Asus PG248Q G-Sync display pushes frames at 180Hz

Today's high-end graphics cards can push tons of frames per second at lower resolutions, and Asus' PG248Q provides a lightning-quick sink for all those pixels. This 24" 1920×1080 display uses a TN panel to get a fast 1ms gray-to-gray response time, and it gives gamers a choice of Nvidia's G-Sync tech to eliminate tearing or Ultra Low Motion Blur to ensure crisp animation. Most impressively, this screen can run at refresh rates as high as 180 Hz.

Like Asus' earlier PG279Q G-Sync display, the PG248Q supports 144-Hz refresh rates out of the box. Gamers will need to head into its menus and "overclock" the panel in order to enable the screen's higher refresh rates. Asus says owners will need a GeForce GTX 1060 or better graphics card to take advantage of that speed, too, suggesting that DisplayPort 1.3 support is on board. This monitor offers DisplayPort and HDMI inputs, but those looking to use Nvidia's G-Sync tech will be restricted to the DisplayPort.

Some may gripe about the PG248Q's TN panel, but this display isn't really targeted at folks who need perfect color accuracy and reproduction. Instead, Asus is loud and proud about the PG248Q's gaming chops. This monitor was the official display of ESL One Cologne 2016, and it'll also be featured on stage at The International Dota 2 Championships this year. Asus says the PG248Q will be available this month, though it didn't disclose pricing info.

Comments closed
    • anotherengineer
    • 3 years ago

    Not the PG, but a close relative though.

    [url<]http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg248q.htm[/url<]

      • Voldenuit
      • 3 years ago

      Beware the MG248Q uses a 6-bit TN panel. I haven’t seen any reviews that specifically call out the bit-depth of the PG248Q (waiting for tftcentral or pcmonitors.info to review it). The higher end 27″ monitors like the PG278Q and Dell S2716G have 8-bit TN panels.

      It’s nice that the MG248Q does VRR from 40-144Hz, though, which is a good range (goddangit, why isn’t the VRR spec front and center for all Freesync monitors?). Had to go hunting to find that info.

    • Firestarter
    • 3 years ago

    this begs the question, how fast does a display have to be for adaptive sync to be mostly useless? IME, at 120hz without adaptive sync the animation is already a lot smoother than it was at 60hz, and with sample time down to 5.5ms in case of a 180hz screen, I bet it’s significantly better still. Where’s the limit where most of us can’t tell the difference anymore? At 500hz/2ms?

      • Spunjji
      • 3 years ago

      It depends how susceptible you / your game are too tearing, really. I have friends who can’t spot tearing at 120hz. I can, it’s just not as much of a bother as at 60hz.

    • Laykun
    • 3 years ago

    Human eye … 30 fps … blah blah blah.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      That’s an old myth.

      Nobody ever said that the human eye can’t perceive changes that occur faster than 30FPS (or the more classic ~24FPS of movies).

      Instead, given the technology available at the time, those frame rates were considered “good enough” to provide the illusion of movement to people viewing the playback. There are also a bunch of caveats in that heuristic that movie makers have to account for to keep the illusion of movement viable and to prevent people from getting motion sickness when watching the film.

        • Laykun
        • 3 years ago

        Nah bro, you’re wrong, I read it so on the internet.

          • Prestige Worldwide
          • 3 years ago

          lel

    • rudimentary_lathe
    • 3 years ago

    I’d like to see prices come down on these adaptive sync displays. You can get a cheap 24″ 1080p IPS display for little more than $100 USD today, but FreeSync and G-Sync displays are a multiple of that price. Moving to 1440p is that much more expensive – $500+ for a solid display. Those prices are just way too expensive for mainstream market penetration.

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 3 years ago

    I’m waiting for a 4k 120Hz or 144 Hz monitor to upgrade to. Even the GTX 1070 can run GTA V at 4k at around 50 FPS with a highly clocked Intel CPU. 1200P on a 24″ screen isn’t doing it anymore, and 2k would only be settling. 4k, here I come…whenever it arrives.

      • Stochastic
      • 3 years ago

      I’m waiting for an affordable OLED, adaptive VSYNC, well color calibrated 4K display with support for HDR and Rec. 2020 that’s at least 27 inches in size and costs less than $500. Oh, and with thin bezels, too. I will probably have to wait at least five years for this. In the meantime, I will enjoy my new 50-inch 4K Vizio P-series display. While not well suited to competitive gaming due to the 60 Hz refresh rate and ~17ms display latency, the enjoyment/$ value is through the roof IMO.

      • the
      • 3 years ago

      It is dangerous to go alone, [url=https://pcmonitors.info/dell/dell-up3017q-4k-uhd-oled-monitor/<]take this.[/url<]

    • Mo
    • 3 years ago

    But does it have the same inversion lines problem as the PG278Q? So tough to find out that sort of info before buying.

      • meerkt
      • 3 years ago

      What’s that?

        • Voldenuit
        • 3 years ago

        He may be talking about this
        [url<]https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?52705-PG278Q-Vertical-Lines-Pixel-Inversion-Inversion-Artifacts[/url<] I've had a PG278Q for a couple months now and never seen anything like it, may be specific to OP's unit.

    • mkk
    • 3 years ago

    -delete-

    • mkk
    • 3 years ago

    There’s much that does not make any sense with this product. At 1080p they could easily have found an IPS screen capable of 144Hz +extra with overclocking. Even if you’re playing with low-low settings, IPS gives you better contrast and angles that could help you spot the enemy better.

    At 1080p running the intended type of games there is also no need for G-Sync at all. Surely you could spend half as much on a decent graphics card that you’re getting this display for, keeping framerates glued to the top range.
    I’d rather recommend anyone a 27″ 1440p 144Hz IPS screen in the same price range.

      • Bensam123
      • 3 years ago

      Pixel response time matters when you’re talking about high speed displays.

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        Yep. I go via pixel response measurements from prad.de and tftcentral.co.uk. Here are the real world, measured, average response times of leading gaming screens from those sites: (Asus MG248Q, Eizo 2735, Predator Z35)

        TN – 4.4ms = 227Hz capable without ghosting
        IPS – 6.8ms = 147Hz capable without ghosting
        VA – 8.9ms 112Hz capable without ghosting, minor ghosting at 144Hz

        If you want to claim 180Hz, you’re not going to do it even with the fastest IPS or VA panels available right now unless you’re prepared to get some ghosting.

    • Duct Tape Dude
    • 3 years ago

    I’d be interested in seeing a side by side demo among 60Hz/90Hz/120Hz/144Hz/180Hz.

    Above about 100Hz seems to be diminishing returns for me, but there are some with more discerning eyes…

      • DancinJack
      • 3 years ago

      I doubt you’d notice the difference between 144 and 180 unless you have realllllll good vision. I haven’t yet been able to notice differences between 144 and 165 on my PG279Q.

        • XenicSpinout
        • 3 years ago

        Really? I can easily tell the difference between 144 and 165 on my PG279Q. I play a lot of CSGO and Overwatch though.

          • GrimDanfango
          • 3 years ago

          It’ll differ between just about anyone you cared to try it on.

          There are invariably diminishing returns… by simple mathematics as well as perceptually.

          There’s a greater absolute difference between the frame-to-frame latency of 60hz and 120hz than between 120 hz and 1000hz… as you tend closer to infinity-frames-per-second, the difference is obviously less and less relevant.

          For me, I agree with DTD – I can’t perceive the difference between 120 and 144 on my ROG Swift… and while I like 120 for being a nicer number, realistically, 100 is about where I’d probably stop being able to discern one mode from the other.

          VR is probably different, as higher and higher refresh rates (coupled with lower and lower latencies) affect the experience quite substantially even if you don’t consciously perceive the difference in front of your eyes. I can certainly see VR creeping up towards the 200hz+ mark at some point in the future.

