ASUS PG248Q

Responsiveness

Input lag

We used a tool called SMTT 2.0 and a sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the PG248Q. We compared it to a number of monitors of known latency, taking over 30 repeat readings to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 2.46 ms (just over 1/3 a frame at 144Hz) of input lag. Overclocking the refresh rate to any value including 180Hz had no measurable effect. This value reflects both the element of input lag that you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates an exceptionally low signal delay which won’t interfere with the experience even for sensitive user. When combined with high frame rates, it delivers an impressive ‘connected feel’ to the gaming environment. We were not able to accurately measure input lag with G-SYNC active, to the feeling to us was very much the same when this was active during gameplay.

A note on overclocking

As noted in the OSD video earlier, there is an ‘Overclocking’ feature in the OSD which lets you set the monitor to 160Hz, 170Hz or 180Hz. Most of the time, compromises in image quality aside, this feature simply works and the monitor will quite happily run at up to 180Hz. However; when connected to our GTX 1070 (and a GTX 980 Ti we also tested) the display sometimes lost signal when trying to run at one of these refresh rates. This was the case with 3 different DP cables that we tried, of varying length and quality. The only remedy we could find was a hard reset of the PC – turning the monitor off, unplugging the DP cable or unplugging the monitor from the power supply and reconnecting had no effect. It sometimes occurred when the GPU was simply trying to re-establish signal, for example when a game is changing maps. This was obviously a particular annoyance, but one that could be circumvented by setting the game to run in a ‘Borderless Window’ rather than ‘Fullscreen’. Most titles will have an option to this effect. As noted later on, G-SYNC does still work in ‘Borderless Window’. Additionally, we never had this issue when Windows started up – the monitor always seemed to run at 180Hz or another overclocked refresh rate just fine, if it was already selected.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In this article we explore the key factors that affect the responsiveness of a monitor. One of the chief concepts is ‘perceived blur’, which is caused mainly by the movement of our eyes as we track movement on the screen. Slower than optimal pixel responsiveness is also a factor, although generally the more minor factor. We also introduce the idea of ‘pursuit photography’, which is a method of capturing motion performance on a monitor in a way that reflects not only the pixel responses of the monitor but also the perceived blur due to eye movement.

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting. The middle row (medium cyan background) was used and the test was set to run at 960 pixels per second, which is a good practical speed for such photography. The monitor was set to a range of refresh rates; 60Hz, 100Hz, 144Hz and 180Hz (so roughly 40Hz between each setting, to help show the benefits of increased refresh rate). We also tested the various ‘OD’ settings (‘OFF’, ‘Normal’ and ‘Extreme’) but to save time only captured these at 144Hz. The general characteristics and indeed optimal setting to use was always the same regardless of refresh rate.

In addition, the monitor was tested with ULMB active at 85Hz, 100Hz and 120Hz using the default Pulse Width setting of ‘100’. A reference screen has also been included, which is a Samsung S27A750D set to both 60Hz and 120Hz. It was set to use its optimal response time setting for each refresh rate and had the brightness turned up to ‘100’ to eliminate PWM. This reference represents more or less how things should look at a given refresh rate where pixel responsiveness isn’t a limiting factor. The Samsung was also set to its frame sequential 3D setting to compare with 120Hz ULMB – both are backlight strobing options that operate at up to 120Hz.

A key difference you’ll notice here between this and our usual recent testing methodology for this section is that the ‘OD’ (Overdrive) settings are only varied at 144Hz. That’s because the characteristics of the three ‘OD’ settings were very similar regardless of refresh rate. ‘Off’ always gave a slight trail behind the object, which became somewhat longer as refresh rate was decreased but remained as at 144Hz in terms of distinctiveness. The ‘Extreme’ setting always produced a very obvious and colourful inverse ghosting trail (‘extreme’ overshoot) as you can see in the 144Hz example. Again, the trail length varied according to refresh rate. For ULMB the ‘OD’ option was not available and a fairly strong level of acceleration is always used. For the remainder of this section we will therefore be focusing on default behaviour at various refresh rates and ULMB settings.

At 60Hz you can see that the object appears noticeably blurred, quite similar to the reference screen overall in the extent of the blurring really. There is no obvious trailing behind the object. There is just the faintest hint of overshoot in this example, which is barely visible both on the image and in practice. At 100Hz the object (UFO) appears sharper and less blurred, with another step up in clarity at 144Hz. There is no observable trailing or obvious overshoot behind the UFO, either, which is good. What may surprise some readers is that stepping the refresh rate up again to 180Hz provided a decent bump up in image clarity, even compared to 144Hz. There is again no obvious overshoot or trailing, whilst the image itself appears sharper – note in particular the detail shown on the UFO body itself and the legs of the UFO. This reflects the lower level of eye movement that occurs when you observe movement on the monitor at this refresh rate and hence the lower level of perceived blur.

