We’ve been excited about

Nvidia’s G-Sync technology for nearly a year, since the firm first unveiled the concept to the world at a press event last fall. The basic idea—letting the graphics card tell the display to update itself when the next frame of animation is ready—is simple yet revolutionary. Getting rid of the fixed display refresh interval had an immediate, dramatic impact in those initial demos at Nvidia’s announcement.

We liked G-Sync just as well once we got to spend time with it in pre-production form early this year. Heck, I kind of fell down the rabbit hole while testing it and wound up spending way too much time just, you know, playing games.

That said, the first G-Sync monitor we tested was by no means ready for prime time. The variable refresh rates worked, sure, but other basic display functions, like on-screen menus and color dithering to prevent banding, weren’t implemented yet. Getting that stuff together—and refining the operation of G-Sync to be as widely compatible as possible—has taken the better part of 2014.

Happily, the first production G-Sync monitor has finally arrived in Damage Labs, and it was easily worth the wait. The monitor comes from Asus, the ROG Swift PG278Q. Actually, I believe the full and official name is ASUS ROG SWIFT PG278Q, if you want to get technical, but WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?

The basic specs and stuff

I dunno, maybe a little shouting is warranted, because this is a heck of a nice place to start with G-Sync displays. The PG278Q’s display area measures 27″ corner to corner and has a resolution of 2560×1440 pixels. Here are the rest of its vitals.

Panel size 27″ diagonal Native resolution 2560×1440 Aspect ratio 16:9 Panel type/backlight TN/WLED Peak refresh rate 144Hz; variable via G-Sync Display colors 16.7 million Max brightness 350 cd/m² Peak contrast ratio 1000:1 Optimal viewing angles 170° horizontal, 160° vertical Response time (Gray to gray) 1 ms Display surface Matte anti-glare HDCP support Yes Inputs 1 x DisplayPort 1.2, 1 x USB 3.0 Outputs 2 x USB 3.0 Peak power draw 90W Wall mount support VESA 100 x 100 mm Weight 15.4 lbs (7 Kg)

The LCD panel in this monitor is of the twisted nematic (TN) variety. I’m sure that choice will prove controversial in some circles, since TN panels are not known for stellar color fidelity at broad viewing angles. As we’ve noted, though, not all TN panels are created equal. The PG278Q is more capable than most. It can display eight bits per color channel, which means it can produce up to 16.7 million colors, all told.

Interestingly, the color story here goes a little deeper than that. Most monitors incorporate a display logic chip from some quasi-anonymous third party. That chip provides things like scaling to non-native resolutions, brightness and contrast control, and support for various input types. In the PG278Q, that work is done by Nvidia’s G-Sync module. Nvidia tells us the G-Sync module does its internal processing at 10 bits per color channel. The module then uses a form of temporal dithering called FRC to approximate higher-precision images on the PG278Q’s eight-bit panel. FRC is pretty widely used, including in the affordable 4K Asus PB287Q that we reviewed a while back, but it seems like a high-zoot feature for the first G-Sync monitor.

Anyhow, TN panels do have a clear upside: they’re fast. The PG278Q can update itself at a peak rate of 144Hz, which works out to a gap of less than seven milliseconds between successive frames. The gray-to-gray response times for switching individual pixels are even shorter, rated at just one millisecond. If you’re after smooth gaming, that kind of quickness is easy to appreciate. No doubt that’s why Asus chose this panel for its first G-Sync display.

The PG278Q’s pixel density is a decidedly non-weird 109 pixels per inch, the same as those 27″ Korean IPS monitors that everybody went gaga over a couple of years ago. That means you won’t run into any of the weird image or font sizing issues that you might with one of those super-dense new 4K monitors. It also means you won’t get the razor-sharp outlines of a high-PPI display, either.

