Skip to main content

Asus MG279Q 27-Inch FreeSync Monitor Review

Today we're reviewing Asus' MG279Q FreeSync gaming monitor, looking at how well it compares to Acer's XB270HU IPS G-Sync monitor?

Grayscale Tracking And Gamma Response

Our grayscale and gamma tests are described in detail here.

Most gaming monitors have a mode called standard that provides the best starting point for calibration. Asus named its picture modes after different gaming genres with Racing being the default setting. That turns out to be the best choice whether you choose to make adjustments or not. The white point runs a little blue as brightness rises, but the errors above 70 percent are barely visible. It's perfectly fine for a great gaming experience but there is room for improvement.

We thought sRGB would be more accurate but it's actually quite green as you can see. The error is visible from 30 percent on up. In this mode all adjustments, including Brightness and Contrast, are locked out.

After calibrating the Racing mode, we generated an almost perfect chart. This is what we'd expect from a high-end pro screen, not a gaming monitor.

Here is our comparison group.

The Racing mode, measured out of the box only has an average error of 2.51dE. That's just fine with us and it puts the MG279Q mid-pack in our comparison.

Calibration makes a significant improvement to grayscale accuracy and sends the Asus to the top of the group. It beats many pro monitors we've tested as well.

Gamma Response

There are no gamma adjustments on the MG279Q but different picture modes change the tracking. Above, is the FPS mode, which emphasizes detail in the shadow and highlight portions of the image by increasing light output. It's not a huge difference but we prefer the gamma tracking in Racing mode shown below.

This is much better and aside from a slight dip at 90 percent, it's pretty much perfect.

Here is our comparison group again.

A 0.15 variation in values indicates fairly tight gamma tracking. The Acer XB270HU monitor is on top, but only by a small margin. None of the screens are far off the mark but the top three are in the professional category.

We calculate gamma deviation by simply expressing the difference from 2.2 as a percentage.

The MG279Q drops a tad in the results because its gamma is slightly below the 2.2 average value. Our measurement came out at 2.13. We doubt anyone will be able to tell a difference when viewing actual content.

  • Kridian
    I'll buy one when they get to the $300 mark. Come on OLED, let's push some prices down!
    Reply
  • moogleslam
    Any 21:9 3440x1440p G-Sync/FreeSync monitor reviews on the horizon? Thanks
    Reply
  • ceberle
    Any 21:9 3440x1440p G-Sync/FreeSync monitor reviews on the horizon? Thanks

    I've just finished testing the Acer XR341CK. Look for the review soon!

    -Christian-
    Reply
  • moogleslam
    16520347 said:
    Any 21:9 3440x1440p G-Sync/FreeSync monitor reviews on the horizon? Thanks

    I've just finished testing the Acer XR341CK. Look for the review soon!

    -Christian-

    Awesome Christian - thank you! This week? :) Will you be reviewing the G-Sync version when it comes out also? It's supposedly a little different in that it will be 100Hz whereas the FreeSync is 75Hz. Thanks

    Reply
  • nate1492
    You tested a $600 144hz ips monitor with a $150 graphics card and you didn't push the framerates?

    I don't see the validity of this review, why would you use such a middle range graphics card for a high end monitor? I don't see many people shelling out $600 for monitor and $150 for a gfx card!

    It almost sounds like you chose the amd 285 because you realized it couldn't push the monitor to the upper 100s FPS.
    Reply
  • nate1492
    You tested a $600 144hz ips monitor with a $150 graphics card and you didn't push the framerates?

    I don't see the validity of this review, why would you use such a middle range graphics card for a high end monitor? I don't see many people shelling out $600 for monitor and $150 for a gfx card!

    It almost sounds like you chose the amd 285 because you realized it couldn't push the monitor to the upper 100s FPS.
    Reply
  • TechyInAZ
    Looks good, at least free sync users now get an IPS monitor for themselves.
    Reply
  • picture_perfect
    why would you use such a middle range graphics card for a high end monitor?.

    The results will probably be more in line with people's experience. Great review. I prefer fps over resolution so will pass on this monitor.
    Reply
  • hannibal
    The problem in image quality is when the frame rate drops too low, so not too powerfull GPU is good for testing that. If you have GPU that can run 144 FPS all the time, it does not need G-sync of Freesync...
    And I personally would put any day more money to monitor than graphic card. Good monitor is so much better deal in the long run!
    Reply
  • skit75
    16520396 said:
    You tested a $600 144hz ips monitor with a $150 graphics card and you didn't push the framerates?

    I don't see the validity of this review, why would you use such a middle range graphics card for a high end monitor? I don't see many people shelling out $600 for monitor and $150 for a gfx card!

    It almost sounds like you chose the amd 285 because you realized it couldn't push the monitor to the upper 100s FPS.

    What would be the point of that? It is a QHD IPS panel with a known sync range. If you have a monster GPU, just get a 144Hz monitor and be done. You likely don't need Free-Sync or G-Sync if all your games play at 100FPS +.
    Reply