• expired

ASUS ROG STRIX XG49VQ 49" 32:9 (3840 x 1080) Super Ultra-Wide HDR 144Hz Gaming Monitor $1346.06 Delivered @ Amazon AU

181

First post. Popped up in my facebook feed and couldn't find it cheaper anywhere else. Seems like a good deal for this resolution and size.

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace

closed Comments

  • +7

    3840 x 1080

    • +2

      Yup: it's two 27" 1080p monitors stuck together. This is terrible value, because it's basically a discontinued item.

      Get the CRG9 to get a recent resolution, or see if you scrounge up 21:9 and 32:9 1080p ultrawides for half this price or less.

      • +1

        Once again, people being negged speaking straight facts

  • +1

    Should be 1440p no?

    • +1

      Not as far as I can see anywhere online. They all say 1080p. Basically the equivalent of two 1920x1080 monitors side by side (and curved)

  • +3

    1080p super ultra wide

    • -2

      I get that its 2 x 27" screens in a single unit, but the dimensions of this thing make it idiotically wide.

      Unless you're using for a specific use case like a racing sim, or just despise vertical space, the dimensions are bizarre.

      • +2

        I get you, I bought mine (5120x1440 CRG9) for sim racing primarily but it's amazing in games that support the extra screen space. You're not cutting off space from the vertical, you're adding extra horizontal screen.

        • You are cutting off vertical view in any game that uses horizontal FOV compared to 16:9 or higher aspect ratio. Which is many.

          Although you are gaining view with the rest of the vertically calculated games.

  • +3

    If you have access to TGG Commercial the Samsung CRG9 is probably a much better deal https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/583933

    • Excellent screen, don't bother though unless you have a rig that can do it justice otherwise you'll be be killing your PC's performance.

      • It's still less then 4k though so it's not too bad.

        • True, but it's very close to 4k. My 2070 Super struggled with it, 3080 suits it well.

  • $1346 for two 1080p screens slapped together.. no thanks

    Thats a lot of money for a poor quality gaming experience.

  • +1

    1080p is too small for something so big, 1440p at the minimum. don't even know if they exist for a good price though.

    • it's not 1080p. It's half of 4K. It's two 1080ps duct taped together. Or you can think of it as a 4K screen that's been sawed in half.

      Or you can buy a 4K screen and set a custom resolution to half the vertical resolution, and you have the same screen.

      • -1

        it is 1080p, its not going to look good regardless of how many monitors you say it is

        • ok, if you had 10 1080p screens would it still be the same as a 1080p screen? What if you took some of those 1080p screens and placed them in a second row? Would they still be 1080p screens? The total number of pixels or resolution has not changed. But suddenly it's now a 4K screen and looks 4x better?

          its not going to look good regardless

          How good it looks depends on pixel density and size.

          1440p at the minimum

          This screen is higher resolution than 2560x1440.

          • @lostn: But the screen area is ridiculous, so it reduces the DPI significantly.

          • -3

            @lostn: buddy, i have used large monitors at 1080p and they do not look good. it doesnt matter what you're saying, the resolution and size is too big for 1080p. it can be 500 monitors and 1080p and it will still look like shit.

        • -1

          1080 is merely the vertical height
          It has the width of a 4k monitor

          If you had a 55" uhd tv and only used the bottom half of the screen, would you say the picture would look shitty DPI wise? Because if you stacked two of these top and bottom you'd end up with a 54/55 inch viewable screen, basically a tv cut in half.

          it is 1080p, its not going to look good regardless of how many monitors you say it is

          What if i told you 4k/uhd is just 4x 1080p monitors glued together? That still doesn't look good to your eyes?

          • -2

            @krisspy: what if i told you 15k is just 500x1080p monitors glued together? it doesnt matter, it visually looks like shit.

  • -3

    This is what happens when Facebook discontinue "News"
    Next thing you know you are looking at the specs and trying to remember your
    Paypal P.a.s.s.w.o.r.D! lol

  • There's no way you want less resolution then the recent Samsung 49s. Using the previous 120hz model myself. It's perfect.

    1080 will look horrible. I'd rather the 3440 1440 34 inch Asus model I had before then this.

    • if you want ultra wide, 32:9 is wider than 2.4:1.

      • -1

        I know, this is 32:9. I'd suggest 21:9 at higher Res then lower Res 32:9.

        1080 at such a size is an awful look.

        • For God's sake, it's "than". THAN!

  • HD not 2k. If you are going for a large monitor its good to have 2k

    • -1

      Your just talking in buzzwords that don't have a meaning.

      • Im talking with the experience of having a 2 monitor setup for my work and gaming
        1. 2K widescreen - mi monitor
        2. Dell 1080p
        In a 2k monitor especially with a widescreen you get more things fit into your screen. I would recommend you to go to a store check it out and then take a decision

    • 2K is a cinematic standard for horizontal resolution, so if you want to be technical, 1920x1080 monitors are the closest thing you'll get to 16:9 2K.

      This is a 32:9 4K monitor under that paradigm.

      • I consider horizontal pixel 1080 as FHD and 1440 as 2K. May be I'm using these terms incorrectly because I'm not considering the width.

        • +1

          1920x1080 is FHD, that's correct. Technically 2K (aka DCI 2K) is the following resolutions: 2048 x 1080, 1998 x 1080 & 2048 x 858.

          So bar a mere handful of pixels, 2K = FHD.

          The correct term for 2560x1440 is QHD, because it's 4 times the resolution of HD (1280x720).

          So yeah, 2K and 4K refer to cinematic standards, but at least the usage of 4K for UHD is reasonably accurate.

  • this makes S2721DGF looks bad

    • Or you can buy 2 of those and still have money left over.

  • +1

    I have the Asus 34" 1440p ultrawide monitor and the Samsung CHG9 3840 x 1080 super ultra-wide equivalent to this monitor which I purchased after the Asus. I instantly had buyer's remorse when I booted to the new 3840 x 1080 super ultra-wide as the text on webpages was clearly not as sharp as the 1440p but as soon as I booted a game…wow…that remorse instantly vanished never to return. The horizontal FOV is amazing in games, the 25% PC performance boost over the 1440p is a nice addition too. Great gaming experience and you don't need an insanely expensive rig to run at native res with FPS that match your refresh rate. LOL'ing at all the people saying to get higher res super ultra wides…do that only if you have an extremely high-end PC or risk chugging along at low FPS in games.

    TL:DR Great for gaming, even on a mid-range PC. Not great for work/productivity due to the low res.

  • if you don't mind some massive fish eye distortion on the sides…

  • Just buy a 43" uhd monitor for $600. Run a custom resolution of 3840 x 1600. You got yourself an elcheapo 38" widescreen

    • Can you please share this deal?

    • With horrorble backlight bleed at the top and bottom where the black bars are.

      • Cheapest 38" wide-screen is like $1500 or so. I'm not complaining at 40% the price. Pick up a VA screen for a little more if the blb concerns you.

  • pay 300 more and get the proper 5120 x 2160 resolution. that's the ultimate - its a Dell too - go check scorptec out - i think its on sale somewhere there

Login or Join to leave a comment