• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

FreeSync overtaking G-Sync with higher refresh rates???

Soldato
Joined
30 Mar 2010
Posts
13,414
Location
Under The Stairs!
LG reveals their 34GK950G and 34GK950F Nano IPS G-Sync and FreeSync displays

At IFA 2018, LG has unveiled two gaming-oriented displays for ultra-high-end PC gamers, both of which offer resolutions of 3440x1440 and high refresh rate playback.

These two monitors are designed to cater to the opposing sides of the PC market, with the 34GK950G supporting G-Sync while the 34GF950F supports VESA Adaptive-Sync and FreeSync 2. Both monitors use an LG "Nano IPS" display, which used a flicker-free W-LED backlight with a KSF phosphor layer to deliver 98% coverage of a DCI-P3 colour space.

From here on, both monitors become very different, with the G-Sync variant supporting a 100Hz refresh rate and a 120Hz overclocked mode while the FreeSync version supports a full 144Hz refresh rate without any need to overclock. In modern displays, "Overclocking" refers to the limiting of colour depth, chroma or other bandwidth-heavy features to enable support for higher maximum refresh rates. This makes the FreeSync version of this display superior in terms of image quality, at least when compared to the G-Sync version when running at its overclocked 120Hz mode.

Why is the G-Sync version so limited? The 34GK950G only offers support for DisplayPort 1.2 and provides an 8-bit colour depth, whereas the FreeSync 34GK950F supports DisplayPort 1.4, which delivers the ability to support higher refresh rates without compromises. The FreeSYnc version also supports HDMI 2.0, while the G-Sync version only supports HDMI 1.4, suggesting that it doesn't use Nvidia's latest DisplayPort 1.4 complaint G-Sync module.

Both monitors support a peak brightness of 400 nits, which is low as far as HDR compliance goes, though it is enough to grant the FreeSync version a full FreeSync 2 certification. The FreeSync version also offers support for 10-bit colour depths (8-bit + FRC). Both models feature stand with tilt, height and swivel options, though the G-Sync version also features LG's "Sphere Lighting" system on the rear of the monitor.

Right now, the G-Sync version of this monitor is set to ship in November for an MSRP of €1399. The pricing and release date of the FreeSync version remains unknown, though it is expected to release within a similar timeframe.

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gp...k950f_nano_ips_g-sync_and_freesync_displays/1

G-Sync module limitations being reached going off of that article, something to look out for if you are looking to purchase a gfx/vrr combo.
 
Interesting, When I was looking around for a new monitor a year or so ago it tended to be the G-sync models with higher refresh rates. LG also tended to be the brand selling half baked Freesync monitors, Hopefully that's changed too, It would seem so with this one supporting Freesync 2.

I'm already on 3440x1440 so I'm gonna have to wait for the high refresh rate UW4k models that are probably still a few years away. £1400.... Damn. :(
 
G-Sync module limitations being reached going off of that article, something to look out for if you are looking to purchase a gfx/vrr combo.
suggesting that it doesn't use Nvidia's latest DisplayPort 1.4 complaint G-Sync module.
From this quote it sounds more like LG didn't fit the latest DisplayPort 1.4 G-Sync module and only fitted an older 1.2 version

If that true then it LG to blame for not fitting the latest hardware
 
I just found this LOL
Latest G-SYNC Module Alone Costs Up To $500 US

But premium quality comes at a high price as detailed above. The reason for that is also cited as it is related to the specific G-SYNC HDR module that is being used in the panels.
Compared to the 1st gen models, the new panels come with an Intel Altera Arria 10 GX 480 FPGA module along with 3GB DDR4 memory up to 2400 MHz.
This FPGA alone costs around $2000 US but considering that Intel is selling them in bulk to NVIDIA, the price comes down around $500 US.
That $500 US is still a very high price that adds to the monitor cost, running up its cost.

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-g-sync-hdr-4k-stunning-but-expensive/
 
From this quote it sounds more like LG didn't fit the latest DisplayPort 1.4 G-Sync module and only fitted an older 1.2 version

If that true then it LG to blame for not fitting the latest hardware

Not a shock if right, If they can get away with cutting corners they will, We saw this with the Freesync monitors, And we see here how Freesync 2 has stopped it, It seems AMD were right to lock it down.
 
From this quote it sounds more like LG didn't fit the latest DisplayPort 1.4 G-Sync module and only fitted an older 1.2 version

If that true then it LG to blame for not fitting the latest hardware
Maybe they didn't want their shiny new tech spoilt by an expensive hairdryer in the back :D

Freesync is the way forward.
 
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gp...k950f_nano_ips_g-sync_and_freesync_displays/1

G-Sync module limitations being reached going off of that article, something to look out for if you are looking to purchase a gfx/vrr combo.

