After my colleague TwsT recently did a Freesync review (http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18662318 ) it dawned on me that we hadn’t yet done any significant G-Sync testing. I have Nvidia graphics cards at home, recently switching from AMD, and I was, possibly, the biggest G-Sync cynic in the company so I volunteered to put a few of our best-selling G-Sync monitors through their paces and to discover if G-Sync is all that it’s cracked up to be.
My early experience of G-Sync was through Youtube videos, which I think even Nvidia will admit, were a massive mistake. You cannot properly show off adaptive sync technologies via a fix frame rate video so I won’t even attempt to. Also, since G-sync doesn’t significantly impact frame rates I won’t bore you with game benchmarks. Instead I’ll focus on the monitors themselves and how G-Sync performs.
The Hard Facts! What is G-Sync?
In the briefest of terms, G-Sync is Nvidia’s proprietary adaptive V-Sync technology for gaming monitors. The aim of adaptive sync is to completely do away with frame tearing which is the undesirable side effect unmatched refresh rates between the monitor and graphics card.
Put simply, if the graphics card starts to output a new frame before the monitor has finished outputting the last there will be a clear, defined tear on the screen.
G-Sync achieves a tear free experience by only matching the monitor refresh rate to the frame rate output from the graphics card by basically preventing the monitor from outputting a new frame until it has been fully rendered.
What About VSync and Multi-Frame Buffering?
Yes, there are existing technologies intended to combat tearing but they can cause reduced frame rates, increased latency and, in my opinion, the worst effect of all, stutter.
Enabling these technologies often causes me to suffer from motion sickness, so I’ve been forced to live with tearing for most of my gaming life.
G-Sync has no noticeable effect on frame rates, it prevents stutter and, since it doesn’t increase imput latency, it’s ideal for FPS gamers and competition.
That’s The Theory, What’s It Like In Practice?
Officially, G-Sync works from 40Hz to 144Mhz, but don’t believe the hype…It’s BETTER than that!
I tested using my own PC. An overclocked Intel i7 4790K with three watercooled GTX 980s. By varying the number of cards in use and testing in a variety of situations I was able to really test the G-Sync performance at differing frame rates. I tested four different panels and played games as varied as Fifa 15, The Witcher 3, Dragon Age Inquisition and Counter Strike Global Offensive. I also ran Heaven and Firestrike benchmarks to really test the low FPS performance. I experienced frame rates over 144Hz and as low as 13FPS and at no point did I experience any tearing. I may have started the process as a sceptic but now I’m a real convert.
Unlike Freesync, which switches over to traditional V-Sync outside of the accepted range, the G-Sync module continues to work. Conscious that really low refresh rates can damage the panel, I was concerned about how G-Sync was achieving this so I did some research.
It turns out that Nvidia have been really clever when it comes to low FPS performance. Rather than outputting one frame to the screen for every frame from the graphics card, it doubles the frame rate, outputting two monitor frames for each frame from card. As the frame rates drop even further it will output three frames for each rendered frame. This means that the tear free experience continues even at very low frame rates.
For example, at 35FPS the screen outputs at 70Hz and at 15FPS the screen outputs at 45Hz.
There is a really good (although way too long) video here which proves it!
Here are some of the best-selling G-Sync monitors currently along with my opinions of them.
Asus PG278Q ROG Swift 27" G-Sync 144Hz Gaming Widescreen LED Slim Bezel Monitor - Black/Red
Design
The first 1440p G-Sync monitor caused somewhat of a revolution. Demand was so high that early on stock was extremely limited. The buzz around this monitor was incredible and it’s easy to see why from the specs.
144Hz refresh, 2560x1440 resolution and 1ms response time, the perfect spec for any gamer, even without the G-Sync capability. The Republic of Gamers design touches, slim bezel and matte panel combine to offer a truly stunning monitor package.
The angled, sleak lines, trapezoidal base and rear mounted menu buttons are all reminiscent of the Lockheed F-117 “Nighthawk” stealth bomber. The strong geometry and matte black plastic screams modern design. The glowing red LED ring in the base is going to attract some and irritate others but thankfully it can be disabled easily.
The stand has a full range of ergonomic adjustment thanks to 12cm height adjust, 120 degree swivel, 25 degree tilt and 90 degree “portrait” rotation.
I found the rear mounted buttons fiddly and difficult to use, so much so that it took me quite some time to cycle through the options and occasionally enabling features that I hadn’t intended to.
Features
The swift features Nvidia’s Ultra Low Motion Blur technology, which apparently strobes the backlight of the monitor to eliminate motion blur and further reduce input latency. I honestly cannot say that I noticed a difference but others may do.
It has a two port USB 3.0 hub next to the monitor connection
The swift also has a couple of Republic of Gamers exclusive features. A game timer which can display a timer on screen to keep track of spawn and build times and, for the cheats avid gamer out there, the swift offers a choice of crosshair overlays.
Panel
All opinions in this segment are purely subjective, based on my own tastes and a series of side by side comparisons. If you’d like a purely technical analysis of screen capabilities then please pay a visit to our resident expert Baddass’ site http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/
My first impressions of the swift were mixed, the colours were really intense and the whites were really crisp. Some people would love this, because it really makes images pop and edges seem sharper. For gaming, especially fast moving games and FPS this set up is really good, but for daily use it’s a bit too intense for me.
The maximum brightness is incredibly high and by default the whites are too blue, I’d guess that they are closer to 7000K than 5000K. Thankfully and unsurprisingly, this is easily adjusted. Once adjusted to my taste with brightness around 40, contrast of 50 and a warmer RGB setting I was much happier with the overall experience.
There was a tiny bit backlight bleed in the bottom corners on an all black screen at these settings but in general, the panel lighting was very even indeed with hardly any variation across the whole panel. Ghosting was minimal, even in dedicated ghosting tests.
Gaming performance is as exceptional as you’d expect from a £600 gaming monitor, if the panel ghosts, it was not noticeable. The colours where really rich for a TN panel and the G-sync performance was flawless.
This was the first G-Sync monitor that I’d ever tested and it set the bar REALLY high and we’ll use this as the benchmark for the other panels.
Scores
Design and Build Quality – 4.5/5
Features – 4/5
Panel – 4/5
Cost – 2/5
Overall - 14.5 / 20
Acer Predator XB270H 27" G-Sync 144Hz Gaming Widescreen LED Monitor - Black/Red
Acer’s TN panel Predator monitor came along after the Asus Swift with the same specification but a more wallet friendly price point. So how does it compare?
Design
The predator boasts the same 144Hz refresh and 1ms response time specs as the Swift. With the blood orange ring in the base I can’t help but wonder if Acer are taking design cues from Asus too, but that’s just about where the similarities end. Apart from the predator only being 1080p, the overall look and feel of the units are very different.
The Acer’s design is much smoother, focusing on curves rather than straight lines and sharp angles. It’s much more understated than the swift and comes in black glossy plastics for the front and base with two tone black/grey, more matte finish on the rear. The bezels are thicker and chunkier than the swift. Despite this, the predator doesn’t feel as solidly built as the Swift and I found the glossy plastics to be so reflective that they were occasionally a distraction, especially when reflecting the edge of the on screen image when playing games in a dark environment.
The buttons are front mounted but they are very sleak and unobtrusive and the menus are clear and easy to use.
The stand has a full range of ergonomic adjustment thanks to 15cm height adjust, 120 degree swivel, 40 degree tilt and 90 degree “portrait” rotation.
Features
The predator includes the same ULMB technology as the Swift but lacks any extra “gaming” features. It does however, have four USB 3.0 ports, two of them are next to the input connector but the other two are on the side of the monitor, which is a much more user friendly location.
Panel
Stood by itself the Acer predator features a decent example of a TN film panel. It was much less harsh on the eyes than the swift. The colours felt more natural and the white were closer to 5000K. That said, adjustment was still needed to fit my taste. I lowered the brightness to about 45, contrast was set at 55 and the colours set a little warmer.
Side by side with the swift however, there were noticeable differences. There was a little more backlight bleed on an all black screen on the predator and it also suffered from a less even backlight.
Gaming performance is good and whilst the ghosting was a little more noticeable in the ghosting test it wasn’t noticeable in games. The colours were nice, although not quite as vibrant as the swift however.
Scores
Design and Build Quality – 3/5
Features – 3.5/5
Panel – 3/5
Cost – 4/5
Overall - 13.5 / 20
Acer Predator XB270HU 27" G-Sync IPS 144Hz Gaming Widescreen LED Monitor - Black/Red
We shift our attention now to a more recent release, the IPS panel Acer Predator. Featuring the same 144Hz refresh rate and 2560x1440 resolution as the Asus Swift but, due to the IPS technology, a slower 4ms response time.
