I don't like MSI Optix G27C2 27" 1080p 144Hz VA panel monitor. The curve bothers me also the colors and viewing angle is horrible for me. There is also a yellow tint with the white color I dislike. Folks what is your opinion on ASUS VG279Q 27" 1080p 144Hz IPS panel monitor?
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Thinking of purchasing a ASUS VG279Q 1080p 144Hz monitor
- Thread starter wingman99
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #3
The ASUS VG279Q has FreeSync and Nvidia recently has allowed that to work on 1000 and 2000 series GPUs.
I play mostly FPS shooters and don't like to play with fast mouse sweeping blur. The RTX 2070 only averages 100 FPS on Ultra game settings. For me to have a minimum of 144 FPS at 1080p have to run medium game settings. So I don't have enough GPU power for 1080p.
I play mostly FPS shooters and don't like to play with fast mouse sweeping blur. The RTX 2070 only averages 100 FPS on Ultra game settings. For me to have a minimum of 144 FPS at 1080p have to run medium game settings. So I don't have enough GPU power for 1080p.
True, but is it on their support list? Not all FS monitors will work/certified. In fact, most dont iirc.
I also second a higher res high hz monitor. Any fps over 60 with FS/Gsync will run better. Your next GPU will pound through it.
- Thread Starter
- #5
Dang, is there anyway to find out if ASUS VG279Q FreeSync will work with RTX 2070?
- Thread Starter
- #9
Thanks for finding the information. Does not look like the RTX 2070 running ASUS VG279Q FreeSync will work without problems or it won't work at all.
Find one that is on the list that is compatible? Surely there is a 1080p 144hz panel there, yes?
https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XF270H-Bbmiiprx-FREESYNC-Technology/dp/B07G3YRT4H
Its TN... I don't see any 1080p IPS panels on that list.
If I was you, I would just get a 2560x1440 IPS 120Hz+ Gsync monitor. You may not be running at 144 FPS, but it will be well over 60 and a better experience than you have now I would imagine. Then, your next GPU upgrade, you already have a sweet monitor.
https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XF270H-Bbmiiprx-FREESYNC-Technology/dp/B07G3YRT4H
Its TN... I don't see any 1080p IPS panels on that list.
If I was you, I would just get a 2560x1440 IPS 120Hz+ Gsync monitor. You may not be running at 144 FPS, but it will be well over 60 and a better experience than you have now I would imagine. Then, your next GPU upgrade, you already have a sweet monitor.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #12
I have done some deep thinking researching and testing. The problem with 2560x1440 IPS 120Hz+ Gsync monitor, I would need a RTX 2080ti and by my estimate run BFV on medium settings to maintain a minimum of 144 FPS for the most reduction of blur when sweeping the mouse.
If I were to settle for low running FPS using 2560x1440 resolution with my RTX 2070 and go by your suggestion to just look forward to the next GPU upgrade, well problem with that I will be chasing my tail.
I will give a example, when I purchased BF1, I had GTX 1070 and on demanding maps to run close to minimum of 144 FPS at 1080p, I had to use medium in game settings on BF1. Now BF1 and the GTX 1070 is old news. So now I have RTX 2070 and BFV on demanding maps, to run close to minimum of 144 FPS at 1080p, I have to use medium in game settings BFV.
Now with my RTX 2070 running BF1, I can run close to minimum of 144 FPS at 1080p using ultra in game settings.
So to sum it up when purchasing next generation hardware like the GPU, CPU the next generation games software is more demanding most of the time from past history. My theory from 22 years of experience is next gaming and GPUs generations are based on a approximate percentage of performance upgrade 30%. You get the eye candy performance if you have the money 2080ti.
The way your suppose to run a RTX 2070 is approximately on medium settings and the way your run a 2080 ti is on ultra settings for the approximate generation. This will allows fairness with the old CRT and LCD 144HZ to 240HZ FPS to have equal motion blur. This is how it's been for as long as I can remember.
Different monitor resolutions confuses things since they started making them for LCD pixel density.
The gaming industry engineers know what there doing it is all math.
If you have any questions just ask, because it is confusing.
Last edited:
I mean, if your goal is to peg 144 fps, then yes a 2080ti is the answer. That said, why does it have to be? Personally, I'd rather own a 2560x1440 120hz+ g-sync monitor and run 100-120 fps, than a 1080 144hz gsyn monitor and be pegged. I enjoy the screen real estate, size and pixel density. But to each their own.
You wont be chasing your tail... remember that gpus get faster too, you'll just have to buy one appropriate for your goals the next time around.
You wont be chasing your tail... remember that gpus get faster too, you'll just have to buy one appropriate for your goals the next time around.
- Thread Starter
- #16
Thanks for your suggestions.I mean, if your goal is to peg 144 fps, then yes a 2080ti is the answer. That said, why does it have to be? Personally, I'd rather own a 2560x1440 120hz+ g-sync monitor and run 100-120 fps, than a 1080 144hz gsyn monitor and be pegged. I enjoy the screen real estate, size and pixel density. But to each their own.
You wont be chasing your tail... remember that gpus get faster too, you'll just have to buy one appropriate for your goals the next time around.
The reason I like the FPS close or at 144 is I can see increased blur at 120 FPS with sweeping the mouse at 1440 pixels per second. So from my experience the faster FPS the less blur when sweeping the mouse looking for targets.Take a look for your self and see if you can see a difference?
Blur Busters UFO Motion Tests. LINK: https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=3&background=stars&pps=960
To do the test set windows monitor HZ at 120, then pixels per second at 1440 look at the UFO outer ring and the black slashes are blur and the UFO is not as sharp.
Then set windows monitor HZ at 144, keep the pixels per second at 1440 and look at the UFO you can almost see the outer ring black slashes and the UFO is sharper.
Thanks for the link.
He has a i7 8700 and I have i5 8600k and BFV will average 146 FPS with RTX 2080ti at 1080p link :https://www.techspot.com/review/1754-battlefield-5-cpu-multiplayer-bench/ From my experience with BFV on 1080p I have to run on medium in game settings to get close to 144FPS on some maps and condition on players.
Last edited:
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t the blurring/ghosting occur as a result of high response times? Which is a reason for a true 1ms monitor. Or do the lower (if you can call 100 FPS low) FPS also cause that as well?
What monitor do you have now? I’d like to check it’s specs.
What monitor do you have now? I’d like to check it’s specs.
- Thread Starter
- #18
Blurring is FPS and ghosting is GTG response time. Blurring is front and behind the object and ghosting is only behind the object movement. The monitor I did the blurring testing is MSI Optix G27C2 27 and it did not ghost at reasonable mouse speeds.
Take the Blur Busters UFO Motion test and look for your self about the FPS blurring https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=3&background=stars&pps=960
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
Do you play competitive FPS or just single player FPS? If you play competitive multiplayer games, I don't recommend freesync or g sync. Also I would recommend a 240Hz monitor, although they are all TN, they are latest gen TN, and the viewing angles are much better than before, although still nowhere near IPS.
- Thread Starter
- #20
I mostly play competitive multiplayer first person shooters. I was just at Best Buy looking at gaming monitors and they got in two months ago stocking a Acer Predator 27" 240Hz 1920x1080p G-sync, TN panel, for $499 I thought the viewing angle was better. I was just looking at the specifications before I had seen your post and noticed Horizontal Viewing Angle 170° and Vertical Viewing Angle 160°. I would love to run BFV at 200 FPS. I'm going to go back again and take a better look because the colors seem good, that was odd.
I'm going to go back again and take a better look because the colors seem good, that was odd.
Last edited:
