TR Forums

all,
I own one of those 27" Korean 1440p IPS monitors, from Achevia I think.

I also own a GTX 970, and play a mix of strategy and FPS. Is it worth changing to a G-Sync 1440p, or one of those 144hz 1080p monitors?

Regards,

-Sputnik

I have heard that once you go with G-Sync and 144Hz, you will never want to go back. Apparently, the upgrade is noticeable and very good. On the other hand, you already have a very nice 27" IPS display. To get an equivalent sized display with G-Synz and 144Hz, you'll probably need to spend at least $700 (the current Asus and Acer displays fluctuate in price, from about $680 to as high as $900). This seems to be a lot of money to spend for the same sized display with the same resolution. Of course, you could spend less for a 1080p display, but I couldn't live with that resolution, I consider it a downgrade. In addition, I continue to hear about horrendous quality control problems with the panel manufacturer used by Asus and Acer. We're talking about dead pixels, bad back light bleed, and dead units. It would be a shame to spend so much money for a display with those types of problems (or perhaps worse, the dreaded months-long cycle of RMAing bad units).

I am essentially in your same boat. I have decided to keep my current 60Hz 1440p IPS 27" Dell Ultrasharp and upgrade to a 144Hz/G-Sync model next year, hopefully when new models have come out with lower prices and better quality control.

I would... keep both monitors. Mainly because in games where you can't get the G-sync performance, you'll probably prefer to play on that beautiful 1440p panel. Whereas in games where the G-sync is supported and you have the performance to hit it, then go for it.

I think an upgrade to 1440p G-Sync would be the real upgrade here, but I'm not sure a 970 is going to get you optimal performance there. For most cases you'll be fine but there will be some AAA games that aren't a great experience with a 970. Willing to maybe pull the trigger now on a 1440p G-Sync monitor and upgrade to Polaris/Pascal later this year if need be?

Good points all. To properly drive a 1440p at >= 60fps with all the graphical niceties turned on, I probably need a more powerful GPU (980 or higher). However, isn't the real benefit of G-sync when your frame rate is fluctuating, and not pegged at the refresh rate? I could be wrong.

I am willing to wait, especially as the technology matures and cost begins to drop. I'm not expecting G-sync to disappear any time soon, even though FreeSync exists.

Sputnik7 wrote:

Good points all. To properly drive a 1440p, I probably need a more powerful GPU. However, isn't the real benefit of G-sync when your frame rate is fluctuating, and not pegged at the refresh rate?

With high frame rates, such as those at 100Hz or above, you'll enjoy the buttery smoothness of a 144Hz display. For more demanding titles dropping below 60FPS you'll still enjoy smoothness thanks to G-Sync. So yes, G-Sync will assist any games that your 970 struggles with. At least, that's my theoretical understanding.

You're both right. The real benefits of XXXXSync are below 60fps. You're right though, it's not like you couldn't get the monitor now and upgrade your GPU as games demand the power.

I think the cream of the crop is the ASUS PG279Q right now? There are alternatives though.

Maybe the real question is G-sync vs. better graphics card?

For example, a GTX980/Radeon equivalent for 1080p gaming is *kind of* overkill, but it guarantees game framerate >= 60hz monitor refresh rate for almost any game you throw at it, which would mean very few to 0 scenarios where frame rate will drop below 60 fps, eliminating the need for XXXXsync.

Is my example ignoring complexities of the frame-rendering chain that would render this example useless?

EDIT: I know I'm ignoring the 144hz scenario, but doesn't anything above 60fps fall into the "buttery smooth" category?

G-Sync above 60FPS is still much smoother than 60Hz and your computer pushing 60FPS+. I think you should get whatever monitor you want, with G-Sync, right now. Upgrade graphics as you normally would as you are already in good shape with a GTX 970.

Keep it and wait.

Prices keep dropping all the time.

Also depends on the games you play, if you are strictly and fps and your budget is smaller go for a 1080p with 120/144 refresh rate.

If your wallet is fatter go with a 1440p IPS (type) panel with 120/144 refresh rate, and freesync for a few more bucks, and if your wallet is still fatter throw in g-sync also.

DancinJack wrote:

You're both right. The real benefits of XXXXSync are below 60fps. You're right though, it's not like you couldn't get the monitor now and upgrade your GPU as games demand the power.

I think the cream of the crop is the ASUS PG279Q right now? There are alternatives though.

Even more alternatives if you are interested: http://www.144hzmonitors.com/gaming-mon ... 0hz-240hz/

I would look at a 1440p (2560 or even 3440 wide if you can afford it) non-TN G-Sync.

Your 970 is going to provide 35-75 fps in current games and there's no way you should sacrifice TN or VA panels for the sake of 144Hz TN goodness washed-out viewing angle misery.

The 970 will drive 4K in some games but realistically it's a 1440p/60Hz card.

anotherengineer wrote:

Keep it and wait. Prices keep dropping all the time.

My plan is to wait out NVidia until they give up on proprietary G-Sync and start supporting VESA standard Adaptive Sync.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

anotherengineer wrote:

Keep it and wait. Prices keep dropping all the time.

My plan is to wait out NVidia until they give up on proprietary G-Sync and start supporting VESA standard Adaptive Sync.

It would be easier to just buy an AMD card and freesync monitor. We will probably have 10nm or 7nm GPUs before Nvidia gives up on G-Sync.

travbrad wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

My plan is to wait out NVidia until they give up on proprietary G-Sync and start supporting VESA standard Adaptive Sync.

It would be easier to just buy an AMD card and freesync monitor. We will probably have 10nm or 7nm GPUs before Nvidia gives up on G-Sync.

For some time now, I've been wondering why someone hasn't just added an additional Freesync scaler to a G-Sync model so they could sell their monitor to both camps. Since you've already got a high-performing panel and everything else, the additional scaler and some circuitry to allow for switching between them is all you would really need. Certainly less expensive than maintaining two separate models. Being the only platform-agnostic wouldn't double sales.......it would send them to the moon.

Why hasn't someone done this?

Probably because Nvidia would refuse to sell that company any G-Sync modules if they did that. They like to keep their stuff proprietary to rake in extra cash, not to mention, never do anything, and sometimes do things that explicitly complicates life for the their adversaries. PhysX on any system that also had an ATI, card, etc.

To be honest, I pretty much think that if they could get away with it, Nvidia would love to not to support any standard except their own proprietary stuff. Which is pretty much why I stopped buying their cards. They are good in performance, but I think they are detrimental to the industry and consumers in the long perspective.


All that said, both G-Sync and Freesync is IMO, one of the best additions of technology that the graphics market has seen in many years. Even compared with fast cards, using V-Sync, there is a clear difference in perceived smoothness using a adaptive sync technology. I run with the R290x and a Asus ROQ IPS Freesync monitor. unfortunately, it only does 35-90Hz Freesync, but with only a 290x, that is quite a good sweetspot. Most modern games keep 70-90 fps with most detail enabled. Older games I can do 144Hz on, but I tend to set 89Hz as a limit in the AMD control panel and stay within FreeSync range ad have extremely stable rates instead. And that with more percieved smoothness. Not to mention that I can still turn off V-sync in the games and thus be rid of the instances where V-Sync isn't correctly coded that it adds input latency as well.

Do we expect major integration improvements with the next generation of GPUs/XXXXsync displays?

Aphasia wrote:

Probably because Nvidia would refuse to sell that company any G-Sync modules if they did that. They like to keep their stuff proprietary to rake in extra cash, not to mention, never do anything, and sometimes do things that explicitly complicates life for the their adversaries. PhysX on any system that also had an ATI, card, etc.

To be honest, I pretty much think that if they could get away with it, Nvidia would love to not to support any standard except their own proprietary stuff. Which is pretty much why I stopped buying their cards. They are good in performance, but I think they are detrimental to the industry and consumers in the long perspective.

