Thursday deals: FreeSync displays, a Ryzen CPU, and a controller

It's Thursday deal time at The Tech Report again, and we've got a bumper crop for you on this day. We've got a pair of displays, a TR Editor's Choice processor, and a sweet deal on the Xbox One wireless controller.

First up is a very compelling deal on LG's 29UM60-P 29" 21:9 ultra-wide gaming monitor. This IPS display has a resolution of 2560×1080, a 5-ms response time, a 75 Hz maximum refresh rate, and sports AMD's FreeSync technology. The back of the panel has holes for VESA mounting plus HDMI and DisplayPort inputs. The box even includes an HDMI cable. You can get this monitor from Best Buy for $200, a price that represents a sharp drop regular price tag. Since Best Buy has physical locations, the most impatient of you can probably order it online and pick it up today.

Gerbils that want more pixels and better color gamut coverage can cast their eyes over the LG 32UD59-B 32" 3840×2160 monitor. This big-daddy screen sports a pair of HDMI inputs plus a DisplayPort. LG says the VA panel covers 95% of the DCI-P3 color gamut. The maximum refresh rate is 60 Hz, but the baked-in FreeSync support should help gamers make the most out of every frame. The big 4K display is on sale for $475 at Newegg with the coupon code EMCRKRH28.

Regular readers know that we are big fans of AMD's Ryzen processors, particularly of the Editor's Choice Award-winning six-core Ryzen 5 models that offer unprecedented value for productivity tasks. The range-topping Ryzen 5 1600X  is on sale today at Newegg for $230 including a "Champion's Pack" for the upcoming Quake Champions FPS that unlocks all current and future Champions and includes a skin for the Ranger. Amazon also has the Ryzen 5 1600X on sale for $240.

We conclude today's deals with a pretty sweet deal on Microsoft's Xbox One wireless controller in white. This is the updated model with a standard 3.5-mm headset jack and Bluetooth connectivity. Newegg has the controller selling for only $35 with the coupon code EMCRKRG29. Do note that the special pricing only applies to the white controller, but you can get the discount on up to three units at once.

That's all for today, folks! There's a chance you're looking for something we haven't covered. If that's the case, you can help The Tech Report by using the following referral links when you're out shopping: not only do we have a partnership with Newegg and Amazon, but we also work with Best Buy, Adorama, RakutenWalmart, and Sam's Club. For more specific needs, you can also shop with our links at the Microsoft Store and Das Keyboard's shop.

Comments closed
    • moose17145
    • 2 years ago

    The promo code for the controller does not seem to be working anymore. Dang… πŸ™

    • CuttinHobo
    • 2 years ago

    That racing game shown on the monitor must be extremely difficult. Racing with a view of the car’s nose? I can only assume that Tom and Paul are very skilled.

      • morphine
      • 2 years ago

      No, it’s just an opponent coming the other way!

        • CuttinHobo
        • 2 years ago

        Oh noes! πŸ˜€

        That brings to mind an old racing game called Whiplash (Fatal Racing in Europe) where, in my experience, a CPU opponent named Bob would consistently get turned around and not correct itself. It would run the track backwards and wreak havoc for the remainder of the race. Hilarity ensued. Felt like an intentional development decision because it always seemed to be Bob. I approve of bots with personality. πŸ™‚

    • Kretschmer
    • 2 years ago

    In the future, please don’t list a FreeSync display without itemizing the FreeSync range and Low Framerate Compensation status.

    29UM60: 40-75, no LFC
    32UD59: 40-60, no LFC

    I wouldn’t bother buying a FreeSync display with such anemic working ranges. These are on sale for a reason.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 2 years ago

      We should have included the FreeSync ranges, for sure, but I wouldn’t call these working ranges “anemic.”

      40 Hz to 60 Hz is bog-standard for 4K FreeSync, and 40 Hz-75 Hz from a 2560×1080 display would be more than adequate for a midrange Radeon to drive if we imagine that any of those cards were available at reasonable prices.

      The 32UD59-B’s wide color gamut makes it especially compelling for the moneyβ€”I bought a standard-gamut 4K FreeSync monitor for the same money just a year and change ago.

      “Anemic” is better-suited to some other LGs (I think) that had 52 Hz-60 Hz or 54 Hz-60 Hz ranges or something else ridiculous, if I recall correctly. These are middle-of-the-road.

        • Freon
        • 2 years ago

        Middle of the road (at least statistically) and anemic (in performance) are not mutually exclusive concepts.

        I think the problem is the actual average here is poor, and I think you’ve had the fight beaten out of you with the trove of crappy ranged Freesync displays.

        As much as I despite much about Gsync, Nvidia has done a good job just saying “NO” to a vast majority of displays that would have a poor range and making sure the bare minimum to wear the label is good.

          • jihadjoe
          • 2 years ago

          Agreed. Anemic is the right word for these.

          For those displays that Jeff mentioned I’d use the term ‘useless’.

            • moose17145
            • 2 years ago

            [url<]https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0ZW5F71608&cm_re=nixeus-_-9SIA0ZW5F71608-_-Product[/url<] Then just buy that...

            • BurntMyBacon
            • 2 years ago

            That looks like a fine product that I might even consider buying myself (if I were in the market), but it isn’t exactly a replacement for either of the monitors in the original post.

            Compared to the 29UM60 it is:
            Smaller (27″ vs 29″)
            A different aspect ratio (16:9 vs 21:9)
            Far more expensive ($450 vs $200)

            Compared to the 32UD59 it is:
            Significantly smaller (27″ vs 32″)
            Lower resolution (2560×1440 vs 3840×2160)
            Different panel type (AHVA<IPS Type> vs VA)

            • moose17145
            • 2 years ago

            The differences you pointed out are largely irrelevant though, as the original argument was “anemic freesync range” and “Lack of LFC”

            The monitor I linked corrects both of those issues.

            Which I would also like to point out… if people want LFC and a wide variable refresh range, from either G-sync or freesync… why would they be looking at a 4K monitor at all?

            As for the ultrawide… if people want a wider freesync range and LFC, then the price difference is also irrelevant as they are going to end up spending significantly more money for an ultrawide that corrects those two issues anyways. Chances are they are also going to end up with a TN panel and other compromises as well to get to the wider freesync range and LFC in that ultrawide format.

            • Kretschmer
            • 2 years ago

            I don’t remember seeing any ultrawide FreeSync or GSync TN panels in existence.

        • Kretschmer
        • 2 years ago

        Jeff, thanks for responding! I agree that FreeSync ranges can be a case of “the price is right.” It’s a shame that vendors often settle for “close enough” when they can elicit a wider range on the same panel for GSync SKUs.

        • ImSpartacus
        • 2 years ago

        Any FreeSync range that doesn’t satisfy the 2.5:1 ratio for LFC compatibility is anemic.

        I don’t care that the “average” FreeSync is some bargain bin garbage that doesn’t support LFC.

        The whole point of VRR (be it FreeSync or G-Sync) is to handle frame time anomalies. FreeSync simply can’t do that without LFC.

        It’s no coincidence that FreeSync 2 requires LFC. AMD knows that most FreeSync 1 monitors chince out with no LFC and the experience is simply not good enough without LFC.

          • jensend
          • 2 years ago

          With recent drivers, 2.5x is no longer required for LFC; 2x is enough.

          A 36-75Hz monitor thus has a huge advantage over a 40-75Hz monitor, and it certainly seems ridiculous that manufacturers won’t go to the trouble to enable that slightly wider range.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 2 years ago

            I didn’t know that. Thanks for sharing.

            I knew the 2:1 ratio was what FreeSync 2 used, but I didn’t know that retroactively applied to FreeSync “1”.

            I agree that 75-40 Hz suddenly looks really chintzy.

      • ptsant
      • 2 years ago

      I have a FreeSync with 30-90 range, which is quite good, but 40-75 is not bad, really. Once you get above 75 it doesn’t count that much. Below 40 and you’re already in trouble.

      Anyway, I agree with your suggestion. It’s nice to have this information.

