless you scale old apps that weren't updated in a decade. 27@4k is way nicer than 1440p - are you having vision problems or you actually never compared the two? Bigger screen makes for lower ppi, which to me defeats the purpose of higher resolution and makes you move your head (and eyes) around too much which is not ergonomic (in typical at-desk distance from your monitor). Thankfully we both have a choice and can vote with our wallet - the only voting that actually matters :D
Posted on Reply
#13
Dammeron
lynx29I don't understand this obsession with 28" 4k. 32" is the sweet spot for 4K gaming immersion... 25-27" for 1440p, and 21.5" to 23.8" max for 1080p.

a shame no one understands this...
It's a shame that You don't understand the importance of high resolution on smaller screens.

Running eg. 24" 4K could completely free You from using any anti-aliasing modes, since the pixels will be small enough that You won't notice any jagged edges unless You look really closely. There are 2 problems though:
-crappy/lack of any scalling on most apps
-performance

But just because those issues exist it's not a reason for ditching higher resolutions on 24-28" displays - it's up to new technologies for ridding us of the said problems. We call it "progress".
Posted on Reply
#14
wolar
TumbleGeorgeYou buy smartphones with below 7" screen size and resolution close to 1440p. Must hate your self!
But how close is that smartphone to your eyes? It is all relative.
Posted on Reply
#15
Valantar
28" 2160p? Meh. 450 nits peak brightness? More meh. Still probably a good monitor, but ... why are there no options between the "ultra-premium 2000-nit crazy priced might-as-well-buy-two-LG-OLEDs" category and this "mid range panel specs but 2160p144+HDMI 2.1 so it's still really expensive"? I mean, sure, there's the Eve Spectrum, but that's still just 28". But at least it's HDR600 rated, with a peak brightness significantly exceeding the rating. This ... this is barely HDR at all.


Edit: I guess 90% P3 isn't a mid-range panel, but at this price point I'm still really wondering about why they didn't just splurge on a slightly more powerful backlight.
The Quim ReaperNot true at all.

There is a vast difference in pixel clarity when gaming at 4K on a 27in monitor compared to 1440p.

I'm currently playing through Doom Eternal with my new 3080FE, and on my 27in 4K HDR monitor, the picture definition is on a whole new level compared to my previous 27in 1440p IPS Dell monitor.

I do agree however that for Windows desktop use, a 27in 4K monitor, is too small without Windows scaling, setting it to 125%, giving an effective 1620p image, is still very clear and perfectly usuable without any visible artefacts.

For the best of both worlds, gaming and desktop, a 32in panel is the sweet-spot for 4K.
Entrely agree. Though for 27-28" 2160p desktop usage there is one additional nuance: Text rendering with scaling is still at native resolution (just adjusted for size - fonts are vector graphics, after all), and will for most people with decent eyesight be noticeably sharper with the higher resolution, even if the overall usable screen real estate is similar.

I'm aiming for a 32" mid-range 2160p144 monitor upgrade in time, but I'd be willing to compromise on size more than resolution at this point (in part due to 2160p allowing for cleaner scaling at 1080p if future games should drastically outpace my GPU power).
Posted on Reply
#16
TumbleGeorge
wolarBut how close is that smartphone to your eyes? It is all relative.
When I use my PC distance is enough to see full display area 27-28" is pretty well if my chair is on around 70-80 centimeters distance. Smartphone watch from 35-40 centimeters because human vision loses focus and this loss begins at a distance of about average 25 centimeters(depends of age or/and health).
Posted on Reply
#17
Xex360
robbYou clearly do not even comprehend what he is saying. 27 inch is TOO SMALL for 4k is his point and the vast majority would agree. Unless you have super human vision you would have to use crappy Windows scaling just to make proper use of the desktop thus defeating the purpose of the higher res in the first place. And when it comes to games the difference between native 1440p and native 4k at 27 inches would be nearly indistinguishable if they were side by side. Bottom line is MOST people agree that 32 inches is the size that 4k would start to actually matter.
I used 24, 27 and 32" all 4K screens, all are usable at 100% scaling.
Plus, even at 24" the difference between 1800p and 4k was noticeably for me on games let alone 1440p.
Posted on Reply
#18
lynx29
DammeronIt's a shame that You don't understand the importance of high resolution on smaller screens.

Running eg. 24" 4K could completely free You from using any anti-aliasing modes, since the pixels will be small enough that You won't notice any jagged edges unless You look really closely. There are 2 problems though:
-crappy/lack of any scalling on most apps
-performance

But just because those issues exist it's not a reason for ditching higher resolutions on 24-28" displays - it's up to new technologies for ridding us of the said problems. We call it "progress".
I prefer high refresh smoothness over image fidelity. You enjoy your 4k and I will enjoy my 100+ fps in games. Everyone likes different stuff, so we can move on, cheers
Posted on Reply
#19
Valantar
lynx29I prefer high refresh smoothness over image fidelity. You enjoy your 4k and I will enjoy my 100+ fps in games. Everyone likes different stuff, so we can move on, cheers


(And no, you don't always need ultra settings or 100% render scale ;) )
Posted on Reply
#20
lynx29
Valantar

(And no, you don't always need ultra settings or 100% render scale ;) )
cause graphics cards don't exist at MSRP and won't until 2023.
Posted on Reply
#21
Valantar
lynx29cause graphics cards don't exist at MSRP and won't until 2023.
Well, sure, but given the pixel density of 2160p monitors you can actually run non-native resolutions and not have it look like hot garbage. 1440p on a 27" 2160p panel obviously doesn't look as good as native 1440p, but it's pretty close. Not to mention the ability to go to 1080p with nice scaling for those really demanding titles/high frame rates. 2160p is just more flexible. And, of course, if you can afford a $900+ monitor, you can also afford a GPU, even today. You'll just get a worse one than you ought to for that money.
Posted on Reply
#22
robb
Xex360I used 24, 27 and 32" all 4K screens, all are usable at 100% scaling.
Plus, even at 24" the difference between 1800p and 4k was noticeably for me on games let alone 1440p.
You are full of it too. Without scaling the text at 4k on a 27 inch is not something hardly anyone would comfortably be able to read at normal distance never mind on a 24 inch screen. And there are no "native" 1800p 24 inch monitors so pay more attention to what I actually said.
teheheI don't agree. I wouldn't mind buying 25-26 inch 4k monitor, because 27 is slightly too big for me. Higher PPI equals sharper picture. Windows scaling is fine unless you scale old apps that weren't updated in a decade. 27@4k is way nicer than 1440p - are you having vision problems or you actually never compared the two? Bigger screen makes for lower ppi, which to me defeats the purpose of higher resolution and makes you move your head (and eyes) around too much which is not ergonomic (in typical at-desk distance from your monitor). Thankfully we both have a choice and can vote with our wallet - the only voting that actually matters :D
Yet another person that did not read what I said even though you quoted me.
robbyou are comparing different quality monitors and even then are probably just fooling yourself. I have no doubts the average gamer could not tell the difference between a native 1440p and native 4k screen at 27 inches. I have actually had them side by side myself and had to stare at the screens trying to find something to stand out. only some games with horrible aliasing could I see any difference and even then had to focus on some specific part of the game such as tree limb or fence. on the other hand I sure as hell know they could tell the difference in framerate.

but yes at least we agree that 32 inches is what most want for a desktop 4k screen. I think even a 37 inch would be fine but anything any bigger is just too physically large for a typical desk imo. I tried using a 42 inch screen for a while and for gaming it was horrible for me. plus first person games look stupid on a screen that big when its nearly right in front of you as things are just unnaturally large.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment