TR Forums

2018-11-21 update:
Newegg has the Samsung C32HG70 on sale for $461 with code EMCEERP48 through 11/26. That is the lowest price that I have seen on this monitor, much lower than I paid for it 15 months ago.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. ... 6824025164

That's almost worth grabbing even if you haven't got a Vega card yet.

Someone here was talking about Freesync 2 and HDR recently though, but I can't remember all that was said.

Very nice gaming panel, good media, decent desktop use but if you are OCD about cleartype or whatever, don't buy.

Same price those of us that pre-ordered it at newegg before launch got, was a nice consolation prize for the extra month delay if you didn't cancel. First monitor I've had that you can update firmware yourself via usb, and it needs those updates out of the box.

The Egg wrote:

That's almost worth grabbing even if you haven't got a Vega card yet.

Someone here was talking about Freesync 2 and HDR recently though, but I can't remember all that was said.

Me.

That's not an HDR10 or Dolby Vision compliant monitor. Freesync2 HDR is a custom HDR design that's better than sRGB, but not as good as HDR10.

FreeSync2 is proprietary. Meaning under the hypothetical that NVIDIA one days supports Adaptive Sync, the FS2 VRR would not work for an NVIDIA GPU. So the same buying logic as GSync applies, this monitor is only useful to current and future AMD GPU users.

Great monitor, though win10s current HDR handling is still a ? with all the non HDR games that won't launch with it enabled and all that. I count four common between my HDR displays so far, and that's probably not even remotely all of them. (And yes, HDR works fine on it without Freesync enabled.) Most of them work fine, I'm just not sure I want it on all the time yet.

I'm using it on a 1070 because there's no chance in hell of my ever paying the g-sync tax. ($500ish in my case) was more than I should've paid for a mon to begin with, but it has all the features I want.

Also, takes a 4K60 signal on the HDMI port which is fantastic for set top boxes or consoles. I'm still not sure if it's native or not, they don't advertise the functionality at all. Some of my non 1440p supporting games will do it over displayport, but not all so I'm still not sure what all that is about.

Ryu Connor wrote:

this monitor is only useful to current and future AMD GPU users.

Or anyone who wants a 1440P144 (+4k60) HDR multipurpose mon at a reasonable price, there isn't really that much competition in that space yet. With Freesync 2 also being useful on Xbox One X it certainly will have more reach than AMD GPUs on PC these days.

Ryu Connor wrote:

The Egg wrote:

Someone here was talking about Freesync 2 and HDR recently though, but I can't remember all that was said.

Me.
That's not an HDR10 or Dolby Vision compliant monitor. Freesync2 HDR is a custom HDR design that's better than sRGB, but not as good as HDR10.

FreeSync2 is proprietary. Meaning under the hypothetical that NVIDIA one days supports Adaptive Sync, the FS2 VRR would not work for an NVIDIA GPU. So the same buying logic as GSync applies, this monitor is only useful to current and future AMD GPU users.

Yeah...that's what threw up the red flag for me. The limited HDR is one thing, but shouldn't Freesync 2 be backwards compatible with original Freesync? I'd find it very strange if it wasn't.

The Egg wrote:

Yeah...that's what threw up the red flag for me. The limited HDR is one thing, but shouldn't Freesync 2 be backwards compatible with original Freesync? I'd find it very strange if it wasn't.

Presumably standard FS works, the monitor has an option for a "Standard Freesync" mode, but it's my understanding you lose the combined HDR. That's one of the key selling points.

FS2 support on existing AMD cards was done through a driver update with the new secret sauce, limiting FS2 to AMD.

Of course if developers are setting their color palette to HDR10 and you're using this half-baked HDR in FS2, you're not getting the intended experience regardless.

Also keep in mind that if you use HDMI for FS or FS2, that too is proprietary and only works with AMD.

Ryu Connor wrote:

and you're using this half-baked HDR in FS2

I'm still not sure where you read that it's not using HDR10. It's the only standard that makes any sense. Yes, the displays might not meet the standard entirely, but almost nothing does yet.

LostCat wrote:

I'm still not sure where you read that it's not using HDR10. It's the only standard that makes any sense. Yes, the displays might not meet the standard entirely, but almost nothing does yet.

Optimised for HDR gaming, Radeon FreeSync 2 is a compromise between the wider colour gamut of HDR10 / Dolby Vision, and the low input lag of sRGB.
It offers a limited HDR colour gamut that is over 2X the perceivable brightness and colour volume of sRGB. The FreeSync 2 game can then tone-map to the display’s native colour space. This allows the monitor to skip the tone mapping step, which greatly reduces the input lag.

Link

https://i0.wp.com/www.techarp.com/wp-co ... ion-17.jpg

I'd also note the fine text on that presentation image.

AMD wrote:

*Only attainable when using a FreeSync 2 API enabled game or video player and content that uses at least 2x the perceivable brightness and color range of sRGB, and using FreeSync 2 qualified monitor."

So that basically says Freesync 2s functionality is only attainable with an enabled card or video player. It doesn't specify that it's a separate mode from HDR10.

You really seem to be grasping at straws here and with the 'this display won't support HDR in games on an NV card' thing earlier which it does, by the way.

I didn't say it won't do HDR, it does its own proprietary version of HDR.

I've said clearly, multiple times, it won't do HDR10. It doesn't meet the standard. It's some half-baked and custom HDR implementation.

If a developer makes a game using the 10-bit color and Rec.2020 range of HDR10, then even if the game taps into the FS2 API, it will not be able to show you the full vision of the artist. AMD's FS2 standard does not account for that on purpose. The monitors skip an entire tone-mapping stage (HDR10 does two of them, FS2 does one of them) to reduce input lag. If you played an UltraHD Blu-ray movie on your FS2 monitor that doesn't support HDR10, you won't see the full color ranged intended by the director.

Optimised for HDR gaming, Radeon FreeSync 2 is a compromise between the wider colour gamut of HDR10 / Dolby Vision, and the low input lag of sRGB.
It offers a limited HDR colour gamut that is over 2X the perceivable brightness and colour volume of sRGB. The FreeSync 2 game can then tone-map to the display’s native colour space. This allows the monitor to skip the tone mapping step, which greatly reduces the input lag.

FreeSync 2 will not deliver the colour space of HDR10 or Dolby Vision, but it’s designed to greatly expand the colour space with minimal input lag.

FS2 HDR and HDR10 monitors are different and a buyer should know that.
FS2 is not FS, it has different rules and is proprietary such that Intel and NVIDIA will never be able to use it.
HDMI FS and FS2 are proprietary and Intel and NVIDIA will never be able to use it.

Can FS2 HDR and HDR10 coexist? Presumably yes, but all evidence points to this monitor only having FS2 HDR even for unsupported applications. HDR10 is not mentioned in the manual, not in the specifications on the website, and not in the OSD. Given the limits of FS2 HDR, there's no need to implement full HDR10.

AnandTech even asked what happens if a title doesn't support FS2 HDR.

On a final note, while the FreeSync 2 initiative as-planned requires game developers to buy into the ecosystem by supporting the related API, I did take a moment to ask AMD about whether they could do anything to better support games that might offer HDR support but not use AMD’s API. The answer, unsurprisingly, was “no comment”, but I got the distinct impression that it’s a question AMD has considered before. Without direct API support there’s still a need to do tone-mapping twice, and that would negate some of the latency benefits, but AMD could still potentially do it a lot faster than the display processors in some monitors.

Ryu Connor wrote:

FS2 HDR and HDR10 monitors are different and a buyer should know that.
FS2 is not FS, it has different rules and is proprietary such that Intel and NVIDIA will never be able to use it.
HDMI FS and FS2 are proprietary and Intel and NVIDIA will never be able to use it.

Can FS2 HDR and HDR10 coexist? Presumably yes, but all evidence points to this monitor only having FS2 HDR even for unsupported applications. Given the limits of FS2 HDR, there's no need to implement full HDR10 for 2D.

Tone mapping being done twice is unnecessary and pointless. That's like scaling being done by the GPU and the TV and the GPU implementation just being ignored and the TV doing it again.

HDR10 is specifically mentioned in Windows and games as being supported. And as I've said before, quite a lot of HDR displays don't meet the standard, FS2 or no. That's hard to fault the monitor on, especially when your only genuine point seems to be 'Intel and NVIDIA can't do it' (which they certainly can, if they wanted to pay for it.)

LostCat wrote:

Tone mapping being done twice is unnecessary and pointless. That's like scaling being done by the GPU and the TV and the GPU implementation just being ignored and the TV doing it again.

Whether it's unnecessary or pointless is also unnecessary and pointless. That's the way it works and AMD FS2 bypasses it, which creates all the problems I have quoted, such as games having to tap into the FS2 API.

HDR10 is specifically mentioned in Windows and games as being supported.

That doesn't really confirm anything. We already know it does HDR, we're looking for hard evidence that it does HDR10. The thing Samsung conveniently refuses to say it does.

Is there any proof it does 10bit and that it has a Rec. 2020 gamut? Samsung does not tout either of those features.

Newegg says it's an 8bit panel, so it's not HDR10.

And as I've said before, quite a lot of HDR displays don't meet the standard, FS2 or no. That's hard to fault the monitor on,

Fault? No. Buyer should known before they pull the trigger on? Yes.

especially when your only genuine point seems to be 'Intel and NVIDIA can't do it' (which they certainly can, if they wanted to pay for it.)

Can't do what? Both are free to do HDR10. Do you mean FS2? Well, yes, I'm guessing AMD might license their proprietary FS2 tech for money, but you can say the same thing of GSync. I think we all know how that's going to turn out.

Ryu Connor wrote:

Do you mean FS2? Well, yes, I'm guessing AMD might license their proprietary FS2 tech for money, but you can say the same thing of GSync. I think we all know how that's going to turn out.

Yes, AMD is offering it openly to other manufacturers, and I'm guessing they'll decline. It is still possible Microsoft will license it and the point will be moot. I doubt it but we'll see. They are using it already, though.

Which is a huge difference from Intel not offering x86 (except AMD solely so they can claim they aren't a monopoly) or NV not offering G-Sync to anyone.

At any rate, I apologize for rambling a little I'm exhausted. by lack of sleep and life in general. i'll see ya all in a few.

Ryu Connor wrote:

FreeSync2 is proprietary. Meaning under the hypothetical that NVIDIA one days supports Adaptive Sync, the FS2 VRR would not work for an NVIDIA GPU. So the same buying logic as GSync applies, this monitor is only useful to current and future AMD GPU users.

Ryu Connor wrote:

The Egg wrote:

The limited HDR is one thing, but shouldn't Freesync 2 be backwards compatible with original Freesync?

Presumably standard FS works, the monitor has an option for a "Standard Freesync" mode, but it's my understanding you lose the combined HDR. That's one of the key selling points.

Freesync 2 is a selling point, but if it's able to kick back to standard Freesync, then the first quote seems a bit misleading. If NVidia supported standard VESA Adaptive Sync, then you'd still have a really nicely spec'ed monitor able to use standard Freesync.

The Egg wrote:

Freesync 2 is a selling point, but if it's able to kick back to standard Freesync, then the first quote seems a bit misleading. If NVidia supported standard VESA Adaptive Sync, then you'd still have a really nicely spec'ed monitor able to use standard Freesync.

I disagree.

NVIDIA or Intel:
FS2: No. (Proprietary FS + HDR path)
HDR10: No. (Purposefully doesn't meet the standard)
FS/FS2 HDMI: No. (Proprietary)
Future FS support: Most likely not given shrinking AMD GPU market share and increasingly proprietary versions of FS. (Nothing is going to change now.)
You: $550+ (currently) or $650+ (soon) for a 2K 144Hz monitor. There are cheaper options out there if you want that.

So it remains a monitor only useful to current and future AMD owners. There are superior HDR options out there if that matters to you. There are cheaper FS options out there if that matters to you. The features that make FS2 compelling require compromise and an AMD GPU.

Ryu Connor wrote:

FS: Most likely not given shrinking AMD GPU market share and increasingly proprietary versions of FS. (Nothing is going to change now.)

I can test it in a few (though I'm otherwise occupied at the moment so can't say when,) my other build is here hooked up to the Omen. I highly doubt FS2 monitors aren't backwards compatible with FS1.

LostCat wrote:

So that basically says Freesync 2s functionality is only attainable with an enabled card or video player. It doesn't specify that it's a separate mode from HDR10.

It specifically says that Freesync 2 is a compromise in visual quality for the sake of input lag. Compromise = trade-offs = not full implementation

If you want full HDR10 plus variable-rate refresh in one monitor, then you should not choose this monitor.

If half-assed HDR is good enough, then go for it. Personally, I have neither HDR nor VRR support so this would be an upgade for me---if I had an AMD card.

TheRazorsEdge wrote:

LostCat wrote:

So that basically says Freesync 2s functionality is only attainable with an enabled card or video player. It doesn't specify that it's a separate mode from HDR10.

It specifically says that Freesync 2 is a compromise in visual quality for the sake of input lag. Compromise = trade-offs = not full implementation

If you want full HDR10 plus variable-rate refresh in one monitor, then you should not choose this monitor.

If half-assed HDR is good enough, then go for it. Personally, I have neither HDR nor VRR support so this would be an upgade for me---if I had an AMD card.

I'm not sure if his post was edited or I just missed the other link. I only went to one link and saw what I saw, so that happened.