        • jensend
        • 2 years ago

        [quote<]Below 40 and you're already in trouble.[/quote<]Not really. 40fps=25ms frames. Having some 26+ ms frames is quite likely even if your card is generally very capable of dealing with the game and settings; see the "time beyond X ms" in most reviews. If, thanks to adaptive refresh, those frames are displayed immediately when they're produced, they won't really disrupt your experience unless they are ~40ms or slower. If you don't have LFC and thus one of those slow frames just misses a scanout, then with a 75Hz max refresh (13.3ms) suddenly your 27ms frames are 40ms frames. You're right that a higher max than 75 really isn't important if frames are displayed on time. (The difference between 60 and 75 Hz is the same as the difference between 75-100, 100 and 150, 150 and 300, or 300 and infinity - just 3.33 ms faster max with each of those steps- and returns diminish steeply as you move away from what's physiologically relevant to the eye and brain. Any benefits from >100Hz displays are due to reduced trouble with timing interactions, not because steady 10ms frames aren't satisfactory.) But a monitor with a 40-75 Hz range can't do LFC and is subject to such timing problems, while a monitor with a 36-75 Hz range avoids all that trouble. (Recent drivers allow LFC with a 2x range instead of the original 2.5x.) AMD ought to have insisted that manufacturers using the FreeSync label go to the trouble of enabling that slightly wider range, which gives seriously improved results. Adding it to FreeSync 2 didn't fix the problem because the rest of the stuff they added to the FreeSync 2 requirements list is likely to remain limited to boutique monitors for years to come.

      • Flapdrol
      • 2 years ago

      I’m using a 40-75hz LG29UM68, works perfectly fine.

      Turned off vsync and cap below 75. When framerate gets below 40 the tearlines are quite hard to spot, and don’t bother me as much as the bad performance.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 2 years ago

      That’s the scary thing about FreeSync.

      If I get it, I definitely want LFC (I basically want FreeSync 2 tbh). But most monitors have a pitiful refresh range and aren’t worth it.

    • drfish
    • 2 years ago

    It didn’t make the cut for featured deals, but my budget monitor of choice, the [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824025212<]LG 25UM56-P[/url<], can be had for just $117 with promo code SEPTSALES17. For the last year, I've used it almost exclusively with my [url=https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=118498<]unique setup[/url<] instead of the much nicer 34" LG at my normal desk.

      • Kretschmer
      • 2 years ago

      Note that this display lacks FreeSync. Still very nice for the price.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 2 years ago

      I get that it’s a great value, but if I’m going through the trouble to make a custom couch-based mount, you better believe I’m not blinking an eye at $500-600 for a nice 34″ 3440×1440 display.

      And that’s especially critical if it’s your only monitor (looks like that custom setup allows for one display).

        • drfish
        • 2 years ago

        Fair enough. In my case though, I had a few other considerations (not to mention that “trouble” is hardly the word for $20 of materials and about 30mins of time, most of which was spend triple checking that I would hit a stud).

        1) Dog-related damage to screen – so far, it’s held up just fine, but it does get knocked around more than I’d want a $600 screen to.
        2) It needs to be on HDMI – my computer, which also runs my Vive, is way on the other side of the room, and it needs to stay there, so I need a 50′ HDMI cable to get a signal to the screen. That’s pushing the limits already, but a 50′ DP cable for 3440×1440 just ain’t going to happen.
        3) The 25″ screen already closes me off from the rest of the living room a lot – if I did move my 34″ screen over there, I wouldn’t be able to see anything else going on around me.
        4) If I moved my 34″ screen over there, I’d “need” to buy a 1080 Ti to keep the same relative gaming performance I’ve become accustomed to after dropping down to 2560×1080.

      • PixelArmy
      • 2 years ago

      IMO, that panel height is way too short. I’m staring at a 16:9 24″ and it has +2″ vertical and +10% real estate (area) over a 21:9 25″. Have to get at least 29″ to get acceptable vertical space (~1 ft) in 21:9.

        • drfish
        • 2 years ago

        I like tiny pixels and I can not lie.

      • demani
      • 2 years ago

      I actually have that one too-our bigger one dies, and that was $120 at Microcenter when I went in. I’ve been pretty happy with it even at the smaller size. A calibration pass worked well to get the color pretty tight.
      But Starcraft Remixed doesn’t go ultrawide πŸ™

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This