How do I do that? I don't play much DX9 games so Gedosato is out.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
G-Sync is the god-level gaming upgrade.
- Thread starter Grampa Simpson
- Start date
How do I do that? I don't play much DX9 games so Gedosato is out.
ScepticMatt
Member
The MG279Q is now officially 144Hz and FreeSync compatible (worst kept secret anyway)
https://twitter.com/AMDGaming/status/585471166124527618/photo/1
https://twitter.com/AMDGaming/status/585471166124527618/photo/1
http://a.pomf.se/qtonep.webm
They're pretty much the same but it seems Gsync handles sub 40-30 fps better for now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkrJU5d2RfA
SliChillax
Member
They're the same but Freesync only works in a range of framerates depending on the monitor. For example from 40 to 120hz, if it goes higher or lower than that then it works like a standard monitor with Vsync on or off.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
Which actually doesn't sound too awful.
SliChillax
Member
True especially since compared to Gsync, is actually free. I still prefer Gsync and I don't mind paying extra.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
I just hate that you have to choose one or the other. And if you change companies, you have to change your monitors as well
. I have nVidia right now and if AMD came out with something really good, then bleh... I don't have G-sync or Freesync right now, but yeah.RickyRozay
Member
may be a bit off topic but I'm currently in the process of looking for a new monitor and I'm trying to figure out how big of a difference there is between 60hz and 144hz.
I currently have a MSI GTX 970 and an i7 2600 so getting a stable 60fps in most games out today is easy and generally can get well above but with all the tearing I keep vsync enabled.
how much would I benefit from havning a 144hz monitor? and if games in the future begin to give me less than 60fps will there be complications at 144hz or would I just lower the refresh rate?
I currently have a MSI GTX 970 and an i7 2600 so getting a stable 60fps in most games out today is easy and generally can get well above but with all the tearing I keep vsync enabled.
how much would I benefit from havning a 144hz monitor? and if games in the future begin to give me less than 60fps will there be complications at 144hz or would I just lower the refresh rate?
SliChillax
Member
I just hate that you have to choose one or the other. And if you change companies, you have to change your monitors as well
Definitely agree but at least I don't plan on switching to AMD anytine soon for my GPU, especially now that I have Gsync.
SneakyStephan
Banned
If people reject gsync monitors then nvidia will be forced to support freesync
If people reject freesync monitors you still can't get gsync on amd gpus
It's a REALLY simple choice, you boycott the anticonsumer anti competitive standard and you support the one that has a chance of becoming an industry wide standard.
SliChillax
Member
I prefer how Gsync works, plain and simple. I'm not an Nvidia fanboy but lot's of games I play have framerates that vary from 30 to 144 and Gsync takes care of the whole range, not just a portion. When Freesync does what Gsync does 100%, then I'll boycott. Hell if AMD had released Freesync before Nvidia did Gsync, I wouldn't have bought a Gsync screen and upgraded to a 980 but I would've gotten a 290x instead.
Damn, im new to the whole world of gsync/Freesync so let me get this straight with gsync if i was gaming at approx 60fps and the framerate took a hit to say 35fps for a while i wouldn't notice this frame drop like you do with traditional LCD monitors it would still loke 60fps smooth??
SliChillax
Member
You would notice the framerate drop if you're eye is trained enough but the transition will be smooth. Basically the image will remain smooth with no screen tearing, juddering or input lag.
Edit: I've had games drop from 100 to 45 and so on without really noticing while with a non Gsync monitor I would notice lots of screen tearing without vsync or input lag with vsync and stuttering in case the framerate drop below the screens refresh rate.
You would still notice it. What wouldn't happen is that the framerate wouldn't get capped at 30 (if you had normal VSync on) and there would be no screen tearing (if you had VSync off). Framerates are still framerate, but GSync eliminates all the downsides associated with frame pacing and synchronization.
robertlebrone
Member
It will look smooth. Smooth to the point that in some cases unless you have FRAPS or something running you may not discern the difference (everyone is different). Saying will it look "60fps smooth" is hard to quantify.
It's been a gamechanger for me.
SliChillax
Member
I used to game on a normal tv before I got a Gsync monitor and locked 60 was always a must, I couldn't play with Vsync off because of the tearing and 30fps was unbearable. Now I don't mind at all when the framerate fluctuates from 30 to 60 or above, everything looks smooth as hell it's magic and it should be included even in next gen consoles and future TV's.
Almost. If you had a Gsync monitor capable of maximum 60hz, and you were doing 35fps, the screen would refresh at 35hz to match the fps. However, where it gets interesting is when you're doing about 25fps. The refresh rate would double to 50hz and Gsync would display the same frame twice as to smooth everything out. This is the part of the tech that bests Freesync for now. There's no reason why AMD couldn't do this with software...I think...
