If you prioritize a top-notch gaming experience with superior response times, the Asus PG49WCD is an excellent choice; however, it falls short in productivity due to its lower text quality and image clarity. On the other hand, the MSI MPG 491CQP offers strong gaming capabilities with slightly better image clarity, making it more versatile for general use. Both are equally suited for HDR gaming and media consumption, but consider the Asus if ghosting is a concern and you prefer a glossy screen, or the MSI for slightly better text quality with a matte screen, keeping in mind its potential for more ghosting. Give Feedback
this description is based on the product variant with some specs and product variant with some specs. At the time of writing, the variant with some specs cost some dollars and the variant with some specs cost some dollars.
Advantages of the Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED)
The Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED) has no clear advantages over the MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED).
Advantages of the MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED)
Best in class brightness
Key differences
Cost
$1,026
$1,100
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
The Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED) has a price of $1,026 and the MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED) costs $1,100.
HDR Video Editing and Color Grading
No
Yes
The Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED) is not suitable for HDR video editing and color grading while the MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED) is suitable for HDR video editing and color grading.
Key similarities
Casual Gaming
9.8/10
9.9/10
5120 x 1440
RESOLUTION
5120 x 1440
144Hz
REFRESH RATE
144Hz
Inf:1
NATIVE CONTRAST
Inf:1
413 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
1000 nits
468 nits
HDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
Unknown
98.5 %
DCI-P3 COLOR GAMUT
99.0 %
Glossy
COATING
Matte
The MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED) and Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED) are both best in class for casual gaming.
Competitive Gaming
5.4/10
5.5/10
144Hz
REFRESH RATE
144Hz
0.0 ms
TOTAL RESPONSE TIME
0.0 ms
48 - 144 Hz
VARIABLE REFRESH RATE
48 - 144 Hz
No
STROBING / BFI
No
413 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
1000 nits
The MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED) and Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED) are both poor for competitive gaming.
Productivity
5.7/10
5.8/10
5120 x 1440
RESOLUTION
5120 x 1440
108 PPI
PIXELS PER INCH
108 PPI
Yes
ADJUSTABLE STAND
Yes
Glossy
COATING
Matte
The MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED) and Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED) are both poor for productivity.
Media Consumption
9.6/10
9.8/10
5120 x 1440
RESOLUTION
5120 x 1440
Inf:1
NATIVE CONTRAST
Inf:1
413 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
1000 nits
468 nits
HDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
Unknown
Glossy
COATING
Matte
The MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED) and Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED) are both best in class for media consumption.
HDR Gaming and Media Consumption
Yes
Yes
Both the Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED) and MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED) are suitable for HDR gaming and media consumption.
Digital Photo Editing
Yes
Yes
Both the Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED) and MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED) are suitable for digital photo editing.
Print Photo Editing
Yes
Yes
Both the Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED) and MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED) are suitable for print photo editing.
Give feedback
We’re constantly working to improve.
How the Asus PG49WCD (QD-OLED) and the MSI MPG 491CQP (QD-OLED) compare to other monitors
This information was produced and vetted by the PerfectRec monitors team. We are a product research and recommendation organization that meticulously reviews and evaluates the latest monitor information and makes it digestible for you.
By the numbers
210
Monitors evaluated
10,500
Monitors stats compiled
15
Proprietary Monitors ratings developed
125,600
Recommendations made
18,840
Consumer hours saved
About the monitor team
Joe Golden, Ph.D
CEO and Monitors Editor
Joe is an entrepreneur and lifelong electronics enthusiast with a Ph.D in Economics from the University of Michigan.
Jason Lew
Staff Expert & Software Engineer
Jason is a staff expert and software engineer that has been making laptop recommendations for 7 years and moderates one of the largest laptop subreddits.
Chandradeep Chowdhury
Staff Expert & Software Engineer
Chandradeep is a staff expert and software engineer and expert in televisions and monitors. He’s been making monitor recommendations for ten years.