As for full HDR10 in a monitor, please show me one that's available now and actually meets the spec instead of claiming support. I don't really expect what you guys are asking for before mid 2018 if that. If the G-Sync 4K HDR mons that claim to be so perfect are below $900 I'll be shocked, given the current market...I'm fairly sure they said they'd be over 1,000. So, if this is half assed, so is everything else. Even most 4K TVs that do HDR10 don't meet the spec.

I had no HDR, only 75hz, and a monitor with poor color in certain ranges so it's a huge upgrade for me even on a 1070. I haven't even seen another decent 1440p144 mon (especially not one that also does 4K) in a notably lower price range.

On another earlier point, the mon supports Freesync 1 fine as far as I can tell. Only over Displayport though. I don't really know where to find more specific info about which is being used, but I don't think the 290s support FS2.

LostCat wrote:

I can test it in a few (though I'm otherwise occupied at the moment so can't say when,) my other build is here hooked up to the Omen. I highly doubt FS2 monitors aren't backwards compatible with FS1.

Not what I meant by that. My statement is not saying FS1 support doesn't exist. I assume it does. My statement is, the idea that NVIDA might one day implement adaptive sync grows increasingly dimmer as time passes. Even if Intel does implement adaptive-sync, so what? 2K 144Hz gaming on an IGP? Sure.

Worth testing, BTW. It would be fascinating if it can't do FS1, albeit all AMD GPUs currently do FS2 so I'm not sure how you'll test that? Rollback to an ancient driver before FS2 support?

LostCat wrote:

As for full HDR10 in a monitor, please show me one that's available now and actually meets the spec instead of claiming support.

There are monitors that meet HDR10.

Dell's UP271Q even has UHD Premium Certification. It's more expensive, but its also a 4K 10bit monitor. This Samsung we're discussing is an 8bit 2K monitor.

LG would be a better fit for your complaint, but even this monitor is vastly superior for HDR content to the Samsung we're discussing.

http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32UD99 ... ed-monitor

It's an actual 4K 10bit panel, with 95% of DCI-P3 instead of support for Rec.2020. Of course it's also fair bit cheaper than the Dell. I'd note it also does FS1/adaptive-sync.

I'm sure I could keep digging and find more that either meet HDR10 or are better than this Samsung's FS2 HDR implementation. Honestly the 8bit panel in the Samsung/FS2 monitors is arguably the biggest deal breaker in this whole HDR discussion. The 10 in HDR10 means 10 bits.

Ryu Connor wrote:

Worth testing, BTW. It would be fascinating if it can't do FS1, albeit all AMD GPUs currently do FS2 so I'm not sure how you'll test that? Rollback to an ancient driver before FS2 support?

I just checked. It works with Freesync but I don't know a way to check which.

They might even have added HDR support to the 290s? I'm not really sure, since this is Creators Update and Fall Creators Update gives you a lot more info.

Ryu Connor wrote:

This Samsung we're discussing is an 8bit 2K monitor.

I haven't found any info suggesting it's an 8 bit panel.

LostCat wrote:

I just checked. It works with Freesync but I don't know a way to check which.

They might even have added HDR support to the 290s? I'm not really sure, since this is Creators Update and Fall Creators Update gives you a lot more info.

According to AnandTech all GCN 1.1 GPUs support FS2 and FS2 HDR. Unless my memory is failing me and the 290 isn't a GCN 1.1?

AnandTech wrote:

Because all of AMD’s FreeSync 1-capable cards (e.g. GCN 1.1 and later) already support both HDR and variable refresh, FreeSync 2 will also work on those cards. All GPUs that support FreeSync 1 will be able to support FreeSync 2. All it will take is a driver update.

LostCat wrote:

I haven't found any info suggesting it's an 8 bit panel.

Newegg claims only 16.7m colors in the specification. They might be wrong.

It's definitely 8 bit.

https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/062ec32

DancinJack wrote:

It's definitely 8 bit.

https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/062ec32

Considering they list different specs than the manufacturer does I'd have to see where they got their info.

-> https://www.samsung.com/us/support/owne ... g70-series

They're basing it on the panel being a Samsung LSM315DP01.

http://www.panelook.com.cn/LSM315DP01_S ... 29419.html

True 8bit panel. We need info to either refute or confirm that panel model.

Not a clue how I'd go about finding that out. I have seen indications that there was a different 2016 model but as far as I know that never made it to the US.

For reference. This is the second time since the monitor launched in June/ July that it's been at $550-$560 on newegg. (I'm following this VERY closely)