Design and Features
The design of the IPS monitor is identical to the TN film except for two things. The bezel of the IPS unit is smaller, about half the size and the monitor feels more tightly screwed together.
comparing the two Acer bezel designs
The IPS predator has all the same features as the TN example. Despite some improvements to the design of the chassis, the shiny plastic bezel and generic design mean that at this point it falls short of the benchmark set by the Asus Swift. However, people who are interested in buying this screen are only going to do so because of the panel type, otherwise, why else would you spend the extra £200 over the TN film version?
The stand is the same as the other Acer screens, it has a full range of ergonomic adjustment thanks to 15cm height adjust, 120 degree swivel, 40 degree tilt and 90 degree “portrait” rotation.
Panel
It was immediately apparent why IPS is such a highly rated technology. I could talk about the much improved viewing angles, but as a gamer I never really classed that a deciding factor. For me, a panel’s quality comes from even lighting, sharpness and colours and in this case the colours seemed to be noticeably richer and deeper right from the start. When I started the side by side comparisons this was confirmed. It was, out of the box, a nicer feeling panel with deep blacks, clean whites. As with every monitor tested so far though, the default settings were too bright and the colours too cool for my taste so I tweaked the settings again.
Early on I had decided that the opening bedroom sequence to The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt would be an excellent test of the panel’s contrast and colour depth. The rich colours, varied light sources and shadows make an ideal comparison tool. Running the game mirrored on both screens and comparing against the Acer Predator TN panel, there was no contest, the difference was clear, so I switched back to the Asus Swift, which, until this point was the clear winner. Again, the difference was vast and no end of tweaking the settings could match them up. The IPS panel offered much more vibrant, rich colours and blacker blacks.
What about the infamous IPS glow? Well this in inescapable, but unless you make a habit of playing games which are almost entirely black, in a totally dark room and you are a stickler for pure black blacks, then this really shouldn’t be an issue. On this unit at least the glow was minimal and even, there was no backlight bleed and no issues with uneven backlighting. Side by side with the Swift, the backlighting was more even and whilst there was noticeably more ghosting during tests, I didn’t notice any difference during gaming. For some gamers, the slower response time may be a killer, but for many the advantages of the IPS technology would far outweigh this.
Scores
Design and Build Quality – 4/5
Features – 3.5/5
Panel – 5/5
Cost – 2/5
Overall - 14.5 / 20
Acer Predator 4k2k XB280HK 28" G-Sync Gaming Widescreen LED Monitor - Black/Red
Design
Ultra HD (4K) Gaming may be the future, but are we ready? Can games really make the most of it? Can current hardware cope? Well I’m not really here to start a debate or answer any of these questions, I just want to talk about the Acer Predator 4K2K. The 28” TN film clad 3840x2160 60Hz screen which, despite the higher resolution, weighs in at over £100 less than both the Asus Swift and Acer Predator IPS.
The 4K units features the same chassis design as the TN film Acer Predator so there is no need to go over that again. It also has the same features and the same stand. So basically, choosing the 4K panel is going to set you back £100 more than the 1080p, not a bad premium to pay in my opinion.
Panel
Again, compared to the swift, there were noticeable differences in the panels. At default, as with the other panels, this panel was set to 100% brightness, however, the 4K had duller whites, probably due to the lower maximum brightness level. The whites were of a similar temperature and the blacks were also very similar. Ghosting performance was also identical to the Swift. The only place that it fell short was the colour output, which was definitely richer on the Asus monitor.
Having tuned both screens to a lower, visually identical brightness level I tested the black performance. The result surprised me a little, the 4K screen had almost no backlight bleed at all and the light level was very even, even more so than the Swift.
4K is all about image quality, right? So how was it?
Well, honestly, I couldn’t help but feel a little disappointed when I first powered up the 4K screen, I was hoping for crystal clear images, instead on desktop it wasn’t all that crisp, some text was visibly sharper on the 1440p panels. When viewing the same video in 4K and 1440P side by side however, the real strength of the 4K screen was clear (pun intended). 4K is obviously the better resolution for image clarity in still pictures and film, but how does this translate to games?
Being blunt, in most games, if it wasn’t for the lower FPS, I wouldn’t know that I was playing on a 4K screen. I know that I’m seeing more pixels and in a side by side, if I looked closely I’d see a difference, but honestly I think I prefer the experience of playing at a higher FPS on a good 1440p screen. I was definitely not sitting there at 4K thinking, wow, this is amazingly clear and when I switched back to 1440p it didn’t feel like a lower resolution.
4K, and 4K in games like The Witcher 3 especially, brought to light just how incredible the low FPS performance of G-Sync really is, with maximum settings enabled, the frame was sat at a pretty steady 17-22 FPS, yet even at these levels it was completely tear free.
Scores
Design and Build Quality – 3/5
Features – 3.5/5
Panel – 4/5
Cost – 4/5
Overall - 14.5 / 20
Conclusion
It’s always a bit of an anti-climax, some might say cop-out, when a comparative group test fails to find a clear winner. Maybe even more so in this case when three of the four screens came out of the test with the same score. The truth is, the Asus Swift, Acer IPS Predator and Acer 4K Predator all have strengths and they all have weaknesses.
The Swift is, by far, the best looking monitor that I’ve ever had in front of me. The design and attention to detail are testament to the ROG philosophy. Whilst I’m not taken in my the ROG exclusive “gaming features”, the screen itself is easily the best TN film panel that I’ve ever experienced. This all comes at a cost and at £599.99 inc VAT, for a TN film panel, the cost is definitely a negative.
The Acer Predator IPS may not be as stylish as the Swift but it more than makes up for it in image quality. The Swift may be the best example of a TN film panel but it’s still no match for a good IPS screen. Rich, warm and deep colours offer a really immersive experience for the gamer. However, yet again we are talking about £599.99 inc VAT, and the build quality of the monitor let it down.
The 4K does what any 4K does, it gives you more pixels and, hence, in the most part, clearer images, but thanks to G-Sync it removes the major negative of 4K gaming, tearing due to low FPS. The Acer offers a really good example of a TN film panel, living up to many of the benchmarks set by the Swift. It’s not quite as good as the Asus and suffers the same design flaws as the other Acer monitors but 4K AND GSync for £479.99 inc VAT is a bargain that can’t be sniffed at.
So who is the real winner here? Well G-Sync is the real winner, it’s a technology which does more than it says on the tin and it does it well. In the Asus swift it does it in style, in the Acer IPS it does it with beauty and in the Acer 4K it does it in clarity. Here we have three monitors which will deliver an excellent, tear free gaming experience and which one you choose should depend on what you want out of your monitor.
I’ve made my choice, the Acer IPS is staying on my desk, which one would you choose?
My early experience of G-Sync was through Youtube videos, which I think even Nvidia will admit, were a massive mistake. You cannot properly show off adaptive sync technologies via a fix frame rate video so I won’t even attempt to. Also, since G-sync doesn’t significantly impact frame rates I won’t bore you with game benchmarks. Instead I’ll focus on the monitors themselves and how G-Sync performs.
The Hard Facts! What is G-Sync?
In the briefest of terms, G-Sync is Nvidia’s proprietary adaptive V-Sync technology for gaming monitors. The aim of adaptive sync is to completely do away with frame tearing which is the undesirable side effect unmatched refresh rates between the monitor and graphics card.
Put simply, if the graphics card starts to output a new frame before the monitor has finished outputting the last there will be a clear, defined tear on the screen.
G-Sync achieves a tear free experience by only matching the monitor refresh rate to the frame rate output from the graphics card by basically preventing the monitor from outputting a new frame until it has been fully rendered.
What About VSync and Multi-Frame Buffering?
Yes, there are existing technologies intended to combat tearing but they can cause reduced frame rates, increased latency and, in my opinion, the worst effect of all, stutter.
Enabling these technologies often causes me to suffer from motion sickness, so I’ve been forced to live with tearing for most of my gaming life.
G-Sync has no noticeable effect on frame rates, it prevents stutter and, since it doesn’t increase imput latency, it’s ideal for FPS gamers and competition.
That’s The Theory, What’s It Like In Practice?
Officially, G-Sync works from 40Hz to 144Mhz, but don’t believe the hype…It’s BETTER than that!
I tested using my own PC. An overclocked Intel i7 4790K with three watercooled GTX 980s. By varying the number of cards in use and testing in a variety of situations I was able to really test the G-Sync performance at differing frame rates. I tested four different panels and played games as varied as Fifa 15, The Witcher 3, Dragon Age Inquisition and Counter Strike Global Offensive. I also ran Heaven and Firestrike benchmarks to really test the low FPS performance. I experienced frame rates over 144Hz and as low as 13FPS and at no point did I experience any tearing. I may have started the process as a sceptic but now I’m a real convert.
Unlike Freesync, which switches over to traditional V-Sync outside of the accepted range, the G-Sync module continues to work. Conscious that really low refresh rates can damage the panel, I was concerned about how G-Sync was achieving this so I did some research.
It turns out that Nvidia have been really clever when it comes to low FPS performance. Rather than outputting one frame to the screen for every frame from the graphics card, it doubles the frame rate, outputting two monitor frames for each frame from card. As the frame rates drop even further it will output three frames for each rendered frame. This means that the tear free experience continues even at very low frame rates.
For example, at 35FPS the screen outputs at 70Hz and at 15FPS the screen outputs at 45Hz.
There is a really good (although way too long) video here which proves it!
Here are some of the best-selling G-Sync monitors currently along with my opinions of them.
Asus PG278Q ROG Swift 27" G-Sync 144Hz Gaming Widescreen LED Slim Bezel Monitor - Black/Red
Design
The first 1440p G-Sync monitor caused somewhat of a revolution. Demand was so high that early on stock was extremely limited. The buzz around this monitor was incredible and it’s easy to see why from the specs.
144Hz refresh, 2560x1440 resolution and 1ms response time, the perfect spec for any gamer, even without the G-Sync capability. The Republic of Gamers design touches, slim bezel and matte panel combine to offer a truly stunning monitor package.
The angled, sleak lines, trapezoidal base and rear mounted menu buttons are all reminiscent of the Lockheed F-117 “Nighthawk” stealth bomber. The strong geometry and matte black plastic screams modern design. The glowing red LED ring in the base is going to attract some and irritate others but thankfully it can be disabled easily.
The stand has a full range of ergonomic adjustment thanks to 12cm height adjust, 120 degree swivel, 25 degree tilt and 90 degree “portrait” rotation.
I found the rear mounted buttons fiddly and difficult to use, so much so that it took me quite some time to cycle through the options and occasionally enabling features that I hadn’t intended to.
Features
The swift features Nvidia’s Ultra Low Motion Blur technology, which apparently strobes the backlight of the monitor to eliminate motion blur and further reduce input latency. I honestly cannot say that I noticed a difference but others may do.
It has a two port USB 3.0 hub next to the monitor connection
The swift also has a couple of Republic of Gamers exclusive features. A game timer which can display a timer on screen to keep track of spawn and build times and, for the cheats avid gamer out there, the swift offers a choice of crosshair overlays.
Panel
All opinions in this segment are purely subjective, based on my own tastes and a series of side by side comparisons. If you’d like a purely technical analysis of screen capabilities then please pay a visit to our resident expert Baddass’ site http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/
My first impressions of the swift were mixed, the colours were really intense and the whites were really crisp. Some people would love this, because it really makes images pop and edges seem sharper. For gaming, especially fast moving games and FPS this set up is really good, but for daily use it’s a bit too intense for me.
The maximum brightness is incredibly high and by default the whites are too blue, I’d guess that they are closer to 7000K than 5000K. Thankfully and unsurprisingly, this is easily adjusted. Once adjusted to my taste with brightness around 40, contrast of 50 and a warmer RGB setting I was much happier with the overall experience.
There was a tiny bit backlight bleed in the bottom corners on an all black screen at these settings but in general, the panel lighting was very even indeed with hardly any variation across the whole panel. Ghosting was minimal, even in dedicated ghosting tests.
Gaming performance is as exceptional as you’d expect from a £600 gaming monitor, if the panel ghosts, it was not noticeable. The colours where really rich for a TN panel and the G-sync performance was flawless.
This was the first G-Sync monitor that I’d ever tested and it set the bar REALLY high and we’ll use this as the benchmark for the other panels.
Scores
Design and Build Quality – 4.5/5
Features – 4/5
Panel – 4/5
Cost – 2/5
Overall - 14.5 / 20
Acer Predator XB270H 27" G-Sync 144Hz Gaming Widescreen LED Monitor - Black/Red
Acer’s TN panel Predator monitor came along after the Asus Swift with the same specification but a more wallet friendly price point. So how does it compare?
Design
The predator boasts the same 144Hz refresh and 1ms response time specs as the Swift. With the blood orange ring in the base I can’t help but wonder if Acer are taking design cues from Asus too, but that’s just about where the similarities end. Apart from the predator only being 1080p, the overall look and feel of the units are very different.
