Read more.Quote:
Bringing FreeSync to a high refresh rate, 1440p and IPS panel.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Bringing FreeSync to a high refresh rate, 1440p and IPS panel.
Tasty but still not enough to make me put my hand in my pocket and replace my 1440p screen.
Actually getting tempting. The stand on the Acer doesn't look that good, this seems the right blend of business like but can play Elite on it.
Eh, call me crazy, but if you're paying around g-sync money on a monitor, you should get, you know, g-sync. But this GPU vendor dependant monitor asynchronous refresh carry on is getting a bit old now. Until then, looking forward to the g-sync version of this. Hope nVidia wises up with the licencing fees and module requirements soon.Quote:
Yet the MG279Q should not be designated as a FreeSync-only monitor, because the ability to game at 144Hz and 1440p using an IPS panel makes it just as relevant for gamers with Nvidia GPUs
Yup just make it easy for everyone and support freesync and dump gsyncQuote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Dumping Gsync is a good idea but until we see some FreeSync monitors that have a wider range of refresh rates Gsync still has a place in the market, given the currently available monitors I would go for Gsync over Freesync.
Maybe when we see a Freesync monitor that can go from 10-15Hz to over a 100 it maybe worth it, until then Freesync is the poorer cousin of Gsync (IMHO).
Don't get me wrong, the g-sync scaler made sense when they were developing the technology since existing scalers weren't quite up to scratch at that point, but by now they could have just made scaler performance a standard in the licensing conditions and leave it to the monitor manufacturers to select or design an appropriate scaler to meet those requirements. Most of the really juicy async refresh work is performed in their drivers anyway.
It will definitely enhance the gaming experience.
The G-Sync version is going to be the ASUS PG2749Q coming in Q3 for $800. I believe this MG279Q has a North American MSRP of $600 meaning it's 25 per cent cheaper so you will be paying a premium for the G-Sync model but you do get variable refresh rate up to 144Hz not just 90Hz.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
They're getting there, these Ips panels, eh! Still a bit pricey right now. They're kinda like Ssd's about 3 years back. Nice toy if you have the cash, but I think many gamers will stick to TN panels for a while yet. I imagine I'll be wanting to pick one of these type of screens up in a couple years or so though :)
Now freesync and G-Sync have been out a while and there have been a fair few tests, what would people say is the better gaming experience when having a set amount of cash for a GPU and monitor:
-Spend more on the monitor to get a *sync capable panel, so FPS dips are handled that way
OR
-Spend more on the GPU so you don't get FPS dipping below 60 ?
Just need to find £1000 for this and a Fury to be sorted for the next 2-3 gaming years.
I think you always want more FPS, so I would still go for the higher end GPU. It is still early days for this technology, and I don't see it as a tight budget sort of thing yet though hopefully it will end up that way as display port becomes more mainstream.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah
It is an interesting question though, my wife has a 260X in her PC which on paper is fully freesync enabled, but I do wonder just how useful that is. If the freesync over hdmi recently demonstrated gets standardised then it opens the technology up to really low cost monitors as well, perhaps they can only do 40Hz to 60Hz but that could be enough to help.
I also wonder if this technology would benefit Intel much, given that their graphics struggles to hit 60FPS in, well pretty much anything beyond Minecraft.
How come the input lag results have been conducted using HDMI @ 1080p (and presumably 60hz)?
The input lag should be significantly lower if tested over DisplayPort @ 1440p and 144hz.
24.4ms of input lag would drive me crazy!
Finally I can upgrade my monitor to something worthwhile!
Definitely. I would much rather just buy a better gpu! The lack of range in the variable refresh rates is a big part of why I wouldn't buy one of these type of screens yet. I hardly see any frame tearing with my panel at 120hz and no vsync anyway. I'm not sure these screens make much sense at this point in time for those that would benefit most. The money would probably be much better spent on more powerful hardware..Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Edit: Although, quickly glancing back at this review, it says freesync is supported from "35-90Hz". If that includes every single number inbetween, that's actually pretty damn good! I would be tempted by that if I cared more about syncing frames :) But as I say, the sight of screen tearing is very uncommon and minimal with my current setup, so I would still go for better hardware instead..
If you have a screen that has low enough latency to make use of 120Hz and a system that can run over 120FPS then the reasons to upgrade are minimal.
But for me looking to upgrade looking and being frustrated with monitor development it's an almost perfect screen and in a whole other league to what I have now.
