ASUS MX34VQ

Responsiveness

Input lag

Using a sensitive camera and small tool called SMTT 2.0, we compared the latency of the MX34VQ with a range of monitors of known latency, taking over 30 repeat readings to enhance accuracy. Using this method, we measured 6.03ms (over 1/2 of a frame @100Hz) of input lag. As usual for a monitor, the ‘Game Mode’ setting had no influence on this value. It is influenced by both the element of input lag you see (pixel responsiveness) and feel (signal delay) and indicates a low signal delay that even sensitive users shouldn’t fine. We don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag whilst FreeSync is active, but as explored the felt responsiveness was very good with this enabled.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In this article we explore the factors affecting monitor responsiveness. Chief amongst these is the concept of ‘perceived blur’ and how it is influenced both by what the monitor is doing (i.e. pixel responsiveness) and blur caused by eye movement as you track motion on the screen. We also introduce a photography technique called ‘pursuit photography’ which captures motion on a monitor in a way that reflects both elements of perceived blur. The following images are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at 960 pixels per second. This is a good practical speed for such photography and reflects both elements nicely.

The monitor was tested with TF (Trace Free) set to all possible values and at both 60Hz and 100Hz. Note that the UFO moves across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate. All three rows of the test are analysed (i.e. a dark, medium and light cyan background), showcasing a broad range of pixel transitions. We’ve also included a reference shot at both 60Hz and 100Hz. This is taken using the medium cyan background on a Dell S2417DG, showing how things look on a monitor with very rapid pixel responses and very little overshoot (inverse ghosting). It is therefore a useful benchmark to compare against, even though it is a very different monitor which few can match in terms of responsiveness. Note that any interlacing patterns are moiré from the camera rather than an issue with the monitor itself.



At 60Hz there was a moderate degree of blur to the object itself, with the soft and wide look reflecting a relatively high level of perceived blur from eye (camera) movement. With ‘TF = 0’, there was a fair degree of trailing behind the object itself with the dark and to a lesser extent medium background. The light background showed little trailing, which is good. At ‘TF = 20’ there was very little change, whilst ‘TF = 40’ reduced trailing for the medium background and introduced a touch of overshoot. The overshoot was more pronounced for the light background, with a bright ‘halo’ trail of inverse ghosting visible. At ‘TF = 60’ the trailing for the dark background was cut down slightly, particularly behind the yellow cockpit, but still moderate. Both the medium and light backgrounds had slightly stronger overshoot. At ‘TF = 80’ the dark background remained much the same, whilst the overshoot was stronger for the other backgrounds. At ‘TF = 100’ there was very strong overshoot for all backgrounds, including the dark background where the trail took on an inverted inky look.

At 100Hz the object itself appeared narrower and more sharply focused, indicating a significant reduction in perceived blur attributable to eye movement. At ‘TF = 0’, there is moderate trailing behind the object for the dark background and medium background. This is reduced a fair bit for the light background. At ‘TF = 20’ the trailing is similar for the dark background, very slightly weaker for the medium background and weaker but replaced by a little overshoot for the light background. At ‘TF = 40’ there was little change with the dark background. The trailing for the medium background was very slightly weaker, whilst the light background had a touch more overshoot (but nothing strong or obtrusive). At ‘TF = 60’ the trailing was reduced just a touch for the dark background, particularly behind the cockpit region. For the medium background the trailing was now a bit weaker again, whilst the light background remained quite similar. At ‘TF = 80’ some overshoot was introduced behind the cockpit for the dark background, but the trailing behind the UFO body remained similar. The trailing was cut down for the medium background, instead replaced with a bit of overshoot. For the light background the overshoot was considerably stronger now, with an obvious bright ‘halo’ trail of inverse ghosting. At ‘TF = 100’ the dark background showed stronger overshoot behind the cockpit but little change elsewhere. The medium background showed a bit of extra overshoot, whilst the light background showed a further strengthening of overshoot as well.

