TR Forums

Being bored I have been searching Newegg and ran across 27" 144hz G-Sync 1440p monitors. Are they worth it? I'm thinking that if I was building my rig this year instead of three years ago, I would consider these displays instead of the 3014 I choose. And of course a GTX 1080 to power the thing.

Oh well, maybe my next build.

Its worth it if you use it a lot.

Yes they are worth it.
Even if you dont go Gsync, 144Hz is very good by itself provided your GPU is strong enough to power the games you play at high refresh rates.

Will bite: yes, if you have the money, both 144 Hz and variable refresh are awesome.

Obviously, though, an AMD GPU and a VESA Adaptive-Sync monitor will save you a couple of hundred dollars for the same performance.

rahulahl wrote:

Yes they are worth it.
Even if you dont go Gsync, 144Hz is very good by itself provided your GPU is strong enough to power the games you play at high refresh rates.

Well great, I need to find a big wad of cash and a excuse to spend it.

Topinio wrote:

Will bite: yes, if you have the money, both 144 Hz and variable refresh are awesome.

Obviously, though, an AMD GPU and a VESA Adaptive-Sync monitor will save you a couple of hundred dollars for the same performance.

Yeah but I'm a Linux gamer, so that means Nvidia as AMD doesn't have good Linux driver support.

whm1974 wrote:

Being bored...

All the best threads start like this.

All about how much the extra cost is to you and how sensetive you are to tearing/etc.

Looks like if you don't feel the extra cost is worth it yet are sensitive to tearing and want low latency than fast-sync should be a way to fix the problem free. Well, depending on what GPU you have of will bye. Unsure if it will come to Maxwell GPUs.

I just got one and Ill say yes. NoOneButMe kind of nailed it though. It is amazing when you first fire a 144hz adaptive sync monitor the tearing is gone and the games run silky smooth. But I will also say that after a while I notice it less because well there is no tearing, then I hop over to my 2nd PC and I can really see the difference. I game 8-10 hours a week and I'm really happy I got mine, I also upgraded from 1920x1200 to 2560x1440.

liquid_mage wrote:

I just got one and Ill say yes. NoOneButMe kind of nailed it though. It is amazing when you first fire a 144hz adaptive sync monitor the tearing is gone and the games run silky smooth. But I will also say that after a while I notice it less because well there is no tearing, then I hop over to my 2nd PC and I can really see the difference. I game 8-10 hours a week and I'm really happy I got mine, I also upgraded from 1920x1200 to 2560x1440.

So which GPU are you using?

With G-sync monitors priced $130 to $200 higher than otherwise-identical monitors supporting VESA standard adaptive sync (aka "FreeSync"), I can't bring myself to buy one. Consider the price of graphics cards + monitors together, and I'm sure that you can find a better combination that doesn't include expensive proprietary G-Sync monitors.

Yeah I don't like proprietary standards either.

I got my DELL S2716DG on sale for $515 and I have had an excellent experience with it for the last month or so. At regular price it's running at $540 on Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... -_-Product



As for price, at the lower end of the spectrum it looks like G-sync commands a higher relative price premium, but the lowest price I can find from any brand that you've ever heard of* on Newegg for 2560x1440 and 144Hz right now is this Acer model at $470: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824009769 Apparently that model has Freesync, so the G-sync "markup" appears to be $70, assuming that you think there is no other markup like Dell charging somewhat more than Acer.


* Technically there are a couple of cheaper monitors with very low ratings from some no-name brand, but I'm drawing the line at Acer.

@whm I'm using the Asus 970 strix, it has a 255mhz factory overclock.

I was holding out but when the ACER XB270HU was available locally(Micro Center) for $500 I jumped on it. I don't care that its a TN panel, considering I went from an old Dell 2407 it was still a very nice upgrade.

chuckula wrote:

I'm drawing the line at Acer. The G-sync "markup" appears to be...

...something else where you've let your anti-AMD bias interfere with logic.

A review of the $242 Nixeus NX-VUE24B monitor with VESA standard adaptive sync was linked in this forum thread in April:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=117765&p=1303365&hilit=#p1303365

The 27" Acer XB270HU and XG270HU monitors are $129 apart at Newegg ($470 vs. $599) or $200 apart on MSRP ($500 vs. $700) on Acer's website.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

A review of the $242 Nixeus monitor with VESA standard adaptive sync was linked in this forum thread in April:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=117765&p=1303365&hilit=#p1303365

Thanks for the tip

JustAnEngineer wrote:

chuckula wrote:

I'm drawing the line at Acer. The G-sync "markup" appears to be...

...something else where you've let your anti-AMD bias interfere with logic.

A review of the $242 Nixeus monitor with VESA standard adaptive sync was linked in this forum thread in April:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=117765&p=1303365&hilit=#p1303365

Maybe you should have actually read my comment where I went out of my way to discuss 1440p resolutions and even bent over backwards to be fair to AMD in noting that the markup at lower resolutions appeared to be somewhat larger. Last time I checked, a link to an article about a 1080p monitor was pretty much a useless reference point for discussing 2560x1440 monitor and the last time I checked an "anti-AMD bias" doesn't make pixels disappear from a screen.

As for accusing me of anti-AMD "bias" I find that to be pretty hypocritical since I'm one of the very few people who actually agrees with what AMD marketing has said when you strip away the B.S. nonsense and all the time they spent dwelling on the GTX-1080 instead of their own hardware: Polaris 10 is a GPU with performance somewhere between an R9-390 and 390X with a lower price tag. That's nice for the $200 bracket, but it's not a sign of "bias" against AMD to point out that envious sniping and disingenuous demos are only designed to tear down Nvidia -- not build up AMD in a positive way. It's not "anti-AMD bias" to question the comments of a marketing guy from AMD who claims to be the all-knowing source of information *about Nvidia GPUs that launched 4 days before his demo took place*.

I think what's really going on is some real-life anti-Nvidia bias: The Founder's Edition cards aren't cheap and that makes people mad. Well guess what, you don't have to buy one. I didn't, I just pre-ordered a factory OC'd GTX-1080 that's only $650. When it comes to "performance per dollar" I just absolutely destroyed the R9-Fury X (also a $650 part, and that's *after* the GTX-1080 has actually launched too), and considering that Crossfire has never worked under Linux, I guarantee that the price-performance ratio just destroyed the "RX" 480 in "dual GPU" mode too.

Later on when the benchmarks prove me right -- and hell, there are *already* benchmarks publicly available for the mystical "Ashes of the Singularity" that back up my point -- I can't wait for the string of apologies. Oh wait, there won't be any apologies. Instead, there will be recriminations and conspiracy theories flung around like cow dung alleging that every tech review site on the Internet has been bribed by Nvidia and that it's all a giant anti-AMD conspiracy. Don't believe me? Take a little trip down memory lane to practically every TR review of AMD graphics parts in the last 3 years or so.

Acer to Acer, 2560x1440 TN 1ms to 2560x1440 TN 1ms, 144 Hz to 144 Hz, G-Sync vs. FreeSync:
$599 Acer XB270HU Abprz G-Sync
$417 Acer XG270HU FreeSync
====
$182 difference

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Acer to Acer, 2560x1440 TN 1ms to 2560x1440 TN 1ms, 144 Hz to 144 Hz, G-Sync vs. FreeSync:
$599 Acer XB270HU Abprz G-Sync
$417 Acer XG270HU FreeSync
====
$182 difference

Yeah, you looked for the absolute lowest price you could find for the Acer and intentionally ignored the lower price that I posted in my own link for the Dell.
Additionally, you *did* limit yourself to only looking at Acer models in your search. I don't really care, since owning a Dell monitor to replace the Dell that I had just been using for over 8 years sounds a lot better than the complaints I've seen with Acer.

Oh, and BTW.. exactly ONE online retailer actually claims to have the "cheap" Freesync Acer in stock... Newegg.. at $470... which is exactly what I put in my original post, so your bias couldn't even let you read a simple column in a table without making false statements.

You didn't address my first point or apologize for the fact that your own personal bigotry was used to justify a stupid post where you threw out the facts of what I said to make a post about a no-name 1080p monitor with zero quality control or customer service sound like 99% of the price of any G-sync monitor is going to Nvidia when that is a patently stupid position.

I ask one great [i]question and started a flame war

whm1974 wrote:

I ask one great [i]question and started a flame war

Certain subjects are going to cause flame wars. These flame wars, of course, will be consistently from the same people.

As for the question, I really don't know or really have an opinion on it as I'm still on a 23" 1920x1080 64 Hz display, so I have no clue what the impact of either are.

whm1974 wrote:

Topinio wrote:

Will bite: yes, if you have the money, both 144 Hz and variable refresh are awesome.

Obviously, though, an AMD GPU and a VESA Adaptive-Sync monitor will save you a couple of hundred dollars for the same performance.

Yeah but I'm a Linux gamer, so that means Nvidia as AMD doesn't have good Linux driver support.

This does not particularly sit well with

whm1974 wrote:

Yeah I don't like proprietary standards either.

The NVIDIA drivers are proprietry.

Why Linux?

I'm still confused why Freesync got brought up.

Linux + AMD isn't even a discussion.

Freesync is also not a discussion if you want a guaranteed 30Hz floor, windowed mode, borderless windowed mode, or even Rec. 2020 support (Freesync doesn't support HDR).

