Anyone using new Gsync Monitors?

[Hopper64]

Just wanted to know what the experience has been with the new Gsync monitors. Saw this review recently:

 

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Acer-XB280HK-4K-GSYNC-Gaming-Monitor-Review/?page=1

 

 

There's also the Asus product too:

 

http://techreport.com/review/26870/asus-rog-swift-pg278q-g-sync-monitor-reviewed

[Hopper64]

Noticed the resolution on the Acer product is 3840 x 2160. Don't know how much a performance hit will happen with so many pixels.

[John_Banks]

Problem is that they are so small. I am using a 37" TV with a full HD resolution. A 30" or 28" Screen just doesn't cut the mustache. And Hopper ist right here i guess, such an amount of pixels will most likely bring your fps rate to it's knees. My current GTX570 already has some trouble to get the 1920x1080 smooth.

[e345spd]

Actually, 4k is really not very difficult to render with a single GPU (if your GPU is truly intended for 4k rendering). Also, in almost all cases, 4k without or with very low levels of anti-aliasing looks significantly better than 1080p with very high levels of filtering. Often, AA implementations are highly inefficient and a single method of filtering does not necessarily address all instances of aliasing. The issue of pushing 8MP isn't as extreme as it may seem at first due to the fact that you no longer need to apply nearly as much inefficient filtering to achieve significantly better rendering quality.

 

 

 

Adding additional scalar(s) and noticeably increasing input latency along with end-user cost is not the way to address dynamic refresh rates.  

 

 

Also...as for screen size, the higher DPI of a 28" UHD monitor is a benefit, not a negative. At some point, larger screens drastically reduce image quality unless you are a good distance away from the screen.

 

 

In direct comparison, 1080p on 21" (as an example) looks very poor.

Edited October 29, 2014 by e345spd

[39bn_pavig]

From what I heard from a friend with one the main advantage is you don't need traditional vsync because the monitor matches your frame rate. That means no tearing and potentially much higher FPS than you could get with a traditional monitor. Gsync is the NVIDIA trademark on variable refresh rate monitors, but I hear many other companies are bringing equivalent technology to market very soon. If you have the money and are in the market now, then by all means. If you can hold off for a while though you may see a significant reduction in price and more competition.

[e345spd]

I agree with most of what you said, however:

 

"That means no tearing and potentially much higher FPS than you could get with a traditional monitor."

 

It means no tearing (provided you don't exceed whatever the maximum refresh rate of whatever specific gsync-scalar possessing monitor it is), at no point does it mean higher FPS unless you're buffering and subsequently flushing said buffer. Such actions would momentarily create a burst in framerate and increase input latency at the same time, as latency must be added to the rendering pipeline if you are exceeding the maximum refresh rate of your monitor and wish to maintain sync, including monitors with added gsync scalars. I'm not suggesting that such things happen with gsync, as it does not exhibit increased frame rates. Such behavior with buffering would be highly counter-productive to perceived smoothness.

 

 

 

Gsync is about addressing dips below your native refresh rate and that's really the only time it provides any potential benefit, as some vsync implementations will choose hard numbers such as 120hz ideal,  dropping to 60/~16.6 ms even if you're at 119 FPS (~8.3 ms) for the last frame. Note, not all vsync implementations are so drastic with their choices of semi-sync-able framerates. It seems it is not at all impossible to implement more granular solutions without any changes to hardware or specifications.

 

 

At the very least, the situation as-is in most implementations could be improved. Some implementations are just the absolute minimum in terms of functionality. (note, I'm not referring to BoS here in any way, I haven't had time to mess with their vsync implementation yet)

Edited October 29, 2014 by e345spd

[Hopper64]

Thanks for all the comments. Quite helpful.

[FS_Fenice_1965]

Has anyone tested BOS with 4k ?

I was tempted buying one of the new 4k TVs to play, but I fear that actual graphic cards aren't enough powerful to handle this game running smooth at such a resolution.

[Dakpilot]

A lot of the 4k TV's run at 30Hz refresh rate, good enough for tv/movies but something to consider with gaming

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[FS_Fenice_1965]

Ty Dakpilot

[Tom25briklebritt]

Yes, i use G-Sync monitors. I got a triple screen G-Sync system > 3x 1920x1080 G-Sync monitors.

 

But, BoS doesn´t support triple screen at the moment. So i only play at 1920x1080 with one G-Sync monitor. 

 

G-Sync works great > not only in BoS ;-)

 

I got these monitors. 

 

http://www.tomshardware.de/acer-xb270habprz-g-sync-display-monitor-gaming,news-251183.html

[Hopper64]

I was looking at that monitor myself. I my try it out soon. Thanks.

[e345spd]

A lot of the 4k TV's run at 30Hz refresh rate, good enough for tv/movies but something to consider with gaming

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Unfortunately, a TV-spec display is not at all equivalent to a monitor.

 

 

Numerous 4k monitors support 60 hz right now for ~$600 USD, including single-stream. Multi-stream has supported 60hz for a good while now (compiles the equivalent of two theoretical inputs into a single image with the scalar iirc (probably adds latency, too)) Now that we have proper single-stream, all you could be waiting for is higher refresh rates and depressed pricing due to further competition.

 

Considering Samsung's strength in the display panel distribution department, I doubt we will be seeing significant changes in pricing in the near future.