That fact wouldn’t really bug me too much if it weren’t for this next bit. You see, the ROG Swift PG278Q will set you back quite a few bones. The list price is a very healthy $799.99. So you’ll be paying more than the $649 that Asus is asking for its 28″ 4K 60Hz monitor without G-Sync. That may be a hard pill to swallow.

Then again, we’re going through a time of tremendous innovation in display technologies. There aren’t many easy choices right now—but there sure are a lot of good ones. Before you dismiss the PG278Q for its hefty price and TN panel tech, let me say this: this thing is probably the finest gaming monitor on the planet. So there’s that. If you don’t want to find yourself contemplating parting with 800 bucks for a TN panel, do not—I repeat, do not—seat yourself in front of one and play video games.

A few words about G-Sync

I’ve already said that G-Sync lets the GPU inform the display when it’s time to draw a new frame. That’s a fundamental change from the operation of conventional displays, which typically update themselves 60 times per second.

Synchronizing the display with the GPU has a number of benefits over the coping methods we’ve been using to date. The usual default method, vertical refresh sync or vsync, involves delaying each new frame created by the graphics processor until the next available display refresh cycle.

Delays in the graphics-to-display pipeline aren’t great. They’re not too big a deal if the GPU is able to produce new frames consistently every 16.7 milliseconds (or 60 times per second.) Too often, though, that doesn’t happen. If the GPU takes just a smidgen longer to render the next frame, say 16.9 milliseconds, then the system must wait for two full refresh intervals to pass before putting new information on the screen. Suddenly, the frame rate has dropped from 60 FPS to 30 FPS.

Things go even further sideways if a frame takes more than two intervals to produce. You’ll end up waiting 50 milliseconds for the next frame to hit the display, and at that point, you’re likely to notice that the sense of fluid animation is compromised. Your character may also end up being scattered in a shower of giblets across the floor.

Frame production times tend to vary pretty widely, as we’ve often noted and as illustrated in the plot above, so vsync-induced slowdowns can be a real problem. Many gamers sidestep this issue by disabling vsync and letting the GPU flip to a new frame even as the display is being drawn. Going commando on vsync has the advantage of getting new information to the screen sooner, but it has the obvious downside of chafing. Err, I mean, tearing, which looks like so:

Seeing these seams between successive frames can be distracting and downright annoying, especially because it sometimes happens multiple times per refresh.

<commercial guy voice> There has to be a better way. </commercial guy voice>

Nvidia’s answer is putting the display refresh timing under the control of the GPU. In theory, a variable refresh technology like G-Sync should banish tearing, eliminate vsync-induced slowdowns, reduce input lag, and allow for more fluid animation for 3D games.

The downside? G-Sync is Nvidia’s own proprietary technology. If you want to use the PG278Q’s variable refresh feature, then you have to connect it to a recent GeForce graphics card. If at some point down the road you decide to switch to a Radeon, you can still use the PG278Q, but you’ll lose out on variable refresh rates.

I can see Nvidia’s reasons for keeping G-Sync to itself. Real money went into developing this technology, and they’d like to reap the benefits of their innovation. Still, I think everybody involved here probably realizes that an open standard for variable refresh rates, likely based on DisplayPort with VESA’s Adaptive-Sync specification, is the best outcome when all is said and done.

Thing is, the Adaptive-Sync monitors being shepherded to market by AMD’s Project FreeSync won’t be shipping until some time in 2015. G-Sync is here now.

All the trimmings

Of all the Stealth-fighter-inspired PC hardware designs of the past 10 years, the ROG Swift PG278Q is one of the finest. It’s just so very… Nighthawk-like, with a little bit of VW GTI-style red trim thrown in for good measure. If you plan on raiding Baghdad at night and then doing some autocross, there’s no better monitor for it than this one.

Seriously, lots of folks try for an interesting design, but few execute as well as Asus has here. The bezels surrounding the screen are way less than a centimeter wide and make the monitor look much sexier than it has any right to.

The monitor’s enclosure and stand combine to give you just about everything you’d want in terms of flexible positioning. The screen can tilt from 5° downward to 20° upward and swivel left or right up to 60°. The display can also pivot 90° into a portrait orientation, as shown above. The height is adjustable through 120 mm in the default landscape orientation, as well.

If none of that will suffice, the stand is attached to the back of the monitor via a standard VESA mounting interface. Detach the base, and you can attach the monitor to the custom mount of your choice.

If you do switch to a custom mount, you’ll be missing out the glowing red ring around the included base. Its brightness throbs and decays according to, uh, something. Doesn’t exactly seem to be the display’s content, exactly, but hey, pretty lights.

The PG278Q’s inputs are spartan, to say the least. There’s an input for the power connection (from the external brick) and a DisplayPort connector. This thing doesn’t support DVI, HDMI, VGA, or picture-in-picture, and there aren’t even any cheesy speakers included for basic audio. The only extra perk is a USB 3.0 hub that accepts one input and supports two outputs. As far as extras go, that’s not a bad one, I suppose.

Menus and such

Quick confession: I pretty much hate monitor menus and controls. They’re all clumsy, and they’re all different. Somehow, the button placements have managed to get even more awkward over time, too. That’s why the control scheme on the PG278Q comes as a truly pleasant surprise.

The whole setup is anchored by that single eraser-nubbin type control stick at the top of the button stack. One may push down on it to invoke the on-screen menus and to select menu items, and the directional control allows one to navigate through the choices. This single control button does everything that an array of five or more buttons might do on the average monitor—and it’s ridiculously easy to use by comparison.

The menu system in the ROG Swift PG278Q is fairly simple, in part because of a smart and logical layout—and in part because it’s not packed with a rich feature set. Thing is, pretty much everything you’d want to adjust is represented. The only big omission I’ve noticed involves color temperatures; there’s no sRGB mode, just “normal,” “warm,” “cool,” and user mode. Some of the simplicity comes from the fact that this monitor doesn’t have multiple input ports to manage. However you slice it, though, the thing is a joy to use compared to your average monitor.

Below the ThinkPad-style control nubbin is the exit button, which you’ll need for getting out of the menus. Beneath that are a couple of gimmicky controls that aren’t part of the main setup. The upper one invokes a “GamePlus” feature that will place a transparent crosshair overlay in the center of the screen, I guess in case your game decides not to do that for you. It can also place a countdown timer in the top-left corner of the screen, with times ranging between 30 and 90 minutes. Both could be useful features, I suppose, but I dunno. Somehow, I’ve gotten this far without them, and my PC can run lots of software to do similar things when needed.

The button below that is the Turbo control, which lets the user toggle between 60, 120, and 144Hz refresh rates. It kinda-sorta works, but I’m never sure I can trust it to set the G-Sync mode properly and such. I expect Asus put this button there for folks who just don’t understand much about their PCs and want to be sure they’re getting the fastest possible refresh rate. At least it can easily be ignored.

The G-Sync experience

Welp, they’ve done it. That’s my summation of the G-Sync experience. Asus and Nvidia have managed to bring variable refresh technology to the market in a working and seemingly well-refined form—and it works like gangbusters. (Although, really, who are these gangbusters, and why do they get so much credit?) We’ve already talked about the theory behind G-Sync. I could wear my keycaps thin trying to describe the subject experience of using it, but you really do have to try it for yourself in order to appreciate it fully.

In games, everything that happens onscreen with G-Sync is more immediate, more fluid. As with a lot of game-changing technologies, adjusting to it isn’t hard. My son Nathan and I both had the same experience: you sit down in front of the screen, you use it, and periodically throughout the gaming session, you say to yourself, “Wow, this really is smoother.” Then any thoughts of monitor technology mostly just disappear, and you’re better able to concentrate on the game.

The hard part is going back to gaming on a 60Hz monitor afterwards. My immediate reaction was, “This is broken somehow.” I was briefly perplexed, but then I realized: I was not wrong. G-Sync has just fixed an incredibly long-standing problem.

