** ASUS DO IT AGAIN: IPS, 144Hz & FREESYNC!!! Asus MG279Q thread **

Nexus18 said:
Ah ok, I can't name/link the site on here, competitor's rules and all that.


BTW, do you know a guy called Sonam who works in the FAE & technical marketing department for ASUS?
Click to expand...

I do (Sonam Lama). What about him?
 
These have the same IPS glow as the Acer XB270HU, so in terms on that don't get your hopes too high. Other than that it's an amazing screen, but if you play dark games or movies the glow can be just too annoying.

I have one I bought locally in my country a few days ago. I got some really bad glow in lower right corner. I'm in crossroads choosing between keeping my ROG Swift and returning the MG279Q. MG279Q's picture quality is just so much better, but the glow distracts me.
 
dakotha said:
These have the same IPS glow as the Acer XB270HU, so in terms on that don't get your hopes too high. Other than that it's an amazing screen, but if you play dark games or movies the glow can be just too annoying.

I have one I bought locally in my country a few days ago. I got some really bad glow in lower right corner. I'm in crossroads choosing between keeping my ROG Swift and returning the MG279Q. MG279Q's picture quality is just so much better, but the glow distracts me.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this, is ur issue consistant with others bought in your country?

We were lead to believe the acer's were just a bad batch but some ppl on forums are beginning to doubt this now
 
Chipper500 said:
Thanks for this, is ur issue consistant with others bought in your country?

We were lead to believe the acer's were just a bad batch but some ppl on forums are beginning to doubt this now
Click to expand...

I don't know, I believe only a few have been sold so far. I'd think it's only a feature of the screen and if I get another one it'll probably have some glow too, but hopefully less than in mine.
 
I've been working on getting you all some better information about the MG279Q and the FreeSync range, and I've had quite a productive conversation this morning.

So, owing to engineering limitations it's not possible to provide FreeSync across the full range of frequencies (as you may have read about), and that's something that all manufacturers are working with. What we determined in testing, and indeed in discussion with AMD, was that the lower boundary was key - with that lower boundary too high, if your fps dropped, you would lose FreeSync capabilities and notice the impact. Therefore, we decided to set the lower boundary at 35 Hz and that required us to bring the higher boundary down to 90 Hz. In testing, the effects of no FreeSync at 35-40 Hz were much more pronounced than they were >90 Hz so this made sense.

On the whole, whilst I can understand that a few might be disappointed, it should provide a great balance of the colour reproduction you expect with IPS, plus tear-free gaming at up to 90 fps / Hz - and you'll likely benefit far more from the lower minimum bound than you would from a higher maximum bound, given that it's effectively a choice between the two.

Hopefully that all makes sense!
 
Thanks for the clarification Jim and I personally agree with the choice of choosing a lower boundary over a higher boundary, it is just a shame that you have to choose one or the other where as with gsync, you can have the best of both.

Like Carrot said though, it should be made more clear/advertised in the "specs" etc. Same goes for all freesync monitors tbh (especially LG's.....)!
 
carrot1401 said:
And the press release doesn't contain a single mention of the 90hz limit...
Click to expand...

I don't know much about that, it's a global thing. The one thing I can assure you of is that everyone involved in this in the UK office has every intention of being as clear as possible - hence me publishing the previous post.

In reference to Nexus' point as well, it is my understanding that updated info should filter through but this may take a bit of time.
 
So is it fair to say the gsync module for the moment certainly has a benefit then as we've seen an IPS display from Acer that works in the full 30-144hz gsync range.
 
So this is a freesync limitation?

Personally, the decisions seems a bit wrong way around to me. On a high refresh monitor, I would be aiming to keep my fps high to get the benefit, so would want a higher frequency range for freesync.

On a 60hz screen, yeah, try and keep it low... so 35hz (or lower good there)

But then I have not used either gsync or freesync, so maybe I am talking poo.

Either way, if this turns out to be a common issue, it will make future purchases easier. If Freesync doesn't improve, when it comes to buying hardware again, will just go nvidia and gsync.
 
eyetrip said:
So this is a freesync limitation?

Personally, the decisions seems a bit wrong way around to me. On a high refresh monitor, I would be aiming to keep my fps high to get the benefit, so would want a higher frequency range for freesync.

On a 60hz screen, yeah, try and keep it low... so 35hz (or lower good there)

But then I have not used either gsync or freesync, so maybe I am talking poo.

Either way, if this turns out to be a common issue, it will make future purchases easier. If Freesync doesn't improve, when it comes to buying hardware again, will just go nvidia and gsync.
Click to expand...

Sounds like its a scaler limitation, with the problems we've seen on other monitors with ghosting etc, it sounds like Asus have chosen to tune the overdrive rather than have the monitor suffer ghosting issues.

Having a fully custom scaler for gsync is showing the advantage that offers. It could be fixed for freesync but would require a more in depth adjustment on the scaler it would appear. Time and effort that they've decided not to invest at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom