G-Sync HDR 4K monitor images are softer or blurred at 144Hz

[3dcandy]

I think it's more the fact that they are like £2k and not really working perhaps as they should that annoys people. DP 1.5 *will* fix many issues but appears to not be able to get their fingers out to decide on the spec. Of course, if they'd got the spec sorted in mid 2017 as promised this would all be a moot issue now

[xicamud]

So the headline should really read DP 1.4 HDR 4K monitor images are softer or blurred at 144Hz, seems odd to point the finger at either AMD or Nvidia as it's an issue with Display Port.

All previously announced 4K 144Hz monitors use Display Port 1.4 and so the title is correct.

[Corky34]

But the title says "G-Sync HDR 4K monitor images are softer or blurred at 144Hz" and as there's Freesync HDR 4K 144Hz monitors (afaik) then it's not exclusive to G-Sync.

[xicamud]

But the title says "G-Sync HDR 4K monitor images are softer or blurred at 144Hz" and as there's Freesync HDR 4K 144Hz monitors (afaik) then it's not exclusive to G-Sync.

Afaik there are no 4K 144Hz Freesync monitors announced yet...

[3dcandy]

There are a few freesync 144hz models available or announced. Proper 4k ones no but a couple of 4k ones are round the corner

https://www.144hzmonitors.com/list-o...sync-monitors/

Try that list for starters. As said with current dp1.4 limitations there really isn't that much point in a 4k HDR 144hz display

[Xlucine]

There are a few freesync 144hz models available or announced. Proper 4k ones no but a couple of 4k ones are round the corner

https://www.144hzmonitors.com/list-o...sync-monitors/

Try that list for starters. As said with current dp1.4 limitations there really isn't that much point in a 4k HDR 144hz display

There are no 4k 144Hz monitors on that list, and 1440p 144Hz monitors don't have this issue. Without any freesync 4k 144Hz monitors to have this issue, this issue is exclusive to nvidia g-sync products

[3dcandy]

As said...quite a few times. IF there were 4k freesync monitors available that did 144hz they would still suffere from the issue.
Someone said there were no 144hz monitors available - I confirmed what IS available and yes no 4k 144hz yet.
There is simply not enough bandwidth with dp1.4 to fully support a 4k hdr 144hz display without some sort of compression which will induce softness which is probably why the freesync monitors don't exist

[xicamud]

As said...quite a few times. IF there were 4k freesync monitors available that did 144hz they would still suffere from the issue.
Someone said there were no 144hz monitors available - I confirmed what IS available and yes no 4k 144hz yet.
There is simply not enough bandwidth with dp1.4 to fully support a 4k hdr 144hz display without some sort of compression which will induce softness which is probably why the freesync monitors don't exist

Not that I'm an expert on this but I'm pretty sure they coulda just used two DP cables

[Stefank]

There should be a definitive note that says image quality will be degraded at 144Hz. To me, anything that compromises the final product if it were to be used to the advertised maximums should be noted.

This reeks to me of the 3.5GB at full bandwidth and 0.5GB at low bandwidth scandal of the GTX970...."Don't say anything and maybe people won't notice".

It'll be dusted under the rug and no one will say anymore on the matter.

It is advertised that 4K HDR @ 144 Hz works in 4:2:2 (HDR disabled works at full 4:4:4), and it's a well know limitation of DP and HDMI connection so it apply to any monitor or TV.
Anyways, most of the content are encoded in a even lower 4:2:0 like Blue-Rays and Netflix and no one complained, the worst example above, 4:1:1 and 4:2:0, isn't even an option on these monitors so I don't know why they added them as they are just misleading. https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/chroma-subsampling

[Stefank]

They should have waited for hdmi 2.1

Availability is years away

[nobodyspecial]

There should be a definitive note that says image quality will be degraded at 144Hz. To me, anything that compromises the final product if it were to be used to the advertised maximums should be noted.

This reeks to me of the 3.5GB at full bandwidth and 0.5GB at low bandwidth scandal of the GTX970...."Don't say anything and maybe people won't notice".

It'll be dusted under the rug and no one will say anymore on the matter.

What scandal. Did it perform exactly as benchmarked AFTER you found out about the .5MB slower? YEP. No scandal, and done before by both sides. The scandal is, that it was actually reported, and worse by many as having only 3.5GB...Yeah, gpu fake news. Now if it affected even 10% of the games out there, ok, report the crap out of that. But if you actually have to use a synthetic benchmark to force the card into a situation that never happens in use; fake news (anandtech tried like heck to find a corner case in games...LOL). Why do people still bring this up like it mattered?

That isn't the same as putting 144hz on a monitor that can't really do it. The 4GB on NV's card actually worked fine and when you found out .5GB was slower, your games didn't suddenly slow down...ROFL. However, if you put your monitor here at 144hz, the interface can't get there without going to crap and it's NOT a corner case, it's ALWAYS THE CASE. It's not advertised as going to crap at max and these things aren't cheap so...

[Lord Midas]

They've completely stalled innovation because their competitor has fallen behind.

They literally released Ray Tracing to the general public. It's early days, but how is this stalling innovation?