First 144Hz 1440p IPS g-sync display annouced by Acer
- Thread starter michaelius
- Start date
144hz, better framepacing due to G-Sync. This goes for both high and low FPS, although I think(?) G-sync is maxed out at 120-ish hertz, although I may be wrong.
There's ofcourse also the ULMB mode that I believe the G-Sync chip has built-in. (Could be wrong on that one, although I seem to recall the ROG's ULMB being due to the G-Sync chip)
I'd rather chuck the thing out the window than play games with black bars all around. Size is more important than sheer image quality to me, quite honestly. I never want to use anything less than 27" again.
G-Sync works up to 144hz, and possibly above, but I don't think we have any LCD monitors available with above 144hz refresh rate do we?
G-Sync has ULMB which works at 85, 100 or 120Hz.
Look at that edge less monitor. I understand they need at least one edge but they made it shiny red? Dumb.
Yes they are. It is only the displays that need to be changed to accept a variable refresh rate.
As for the original question those frame drops that occurs on console games would feel less severe than they do know. Also if you get screen tearing that would be eliminated and input lag would be reduced compared to a TV of the same spec but without gsyinc.
I wouldn't be surprised. 120 FPS IPS monitors are possible but they are very expensive and should only be sold to people that would make money off of using them.
sssstententen
Member
If these are even somewhat competitvely priced I'll be in for 2.
Make it a good price Acer and decent build quality and this'll sell great. Pls Acer.
Make it a good price Acer and decent build quality and this'll sell great. Pls Acer.
Citation please.
What the fuck? First of all, which "professional" use could requirea 120 Hz IPS panel? Secondly, why shouldn't a high-end gaming product be sold? Seriously, wtf.
Nintendojitsu
Banned
The red bezel ruins an otherwise great monitor.
michaelius
Banned
Nintendojitsu
Banned
Good thing then that red bezel is second model and not g-sync one right ?
What would be the point of releasing a non G-sync monitor at the same time?
It's a more affordable alternative I assume.
It's for poor people.
tearsintherain
Member
Hopefully they have demo units at CES next week, be one of the first things I am going to check out. While prices might be insane at launch, I bet within a few months they will drop fast.
shadow2810
Member
I'm expecting it would be priced around $1000-1500, if not more
The G-sync model's stand has a red (or orange?) circle looks quite distracting tbh, wish they would go for more simple design without those stupid color
Good thing then that red bezel is second model and not g-sync one right ?
The G-sync model's stand has a red (or orange?) circle looks quite distracting tbh, wish they would go for more simple design without those stupid color
I would be shocked if it was close or above a grand.
Ah, cheers man. Thanks for correcting me, I was having a bit of a hard time remembering. And I have to say, ULMB is one of the reasons that I just... Don't care about 'freesync', because I gosh darn want ULMB.
Wasn't Freesync way cheaper (and better because it worked even under 30 fps)?
Why Nvidia can't just accept that it will be the future?
(I'm not a AMD fanboy, I even purchased recently a 970 but I really like AMD's effort in that direction).
I can't wait for tv's and monitor's to finally adapt 144hz, 1440p and Freesync (or his ugly brother Gsync).
This will make pc's a must buy.
Why Nvidia can't just accept that it will be the future?
(I'm not a AMD fanboy, I even purchased recently a 970 but I really like AMD's effort in that direction).
I can't wait for tv's and monitor's to finally adapt 144hz, 1440p and Freesync (or his ugly brother Gsync).
This will make pc's a must buy.
ScepticMatt
Member
Gsync tops out at 144 Hz. (30-144). Freesync goes up to 240 Hz (9-240)
Freesync is cheaper because it's part of the scaling chip and doesn't need proprietary hardware. How much is anyones guess.
You wish (Unless you include expensive professional monitors)
Hmm .. UHDTV Production (e.g BBC 4kp100 broadcasts)
Lets wait and see how well Freesync actually works first. So far, I think all we've seen(like actually seen, rather than just announced) is a prototype display with a limited range of 40-60hz.
I am glad to hold out til we see what they've got, though. Either way, it will still require buying a new monitor, plus buying an AMD GPU. So not exactly a 'cheap' proposition still. Already having an Nvidia card, a Gsync monitor will still be preferable right now in terms of value.
metareferential
Member
I hate proprietary hardware and it looks like Freesync does everthing better and way cheaper and Nvidia tries to sell their expensive and inferior version which will hold up Freesyncs dissemination.
That's just bullshit and we have to pay more.
Also it looks like Freesync is gonna work on higher and lower framerates/hertz too.
Highlighted the important part.
Wait until you can compare retail hardware to retail hardware before you go to bat for something.
Felix Lighter
Member
There are no variable refresh rate specifications for HDMI. Only DisplayPort has added variable refresh rate specifications and no console has DisplayPort outputs. How could they possibly support it at this point?
No-one knows how FreeSync will perform because AMD has yet to give samples for review. FreeSync ready displays have the potential to be less costly than G-Sync, but that is only potential. It depends on what display manufacturers want to charge and cost of scaler electronics is only one consideration. Variable-refresh is a premium feature and will be for some time.
Expect FreeSync compatible displays to vary in capability and cost. There will be top end models with panels that support higher refresh rates and there will be less-capable panels that are only rated to support 9-60Hz. From the AMD FreeSync FAQ:
You still need an AMD GPU for Freesync.
And how are you calling Gsync inferior when its the only proven tech at the moment?
You say you're not an AMD fanboy, but you're cheering awfully hard here...
I'd love to see your PC if you hate proprietary hardware, because I presume you avoid proprietary hardware if that's the case. Which is unfortunate, AMD make this apparently "non-proprietary" hardware solution possible for display manufacturers, but don't make any non-proprietary GPU hardware for you to use with it!
What a nightmare!
Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. It is a detail that I overlooked.
First. http://vpixx.com/products/tools-for-vision-sciences/visual-stimulus-displays/viewpixx/
Secondly. Try buying from them. The price for bleeding edge tech like this is too high. It's not a matter of whether or not the monitor should be made. It's matter of how can you make it cheap enough so it can even be considered by high end consumers forget about budget minded guys looking for <$300 IPS displays.
I still don't see why a niche professional product being ridiculously expensive means that a 120 Hz IPS gaming monitor should be. There are already dirt cheap Korean IPS monitors which can pretty reliably be run at 120 Hz.
I don't believe that going from "pretty reliably" to "completely reliably" will increase the cost of panel/controller production by more than a factor of 3 (which it would need to to make the product non-viable). I expect that they can sell this monitor for anything up to 1k USD and reach a decent-sized market with it.
I Stalk Alone
Member
I hope the Aussie dollar recovers soon... Been waiting for a monitor like this for a decade. I mean this is the combination of specs of what I was actually expecting as the tech to replace the FW900's of a decade ago.
how did they manage 144hz on ips?
Acer wizardry + G-SYNC.
sadly it will still pale in comparison to the fw900.
b-stock Korean monitors have been doing faster ips panels for a while now but they tend to be held back by cheap parts. my guess is that acer noticed peoples interest and is sticking slightly better parts in there to get it to 144hz.
TFTcentral now suggested it's probably an AHVA panel (whose image quality is essentially equivalent to LG's IPS and Samsung's PLS). Very interesting news.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/32.htm#acer_xb270hu_ips
and this is the original news breaking of this kind of high refresh rate panel being produced last year.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/32.htm#acer_xb270hu_ips
and this is the original news breaking of this kind of high refresh rate panel being produced last year.
SliChillax
Member
Doesn't ULMB lower the brightness by a lot? Why would someone who's looking for great colors buy a monitor that makes the image worse? They'll settle for TN.
Smushroomed
Banned
The only thing that will make me drop my swift is a 21:9 1440p ips gsync
Basically the swift as is except 21:9 and ips
Basically the swift as is except 21:9 and ips
On my ASUS ROG Swift with my current settings there is no difference in brightness. I normally run 144 Hz at 20% brightness (which is still rather bright) and 120 Hz ULMB with 100% brightness and 90 pulse width. The brightness between the two is essentially the same, to the point that I've sometimes left 120 Hz ULMB running even on the desktop by mistake.
I doubt the Acer will be IPS either, the press release seems rather confusing as it details two monitors. It remains to be seen if the VA panel is fast enough.
As for against the QNIX, those who have tried both the ASUS and the QNIX say that the QNIX has far more motion blur. So even overclocked to 120 Hz, the QNIX just isn't as clear as the ASUS.
LicenceToK1ll
Member
Hopefully someone makes a VA equivalent can't go back to the shitty contrast ratio of TN/IPS. But might as well wait for a small OLED tv.
Hiro_Kunimi_80
Member
Which size and res do you need ?
Chance Hale
Member
It's the only thing that will make me run out and get another monitor, sadly the only one announced at CES was for freesync ;-; LG please
Smushroomed
Banned
Actually I don't think that lg is 1440.
Might just hold put for oculus rift at this point. I'm not exactly dying to buy something here (yet)
Might just hold put for oculus rift at this point. I'm not exactly dying to buy something here (yet)
Chance Hale
Member
Oh yeah, 1440P. I'm good with the higher end 3440xwhatever that they're offering 
24' 1080p IPS and it will never be probably manufactured, so i'll have to go with AOC on TN
God yes!
Glad I held off building my PC. Was going to get the 24" AOC G-Sync, but maybe I'll get this Acer one with IPS and G-Sync... would prefer 24" though, I think 27" is just too big.
Also I'm thinking a GTX970 is probably going to be just barely decent if I want to play over 60fps at 1440p... at 1080p it was more than enough...
i'm hoping they come out with a 24" 1080p IPS G-Sync...
Yep I'm in the same boat... 1440p means I need to spend a lot more on the GPU and/or think about allowing some room in the PC for upgrading.
Glad I held off building my PC. Was going to get the 24" AOC G-Sync, but maybe I'll get this Acer one with IPS and G-Sync... would prefer 24" though, I think 27" is just too big.
Also I'm thinking a GTX970 is probably going to be just barely decent if I want to play over 60fps at 1440p... at 1080p it was more than enough...
i'm hoping they come out with a 24" 1080p IPS G-Sync...
Why every good monitor announced must be 27' and 1440p?
Yep I'm in the same boat... 1440p means I need to spend a lot more on the GPU and/or think about allowing some room in the PC for upgrading.
Similar threads
- Locked