If you follow the discussion here, that is known for a long time...

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/lg-34gk950g-3440x1440-g-sync-120hz.18814918/

LG cannot fit $800 Gsync module to that monitor or else it will be over the $2000 mark.
 
If you follow the discussion here, that is known for a long time...
Yeah, thanks, wasn't aware as I don't frequent monitor sub, therefore presume others like myself would like the heads up since it's gfx dependant.

Very surprised about the whole situation tbh considering not having read about it in here in regards to tech point scoring in the usual for/against vrr arguments.

Personally having used FS first but now have 3 G-Sync panels(can't tell any difference inside the range), Nv really should be offering a baseline vrr adaptive sync non module variant at this point in time, and keep premium features for the elite:p users-should they actually implement some(TP talked about exciting things for the module in the pipeline@FS launch).
 
Yeah, thanks, wasn't aware as I don't frequent monitor sub, therefore presume others like myself would like the heads up since it's gfx dependant.

Very surprised about the whole situation tbh considering not having read about it in here in regards to tech point scoring in the usual for/against vrr arguments.

Personally having used FS first but now have 3 G-Sync panels(can't tell any difference inside the range), Nv really should be offering a baseline vrr adaptive sync non module variant at this point in time, and keep premium features for the elite:p users-should they actually implement some(TP talked about exciting things for the module in the pipeline@FS launch).

Elite users :P with deep pockets you mean :P

If NV offers VRR then gsync is dead. Already NV is looking for solution to stop AMD APU being used as a bridge for Nvidia GPUs having Freesync.
And true atm quad core APU seems too "low end" , but if AMD pulls a 7nm 8 core APU then what?
 
Yeah, thanks, wasn't aware as I don't frequent monitor sub, therefore presume others like myself would like the heads up since it's gfx dependant.

Very surprised about the whole situation tbh considering not having read about it in here in regards to tech point scoring in the usual for/against vrr arguments.

Personally having used FS first but now have 3 G-Sync panels(can't tell any difference inside the range), Nv really should be offering a baseline vrr adaptive sync non module variant at this point in time, and keep premium features for the elite:p users-should they actually implement some(TP talked about exciting things for the module in the pipeline@FS launch).
Except with low framerate compensation being a feature of all Freesync 2 HDR and many Freesync 1 displays, Gsync really has no advantages over Freesync anymore. Therefore, Nvidia would not be able to charge a premium for it.
 
Except with low framerate compensation being a feature of all Freesync 2 HDR and many Freesync 1 displays, Gsync really has no advantages over Freesync anymore. Therefore, Nvidia would not be able to charge a premium for it.

Unfortunately it costs money to make those gsync modules and someone has to pay for them.
If NV was supporting adaptive sync do you believe I could have sold my 1080Ti Xtreme? True was a boring to overclock card, compared to the Vega 64 Nitro, but was a great card never the less.
 
G-sync is only still alive becasue Nvidia don't give their customers any other choice. If Geforce cards supported adaptivesync/freesync (like they should do with DP1.2a and up), no one would pay the extra for G-sync monitors as there would be no point.

It's a bit of a joke really, obsolete hardware but has a premium cost.
 
G-sync is only still alive becasue Nvidia don't give their customers any other choice. If Geforce cards supported adaptivesync/freesync (like they should do with DP1.2a and up), no one would pay the extra for G-sync monitors as there would be no point.

It's a bit of a joke really, obsolete hardware but has a premium cost.

Still a good few games better supported under G-Sync than FreeSync - The Division for instance for a lot of people won't work except in DX12 mode and is hit and miss in DX12 if it wants to work or not.
 
Sounds like vendors are starting to laugh off Nvida's tax, the new licencing is probably stupidly expensive. Just look at the new HDR Predator offerings from Acer.

G-sync is only still alive becasue Nvidia don't give their customers any other choice. If Geforce cards supported adaptivesync/freesync (like they should do with DP1.2a and up), no one would pay the extra for G-sync monitors as there would be no point.

It's a bit of a joke really, obsolete hardware but has a premium cost.

That would be entirely so, if it weren't for the fact that FreeSync still isn't as good as G-Sync. Despite what some would have you believe.
 
Still a good few games better supported under G-Sync than FreeSync - The Division for instance for a lot of people won't work except in DX12 mode and is hit and miss in DX12 if it wants to work or not.

The Division issues were related to Relive added on the drivers back in late 2016! and only few people had the issue which resolved since.

On the other hand, is the stuttering issue with W10 1803 and gsync fixed, or still ongoing since February? Last time checked (early August) there is a few hundreds posts long thread ongoing in the official forum running since the start of the year.
 
Back
Top Bottom