The Acer’s design is much smoother, focusing on curves rather than straight lines and sharp angles. It’s much more understated than the swift and comes in black glossy plastics for the front and base with two tone black/grey, more matte finish on the rear. The bezels are thicker and chunkier than the swift. Despite this, the predator doesn’t feel as solidly built as the Swift and I found the glossy plastics to be so reflective that they were occasionally a distraction, especially when reflecting the edge of the on screen image when playing games in a dark environment.
The buttons are front mounted but they are very sleak and unobtrusive and the menus are clear and easy to use.
The stand has a full range of ergonomic adjustment thanks to 15cm height adjust, 120 degree swivel, 40 degree tilt and 90 degree “portrait” rotation.
Features
The predator includes the same ULMB technology as the Swift but lacks any extra “gaming” features. It does however, have four USB 3.0 ports, two of them are next to the input connector but the other two are on the side of the monitor, which is a much more user friendly location.
Panel
Stood by itself the Acer predator features a decent example of a TN film panel. It was much less harsh on the eyes than the swift. The colours felt more natural and the white were closer to 5000K. That said, adjustment was still needed to fit my taste. I lowered the brightness to about 45, contrast was set at 55 and the colours set a little warmer.
Side by side with the swift however, there were noticeable differences. There was a little more backlight bleed on an all black screen on the predator and it also suffered from a less even backlight.
Gaming performance is good and whilst the ghosting was a little more noticeable in the ghosting test it wasn’t noticeable in games. The colours were nice, although not quite as vibrant as the swift however.
Scores
Design and Build Quality – 3/5
Features – 3.5/5
Panel – 3/5
Cost – 4/5
Overall - 13.5 / 20
Acer Predator XB270HU 27" G-Sync IPS 144Hz Gaming Widescreen LED Monitor - Black/Red
We shift our attention now to a more recent release, the IPS panel Acer Predator. Featuring the same 144Hz refresh rate and 2560x1440 resolution as the Asus Swift but, due to the IPS technology, a slower 4ms response time.
Design and Features
The design of the IPS monitor is identical to the TN film except for two things. The bezel of the IPS unit is smaller, about half the size and the monitor feels more tightly screwed together.
comparing the two Acer bezel designs
The IPS predator has all the same features as the TN example. Despite some improvements to the design of the chassis, the shiny plastic bezel and generic design mean that at this point it falls short of the benchmark set by the Asus Swift. However, people who are interested in buying this screen are only going to do so because of the panel type, otherwise, why else would you spend the extra £200 over the TN film version?
The stand is the same as the other Acer screens, it has a full range of ergonomic adjustment thanks to 15cm height adjust, 120 degree swivel, 40 degree tilt and 90 degree “portrait” rotation.
Panel
It was immediately apparent why IPS is such a highly rated technology. I could talk about the much improved viewing angles, but as a gamer I never really classed that a deciding factor. For me, a panel’s quality comes from even lighting, sharpness and colours and in this case the colours seemed to be noticeably richer and deeper right from the start. When I started the side by side comparisons this was confirmed. It was, out of the box, a nicer feeling panel with deep blacks, clean whites. As with every monitor tested so far though, the default settings were too bright and the colours too cool for my taste so I tweaked the settings again.
Early on I had decided that the opening bedroom sequence to The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt would be an excellent test of the panel’s contrast and colour depth. The rich colours, varied light sources and shadows make an ideal comparison tool. Running the game mirrored on both screens and comparing against the Acer Predator TN panel, there was no contest, the difference was clear, so I switched back to the Asus Swift, which, until this point was the clear winner. Again, the difference was vast and no end of tweaking the settings could match them up. The IPS panel offered much more vibrant, rich colours and blacker blacks.
What about the infamous IPS glow? Well this in inescapable, but unless you make a habit of playing games which are almost entirely black, in a totally dark room and you are a stickler for pure black blacks, then this really shouldn’t be an issue. On this unit at least the glow was minimal and even, there was no backlight bleed and no issues with uneven backlighting. Side by side with the Swift, the backlighting was more even and whilst there was noticeably more ghosting during tests, I didn’t notice any difference during gaming. For some gamers, the slower response time may be a killer, but for many the advantages of the IPS technology would far outweigh this.
Scores
Design and Build Quality – 4/5
Features – 3.5/5
Panel – 5/5
Cost – 2/5
Overall - 14.5 / 20
Acer Predator 4k2k XB280HK 28" G-Sync Gaming Widescreen LED Monitor - Black/Red
Design
Ultra HD (4K) Gaming may be the future, but are we ready? Can games really make the most of it? Can current hardware cope? Well I’m not really here to start a debate or answer any of these questions, I just want to talk about the Acer Predator 4K2K. The 28” TN film clad 3840x2160 60Hz screen which, despite the higher resolution, weighs in at over £100 less than both the Asus Swift and Acer Predator IPS.
The 4K units features the same chassis design as the TN film Acer Predator so there is no need to go over that again. It also has the same features and the same stand. So basically, choosing the 4K panel is going to set you back £100 more than the 1080p, not a bad premium to pay in my opinion.
Panel
Again, compared to the swift, there were noticeable differences in the panels. At default, as with the other panels, this panel was set to 100% brightness, however, the 4K had duller whites, probably due to the lower maximum brightness level. The whites were of a similar temperature and the blacks were also very similar. Ghosting performance was also identical to the Swift. The only place that it fell short was the colour output, which was definitely richer on the Asus monitor.
Having tuned both screens to a lower, visually identical brightness level I tested the black performance. The result surprised me a little, the 4K screen had almost no backlight bleed at all and the light level was very even, even more so than the Swift.
4K is all about image quality, right? So how was it?
Well, honestly, I couldn’t help but feel a little disappointed when I first powered up the 4K screen, I was hoping for crystal clear images, instead on desktop it wasn’t all that crisp, some text was visibly sharper on the 1440p panels. When viewing the same video in 4K and 1440P side by side however, the real strength of the 4K screen was clear (pun intended). 4K is obviously the better resolution for image clarity in still pictures and film, but how does this translate to games?
Being blunt, in most games, if it wasn’t for the lower FPS, I wouldn’t know that I was playing on a 4K screen. I know that I’m seeing more pixels and in a side by side, if I looked closely I’d see a difference, but honestly I think I prefer the experience of playing at a higher FPS on a good 1440p screen. I was definitely not sitting there at 4K thinking, wow, this is amazingly clear and when I switched back to 1440p it didn’t feel like a lower resolution.
4K, and 4K in games like The Witcher 3 especially, brought to light just how incredible the low FPS performance of G-Sync really is, with maximum settings enabled, the frame was sat at a pretty steady 17-22 FPS, yet even at these levels it was completely tear free.
Scores
Design and Build Quality – 3/5
Features – 3.5/5
Panel – 4/5
Cost – 4/5
Overall - 14.5 / 20
Conclusion
It’s always a bit of an anti-climax, some might say cop-out, when a comparative group test fails to find a clear winner. Maybe even more so in this case when three of the four screens came out of the test with the same score. The truth is, the Asus Swift, Acer IPS Predator and Acer 4K Predator all have strengths and they all have weaknesses.
The Swift is, by far, the best looking monitor that I’ve ever had in front of me. The design and attention to detail are testament to the ROG philosophy. Whilst I’m not taken in my the ROG exclusive “gaming features”, the screen itself is easily the best TN film panel that I’ve ever experienced. This all comes at a cost and at £599.99 inc VAT, for a TN film panel, the cost is definitely a negative.
The Acer Predator IPS may not be as stylish as the Swift but it more than makes up for it in image quality. The Swift may be the best example of a TN film panel but it’s still no match for a good IPS screen. Rich, warm and deep colours offer a really immersive experience for the gamer. However, yet again we are talking about £599.99 inc VAT, and the build quality of the monitor let it down.
The 4K does what any 4K does, it gives you more pixels and, hence, in the most part, clearer images, but thanks to G-Sync it removes the major negative of 4K gaming, tearing due to low FPS. The Acer offers a really good example of a TN film panel, living up to many of the benchmarks set by the Swift. It’s not quite as good as the Asus and suffers the same design flaws as the other Acer monitors but 4K AND GSync for £479.99 inc VAT is a bargain that can’t be sniffed at.
So who is the real winner here? Well G-Sync is the real winner, it’s a technology which does more than it says on the tin and it does it well. In the Asus swift it does it in style, in the Acer IPS it does it with beauty and in the Acer 4K it does it in clarity. Here we have three monitors which will deliver an excellent, tear free gaming experience and which one you choose should depend on what you want out of your monitor.
I’ve made my choice, the Acer IPS is staying on my desk, which one would you choose?
)