G-Sync Free-Sync compatible monitors
- Thread starter hobib_ali
- Start date
Caporegime
These are proper G-Sync mate. It is so G-Sync that it even comes with a fan in it!
The price is proper G-Sync also, it goes towards buying Jensen's leather jackets
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...-widescreen-led-gaming-monitor-mo-09q-as.html
The price is proper G-Sync also, it goes towards buying Jensen's leather jackets
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...-widescreen-led-gaming-monitor-mo-09q-as.html
These are proper G-Sync mate. It is so G-Sync that it even comes with a fan in it!
The price is proper G-Sync also, it goes towards buying Jensen's leather jackets
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...-widescreen-led-gaming-monitor-mo-09q-as.html
you have provided a link to the Asus 4k Gsync 144hz monitor that cost 2 bags
yet the monitor below is only 793 quid and has all of the above, so what am i missing?
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/acer...-widescreen-led-gaming-monitor-mo-144-ac.html
Caporegime
With a quick glance, these seem like very different monitors. Did you not read the descriptions?
The 2K one has Full Array Local Dimming (FALD) and a FPGA chip with a fan on it. The other monitor does not have have FALD and has a much lower peak brightness so HDR if it even has it will be no good. Not only that, the more expensive monitor has a much bigger colour gamut. The cheap one only covers 90% DCI-P3, where as the expensive one is 97%.
What is it that you think G-Sync does by the way? If what you understand is it allows you to play without V-Sync and tearing then both monitors have this. One monitor however is more advanced than the other as I have shown above. These days there is no need for a chip in the monitor to have G-Sync, but it seems it is for HDR. I personally am not versed as to why this is. Maybe baddass can explain that to you.
If it was me, I would go for the cheaper of those two monitors unless HDR is a big thing for you. But paying 1K+ to have HDR that hardly any game will benefit from at the moment is a waste of money. Plus who wants to hear a fan whining in their monitor??
Hopefully you understand now
By the way, in the post you quoted in case you could not tell I was being sarcastic
With a quick glance, these seem like very different monitors. Did you not read the descriptions?
The 2K one has Full Array Local Dimming (FALD) and a FPGA chip with a fan on it. The other monitor does not have have FALD and has a much lower peak brightness so HDR if it even has it will be no good. Not only that, the more expensive monitor has a much bigger colour gamut. The cheap one only covers 90% DCI-P3, where as the expensive one is 97%.
What is it that you think G-Sync does by the way? If what you understand is it allows you to play without V-Sync and tearing then both monitors have this. One monitor however is more advanced than the other as I have shown above. These days there is no need for a chip in the monitor to have G-Sync, but it seems it is for HDR. I personally am not versed as to why this is. Maybe baddass can explain that to you.
If it was me, I would go for the cheaper of those two monitors unless HDR is a big thing for you. But paying 1K+ to have HDR that hardly any game will benefit from at the moment is a waste of money. Plus who wants to hear a fan whining in their monitor??
Hopefully you understand now
By the way, in the post you quoted in case you could not tell I was being sarcastic
Im aware on what gsync is, I had a 2560x1440 144hz 27 inch Asus monitor, i really loved it, i decided to get a bigger screen so i sold it and bought a LG 31.5inch 2560x1440 165hz monitor, the pixels on it are much bigger, even though they both are 2560x1440, the LG screen isnt as sharp as the Asus, using word you can see each pixel, but on the asus monitor it was clean and sharp, the pixels are so small u cant see them., but was too late as the Asus was already sold, ive decided to buy another monitor, Gsync with a high refresh rate is key, I want a 4k one but they are super expensive, so I might just get another 1440p, the wide screen monitors, hence why i asked if the monitor above is any good, looked online and the gsync compatible monitors are missing a lot of features
so im gonna stick to a original Gsync monitor, i just need to keep n eye on whats available, Im gonna sell my LG screen for around 300/350 add another 700ish so Ive got £1000 to play with, this will be used with my RTX 2080ti
question is what to go for..........
Caporegime
A lot of features? Please list them. Only one I am aware of is variable Overdrive.
On my G-Sync monitor I have profiles. I use two. One for gaming and one for desktop. With the gaming profile I use medium overdrive and higher brightness and on the desktop one I turn overdrive off completely and have lower brightness.
The Acer monitor you listed will have much better image quality than the monitor you have. You say it is expensive but I have seen you spend a lot more on top of the range EVGA Graphics cards and went SLI on top (even though SLI was a dying tech).
It isn't just variable overdrive BTW that can be lacking - the G-Sync FPGA does adaptive variable overdrive which is entirely missing on FreeSync monitors (some FreeSync monitors do support variable overdrive).
I dunno about a lot of features but G-Sync still typically has a wider refresh range i.e. a lot of basic 60Hz 4K panels will have 45-60Hz adaptive sync range with a few that do a wider range while all G-Sync ones will have a 30-60 range. Though you can generally pick and choose FS monitors to find one with a refresh range that works for you.
When it is working (still works on Windows 7, etc. but MS keeps breaking it on Windows 10 for "security" reasons) G-Sync has better windowed modes support for G-Sync with the FPGA.
While a lot of people won't notice it low framerate recovery is better on G-Sync with at least 1 frame of lag less before it returns to a higher rendering rate - and before anyone links to it LTT's results were incorrect because they setup their test environment wrong.
While personally I don't have much use for it there is a whole topic of lightboost/ULMB features as well where for some people G-Sync with the FPGA only provides the features needed.
On the flipside G-Sync tends to be poorly optimised for video content where it can induce a degree of albeit barely noticeable flickering in whites, etc. which FreeSync doesn't do (aslong as the video content is rendering at a constant rate) due to being optimised to try and provide best motion clarity in games.
Acer Nitro 4K. I have one and it's fantastic.
Caporegime
Will be interesting to see what it is that G-Sync provides that G-Sync compatible does not that is a deal breaker for OP.
As I do not play online or fps games in general I find 60fps to be plenty for me. I would actually prefer a 144hz or more display as there are other benefits even if only using it a 60fps, but the price difference is way to big for me to want to upgrade currently. What I like about the Acer Nitro is it is both Freesync and G-Sync. Like right now I am on a Vega 56 while waiting for Nvidia to release their 7nm 3000 series and would benefit from that. But again, not remotely worth the price difference for me.
The only thing that puts me off is the apparent flickering which I’ve read about that happens when FLC kicks in at the lower end of the sync range. I never noticed this at all on my Gsync monitor but maybe it’s more common on FreeSync/gsync compatible monitors?
Caporegime
My FreeSync BenQ EX3501R is G-Sync compatible, and it works great, without any issues.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2019
- Posts
- 2,570
The hardware G-Sync module add no lag unlike FreeSync so I assume a G-Sync compatible monitor is the same as the latter IMO hardware based G-Sync its better but cost more about £200 for the Module in the new 4k panels correct?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2019
- Posts
- 2,570
Both types of Sync Tech mainly benefit you more at lower FPS (estimate 45-60 is golden range) to prevent that laggy look (watch the Nvidia Pendulum video or better grab the demo if you have access to see on a G-Sync monitor )so less beneficial at 144hz/FPS.
Caporegime
Don't think this is accurate to be honest.
From what I recall when Battlenonsense did a complete button to pixel test under best case scenario G-Sync best case was 9ms and FreeSync 11ms so it is strictly true but in reality the average is so close no one would notice the difference. FreeSync does take a slight latency penalty around the LFC window due to how it uses PSR in a way not originally intended which sometimes mean you get 1 additional frame of latency in a transition from a framerate drop to high framerates again - but again that generally isn't a factor if you are maintaining reasonably good framerates in the first place.