Asus shows super-wide, 144Hz displays

Alongside that monster graphics card, Asus had some cool new monitors on display in its CES suite. Here’s the the MX2900Q, a 29″ IPS offering with a 21:9 aspect ratio and a 2560×1080 resolution:

The MX2900Q features 300 cd/m² brightness, an 80,000,000:1 “smart” contrast ratio, 5-ms gray-to-gray response, and HDMI, dual-link DVI, and DisplayPort inputs. Asus has also integrated a headphone jack and a pair of 3W Bang & Olufsen speakers. This puppy should hit stores with a $599 price tag at the end of next quarter. The model pictured above is an engineering sample, though, so the final, shipping product may look different.

Incidentally, Asus told Scott that a smaller, 27″ version of this display is “just now shipping.” We don’t have specs or pricing for that model, however.

Asus was also showing off the VG248QE, a 24-inch Nvidia 3D Vision monitor with a blistering 144Hz peak refresh rate and 1-ms gray-to-gray response time. Asus claims this is the first panel to couple that refresh rate and response time. The VG248QE has a 1920×1080 resolution, 350 cd/m² brightness, 80,000,000:1 “smart” contrast, dual 2W speakers, and the same trifecta of inputs as the MX2900Q—HDMI, dual-link DVI, and DisplayPort. This bad boy has a TN panel, so viewing angles are nothing to write home about: just 170° horizontal and 160° vertical. (At least the stand can swivel, tilt, and pivot to ensure you’re viewing the image dead-on.) The VG248QE will be out some time in the first half of this year.

Comments closed
    • vadim
    • 7 years ago

    I’m just curios – does this and other TFT monitors support 120Hz only in native 1920×1080 resolution, or in other smaller such as 1024×768 scalled to native? If so, should I use monitor’s scalling or graphics card scalling?

    • zqw
    • 7 years ago

    Is anyone showing 120hz input IPS at 1080 or better?

    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    Firstly, I have an Asus screen on the desk next to me. It’s a good panel and well made but god, it’s [b<]fugly[/b<]. The screens pictured here are barely better; Someone needs to tell these Asian firms that we don't like decade-old styling, chintzy gloss plastics, or faux-metal anymore. (did we [i<]ever?[/i<]) The 21:9 AR is obviously for cinema buffs, but how many of them want to watch movies at their desk on a desktop monitor? More useful would be a [i<]24:9[/i<] AR (in other words, 8:3) which finally allows two 4:3 resolutions side-by-side - say 3200 x 1200....

      • superjawes
      • 7 years ago

      In my ideal setup, I would play movies on my desktop, but that output would be going directly to an actual 47″ HDTV (or larger). If I was a hardcore cinema buff, I’d use a projector anyway 😛 Heck, it’s expensive, but Vizio has a 58″ offering at 2560×1080 with plenty of added features. That’s a far better value perspective, IMO, than this one. Actually that would probably fit quite nicely mounted above a trio of monitors…

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    Sorta a curious thought… why do we even need refresh rates anymore? Wasn’t this something just pertaining to CRTs? If a computer can render an entire graphical scene at 120fps+ it makes you wonder why simply throwing more power at the display tech wouldn’t simply remove this threshold…

    If a HDTV can interpolate frames and display at 600Hz, then a LCD should be capable of doing this as well.

      • just brew it!
      • 7 years ago

      As I understand it, 600 Hz only applies to plasma panels, and doesn’t do frame interpolation. It is merely a way of improving the color rendering of plasma tech by strobing the pixels at 10x or 12x the actual frame rate. IOW it is basically a marketing gimmick.

      Not to mention you would need a staggering amount of computing power to do motion interpolation at 600 Hz…

        • zqw
        • 7 years ago

        Plasma pixels are on/off and use temporal dithering for grays. The 600hz+ in marketing are these subfield timings. Inputs are the normal 60hz or 48 for film.

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        The 600hz number was from this:

        [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate#Liquid_crystal_displays[/url<] I've also heard of plasmas being regarded as 600hz, which isn't entirely untrue. Interpolation aside, we should most definitely have monitors capable of doing this today if we were doing 120hz on CRTs 15+ years ago.

    • albundy
    • 7 years ago

    good for movies filmed in this aspect ratio, but bad for pr0n.

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    If that 144hz monitor lives up to the 1ms response time I may have a new panel to replace my L227WTG. All the other 120hz monitors that have been on the market have issues with response times or just the panel in general.

    They don’t say anything about input lag or having a mode to reduce it though… also another point of interest. Obviously higher resolution and 16:10 would be nice, but I’ll take what I can get (which is surprising considering how many monitors are on the market).

    That ultra wide monitor is definitely an attention grabber, but pretty pointless in normal usage. 16:9 isn’t my favorite as is…

    • just brew it!
    • 7 years ago

    I really don’t see the point of the first monitor, other than maybe as an attention-grabbing display in a trade show booth. 😉

    For something that wide, you really *want* separate monitors, so that you can angle them inward for optimum viewing angle across the entire field of view.

      • UberGerbil
      • 7 years ago

      Agreed. There may be some of the “I hate bezels” gaming crowd who like this. From a productivity standpoint though I’d rather have separate monitors. I [i<]like[/i<] bezels - they allow me to quickly organize and arrange my windows.

    • jensend
    • 7 years ago

    UXGA LCD, 1997- 1600×1200
    “Super-wide” LCDs, 2012- 2560×1080

    Geometric fit:
    2087 LCDs- 26844×638
    2147 LCDs- 175922×418

    Linear fit:
    2087 LCDs- 7360×480
    2147 LCDs- 11200×0

    (just to bait the “16:10 OR BUST” crowd)

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      Well done. You are a master baiter.

