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
Icehawk - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Hmm, would love to see a few images from FPS to see what they look like on a 21:9 - do I get useful additional info or is everything so fishbowled or out of my direct sight that it isn't a positive?cheinonen - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
There is a gallery in my prior 21:9 display review with some gaming images comparing 16:9 to 21:9 screen area. Those can be found here: http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/2630mdrejhon - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
>>"The lowest black level any meter can reasonably measure is 0.0001, which would mean a peak white level of 8,000 cd/m^2."Actually, that's not quite fully accurate. Some expensive million-dollar meters can measure light at the SINGLE photon levels (Hint: They're used to detect neutrinos). There are some lab-quality meters at the thousand-dollar level that can measure less than 0.0001cd/m2. It is only a simple matter of how much you're willing to pay for a light meter.
A more scientifically accurate way to say this is "The lowest black level any _consumer_ meter can reasonably measure is 0.0001"
cheinonen - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
I'm only referring to meters that would be used for measuring displays, like this. At the high end there is the Konica Minolta CS-2000 for $26,000 that can measure down to 0.003 cd/m2 and the Klein K10-A for $5,500 that measures down to 0.00006 cd/m2. Regardless, any contrast number out there that is past 100,000:1 and it's an OLED is playing games most likely.Wwhat - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
In your spec listing you mention 1 Year warranty, However in the EU the minimum warranty for all electronic devices is 2 years.And incidentally, because most people are not aware of that, many shops and manufacturers pretend they are doing you a special favor by giving you 2 years warranty., but hey that's commercialism.
And some are quite incredibly rude and don't mention that fact when they try to sell you additional extended warranties, including big companies like apple I hear.
Wwhat - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
Quite outrageous to not have VESA mounting holes on a monitor in my view, but I guess they sell anyway so it's not going to end any time soon that manufacturers do that.cbrownx88 - Monday, September 23, 2013 - link
I'd have already purchased one if this panel had VESA mounts or 120hz/lightstrobe.Larzy - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
On the input lag, it isn't split up like the other screens are shown, the first segment showing input lag and the second segement showing pixel response times, but on this display is it 10ms pixel response and no input lag at all ?Larzy - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
If that's true, then 9ms (rather) it's certainly one of the best 21:9 for gaming.cheinonen - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
No, this has been discussed as using SMTT allowed for breaking it up into two separate measurements. Since SMTT is no longer available and the license has expired, I can't use it to test anymore. Now I just have a single lag number that encompasses both of them. It's unfortunate but the way it is.