The level of perceived blur is further decreased with ULMB enabled (Ultra Low Motion Blur – the clue being in the name). At 85Hz there is a bit of a step up in clarity compared to 180Hz with the setting disabled. This is further boosted at 100Hz and then again at 120Hz, with the UFO now looking very sharp and all key details distinctly visible. You will also notice a slight overdrive trail behind the object, which is actually weakest in this example at 120Hz. This is due to the strong acceleration being employed here. This was actually a bit bolder further down the screen (not shown here) as we explore later, but never particularly troubling. From our analysis here it was clear that upping refresh rate was of great benefit to reducing perceived blur and improving motion clarity. ULMB stepped things up further, with higher refresh rates again being beneficial. Observing things under a broader range of transitions also revealed that ‘OD = Normal’ was by far the best setting. It avoided the conventional trailing of ‘OFF’, which in some instances was far more noticeable than shown in the example above. It also avoided the obvious overshoot of the ‘Extreme’ setting, which is really only there so ASUS can specify a 1ms response time – something pretty much all manufacturers are guilty of.

Interlace pattern artifacts

Usually when we review monitors with high refresh rates (and even, sometimes, those with lower refresh rates) we encounter certain visual artifacts when observing motion on the screen. We group these together as ‘interlace pattern artifacts’, which can take several different forms but fit that description nicely. On the PG248Q there was a very faint interference pattern of interlacing that could be observed when scanning your eyes across the screen or observing motion at certain speeds. These were a lot fainter than on some models and didn’t appear as obvious lines as you would see on some models, for example when observing muzzle flashes or explosions. The phenomenon was also observed, perhaps more clearly in fact, when ULMB was active. The image below, taken from our review of the ViewSonic XG2401, demonstrates these patterns.

There were also static interlace patterns, whereby a given shade had horizontal lines of a marginally lighter shade running through it. These were only observable at the leftmost third of the screen and were as good as invisible at 120Hz and very faint at 144Hz. At 160Hz they became slightly more pronounced, even more so at 170Hz until eventually at 180Hz they were more clearly visible. It was also quite pronounced in places when ULMB was active at any refresh rate, particularly when observing fairly solid patches of darker shades such as dark grey sky. It was not possible to capture these particular interlace pattern artifacts on camera, in a way that accurately represented what we were seeing. Many users will either not notice them at all or not find them distracting, especially at 144Hz or lower refresh rates without ULMB active.

Finally, we noticed some wave-like artifacts. Sort of moving interlacing patterns that appeared like waves in motion, flowing down the screen on some solid colours. These only appeared for the first few days when we first used the monitor and set it to 180Hz, occasionally appearing more faintly after that. After using the monitor for several days, they seemed to disappear. We can’t say exactly how or why they disappeared and whether it was due to a factory reset, changing the monitor from 180Hz to another refresh rate and back again or simply that the monitor ‘settled’ in some way.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On BF4, where the frame rate matched the 144Hz frame rate of the monitor, the ASUS proved to be exceptionally responsive. With seemingly instantaneous responses to mouse movement and the screen updating 144 times per second, the ‘connected feel’ was excellent. Our experience with perceived blur and the visual feedback we got from the monitor very much reflected what was observed with Test UFO. Regardless of the transition being performed (many different shades are featured on this title), the pixel responsiveness was excellent and the overdrive well-tuned. There was no visible trailing nor any readily observable overshoot. Just the faintest trace here and there, at the sort of level shown in Test UFO (i.e. virtually invisible).

The ‘connected feel’ and low level of perceived blur was further improved by increasing the refresh rate, provided the frame rate kept pace. This was particularly noticeable at 180Hz and 180fps. Whilst the difference between 60Hz and 144Hz, for example, is a rather profound difference, the bump up again is something less earth-shattering. But setting the monitor to 180Hz really did give an extra edge in how sharp things appeared during movement, particularly noticeable when manoeuvring nippy vehicles like the ATV around but also when just looking around as a solider. It also enhanced the ‘connected feel’ from an already excellent level to something even better. Individual sensitivity to these both of these elements does vary and we feel that the monitor already provides very pleasing responsiveness at 144Hz and 144fps. But it was nice to see that 180Hz isn’t just a gimmick on this model and that the pixel responses can keep pace without any troubling overshoot or noticeable trailing being introduced.

On Dirt Rally the experience was really quite similar in terms of the perceived blur being nice and low at 144Hz (@144fps) and even lower at 180fps (@180fps). The monitor again had no trouble with pixel transitions and was therefore free from noticeable trailing or overshoot. The ‘connected feel’ was less noticeable to us on this title, but we did still feel that the car was responding extremely quickly in response to inputs. In a way it was nice being able to admire the in-game environments without them becoming a blurry mess, too. That probably says a lot about the low level at which we play this game, though.

We also tested our Blu-ray movie test titles and are happy to report that the monitor did as well as you could expect. We observed no trailing, overshoot or other weaknesses in responsiveness. Obviously ‘connected feel’ is not a factor or benefit here and the frame rate at which the films run (~24fps) is a significant limiting factor. Because 24 divides evenly into the 144Hz refresh rate there was reduced juddering compared to refresh rates such as 60Hz (and indeed 180Hz). The fluidity was nonetheless severely limited by the low frame rate of the content.

G-SYNC – the technology and activating it

G-SYNC is a variable refresh rate technology that can be activated on certain Nvidia GPUs in conjunction with monitors that specifically support the technology, such as the ASUS PG248Q. This article explores the mechanics of G-SYNC – what it does and how it can benefit gamers. On a basic level, G-SYNC monitors have a ‘G-SYNC board’ inside them that replaces the traditional scaler and some of the assistive electronics of the monitor. A compatible GPU can then communicate with the monitor, specifically allowing the monitor to dynamically adjust its refresh rate according to the frame rate being outputted by the GPU. In doing so, the stuttering (VSync enabled) or tearing and juddering (VSync disabled) associated with the traditional frame rate and refresh rate mismatches are eliminated. An additional benefit in variable frame rate environments is a reduction in latency compared to VSync on. Not something we can accurately measure using our equipment, as noted earlier.

This monitor supports G-SYNC via DP 1.2 (DisplayPort), when hooked up to a compatible GPU. The technology worked and was correctly set up on our system straight out of the box. You can see whether it is active at a glance as the power button will be red if it is enabled. But to make sure everything is set up correctly, you just need to open Nvidia Control Panel. Then navigate to ‘Display – Set Up G-SYNC’ and ensure the checkbox for ‘Enable G-SYNC’ is checked and your preferred operating mode is selected. As per the image below, the technology can work in both ‘Full Screen’ and Window’ modes if the second option is selected. We found that even if the first option was selected, though, ‘Borderless Window’ in games still worked with G-SYNC anyway. If you can’t find a G-SYNC section in your Nvidia Control Panel, try unplugging the monitor and plugging it into a different DP output on the GPU. Or if that doesn’t seem to help, reinstall the GPU driver.

Enable G-SYNC

Next you should navigate to ‘Manage 3D settings’, where you will see two settings of interest. The first of these is ‘Monitor Technology’, which should be set to ‘G-SYNC’ as shown below.

Set Monitor Technology to G-SYNC

The second setting to configure is VSync. For this you can choose three main settings; ‘On’, ‘Use the 3D application setting’ or ‘Off’. With ‘On’ selected, the GPU will simply enable G-SYNC when the refresh rate ceiling of G-SYNC is reached (up to 180Hz/180fps on this model, if overclocked). With ‘Off’ selected the frame rate will rise above the refresh rate, introducing tearing but also minimising latency. ‘Use the 3D application setting’ in theory allows you to set VSync status in the game itself and use different settings for different games. But in practice Nvidia advises that you set the VSync up in NVCP rather than relying on in-game implementations which could potentially interfere with the smooth operation of G-SYNC.

On newer graphics drivers, at least on the Pascal (GTX 1070) GPU we tested, there is also a ‘Fast’ option which will enable a technology called ‘Fast Sync’. This only applies above the G-SYNC ceiling, as G-SYNC is an entirely separate technology that works nicely at frame rates that the refresh rate of the monitor can match. ‘Fast Sync’ comes into play at higher frame rates, comfortably clearing the refresh rate ceiling, and is designed to combine the minimal latency of ‘VSync off’ without the same tearing associated with it. We didn’t have time to test this in detail and it’s really more of a GPU feature than anything to do with a monitor, but it is explored in a press conference presented by Nvidia’s Tom Petersen. This section of the video is particularly relevant when considering how this setting applies with G-SYNC.

Set VSync according to preferences

Regardless of VSync setting, the refresh rate of the monitor behaves in exactly the same way where the frame rate dips below the floor of operation (lowest frame/refresh rate supported by the technology). The floor of operation is 30Hz/30fps, below which the monitor will strive to set its refresh rate to a multiple of the frame rate to minimise or eliminate stuttering and tearing. If for example the game is running at 23fps, then the monitor is unable to set itself to 23Hz (it is below the floor of operation). It would therefore set itself to 46Hz rather than just staying at 30Hz. As we explore in the proceeding section, low frame rates are still low frame rates regardless of G-SYNC and any associated technologies. It’s also worth remembering that stuttering caused by other issues, such as network latency or lack of RAM are not corrected by the technology.

G-SYNC – the experience

BF4 can involve sudden changes from little to no action to an explosion of on-screen activity. With the graphics setting ramped up, in particular, this can mean that a create deal more particles, textures and other visual entities have to be rendered. As a result of this, frame rate fluctuations are common on this title. With graphics settings ramped up rather high, the frame rate still tended to stay in the triple digits and generally at 130fps+. But without G-SYNC, if you have the refresh rate set to 144Hz or higher to accommodate the upper end of the frame rate, you would be greeted by tearing and juddering (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on). It’s important to note that sensitivity to both issues does vary and they are less prominent on higher refresh rate monitors at high frame rates compared to lower refresh rates and frame rates. But the issues certainly persist, and for sensitive users such as ourselves they can be quite jarring and mar the overall gaming experience. With G-SYNC enabled, the game just ‘flowed’ nicely without such rude interruptions. Even though the frame rate fluctuated fairly wildly.

Regardless of this technology, there was still benefit to be had when running at higher frame rates and refresh rates. Even when comparing 130fps to 180fps, we felt a difference in ‘connectedness’ to the game world and perceived blur – the higher the better. We still felt, though, that as long as frame rates remained relatively high, as they did in this title (triple digits) then the experience was quite enjoyable and the overall ‘connectedness’ and fluidity quite pleasing. The same couldn’t be said where the frame rate dropped further, as it did on more demanding titles such as Tom Clancy’s The Division. Here, with settings cranked up a fair bit, the frame rate sometimes dipped well below 100fps and sometimes came closer to 60fps. With G-SYNC disabled this provided very obvious stuttering or tearing, which was not nice at all. So definite improvement with the technology enabled, eliminating such distractions. However; the difference in perceived blur and connectedness when compared to higher refresh rates and frame rates (144Hz/144fps and more so 180Hz/180Hz) was quite extreme. Another observation as frame rates dropped well below 100fps, was that there was a little bit of overshoot in places in the form of ‘snail slime’ (transparent) trails that wasn’t visible at higher refresh rates. These could be seen without G-SYNC on and the monitor set to a lower refresh rate, too. They were not too obtrusive, either way.

We also turned up the ‘Resolution Scale’ feature or enabled Nvidia DSR (Dynamic Super Resolution) on various titles to see how things were handled at even lower frame rates. With this, we got dips below the 30fps (30Hz) floor of operation, meaning that the refresh rate multiplication ‘magic’ came into play. The experience was free from stuttering or tearing caused by refresh rate and frame rate mismatches, as even multiples were used there. So that is good. But the experience was extremely choppy and lacked the fluidity of higher frame rates anyway – so it is absolutely not where you want to be on a monitor that can run at up to 180Hz. In summary; even with G-SYNC, it’s certainly advantageous to maintain relatively high frame rates where possible. The technology does help iron out those hitches where frame rate drops just a bit very nicely indeed. It is quite ‘game changing’ in that respect. But it isn’t a substitute for true high frame rates.

ULMB – the technology and activating it

ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur) is another proprietary Nvidia technology which can be enabled instead of G-SYNC on monitors such as the PG248Q, where a G-SYNC compatible GPU is also used. This is a strobe backlight technology which rapidly pulses the backlight at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display; either 85Hz, 100Hz or 120Hz. It reduces eye movement by ensuring that the backlight pulses on only very briefly (‘on phase’) but spends most of its time off (‘off phase’). This is explored in more detail in this article. At a basic level, the backlight pulses on very briefly (‘on phase’) but spends most of its time off (‘off phase’). This reduces the amount of time the eyes spend tracking motion on the screen and hence reduces perceived blur.