    • Ryhadar
    • 3 years ago

    Purchased the nixeus VUE-24 (TN) last year after owning a Dell U2312HM (IPS) for 4 years. Before the dell, I wasn’t very particular to color reproduction and viewing angles but nabbed it for a great price. Thought my indifference to color reproduction and viewing angles would continue with my purchase of the nixeus, especially with the attractive feature set, but boy was I wrong.

    I’m an IPS or bust snob now. Would love to have seen this as IPS but they don’t seem to make high refresh, IPS displays under 27″.

    *sigh*

      • Pettytheft
      • 3 years ago

      I went from a 2001FP to a fast Asus TN panel for 1080p. I couldn’t stand looking at them side by side. The much older Dell screen which was on it’s last legs looked so much better than the TN. The colors were so washed out. Soon as those Korean panels became popular I jumped at the chance. Never will I go TN again.

        • Voldenuit
        • 3 years ago

        Did you get the ROG Swift? Some of them came from factory with very low gamma values. I downloaded an icc file from pcmonitors.info to raise the gamma to ~2.2 and the colors became *much* richer. It looks as good as the acer AHVA monitor next to it now.

          • Pettytheft
          • 3 years ago

          Nope, wanted to but when I was deciding between a 1070 + Gsync monitor it was just to far out of my budget. Had the items in my cart but couldn’t pull the trigger. Ended up with this monitor [url<]https://www.buypixio.com/products/px277[/url<] and the FuryX. $359 and $399 and I'm not regretting my decision. Luckily no dead pixels or major backlight bleeding.

            • Ryhadar
            • 3 years ago

            Surprised that they don’t list the freesync range in that monitor, do you know what it is? But it looks very nice otherwise. Nice find.

            • Pettytheft
            • 3 years ago

            55-144

            • DPete27
            • 3 years ago

            I was just eyeing up that monitor the other day. Do you like it? I was hesitant because the brand wasn’t familiar.

            • Pettytheft
            • 3 years ago

            The label on the front ugly and it has a large bezel. Other than that I’m just as pleased with it as I was with my Crossover. It’s not quite as vibrant but the Crossover had a glossy screen. (I like those!) I have one dead pixel in the lower left corner but I don’t even notice while gaming. No backlight bleeding or IPS glow. Display settings are far better than the Crossover.

            I find around 90fps is the sweet spot for me. After that I don’t notice any difference. But it is much better than 60Hz with Vsync. Happy with my purchase but it is a new vendor and panel lottery always applies. It really depends on how sensitive you are to a stuck pixel or two.

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<]This monitor was the official display of ESL One Cologne 2016, and it'll also be featured on stage at The International Dota 2 Championships this year.[/quote<] Question for anybody who pays attention to the world of competitive gaming: Do gamers turn down eye candy effects not necessarily for performance (especially on DOTA2) but just to eliminate distracting effects that could make it harder to actually play the game? [Edit: Many thanks for the interesting responses]

      • slowriot
      • 3 years ago

      Yes, absolutely. It’s surprising to see a top tier competitor with any graphical fluff enabled. Many of the big CSGO pros are still playing on 5:4 resolutions on 16:9 monitors.

        • weaktoss
        • 3 years ago

        Really? Why 5:4? Don’t most competitive games give you a greatly reduced field of view if you use ratios taller than 16:9?

          • slowriot
          • 3 years ago

          Sorry, I was thinking 4:3 ratio but the thought processes behind it remain the same. Here’s a good breakdown: [url<]http://clutchround.com/csgo-the-ultimate-resolution-guide/[/url<] So... two reasons. Main one is familiarity for the competitor (its what they've always used) or some even who prefer the stretched aspect ratio i.e. models appear a bit bigger.

      • arbiter9605
      • 3 years ago

      Yea its very common to run things at low settings, it can remove fancy effects. I will use starcraft2 for example. There are units that are cloaked and hard to see if you have high graphic settings, turn settings to low and the bending of the light when unit moves is very easy to see.

        • anotherengineer
        • 3 years ago

        Interesting indeed. Especially games like CS:S, CS:GO can run 150+ fps with everything maxed on old hardware.

        So I guess AMD pushing the RX460 for eSports has some merit to it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This