There’s no good way to transmit the G-Sync experience over the intarwebs for display on conventional monitors. What I can do is record what happens onscreen with a high-speed camera and replay the results in slow-motion. I’ve already posted comparisons from a whole range of sync modes and refresh rates using early G-Sync hardware right here, so go look at those if you want an extensive set of examples. For today, let’s focus on the PG278Q running G-Sync at a 144Hz peak refresh rate versus a conventional 60Hz vsync setup, since that’s probably the comparison most folks will find relevant. We’ve taken an example from Guild Wars 2, recorded it at 240 FPS, and turned it into a side-by-side video that should illustrate the differences nicely.

With G-Sync at 144Hz, the on-screen animation advances more often and in smaller increments, as expected. Also, crucially, the content of each of those updates fits with when the update takes place. Each new frame advances the scene’s rotation the appropriate amount for when it’s painted. Not only are the updates on the 60Hz vsync side less frequent, but some of them seem “off” a little in terms of timing, too. That fact contributes to a kind of lurching, loping sense of advancing motion.

At full speed, these differences are subtler in some ways, since fast updates cure a lot of ills. The overall added goodness of G-Sync seems even more pronounced, though, when your eye is fooled into seeing constant movement rather than a series of individual frames. Paradoxical, maybe, but that’s my sense of it.

There’s also a distinct sense of solidity with G-Sync that’s not present at any refresh rate with vsync disabled. The utter lack of tearing on the display is very welcome.

Making use of G-Sync at a full 144Hz does involve a bit of fuss. You have to enable it via a checkbox in the Nvidia control panel, and then you have to go to the 3D gaming settings section and choose G-Sync as the display refresh mode. Most games make better use of G-Sync if you set “preferred refresh rate” to “highest available” in that same menu. This option circumvents some of the FPS caps built into a lot of PC titles. In other cases, you may have to dig into config files in order to remove the FPS limit.

Getting rid of the FPS caps can cause problems in some games, too. The physics in Skyrim go hilariously sideways at high frame rates, for instance. If you’ve been playing with uncapped frame rates and vsync disabled like I have for ages, though, all of this fuss will be familiar territory. Fortunately, for the majority of games, you can just set vsync to “off” in their video settings menu and you’re good to go.

Alternative goodness: low-persistence mode

The PG278Q has another interesting display mode, in addition to G-Sync, known as ultra-low motion-blur or ULMB. This bit of dark magic exists separately from G-Sync and, unfortunately, can’t be used in conjunction with it. You have to disable G-Sync in the Nvidia control panel and set the display refresh rate to 120Hz or less in order to enable ULMB mode. Also, as far as I can tell, ULMB only works with GeForce graphics cards.

Once it’s working, ULMB mode attempts to reduce motion blur by modifying the backlight behavior. Specifically, the backlight cycles off while the display is being updated and then pulses on once each new frame is completely painted. This strobing effect reduces the overall brightness of the backlight somewhat, but it’s otherwise imperceptible to human eyes. I didn’t notice any flicker with the display strobing at 120Hz.

This low-persistence display method is a well-known trick for reducing motion blur that’s even been deployed in the latest prototypes of the Oculus Rift. And it works. Everything from scrolling text to in-game action is affected by the change, with added clarity and sharper object edges in each case.

I tried to capture the impact of the ULMB mode using my high-speed camera at 240 FPS, but what I got instead was a recording of the strobing in action. Check it out. The video starts in the regular backlight mode, and part-way through, I enable ULMB instead. You’ll notice when it happens.

Fortunately, it doesn’t look like such a train wreck to human eyes.

In fact, the strobing isn’t at all obvious in this next video recorded at 120 FPS, and I think maybe it kind of captures some of the additional clarity—although honestly, the focus isn’t great, and the benefits are much easier to perceive in person. Again, we start in regular mode and then switch to ULMB.

Yeah, so make what you will of that, I guess. You’ve really gotta see it with your own eyes. Some of the BlurBusters demos with scrolling texts and animated objects reveal dramatic improvements.

I probably need to spend more time gaming with ULMB mode enabled in order to appreciate it fully. My sense is that it’s an improvement, but it doesn’t have the same visceral impact as G-Sync’s variable refresh rates do. If I had to pick—and the PG278Q essentially forces you to—I’d choose G-Sync for gaming with no regrets. Still, ULMB mode adds something different to the mix, and it hints at a possible future where low-persistence modes might be combined with variable refresh rates, if such a thing becomes feasible.

Brightness and contrast

Beyond the, uh, synchronicity, how good a display is the PG278Q? To find out, we’ve compared it to a couple of obvious rivals, both from Asus’ stable. The PB278 is kind of the PG278Q’s older brother, also a 27″ monitor with a 2560×1440 resolution. It’s based on in-plane switching (IPS) technology and is limited to 60Hz refresh rates. In theory, the PB278 should have superior color fidelity and wider optimal viewing angles at the expense of speed and fluidity. The PB278 is currently selling for $478 at Amazon, so you could almost buy two for the price of the PG278Q.

Our other comparative reference is the Asus PB287Q, a slightly larger 28″ monitor with a 4K TN panel. In addition to its much higher resolution and pixel density, the PB287Q is probably the best TN panel-based monitor we’ve seen. And it can accept a DisplayPort SST connection to drive its 4K resolution as a single tile. Asus only asks $649 for the PB287Q, so it’s also cheaper than the ROG Swift PB287Q. Again, though, this rival is limited to fixed 60Hz refresh rates.

The ROG Swift PG278Q has its work cut out for it. Let’s see how it stacks up.

Our “typical” readings were taken with the monitors normalized to 200 cd/m² at the center of the screen—or as close as we could get.

The PG278Q’s spec sheet says its peak brightness is 350 cd/m², but apparently it’s being modest. Our measurement says the peak brightness is even higher. You’d have to be working in, I dunno, direct sunlight perhaps in order to need that kind of brightness in a desktop display. The PG278Q has plenty of extra lumens when needed, I guess.

Add in the black level measurements, and you can figure out the contrast ratios. The PG278Q’s TN panel doesn’t quite gate off as much light as the IPS-based PB278 when asked to make the screen black, but its overall contrast ratio is comparable—and exceeds that of the 4K TN panel in the PB287Q.

Color reproduction

Click through the buttons below to see the color gamuts for the displays, both before and after calibration. Color gamut has to do with the range of colors the display can produce. These things tend to vary pretty widely from one monitor to the next. The gray triangle on each diagram below represents the standard sRGB color space.





The PG278Q performs surprisingly well in our color gamut measurements, nearly encompassing the entirety of the sRGB color space. The IPS-based PB278 can produce a few more deep reds and purples, but the PG278Q easily has more range than its TN-based sibling, the PB287Q. Note that, at the time we tested the PB287Q, we were impressed by its range.





Out of the box, the PG278Q’s color temperature is about 6100-6200K, not far from our 6500K target. Our calibration introduces a little skew into things at the lowest gray levels but otherwise brings the PG278Q closer to the goal.

Delta-E is a measure of color difference—or error—compared to a reference. Smaller delta-E values generally mean more accurate colors. In this case, we measured delta-E in the sRGB color space with a D65 white point, both before and after calibration.

The PG278Q has the lowest delta-E prior to calibration, which should be no surprise since our copy of the monitor came out of the box at around 6200K. After calibration, the PG278Q looks even better, with less overall error than the IPS-based PB278.

We can go into more detail and see what the sources of error were for each display. After calibration, most of the PG278’s deviance from the D65 reference point comes at those lower gray levels. Otherwise, it acquits itself quite nicely.