If it went down to 20Hz, then the home theatre types might like it to watch their 23.976Hz movies without any occasional glitch frames. But it doesn't :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ZaO
I have a low latency gaming monitor from BenQ. But tbh, I don't run my games at a solid 120fps! Some will, but most won't with the settings I use. But anything from 60fps upwards is great on this screen. Super low input lag and hardly any screen tearing at all. People were making me worry that it would be an issue if it's not a solid, locked 60 or 120fps, but in reality, it's not been an issue at all! It's nice to not have to run vsync, as it reduces input lag and gives me better framerates. The more I use this screen, the less I feel bothered about variable syncs :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jigger
Yeh I suppose :P I think gamers are probably the biggest market, though. I may be wrong..Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Sorry I maybe didn't explain this clearly and I will explain it more clearly for future reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by TerminatorUK
We use the Leo Bodnar Lag tester which only works over HDMI at 1080p. Secondly, 24.4ms is the total processing time (input lag + signal processing) so to state 24.4ms of input lag is incorrect. A total processing time of 24ms is a good result, especially for an IPS panel, not quite as good as the fastest gaming panels which can scrape under 10ms but still enough for most gamers.
Thanks for the explanation and sorry, I meant total processing time.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanM
I guess what I'm getting at is that your figures are significantly higher than TFTCentral's review which is claiming only 4.05ms using the SMTT 2 tool (when tested over DisplayPort @ 144hz).
I assume it is comparing Apples with Oranges but I'd like to put my mind at rest that we wouldn't be seeing 1.5 frames of lag under optimal conditions using DisplayPort?
That's true, they are but TFTCentral's reviews are excellent and the spec of the equipment they use is much higher, pretty much industrial grade (though most buyers aren't necessarily interested in that level of overwhelming technical detail). Though if you check the TFTCentral review you'll see that at the FreeSync refresh rate (90Hz) lag is a fair bit higher, 17ms~ for the total but it drops dramatically to 4ms at 144Hz. I presume DisplayPort does offer lower latency or it allows higher refresh rates than HDMI which give lower latency because of the way the panel works.Quote:
Originally Posted by TerminatorUK
I think our results perhaps show the limitation of the Leo Bodnar Lag Tester which tests at 1080p60hz, the lag is definitely not significant enough to cause concern.
I read the TFTCentral review and the latency results are some of the best for an IPS screen.
You can buy it on Amazon for 460 quid. Why would I pay that much for a 1440p monitor?. I would rather spend that amount of money on a gen2 4K monitor.
Because it's 144 Hz FreeSync. 4K is apples and oranges, you can choose either 144Hz or 4K - you can't have both. They're equally valid options, just depends on personal preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by canopus72
OK so I have had one of these now for 24 hours coming from a 27" TN 1ms G2G 1080p panel and I'm pleased overall. Solid build, the OSD took a bit of messing with to get a decent colour ratio (TFTcentral helped on this) as well as Freesync on the monitor and on the 15.5 graphics settings. Whacking everything to max in GTA5 gets me between 50-80 FPS depending on what's going on with maybe the odd dip to 40. Playing for several hours on it, very impressed, I didn't even notice any FPS changes or dips. Being IPS the image is much better though windows 10 scaling isn't *that* great yet to stop text being teeny tiny by bumping to 125% or 150% so could be annoying if you are using this as a work monitor as well, things like device manager and so on tend to bear the brunt of the blurry text monster.
A couple of other games tested were Diablo3 which ran at 144hz/144fps so freesync didn't matter and I didn't notice any frame drops/skips or the like - and Dragon Age Inquisition which on max possible settings - FPS is around 30-50 depending on whats going on - the odd dip to 25/30 with it being outside freesync range and it surprisingly handles it well, obviously the FPS has dropped but it's not that bad and more importantly the mouse remains very responsive at that level. I was very surprised at that as I Was expecting it to tank under 35. Overall very pleased so far and still messing around to find my perfect settings :)
Why would I pay £468 for a 1440p monitor?. For that money I would much rather buy a 2nd gen 4K monitor that is also Freesync compatible. Also, this 1440p monitor only has HDMI 1.4 and NOT HDMI 2.0.
I think you have missed the point canopus72 - it's 144hz (which 4k monitors cannot do), free sync is over display port so hdmi 2.0 is irrelevant really. I'm not interested in 4k gaming yet as I think 5k will be here soon enough so a good fast refresh IPS gaming panel with free sync until I have the gaming hardware to run at 144fps seems a better plan for me at least
That's not true at all. get a better GPU or something else with the money saved. Why on heart pay hundreds extra to be stuck with one manufacturer? When later on nvidia has to do adaptive sync anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt