Read more.Quote:
The refresh rate has been boosted and FreeSync compatibility added since CES 2015 show.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The refresh rate has been boosted and FreeSync compatibility added since CES 2015 show.
Is this the same monitor that some sites have said only runs at 35-90Hz when FreeSync is enabled?
So in the UK we're looking at a retail price of what £450-500? WAY out of my price range. I am really hoping the tech matures quickly to the point where we'll be seeing Freesync WQHD monitors for more like £200-300.
I thought this was the monitor they're recalling because it's skipping a frame in every 6 or something.
Bearing in mind it's also 144Hz... I imagine that'd be the sort of price you could expect for an IPS 1440P monitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobull
Nice. Good to see the ips monitors becoming a more viable choice for gaming. I'll pick something like this up in a couple years when the price drops a little :)
would love to get this but can justify the money to replace a 27" ips screen with another one regardless of freesynch and 144mhz tech
I wish they would pull there fingers out there arses and release the gsync model at 120hz and give up on 144hz. (hence the delay)
Doesn't look like it support VESA mounts :-(
That's correct. We had to choose which range to run FreeSync over as it can't be done on the entire frequency spectrum, and in testing it became apparent that the benefits between 35 and 40 Hz were far more apparent in gaming than those over 90 Hz, so we decided to drop the minimum to 35 - as a consequence we had to decrease the maximum, but as I said in testing that appears to be the best approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
A very small number of units shipped in that state - all the others are receiving firmware updates and returning to stores so any purchased from now on in reliable UK retailers should be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRockliffe
Is this a limitation of FreeSync, or the panel you used?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim - ASUS
Also, seems surprising that anyone using a high refresh rate monitor would game at anything below 60FPS, let alone 35.
I'd be interested to know that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardInc
And yeh, I would agree with you there. But, I guess the idea is that if your machine struggles with an unusual event, the refresh rate will drop down with the framerate to give you a more bareable experience. Although, I don't fully understand FreeSync. Is it just Vsync with a variable refresh rate? If so, then it'll be really useful when your framerate drops below the desired framerate/refresh rate!
I don't use vsync anymore, I just have my monitor at 120hz with a 60 or 120fps cap. I get a much better framerate/less input lag this way, and the screen tearing is barely ever noticeable, if at all with this refresh rate :) But, when I used to use vsync on a 60hz display, I'd get spikes where my fps dropped down to about 40fps, which felt and looked horrible! I imagine this is where FreeSync helps out..
Absolutely agree - it's the lower framerates that need the mostQuote:
Originally Posted by Jim - ASUS
synchronising.
What's the behaviour outside of this range? Is it possible to simultaneously specify no-sync below 35, and v-sync at >90?
Also is it possible to duplicate frames for syncing at less than 35? Say I'm watching at film at 24fps it'd be nice to run native 24p output and have the monitor sync at 48hz (no variable technology would be needed). Guess that's a two part problem - 48hz on the monitor and frame duplication by the graphics card.
My understanding is that it's both. There are some reviews of FreeSync that will give you some more in-depth info about how exactly it works, but AFAIK with IPS and FreeSync's variable refresh rates you can't go across the whole range. My info atm suggests that with TN + FreeSync you can have a wider range, and obviously with IPS and not FreeSync you can go as high as you want (as indeed this monitor does, up to 144 Hz).Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardInc
And whilst you're right that people wouldn't game at 35 fps, what you have to bear in mind is that it's the minimum that's important - not the average. If you check out GPU reviews for recent games (I'd recommend looking at this: http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-benc...graphics-cards) you'll see that at 1440p you'll hit pretty low minimum framerates with relative ease. If you can guarantee that every single frame is delivered at a 40 fps speed or more, then I agree you can go with >40. But if one comes in slower, it's going to cause you a major problem.
Again, I'd check out a few FreeSync reviews to fully understand it as I'm not an AMD rep. As the refresh rate can't dynamically adjust below the minimum, you don't want to find yourself in a situation where that happens. And that means increasing your graphics horsepower, turning down the settings, or getting a monitor with a lower minimum.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZaO
I think you've more or less hit on the difficulties there, Kal. Again, as your question is really about FreeSync technology I don't want to step on AMD's toes, but I think you're on the right track.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Agreed glad to see more available just waiting on BenQ to follow now, but I thought $600 wasn't so bad for newish tech. I suspect 2nd generation of IPS 144mhz will be quite good.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZaO
I am with Za0 on this I want to see it hit mainstream in 2-4 years.
Good IPS is better than TN, 8 bit panel or not, too. Where the heck did OLED go aswell?!??!
sorry, off topic