ULMB can be enabled by setting the monitor to 85Hz, 100Hz or 120Hz via Windows or the Nvidia Control Panel. You should then navigate to ‘Manage 3D settings’ in the Nvidia Control Panel and select ‘ULMB’ for ‘Monitor Technology’ as shown below. The monitor should automatically initiate the appropriate mode, but if not you will find the appropriate setting (‘ULMB’) in the ‘Image’ section of the OSD.

Set Monitor Technology to ULMB

There will be a marked change in the image when this setting is active. Specifically, you will note that the display begins to flicker at a frequency matching the refresh rate. It will look similar to a CRT operating at the same refresh rate in this sense and you’ll notice this effect most noticeably at 85Hz. You will also see that the power light has gone yellow. There is also a setting associated with ULMB called ‘ULMB Pulse Width’ which you can now change in the OSD. A higher setting here provides a longer ‘on phase’ and hence higher brightness output than lower settings. Lower settings provide a shorter ‘on phase’ and hence longer ‘off phase’, decreasing brightness but potentially increasing motion clarity. We say potentially as most users will find the motion clarity even with this set to ‘100’ to be exceptional and will prefer the higher brightness.

ULMB – the experience

As explored previously you’ll notice that the image starts flickering, most noticeably and quite obtrusively at 85Hz, less so but to us still noticeably so at 100Hz and a little better but to us still noticeable at 120Hz. Depending on the brightness settings you were using before, you may also find that the image looks a bit dimmer than it did before. Due to measured and perceived changes in brightness and the gamma behaviour you may notice it looks a bit more muted in general, too. Individual sensitivity to both aspects of ‘image change’ varies, with some users finding the flickering in particular a bit bothersome whilst others don’t really mind and adapt quite readily. Unlike with ULMB active, you can’t change the ‘OD’ (Overdrive) setting and it is locked to a ‘pre-optimised’ (quite highly accelerated) value. The overall motion clarity with this mode active is excellent – even moving the mouse or Windows around on the desktop is a different experience. And indeed, even at 85Hz we found the motion clarity to be excellent. This echoes our findings on ‘Test UFO’ earlier. We did find the flickering too bothersome at this refresh rate, though, so for the subjective assessment below used 120Hz for the sake of comfort and the fact we feel most will prefer this setting for maximum responsiveness.

Speaking of responsiveness, there are really two key areas to focus on. First off is how the monitor feels – and with ULMB active at 120Hz, it felt very responsive with excellent ‘connectedness’ to the game world. The feeling was a bit different to running the monitor with ULMB disabled. And it’s fair to say that it compares more closely to running the monitor with ULMB disabled at 120Hz rather than higher refresh rates. Particularly when comparing to 180Hz, the felt latency was somewhat higher with ULMB enabled – things just didn’t feel quite as snappy, although still good. In terms of motion clarity, though, there was a marked improvement. The motion clarity is certainly good if you’re running the monitor at 180Hz with ULMB disabled, but running with ULMB enabled (at up to 120Hz) reduced perceived motion blur considerably. This should be obvious from the previous analysis, using Test UFO, but it certainly all came together when testing games.

A number of titles were tested and benefited from ULMB in terms of motion clarity, but we will just focus on BF4 to keep things simple. Provided that the frame rate exactly matched the refresh rate of the monitor (so 120fps @ 120Hz), the motion clarity was exceptional. Regardless of the pace of action, whether it be sprinting about on foot or zipping around in a helicopter, there was a level of clarity that was simply beyond what was achieved without the mode active. Even when comparing to 180Hz. This was most obvious when manoeuvring quickly in a vehicle such as a helicopter as you were able to clearly see your target and any obstacles in your way. It almost felt like some kind of cheat at times – although that’s the sort of feeling you get coming from a 60Hz monitor to one with a significantly higher refresh rate, too.

As mentioned previously, the ‘OD’ control is greyed out and a rather high level of acceleration is used. This is to ensure that pixel transitions are snappy enough to try to avoid overlap between frames or any obvious trailing that might hamper the experience. We didn’t actually notice any particularly obvious overshoot as we sometimes do when testing monitors with ULMB, which is nice. There was a little bit for some transitions where certain medium-dark transitions were involved (stormy skies, for example) as you could see a bit of a dark trail that was darker than either the object or background. In places there were also very faint repetitions behind objects, most noticeably so (but still very faint) towards the bottom of the screen. This is caused in part by the pixel responsiveness not being perfect, with some trailing or indeed overshoot not being hidden entirely by the strobe. It’s typical for monitors with ULMB or other strobe backlight technologies to have this effect to a degree, with it being more noticeable at certain sections of the screen. This is often referred to as ‘strobe crosstalk’ and it’s best kept to a minimum centrally where the eyes spend most of their time. As is the case here.

