Gaming With G-Sync
Looking over our benchmark results, it’s obvious that in the area of video processing, the PG258Q does everything well. It has a truly usable blur-reduction feature, a 240Hz refresh rate without overclock, and G-Sync. Plus, its FHD resolution means some truly high framerates can be achieved. In addition to our usual gaming tests, we’re going to see just how high we can go by reducing detail levels. But first the basics.
We started with Far Cry 4 at Ultra detail and had no problem maintaining 110-120 FPS regardless of content or intensity level. If you’re wondering whether or not 100 FPS looks better than 60, we can tell you it does, quite a bit in fact. I’m sure those who have already invested in an expensive video card will agree. Once you’ve experienced this kind of response and realism, it’s hard to look at a lesser system or monitor in the same way.
As expected, the overdrive is best left on its Normal setting. Extreme produces both black and white object trails that really spoil moving detail. The PG258Q’s overshoot is just too high. At these framerates, OD is barely a factor anyway.
Reducing detail to Low increased the framerate range to 110-170fps. Honestly though, control response felt the same, but graphics quality definitely took a hit. Jagged lines and murky textures reduced the fun factor significantly. There was nothing to be gained by this exercise.
Moving on to ULMB testing, we disabled G-Sync and set the refresh to 144Hz. Engaging V-Sync made sure the framerate didn’t exceed 144 FPS. We consistently maintained that rate even at max detail and could not tell that G-Sync wasn’t in play. All we saw was perfect smoothness and instant response to control inputs. There was no limit to how fast we could move the mouse. Detail remained rock-solid with no jitter, no tearing, and no blur.
Obviously, G-Sync is the preferred method here. There’s no need to tweak settings, and you can always play on max detail if your video card is stout enough. In terms of gameplay, the PG258Q is the finest display we’ve seen to date.
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.