I can't see NVidia refusing to sell to someone, especially if the model is selling like hotcakes. G-Sync isn't exactly well-established, and cutting out a major vendor would just about assure its demise. Basically, they have no leverage to do something like that.

I would go for 144hz IPS Gsync if you were to upgrade.

Downgrading to 1080p or TN might not be the best if you are used to IPS and 1440p.

I am very happy with my 1080p 120hz monitor from 2012, but plan on getting on the 1440p GSync train over the next couple of years. Unless that is, DP 1.4 monitors start shipping 120hz 4K and mainstream GPUs can keep up with the demands of that resolution.

Prestige Worldwide wrote:

I would go for 144hz IPS Gsync if you were to upgrade.

Downgrading to 1080p or TN might not be the best if you are used to IPS and 1440p.

I am very happy with my 1080p 120hz monitor from 2012, but plan on getting on the 1440p GSync train over the next couple of years. Unless that is, DP 1.4 monitors start shipping 120hz 4K and mainstream GPUs can keep up with the demands of that resolution.

Yes, I think I will not be downgrading to a 1080p, I will be sticking to 1440p IPS (spoiled I know). It's a question of timing now. I see that ASUS/ACER are having panel quality issues, so maybe I'll wait for that to settle down a bit.

I own a 100hz G-Sync monitor (Predator X34) and the smoothness of g-sync cannot be understated. It really is a great feature. I've never actually gamed at 144hz, so I can't do that comparison, I'd just be impressed if 144hz fixed refresh could do any better than 60, nevermind 100hz, with G-Sync.

Prestige Worldwide wrote:

I would go for 144hz IPS Gsync if you were to upgrade.

Downgrading to 1080p or TN might not be the best if you are used to IPS and 1440p.

I am very happy with my 1080p 120hz monitor from 2012, but plan on getting on the 1440p GSync train over the next couple of years. Unless that is, DP 1.4 monitors start shipping 120hz 4K and mainstream GPUs can keep up with the demands of that resolution.

DP 1.4 only adds some features like Rec 2020 color space, it does not add more bandwidth. DP 1.3 is only capable of 4k@120 at 8 bit per color, 4k@96 at 10 bit per color without resorting to trickery. HDMI 2.0a adds HDR but than HDMI 2.0 only has enough bandwidth for 4k@30 at 10 bit w/o resorting to trickery.

HDMI 2.0a gets you good movie experience. DP 1.3 has bandwidth for gaming but not full quality.

All the new cards will be DP 1.3, DP 1.4 wont be out till next year probably. It's not ideal situation. On paper at least.

So with all the new graphics cards coming out, i'm now deciding between a 120hz/144hz monitor with a 1080 to guarantee high framerates, or I keep my 970 and go for a g-sync. G-sync monitors are now down to 500 range, which is like 1070 range.

G-sync/freesync shines when the graphics card isn't beefy enough to maintain a maxxed out framerate anyways.

Is it even possible to get a 120/144hz refresh rate display without freesync/gsync?

Sputnik7 wrote:

So with all the new graphics cards coming out, i'm now deciding between a 120hz/144hz monitor with a 1080 to guarantee high framerates, or I keep my 970 and go for a g-sync. G-sync monitors are now down to 500 range, which is like 1070 range.

G-sync/freesync shines when the graphics card isn't beefy enough to maintain a maxxed out framerate anyways.

Is it even possible to get a 120/144hz refresh rate display without freesync/gsync?

Tough call.

Is your Korean monitor overclockable to 120 Hz? If not, then you are wasting the potential of a 1070 @ 60 Hz. But the 1070 /is/ a nice card.

I have a 970 and a 144 Hz G-Sync monitor (ASUS PG278Q) , and am very happy with the combination. Overwatch is silky smooth on Ultra at 90 fps, and games that hit 120 Hz (I usually run 120 Hz instead of 144 Hz because I prefer the integer scaling with 24p and 30p video) are super smooth.

