Asus readies a trio of FreeSync-infused ROG Strix displays

Here at TR, we've made no secret of our love for gaming on variable-refresh-rate monitors. We're always pleased, then, when new FreeSync or G-Sync displays are introduced into the market. Today, Asus is adding three new gamer-oriented displays to its ROG lineup, and all of them support AMD's FreeSync tech.

First up is the Strix XG32V, a massive 31.5" IPS display. Its 1800R curvature should help ensure that users won't miss content in the corners when they're sitting up close. The XG32V can refresh its pixels at a 144 Hz rate and sports a resolution of 2560×1440. Some might wonder why such a large display doesn't have a 4K resolution, but as Asus points out, it'd take a fabulously-expensive gaming rig to push that many pixels at the display's maximum refresh rate.

Folks who like some glowing LEDs to go along with their glowing LEDs can match up the Aura Sync lighting on the display with their other ROG gear. For connectivity, the display has a pair of DisplayPort 1.2 inputs, one HDMI 2.0 port, and a handful of USB 3.0 ports.

The Strix XG27V is quite similar to the XG32V, but scaled down for affordability. It's smaller than its brother, but is still a large monitor at 27" and has the same 1800R curvature. The display's resolution is 1920×1080, but it shares the larger model's 144 Hz refresh rate. The list of display inputs includes DisplayPort, HDMI, and DVI. This model comes with Aura RGB LEDs, but lacks the ability to sync the lighting configuration with other ROG devices.

Last on the list is an unassuming display with a mighty refresh rate, the XG258. Its 24.5" diagonal size and 1920×1080 resolution won't turn too many heads, but more than a few gamers out there would happily make use of its 240 Hz refresh rate and 1-ms response time. The display connects to graphics cards through DisplayPort or HDMI, and has Aura RGB lighting on its stand (though, once again, there's no synchronization functionality).

Asus plans to release the three displays in the third quarter of this year, but hasn't yet announced pricing.

Comments closed
    • anotherengineer
    • 3 years ago

    Patiently waiting for a monitor with

    ~2500:1 contrast ratio (at least)
    -no ips glow
    -120hz with adaptive sync 24-120hz
    -true 10-bit color with no FRC
    -light anti-glare coating – around semi-gloss level i suppose
    -DP1.4
    ~23-25″ range at 2560×1440 or 2560×1600 res range
    -good fully adjustable stand
    -good wide viewing angles all directions
    -in the ~$500 range

    • Shobai
    • 3 years ago

    I’m a little out of the loop, but why would Asus use (the, what, 8 year old?) DP1.2 for these? Wouldn’t they need at least DP1.2a for adaptive sync? And why not just implement 1.3?

    • BIF
    • 3 years ago

    Can we stop using the word “infused” for things that aren’t delicious while also containing something delicious inside?

    A good example of things befitting the word would be jelly donuts, chocolate chip or macadamia nut cookies, chocolates with liquor in the center, burgers with cheese or jalapenos inside the patty, cherry pie, or even burritos?

    If we lose the language, then our culture can’t be far behind… 😉

    • Welch
    • 3 years ago

    Sorta sad not to see a good 24″ 1920×1080 Freesync monitor with say 120hz and LFC for under $200 with no other frills. Certainly not ASUS RGB LOGO ROFLBBQZ!

    • Welch
    • 3 years ago

    Uhhh, the title says ” trio of FreeSync-infused”. Unless I’m reading incorrectly you’re saying the last one doesn’t have FreeSync. May want to update the title, just a friendly suggestion.

      • Shobai
      • 3 years ago

      You’re probably reading incorrectly. The ‘synchronisation’ they reference for is the Aura RGB functionality (incidentally, only the first of the three has it, so you may have missed that sentence for the second monitor also)

    • Redocbew
    • 3 years ago

    If I buy one do I get a set of angry robots with it?

    • The Egg
    • 3 years ago

    The 31.5″ XG32V sounds pretty sweet if its Freesync range is decent (at the low end). I’m still not entirely sure how I feel about curved screens though.

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 3 years ago

    Fine, fine, whatever. When are we going to see Freesync over HDMI (or display port for all I care) on TVs?

      • Voldenuit
      • 3 years ago

      Scorpio supports Freesync, so eventually some TV manufacturers might support it. It’s still going to incur some development and hardware costs, so there would have to be a market incentive for them to do it.

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 3 years ago

        Yep. My best guess is we get a single overpriced TV with Freesync support 3 years from now.

          • LostCat
          • 3 years ago

          So…buy a 4K freesync monitor and use it as a TV?

          I suspect we’ll see some ‘gaming TVs’ marketed that have it as soon as it’s available.

            • southrncomfortjm
            • 3 years ago

            When I say “TV” I mean something that is at least 60″ and can be hung on my wall.

