G-Sync is the god-level gaming upgrade.

I got the Acer XB240H as per vuze's recommendation. Very happy with the performance so far. Unfortunately it still seems to bes suffering from visible color banding, which was one of the things I was hoping to get rid of. I use the animated transparent smoke in Skyrim's menu and loading screens as a benchmark for this, and it still looks fucking hideous :-/

It feels impossible for me to research this problem as it seems hardly anyone ever talks about it, and it's never brought up in specifications.
Are you sure it's a problem with the monitor and not simply the games or your monitor config? I'll check Skyrim later and report back.
Once you go gsync it is impossible to go back.

I don't regret for 1 second buying my monitor.
I agree. Got my PC to crash the other day during GTAV and somehow Gsync was disabled afterwards. The difference was baffling.
Almost bought the Acer XB270HU the other day but then realized I don't even know if I'll find G-Sync worth it.

Already own a 144Hz monitor and never use V-Sync (I don't care about screen tearing and hate input lag). I generally try to aim for 100+ FPS in multiplayer games anyway.

So taking this into account, would G-Sync even matter to someone like me? Should I just save $200 by getting the Asus MG279Q?
If you can push all your games beyond 100fps, probably not. It has been stated before, gsync is most effective in the mid two digit range.
 
Why do companies make gaming gear so hideously ugly? Are gamers design taste/style really so comically bad or is it just the stereotype of "Gamers like junk designs like this".

Is it because how some (hopefully select few) build custom builds in the uglies possible cases?
Gamers (as a whole) do like garishly-designed things! Just look up one of the many "Favorite character designs" threads here.
 
I think there is a difference though between "ugly" and "distinct".


I understand why people are not into Alienware products for example, but I think it's wrong to call them ugly. It's just a style. A sort of techy 90s-techno-retro style perhaps, but still.


This however:

500x1000px-LL-d67243d0_Acer-Z35-rear.jpeg



That font. I am about to completely lose my shit.
 
=(
What makes you think G-Sync isn't functioning? Games can still stutter for reasons other than Vsync. Does the display (I don't know the model) indicate G-Sync mode is enabled?

Nah, at this point I'm pretty sure it's engine stuttering. But I read through the Wolfenstein PC performance thread and found little mention about it. I definitley couldn't find a solution either, so I'm wondering now what to do and if I'll ever play the game. There's now way I can bear the stuttering now while owning a G-sync monitor.

I'm sure you running SLi?
This game has problems with SLI and G-sync you need to turn off SLi in Nvidia Control panel i mean totally disable it not just in game profile.
After you disable SLi your g-sync should work with no stutters.

Nope, single 980 :(
 
Nah, at this point I'm pretty sure it's engine stuttering. But I read through the Wolfenstein PC performance thread and found little mention about it. I definitley couldn't find a solution either, so I'm wondering now what to do and if I'll ever play the game. There's now way I can bear the stuttering now while owning a G-sync monitor.



Nope, single 980 :(
I have the same problem with FarCry 4. Shit stutters like crazy when moving, apparently that's caused by not having locked 30 or 60, I never realized this on my old monitor tho and had frame drops there for sure. Weird.
 
I think there is a difference though between "ugly" and "distinct".


I understand why people are not into Alienware products for example, but I think it's wrong to call them ugly. It's just a style. A sort of techy 90s-techno-retro style perhaps, but still.


This however:

500x1000px-LL-d67243d0_Acer-Z35-rear.jpeg



That font. I am about to completely lose my shit.
kqK764s.jpg
 
Almost bought the Acer XB270HU the other day but then realized I don't even know if I'll find G-Sync worth it.

Already own a 144Hz monitor and never use V-Sync (I don't care about screen tearing and hate input lag). I generally try to aim for 100+ FPS in multiplayer games anyway.

So taking this into account, would G-Sync even matter to someone like me? Should I just save $200 by getting the Asus MG279Q?

What GPU(s) do you use? I feel like if you play at high frame rates like that all the time you should look at a display with a strobing backlight. The clarity is astonishing.
 
As someone that games primarily at 1080p with a gtx780, and is waiting to upgrade for VR. Would my eyes be really happy with this? I think the biggest turn off to me is going to a single monitor. But if the upgrade was worth it...
 
What GPU(s) do you use? I feel like if you play at high frame rates like that all the time you should look at a display with a strobing backlight. The clarity is astonishing.

980 Ti. Current monitor is an Asus VG248QE.

Good point about ULMB. The Asus MG279Q doesn't support it, so I guess that's a decent reason to go for the XB270HU.
 
What G-Sync monitor would work well with a GTX 980?

I will be getting a gaming PC soon and I do not know much about monitors.
 
Reposting here as I figure I'll get better feedback.
Hola amigos. My tax return should roll in this week, and while I'd love to spend almost all of it on PC shit, I'm issuing some self control* and sticking to a monitor upgrade. I'd like to jump on one of the lower end 24" 1080p G-Sync monitors, and it comes down to two choices.

AOC G2460PG - $565
Acer Predator XB240H - $499

The price difference isn't huge, but if the latter isn't much different from the former it doesn't hurt to go with the cheaper option, especially since postage will fall on top of that.

I've had some feedback on the AOC, and found chit chat on the interwebs, and all signs point to it being a pretty solid monitor. But the Acer, being newer I guess, is hard to gauge. Seems most people did the low end upgrade when only the AOC was around.

Anybody here had experience with the Acer?

*excluding additional impulse purchases

I'm leaning towards the AOC.
 
What G-Sync monitor would work well with a GTX 980?

I will be getting a gaming PC soon and I do not know much about monitors.
The Acer XB270HU is the best you can buy as we speak. If you need HDMI wait a few weeks/months for the Asus PG279Q. Both use the same 1440p 144hz IPS panel. Looks absolutely stunning and 1440p in the latest games should be easy enough to drive with a 980.

(Sorry EatChildren, don't know anything about these but I feel bad for skipping your post the second time now D8 )
 
I don't think there are any (consumer) OLED monitors at all on the horizon.
Well beyond the horizon, even.

Which is really kind of weird. We've had OLED TVs for a while now, and the Galaxy Tab S 10.5 has a 2560x1440 RBG Stripe OLED screen. LG's 4K OLEDs even just came out in Australia. They're expensive, but PC gamers seem like exactly the sort of people who would pay more for a slimmer, lighter, prettier monitor with a smoother natural refresh rate.
 
Which is really kind of weird. We've had OLED TVs for a while now, and the Galaxy Tab S 10.5 has a 2560x1440 RBG Stripe OLED screen. LG's 4K OLEDs even just came out in Australia. They're expensive, but PC gamers seem like exactly the sort of people who would pay more for a slimmer, lighter, prettier monitor with a smoother natural refresh rate.

I ask because I just got one of those LG TVs (not the 4K ones mind you, a 1080p display still) but the image quality is putting every other display I have ever seen to shame. So, I'm a bit loath to buy something with lesser image quality.
 
I ask because I just got one of those LG TVs (not the 4K ones mind you, a 1080p display still) but the image quality is putting every other display I have ever seen to shame. So, I'm a bit loath to buy something with lesser image quality.

I can't blame you. I do hope LG takes their experience with OLED TVs and makes some OLED monitors. It just makes sense.
 
How long before we get gsync monitors with built in speakers. Thats pretty much the only thing stopping me from getting one
 
How long before we get gsync monitors with built in speakers. Thats pretty much the only thing stopping me from getting one

I would assume that the majority of PC gamers serious enough to get G-Sync would also use headphones or separate speakers over the built-in kind. I use a 5.1 setup, for example. You're likely part of a very small group who would want a monitor with speakers, though I might be wrong.
 
I would assume that the majority of PC gamers serious enough to get G-Sync would also use headphones or separate speakers over the built-in kind. I use a 5.1 setup, for example. You're likely part of a very small group who would want a monitor with speakers, though I might be wrong.

it is handy for connecting up other equipment to the monitor. But then you'd need more than a single DP to make that relevant. Benq seems to have a 1080p monitor with HDMI, and the upcoming Acer 21:9 1440p gsync looks to have HDMI as well.
 
Just bought an Acer Predator XB270HU which should hopefully arrive tomorrow. Looking forward to it.

Has anybody used a G-Sync monitor with Windows 10? Are there any issues with it?
 
Just bought an Acer Predator XB270HU which should hopefully arrive tomorrow. Looking forward to it.

Has anybody used a G-Sync monitor with Windows 10? Are there any issues with it?

The only issue for now is that if you enable G-Sync in windowed mode, some modern apps (including the start menu and the action center) render a low FPS when there's nothing to animate, thus, mouse seems laggy as the screens's refresh rate goes under 30 FPS.

Besides that, no issue at all, smooth as in Windows 8.1.

Note : I got that screen too and run both Windows in dual boot, as there's still some issues with SLI in 10.
 
Getting my work bonus soon. Thinking over if I should go for a monitor or not.

I currently use 2 TN ASUS monitors that frankly have made me very happy over the years. I have a 780 that I overclock a decent amount and I game mostly at 1080p and downsample when I can.

1) If I get a G-sync monitor can I still do 2x monitors? Or can I only have 1 plugged in or when I game does it essentially kill the other monitor?

2) I'm thinking of waiting to upgrade my video card until Pascal. Is this a good line of thinking if I want to go for G-sync?

3) Could I go for a 1440p (I think the 780 should be good here for most games still) and keep a 2nd monitor as 1080p (links back to #1).

Appreciate advice/guidance.
 
Getting my work bonus soon. Thinking over if I should go for a monitor or not.

I currently use 2 TN ASUS monitors that frankly have made me very happy over the years. I have a 780 that I overclock a decent amount and I game mostly at 1080p and downsample when I can.

1) If I get a G-sync monitor can I still do 2x monitors? Or can I only have 1 plugged in or when I game does it essentially kill the other monitor?

2) I'm thinking of waiting to upgrade my video card until Pascal. Is this a good line of thinking if I want to go for G-sync?

3) Could I go for a 1440p (I think the 780 should be good here for most games still) and keep a 2nd monitor as 1080p (links back to #1).

Appreciate advice/guidance.

1. Yes - you can have other non G-Sync monitors plugged in and being used simultaneously whilst G-Sync is active and in-game. Source: I have three monitors plugged in on my PC, 2x regular monitors 1x G-Sync monitor. You can mix resolutions, refresh rates, G-Sync/non G-Sync.

2. Maxwell (and therefore Pascal) have 0 performance hit on G-Sync, your 780 (Kepler based cards) will incur a very minor performance hit - one that isn't even worth mentioning (1% at the worst, almost always less, basically imperceptible without careful benchmarking). I had a 2x 780s and the G-Sync hit wasn't something I could ever detect, so I wouldn't even worry about it then.

3. Yep.
 
Anyone know if there are any OLED gsync monitors on the horizon?

OLED suffers from burn in like plasma so its not ideal for a computer monitor where you have a static taskbar

its fine on a TV since you usually dont have a static image for hours on most TV uses.
 
OLED suffers from burn in like plasma so its not ideal for a computer monitor where you have a static taskbar

its fine on a TV since you usually dont have a static image for hours on most TV uses.

I'm pretty sure burn-in is something that USED to be an issue with OLED, not any more. I know phone screens might not be exactly the same, but my GS3 suffered from burn-in where the notifications bar was, and my frequently used GS4 that I've had for a year does not. And we've had multiple jumps in OLED tech since.

edit: Actually I looked this up and found someone explaining in-depth why burn-in isn't an issue any more, apparently OLEDs suffered burn-in for different reasons than plasma and LG uses a particular technology to curb it:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20060208971

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs-entertainment/tvs/1401612/why-your-next-tv-should-be-oled

To prevent the threshold voltage from deteriorating over time and causing an imbalance in luminance, LG has also developed special circuit algorithms to sense any potential changes in the threshold voltage of each pixel. This will adjust luminance levels on a real-time basis, helping the panel last longer and prevent staining.
 
I'm pretty sure burn-in is something that USED to be an issue with OLED, not any more. I know phone screens might not be exactly the same, but my GS3 suffered from burn-in where the notifications bar was, and my frequently used GS4 that I've had for a year does not. And we've had multiple jumps in OLED tech since.

edit: Actually I looked this up and found someone explaining in-depth why burn-in isn't an issue any more, apparently OLEDs suffered burn-in for different reasons than plasma and LG uses a particular technology to curb it:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20060208971

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs-entertainment/tvs/1401612/why-your-next-tv-should-be-oled

Clearly it's still an issue (monitor use can't really be compared with TVs and phone screens), otherwise LG would've come out with something by now to go along with their OLED TVs.
 
Clearly it's still an issue (monitor use can't really be compared with TVs and phone screens), otherwise LG would've come out with something by now to go along with their OLED TVs.
I don't think that's "clear" at all. I have a smartphone (Galaxy S2) with an OLED display which I used extensively for ~4 years, and suffered no visible burn-in effects at all. I'd argue smartphone use is very similar to monitor use.

Generally, I'd argue that just because the PC monitor market is slow to adapt new technology doesn't mean that technology is not suitable -- it could just be the monitor market being fucking slow. Wouldn't be the first time.
 
I don't think that's "clear" at all. I have a smartphone (Galaxy S2) with an OLED display which I used extensively for ~4 years, and suffered no visible burn-in effects at all. I'd argue smartphone use is very similar to monitor use.

Generally, I'd argue that just because the PC monitor market is slow to adapt new technology doesn't mean that technology is not suitable -- it could just be the monitor market being fucking slow. Wouldn't be the first time.

Would an OLED screen's potential for burn-in - assuming that's still a factor given the 'voltage drift compensation' - be affected by it being Pentile or RGB Stripe? Because I know the GS2 was RGB Stripe.
 
I personally feel that G-sync is overhyped. It introduces input-lag and will never be a serious option if your playing lets say competitive CS:GO.

It's a better version of Vsync, but it's not what its marketed/hyped to be.
 
I personally feel that G-sync is overhyped. It introduces input-lag and will never be a serious option if your playing lets say competitive CS:GO.

It's a better version of Vsync, but it's not what its marketed/hyped to be.

Woah woah woah. Back up here.

Is this true? Because more than anything I'm super sensitive to input lag. I'm that guy that'll put up with tearing and aliasing if it means reduced input lag.

If input lag is greater on a g-sync monitor, even with its superior v-sync solution, I'm out.
 
I personally feel that G-sync is overhyped. It introduces input-lag and will never be a serious option if your playing lets say competitive CS:GO.

It's a better version of Vsync, but it's not what its marketed/hyped to be.

What? It's exactly what it's marketed/hyped up to be. And in CS you are running at higher FPS than the max refresh of your display anyway, so gsync isn't an actual use case for that scenario - that's when you use ULMB to get better motion clarity instead.
If input lag is greater on a g-sync monitor, even with its superior v-sync solution, I'm out.

It's not. At max refresh it can act the same way as vsync, but even then you have more options on how to handle that situation.
 
Woah woah woah. Back up here.

Is this true? Because more than anything I'm super sensitive to input lag. I'm that guy that'll put up with tearing and aliasing if it means reduced input lag.

If input lag is greater on a g-sync monitor, even with its superior v-sync solution, I'm out.

As far as I know that is complete bollocks, I've never heard that before. And I have read a lot about G-sync.
 
I personally feel that G-sync is overhyped. It introduces input-lag and will never be a serious option if your playing lets say competitive CS:GO.

It's a better version of Vsync, but it's not what its marketed/hyped to be.

?

If I understand it properly, it should have the same input lag as having V-sync disabled, but with the benefit of removing tearing.

You move your mouse, view changes, as soon as it is fully drawn it gets displayed. How can that introduce input lag?
 
Woah woah woah. Back up here.

Is this true? Because more than anything I'm super sensitive to input lag. I'm that guy that'll put up with tearing and aliasing if it means reduced input lag.

If input lag is greater on a g-sync monitor, even with its superior v-sync solution, I'm out.

No there is no input lag. You can limit fps to 142 fps, 2 below your maximum refresh rate to ensure 0 input lag.
 
I personally feel that G-sync is overhyped. It introduces input-lag and will never be a serious option if your playing lets say competitive CS:GO.

It's a better version of Vsync, but it's not what its marketed/hyped to be.

It introduces minor input latency when you hit the limit (144hz), but it's still far from vsync. But the thing is, I don't just play CSGO - I play lots of other games which do benefit from G-Sync. I don't need it to be an option for CSGO, just disable G-Sync for that game, it's easy. Or I should say I let G-Sync disable once it passes 144hz (which is all the time).

The thing is - vsync is shit. It's a patch to solve an issue that shouldn't have ever been an issue and it's a patch that we know has significant downsides. G-Sync/FreeSync is how it should have always been - the GPU in drivers seat. I really couldn't go back to a non adaptive refresh display, it has removed so, so many headaches with games that I still see so many people having. Many people having a significantly worse experience on the same setup as mine on the same game, same settings, with the only difference being vsync vs g-sync.

Woah woah woah. Back up here.

Is this true? Because more than anything I'm super sensitive to input lag. I'm that guy that'll put up with tearing and aliasing if it means reduced input lag.

If input lag is greater on a g-sync monitor, even with its superior v-sync solution, I'm out.

http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/

Check out this:

This is still low-latency territory

Even when capped out, the total-chain input lag of 40ms is still extremely low for button-to-pixels latency. This includes game engine, drivers, CPU, GPU, cable lag, not just the display itself. Consider this: Some old displays had more input lag than this, in the display alone! (Especially HDTV displays, and some older 60Hz VA monitors).

In an extreme case scenario, photodiode oscilloscope tests show that a blank Direct3D buffer (alternating white/black), shows a 2ms to 4ms latency between Direct3D Present() and the first LCD pixels illuminating at the top edge of the screen. This covers mostly cable transmission latency and pixel transition latency. Currently, all current models of ASUS/BENQ 120Hz and 144Hz monitors are capable of zero-buffered real-time scanout, resulting in sub-frame latencies (including in G-SYNC mode).

Conclusion

As even the input lag in CS:GO was solvable, I found no perceptible input lag disadvantage to G-SYNC relative to VSYNC OFF, even in older source engine games, provided the games were configured correctly (NVIDIA Control Panel configured correctly to use G-SYNC, and game configuration updated correctly). G-SYNC gives the game player a license to use higher graphics settings in the game, while keeping the gameplay smooth.

We are very glad that manufacturers are paying serious attention to strobe backlights now, ever since this has been Blur Busters raison d’être (ever since our domain name used to be www.scanningbacklight.com in 2012, during the Arduino Scanning Backlight Project).

I almost guarantee you wouldn't be able to perceive the extra input lag (over v-sync off) outside of the situation on games like CSGO, which are outliers and even then are solvable without having to turn the vsync components on g-sync off (which you can do game by game).
 
Woah woah woah. Back up here.

Is this true? Because more than anything I'm super sensitive to input lag. I'm that guy that'll put up with tearing and aliasing if it means reduced input lag.

If input lag is greater on a g-sync monitor, even with its superior v-sync solution, I'm out.

There's none that I can perceive. I cannot play FPS games with a mouse on PC with V-Sync enabled due to the input lag, it was the bane of my gaming experience for years. G-Sync is absolutely fine though, I can't feel a different with it enabled or disabled.
 
It introduces minor input latency when you hit the limit (144hz), but it's still far from vsync. But the thing is, I don't just play CSGO - I play lots of other games which do benefit from G-Sync. I don't need it to be an option for CSGO, just disable G-Sync for that game, it's easy.

I agree that it's far better than Vsync, and i regret using the word "overhyped", but there are measurable input-lag and it should be talked about, or at least noted.

For most games people will be playing it will feel "perfect" and alot of people are not as picky when it comes to input-lag. But if you're going to buy expensive hardware because triple buffering just isn't enough, you should be aware that g-sync might not be "all that". For me personally it's a dealbreaker.
 
I agree that it's far better than Vsync, and i regret using the word "overhyped", but there are measurable input-lag and it should be talked about, or at least noted.

For most games people will be playing it will feel "perfect" and alot of people are not as picky when it comes to input-lag. But if you're going to buy expensive hardware because triple buffering just isn't enough, you should be aware that g-sync might not be "all that". For me personally it's a dealbreaker.

I feel like given those exact measurements, you're significantly overselling the additional input latency. The difference is minuscule to the point where it is almost not even worth talking about. If all you play are games like CSGO, then yeah, it's probably not worth it because you can run those at high frame rates and refresh rates where tearing isn't a real issue.

This is actually why I agree with blurbuster's wording on it, they provide the measurements that notes a minuscule different in input lag but realise it's basically its equivalent:

This is good news; G-SYNC noticeably improved Battlefield 4 visual gameplay fluidity with no input lag compromise.

It was good that we were also unable to detect any input lag degradation by using G-SYNC instead of VSYNC OFF. There were many situations where G-SYNC’s incredible ability to smooth the low 45fps frame rate, actually felt better than stuttery 75fps — this is a case where G-SYNC’s currently high price tag is justifiable, as Crysis 3 benefitted immensely from G-SYNC.

I do like to call G-Sync a "fix" rather than an "upgrade" however, whilst it is definitely an upgrade, I think describing it as a fix more accurately portrays what the benefits of it will be to someone (as they have experience of what it is fixing (vsync)).
 
Woah woah woah. Back up here.

Is this true? Because more than anything I'm super sensitive to input lag. I'm that guy that'll put up with tearing and aliasing if it means reduced input lag.

If input lag is greater on a g-sync monitor, even with its superior v-sync solution, I'm out.

It does not do anything with input lag as far as I know and everything I have ever read about it. There was some conspiracy theory level stuff coming out of the free sync camp saying Gsync adds input lag in comparison to Freesync.
I agree that it's far better than Vsync, and i regret using the word "overhyped", but there are measurable input-lag and it should be talked about, or at least noted.

For most games people will be playing it will feel "perfect" and alot of people are not as picky when it comes to input-lag. But if you're going to buy expensive hardware because triple buffering just isn't enough, you should be aware that g-sync might not be "all that". For me personally it's a dealbreaker.

Do you have some links to said measurement in the difference between Vsync, freesync, Gsync, and nonsync?
 
Reposting here as I figure I'll get better feedback.


I'm leaning towards the AOC.

I looked at both of those for a long time (online research, not in person) and they are both pretty close. There's no reviews on the XB240H but I'd expect it to be pretty close to the XB270H in performance (pretty good from the YouTube reviews and vids from what I saw). The AOC looks good too and seems like it's a mid range decent option.

My advice get the local one if possible so you can return it if you get a bad unit. I know MSY were selling the AOC for a while there, otherwise get the cheaper one.

Thosedeafmutes has the AOC and he likes it a lot.

(Btw step up to the XB270HU if you got the dollars and horsepower).
 
It does not do anything with input lag as far as I know and everything I have ever read about it. There was some conspiracy theory level stuff coming out of the free sync camp saying Gsync adds input lag in comparison to Freesync.

Why doesn't this surprise me?
 
I am thinking of selling my Asus swift. My PC has packed in and I won't be replacing for a couple of months.

£550 seems to be the cheapest I can find it online (brand new)

Anybody any ideas on a reasonable price for me and the prospective buyer?
 
These are the options, as I see them, in the scenario where your game can run at 144 fps constantly:

G-Sync mode enabled at 144 Hz. Sync set to On.
G-Sync is essentially comparable to Vsync in this scenario. G-Sync will match the panel's refresh to the frame rate. But if your frame rate doesn't vary and is always at the maximum possible for the display, then behaviour is just like Vsync at 144 Hz. There is some latency here, although we're talking about a few milliseconds.

You can optionally cap the game to 142 fps, which should reduce the latency caused by back buffer filling up. There's no judder or tearing in this mode.

G-Sync mode enabled at 144 Hz. Sync set to Off.
Nvidia have now added an option to choose behaviour above 144 fps. You can set the system to disable sync above 144 fps. This gives people the option to allow the game to run as fast as possible while in G-sync mode. This provides the lowest latency possible, but, the image will tear when the rate exceeds 144.

ULMB mode enabled at 120 Hz.
In my opinion G-Sync is not the mode you should be using in this scenario. Switch to ULMB mode and enjoy far superior motion resolution. You will have to enable Vsync in your application if you want to avoid tearing in this mode. Optionally, if you can't stand the smallest bit of latency and tearing is unacceptable, then you could cap the game at 118 fps, which should reduce the latency caused by back buffer filling up and keep the display in sync.
 
Why doesn't this surprise me?
I'm confident Nvidia artificially introduced input lag so they can release G-Sync² next year claiming to have defeated it *tips tinfoil hat*

Anyway. I don't think using Gsync with games you can constantly push at 144 and beyond makes any sense at all, does it? As mentioned above, I'd opt for ULMB at 120hz in the CSGO scenario.
 
I don't think that's "clear" at all. I have a smartphone (Galaxy S2) with an OLED display which I used extensively for ~4 years, and suffered no visible burn-in effects at all. I'd argue smartphone use is very similar to monitor use.

Generally, I'd argue that just because the PC monitor market is slow to adapt new technology doesn't mean that technology is not suitable -- it could just be the monitor market being fucking slow. Wouldn't be the first time.

You could be perfectly right about the PC monitor market, of course. Smartphone use very similar to monitor use though? How? I mean, sure, phones are basically PCs there days, but they're very "screen on, screen off" devices, while people tend to have monitors on for hours and hours, with static elements like the Windows taskbar present at all times.
 
Top Bottom