From this analysis and indeed considering a broader array of pixel transitions, we feel that the default value of ‘TraceFree = 60’ provides an optimal balance between good pixel responsiveness and reasonable levels of overshoot. This is certainly the case at 100Hz, although things are less clear-cut at 60Hz due to the stronger overshoot introduced compared to lower values. Although it would have been too time-consuming to fully document the results at 75Hz as well, we did make some observations at this refresh rate. The pixel response behaviour was some way between what it was at 60Hz and 100Hz, with moderate overshoot in places. Since most of our testing is done at 100Hz, we’ll be sticking with the default setting of ‘60’. We shall be considering a range of refresh rates below that in the FreeSync section, however.

Interlace pattern artifacts

On some monitors, typically those with high refresh rates, there may be artifacts visible when viewing moving content on the screen. These may appear as a sort of mesh or interference pattern, with woven or interlaced lines of alternating shade that’s slightly lighter or darker than the intended shade. No such artifacts were visible on this monitor during motion. There was a small amount of static interlacing towards the bottom of the monitor if you looked closely, but this was very faint – too faint to notice when gaming or sitting a normal distance from the monitor. You could see some shades appear as very thin bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker than intended shade.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield 1 (BF1) the monitor provided a surprisingly responsive 100Hz experience, where the frame rate kept up. The ‘connected feel’ was very good, with a level of fluidity and precision when interacting with the game world that felt just like a low-latency 100Hz monitor should. And far beyond what any 60Hz monitor delivers. The perceived blur was also greatly reduced by the increased refresh rate and frame rate output, with an extra two thirds of the visual information being presented to the user every second compared to a 60Hz display. There were some weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, but nothing we found particularly bothersome for most transitions. Overall levels of perceived blur were increased somewhat compared to a very fast 100Hz monitor (the S2716DG we were using as a reference, set to 100Hz, for example). But this was just due to a bit of extra trailing in places, a sort of ‘thin and powdery’ trail rather than the usual heavy smearing that some slower VA models produce. Akin to what we saw on high refresh rate AHVA models (such as the AOC AG271QG) for darker transitions, but affecting a broader range of transitions on the MX34VQ. The overclocked IPS UltraWides like the ASUS PG348Q also suffer similar trailing in places. Most users wouldn’t notice it or find it bothersome.

There were some more noticeable weaknesseses, particularly for the high-contrast pixel transitions involving very bright or dark shades moving alongside significantly brighter or dimmer shades. There were no obvious smoke-like trails or obvious smearing, fortunately, but a bit of extra trailing here and there. This was again more powdery and short-lived in nature rather than bold extended trailing. The most obvious example was a bit of ‘break-up trailing’ where dark shades with a slight hue (for example very rich brown woods, which have a slight red hue to them) appear with a more colourful trail behind them. In this case a dark red. This was short and not particularly bright or eye-catching as far as such trailing goes. There was also a bit of overshoot where some lighter shades were involved, but this was quite unobtrusive (no obvious eye-catching bright halo trails, funky colours or dark and inky inverse ghosting). The video below highlights these weaknesses and some further weaknesses discussed in relation to FreeSync shortly.

Dirt Rally provided a similar experience, which is to say quite a solid 100Hz performance. Where the frame rate kept up, the ‘connected feel’ was very good with inputs translating to vehicle movement in a snappy way. The level of perceived blur was also greatly reduced compared to on even the fastest 60Hz LCDs. There were again some weaknesses here and there, particularly when driving at night where high-contrast transitions were common. There was a bit of extra trailing here and there, but nothing like the smeary or distracting mess that many VA models output in similar scenarios. The level of perceived blur, even here, remained superior to the fastest 60Hz LCDs. There was no eye-catching overshoot either, just a bit here and there that most users wouldn’t notice or be bothered be. We also tested our Blu-ray test titles, and no weaknesses specific to this monitor were highlighted. The frame rate is limited to ~24fps on these, so the pixel response requirements are nowhere near as stringent as when viewing higher frame rate content such as games. Likewise, the 100Hz refresh rate doesn’t provide any benefit over 60Hz here.

