Dell U3417W FR3PK vs ASUS MG279К

[pilyakaleks]

Guys, sorry that a little off topic, but I'm terribly interested in your opinion about the fact that some ASUS monitors are much worse than their counterparts from other brands, for example, DELL and SP. For example, if you compare Dell U3417W FR3PK and ASUS MG279K. According to many, the performance of DELL is slightly higher than that of a similar ASUS.I do not really understand these things and I'm looking for help in resolving this issue. For convenience, I'll leave you the site on which I watched the reviews of the displays. Maybe you, too, will help to decide. Thank you for attention!

https://www.bestadvisor.com/best-curved-monitors

 

[Eximo]

Not familiar with that particular ASUS model. Did you mean the MG279Q?

As for ASUS being worse, they are generally first to the market with new monitor features, so there will always be that issue. Early manufacturing runs for panels and new options becoming available after they launch a product. Great example of that is the original production G-Sync monitor from ASUS PG278Q, a TN panel. Acer released an AHVA (IPS) panel within a year, beating out the ASUS PG279Q for the best gaming monitor for about 6 months.

Just always seems like the more refined and polished products follow ASUS trailblazing.

I'm not a huge fan of curved displays, so I don't really track them. At the moment the cost of an Nvidia GPU vs a high end AMD one offsets the cost of G-Sync vs FreeSync. So only real recommendation is to look for a 3440x1440 75-100hz G-Sync panel. After that it is basically how you want to the monitor to look. Acer and ASUS seem to trade back and forth between normal and way too gaming focused.

 

[pilyakaleks]

No, I wrote correctly, but maybe you advised me a good model. Did you use it? Or is there simply information? Yes ASUS always runs ahead. I remember in my childhood bought my first PC and everything was brand ASUS. After literally six months, ACER produces models almost for the same price but more powerful and I was very upset: (I correctly understood that you recommend me the model ASUS PG278Q? Honestly did not hear about this. I do not fundamentally curved screen or not, but people tell me that this is how it feels like everything is happening around you. Thank you for your attention and for the reply!

 

[Eximo]

No amount of googling reveals an MG279K to exist out there.

The PG278Q isn't under manufacturer any longer, as far as I know. There is a replacement PG278QR, but it is the lowest end QHD G-sync display from ASUS. Dell offers a better/cheaper option, and Acer still makes theirs as well. At that level I would look at the appearance.

PG279Q is more current, that is the AHVA 4ms panel with the G-sync 2.0 module. Again similar models from Acer in the XB271HU and the older XB270HU.

It really comes down to your GPU. If you have a high end Nvidia card, GTX1070 or up at least. Then 2560x1440 or 3440x1440 are within reach. Frame rates won't be amazing. Those panels really demand a GTX1080Ti at least. On the AMD side of the house, a Vega 56 is about as low as you can go. There are many more FreeSync offerings, but usually the same underlying panel as the G-Sync monitors, just a different scalar (which may not be as good for latency as Nvidia)

If you have anything less, you should be looking at 29" 2560x1080 or 24" 1080p panels with high refresh rates. 120. 144, 180, and now 240hz available. Though for 240hz you would be looking at GTX1070 and up again.

These products are expensive, so it is best to know what you are getting into.

There are arguments from hardcore gamers that the ultra wide screen is a two edged sword. On the one hand you can see more to the left and right. On the downside, you can look over to one side and not see something on the other side. It would also naturally lead to less scanning. Many games now offer adjustable HUDs for ultra wides, but not all, so some important information may require you to look quite far away from center as well.

I think 27" QHD is about right for the moment. And it didn't break the bank to get a GPU to handle it (I have a 1080 and a PG279Q). Now though, a very expensive proposition. Had 3440x1440 panels been available I might have considered it, but at release those were over $1,000, and I still paid $800 for the ASUS.

On the other hand. Nothing wrong with over-buying on a monitor. GPU prices will decrease, and people tend to keep monitors a lot longer than GPUs. I look forward to when I drop a new GPU into my system and get the absolute most out of my monitor, for now 90-100FPS isn't bad on max settings.

If you want a quick look at available monitors:
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#H=85,240&A=1,2&W=2380,5500&r=344001440,256001440,192001080&sort=price&page=1

Standouts would be the Acer XG270HU, Dell S271DG, ASUS MG278Q. If you are sticking to the cheaper QHD panels.

Plenty of high refresh choices though. If you aren't seeking high refresh and just want UW, plenty of options out there as well.

 

[pilyakaleks]

And is there any scale or table (can the site, the review, it does not matter), where is it clearly spelled out which graphics card will pull? Well, or is it for some kind of permission? thank u :/

 

[Eximo]

I'm not sure I fully understand your question.

In general each GPU will have been reviewed at various points against several common game titles at various resolutions. However, they are often reviewed in price brackets. Not likely to see a mid-range card run at 4K, it just can't do it so the test is pointless. And every game patch and driver update effect these reviews.

General advice for this moment in time:

1280x720p "Medium settings on recent releases" (~30FPS) GTX1050 / RX550
1920x1080 40-50 FPS GTX 1050Ti/RX560 - 60FPS in most MOBA titles.
1920x1080 60FPS GTX1060 or RX570/RX580 - High settings
2560x1440 60FPS GTX1070/ Vega56
2560x1440 up to 120hz GTX1080 / Vega64
2560x1440 up to 144hz GTX1080Ti / Titan Xp
3840x2150 50-60FPS GTX1080Ti / Titan Xp

Now this doesn't cover equivalents or multi-GPU setups. So something like a 980Ti can act as a stand in for a GTX1070, or a GTX980 in place of a GTX1060. Or an R9-390x as a stand in for an RX570.

Here is a rough equivalency chart from Tom's. Not perfect, but the best resource out there for card-card comparisons. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

For actual FPS, you'll need to look at reviews that use the games you intend to play. Or concentrate on the underlying game engines to get a rough feel.