Display uniformity

Displays typically don’t produce the exact same image across their entire surface. We’ve quantified the uniformity of the PG278Q by taking a series of luminance readings in different regions of the panel. We set the brightness level at ~200 cd/m² at the center of the screen before starting.

177 cd/m² (91%) 168 cd/m² (87%) 169 cd/m² (87%) 186 cd/m² (96%) 194 cd/m² (100%) 182 cd/m² (94%) 171 cd/m² (88%) 170 cd/m² (87%) 169 cd/m² (87%)

This monitor’s 13% variance from the center of the screen to the edges isn’t anything you’re likely to notice, even while staring directly at the screen and looking for problems. Both of the other Asus displays we’ve tested have similar light distribution. The PB287Q has a 15% max variance from the center to the edge of the display.

I’ve chosen to convey backlight bleed using a picture rather than a series of measurements. Trouble is, I never know exactly how this image will end up looking on the reader’s own screen. What I see here is a bit of light bleed around the bottom corners of the monitor, with more bleed extending up the left edge. In regular use, it’s not a deal-breaker or even terribly noticeable, but this is a little more light bleed than we saw with the PB287Q.

Viewing angles

I’ve taken these pictures in order to demonstrate how the display’s color and contrast shift when the viewing angle changes. As you can see, at the angles we’ve chosen, the PG278Q comes out looking pretty good. The bottom image, looking up at the panel from below, shows a little too much contrast, especially in the sky, but the colors don’t shift or invert at this angle like you might expect from a lower-quality TN display.

Input lag

TN panels tend to be quick, and this one is no exception. The PG278Q’s gray-to-gray transition time is one millisecond, substantially quicker than the five-millisecond rating for the IPS-based PB278.

Input lag comes from many sources, including the scaler chip inside the monitor. Nvidia’s G-Sync module is a brand-new and comes from a new player in the market, so we’ll want to see how it performs. To find out, we compared the PG278Q against my old Dell 3007WFP-HC. The 3007WFP-HC’s IPS panel isn’t particularly fast, with an 8-ms gray-to-gray spec, but this monitor has no internal scaler chip, so there’s zero input lag from that source.

Dell 3007WFP (left) vs. Asus PG278Q

Well, I didn’t expect to see the PG278Q running ahead of our ASIC-free reference unit. I suppose the victory could be the result of the PG278Q’s faster pixel-switching times, but I suspect the real culprit is the GPU lag inherent to the screen mirroring mode we used. We’ve seen this same kind of thing before, with a frame or so of lag for one display or the other, depending on which video card output the display’s using.

Anyhow, I’m not terribly concerned about that. What this result demonstrates nicely is that the G-Sync module in the PG278Q offers very low latency. It doesn’t appear to introduce even a single frame’s worth of additional input lag. That’s exactly the outcome one would hope to see.

Power consumption

The G-Sync module driving this display is based on an FPGA rather than a custom chip, so I expected it to draw a little more power than the typical monitor’s electronics. I’m not sure that it does, though. The three monitors are within a watt of one another at our typical brightness level of 200 cd/m². The PG278Q draws more power at peak and minimum, but we’ve already established that it’s brighter overall at those levels. I’d chalk up the extra power use to the WLED backlight’s additional candlepower.

My subjective impressions of display quality

You’ve seen enough measurements on the preceding pages to know that the PG278Q is a pretty darned solid monitor, apart from its G-Sync superpowers. The contrast ratio, color gamut, and color accuracy measurements we presented speak to that fact. This display is firmly in the “good TN panel” end of the spectrum. I’ll bet some folks would have trouble discerning whether it’s IPS or TN upon casual inspection. The real giveaway is the loss of contrast if you move your eyes to, uh, knee level. That’s really not very good posture, though.

I sat the PG278Q next to the IPS-based PB278 for some side-by-side image viewing. Flipping through artificially oversaturated nature scenes at InterfaceLift, I found very little discernible difference between the two monitors’ images in most cases. Where there were differences, they came in two places.

First, the PB278 seems to spread its contrast out across a wider range of dark to light colors. The PG278Q’s color contrast is compressed into a relatively smaller, brighter portion of its overall range. Functionally, that means the PB278’s images are more striking, but it’s easier to lose some of the detail in the shadows on that display. The PG278Q shows you more detail in those areas, but contrasts are sometimes reduced as a result.

Second, the PB278 shows you a lot more deep red and orange hues than the PG278Q. That’s consistent with the IPS monitor’s slight advantage in our color gamut readings. Obviously, there are some deep reds the PG278Q just can’t quite replicate. It’s not something you’d miss while using the monitor without a side-by-side reference, but still.

Trouble is, I also think the PB278 exaggerates some of those colors where its own range excels. Look at the amount error for red in our delta-E measurements, and you’ll see the source of my worry. In the end, I’m unsure how much of the color difference “belongs” to each display.

One thing I have learned to notice since our review of Asus’ 4K TN monitor is the “screen door” effect caused by FRC, or temporal dithering. So that’s great, because now I can’t un-see it, ever. I have noticed some screen-door artifacts while gaming on the PG278Q, usually in hues of medium brightness. They are by nature ephemeral and hard to spot, but it is what it is. I don’t think I’ve ever noticed such patterns on an IPS display.

Then again, I’m not entirely sure FRC really is to blame. Like I said, the effect only shows up in motion, and I’ve not noticed it the Windows desktop or while browsing the web, where FRC dithering artifacts are generally apparent. We’re on the outer edge of the nitpicking bell curve here, at any rate, so I wouldn’t make too much of it.

To me, the bottom line on the PG278Q is that it’s a plenty good enough display to keep itself in the conversation. Go see one in person before ruling it out because it’s a TN panel.

Conclusions

I keep telling you that you need to see this thing in action for yourself—in order to appreciate G-Sync, in order to grasp how decent a “good TN” panel can be. Earlier, then, I pointedly directed you not to try out the PG278Q in person if you didn’t want to end up buying one.

I suppose what I’m trying to tell you is that the PG278Q is pretty darned fantastic. For gaming, it’s the best display I’ve ever used, thanks to the goodness of G-Sync. Outside of gaming, it’s very much competent to serve the movie-watching, web-surfing, and photo-editing needs of the above-average PC enthusiast. (Aren’t all PC enthusiasts above average?) On the strength of its gaming prowess, I’d prefer the PG278Q over either the 4K/60Hz PB287Q or the IPS-infused PB278. I’m not sure it’s worth the $799 price of entry, but that’s a personal question to be discussed between you and your credit-card company.

This is one of the few explicitly “gamer-focused” products we’ve seen over the years that really is better for gaming. Pro gamers endorse all sorts of mouse mats and motherboards and such, where one is probably not that different from another. Those folks should run out and buy a PG278Q because it truly is better and faster than any other gaming monitor.

In fact, the PG278Q’s most formidable competition doesn’t exist yet. Asus plans to release a 4K monitor with G-Sync support later this year, and I could see the logic of waiting for it. If that monitor combines the goodness of the PB287Q and the PG278Q, well, you’ll see the true power of minding your P’s and Q’s, I suppose.

Sorry, been typing these names too much.

There’s also the possibility that somebody releases an IPS monitor with G-Sync support, although we don’t know for sure when that might happen—or whether it will. (If it happens, the IPS panel won’t likely support 144Hz refresh rates, anyhow.) Finally, some folks may wish to wait for variable-refresh monitors that don’t lock the owner into buying GeForce GPUs. These are all sensible options.

But if you want variable refresh now, G-Sync is the only game in town, and the PG278Q does a darn fine job of offering a credible choice at this very moment—or at least very soon. (Asus says the PG278Q is slated to go on sale in North America on August 26.) It’s a minor revolution in display technology and one of the most exciting things to happen to PC gaming hardware in years.

I provide updates at variable intervals on Twitter.