Overall we found the responsiveness of the ASUS MX34VQ impressive. There were some weaknesses here and there, but the pixel responsiveness was far superior to what we’d seen from high refresh rate VA UltraWides like the Acer Z35 and AOC C3583FQ. Individual sensitivity to weaknesses in pixel responsiveness (both trailing and overshoot) varies. But to us the weaknesses tended to be relatively minor rather than eye-catching or bothersome things, leaving you with a highly satisfying 100Hz gaming experience.

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology supported by certain AMD GPUs (including these ones and future models). This is similar in what it achieves to Nvidia’s G-SYNC variable refresh rate technology, but it does not require a special proprietary board/chip integrated into the monitor. Instead, AMD FreeSync uses the VESA Adaptive-Sync protocol, which is a capability integrated into some DP 1.2a and HDMI 1.4a or HDMI 2.0 port controllers. The DP and HDMI ports of the MX34VQ, for example. The idea of variable refresh rate technologies such as this is to allow the GPU to report the current frame rate at which it’s running to the monitor, and for the monitor to dynamically adjust its refresh rate to match (where possible). The advantages of this compared to a static refresh rate that does not necessarily match the frame rate are explored in the G-SYNC article linked to previously. At a basic level, it eliminates the tearing and juddering (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on) that ordinarily occurs where the frame rate departs from the refresh rate. There is also a reduction in input lag compared to running with VSync on – although we aren’t able to accurately measure this.

Our test system uses a Club3D Radeon R9 290 royalAce FreeSync-compatible GPU. This GPU does not support HDMI 2.0, so we were unable to properly test the FreeSync functionality via HDMI. The technology did work correctly via DP 1.2a on this GPU, however. This technology was activated automatically when we first connected up the display. To double-check this is the case, open ‘AMD Radeon Settings’ and click ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider, ‘AMD FreeSync’, is set to ‘On’. If you hover over this, it will also report the variable refresh rate display supported by the display. Note that the image below is for a different monitor and is just used here for reference.

The variable refresh rate range supported by this monitor via DP 1.2a is 48 – 100Hz. It should theoretically be the same when using HDMI 2.0, but as mentioned above we did not have such capability on our AMD GPU so were unable to test this. Above the refresh rate ceiling for FreeSync (100Hz, corresponding to 100fps in a game), the GPU respects your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 100fps, with VSync activating at this point and bringing with it the usual latency penalty when it does so. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate is free to rise above 100fps, but the monitor will simply stay at 100Hz and therefore tearing and juddering will be present.

VSync is configured in the ‘Gaming’ section of ‘Radeon Settings’, where it is referred to as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. This can either be set globally under ‘Global Settings’, or independently for each separate game title. The default is ‘Off, unless application specifies’ which means that VSync will only activate if it is selected in the game itself (if there is such an option, which there usually is). The in-game option might not necessarily be called ‘VSync’ but may be referred to as ‘sync every frame’ or something along those lines. Most users will likely want to enable VSync when using FreeSync to ensure that they don’t get any tearing. One of the final two options in the list, shown in the image below, would therefore be preferable.

Below the floor of FreeSync operation (48Hz), the monitor employs AMD LFC (Low Frame Rate Compensation) when FreeSync is active – regardless of VSync setting. Note that the requirement of the maximum supported refresh rate being 2.5x the minimum mentioned in that document is no longer valid – it is simply 2.0x that is required now. The monitor’s refresh rate will try to stick to multiples of the frame rate when the frame rate dips below 48fps. Say for example the frame rate was 30fps, the monitor would run at 60Hz. This effectively combats the tearing and stuttering that would occur if the monitor simply stayed at a static 48Hz (or 100Hz).

