Asus VP28UQG marries 4K and FreeSync in a budget display

If you find yourself in the curious position of needing a 4K gaming monitor and not wanting to pay a lot for it, Asus might be able to hook you up. The company just updated its site with details for a new display, the VP28UQG. Like the MG28UQ before it, this monitor is a 28" display with a 3840×2160 resolution. It boasts a 1-ms response time courtesy of its overdriven TN panel.

The most common qualification that marks a monitor "for gaming" is high-refresh-rate support, and as a 4K monitor (without support for G-Sync HDR or FreeSync 2), the VP28UQG doesn't have it. It does support FreeSync, though, with a 40-to-60-Hz range of similar 4K gaming displays like my LG 24UD58. Asus specs this monitor for a 300 cd/m² brightness and 1000:1 contrast ratio, meaning both it and the MG28UQ are likely very closely related in both their panels and backlights.

Despite listing the monitor with 10-bit color support, Asus doesn't elaborate on its gamut. The VP28UQG drops the speakers and USB 3.0 hub of the MG28UQ, and it also adopts a more restrictive stand with only tilt adjustments. However, as a newer model, it swaps the HDMI 1.4 input of the MG28UQ for a second HDMI 2.0 input. That brings the final tally to two HDMI 2.0 jacks and a DisplayPort connection.

We don't actually know how much Asus plans to ask for the VP28UQG, but given the downgrades versus the MG28UQ—and its "V"-series branding—we expect it to be a fair whack cheaper. The MG28UQ goes for $430 at Newegg right now, and AOC's very similar U2879VF is on sale right now for $280 after promo code, so Asus' new baby will probably slot in somewhere between those two numbers.

Comments closed
    • Tristan
    • 2 years ago

    If they mark it as ‘gaming monitor’, then let they add ‘caution: low-refresh’, as most gamers perceive gaming monitor as monitor with refresh rate 120Hz or more.

      • Kretschmer
      • 2 years ago

      Naw man it’s not about the refresh rate, pixel response times, or adaptive sync. Does it RGB LED?

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    Given that Freesync is still solely AMD’s domain, which AMD card is supposed to drive a 4K monitor at sensible framerates, exactly?

    I really want Vega gaming cards to be ready, but even if they were – the expected performance of ~90% of a GTX 1080 isn’t exactly ideal for 4K AAA gaming. The 1080 itself struggles along at 40-ish fps in several 2016 titles and we’re already halfway through 2017. Polaris already struggles at 1440p in some games, whilst FuryX is really showing the limitations of 4GB VRAM at 4K resolutions.

      • odizzido
      • 2 years ago

      I like to keep in mind that you can run more demanding games at 1920×1080 which is a nice 4:1 ratio. I imagine if the monitor is anywhere decent you will get a nice crisp picture that way. Still haven’t seen it in person though so I can’t verify if that’s the case.

        • RAGEPRO
        • 2 years ago

        Curiously, if I let the monitor do its own scaling, a 1920×1080 picture ends up sorta fuzzy. If I enable GPU scaling it’s nice and sharp. I can’t even imagine what LG is doing to a 1920×1080 image that makes it fuzzy on a 3840×2160 display but they need to stop.

          • UberGerbil
          • 2 years ago

          Typically the scaler chips are expected to be converting video, and for that some sort of smoothing or averaging is invoked because it tends to look better for that content. At least for upscaling (ie 480/720/1080 -> 4K). For downscaling a certain (small) amount of sharpening is better, but they may not make that distinction (or they may but the results on non-video content look fuzzy anyway). Whatever the case, this is a good example of why you generally avoid in-monitor scaling if at all possible. Even with dedicated video players it’s usually better to let the player do the scaling, not the display.

          • odizzido
          • 2 years ago

          That is messed up. Good information to have though, thank you for sharing.

        • trek205
        • 2 years ago

        Please not that ignorant old myth. Monitors do not have a scalar where it would make any difference on the so-called perfect 4 to 1 pixel ratio. The lower the resolution the worse it looks and nothing magical happens at 1080p on a 4k monitor.

        • Chrispy_
        • 2 years ago

        Yeah, all scaler chips in displays – as well as Nvidia and AMD GPU scaling applies a soften filter which makes it look rubbish, and also breaks subpixel antialising methods like Cleartype.

      • RAGEPRO
      • 2 years ago

      I do it just fine on my 290X?

        • Voldenuit
        • 2 years ago

        o.0, another [url=http://www.failbettergames.com/fallen-london/<]Fallen London[/url<] fan!

          • RAGEPRO
          • 2 years ago

          Haha.

          What?

        • ImSpartacus
        • 2 years ago

        Hawaii is great, but a 290X isn’t going to consistently do well at 4K.

        I’m sure it’s possible to have a perfectly suitable experience in several games (especially older ones), but it’s not consistent enough to meaningfully share that as implicit advice for others to potentially use.

          • RAGEPRO
          • 2 years ago

          Naw, I mean, you’re not gonna play Rise of the Tomb Raider at 4K on a 290X, of course. It runs Dark Souls III real nice in 4K though. Other games I’ve played in 4K on my 290X from recent memory:[list<][*<]Warframe. [/*<][*<]Bayonetta. [/*<][*<]Vanquish. [/*<][*<]Saint's Row: Gat out of Hell. [/*<][*<]Resident Evil 6. [/*<][*<]GTA V (albeit with some reduced settings; it's totally playable but I'd rather play in 1080p on max.) [/*<][*<]BlazBlue: CentralFiction. [/*<][*<]Serious Sam Fusion 2017.[/*<][*<]Senran Kagura: Estival Versus. [/*<][*<]Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen. [/*<][*<]Mirror's Edge: Catalyst.[/*<][*<]Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition. [/*<][*<] Wolfenstein: The Old Blood. [/*<][*<] and of course legions of 2D/light 3D indie games. (Go play Khimera, it's free!)[/*<][/list<] Some of those games are old, some are very new. In any case, while it's true you won't be playing the latest and greatest AAA titles in 4K on any but the fastest GPUs, the overwhelming majority of PC games run just fine in 4K on Hawaii-class hardware, which as you well know includes Polaris 10.

            • Voldenuit
            • 2 years ago

            Nearly all of those are PS3-era games, though.

            My 970 could also play a lot of console-era ports fine in 4K using DSR, but I would not recommend it as a 4K GPU. Similarly, a 1060, 580 or 1070 will play many modern games at 4K at if you lower some key graphics settings, but you would not be recommending them to someone who wants to build a 4K machine without a long list of caveats.

            • RAGEPRO
            • 2 years ago

            Eh, half. 7/13. (GTA V PC version is based on the current-gen version.) But yeah, you’re right of course. I don’t think that invalidates the point, though. Do you know a lot of people who primarily play AAA games? I sure don’t.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 2 years ago

            Erm… did you just publicly admit to SK:EV?? Lol, at 4k nonetheless, I didn’t even know that was an option. Are you gonna collect all of the special finisher animations?

            Anyway, its certainly a fun list of games. I find that most console ports are good at 4k. If the console port wasn’t poorly done that is… (lots of bad ports from Square / Enix).

            I personally find myself playing more abstract games like “Factorio”, or quirky games like “Awesomenauts”. And the hand-drawn high-definition pixel art style of BlazBlue is awesome (and the simple 3D effects and 3d backgrounds when supers go off really do add to the overall artstyle).

            Its something I’ve noticed of myself. I don’t actually care too much about GPU-killer games anymore. The vast majority of good video games are easily served on a 290X as you’ve noted. There’s a few games that really demand a high-power GPU… mostly the ones going for photo-realism or a movie-experience. But a lot of the “sit back and relax” games have simplified graphics that are more than adequate.

            • RAGEPRO
            • 2 years ago

            Hey, Senran Kagura games are good fun. I ain’t ashamed. ๐Ÿ™‚

            [quote<]Its something I've noticed of myself. I don't actually care too much about GPU-killer games anymore. The vast majority of good video games are easily served on a 290X as you've noted. There's a few games that really demand a high-power GPU... mostly [b<]the ones going for photo-realism or a movie-experience.[/b<] But a lot of the "sit back and relax" games have simplified graphics that are more than adequate.[/quote<][i<](emphasis mine)[/i<] Yep. I rarely play AAAs these days and the reason is the highlighted part. I have a few friends who can state this better than me but basically I don't want to watch a movie when I'm playing a game. Every single second a game takes control away from me is wasted time in my opinion. I loathe cutscenes and I generally don't care for set-piece moments like driving or rail-shooter sections in an otherwise non-driving or non-rail-shooter game. I have an especially low tolerance for completely fabricated drama. There's a part at the end of Tomb Raider (2013) where you have to do a long and elaborate wall-climb while a building is falling apart around you. Except, if you look at the actual inputs you're doing during this wall-climb, you're literally just holding the analog stick in one direction. One part requires you to press A one time, but you can't actually fail even though Lara will flop around on the wall like she's losing her grip. Meanwhile the game is hurrying you on through dialogue and trying to create this sensation of false panic. It's absolutely abhorrent because there is no real danger; there's no timer, so you cannot actually fail unless you specifically do so (press the button to fall off the wall.) That kind of thing is just rampant in games these days. As gaming has become more mainstream, for whatever reason, the big game developers have decided their games need to be "cinematic". People seem to enjoy it, so I guess whatever, but a lot of the big game titles of the last 10 years or so I really just have not cared for at all.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 2 years ago

            [quote<]One part requires you to press A one time, but you can't actually fail even though Lara will flop around on the wall like she's losing her grip. Meanwhile the game is hurrying you on through dialogue and trying to create this sensation of false panic. It's absolutely abhorrent because there is no real danger; there's no timer, so you cannot actually fail unless you specifically do so (press the button to fall off the wall.)[/quote<] The worst offender of this was Final Fantasy 13 for me, back when FFXIII was considered cream-of-the-crop graphics anyway. Just run forward and Lightning (the main character) will automatically jump from rock-to-rock, automatically completing the platforming sections for you. I mean, "jump-quests" are awful in of themselves (see Kingdom Hearts platforming sections... RPGs generally don't make good or fun platformers). But why waste my time running through a section? At very least, make some branches or the barebones amount of backtracking to make the level design interesting. With that said, there are plenty of gamers who do get fun out of cinematic events. I don't really... but whatever suits people's tastes. I mean, if a story is [b<]really[/b<] well done (Ex: Last of Us), then I'll accept it. But if you're pushing a lot of cinematics for what would otherwise be a B or C-rated movie (that's 40-hours long?!??!)... that's not a good use of my time IMO. I guess... the closer the game becomes a non-interactive movie, the more harshly I'll judge the storyline. On the other extreme, if you've got a solid game at the core (Puyo Tetris, Blazblue, Awesomenauts, Touhou, Bayonetta)... the storyline can be pretty crap and I'll still call it a good game.

            • RAGEPRO
            • 2 years ago

            Hey now, Touhou Project has the best storylines. Other games wish they had ZUN’s writing. ๐Ÿ™‚

            Yeah, I’m just not a big story guy. I like to write my own stories because the stories (by which I mean plot to a lesser degree than setting and characters) in games don’t tend to interest me. I absolutely loathed The Last of Us, in fact, and I’m right in the pocket of who the game was supposed to appeal to (30-something fathers).

            • EzioAs
            • 2 years ago

            I played Final Fantasy XIII earlier this year. While there are aspect which I really, really love (ie. the battle system), the overall gameplay and story were really disappointing. It’s one the few games I don’t really recommend to most people (one of 2 FF games I don’t recommend as well).

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 2 years ago

            Xiii-2 and XIII-3 get better betttwr battlecand worse (hard imagination, I know!) story.
            Overall gameplay I though get better.

            • EzioAs
            • 2 years ago

            I like the varieties of games you’ve played. :).

            Incidentally, is Dragon’s Dogma something you can recommend? I’ve been thinking about getting it but it’s priced a bit too steep for a game I’m totally unsure of whether or not I can enjoy. The most I’ve spent on a game is Legacy of the Void and Rise of the Tomb Raider and that’s only because I know I would love those game (and I do love them).

            • RAGEPRO
            • 2 years ago

            Dude, holy crap yes. You missed it during the GOG summer sale when it was $12. Actually, you should pick it up now at full price to support the developer making a sequel. ๐Ÿ™‚

            But yeah, absolutely. It’s one of my favorite all-time games. It is significantly pared-down from what the developer intended but it’s still an excellent game. Maybe not for everyone; it can be pretty difficult and it is surprisingly linear for an open-world game. Still, the combat is the reason to play, and it’s more or less unmatched in open-world games. If Black Desert Online played like Dragon’s Dogma I’d never play anything else, hahah.

            If you pick it up, let me help you avoid a rookie mistake: the “Dark Arisen” part was originally a DLC expansion and while the game will happily introduce you to it ridiculously early (as in, the very first night), it’s intended for post-endgame play. Don’t go to Bitterblack Isle if you just started the game. ๐Ÿ™‚

            • EzioAs
            • 2 years ago

            Haha I love your enthusiasm. GOG is dandy and all but $12 with the current exchange rate really hurts some of us. That’s why I’m glad Steam (and Windows Store) uses the local currency and has the item price adjusted based for (probably) every country. Maybe the next time it’s on sale on Steam, I’ll pick it up.

