I'd hope for an official announcement of those AOC screens at least. They sound perfect, spec wise.
G-Sync is the god-level gaming upgrade.
- Thread starter Grampa Simpson
- Start date
You'll be using it at 60hz over HDMI.
is this true for any 144hz monitor?
Computex
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52324/new-asus-rog-swift-monitor-hit-180hz-nvidia-sync/index.html
Asus 1080p 24" TN 180hz gsync monitor. Baby steps to 300hz I guess.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52324/new-asus-rog-swift-monitor-hit-180hz-nvidia-sync/index.html
Asus 1080p 24" TN 180hz gsync monitor. Baby steps to 300hz I guess.
Yes, it's a limitation of HDMI.
Use DVI-D for the time being, if you want 144.
Did your monitor not come with either a DVI-D or DP cable?
Oh, this is nice. I'm very interested.
Hmm, this monitor by Acer can already overclock to 180mhz.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01C05C1OK/?tag=neogaf0e-20
I don't know, my monitor isn't here yet, but I assumed it wouldn't come with such a cable?
edit: just re-read the description,it says it comes with a display port cable. so all good
I don't know, my monitor isn't here yet, but I assumed it wouldn't come with such a cable?
edit: just re-read the description,it says it comes with a display port cable. so all good
Awesome!
I also just bought this monitor. I didn't want to go any larger than 24 because I have more than one monitor and the lack of 1440p monitors at that size make the prices suck.
The Artisan
Member
so I guess that means there s no level higher than g-sync
haha, yeah, I'll have my old monitor next to it as a second monitor but I also sit pretty close to my desk so a 27" would be too big for my desk anyway.
Apparently the 28" version of this monitor only supports 60hz on the display port D:
Oh, didn't know about that. They're probably using the same panel as well.
Backfoggen
Banned
4k high fps screen please.
Uh, I just read I am supposed to cap framerate to 120 when I use 144hz mode because otherwise it will increase inputlag when using g-sync?
is this true?
I'm pretty sure he only reason you would cap it at 120 is to use lightboost. If you have a 144hz with G-Sync I don't know why you would do it though.
BoosterDuck
Banned
Why the fuck isn't it IPS lol, haven't IPS monitors been shown to keep up with TN panels in input lag now.
Well whatever I'm planning on moving up to a 1440p monitor in the future.
ok so i basically just cap my framerate at 144 and call it a day, right?
gsync enabled and vsync enabled in drivers and vsync disabled in games,right?
Cap at 143 or 142 to avoid hitting the 144 fps limit and constantly having vsync turn on, or turn off vsync in the driver too so you don't have to worry about that and cap at w/e. vsync always off in games.
Yup.
It's kind of funny and sad, with all the complaints I keep seeing in some games recently that have double-buffered Vsync, and everyone bitching on and on about framerates and frame times... it's been smooth sailing for me since getting G-sync. I wish more people would get on the bandwagon, G-sync ain't just a gimmick.
roger that, thanks mate!
I guess i'll keep the vsync on in case a game doesn't work with RTSS and goes above 144fps
gonna cap at 142 otherwise.
Nesmaster75
Member
Been rocking my Sony 3D Monitor for my PC for a solid 7ish years now & looking to upgrade to a 1440p, gsync, 144hz monitor, and one that has an HDMI port so I can still hook up my WiiU to it. Been going through every page of this thread and there's so many different opinions that it's making it hard for me to decide what I should get, especially when it comes to IPS or TN panels (they both seem to have pros & cons in this thread).
After a lot of research, I think I've narrowed it down to these two:
1.) http://www.amazon.com/Dell-Gaming-S2716DG-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B0149QBOF0
2.) http://www.amazon.com/SWIFT-PG279Q-Screen-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B017EVR2VM
Any opinions on either of these would be great, especially if you own one!
After a lot of research, I think I've narrowed it down to these two:
1.) http://www.amazon.com/Dell-Gaming-S2716DG-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B0149QBOF0
2.) http://www.amazon.com/SWIFT-PG279Q-Screen-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B017EVR2VM
Any opinions on either of these would be great, especially if you own one!
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
That 180hz asus monitor got a bigger brother at 240hz now, 1080p aswell.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52337...ks-insane-native-240hz-nvidia-sync/index.html
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52337...ks-insane-native-240hz-nvidia-sync/index.html
Computex 2016 - Not content with smashing the refresh rate barrier with the new ASUS ROG Swift 180Hz G-Sync monitor, ASUS has just one-upped itself with a new G-Sync monitor that sports 240Hz refresh rates.
Hamster Plugin
Member
I don't know, my monitor isn't here yet, but I assumed it wouldn't come with such a cable?
edit: just re-read the description,it says it comes with a display port cable. so all good
The DP cable that came with my XB270HU is very short, it just barely fits my setup. I'm thinking of buying a longer one but DP cables are really expensive as they're not as ubiquitous as HDMI cables.
Spring Drive
Banned
Get one at Monoprice.com
a 3m DP cable costs like 10€ on Amazon for me.
I should be fine with a short cable though, my desktop is right next to the desk.
Also, wish me luck that my monitor is waiting for me today and won't go back to the post office cause no one was home, GAF!
Fallout-NL
Member
Depends on what type of games/applications you're running and whether you want to actually hit 144hz as much as possible.
For reference, I'm on a 970 with that 1440p 165hz ASUS ROC monitor. Obviously not hitting 165hz with anything other than older games, but the 970 is totally fine in most cases. The new Doom for instance is between 55 and 60 fps for 95% of the time. Same for Dark Souls 3.
So yeah, if you see gsync as a great way to mitigate not being able to get a rock solid 60fps (which is probably something that'll never happen anyway), then go for the 1070. If you absolutely want to reach those higher refresh rates and stay there, then bigger is obviously better. Though at 1080p, the 1070 might actually be enough (since I'm getting fairly good results with my 970 even on 1440p).
blankempathy
Member
Depends. Do you want to spend a few hundred extra dollars on better colors/picture? Thats essentially what it comes down to in regards to the Dell vs IPS g sync monitors. I've owned the Dell monitor for about 2-3 weeks now and I have no complaints. I came from a Korean Samsung PLS panel (DP2710LED) which was very vibrant and had excellent viewing angles and although the Dell is a tn panel the difference in colors has been negligible to me. The g-sync and the 144hz performance though has been astonishing though. Just make sure you download the icc profiles online to improve the calibration of the colors because out of the box the calibration kind of sucks. Ultimately its up to you and your budget. For me personally I don't want to pay an extra 300 bucks when I could put that towards a new gpu in the future. Then again I only really do gaming so if you're doing other stuff like editing/photoshop you may want to look an ips panel.
Depends on what you're looking to play. I tested a 1080p 144hz monitor during the overwatch beta and on ultra settings on my 970 I was hitting max refresh rate most of the time. Blops 3 was giving me 110-144hz on a mixture of high settings.
Either is fine. Even if you don't get 144 fps you still get less motion blur due to the faster panels, G-sync and especially if you use ULMB with games that run 60+ fps.
If you need a longer than 3m cable then you are going to need an active one. From Wikipedia:
Hi guys,
I have some legit questions regarding G-Sync, and if its needed in my situation.
Appreciate all the help i can get.
1. Monitor resolution i would play on will be 3,440 x 1,440 or 2560x1440. I will either have a gtx 1080 or a 1070 for this.
2. I do NOT play FPS or strategy games competetive. My favorite games are usually third person adventure/rpg games like Dark Souls, Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy etc. I will most likley buy and play the shit out of a RTS Warcraft 4 if that ever happen though.
3. I feel rock solid 60 fps is fine for me with the above game genres described. Is it a large difference paying these kind of games in 60 hz and fps compared to lets say 100 hz and fps? . Even if the difference is large do i really need it?
4. Do i need G-Sync?
I have some legit questions regarding G-Sync, and if its needed in my situation.