Be aware that the monitor displays the current refresh rate towards the top right of the OSD (e.g. 3440 x 1440@ 100Hz). If FreeSync is active and the frame rate fluctuates, the refresh rate displayed here will also change ‘on the fly’ to reflect this. You can display this information on-screen by using the ‘FPS Counter’ feature, one of the three ‘GamePlus’ options. Although this is called ‘FPS Counter’, it simply reflects the refresh rate of the monitor and will therefore only work to ‘count FPS’ if FreeSync is active. It is therefore a useful indication that the technology is working as intended. You will also see LFC in action if you compare this value (refresh rate) with the actual frame rate, once the frame rate falls below 48fps.

FreeSync – the experience

Although we tested a broad range of game titles, and found FreeSync useful to varying degrees on all of them, we will simply focus on Battlefield 1 (BF1). This title provides good flexibility with graphics settings, allowing a great range of frame rates to be tested. Using our usual settings which we were happy to use, the Radeon 290 pumped out anywhere between around 50 – 100fps, generally sticking to around 70 – 80fps. Without FreeSync active, these considerable fluctuations in frame rate give (to us) obvious tearing and juddering with VSync disabled and obvious stuttering with VSync enabled. There is a loss of continuity in the experience because of this. With FreeSync active there were no such interruptions, which was very pleasant. If we raised the graphics detail then it was possible to get the frame rate to drop below the 45fps floor of FreeSync operation. At this point LFC worked its magic and stuttering and tearing was still kept at bay.

Although FreeSync was certainly beneficial in getting rid of tearing and stuttering, it was still preferable to have the frame rate as high as possible. As frame rate decreases, perceived blur from eye movement increases. The ‘connected feel’ is also better the higher the frame rate, so this drops away as well. Another issue is that, as illustrated in the UFO Motion Test pursuit photographs earlier, more noticeable overshoot (inverse ghosting) creeps in at 60Hz compared to 100Hz. This is particularly true where light shades are involved in the transition – to give an in-game example, observing a dark wooden post against a bright blue or grey sky. This gives a ‘halo’ (bright trail) that is marginally brighter than the sky shade at 100Hz (100fps). It doesn’t simply ‘change’ in its appearance at 60Hz, it actually becomes increasingly noticeable the further refresh rate drops from 100Hz (i.e. the further frame rate drops from 100fps in the game, with FreeSync). So for example is a bit more noticeable at 80fps, more noticeable again at 70fps and even more noticeable at 60fps. 45fps is the point at which it is most noticeable, and it really is quite bright and eye-catching, although confined to just a few transitions luckily. Below that, LFC kicks in and the refresh rate of the monitor rises again. Again, this is tied to the actual refresh rate the monitor is running at rather than the frame rate itself. We also noticed some flickering on the monitor between about 45 – 50Hz (45 – 50fps), with higher refresh rates being free from the issue – including when LFC kicks in below 45fps and the monitor reverts to a higher refresh rate.

It is not uncommon to see FreeSync-compatible monitors which have their pixel overdrive tuned most tightly for their maximum refresh rate (in this case 100Hz). And for overshoot or other weaknesses to become more apparent at lower refresh rates. This is something that G-SYNC monitors tend to do better, with Nvidia specifically involved in tuning the pixel overdrive across a range of refresh rates. We don’t feel the overshoot was particularly obnoxious even at the low end of the FreeSync scale on this model, but individual sensitivity to this does vary. This model does at least provide a good level of flexibility, and some users might prefer a lower ‘Trace Free’ setting if they’re frequently hitting those lower refresh rates. This reduces the overshoot at the expense of a bit of extra conventional trailing, as demonstrated earlier. With the FreeSync experience being nice if a bit rough around the edges, it sort of ties in with why Nvidia GPU users shouldn’t be put off this monitor. FreeSync is only ever a bonus, it does not replace the desirability for the high frame rates to make the most of the 100Hz capability of the monitor. Where performance is indeed optimal. For multiplayer gaming on Battlefield 1, for example, we found the superior performance of our overclocked Nvidia GTX 1070 to be preferable to our Radeon 290, even with the option of enabling FreeSync. That’s because we could use settings which provided a visually attractive experience but allowed a fairly consistent 100fps to be achieved. In which state the fluidity, lack of obvious overshoot and ‘connected feel’ was very pleasant.

The 34” 3440 x 1440 curved ‘UltraWide’ experience

In this article we explore the 3440 x 1440 resolution and talk about the experience on the desktop, in movies and in games. We won’t be repeating too much of this. A notable addition to the MX34VQ, compared to the flat screen featured in the article, is the 1800R curve. This is steeper than the curve found on previous curved UltraWides we’ve reviewed, such as the Samsung S34E790C but identical to the curvature of some more recent curved models such as the Samsung C24FG70 and C27F591FD. The wide screen makes good use of this curvature, we feel. Panel manufacturer Samsung claims that the curve makes the viewing experience more natural by creating a more uniform viewing distance between the centre and edges of the screen. We certainly found this model comfortable and natural to use, but never really found similar sized models with a lesser curve or no curve to be uncomfortable to use. The curve was easy to adapt to and we didn’t feel it made the desktop experience unusual. In fact once we got used to it, flat screens appeared slightly convex at first as the eyes have to adapt back to a flat rather than concave screen. We can see that designers or those who require geometric perfection in their content might prefer flat screens, but for general purpose desktop use we found the monitor good. The images below illustrate the sort of screen space you have at your disposal on this model and also highlight the curve. In the images the curve actually appears much more noticeable than when you’re sitting in front of the monitor using it, however.

When gaming we again found the experience natural and found the 21:9 aspect ratio worked very nicely to enhance the Field of View in our favourite titles such as Battlefield 1 and Dirt Rally. Very much like viewing these games on a 27” 16:9 model, but with more content at the sides. The curve again felt very natural and we feel added a little bit of extra depth and immersion to the experience. Nothing extreme, just a slight feeling of being dragged into the game world a bit more. The images below are purely for illustrative purposes and give no indication of what the monitor looks like first hand. Again, the curve appears more pronounced when viewing the monitor on photos like this than when actually using the screen.

Interpolation and upscaling

This monitor does have an integrated scaler, but it only offers very basic scaling capabilities. Scaling is provided for resolutions that are common to certain external devices such as games consoles – the same resolutions that are listed under ‘Ultra HD, HD, SD’ rather than ‘PC’ in the Nvidia Control Panel, if you’re an Nvidia user. Interpolation is used to ensure every one of the 3440 x 1440 pixels is used, but there is no 1:1 pixel mapping option available. The 1920 x 1080 resolution therefore looks stretched and distorted, with moderate softening from the interpolation process itself. As a PC user, if you want to use a non-native resolution (such as 1920 x 1080 or 2560 x 1440) and don’t wish to have the image stretched across the screen, you should instead use the GPU scaling options available in the graphics driver. We won’t be exploring this as this capability is down to the GPU rather than monitor itself.

What we will say, though, is that running the monitor at 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) with 1:1 pixel mapping via the GPU, is a useful fall-back for applications which don’t support the 21:9 aspect ratio. That is because black bars are displayed either side with the content displayed as an undistorted 27” 16:9 WQHD image in the middle. This resolution is already listed under ‘PC’ as an Nvidia user, but for our AMD GPU we had to create a custom resolution for this. The easiest way of doing this is to download a recent AMD graphics driver that includes ‘Radeon Settings’ (i.e. Radeon Software Crimson). Open ‘Radeon Settings’, click ‘Display’ and add a custom resolution as shown below. The only fields that need to be changed are ‘Horizontal Resolution (px)’ to ‘2560’ and ‘Timing Standard’ to ‘CVT’.

Conclusion

With its curved UltraWide VA panel, the Samsung S34E790C provided an at the time rather unique experience which many users enjoyed. One of the key turn-offs for gamers was the limitations imposed by the 60Hz refresh rate. The ASUS MX34VQ is unusual amongst members of the ‘Designo’ series of monitors as it offers a 100Hz refresh rate. The panel is Samsung SVA, as with the older S34E790C, but now has a steeper curve at 1800R. We found the curve added a bit of depth to the experience without feeling unnatural or uncomfortable (quite the opposite, in fact). Aesthetically the monitor adopts the now familiar style of other ‘MX’ models in the Designo range, but this style comes at the expense of ergonomic flexibility with only tilt being offered. The lack of VESA holes will also annoy some users who were hoping to mount to a more flexible stand. Another reason for the lack of alternative mounting flexibility is that one of the ‘key features’ of the monitor is the Qi wireless charging unit integrated into the base. Seen as a bit of a gimmick by some and a nice little addition by others, we were swayed more towards the latter after seeing how much use we actually got out of this charger. Another integrated feature of the monitor worth a mention are the speakers. That is something that are often overlooked by monitor manufacturers, either entirely absent or so poor in their sound quality that they might as well be absent. In this case, though, they provided a much clearer and richer sound output than integrated speakers would usually provide. They are some of the best monitor speakers we’ve come across – and the addition of the ‘AudioWizard’ graphic equalizer settings to fiddle with also be welcomed by some tweak-happy users.

Performance of the monitor itself was largely impressive. It delivered strong static contrast, as hoped, even if it did fall slightly short of the specified 3000:1. Things were very much as you’d hope from a decent VA model in terms of decent depth to dark shades and brighter shades which stood out nicely. This was particularly noticeable where bright shades were surrounded by darker ones – the look to the image there is something that non-VA LCDs simply can’t replicate. A light screen surface is used, which helps preserve vibrancy and clarity better than ‘stronger’ matte screen surfaces. Although it invited a degree of graininess, this was finer and not as obvious as on some matte surfaces. We were able to achieve a pleasing balance to the colour after a few basic tweaks in the OSD, with gamma that averaged ‘2.3’ rather than ‘2.2’ – but a rich and inviting look for gaming and general usage we feel. This vivid look was further aided by the generous colour gamut, which did not stray as far as Adobe RGB or other wide gamut standards but did extend a bit past sRGB.

Although ASUS certainly didn’t shout about this capability from the rooftops, or even mention it in a particularly obvious way on their product pages, one of the key capabilities of the monitor is the 100Hz refresh rate. And overall, we feel the monitor did a very solid job at delivering a convincing and enjoyable 100Hz performance. There were some weaknesses in pixel responsiveness here and there, but nothing as obnoxious as many VA models suffer from. There was also a touch of overshoot, but this was fairly light at 100Hz and not something we found distracting. The ‘connected feel’ and overall level of perceived blur was really very impressive for a VA model – and unlike some high refresh rate VA models (the likes of the Acer Z35) we felt the monitor really did make good use of the refresh rate. The monitor also supports AMD FreeSync, which did its thing to eliminate tearing and stuttering in variable frame rate environments. There was stronger overshoot as the refresh rate of the monitor decreased (whether manually set or achieved via FreeSync) and some issues with flickering at the lower end of the FreeSync range (specifically 45 – 50Hz or 45 – 50fps in a game). As always, we found the experience most enjoyable at higher frame rates and see FreeSync as a bonus on this one rather than a key feature. Indeed, our greatest enjoyment during multiplayer gaming came from our more powerful Nvidia GPU. This could could deliver a solid 100fps without requiring any drastic image-quality destroying graphical tweaks on titles like Battlefield 1.

Overall, we found this to be a very enjoyable monitor to use for a slew of uses, including relatively high frame rate gaming. We liked the overall style and found some of the integrated features such as the Qi charger and integrated speakers to be surprisingly useful. The lack of ergonomic freedom was less useful, however. Something we hope won’t put users off who are on the fence about this monitor, but still a point worth raising. Given the price of competing high refresh rate 3440 x 1440 UltraWide models, the price point of this model is perhaps equally as head-turning as the monitor’s style. As with any monitor, it’s not perfect, but there’s certainly a lot to like about this one.

The bottom line; a stylish monitor with some neat integrated features and surprisingly good gaming performance.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.