            • Shobai
            • 2 years ago

            Heh, that’ll be why Steam charges US players US$60 for games and Aussie players US$80… and don’t pay Aussie tax, etc…

            • Kretschmer
            • 2 years ago

            I’m curious about the frame rates that you consider fluid. Some of those games were a bit slow on my 290X at 2560×1440.

            • Voldenuit
            • 2 years ago

            In my experience, a lot of console ports are very poorly optimized, and something as simple as ReShade or SweetFX can drastically improve performance if your hardware is lagging.

            DOA5 was unplayable at 4K on my 970, but switching to SweetFX made it smooth as silk at 4K.

            • RAGEPRO
            • 2 years ago

            Ahh, it all depends on the game and the context. If I’m playing a game in native 4K resolution (i.e., not using scaling), assuming it’s not something that needs millisecond reaction times and precision movements, I don’t mind playing at even 30 FPSโ€”as long as it’s consistent. One of my favorite games of all time is Dark Souls, which is limited to 30 FPS without mods, and while I have played it a fair bit with the 60 FPS patch, I’ve played it much more without (both because I played it before that patch existed, and also because the patch causes major problems with the game.)

            Playing in lower resolutions I’m less likely to tolerate low framerates, and some genres (like most first-person games) just demand higher framerates. However, most of that list runs at 60+ FPS in 4K on my 290X. The big misses are GTA V (which runs ~45 FPS with middling settings) and Mirror’s Edge: Catalyst (which dips down into the low 30s sometimes.) They’re both real smooth and consistent experiences though; even if the framerate drops it doesn’t chunk or stutter in either title.

            It helps that my machine behind the 290X is pretty beast. ๐Ÿ™‚ OC’d 4790K + 32GB of DDR3-1866. I’m also using a 512GB RD400 for game storage, so there’s that too.

            • Chrispy_
            • 2 years ago

            “Runs just fine” is highly subjective. If you omit any demanding titles, then yes, lots of cards will run 4K fine.

            I mean, if I only played Rocket League and CS:Go, my current GTX970 would be fine at 4K too.

            Being more realistic though, half of the 2015 and 2016 games I’m working through in my steam library require some significant detail downgrades to give me acceptably smooth 1440p performance. At 4K many of them would be a slideshow. I’ve seen plenty of GPU reviews where the Fury X is sub-30fps in many of the benchmarked games at 4K, and that’s currently AMD’s strongest GPU.

            • RAGEPRO
            • 2 years ago

            [quote<]If you omit any demanding titles, then yes, lots of cards will run 4K fine.[/quote<]I mean, saying "omit" like that sounds like I'm cherry picking. Frankly, I just listed the games I've been playing. I'd list some more demanding titles if anyone made a demanding game I want to play, heh. I think the most demanding game I've played in the last 5 years is Doom (2016) and the 290X can't hack that in real native 4K, but I can enable some smart scaling (in-game, Doom has a resolution scalar built in) and it runs very well and looks fine. What else would I even list? What other good AAA PC games have come out in this generation? Another subjective question of course, but all of this is really orthogonal to my point. All I'm saying is, "driving a 4K display at sensible framerates" is no big deal for a lot of gamers. I'd argue, the majority of gamers. Your big AAA titles like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed don't sell for beans on PC compared to what they sell on consoles. Folks who play those really GPU-heavy games overwhelmingly play them on a game console. And, notably, the Xbox One X supports native 4K output and FreeSync. So there's that market for this display, too.

            • Chrispy_
            • 2 years ago

            Being objective rather than subjective:

            [url<]http://store.steampowered.com/stats/[/url<] Five of those ten games are AAA titles, and that's the top-ten most popular games at the moment. The Fury X will not manage 4K60 in any of them, and the 290X will perform at under 30fps in most of them. Using another article (Techradar) the best games of the last 12 months are: RE7, Civ VI, XCOM2, Witcher 3 DLCs - none of which the Fury X can play at 4K60. So, by all definitions, several of us are questioning your comments that the 290X is a suitable card for 4K. Yes, it can run the game executable file at a resolution of 4K, but you will have to seriously compromise game details, framerate, or most likely both.

