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
JJ_Judge - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
It would be VERY useful if somebody would actually test a 21:9 monitor for gaming, and not just speculate on "how cool it would be for games". Because the only thing that's stopping me from buying such a monitor is the fear it wouldn't be compatible enough with major gaming titles...cheinonen - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
You can read the prior 21:9 monitor review from LG to see more details on how I found it with gaming. I found most titles worked fine, though Diablo III didn't when I tried to test it with that.flyingpants1 - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
Saw one in Canada Computers. Loaded a 1080p youtube video of BF3 being played at 2560*1080. Seemed very cool.Hrel - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
This is getting so ridiculous. Movie makers need to just all agree to use 16:9 in their films, and if they need more in the shot width wise they can just zoom out. 2.41:1 ratio, yeah, I've seen that. One of my largest monster peeves. Since it's not a pet peeve because I'm right any anyone who thinks you need something wider than 16:9 is OUT OF THEIR FUCKING MIND!flyingpants1 - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
This post is a good example of speaking from ignorance. You clearly know nothing about film, movies, aspect ratios, monitors, etc. I don't think you're even aware of what you're suggesting.Most already-released movies are wider than 16:9, cropping them is obviously unacceptable.
Our eyes are situated side by side, not top and bottom. We have a ~180 degree horizontal FOV.
There just isn't very much to look at on the ground and in the sky.
16:9 is bad for web content. Portrait is better, because we scroll up and down to read, not left and right. It's also inferior to 16:10 because you simply lose the vertical pixels.
I don't mind using 16:9 myself, but it's VERY far from ideal.
peckiro - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
There obviously is a lack of major antipsychotic medication in a poster here.xaml - Sunday, September 29, 2013 - link
What aspect ratio and resolution does this poster have?VN_Tran - Sunday, September 29, 2013 - link
It so amazing !!!johnnyboy101 - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
Hello - my apologies if this is a dumb question, but in other's experience with 2560x1080 monitors (I have the Dell variant), do games actually render the full 2560x1080? Or do they render 1920x1080 and then stretch it? Given that it is a non standard resolution? Any insight appreciated!gatygun - Tuesday, June 30, 2015 - link
render in full