A final but crucially important point to note is that ULMB requires the frame rate matches the refresh rate exactly to work properly. If there is any departure from this then the stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off) is inescapably obvious. There is very little motion blur to mask these imperfections. Even microstuttering and more minor imperfections associated with frame rate limiters becomes quite obvious, so it’s generally the case that VSync must be enabled in association with ULMB. Complete with the latency penalty. Because G-SYNC and ULMB or any other strobe backlight technology are entirely separate and can’t be used in conjunction with one another, it’s really for the user to choose which they prefer. Most will find G-SYNC preferable as it is designed for frame rate environments, is ‘flicker-free’ and provides maximum brightness and vibrancy potential. It also provides minimal latency at refresh rates of up to 180Hz. Others will find the ‘CRT-like’ experience of ULMB to be worthwhile, perhaps if they’re particularly competitive gamers or those who are used to CRTs.

3D Vision 2

This monitor is compatible with Nvidia 3D Vision 1 and 2. There is no integrated emitter, so you need the full kit of emitter and glasses for this to work. We did not have time to test this in detail, but found the experience largely as we remember it being on the AOC G2460PG. We’d therefore advise users refer to the relevant section of that review, just prior to the conclusion, if they’re interested in this technology.

Video review

The video below summarises some of the key points raised in this written review and shows the monitor in action. The video review is designed to complement the written piece and is not nearly as comprehensive.

Conclusion

Having now reviewed several high refresh rate monitors with 24” panels, we certainly know that the panel is not the be all and end all of their performance. The ASUS PG248Q put its panel to good use, offering good flexibility in the OSD to change gamma and various other settings. With a little tweaking, an image was achieved that was far richer (less ‘washed out’) than some competing models such as the ASUS VG248QE and BenQ XL2420Z could achieve through OSD tweaking. The panel characteristics still meant that there was some loss of saturation further down the screen, due to perceived gamma changes, but the overall colour representation was quite vivid and natural.

With respect to contrast, the monitor performed as you would expect. Static contrast was around 1000:1 out of the box with decent results under our ‘Test Settings’ and even with various ‘Blue Light Filter’ (Low Blue Light) settings active. The contrast did take a hit when the monitor was overclocked, most noticeably to 180Hz, and also suffered from some more obvious ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ than at lower refresh rates such as 144Hz. The responsiveness was really a key strength of the monitor, though. And in that respect it put in an exceptional performance not only at 144Hz and lower refresh rates, but also when overclocked as high as 180Hz. There was no real overshoot to speak of, nor trailing from sluggish pixel responses – so you were left with a ‘clean’ performance that really made fast-paced gameplay enjoyable.

The monitor also performed well in terms of input lag, as there was next to no signal delay. When coupled with high frame rates and refresh rates, this delivered a superb ‘connected feel’. This was particularly true at 180Hz @180fps, which lowered perceived blur and increased the ‘connected feel’ even further from the already impressive 144Hz @144fps. The monitor also features G-SYNC and the associated (but alternative) operating mode ULMB. Both features worked as expected, with G-SYNC helping get rid of tearing and stuttering in variable frame rate environments and ULMB being the mode to use instead where you can maintain a full 85fps, 100fps or 120fps to match the refresh rate perfectly. Even with G-SYNC, though, low frame rates remained low frame rates – and to get the most out of this monitor definitely demands frame rates that are as high as possible. G-SYNC is a nice bonus at any frame rate, but perceived blur and ‘connected feel’ is still tied to frame rate and hence refresh rate.

With this all said, the monitor is certainly not cheap for a Full HD monitor at time of writing. The ViewSonic XG2401 put in an equally competent performance at 144Hz but lacks the feature set. FreeSync support instead of G-SYNC support, no strobe backlight mode (like ULMB) and no support for overclocked refresh rates such as 180Hz. Then there is the ‘ROG styling’ which some users will surely find endearing – a good combination of form and function on this model, in our view, which is sleek but doesn’t go overboard. The PG248Q certainly has some features that can be used to justify its price premium, but cheaper alternatives should be carefully considered.

The bottom line; a solid performer with respectable image quality, exceptional responsiveness and an excellent gaming-oriented feature set. But this all commands quite a premium, especially for a 24” Full HD monitor.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.