I said why in my post. It's easier to get 120fps than 144fps. I wouldn't change a 144Hz display to 120Hz, but in heindsight I would have bought a 120Hz display instead.
144Hz and Gsync/Freesync is a god damn game changer
- Thread starter Deleted member 17289
- Start date
I said why in my post. It's easier to get 120fps than 144fps. I wouldn't change a 144Hz display to 120Hz, but in heindsight I would have bought a 120Hz display instead.
Since it appears to have FreeSync, there's no need to be hitting 144 FPS in games. The whole point of VRR is that the entire range from 0 to your maximum refresh rate will be synchronized, rather than having to lock to divisors of the refresh rate. If it runs at 120 FPS, the display will be updating at 120Hz. Refresh rate is only a maximum on a VRR display.
If it was a fixed refresh rate 144Hz display, you'd have to run games at 144/72/48/36 FPS if you wanted them to be smooth - and in that case, 120Hz may be preferable (120/60/40/30). Not that I'd recommend it, since it's a VRR display, but can't you set it to 120Hz anyway?
Instead of "IPS Glow" which varies depending on the panel used (AUO AHVA are much worse than LG IPS in my experience) you get a completely washed-out image in the edges due to VA gamma shift.
Here's an IPS ultrawide (ASUS PG348Q) compared against a VA ultrawide (HP Omen X35).
Look at how badly washed-out the VA panel gets at an angle. With larger displays, or ultrawides, you even see that starting to happen in the corners when viewed straight-on.
"Glow" is a non-issue on the PG348Q since it uses an LG IPS panel.
This image has the on-axis photo up top, and the wide-angle photo at the bottom, using perspective-correction:
Even in the lower-right corner, I'm not seeing any glow. Just a loss of brightness due to the steep angle.
The thing with VA contrast ratios is that they only apply when viewed at a perfect 90°. Contrast falls off rapidly, and the higher contrast the panel is, the narrower the "sweet spot" is. Just moving your head slightly is enough to change the image on a VA panel, and you don't get the full contrast ratio in the corners of the display.
This is a 5000:1 native VA panel viewed up close:
The camera exaggerates how washed-out the image gets at the edges, but it's a good demonstration of how narrow the viewing angle is on those panels.
G-Sync originally did not even have the option to disable V-Sync. It's supposed to be enabled.
The only reason there's an option to disable it now is because AMD launched FreeSync without low frame-rate compensation, and gave users the option to disable V-Sync instead.
NVIDIA only added that option so they weren't "missing a feature" despite LFC being a requirement for G-Sync displays from day one.
When you get within ~20% of the display's maximum refresh rate, there is the possibility of tearing from sudden changes in performance; e.g. turning the camera very quickly to a scene which has significantly lower complexity.
So long as there is a frame rate limiter set at least 3 FPS below the maximum refresh rate, having v-sync enabled does not cause it to engage fully (no noticeable latency) but will prevent screen tearing in those scenarios.
A frame-rate limiter alone cannot do this. You'd have to set it 20-30 FPS below the monitor's maximum refresh rate to avoid tearing, instead of enabling v-sync.
RetroArch has a "Sync to exact content frame rate" option for VRR displays, so this should not be necessary.
Emulators for 3D systems generally don't seem to have an issue working with G-Sync normally. It's only 2D emulators where I ever had issues with G-Sync.
But with VRR your framerate is going to match your refresh rate anyhow. 144hz just gives you a higher ceiling. It doesn't require you to hit that ceiling.
So if your game is running at 78fps, 92fps or 100fps your VRR monitor will match it.
Wouldn't VRR take care of this? I know my FreeSync monitor locks to 50/60hz in Retroarch and even with 30fps content which is below my 48hz minimum it stays at 60 and double-frames o.o
ugh. I've had a taste of this with my tv that can do 1080p at 120 hz and man its so buttery so i can only imagine what 144hz would look like. Part of me now wants to sacrifice 4k for refresh rate, but part of me wants to intentionally be ignorant so it doesn't make me cringe at my tv and other monitors after it being my standard for so long. One another concern i do have is the disparity between my other monitors in resolution. Has anyone had issues with using 2 4k monitors with 1440p Monitors in conjunction with each other? I know at the surface it should be fine since it's the same aspect ratio, but just want to be sure before considering taking the dive.
I ended up taking back my alienware ultrawide because it had too much yellow ips glow. Their level 2 tech support didn't think it would be worth exchanging it so I just sent it back and got a refund.
I'm back to the drawing board. I definitely want g-sync and high frame rate at 1440p. I think i'll go with a 27" but I can't decide between:
LG 27GL850, Aorus AD27QD, or Asus PG279Q. The reviews make them all very comparable with minor differences. The Aorus is currently on sale for the same price as the LG at $699 CAD. The Asus PG279Q (non-z) comes in at $799 CAD.
I can't decide if it's worth an extra $100 for the actualy g-sync and overclock vs saving a bit of money and going with the g-sync comaptible, fake HDR alternative.
I have more brand affinity with LG because I have one of their oleds but the Aorus comes with more "features" albeit negligible.
I really can't decide. Part of me wants to wait until local dimming zone tech with real hdr comes down to this price range but I feel like we're years off for that reality. Thoughts?
I'm back to the drawing board. I definitely want g-sync and high frame rate at 1440p. I think i'll go with a 27" but I can't decide between:
LG 27GL850, Aorus AD27QD, or Asus PG279Q. The reviews make them all very comparable with minor differences. The Aorus is currently on sale for the same price as the LG at $699 CAD. The Asus PG279Q (non-z) comes in at $799 CAD.
I can't decide if it's worth an extra $100 for the actualy g-sync and overclock vs saving a bit of money and going with the g-sync comaptible, fake HDR alternative.
I have more brand affinity with LG because I have one of their oleds but the Aorus comes with more "features" albeit negligible.
I really can't decide. Part of me wants to wait until local dimming zone tech with real hdr comes down to this price range but I feel like we're years off for that reality. Thoughts?
I feel like it's a bad time to decide on one particular model. The Asus PG279Q has a refresh model coming 'soon', and so does the Aorus AD27 (which will support 165hz). So i'm hesitant to pull the trigger on anything.
With that said, anyone here got impressions on the Viewsonic XG2703-GS model? It's an older model with the same panel as the PG279Q but it wasn't covered by Rtings or TFT. It's currently on sale in my region with an enticing price (~110$ less than the AD27).
With that said, anyone here got impressions on the Viewsonic XG2703-GS model? It's an older model with the same panel as the PG279Q but it wasn't covered by Rtings or TFT. It's currently on sale in my region with an enticing price (~110$ less than the AD27).
I wonder if we should have some sort of guide of things to watch out for when it comes to using gsync. A lot of people say that all you need to do is enable it and that it will just work but there seems to be various scenarios that would prevent gsync from working or render it useless and I feel like some wouldn't even notice. So far, I've noticed the following:
- you need to have vsync force-enabled in the nvidia control panel, or else you could still get tearing in certain games at high framerates.
- having any of the Windows Game Bar overlays pinned to your screen disables gsync. I noticed this when testing the new FPS monitoring tool. Hiding a pinned overlay still stops gsync. In fact, hiding a pinned overlay and disabling the game bar afterwards will still prevent gsync from working so I think you could find yourself in a weird situation where gsync just fails to work no matter what (unless you re-enable game bar and unpin your invisible overlay).
- windowed and borderless fullscreen make gsync ineffective. It's somewhat misleading too since your monitor's refresh rate will continue to change but the overall output looks almost as uneven and choppy as not having gsync at all. Not sure if this affects all games not in exclusive fullscreen.
- you need to have vsync force-enabled in the nvidia control panel, or else you could still get tearing in certain games at high framerates.
- having any of the Windows Game Bar overlays pinned to your screen disables gsync. I noticed this when testing the new FPS monitoring tool. Hiding a pinned overlay still stops gsync. In fact, hiding a pinned overlay and disabling the game bar afterwards will still prevent gsync from working so I think you could find yourself in a weird situation where gsync just fails to work no matter what (unless you re-enable game bar and unpin your invisible overlay).
- windowed and borderless fullscreen make gsync ineffective. It's somewhat misleading too since your monitor's refresh rate will continue to change but the overall output looks almost as uneven and choppy as not having gsync at all. Not sure if this affects all games not in exclusive fullscreen.
You'll only get tearing if you also disabled V-Sync in the game.
You just need V-Sync enabled somewhere, and the NVIDIA Control Panel is preferable (because there are some games where you'd want its option disabled).
- Did you enable G-Sync?
- Is the monitor set to 144Hz in the NVIDIA Control Panel?
- Do not use Borderless/Windowed-Mode G-Sync. It doesn't work correctly.
- What kind of frame rates were you getting in-game? 144Hz G-Sync is not going to do much if the game is still running at 60 FPS.
Usually (in my experience at least), the first time you jump from 60 to anything higher has the biggest impact. 144hz should look significantly smoother than 60 if you can get framerates up that high. Adding VRR like gsync improves things even more.
I just upgraded to a 1440p / 165 Hz monitor (Pixio PX7 Prime) and boy it's really amazing.
It was honestly really hard to shop for since almost every monitor has bad reviews from people complaining about backlight bleed, flickering or other defects (which admittedly, seem very common). I feel like the monitor market is at sort of a race to the bottom in terms of price and as such, quality control is not often great.
