TR Forums

For me 144hz makes a lot bigger difference than G-sync, especially if you can get high framerates somewhat close to 144. G-sync is still nice to have and makes a small difference, but the high refresh rate is more important IMO. G-sync does make a bigger difference at low framerates (below 60) but those framerates still don't feel smooth or responsive even with G-sync. I would much rather just turn down the settings and get a better framerate if possible (which is one of the main reasons I went 1080p instead of 1440p)

I feel like the G-sync "tax" was worth it, not because it makes a huge difference, but because I tend to hang onto my monitors for quite a few years. I basically paid an extra $100-120 for G-sync which doesn't amount to much if it ends up lasting 5+ years.

It's often worth spending a bit more on stuff that is going to last awhile IMO (keyboards, mice, monitors, speakers/headphones, PSUs, etc). I would even say that is true of CPUs now. I probably would have bought a 2600K instead of 2500K if I knew CPU progress was going to slow down so dramatically.

It does make good sense to spend more if you know that you will keep it for long time. If you didn't, you will wished that you had.

I just upgraded to a XB271HU. I'm very happy with it.

Firestarter wrote:

Krogoth wrote:

Actually, the Doom engine ran natively at merger 320x200 back in its heyday and framerate was cap at 35FPS due to coding/animation reasons

as far tas I know DOOM was quite capable of running at any framerate the CPU could manage. I don't know if any kind of vsync shenanigans was enabled by default, but if it did that would explain the frame rate cap at 70 or 35 fps, since the VGA 13h 320x200 mode had a 70hz refresh rate

Doom engine was hard-coded to run at 35FPS at max. This cap was removed from modern source ports such as Boom, ZDoom and Legacy etc.

Check them Microcenter prices on that Acer TN panel--they were running $279 and $349 for 24" and 27". Good luck!

Voldenuit wrote:

Overall happy w my purchase, if not exactly blown away by its utility as a 2d/desktop device. Will know better once I start gaming, but as a primary display, it's pretty decent, although there are better 2D options at much cheaper prices. Wish me luck!

Well, color me wrong on the 2D/desktop front.

I discovered how to enable ULMB, and it makes an appreciable difference in watching movies and even in playing games. Images and motion are appreciably crisper and more fluid. After a little tweaking with color, contrast settings, it's looking easily as good as my 27" acer AHVA panel sitting next to it.

Played a bit of Overwatch, alternating between ULMB @ 120 Hz and with G-Sync on (you can't have both at once), and really, they are both good. I think I will go with G-Sync for gaming, because it is buttery smooth (getting around 80-90 fps on my 970 @ 1440p). It took me a little while to figure out that the game was still using the display settings from my previous monitor (1440p@60), and G-Sync was good but not mind-blowing. Once I set it to 1440p@120 Hz, the improvement was noticeable.

There are still a few niggles; I've set it to display a punchy image without losing too much detail at the top and bottom end, but would probably need to implement a flatter profile when I start processing RAWs on it. It would be nice if there were several custom settings you could save in the monitor instead of just being able to save a single color temperature profile, and separate profiles for G-Sync and for ULMB mode. The construction overall is very good, but ASUS' techno-Egyptian detail work on the base just looks cheap (to be honest, I felt the same way about ASUS' ROG G20 gaming desktop, which has similar design cues). But these are just minor niggles, and overall, I'm really liking this monitor. More than I'd expect to like a TN monitor in this day and age - I was originally planning to use this just for gaming, and use my secondary acer monitor for 2d/movies, but the ROG Swift (TN) has graduated to becoming my main monitor, relegating the acer to secondary web browsing and IRC monitoring.

Was the ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q worth the purchase? For me yes, yes it was.

The Dell S2716DG is on the Shell Shocker today for $480. It IS a TN panel, even though I went from an IPS to this and am very happy with the monitor.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824260333

review
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_s2716dg.htm

ColeLT1 wrote:

The Dell S2716DG is on the Shell Shocker today for $480. It IS a TN panel, even though I went from an IPS to this and am very happy with the monitor.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824260333

review
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_s2716dg.htm

I've got one too and I would recommend it. Very nice price there, I got mine on sale but not quite that cheap.

In a word no, but at the same time yes if you're a monitor/gaming snob.

My reasoning for no, I bought a 120Hz screen about 7 years ago for $330, after reading the review http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/samsung_2233rz.htm.

Now this was new tech at the time and for 7 years ago $330 I thought was fair for new tech, and the 120Hz, especially for CS Source was very nice compared to my older 19" 35ms response time 60Hz lcd.

7 Years later IMHO, I think a 120Hz panel 21-24" 1080p should have been common place and about $125, and the 2560x1440 24" about $275 and $325 for a 27", but that's not the case. Then there will be the ~$100 G-sync market from the extra chip/etc.

Monitor manufacturer's kept them segregated, threw on the "gaming" moniker and marked them up and/or kept them close to the same price for the past 7 years now.

So from a dollars & cents and old tech age I say it's not worth it, but if that's what you want and since there are no other options it is what it is.

Now if you want that buttery smoothness of 100+ fps and are willing to pay whatever, then I guess you can consider it worth it.

I agree that I would have expected high refresh rate screens to be more common and cheaper by now, partly because it's such an obvious metric to advertise with like how they do with those stupid 800hz TVs. But apparently normal users really do not care the slightest bit about the single PC component that they stare at for 100% of the time they use their PC and instead will just get whatever is on the shelf and the cheapest

Another factor for adaptive sync will be future games, but before your next hardware upgrade.

If you buy a GTX 1080 today it will crush everything. But in two years, you might want to play Doom 2018 or whatever and you might be happy to have G-sync keeping your 30 fps smooth.

anotherengineer wrote:

Now if you want that buttery smoothness of 100+ fps and are willing to pay whatever, then I guess you can consider it worth it.

$750 for a 27" 2560x1440 165Hz IPS display is a steal as far as I am concerned. My first 24" 1920x1200 display was over $1,200.

sparkman wrote:

Another factor for adaptive sync will be future games, but before your next hardware upgrade.

If you buy a GTX 1080 today it will crush everything. But in two years, you might want to play Doom 2018 or whatever and you might be happy to have G-sync keeping your 30 fps smooth.

Cripes. If a 1080 is suffering that badly in two years it is time to upgrade.