Asus MG24UQ 24-inch IPS Ultra HD FreeSync Monitor Review

Conclusion

With prices coming down and more monitors including some sort of adaptive refresh technology, a great gaming experience has become possible from a wider variety of products. Ultra HD still represents a higher-priced option (though less so than in the past), but the MG24UQ is significant in that it only costs a little more than a 24-inch FHD screen.

Let that sink in for a moment. A year ago, we wrote positive reviews of multiple 24-inch FHD/TN gaming monitors featuring FreeSync and prices under $300. Today you can buy Ultra HD and IPS in that size for just a little over $300. It’s safe to say that progress has been made.

Our favorite aspect of the MG24UQ is its color accuracy and fantastic out-of-box performance. Looking through our test results, we’re glad to see contrast ratios around 1000:1. Gamma, while not perfect, is pretty close to where it should be. Grayscale and color tests show a screen that hits all its targets as shipped, without any need for calibration. Though we tweaked our way to a few minor gains, the differences are not visible to the naked eye.

In fact there is little the MG24UQ cannot do. It’s equally well suited for gaming, entertainment, productivity, and even proofing tasks. While most professionals would wish for a larger screen, there is plenty of work that can be easily and accurately accomplished with this display. We also appreciate its ergonomics, the solidly-built, fully-adjustable stand, and the OSD joystick. If you’ve read our past reviews of Asus and BenQ monitors, you know we always prefer alternatives to the traditional bezel keys when navigating a panel’s menu system.

Since this is a gaming screen first and foremost, potential buyers have only one decision to make. Can you live with a maximum refresh rate of 60Hz? It’s certainly easy enough to dial a game’s detail levels to keep play in the 40-60fps window. But how much better is a monitor that can move pixels more quickly? Our preferred sweet spot is still found on a good QHD screen. With multiple models offering 144Hz and faster along with adaptive refresh, that is still the place to go for the smoothest possible gameplay. Ultra HD looks great, but we still think more frames-per-second are better than high pixel density.

Still, the MG24UQ is probably the best value in Ultra HD right now, whether you’re interested in gaming or not. You won’t find too many screens that offer this much for this little. For its exceptional accuracy and value, we’re giving it our Tom’s Hardware Editor Recommended Award.

MORE: Best Computer Monitors
MORE: How To Choose A Monitor
MORE: Display Calibration 101
MORE: The Science Behind Tuning Your Monitor
MORE: All Monitor Content

Subscribe to us on FacebookGoogle+RSSTwitter & YouTube.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
13 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • Larry Litmanen
    I honestly don't think that a 24 inch monitor should be reviewed as gaming monitor. Anything below 27 inches does not provide that deep, immersive experience.

    The difference between a good 30 inch monitor and a 24 inch monitor is the same as going from a 17 inch to a 24 inch. Once you experience it you can never go back.
  • InvalidError
    24" is a bit on the small side for UHD. I'd step up to 27-28" for that. Thankfully, 27-28" LCDs are also steadily coming down in prices and that includes UHD models. In many cases, UHD is displacing similar size QHD monitors in price.

    If this keeps up, UHD is going to become a really tempting mainstream desktop option next year.
  • TallestJon96
    I have a friend who plays on a full hd monitor with a playstation 4. He pretty dedicated to console gaming, and is considering getting either a ps4 pro or xbox scoprio when they are released. Even though these consoles do not output native 4k often, its hard to dispute that the experience is substantial improved on a 4k screen. For him, something like this screen, or a follow up about a year from now, that costs between $250-$300 along with a mid gen console could be a great combination. 24 inches is a little small, but it is not as bad when you consider that most games are less than native 4k, and the smaller the screen, the less you notice upscalling artifacts.

    For high end pc gaming, 1440p144hz is still the best around today. I absolutely love it.
  • beshonk
    Toms, can you start including information regarding scaling method/interpolation used on these uhd monitors, along with a subjective analysis of what it looks like at 1080p on the uhd monitors? Even a 1080 struggles with 4k at ultra in games, and once we start seeing uhd monitors that can hit 144hz, it becomes a really important consideration if the 1080p downscaling is ok or looks blurry.
  • Anonymous
    Are these monitors HDR? I have 10-bit 24" asus monitors, IPS, which have been amazing. Seeing this, I might be replacing them. But, are they HDR? 10-bit and HDR are different, from what I understand.
  • photonboy
    Beshonk,
    You can scale on the monitor itself, OR on the GPU. If you setup GPU scaling then it always sends a 4K signal to the monitor so all scaling is done on the graphics card.

    I don't see much issue with scaling from 1600x900 or 1920x1080 to a 2560x1440 resolution using whatevever method the GPU or monitor provides (tried both).

    1080p is technical ideal to avoid certain scaling artifacts as it divides evenly, though things like aliasing (jaggies, shimmering) are far more important to avoid IMO.

    I'm not sure what control we have in terms of upscaling options. Again, a game is rendered at a particular resolution and the GPU or monitor handles the scaling. Not my area of expertise I'll admit.
  • shrapnel_indie
    What would really be nice as an interim monitor would be one that would work at the interface limits of UHD (60hz), but if ran at a lower resolution, bump up to 144Hz (QHD, FHD).... I know I know, "Why would you run at less than native," right? "The complexity for LCD is more complex and will drive the price up." etc. etc. One can dream, even if such may not be feasible.
  • chenw
    There was a sony TV line that did that (it accepted 4k/60hz or FHD/120hz), but I haven't heard of many people actually using that feature.

    To be honest, 4k/60hz and 1440p (or even 1080p)/144hz modes on a single monitor makes a ton of sense for a monitor, choice between Eye candy and smoothness on a click of a button.
  • InvalidError
    Anonymous said:
    To be honest, 4k/60hz and 1440p (or even 1080p)/144hz modes on a single monitor makes a ton of sense for a monitor, choice between Eye candy and smoothness on a click of a button.

    40-120Hz Adaptive Sync would be even better.
  • zodiacfml
    nice monitors coming out these days but can't we have DP 1.3 already?
  • chenw
    GPUs already have DP 1.3.

    RX 400 series and GTX 10 series both have 1.3, in fact GTX 10 has 1.4
  • SpAwNtoHell
    Very nice very tempting only if amd would have something to run on that....at leat nvidia has the "unicorn" aka pascal titan x... i just wonder if asus knows something we do not about amd upcoming vega otherwise not sure why we do not have a gsync variant of this.
  • bpbarrette
    I know it's FreeSync, but I'd still like to see tests run with a GTX 1070 or 1080 to see if the adaptive tech makes a difference for nVidia cards.