            • RAGEPRO
            • 2 years ago

            Wha-what? Are we looking at [url=https://i.imgur.com/rSYebyp.png<]the same list?[/url<] The only single game on that list I would call AAA is GTA V and it and Ark (which is a horrible game, I own it) are the only games on that list that *I* can't run in 4K60, much less a Fury X. This list goes really far to serve my point about PC gamers not really playing AAA titles much. As far as the Techradar article goes, Civ VI and XCOM 2 are not games you need 60 FPS in (and X-COM 2 [url=https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/xcom_2_pc_performance_review_-_amd_vs_nvidia/1<]ran at 30 FPS average on a Fury X in 4K on high settings 18 months ago[/url<]). RE7 is easily in the category of "mostly played on consoles" and that leaves Witcher 3 DLCs as the sole argument for... what, exactly? "People who want to play Witcher 3 in 4K won't do it on an AMD GPU?" Heh. [url=http://www.techradar.com/news/best-games-2017<]That article claims[/url<] [url=https://twitter.com/mombot/status/887173524326043649<]Mass Effect: Andromeda[/url<] is one of the best games of 2017 so I don't really think we can take Techradar's word on game quality too seriously. Anyway, I don't really see any argument, compelling or otherwise, against my point here. PC gamers mostly play games that run at a perfectly appropriate framerate in 4K on RX 480-class hardware. By the way, my reaction isn't personal or anythingโ€”I'm just real sick of the "4K as an unattainable target" meme that's so prevalent in hardware circles. 4K gaming is a thing, it has been a thing, it is not a big deal. It's not some unapproachable goal even for people with older or modest hardware. You just have to be realistic about it.

      • LostCat
      • 2 years ago

      The Xbox One X supports Freesync and is likely to drive 4K equipment sales as well.

      • Grape Flavor
      • 2 years ago

      “the expected performance of ~90% of a GTX 1080”

      And this is why AMD screwed themselves by releasing the Frontier Edition first. It doesn’t matter how many times they say that’s it’s not a gaming part with proper gaming drivers, websites are going to publish articles testing it with games anyway and the public perception of Vega is damaged.

      Vega is going to exceed the 1080.

        • Kretschmer
        • 2 years ago

        Good luck with that.

        • Chrispy_
        • 2 years ago

        Perhaps it will, but AMD are already 15 months behind the consumer 1080 launch and consumer Vega dates haven’t even been confirmed yet (we’ll hear Vega RX launch dates at Siggraph next month). Something approximately 1080-powered but 18 months late is hardly an achievement to brag about.

        I want AMD to succeed, but they sure are putting up a pathetic fight at the high end.

        To put it into context, Nvidia’s Volta is already launched and selling, albeit in Tesla format rather than Geforce format. The consumer Geforce Volta launch will probably arrive in the fall, not long after AMD have finally launched the Vega RX – just to rub salt in the wound.

          • DoomGuy64
          • 2 years ago

          None of Nvidia’s cards currently matter to freesync monitor users, which means Vega will be a success no matter what in this market. You can also take Ragepro’s conversation into account, where a good chunk of users are not even playing full price AAA titles. 1080 level performance with a 4K freesync monitor is good enough to last a frugal gamer years, especially since consoles have already set the baseline for graphic fidelity, and dx12 should offer Vega users a decent boost on top of that.

          If Vega’s dx11 performance is on par with a 1080, dx12 and freesync should pretty much solidify this card as a worthy purchase. Nvidia is catering to a completely different crowd with it’s TI and gsync lock-in, and I don’t think that’s going to negatively impact AMD in the slightest. AMD’s reputation has risen quite a bit since Hawaii as well, considering how well that card has aged. Vega would be the perfect upgrade for those users.

            • Chrispy_
            • 2 years ago

            I hope you’re right. I’m using a “placeholder” 32″ 1440p screen with my 970 at the moment.

            I’m hoping that a Freesync monitor and a Vega card worth buying turn up before too long. I’ve been in this holding pattern since January when my Freesync Acer developed a fault and I had to RMA it, then I sold on the replacement. The AMD GPUs were kindly converted into large sums of money by the crazy mining types (thanks guys, <3 you all).

      • Kretschmer
      • 2 years ago

      I guess you could crossfire Fury Xs and hook them up to Niagara Falls…

      • NoOne ButMe
      • 2 years ago

      Digital Foundry has a series running games at 4K on a 970 I believe.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 2 years ago

      Does freesync only work at native resolution?

      If not then the answer is easy, everyone who does some gaming but bases their choice of monitor resolution on other factors.

      • swaaye
      • 2 years ago

      I have deep thoughts about this. ๐Ÿ™‚ Considering I used to run some games at now-so-called “1200p” on a Radeon 9700.

      I doubt there will ever be an ideal 4K GPU because it’s a super demanding moving target. Just gonna be spending loads of money, almost yearly, chasing that.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This