ASUS MX299Q Monitor Review
by Chris Heinonen on September 23, 2013 12:00 AM ESTAfter recently reviewing a pair of 21:9 displays I have some mixed feelings about the monitors overall. On the positive side, they seem to be excellent gaming displays. They have low lag, offer accurate colors, wide viewing angles, and a bigger field-of-view in games that support it. They’re also fantastic for watching movies on that are shot in scope format. They have very good uniformity overall, though they're not perfect by any means.
The one area where I am not in love with them is for general office productivity. The vertical resolution is limiting compared to the horizontal when it comes to word processing and most other work. Programs are still barely designed to be ideal for 16:9 displays instead of 4:3, and certainly not 21:9. Even running two applications side-by-side it can feel vertically cramped. It also comes in at a cost that is equal to that of high-performance 16:9 displays like the Dell U2713HM.
The ASUS MX299Q, like all 21:9 monitors, falls into a niche. If you have content that really benefits from the wide viewing angle, you’ll like it. If you play games where the extra FOV is useful and you don’t want a multi-monitor setup, then you’ll probably like it as well. If you’re going to be working on editing documents or spreadsheets all day, then you’ll almost certainly want to have a taller aspect ratio than 21:9. I have had emails from people that want to know more about the 21:9 displays as they're handicapped and can look side-to-side easily but not vertically, so there are instances where 21:9 can offer benefits over 16:9, even if you lose vertical resolution. However, most of those use cases are as noted quite specific niches.
If you want a display with a 21:9 ratio then the ASUS MX299Q has a lot going for it. The screen is very nice with accurate out-of-the-box results and incredibly good calibrated result. The contrast ratio is one of the best I have seen in a long, long time. The uniformity is very good considering the size and ratio of the screen as well. Input lag is non-existent compared to everything else I have tested and will work fantastic for gaming. In short, so far it's the best of the 21:9 displays I've tested, but I personally still prefer 2560x1440 panels.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
coolhardware - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
For the past few years I have been using a Dell 30" 2560x1600 in landscape, sandwiched by two Dell 20" 1600x1200 displays in portrait mode.http://www.jdhodges.com/blog/shed-to-office-conver...
With the two side monitors rotated, all three monitors end up being the same height and pixel density... :-)
http://www.jdhodges.com/blog/ultimate-triple-monit...
(sorry the post is somewhat confusing, it was quickly put together when I was planning and initially installing... I really should update it!)
compcons - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
I have a 27x9H which is a similar style to this one. There are NO VESA mounts and the stand mounts similar to most LCD TVs. One option is all that is available. Confirm that you can rotate it if necessary. Personally, I mounted my old gateway 22" on a monoprice desk mount and rotate it vertically when I need it.Nagorak - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Sounds to me like you're just going to end up with a crick in your neck.sjpxk992013 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
I have the Dell U2913 in portrait mode attached to a Thinkpad W520 with another Dell 24" as the landscape 1080p panel. With the laptop LCD running Metro in the center stack the two choices make working super easy.Road and Track for instance looks perfect in p-mode where my banking sites look better in standard l-mode
ComputerGuy2006 - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Although its nice not to be stuck in the old 1080p monitors, id like to see something with more sensible resolutions. Something between 1600p and 4k would be nice, or even 4k 60hz at decent prices....Kevin G - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
3200 x 1800 resolution exists as it is found on some 15" notebooks. I wouldn't mind such a resolution on a 24" desktop display.There is also 3280 x 2048 resolution displays used for medical imaging but they're prohibitory expensive. 4K displays like the Asus PQ321Q are actually cheaper.
blanarahul - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Really, really awesome review. I especially loved the "Contrast Uniformity" chart. I hope others would do it too.althaz - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
8,000 cd/m^2 is REALLY bright - it's about half a percent (0.5%) of the brightness of the sun. Half a percent might not seem like much, but we're talking about the sun, which is REALLY bright.DanNeely - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Assuming your comparison is using cd/m^2 for both and are measuring the sun as seen from the Earth; at any reasonable viewing distance that monitor would have a higher total luminosity than the sun.Geek tanning both anyone?
piroroadkill - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Wow, a monitor that wide is incredibly ugly.