Real Time Web Analytics
Monitors

ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q: 24.5-inch Full HD G-SYNC 240Hz Gaming Monitor

By June 5, 2016 87 Comments

ASUS PG258Q

ASUS keeps doing it again and again. The Taiwanese company announced at Computex 2016 the upcoming ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q gaming monitor. The monitor is also commonly referred to as just ASUS ROG PG258Q or just ASUS PG258Q. and it is 24.5 inches in size rather than 25 inches. The key spec you might ask yourself? Well, for starters, it supports an amazing native 240Hz refresh rate (true, not inserting double frames or black frames like the EIZO Foris FG2421, which is being marketed as a 240Hz monitor). This will mean that you can enjoy an even amazing fluid gaming experience with this monitor, although the feeling of improvement will must drastically less than the feeling of improvement from 60Hz to 144Hz. This is due to the fact that higher refresh rates will offer diminishing returns and therefore, you should think twice when purchasing these monitors – is it worth the extra money?

We also know for a fact that the ASUS PG258Q will feature a Full HD resolution, aka. FHD or 1080p. As an addition, the display will also include a G-SYNC module and therefore supports NVIDIA G-SYNC technology. The panel will be based on the old TN panel technology and will feature 1ms response time for minimal ghosting effects and a low input lag as well. In terms of spec, this monitor is very similar to the ASUS ROG Swift PG248Q that we made a write-up about earlier.

ASUS PG258Q release date

The base of the stand you will find in-built LED lights that will project the Republic of Gamers (ROG) logo on the table below it. We also know that the monitor will only be working with DisplayPort 1.3 or DisplayPort 1.4 so no HDMI, VGA or DVI options will be provided.

The 240Hz refresh rate seems to be the only spec that the monitor seems to have going, as TN panels and the Full HD resolution are not the best investment right now in terms of overall gaming capacity. If you’re using the monitor for pure FPS gaming, then this monitor will probably all other monitors out of the water, especially 60Hz monitors once this beast is released. More on that closer to the release date.

There’s not much information about this monitor since ASUS did not release them at the event. We will update this post as soon as we receive more information about this gaming monitor from ASUS.

ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q
Buy online on Amazon
Screen Size24.5"
Resolution1920 x 1080
Panel TypeTN
Aspect Ratio16:9
Refresh Rate240Hz
Response Time1ms
Adaptive SyncG-SYNC
SpeakersUnknown

Related Posts

  • Thomas

    Pointless. They don’t have a clue of what we want

  • Tyrann

    Going backwards? Where’s the higher resolution+refresh rate monitors? No need to push 1080p to 300hz….and on TN…

  • KEN THAI

    Cant wait for this to come out!

  • Samin

    Jogar CS Go, BF e cia nesse monitor deve ser Topíssimo!!!

  • RPGWiZaRD

    We, who are “we”? Don’t speak for everyone please.

  • CoD511

    Little known but your clarity of the perceived image will increase the faster the refresh. Even if you can’t put out the framerate, so long as it’s refreshing thst fast, it’s not as blurry. Try searching up motion persistence.

  • Thomas

    I will for I am the voice of humanity. Now go my son and rock 🤘

  • boe_d

    This is a cute monitor – let me know when they make them in adult sizes.

  • Yuki Core

    So he bailed from f*ckin’ Kickapoo With hunger in his heart
    And he journeyed far and wide to find the secrets of his art
    But in the end he knew that he would find his counterpart.
    Rock

  • Thomas

    I would have never imagined someone getting this. May Dio bless you 🤘

  • Daniel Figueira

    I don’t care for a refresh rate that high. Make this IPS instead of TN and I’d buy it.

  • tophat1234

    240hz is useless. You will not notice a difference at all over 120 fps pretty much. Nvm 240 fps

  • Gabe

    the dudes that say is pointless have no idea what they are talking about lol, i have a qnix 2414 and when i overclock it to 200hz , it is much smoother then 144hz… gonna buy this once it comes out

  • ghei

    This will be amazing for cs go

  • Harry

    we need 1000 hz and 1000 fps this century. id rather play 480p 1000 hz than 4k 144 hz. i am sick of stuttering, input lag, motion persistence, motion blur and all the fkn shit they throw at us like g sync

  • Harry

    and ghosting and tearing

  • Harry

    no need? we need 1000 hz

  • Harry

    filthy casual

  • WrathPC

    So true, 2016 and still we feel nauseas because of motion blur. Technology like oled is out there but they keep milking us like cows. I would rather buy the same monitor every 2 years due to oled degradation than put up with disgusting motion blur. Sick of it. Even put a timer on monitors that stop working after 2 years that forces us to buy again, rather than, sell us shit that makes you feel sick and see every movement you make fudge and blur. Respect the people who give you money manufacturers and you will get the respect and loyalty back.

  • WrathPC

    This is true. If you cannot tell the difference with 144hz and 200hz you need to get your brain checked…. or upgraded..

  • WrathPC

    when I switch from 120hz, 144hz and 200hz, the difference is so staggering its almost shocking. I think you may need to see an optometrist.

  • WrathPC

    People who cannot see the difference between 120hz, 144hz and 200hz should get their brains checked. The difference, not only mathematically but perception wise is incredible. Its speed, 120 km/h vs 144 km/h for example… difference is obvious and abundant, unless you brain and eyes are slow and not advanced enough. In that case, cap your fps to 30 like console idiots who argue black and blue 30 fps is all they need and they “also” cannot see of feel the difference. The difference is not only a number, its a reality.

  • tophat1234

    Good try. Eveyone knows and its tested over and over again that from 120 hz to 144 is not noticeable at all. hilarious that you think 240 fps in a game looks better than 120 fps LOL

  • kazuya

    This argument is ridiculous since some people can notice staggering differences, some can’t see the difference between 60 and 120 fps.

    Everyone is different, simple as that.

  • WrathPC

    I’m sorry to hear you cannot see the difference. Most of my friends and I can but one of my friends, keeps saying he does not know what we are talking about and he cant tell the difference. You are simply one of these people. Nothing wrong with that, its good for you! You will never need to upgrade your monitor again! Lucky you.

  • tophat1234

    O right I forgot about your friends. Go read the reviews all ovver the internet showing that most if not all people cannot tell he difference. This isnt anyhting new. ITs been going on for almost 10 years now that is why the hz of tv and monitors dont continously go up. and up over the years.

  • WrathPC

    Again, I’m sorry to hear that monitor technology has maxed out for you 10 years ago. Yes mybfriends and I. As well as reviews on the internet. Did you see how many reviewers raved on about how 165hz is sooo much better than 144hz?? I guess not. Listien each to thier own. I for one, can see a staggeringly big difference. I appreciate your input and enjoy your monitor endeavours.

  • tophat1234

    Show me these reviews that show that the 165hz is soooo much better than 144 hz. Not just the monitor with its increased features and technology but the actual 144-165 hz.

  • tkensei

    I would buy an IPS version of this (preferably with a stand where the panel can adjust lower). Love the 240Hz, I prefer this over a higher resolution and larger panel.

  • Noah Sigmund

    Since the 180hz Monitor is 500€ Im expecting this to be around 650-750. And I think im okay with that. And if anyone tells me he can’t see the difference between 144 and 240hz you should really get your eyes checked.

  • hasher

    remeber human eye can only see 60 hz only reason high hz in tv cus they use is it for 3d if u took modern high end tv thats 240 hz and played it at 120 it would look the same becouse of the newer hard in tv. compared to older tv that ran at 120 . i work at samsung and we laugh about this stuff .

  • Thomas

    Nice try troll. I can see when I go from 120 to 118. I need to try a 144 monitor

  • hasher

    I love how u can see a diffence but medical all doctors r wrong then when u can only see 60hz hmmm plz learn what the human eye and brain can handle.

  • Harry

    I try a new game almost everyday but most of my time is split between mmos and shooters. don’t presume to know anything about me or I’ll do it to you, you filthy casual!

  • Harry

    480p with 1000 fps and 1000 hz? It’s no contest. Performance is king.

  • asdf1

    need to compensate for something?

  • boe_d

    No, just haven’t dealt with anything that small since I was a kid.

  • -Gastaa-

    Of course you cant see a difference if you still are watching a 60Hz source on your 120Hz. But YES you can definitely see a HUGE difference if you game at 165fps with 165Hz if you move your mouse in a FPS shooter. Cause 60 is choppy and stuttery as f if you have played for a minute on 165Hz. If you move your mouse fast, there are just some frames missing during the motion. And man you really see that…

  • Comanglia

    That’s because basically all TVs don’t use a native 240 or even 120Hz for that matter. Most TVs double frames, insert frames, etc.

  • Matt Kaya

    No, higher refresh rate is good for any game buddy. I was just playing bioshock remastered at 144fps and it looks absolutely beautiful. People think higher fps is just for competition and its just stupid. Higher fps also makes the game looks super good.

  • Matt Kaya

    Dude, there is a fucking difference between 120-144! Not much but noticable. I am sure there is also major difference between 144 to 200+

  • tophat1234

    There isnt a noticeable difference. ESPECIALLY from 144-200. Get over it. There are numerous tests you can read about and watch on youtube as well

  • Matt Kaya

    Nah, i will experience it with my own eyes first. People like you used to say the same thing about 60-120 where there was a world of difference.

  • John

    its a monitor not a tv you fucking casual

  • boe_d

    You dare call me a casual!?! You a bigger casual 🙂

  • John

    Tophat youre such a filthy casual fuck off lul

  • John

    Nice Try

  • boe_d

    Boy you sure got me! I tip my hat.

  • WarMachine xD

    WrathPC you need to get your brain upgraded bcs you cant tell the difference. that is if you have even tried a 200hz monitor next to 144hz

  • WarMachine xD

    exactly.

  • WrathPC

    If you dont care for refresh rates, why you reading about this monitor? Go get a cheap old IPS 60hz monitor.

  • WrathPC

    Like…. double……

  • WrathPC

    I bought a z35 a few weeks ago with 200hz. VA pannel is another story, TN being much better, but WOW WOW WOW is there a difference in 144hz and 200hz on a VA!!! Its actually radical. I have no idea what you are on about.

  • WrathPC

    He is probably happy with his commodore 64 screen.

  • WrathPC

    You are a tottal tool. 60hz max what the eye and brain can see? Ask medical doctors?? As to what… mechanical doctors? Wtf man. The human brain and eyes are a constant perception giving us infinate ability to see. This equate to more than trillions of hz… unlimited. The human eye is a constant open lens you twot.

  • WrathPC

    He has not noticed his genital warts.

  • WrathPC

    Lol killing it

  • WrathPC

    IPS is over rated. TN is better haha. No NASTY IPS glow making black scenes glowing blue. TN does not do blacks perfect either, but I Prefer a dark charcoal than glowing blue for my blacks. TN has better shadow details. Faster pannel. Lets lag. And if collaborated very nice colour. And this whole viewing angle thing… I never sit sideways on my desk or play with my monitor angling 45 degrees away from my face..do people do that?.. so um… no problems with viewing angles while gaming.

  • Eyoldaith

    Everyone going on about CS:GO when there’s UT4 with instagib.

  • Doge “Doge” Doge

    I saw motion blur comparisons of Benq’s 240Hz vs 144Hz (blur reduction turned off in both cases). The 240Hz has only a little less blur than the 144Hz monitor… You get MUCH better motion clarity at 120Hz with blur reduction on, than on 240Hz with blur reduction off. Unless they introduce a 240Hz monitor with ULMB/Blur Reduction that has little to no ghosting, I see no reason to upgrade from my Benq XL2720Z (which, after a bit of tweaking in settings, is currently still the best monitor if you’re focused on as little blur/ghosting as possible).

  • Brent

    This monitor has ULMB @ 240hz.

  • Brent

    And the BenQ does too, but its a hidden setting for some reason.

  • Doge “Doge” Doge

    Source?

  • Brent

    Linus just had a brief video.

  • Doge “Doge” Doge

    I saw that, but it turns out it’s not true after all. I read a review of that monitor on a polish website and they said ULMB only works at 120Hz or less.

  • Brent

    I think you’re half right. This polish site just tested it and found ULMB is available at up to 144hz but not 200 or 240.

  • Brent

    Think my reply disappeared. I found a review as well and Linus made a new video. 144hz supports ULMB, but they found 240 to be slightly better. But it was not an in depth analysis.

  • Doge “Doge” Doge

    Reason why they found 240 better than 144+ULMB is because they aren’t used to not seeing blur when playing games. It takes time until your brain gets used to it. That’s why immediate jumps to ULMB at first create confusion and make people play worse than they usually did, even though in theory they should be able to see more clearer images. The difference in input lag with 240 vs 144+ULMB is small (7-10ms) and barely noticable.

  • Stopher R. Brandt

    Hmm, i’d like a 240 Hz gaming screen, it’s just too pricey, and the colorscheme and light is somewhat wrong – i need black and blue and a discount =D Asus FTW tho!

  • Mads Furnes Kristoffersen

    And we need some goddamn 16:10 alternatives for gaming. Giving the community atleast an OPTION to have a more correct aspect ratio for a desktop pc. There are so many people that want 16:10 gaming monitors, and yet no company are offering this. There is a massive gain both for companies and for the community by offering this. I’m not saying that they should stop producing 16:9. What I am saying that the manufacturors and the companies should give us the option to CHOOSE. As it stands right now, we don’t get to chose. There is not a single 16:10 monitor that is capable of running games, let alone fps games. So cmon Asus, surely you will profit off of this. even if it costs 10-15% more to make a 16:10 monitor!

    Right now I would die for a 16:10 gaming monitor with 144hz or more. Preferebly IPS at 22-24″. Minimum 1920×1200 aka 1200p resolution.

  • Mads Furnes Kristoffersen

    As in 22″ inch ? You do know there is such a thing as ideal size versus distance for optimal usage right ? Or maybe you don’t ?

  • Mads Furnes Kristoffersen

    Your running a benq with ULMB ? How dark is your monitor dude? maxing out at 50-100 nits ?

  • Mads Furnes Kristoffersen

    I would buy a 16 :10 aspect ratio version of this. Even if it is TN.

  • Mads Furnes Kristoffersen

    Are you speaking from experience here or a philosophical standpoint ? Have you ever compared a 144hz vs a 240hz monitor or are you just talking out of yoru ass ?

  • Mads Furnes Kristoffersen

    are you talking about backlight bleed? This is very subjective from monitor to monitor. Gaming monitors running at 144hz with IPS have a lower grade quality than 60-85hz IPS monitors. They are not pushed as hard and has a tendency to have less to little backlight bleed.

  • Mads Furnes Kristoffersen

    That may be true, but that is not how this work. Are you just trying to stir up some drama here or what?

    If your eyes and the image were synced, and if the monitors update rate were synced with the frames per second, AND there were 0 persistence (motion blur). Then your theory might hold up.

    The point to getting more HZ is to reduce the amount of motion blur, because all lcd monitors are inherently sample and hold. The higher the refresh rate, the smaller window between the updates there are, which results in less motion blur.

    I’m not sure if this is subject to diminishing returns. But it does work. From a theoretical standpoint. a 240hz monitor should offer half the motion blur as a 120hz monitor.

    To profit from the updates per second it self, you would have to have atleast 500 fps, again, unless the monitor and the graphics card are synched (g-sync). However running g-sync on 240hz is prettymuch pointless as it will introduce unwated input lag.

    Do your homework son. Go read up and stop stiring drama

  • Mads Furnes Kristoffersen

    Go read up and stop stiring drama. Surely you’ve seen that theory being debunked right now as literally everytime there is talk on the subject of this topic, someone brings your point up. It’s NOT HOW IT WORKS.

    Graphics card and the monitor is not synced. And your not factoring in motion blur on a sample and hold technology.

  • WrathPC

    You are sooo wrong. But hey, at least gaming for you is cheap. Stick to your 60hz monitor and keep smiling bud.

  • WrathPC

    Good try??? Um… am i missing something here? I can see and feel the difference. If you cannot, thats your problem.

  • WrathPC

    I am speaking from exerience. I have a 120hz, monitor, 144hz and 200hz monitor. One is ips one is tn and one is va. All different tec so u cant judge them simply by pixel movement and how each monitor holds images dirrerently. You should do research or experience it yourself. It really is noticable. I have also done the 10 out of 10 test a few times and got 10 out of 10 each time. So 100% noticeable for me. Some people dont notice the difference between 60hz and 144hz, i know a guy like that. This goes to show everyone is different. Some people are able to process calculatuons in their mind as fast as a calculator and work for nasa while others are beggers on the street. I hope this offers you futher clarification and understanding.

  • WrathPC

    Your pupils adjust to the brightness so there is no problem. When you turn ULMB off your eyes hurt from the extreme brightness. Its like when you wake up at 2am to do a piss… its dark, but you can see. Same thing. ….. so the whole dark image issue is bull dust.

  • WrathPC

    120hz with ULMB blows 240hz out of the water. No contest.

  • Mads Furnes Kristoffersen

    No. That’s not why your eyes hurt. The eyes hurt because they have adjusted to the dark. So it’s a adjust thing. It’s like driving through a longer than short tunnel, your eyes adjust and when you come out, the bright light is also discomforting to the eyes. This doesn’t mean that light outside is bad for your eyes, it means theres an adjustment period to it.

    ULMB also increases input lag by up 20ms. Usualy it’s around 12-15. Now, if the choise were between 15ms input lag and 1.5 ms persistance motion blur, I would opt for the motion blur reduction. But that’s not the only choise, you get the dim light on the purchase. If I wanted to use a dim litt monitor, I would use a CRT, which has no input lag, 1 – 1.5 ms motion blur, better colors and contrast ratio. Better aspect ratio. And yes my desk is big enough for a monitor that builds a little backwards.

  • Mads Furnes Kristoffersen

    It’s very noticable in games that has no lag compensation. 10ms is a lot. And i’m assuming your saying that 144+ULMB has 10ms more than 240hz no ULMB.

    Also, I play better with ULMB from the getgo, not worse, so that assumption your making is not a one size fit all. And that’s just what it is, an assumption. Your oppionion.

  • WrathPC

    Now I know your just after someone to attack. Pleae know ULMB reduces lag. At 120hz it adds a black frame to every other frame making the screen blink 240 times a second. This reduces lag by half of what a 120hz screen has as ur mouse has 240 interactions with the screen every second. This makes it crisp and snappy. You should look into sites like TFTcentral. They have full explinations and comprehensive testing. And yeah, a shame they dont make a new age crt at 32 inch and half the depth of the old ones. The reason for all this BS discussions is because all the monitors available now suck. I cant stand motion persistence. It makes me sick and dizzy so yes, i choose a much darker screen. Of course I would want more brightness and better blacks from an ips pannel. Unfortunately only TN with ULMB works for me.

  • Mads Furnes Kristoffersen

    No. Black frame insertion does not decrease input lag.

    ULMB increases input lag, this is a fact, not a theory. Please go read up on it. Your statement is just ludicrous, there is no way black frame insertion decreases input lag. There is no valid logic to this.

  • WrathPC

    Ur a tool. 16:10??? Wtf man. Stop harassing me and piss off. If u dont lime it, stay away from it. For those of us that like ultra wide and wide screens with no motion blur… we will wait and enjoy that tech when it comes out. Just back off!