I'd say get whichever one you can get a deal on first, with plans upgrade to the second later. The Dell S271DG is about $522 on amazon right now, not a bad price, though not the lowest it's been (It was $489 on newegg a couple weeks ago).
https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Gaming-S2716DG-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B0149QBOF0

EDIT: Also, it's worth noting that the 1070 and 1080 introduced FastSync, which is supposed to reduce latency without tearing, even at 60 Hz. I haven't seen any reviews that test how effective it is compared to G-Sync, but maybe 60 Hz isn't /such/ a bad place to be on a 1070.

Oh, and @ your comments about VRR shining at lower framerates, don't forget that on a fixed refresh display, the next framerate step down from 120 fps is 60 fps, and the next after that is 40 fps. So you're still going to see microstutter if you can't hit 120 fps constant; and if your game is running sub-60 fps, you'll be flipping between 60/40 on a 120 Hz monitor instead of 60/30 on a 60 Hz display. So G-Sync/Freesync really makes a tangible difference at all framerates.

Sputnik7 wrote:

So with all the new graphics cards coming out, i'm now deciding between a 120hz/144hz monitor with a 1080 to guarantee high framerates, or I keep my 970 and go for a g-sync...
Is it even possible to get a 120/144hz refresh rate display without freesync/gsync?

I've already looked around. There are still some of the gaming and 3D monitors from right before G-Sync monitors launched. (Remember that ASUS monitor that you could upgrade with the very limited run G-Sync driver board? 144 Hz.) I've seen a handful of new and open box offerings, but very limited selection of models. There's a bit more variety in refurbished units.

Pricing seems to range from US $170 to $290. The less expensive ones just seem to be the ones that dropped further in price from having less features, shorter warranty, or seemingly less reliable (hard to tell since there are more owners.)

Thanks for the reply, SonicSilicon and Voldenuit. I do like your idea of upgrade one first, then the other. Perhaps if i do that it makes more sense to go for monitor first, then evaluate my GPU options.

For now, I'm firmly in Team Green, which is why i'm looking at G-sync instead of FreeSync + AMD. I know that FreeSync is the open source solution, so i'll be watching that one closely.

I don't think my monitor is overclock-able.

Sputnik7 wrote:

I see that ASUS/ACER are having panel quality issues, so maybe I'll wait for that to settle down a bit.

I held off until the second series of ASUS/ACER G-SYNC IPS displays appeared on the market. I eventually bought a XB271HU and I am very happy with it. I've paired the XB271HU with a GTX 1080 so gaming is smooth as silk.

My gut feeling is that you should stick with the display you have now and upgrade your GPU first (or go for both now if the budget allows).

The Egg wrote:

I can't see NVidia refusing to sell to someone, especially if the model is selling like hotcakes. G-Sync isn't exactly well-established, and cutting out a major vendor would just about assure its demise. Basically, they have no leverage to do something like that.

I suspect you're right and someone could.

I believe the bigger hurdle is two different controllers, two different firmware, and creating a custom PCB that would allow you to toggle between the two different controllers.

It end up being a very expensive monitor.

Ryu Connor wrote:

The Egg wrote:

I can't see NVidia refusing to sell to someone, especially if the model is selling like hotcakes. G-Sync isn't exactly well-established, and cutting out a major vendor would just about assure its demise. Basically, they have no leverage to do something like that.

I suspect you're right and someone could.

I believe the bigger hurdle is two different controllers, two different firmware, and creating a custom PCB that would allow you to toggle between the two different controllers.

It end up being a very expensive monitor.

To be honest, considering that the G-Sync controller is an FPGA unit that already takes video input and displays them to screen, I could believe that it would be possible for nvidia to reprogram the FPGA controller to accept both G-sync and VESA A-Sync inputs and display them correctly.

It's just.... well, they won't.

Yeah, presumably the GSync module would be flexible enough to do both right now.

Unfortunately AMD and NVIDIA are in a battle for market share of an ever shrinking market.

Don't expect either of them to do any favors for one another. HDMI Freesync is proprietary for example.