Color Gamut & Luminance
For details on our color gamut testing and volume calculations, please click here.
In the first three tests (Racing, sRGB, and FPS), you can see that the outer color points (100% saturation) are right on target, but the inner measurements, those that represent the lion’s share of image content, are quite over-saturated. FPS is the worst with targets that are off by nearly 20% in some cases. The extra luminance only serves to clip detail. The sole reason for this is gamma tracking and how it is thrown off by that too-high Contrast setting. It is fortunate that the fix is an easy one. And if you refer back to page three, you’ll see that lowering the slider to 41 doesn’t cost you any dynamic range.
Our tweaks have brought almost all measured points to their targets, and luminance is only slightly under the neutral level for red, blue, and magenta. Nearly every DeltaE value is under three and the image has far more detail than before. What’s the takeaway? Asus should consider setting its default Contrast value differently. It’s the PG258Q’s key to accuracy.
2.28dE is only a fair result but since the PG258Q started at 4.70dE, we’re satisfied. We still have great contrast and depth, and maximum color detail is now realized. The change in visual perception is significant and can easily be seen in a side-by-side comparison. It’s not to say the monitor looks bad out of the box. It’s just that we found a fair bit of performance left unrealized.
Our gamut volume test shows just under 100% coverage for sRGB. A custom profile is nearly always recommended, but for most graphics and photo work, the PG258Q will fill the role nicely. When properly set up, this monitor is suitable for pretty much any task from gaming to productivity.
MORE: Best Computer Monitors
MORE: How To Choose A Monitor
MORE: All Monitor Content
No wonder this thing is $600.
Have fun paying the Nvidia tax.
Because that's the reality of GPUs at the moment. GPUs can get you a solid 4K/60 or a solid 1080p/144. You're not going to get 4K/144 in any modern games on any PC at the moment (unless you're only playing 20-year-old games). So there's not a lot of sense in wanting to invest in a 4K/144 monitor now, only in anticipation of when GPUs can finally push that many pixels, because you'll be wasting the monitor while you wait, and when such GPUs finally do arrive, the monitors will be better and cheaper.
I would assume so, but I've learned some very expensive lessons by making purchases based on assumptions. : /
The reason you won't get it is because the GPU's won't do it, not because the games won't. Game developers want to make more realistic games but the GPU's are lagging way behind. Nvidia hasn't had any real competition for many years so there was no need for them to push to 4K gaming at 144Hz or higher. I am hoping AMD's cards will force Nvidia to get off their buts as it seems the consumers aren't going to pull their money from Nvidia until Nvidia gets back on the ball.
My current hardware isn't really capable of producing more than a reliable 1080p60. (GTX 970, i5-4590). So I see no reason to switch to a higher res screen or higher refresh rate screen.