Really happy with the panel I wound up with though. Plus the added real estate at 1440p is really nice on desktop. And when it comes to gaming I found that on my old 1080p monitor I was pretty much just using DSR to play at 1440p downsampled all the time anyway, so performance is kind of the same. Better in fact, since 40 or 50 FPS on adaptive refresh rate ain't no thang.
It was honestly really hard to shop for since almost every monitor has bad reviews from people complaining about backlight bleed, flickering or other defects (which admittedly, seem very common). I feel like the monitor market is at sort of a race to the bottom in terms of price and as such, quality control is not often great.
Really happy with the panel I wound up with though. Plus the added real estate at 1440p is really nice on desktop. And when it comes to gaming I found that on my old 1080p monitor I was pretty much just using DSR to play at 1440p downsampled all the time anyway, so performance is kind of the same. Better in fact, since 40 or 50 FPS on adaptive refresh rate ain't no thang.
Nah, I don't notice any difference between 60 and 120 FPS when using a controller (tested with an LG C9).
It does a difference with a mouse, but it's so small to me that I just keep playing at 4k60.
1, 2, 4 : Yes, G-Sync logo is shown and the FPS is around ~100 - 144 Hz
3. Tried Borderless and Full Screen, with little to no difference
maybe this
i'm using controller too
as i said earlier, i can see the difference but it's not "a night and day" difference
maybe i'll try using mouse to play next time
Thanks!
I recommend that G-Sync is not even enabled for windowed-mode. That way you'll know for sure that it's working correctly, if it's active.
I see a huge difference between 60 and 120 even when using a controller, but people's perception may vary.
Yeah, it's not a question of just input device or latency. It's pretty obvious to me just looking at the moving image.
I see this thread is still alive.
Looking for advice.
Nvidia 2070S card, and looking for a 1440p 144hz display. Does it matter if the monitor is gsync vs freesync? Presumably I can use either standard? Any issues using a freesync display with an nvidia card?
Just that the freesync ones seem cheaper.
Thinking of either the LG27GL850 or the Dell 2719 DGF (freesync)
Looking for advice.
Nvidia 2070S card, and looking for a 1440p 144hz display. Does it matter if the monitor is gsync vs freesync? Presumably I can use either standard? Any issues using a freesync display with an nvidia card?
Just that the freesync ones seem cheaper.
Thinking of either the LG27GL850 or the Dell 2719 DGF (freesync)
You should be able to use any FreeSync monitor just fine aslong as it has a DisplayPort connector and not HDMI-only.
Might be worth looking into the differences between the LG27GL850 and the 32 650 model, supposedely the panels are pretty much the same, just the difference being size and crap HDR on the 850.
OP, i got the same monitor as you as i built a new 3700x/2070 super computer a week ago. 144hz has been incredible. Freesync has been great.
I miss my 144hz gysnc monitor not going to lie, but the image quality just doesn't compare to a 55 inch OLED TV.
Waiting until 2020 or 2021 series LG OLED with hopefully 144 hz gsync in it before i upgrade again from my B7A.
Waiting until 2020 or 2021 series LG OLED with hopefully 144 hz gsync in it before i upgrade again from my B7A.
That's is the upgrade i wanna make on a couple of years, i recently bought a gaming monitor (75hz/Freesync) after using an old cheap TV with high input lag and poor image quality and was a blast, i can't imagine how must feel a 144hz gaming monitor.
I hope on that date there's G Sync 144hz OLED gaming monitor.
I hope on that date there's G Sync 144hz OLED gaming monitor.
Excellent, thanks.
Great, will keep an eye out for the 32 on black friday.
I swear to everything I loved I will get 32:9 as my next monitor with 1440p and 144hz. Oooh weee.
It is absolutely, with G-Sync or Freesync you can reach any FPS between the starting range and 144fps and have a smooth experience, without it you have to reach 144fps at all times or lock to a fractal of it.
No problem! Be aware that FreeSync monitors on Nvidia Hardware could have some small bugs but it's generally nothing noteworthy. Like my MSI Optix MAG241CR for example works perfectly but whenever it went to sleep and wakes up, the first time I start any 3D application the screen gets garbled for a second and then comes back normal one more second later with G-Sync kicking in, though I don't mind that at all, especially not considering how much money I saved.
The Xbox One (X?) supports Freresync already if I remember correctly so there's a decent chance the new ones will atleast support the VESA VRR standard.
I want this but 32" is too big and it doesn't seem like they have one with the same specs at 27"???
I'm looking into slightly cheaper screen recommendations for somebody. I already have a 144hz 1440p ips gsync for myself, but I'm thinking something G-sync compatible that won't break the bank? 1080p or 1440p are both fine, curved/not curved is fine, but some kind of conventional 16:9 monitor that won't break the bank but has decent picture quality and handles VRR well.
Preferrably not larger than 24" if it's 1080p.
Preferrably not larger than 24" if it's 1080p.
That's sadly a trend that's going on, I personally prefer 24" monitors and getting a decent one in that size is already hard enough, everyone pushes the "bigger is better" angle :/
I want to do this but I can't, I mostly play on my consoles and now with games supporting keyboard + mouse more and more, it's all part of my desktop setup.
So until consoles support VRR I'm sticking with my 4k/60 :\
It'll all change in about a year, so I'm looking forward to it.
So until consoles support VRR I'm sticking with my 4k/60 :\
It'll all change in about a year, so I'm looking forward to it.
I'm relatively new to PC gaming so, so far, Freesync seems to be very good ; great framerates, no tearing nor input lag.
However, how comes I've tearing on my 144hz Freesync display ?
I have a Nvidia 2060S and the display is G-Sync compatible (Acer Nitro VG270UPbmiipx), but when I played Rocket League, I had tearing and stutter.
Can it be because it is hitting a much more higher framerate than 144 ?
However, how comes I've tearing on my 144hz Freesync display ?
I have a Nvidia 2060S and the display is G-Sync compatible (Acer Nitro VG270UPbmiipx), but when I played Rocket League, I had tearing and stutter.
Can it be because it is hitting a much more higher framerate than 144 ?
It will make no difference for a PS4 Pro, the monitor will lock itself to 60hz.
This will be the reason yeah, use MSI Afterburner / Rivatuna Statistics Server and force a global framerate-cap at 140fps. 140 so you still have 4 to spare for fluctuations.
Thanks! I guess I`ll just buy one 144Hz Full HD then, at least a few of my PC games will take advantage of it.
Makes sure it has atleast FreeSync and a DisplayPort though if you have a Nvidia GPU!
No problem, you should have a nice experience after that :)
Thanks for the tips! Luckly the one I`m looking for has both.
No problem, nice then you should be in the clear for a smooth experience! :)
Wait, what ? Freesync on Nvidia only works with a DisplayPort ? I didn't know that, even if my monitor is plugged that way (that's the only cable I had at the time).
I wanted to replace it with an HDMI cable later, guess I won't eventually, haha.
I agree, mostly. I think it's complicated though.
For a lot of games it makes little or no difference. For fast pace FPS games, it does make a discernible difference, not world shattering, but it's more immersive and feels slightly less constrained.
But what it also is is a magic fix for people who might have stuttering or tearing at 60fps. I find I often load a new game, and if it's fast paced I have to go into settings or console and dick about with frame rate limitation to make it feel 'nice' at 60fps. 60fps can feel pretty crappy on PC without small mitigations like this sometimes.
So if you are a casual player and you just want quick and easy smooth gameplay, 144hz can be worth the investment.
If you are a professional streamer or something, or really care about your K/D ratio - you will notice you play better with 144hz. The smoothness does help track fast targets, even if you don't notice it so much, you will see it in your scores.
This is also the argument for 200hz+ monitors, insanity and pointless if you ask me, but I think it has been demonstrated that people objectively do better.
But beyond that, a huge factor not talked about much is just game engine design. They often favour HFR monitors and you end able to fire more shots than people at 60hz. While obviously rate of fire is not intentionally tied to your framerate, almost all big competitive games have had revelations that this is the case, to greater or lesser extents - Fortnite, PUBG. I can't help but think this affects many more less popular games too, they just didn't reach critical mass to be scrutinised enough.
So yeah, if you are a try hard who cares about doing well, get a 144hz monitor.
Personally, I actually 'overclock' my little 25 inch 1440p monitor to around 80hz, and it does feel a small amount better in fast paced games such as Overwatch/Apex, and that is enough for me.
I have no urge to upgrade beause a lot of these 144hz screens have such bad general image quality, build quality, that it's not worth the trade offs. They are really, really bad compared to the quality of todays big screen TV's (and phones, and tablets). It makes me realise what a niche uncompetive market PC gaming is.
Outside of build quality - 1440p at 27" is just not a good PPI in 2019, I can't tolerate it on the desktop for text. My phone almost has that resolution and the screen is what, 16x smaller? Same applies to any 30+ inch screen with similar vertical resolution.
I've tried and returned a 144hz 4k monitor, but the uniformity was atrociously bad, the UI was a pain to interact with (and buggy). 144hz felt nice for playing Apex, but not that much better than ~80hz I'm used to, or at least not worth the money. Everything about the product bar the resolution and framerate was so bad it made me realise what a nice uncompetitive market PC gaming monitors are.