Asus VG278HE, the first PC monitor with a 144 Hz refresh rate

Asus has just introduced VG278HE, the company’s new 3D monitor that boosts the refresh rate above what the competition is able to offer at the moment. VG278HE builds on the previously released VG278H model, and features a 144 Hz refresh rate against the traditional 120 Hz rate common to the other 3D monitors available on the market.

Like the previous model, the VG278HE monitor is based on a 27” TN (Twisted Nematic) panel with a Full HD (1920x1080 pixels) native resolution. The Taiwanese company’s latest foray into display technology offers a 2 ms response time, three different connection interfaces (HDMI, dual-link DVI-D and a 15 pin D-Sub port also known as “standard VGA port”) and integrated stereo speakers (2x3 RMS).

             

The 120 Hz refresh rate is most commonly marketed as the perfect solution for 3D (non-stereoscopic) gaming, and VG278HE supports the Nvidia 3D Vision 2 technology as well for this kind of use with compatible GPUs and video games.

In addition to allegedly being a first for the monitor industry, the 144 Hz refresh rate of the new Asus product should bring a smoother computing experience for gamers and regular PC users as well. As for the VG278HE price and availability, Asus has yet to give the information out.

Source: Tom’s Hardware. Image source: Asus website

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Facebook's first ever earnings call is today, 2PM PT

Next Story

Twitter goes down again for extended period [Update ..back up]

27 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

problem with CRT's is finding one that does high res and high refresh rate and isn't going to cost you your first born child

gzAsher said,
problem with CRT's is you cant play more than a couple hours on it without getting an epileptic seizure.

You've never used an LCD with a high refresh rate.

Hm, I feel like a high refresh rate could make a bigger deal on say... a fast paced video game where those millisecond headshots count. There are people who swear by CRTs vs a lot of these newer LCD panels for that reason.

You guys should try gaming on a 120hz panel. It will change your life.

High res is nice sure.. but it takes a lot more graphics horsepower to run it. Heck, the new MPB with that impressive retina display scales games (what games mac DO have..) down to 1080p.

I have no doubt that the higher refresh rate are better for gaming but to me the poor colour reproduction, limited resolution and bad viewing angles of TN-panels negate any benefit. Image quality is more important to me, which is why I went for a 30" S-IPS panel at 2560x1600 - it really is incredibly impressive for gaming.

JhonKaBrohamski said,
You guys should try gaming on a 120hz panel. It will change your life.

High res is nice sure.. but it takes a lot more graphics horsepower to run it. Heck, the new MPB with that impressive retina display scales games (what games mac DO have..) down to 1080p.

This.

I'm an smoothness freak. I need 120 Hz, zero input lag and over 500+ FPS in CSS to be truly happy I can't go back to 60 Hz now.

JhonKaBrohamski said,
You've just go to try it out man.

Pixel density and image quality are more important to me. I had the option of buying a 120Hz monitor but chose to spend the extra money for the higher resolution (2560x1600 has double the pixels of 1080p, as well as higher DPI any comparable TN-panel) and better image quality.

SuperHans said,

This.

I'm an smoothness freak. I need 120 Hz, zero input lag and over 500+ FPS in CSS to be truly happy I can't go back to 60 Hz now.

Yup! It's funny how you can tell just even moving chrome back and forth on the desktop.

I have the Samsung SA950D (I find it sexy as hell), how about you?

JhonKaBrohamski said,

Yup! It's funny how you can tell just even moving chrome back and forth on the desktop.

I have the Samsung SA950D (I find it sexy as hell), how about you?

Nice. I remember seeing the SA950 on display at some tech expo - it looks sexy.

I got an LG W2363D 23", mainly because it was incredibly cheaper than a lot of 120 Hz monitors at the time, and because of the low input lag. Not that's I'd really be able to tell the difference

If we can fit 1920x1080 onto a 5 inch screen, why do we have to get a 30 inch monitor to get above that resolution?

McKay said,
If we can fit 1920x1080 onto a 5 inch screen, why do we have to get a 30 inch monitor to get above that resolution?

Because 1080p is cheaper and most people go for cheap monitors. It cost me £700/$1100 to get a 30" 2560x1600 display and that was actually pretty cheap for the size.

Also, GPUs simply aren't up to it. I had to get two GTX680s (which cost £860/$1350) to get 60fps in most games, so it simply isn't cost effective to increase the resolution and the refresh rate. It's simply too expensive for most PC gamers.

One of the main points of 120Hz was that both 24fps and 60fps divide evenly into it. 144Hz does not divide 60fps evenly, so things like 60fps frame capped games, some broadcast television, upcoming 60fps movies (Avatar 2 & 3) will have motion that is less smooth than at 120Hz.

giantpotato said,
One of the main points of 120Hz was that both 24fps and 60fps divide evenly into it. 144Hz does not divide 60fps evenly, so things like 60fps frame capped games, some broadcast television, upcoming 60fps movies (Avatar 2 & 3) will have motion that is less smooth than at 120Hz.

Isn't most 60fps simply upscaled 24fps?
There are few true >24fps sources. 144fps is divisible by 24.

torrentthief said,
will we be able to tell the difference?

Yes, in electrical bills.

You also need 3 top-end GPUs to maintain stably 144 FPS on BF3.