        • ermo
        • 7 years ago

        I see what you did there. Nice handiwork.

    • Helmore
    • 7 years ago

    Oh, I want a 27″ or 30″ monitor with a 2560×1600 resolution, or maybe 2560×1440 as a compromise, and a refresh rate of 120 Hz. That monitor should use a decent panel though, like IPS for example. Make sure it has DisplayPort to enable it to actually function at that resolution and refresh rate. Is it so hard to make that? Or is the market too small?

      • Ari Atari
      • 7 years ago

      Well think of the data rate required for it. 32 bit colors x 2,560 vertical x 1,600 horizontal pixels x 120 frames = 15,728,640,000 bits per second = 1,966,080,000 bytes per second = 1.966 Gigabytes a second compared to .98 Gigabytes a second for a 60Hz screen. I know of cables that can do somewhere in the 1.6 Gigabyte range if I recall correctly, but none that can do more than 2 a second.

        • brucethemoose
        • 7 years ago

        If memory serves me right, some of the earlier 2560×1440 Catleaps could do 120hz or close to 120hz, so it’s certainly possible.

        Doesn’t someone already sell 2560×1440 120hz displays?

          • Spunjji
          • 7 years ago

          The response time won’t justify the high refresh rate, though.

          • Ari Atari
          • 7 years ago

          I looked for a while in August and if you wanted 120hz only 3 or 4 monitors had it, all 1920×1080.

          As for the cable, I didn’t think it was possible, but you can do 1920×1200 over vga, so I could see stranger things happen.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      Me too. Still looking for a good 120Hz IPS panel that’s either 1920×1200 (16:10…I can dream!) or 2560×1440 (16:9 :(, but at least more pixels than 1920×1200.) Dual link DVI is enough to drive that.

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 7 years ago

    Soon enough they will make a monitor wide enough to destroy the world!

    • bcronce
    • 7 years ago

    I’m still waiting for a 1600p 120hz 30bit color monitor. I will also accept 144hz.

    • internetsandman
    • 7 years ago

    Edit: double post, my apologies. I couldn’t figure out how to delete the extra comment

    • internetsandman
    • 7 years ago

    I read the headline and thought the super-wide and 144Hz were descriptors for the same monitor. Seeing the second half of this article only disappointed me.

    Also, how is it that that 29″ monitor with a wider aspect ratio than my 27″ has merely the same horizontal and a LESSER vertical resolution?! Make it 3360×1080 at the very least

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, that it was a single wide 144Hz monitor. Although I’m not disappointed; no way I want a huge monitor that wide. I’d rather have a conventional resolution.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      Titles in journalism often use bare commas for brevity when listing, but sadly I was hoping for the same as you.

      That 144 Hz monitor actually looks interesting to me, although I’d prefer an IPS panel doing just 120 Hz. That would suffice for replacing my CRT.

    • designerfx
    • 7 years ago

    The Asus display isn’t cool, it’s offensive. Most at least have 1200 if not 1440 vertical pixels by 27″ monitors, let alone 29.

    What the hell is with limiting vertical resolution to 1080? What’s equally hilarious is that it’s not even a touchscreen but is advertising windows 8.

      • superjawes
      • 7 years ago

      I believe by “most,” you mean most enthusiasts and not most overall users. 1080 is standard because of TVs, and until that market begins to change, I think we are unlikely to see greater vertical resolutions.

      And Windows 8 is the most recent version of Windows. It’s not so much advertising an OS as it’s just using the most recent .

        • just brew it!
        • 7 years ago

        1200 vertical resolution was quite common a few years ago. Pisses me off that it essentially went out the window when the “widescreen HD” craze hit.

          • superjawes
          • 7 years ago

          I’m generally okay with 1080p on my TV. A wide screen makes sense when you’re watching movies and TV, but 1200 feels so much more natural for doing work and playing games.

          If engineers ruled the world, eh?

    • Arclight
    • 7 years ago

    I for one prefer the golden ratio.

      • Ari Atari
      • 7 years ago

      Here here! Not quite 16:9 not quite 16:10 but esthetically pleasing none the less.

        • ermo
        • 7 years ago

        Did you mean “Hear hear!” ?

          • Ari Atari
          • 7 years ago

          Maybe? *shifty eyes*

      • Wirko
      • 7 years ago

      See for yourself what real artists, not wannabes, think about the golden ratio.

      [url<]http://www.touropia.com/most-famous-paintings/[/url<]

        • Spunjji
        • 7 years ago

        Blah blah. It’s still bloody useful for content creation.

          • Wirko
          • 7 years ago

          I do not disagree. I just think that the aspect ratio is not that important once you have enough pixels in both directions. Video content creation is most comfortable on a 16:10 or 16:9 screen but that’s just one type of content.

    • lilbuddhaman
    • 7 years ago

    Yeah, Windows 8, yeah…..

    But about the monitor itself, will there be a visible line that fuses two displays or is it one solid panel?

      • cegras
      • 7 years ago

      This and the recently released Dell both probably use the 21:9 LG panel debuted a while back.

      • superjawes
      • 7 years ago

      I could be mistaken, but I believe the top image is a photograph and not a mockup, meaning that is an actual monitor that appears to be a solid panel. Again, could be wrong, but looks real to me.

        • lilbuddhaman
        • 7 years ago

        I was speaking internally, “behind” the image, but from the review on Anand of the LG one (mentioned by cegras above) they mention nothing of the sort and actually give it pretty good reviews.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      Why would they fuse glass when they can cut it properly the first time?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This