But hey, let's pretend de jure standards are awesome. I really want to hear how awesome VP9 is versus h.264. Tell me how awesome Android is over iOS. I'm also quite sure you hate Mantle and D3D and totally extol the virtues of Vulkan and OpenGL. I'm very interested in your opinions on these open options versus closed options.

Note: I'm not actually interested in your opinion on what you think about standards. Because inevitably you're a hypocrite and there is something in your life that is a closed defacto standard and you love it. Probably the easiest that pegs this whole forum is Steam. People fall over themselves for that vendor lock in.

I'd also like to thank you for sharing those worthless posts to the OP about not wanting to buy something from NVIDIA. Not only was it irrelevant, but it's a waste of our time. We already know you only buy AMD. We as a forum were in total confusion about your position until you said something. Thanks for clearing up that mysterious non-mystery.

Why I don't use Windows will fill up a whole library. However I have had fewer problems using Linux then any other OS.

Ryu Connor wrote:

I'm still confused why Freesync got brought up.

Linux + AMD isn't even a discussion.

Freesync is also not a discussion if you want a guaranteed 30Hz floor, windowed mode, borderless windowed mode, or even Rec. 2020 support (Freesync doesn't support HDR).

But hey, let's pretend de jure standards are awesome. I really want to hear how awesome VP9 is versus h.264. Tell me how awesome Android is over iOS. I'm also quite sure you hate Mantle and D3D and totally extol the virtues of Vulkan and OpenGL. I'm very interested in your opinions on these open options versus closed options.

Note: I'm not actually interested in your opinion on what you think about standards. Because inevitably you're a hypocrite and there is something in your life that is a closed defacto standard and you love it. Probably the easiest that pegs this whole forum is Steam. People fall over themselves for that vendor lock in.

I'd also like to thank you for sharing those worthless posts to the OP about not wanting to buy something from NVIDIA. Not only was it irrelevant, but it's a waste of our time. We already know you only buy AMD. We as a forum were in total confusion about your position until you said something. Thanks for clearing up that mysterious non-mystery.

I'm not following you, however it is 3:00am.

Probably because that was for JAE pooping in this thread.

whm1974 wrote:

I ask one great [i]question and started a flame war

o_O

I would personally take a good 44" 4k monitor over an awesome Gsync 1440p monitor. Im done with multi-monitor setup.

Also, DP only has enough bandwidth to push raw data up to 4k@96hz with 30bit color. If that pushes you in any direction.

blahsaysblah wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

I ask one great [i]question and started a flame war

o_O

I would personally take a good 44" 4k monitor over an awesome Gsync 1440p monitor. Im done with multi-monitor setup.

Also, DP only has enough bandwidth to push raw data up to 4k@96hz with 30bit color. If that pushes you in any direction.

So would I, but you will a $700 graphics care to power it.

whm1974 wrote:

Ryu Connor wrote:

I'm still confused why Freesync got brought up.

Linux + AMD isn't even a discussion.

Freesync is also not a discussion if you want a guaranteed 30Hz floor, windowed mode, borderless windowed mode, or even Rec. 2020 support (Freesync doesn't support HDR).

But hey, let's pretend de jure standards are awesome. I really want to hear how awesome VP9 is versus h.264. Tell me how awesome Android is over iOS. I'm also quite sure you hate Mantle and D3D and totally extol the virtues of Vulkan and OpenGL. I'm very interested in your opinions on these open options versus closed options.

Note: I'm not actually interested in your opinion on what you think about standards. Because inevitably you're a hypocrite and there is something in your life that is a closed defacto standard and you love it. Probably the easiest that pegs this whole forum is Steam. People fall over themselves for that vendor lock in.

I'd also like to thank you for sharing those worthless posts to the OP about not wanting to buy something from NVIDIA. Not only was it irrelevant, but it's a waste of our time. We already know you only buy AMD. We as a forum were in total confusion about your position until you said something. Thanks for clearing up that mysterious non-mystery.

I'm not following you, however it is 3:00am.

I read it as he's having a go at me for replying to your thread with my apparently worthless posts, and telling me to shut up and to not suggest AMD or Adaptive-Sync again, and calling me a hypocrite to boot.

But on clicking submit, seems it was JustAnEngineer whose posts offended. So that's something, I guess.

Ryu Connor: apologies for anything that upset you in my posts, which mentioned AMD and Adaptive-Sync.

whm1974 wrote:

So would I, but you will a $700 graphics care to power it.

Can't remember right now, do you have a GTX 970?

If so, that can definitely (for now!) run 2560x1440 VRR, but will struggle to get up to 100-144 Hz at decent settings in recent games -- so G-SYNC should be more important to you than 144 Hz IMO.