        • freebird
        • 3 years ago

        In 2016, I was 90% sure Scorpio would have FreeSync after AMD announced in December of 2015 that all future APUs & GPUs would support FreeSync over HDMI…
        [url<]http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-announces-freesync-support-over-hdmi/[/url<] So I assumed that TVs should be out by the 2018 release to support HDMI freesync (and the Scorpio release), but I think AMD decided to make the FreeSync 2 standard with HDMI and I believe I read on another site that FreeSync 2 specs weren't available in time for TV makers to meet testing and FCC approvals for the 2018 TV cycle, not sure if that is true or not, someone may slip in a couple with HDMI Freesync support without all the FreeSync2 support, but it may not be until the 2019 TV models are available to really see HDMI/FreeSync availability. Support may be limited to higher end TVs also depending on how much manufacturers want to try to induce people to "upgrade" their purchase to a higher priced model.

    • Voldenuit
    • 3 years ago

    Am I the only one who prefers 3000R curvature (or none) to 1800R?

      • Kretschmer
      • 3 years ago

      I prefer no curve, even with the 21:9 34″ size. I’ve tried both and would rather be geometrically correct.

      • tay
      • 3 years ago

      I’ve seen a number of UW curved screens at MicroCenter and I agree.
      It’s hard to find 3000R screens now although there are a few 2000R. At the other end are the stupidly curved R1500 Samsung screens (stay away).

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      Nope. My experience is that the ideal curvature radius is your viewing distance.

      1800R is the most curved monitor I’ve owned and I wished it was even more curved when sitting 1m away from it. The 4000R curved monitor was a complete waste of time, 100% gimmick.

        • Voldenuit
        • 3 years ago

        Yeah, but I also use my PC monitor as my ‘TV’, so sometimes I’m at my desk, and sometimes I sit on the sofa and watch movies on it.

      • gerryg
      • 3 years ago

      1800R works on really big screens, but for smaller ones 3000R is better. I would probably prefer a 2400R or something roughly like that on a 27″ or 30″ screen. 1800R on a 31.5″ is probably actually reasonable.

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        Are you sure you have that the right way around?

        1800R is more curved than 3000R which is effectively the same as “flat” for smaller screens.

    • Kretschmer
    • 3 years ago

    No FreeSync monitor news is complete without publishing the FreeSync range and LFC fucntionality. I assume every 144Hz+ screen supports LFC, but it never hurts to be sure.

    • Kretschmer
    • 3 years ago

    Curving a 16:9 monitor seems questionable at best and curving a 27″ monitor is ludicrous.

    I wish I could remove the curve from my X34, and really enjoyed the 34″ flat 34UM88 that I had for a while. The effect up close is not worth distorting everything at a range when your monitor is your TV.

      • Fieryphoenix
      • 3 years ago

      I also hate curvy screens.

    • tay
    • 3 years ago

    These are super underwhelming. The 32″ has meh PPI, and an 1800R curve is the limit of what I’d use as well. 2000-3000R is ideal but that’s a small bone to pick.

    Also the fscking RoG logos reminds me of this comment from AT :

    “I wasn’t going to buy this but then I read: “the ASUS display will have integrated RGB LED lighting in the form of an ROG logo that shines down onto the desk”. Perfect just what I wanted, though I would have liked it more if the ROG logo shone directly into my eye so I don’t have to look down all the time to see what the hell I just bought.”

    [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/comments/11491/acer-asus-unveil-35inch-gsync-hdr-monitors-ultrawide-curved-200hz/563305[/url<]

      • EndlessWaves
      • 3 years ago

      96dpi is ‘meh’? Is your nose actually touching the screen or are there a few millimetres of gap left?

        • RAGEPRO
        • 3 years ago

        96 DPI is quite meh. That’s 1920×1080 at 22.5″. Not exactly super high resolution.

          • Chrispy_
          • 3 years ago

          96 DPI is ideal, You don’t want crazy-high DPI for gaming;

          Immersion through large physical size and higher framerates afforded by the lower resolution is definitely more relevant to gaming than having smooth text in your documents. Even once you do turn to productivity, 96 DPI is what most content is designed for, and I’ll gladly take slightly less crisp text if it means I don’t run into any DPI scaling issues.

            • RAGEPRO
            • 3 years ago

            Yeah, we can agree to disagree, amigo. I love high framerates too, but you’re never gonna convince me that “you don’t want crazy-high DPI for gaming,” heh. It doesn’t have to be a trade-off.

            • anotherengineer
            • 3 years ago

            It could if you have a shoestring budget 😉

            • RAGEPRO
            • 3 years ago

            Oh it certainly -is- a trade-off for most people. Hell it’s a trade-off for me; I have a 10-bit 4K-60Hz monitor and a QLED 1080p-144Hz monitor and the decision of which one to play a given game on is one I struggle with in every game I play. (The decision usually comes down to whether I can maintain an appropriate framerate on the game in 4K, which doesn’t happen in most newer 3D games since I’m still running a 290X 🙂

            I’m just saying, it doesn’t -have- to be. High-resolution gaming (whether spatial or temporal resolution) is incredible, and the higher the better.

    • wingless
    • 3 years ago

    I was really hoping to upgrade to a 1440p Freesync display and a Vega GPU this year, but AMD dropped the ball on the most important part of that equation.

      • Magic Hate Ball
      • 3 years ago

      It depends on what you have now.

      If the 1440p Freesync display can go as low as 48hz (like the AOC AG322qcx should when it hits market) then my Fury will be fine until Vega lands sometime later.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This