I'd rather see them release a second revision of the 1440p swift, with better quality checks while manufacturing...

i 2nd this....i'd love to get the 1440p swift, but even now, even brand new monitors seem to have the possibility of having too many problems...

Asus have announced a follow up ROG Swift branded screen, the PG27AQ. The design remains the same as the old model, with ultra-thin bezels, 'Light in motion' red ring on the base and the same adjust... Asus ROG Swift PG27AQ has a 4k IPS Panel with G-sync

Where are the 24" 2k monitors I find anything bigger then 24" for Monitor that is 2 feet in front me to be to big, 27"32" etc 2 feet in front me is just to close. If they can do 2k + on smaller screens like tablets/phones they can do it for monitor too. Maybe one day?? Nice to see gsync and 4k becoming more available though, To bad the gpu need to feed such resolution make it not worth for vast majority

Have you done ANY research as to why UHD4k monitors can currently only run a max of 60hz? Nope? If you'd do some you'd find that the current standards lack the bandwidth to handle the higher refresh rates. Give it time and you'll see 120+ hz UHD4k monitors on the market.

I know this already. And yes, Asus said themselves said a 4k 120/144hz monitor is in the pipeline but it will be quite some time before completion. What I find pointless though is saturating the market with 60z 4k monitors when neither one is better than the other.

Where are the 24" 2k monitors I find anything bigger then 24" for Monitor that is 2 feet in front me to be to big, 27"32" etc 2 feet in front me is just to close. If they can do 2k + on smaller screens like tablets/phones they can do it for monitor too. Maybe one day?? Nice to see gsync and 4k becoming more available though, To bad the gpu need to feed such resolution make it not worth for vast majority

2K means nothing....there's no standard for what a "2K monitor" means also, i realize that it's just your opinion, but anything bigger then 24" at 2 feet is too big?....i find that really odd, in fact i find it odd that you even have it 2 feet away as that's too far, but to each their own

This is a nice specialist monitor, very well suited for RTS, MMO, RPG style games where high FPS do little to enhance the gameplay, but resolution and viewing angle do. For fast paced shooter action the old Swift is better, if your rig can provide the FPS. That said, I'd probably get this one, if I didn't already have the other, but I'm not so wealthy to switch yet again. In the meantime I'm keeping an eye on the evolution of the 32/34" 21:9 screens, since that's where I want to go to from my Swift sometime down the road. Anyway, I wholeheartedly welcome the diversity in monitors that came up over the past year. We've been stuck with dull full HD way too long.

I know this already. And yes, Asus said themselves said a 4k 120/144hz monitor is in the pipeline but it will be quite some time before completion. What I find pointless though is saturating the market with 60z 4k monitors when neither one is better than the other.

There is nothing wrong with saturating the market with 4k monitors @ 60hz We are pushing a new era of technology where as mentioned before, 4k will soon be mainstream. GPU manufacturers will be pushing their cards towards handling 120hz @ 4k too eventually. At the moment you need a godlike pc system that does not exist to even think about utilising more than 60hz @ 4k without sacrificing many gfx features. I say bring it on, if this new tech is released now it will bring down the price of the realistic hardware (at least I hope so) I'm currently running the Rog Swift at 120hz with Gsync and I love it. I can only think that things will get better. I have never experienced an IPS monitor so I guess I have much to look forward to? edit* I agree about many comments here these days. Full of whiny brats who complain about future tech because its not something they wanted. I still think Hilbert does an outstanding job in giving us all this info. Not seen another website that puts the same amount of effort he does yet. Let alone forking out a ridiculous amount of money on thermal equipment just to provide us with accurate data in controlled environments.

Whaaaaaaaa

Doesnt Gsync obviate the need for 120hz? My understanding is that refresh rates become irrelevant with Gsync. You get the same fluid, smooth gaming experience at any refresh rate with Gsync.

Well, at least "I" understood your point. If it looks smooth at 40-50 fps, why bother with all the hullabul. Bunch of grognards and sourpusses around here. 60 fps used to be just fine. Now suddenly, it isn't?

Well, at least "I" understood your point. If it looks smooth at 40-50 fps, why bother with all the hullabul. Bunch of grognards and sourpusses around here. 60 fps used to be just fine. Now suddenly, it isn't?

It depends on what you are playing. Take strategy games for example, I see no benefit in having 120hz. Same applies for mmo games like wow since these are hampered by servers and networks often. However for FPS games, racing and AAA Titles like ACBF/CoD etc, having a truely smooth fps allows a much more pleasant experience and enhances the immersion.

60 fps used to be just fine. Now suddenly, it isn't?

So true, lol. As long as it's 6o fps minimum and continuous, what's the issue? If 200 or 300 hz was available, people would buy them saying how bad 120 hz was... People are never happy and always want more...

It depends on what you are playing. Take strategy games for example, I see no benefit in having 120hz. Same applies for mmo games like wow since these are hampered by servers and networks often. However for FPS games, racing and AAA Titles like ACBF/CoD etc, having a truely smooth fps allows a much more pleasant experience and enhances the immersion.

Exactly. Go play CS:GO at 120hz/300fps then again at 60hz/300fps. The difference is night and day. I agree that at a certain point there are diminishing returns, but that point is obviously past 120hz. I also agree that there is a difference depending on the game -- but I'm a man of all games and I like knowing that no matter what game I'm playing on my my monitor I'm getting a good experience out of it. I'll never go back to a non 120/144Hz monitor. That being said I see no reason for 300hz. 240? Maybe. But after that there is zero improvement.

OK it seems that monitors need to be 120/144hz to fully take advantage of Gsync. Although Gsync will work fine on 60hz monitors, THAT will be the monitors refresh limit, so going above that would over-stress the monitor. Gsync I believe would then have to automatically stop functioning after 60hz to protect the monitor. Therefore this Asus 4k monitor will only be useful up to 60fps to take advantage of Gsync. Not that you would expect to get much higher FPS anyway with this current gens crop of GPUs on 4k. Still, to me 120hz is just an arbitrary figure with Gsync. Would love to see blind tests of 60-80 FPS GSYNC vs 120hz GSYNC. Have a feeling many may end up scratching their heads trying to make out the differences.

Still, to me 120hz is just an arbitrary figure with Gsync. Would love to see blind tests of 60-80 FPS GSYNC vs 120hz GSYNC. Have a feeling many may end up scratching their heads trying to make out the differences.

But isn't that fine? Like yeah G-Sync obviously makes the image appear smoother at a lower rate but having G-Sync on all the time isn't really an option. So why not just set the bar for monitors at 120hz (or whatever high number) and just make it a non-issue? Like if they came out with 240Hz G-Sync monitors and that was the norm, then it would completely eliminate any jitter issue with the image entirely. Regardless to whether G-Sync is on or off (at high fps obviously).

OK it seems that monitors need to be 120/144hz to fully take advantage of Gsync. Although Gsync will work fine on 60hz monitors, THAT will be the monitors refresh limit, so going above that would over-stress the monitor. Gsync I believe would then have to automatically stop functioning after 60hz to protect the monitor. Therefore this Asus 4k monitor will only be useful up to 60fps to take advantage of Gsync. Not that you would expect to get much higher FPS anyway with this current gens crop of GPUs on 4k. Still, to me 120hz is just an arbitrary figure with Gsync. Would love to see blind tests of 60-80 FPS GSYNC vs 120hz GSYNC. Have a feeling many may end up scratching their heads trying to make out the differences.

Not really. I did hate move to LCD screen from CRT. I liked that there were no moare. And I jumped 120Hz as I had good opportunity. Now I can tell you I would like to have 240 or more Hz, even if that would be @1080p. Best way to make someone who does not use 120Hz+ screen to understand is by simple story. My friend who dumped PC's long time ago in favor of consoles got used to 30fps @ 60Hz. To him it was fluent. But then there was BF3 and he wanted to have full PC graphical experience. So, with new PC I told him to get ASUS 144Hz screen, because that reduces stutter considerably and he was like: "Do I really need that? I play at 60Hz and games run 30fps anyway." In the end he got it. Half a year later he did complain that he wanted to play on PS3 again and he could not, because he now could see how low fps that console provides. In other words, human brain adapts to different kind of information and as he got used to 90+ fps @ 144Hz he became sensitive enough to see how limited 30fps is. In same way when I play @120Hz, I see distinct frames. And considering how fast one can turn around in games, turning at 60Hz/fps may cause that you see only very small part of scene from previous frame. if it takes 3 frames to completely change what is on screen on 60Hz than it takes 6 frames to do same at 120Hz. Is that enough? I don't think so. If you play competitive fps game, you know that certain amount of movement of mouse corresponds to certain amount of angular movement on screen in pixels. In most cases directional pixel movement is considerably bigger than target you aim for. That means: you do have to approximate movement of target, then movement of mouse vs image on screen and pres mouse button before you see next frame if you think you moved to target. Doubling refresh rate halves approximation length. If refresh rate is high enough, you would see several times target in crosshair before you would get to center. In other words: "High enough refresh rate takes away need for approximation." To blind tests, GSync will take away stutter, will make images look fluid over time. But will not give you additional information and you need that information to react. Anyone used to 120/144Hz will have no problem to tell you difference between 90 and 120Hz. It is clear even when moving mouse around desktop.

Not really. I did hate move to LCD screen from CRT. I liked that there were no moare. And I jumped 120Hz as I had good opportunity. Now I can tell you I would like to have 240 or more Hz, even if that would be @1080p. Best way to make someone who does not use 120Hz+ screen to understand is by simple story. My friend who dumped PC's long time ago in favor of consoles got used to 30fps @ 60Hz. To him it was fluent. But then there was BF3 and he wanted to have full PC graphical experience. So, with new PC I told him to get ASUS 144Hz screen, because that reduces stutter considerably and he was like: "Do I really need that? I play at 60Hz and games run 30fps anyway." In the end he got it. Half a year later he did complain that he wanted to play on PS3 again and he could not, because he now could see how low fps that console provides. In other words, human brain adapts to different kind of information and as he got used to 90+ fps @ 144Hz he became sensitive enough to see how limited 30fps is. In same way when I play @120Hz, I see distinct frames. And considering how fast one can turn around in games, turning at 60Hz/fps may cause that you see only very small part of scene from previous frame. if it takes 3 frames to completely change what is on screen on 60Hz than it takes 6 frames to do same at 120Hz. Is that enough? I don't think so. If you play competitive fps game, you know that certain amount of movement of mouse corresponds to certain amount of angular movement on screen in pixels. In most cases directional pixel movement is considerably bigger than target you aim for. That means: you do have to approximate movement of target, then movement of mouse vs image on screen and pres mouse button before you see next frame if you think you moved to target. Doubling refresh rate halves approximation length. If refresh rate is high enough, you would see several times target in crosshair before you would get to center. In other words: "High enough refresh rate takes away need for approximation." To blind tests, GSync will take away stutter, will make images look fluid over time. But will not give you additional information and you need that information to react. Anyone used to 120/144Hz will have no problem to tell you difference between 90 and 120Hz. It is clear even when moving mouse around desktop.

I have 120hz monitors and am very familiar with them. First one I got was the cream of the crop in response time, motion handling, input lag (Samsung S27A950D), a quality TN panel. I could not tell any difference between 60hz and 120hz on it no matter how fast paced a game was,but thats just me. Granted I may have spotted differences IF on fast paced games doing 120FPS, but when rarely hitting above 90 FPS in any recent game (without multi-GPUs), the point of 120hz quickly gets lost.

You said it and I am totally with you!

I think Asus will release this monitor sometime in March, with NVidia that will release also their next GPU, me thinks based on 16nm to go with 4K.

16nm by TSMC will not be available at best before the end of 2015 ( they will be ready to start production on end of 2015, but for products, it should be there for Pascal in 2016 at best ).

ROG SWIFT PG32AQ 4K FREESYNC IPS Gaming Monitor take my money!

You can get it now at Newegg. And some time soon Amazon will have it in stock.

You can get it now at Newegg. And some time soon Amazon will have it in stock.

Yep and once again the launch is an absolute ****-show due to QC reasons. You either get a good one or one with yellow backlight bleed, or gray uniformity issues, or color uniformity issues, or scratches, or white blotching, etc. And as always ASUS is tight lipped on it, they just accept the returns and ship it to someone else until they find someone who doesn't mind the fact that their $800 monitor can't display a black screen properly.

.....