SliChillax
Member
Unless it's patented by Nvidia? I have no idea though, I'm talking out of my ass.
SliChillax
Member
There is no logical way for them to work in borderless mode.
Edit: May I ask why is everyone so concerned with borderless?
ss_lemonade
Member
I think I need to see this running an actual game in person (and trying it myself) to actually appreciate the benefits. I mean, I've seen the pendulum demo already before but I could still see the difference in framerates with gsync enabled.
grandwizard
Member
SSDs are awesome, but no. G-Sync is something that once you see you will wonder why we haven't had it the last 20 years. It just makes the experience so much better and at all times while playing the game, not just in making load screens go by faster.
I would not say 35 FPS would look all that smooth. It gets noticeable around 40 FPS for me. 45 and up and we're golden, which made AC Unity a good demo of how sweet Gsync is.
Was asked and answered on the last page. Basically, some games don't have real fullscreen modes (and is becoming more common especially in Unity engine games), and people like the easy task switching.
Was asked and answered on the last page. Basically, some games don't have real fullscreen modes (and is becoming more common especially in Unity engine games), and people like the easy task switching.
nextgeneration
Member
Not sure about others, but I find gsync most useful in 3rd person action games, like Dead Space or Resident Evil, for example. But for 1st person shooters, I don't think it makes huge difference.
They don't, and I expect they never will. The tech is pretty much incompatible with windowed mode (borderless or otherwise).
SliChillax
Member
I thought it was because of the use of borderless fullscreen which introduces triple buffering to all games but then again Gsync removes the need for that. Didn't know about that though.
I can only speak for myself but I only play games in some type of windowed mode. How can you do it any other way with a dual monitor setup?
I'm always doing stuff on second monitor while gaming
SliChillax
Member
I thought you could run a fullscreen application in one monitor while doing another task in the second one?
I don't think I ever got an answer for this. What happens when you go above 144 fps? Will the screen tearing come back? or should you turn on V-Sync at that point to lock the fps at 144?
Edit: I ask because I play low demanding games such as Diablo III and Ultra Street Fighter IV.
Edit: I ask because I play low demanding games such as Diablo III and Ultra Street Fighter IV.
Gsync locks you to the max refresh rate. Won't go over with it on.
ss_lemonade
Member
Some games feel smoother to me but that may just be a placebo effect. I believe you get instant triple buffering/vsync with borderless because of how the Windows OS is like that by default, so running windowed gives you the same benefits. I wonder though if there's a difference between borderless and using something like d3doverrider to force triple buffering and vsync while in fullscreen.
jim2point0
Banned
The reviews here for the Acer XB270HU on Newegg are making me think twice about even considering it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009742
Apparently a lot of these come with dead pixels and really bad backlight bleeding
What happens after 144hz? Say your PC can do 160fps...here you go:
1) Gsync will limit you to 143fps so it stays below the max refresh rate and everything stays nice and synced, never reaching 160fps. (Rumor is that nvidia will change this in the future to give you the option to go over the panel's refresh rate)
2) With Freesync, you have the choice. It will either allow you to cap it at 144hz (Acting as if vsync was on) or allow you to go over the monitor's max refresh rate (But the tearing comes back).
Personally, I don't see the need to go higher than 143/144. If you have a 60hz panel, then I could see why some people would want to go over 60hz even with tearing. Damn those counter strike matches...
The reviews here for the Acer XB270HU on Newegg are making me think twice about even considering it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009742
Apparently a lot of these come with dead pixels and really bad backlight bleeding
These are some scary reviews. I would love to see this display in action. I may wait until BenQ releases a similar monitor.
Thanks for the info. USFIV runs around 300fps on 1440p, so i was curious what G-Sync does in that situation.
This wouldn't make any sense.
The reviews here for the Acer XB270HU on Newegg are making me think twice about even considering it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009742
Apparently a lot of these come with dead pixels and really bad backlight bleeding
This is enough to get me to cancel my order... Shit.
mhayze
Member
As a loooong-time 120hz user who upgraded to G-Sync recently, I would say, it depends. Some 120hz games are rock-solid 120hz and offered really good native triple-buffering with no-vsync/tearing (despite the name, this is lower latency that double buffering), and in those scenarios, G-Sync is a minor upgrade. But those are the minority, and even there, G-sync is better.
Most games have variable framerate, and even if you could solve the tearing issue, there is an unevenness to the way the frames are doled out that makes gameplay less than ideal. G-Sync really improves these games, as long as the minimum frame rate is better than 30-40hz. Below that framerate, in my limited experience (because I never leave any game at such low frame rates) it doesn't help.
As monitors get above 1920xwhatever resolutions, the benefits of better sync technologies help more and more, and it's really exciting to see hardware companies tackling these problems that have been unacknowledged by most for 20+ years.
I was also really excited to read about some of the Valve VR presentations that both AMD and Nvidia will what sounds like G-Sync level rendering support built in for some of these VR solution (the GPU is keeping track of scanline-level rendering for both ultra low latency and low persistence and/or a better lock on framerate). I think this is very necessary to reduce VR's nausea-inducing tendencies, and with OLED displays, the potential is there to develop truly spectacular displays in these VR headsets.
But coming back to the here and now, for most games, I find that G-Sync is fantastic and a noticeable improvement to me over "plain" 120hz.
The reviews here for the Acer XB270HU on Newegg are making me think twice about even considering it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009742
Apparently a lot of these come with dead pixels and really bad backlight bleeding
Acer stuff has always been low grade to me. I'd be wary of buying anything from them, based on my experiences at least
Beerman462
Member
How does this compare to D3DOverrider? I started using it lately, because in game VSync has sucked. D3DOverrider seem to work really well and I don't notice any stutter. My games have been between 45 and 60fps, so maybe that's why.
Honestly, half of these reviews sound like people that have never used an IPS monitor before and are mistaking IPS glow (which is a thing) for backlight bleed. It's an inherent thing with IPS displays and you either put up with it in the tech or you go TN (and risk actual backlight bleed).
I have an IPS monitor now so I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about. I figured they meant something more serious.
G-Sync mode is patently superior to anything D3DOverrider can achieve on a fixed-refresh display. Do you think this tech would exist if you could out-perform it with a simple utility?
Soodanim
Member
The big bonus is for anything where timing is concerned, because there is no input delay with G-Sync. When I tried borderless fullscreen in Dark Souls I couldn't dodge properly. With G-Sync it's not something I have to think about. No tearing, no drawbacks (except for your wallet).
Ask Nvidia. Possible? Probably. Worth their while to implement? Probably not. The easiest way I imagine this might be achieved in the near term would be for a display vendor to put both sets of electronics into the display.
Set it all the way to the right/200%.
I'm on Win7, but I did try that setting to zoom in everything to 120% and 150%, but it's basically the same as having a lower resolution but with everything zoomed in.
So using that setting or 2560x1440 is almost the same, and just as pointless for having a K monitor.
28" is not enough for a 4K res desktop, unless you like to have your face 30cm away from it.
Hence why I was asking for 32" monitors.
Xcell Miguel
Gold Member
The reviews here for the Acer XB270HU on Newegg are making me think twice about even considering it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009742
Apparently a lot of these come with dead pixels and really bad backlight bleeding
I bought it on a French retailer website last week, many of a french hardware forum did too, some got dead pixels and BLB, but few of us had no dead pixel nor huge BLB.
On my side I only have a red sub-pixel that never light up on the right side of the screen, it' only noticeable if I put a red thing on it, on the desktop or games I struggle to find it so it's nothing.
I get a very little BLB at the bottom right, only noticeable on pure dark scenes, but only if I search it, otherwise it's not a big deal.
IPS glow is almost invisible.
Also, there's warranties so you can ask for a new one, and it's mostly people that get bad experiences that post on internet, many of the happy buyers don't say anything.
I'm really happy with this screen, it's really great, colors and contrasts are very good, G-Sync does a wonderful job in games.
I took some photos, screen set in Standard mode, so brightness is set to 100%.
I locked my phone on ISO 400 and 1/20s exposure time to make lighting constant between photos and not to accentuate the effect, even if it's still more visible in photos than in real life.
While using the screen on web I set brightness to 0% and in game I use the Eco mode that put it to 44% (this mode and the Standard one only changes the brightness).
Front :
Angles :
Over/under :
Dries
Member
I've read consumer reviews of both the ROG Swift and the XB270HU. The reviews of both of these monitors mentioned dead pixels, so concerning dead pixels there doesn't really seem to be a difference between the two. It is most unfortunate though of course. I just cancelled my ROG Swift order and replaced it with an XB270HU. That smear in the lower right corner is also just something I'll have to accept I guess as it's common with IPS panels apparantley. Hopefully I won't have any dead pixels, otherwise I'll have to send it back too.
But in all seriousness: what is everyone's personal preference? The ROG Swift or the XB270HU?
But in all seriousness: what is everyone's personal preference? The ROG Swift or the XB270HU?
Swift is TN and Acer is IPS so it's really up to your preference there. Given your other posts you will likely favor the Acer as IPS is better for image quality. Spec wise the ACER only really falters in comparison to response time but it's pretty minimal. Given the same cost, the ACER seems to be superior in nearly every way. Both monitors have had some troubling QA issues so even that shouldn't be a big factor.