Appreciate all the help i can get.
1. Monitor resolution i would play on will be 3,440 x 1,440 or 2560x1440. I will either have a gtx 1080 or a 1070 for this.
2. I do NOT play FPS or strategy games competetive. My favorite games are usually third person adventure/rpg games like Dark Souls, Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy etc. I will most likley buy and play the shit out of a RTS Warcraft 4 if that ever happen though.
3. I feel rock solid 60 fps is fine for me with the above game genres described. Is it a large difference paying these kind of games in 60 hz and fps compared to lets say 100 hz and fps? . Even if the difference is large do i really need it?
4. Do i need G-Sync?
Fallout-NL
Member
To me the great thing about g-sync is not insane refresh rates, it is not having to tinker for hours with the settings to get a stable framerate because a dip every now then simply isn't a problem anymore. After all, super well optimized games that achieve 'rock solid 60 fps' are fairly rare and even then, dips happen.
G-Sync monitors usually comes with several advantages.
- The G-Sync module is combined with the fastest panels on the market so you get less motion blur no matter what.
- ULMB mode allows for the least motion blur possible on a LCD
- The monitors usually have very low input lag
For example I play Dark Souls 3 with ULMB mode because the game runs at the 60 fps cap on my 980 Ti. I do the same for any fast paced games (mostly first person shooters) that run above 60 fps. The higher refresh rate does make a difference as it allows for less motion blur even if you aren't able to play it at 100 fps. If you plan to have a 3440x1440 then you definitely want G-Sync as many games will have dips in performance, which you generally just won't notice that much with G-Sync.
For the games you play you could get away without using G-Sync but you're still going to want a fast, low input lag, high refresh rate panel for that.
blankempathy
Member
For me the most important thing is having a good computer build aka a good gpu/cpu before i start worrying about having gsync/144hz. Its like the cherry on top of a sundae. I'm also sure all my future monitors will have some form of g-sync and +144hz because once you've been spoiled its hard to go back.
Backfoggen
Banned
Hell yes.
http://www.computerbase.de/2016-05/asus-ultra-hd-144-hz/
(Sorry for Germ)
4k 144hz prototype that is supposed to be available sometime this year. Has Gsync and Freesync.
Please don't be black hole for my wallet priced. I will accept a meteorite crater sized hole.
http://www.computerbase.de/2016-05/asus-ultra-hd-144-hz/
(Sorry for Germ)
4k 144hz prototype that is supposed to be available sometime this year. Has Gsync and Freesync.
Please don't be black hole for my wallet priced. I will accept a meteorite crater sized hole.
How many gtx 1080s needed?
Eduardboon
Member
Still waiting for that affordable 1080p 24"screen with an HDMi port added.
That's starting to inch closer to the territory where you don't need variable refresh tech any more.
Pfft IPS.
I'm curious about why you'd say this. Is it because the higher the frequency, the harder it is for us to observe the tearing if you don't sync to display? I mean, a tear at 240 Hz would be visible for 1/4 of the time than it would be at 60 Hz, right?
No, because the higher the frequency is the smaller the judder introduced by triple buffering becomes.
E.g. at 60 Hz, at worst triple buffering will introduce ~16ms of judder (if you just missed the timing window). At 240 Hz at worst it will introduce ~4ms of judder.
4 ms are probably already pretty hard to notice for most humans. At a theoretical 500 Hz, at most you'd cause a judder of 2ms with triple buffering, and at that point variable refresh is probably not really relevant.
Of course, in practice increasing resolution will likely prevent us from reaching those refresh rates, even once more monitors switch to underlying display technology which would support it in principle (like OLED).
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
Finally something interesting.
What's the problem with IPS? I've never heard any negatives, just that it has the best color reproduction and viewing angles. I'm waiting for the price to come down on 144hz IPS displays.
Hamster Plugin
Member
Thanks, will keep that in mind. I think mine is 1.5m or 2m right now - 3m will definitely be enough.