Why are there so few 4k 144hz monitors?

[7DAYS_VLAD [RU[]

& why are they so extremely overpriced?

I found just 1 so far the Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ and its 2500 euro, complete scam

Im looking for new monitor, i looked at high resolution cuz its more pleasant to look at, and high refreshrate for fast games so i want one that combines both obviously but it seems to be cheaper to buy 2

[Straw Hat]

Revelene původně napsal:

Hiroki původně napsal:

So, having gsync enabled is the best option if you exceed the refresh rate of your monitor when you get tearing?

I'm confused. I have a 1080p Gsync 144hz monitor and I am planning to get the RTX 2080. If I play uncapped without Gsync having unlimited FPS is better than capping it with Gsync enabled? As far as I know, if you enable Gsync you get input lag. What is the best option to reduce input lag and tearing at the same time, uncapped gsync off or capped at 139fps with Gsync enaabled?

Gsync has the least amount of added input latency than any type of frame sync available. You will not notice the latency that it adds, as it is so low that it is negligible. Using a third party frame limiter would add more latency by itself than Gsync.

If you have Gsync, leave it on. It will always work with frame rates within range of the refresh rate. If you are bothered by the tearing when frames are out of range, then use a frame limiter. Always use in-game limiters, if possible, as they always have less latency than using third party, like RTSS. But even with RTSS limiting frames, the latency is negligible.

Thanks for the reply. I have more knowledge about it now from Ad Hominem and you. I really appreciate your info.

[Ad Hominem]

Revelene původně napsal:

Gsync has the least amount of added input latency than any type of frame sync available. You will not notice the latency that it adds, as it is so low that it is negligible. Using a third party frame limiter would add more latency by itself than Gsync.

If you have Gsync, leave it on. It will always work with frame rates within range of the refresh rate. If you are bothered by the tearing when frames are out of range, then use a frame limiter. Always use in-game limiters, if possible, as they always have less latency than using third party, like RTSS. But even with RTSS limiting frames, the latency is negligible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=MzHxhjcE0eQ

Results graphs are at 11:43

This is an older video, so maybe things have changed since, but Gsync vs FreeSync are basically the same when it comes to input lag. Running Gsync with Vsync on (as originally intended by Nvidia) you get around 30 frames of lag on this test (filmed at 960 fps), and you get around the same 30 with Freesync with Vsync turned off (again, filmed at 960 fps). You can do the math to get the actual lag time in seconds if you want, but it shows that they're damn near the exact same.

If you're in the market for a new screen you could look at one of the Freesync ones that are supported by Nvidia. Acer makes a nice 1440p 144hz 27" TN Freesync panel that I've been using with my 1080ti. It's one of the original 12 when green team started supporting Freesync screens, and it works great. So you get adaptive refresh rate no matter what brand GPU you have without paying the extra Gsync tax.

[Revelene]

Ad Hominem původně napsal:

Revelene původně napsal:

Gsync has the least amount of added input latency than any type of frame sync available. You will not notice the latency that it adds, as it is so low that it is negligible. Using a third party frame limiter would add more latency by itself than Gsync.

If you have Gsync, leave it on. It will always work with frame rates within range of the refresh rate. If you are bothered by the tearing when frames are out of range, then use a frame limiter. Always use in-game limiters, if possible, as they always have less latency than using third party, like RTSS. But even with RTSS limiting frames, the latency is negligible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=MzHxhjcE0eQ

Results graphs are at 11:43

This is an older video, so maybe things have changed since, but Gsync vs FreeSync are basically the same when it comes to input lag. Running Gsync with Vsync on (as originally intended by Nvidia) you get around 30 frames of lag on this test (filmed at 960 fps), and you get around the same 30 with Freesync with Vsync turned off (again, filmed at 960 fps). You can do the math to get the actual lag time in seconds if you want, but it shows that they're damn near the exact same.

If you're in the market for a new screen you could look at one of the Freesync ones that are supported by Nvidia. Acer makes a nice 1440p 144hz 27" TN Freesync panel that I've been using with my 1080ti. It's one of the original 12 when green team started supporting Freesync screens, and it works great. So you get adaptive refresh rate no matter what brand GPU you have without paying the extra Gsync tax.

Might want to go look at all the issues that are common with FreeSync, before making a comparison. While they have the same adaptive sync job, both technologies are significantly different and inherent issues come from FreeSync being software managed, versus Gsync and the dedicated chipset inside the monitor.

FreeSync has little to no standards to unify the experience between monitors. It is up to the monitor manufacturer to optimize performance and set performance metrics. This leaves you with many monitors that don't even support FreeSync for half of the refresh rate (see the 120/144hz monitors that only have FreeSync work from 40-90hz). There are also flaws in frame delivery. Many cheaper FreeSync monitors simply drop full frames and results in massive stuttering, ghosting issues with FreeSync enabled, noticable latency, etc. Not all FreeSync monitors are the same.

It isn't simply a "extra Gsync tax". You are paying for a more efficient and consistent adaptive sync experience.

[Ad Hominem]

Revelene původně napsal:

Might want to go look at all the issues that are common with FreeSync, before making a comparison.

The only comparison I would take from that video is specifically input lag. Neither way has a particular advantage when it comes to lower input lag than the other. You can spend the extra money and get a cohesive experience with Gsync or you can save the green team tax, do your research, and get a Gsync supported Freesync screen that will have awesome variable refresh rate range.

For my money, I would either buy a nice Gsync compatible Freesync screen and save that extra cash, or if I wanted HDR, get the Gsync Ultimate. I don't see much point for plain old Gsync screens now that there are Gsync compatible screens for less that can do exactly the same thing. And Nvidia saved you the trouble by validating specific screens that work to their standards with no artifacts and a wide VRR range.

[Revelene]

Ad Hominem původně napsal:

Revelene původně napsal:

Might want to go look at all the issues that are common with FreeSync, before making a comparison.

The only comparison I would take from that video is specifically input lag. Neither way has a particular advantage when it comes to lower input lag than the other. You can spend the extra money and get a cohesive experience with Gsync or you can save the green team tax, do your research, and get a Gsync supported Freesync screen that will have awesome variable refresh rate range.

For my money, I would either buy a nice Gsync compatible Freesync screen and save that extra cash, or if I wanted HDR, get the Gsync Ultimate. I don't see much point for plain old Gsync screens now that there are Gsync compatible screens for less that can do exactly the same thing. And Nvidia saved you the trouble by validating specific screens that work to their standards with no artifacts and a wide VRR range.

It isn't the exact same thing. The Nvidia approved list is not a list to show what stands up to Gsync standards, but rather standards they set in place for that specific list. Nothing related to Gsync.

Sure, save some money. However, there are certain situations where having a dedicated chipset handle sync is clearly noticable.

On PCs that have some hefty hardware and have plenty of overhead, the difference is negligible. However, compare on the average Joe PC, and you will find the limitations of FreeSync.

[Ad Hominem]

Revelene původně napsal:

It isn't the exact same thing. The Nvidia approved list is not a list to show what stands up to Gsync standards, but rather standards they set in place for that specific list. Nothing related to Gsync.

Sure, save some money. However, there are certain situations where having a dedicated chipset handle sync is clearly noticable.

On PCs that have some hefty hardware and have plenty of overhead, the difference is negligible. However, compare on the average Joe PC, and you will find the limitations of FreeSync.

What are some of the limitations or differences? From my perspective if you get solid VRR from 40 to 144hz with no artifacts then the function is being met. Assuming that, what else is there?

[Revelene]

Ad Hominem původně napsal:

Revelene původně napsal:

It isn't the exact same thing. The Nvidia approved list is not a list to show what stands up to Gsync standards, but rather standards they set in place for that specific list. Nothing related to Gsync.

Sure, save some money. However, there are certain situations where having a dedicated chipset handle sync is clearly noticable.

On PCs that have some hefty hardware and have plenty of overhead, the difference is negligible. However, compare on the average Joe PC, and you will find the limitations of FreeSync.

What are some of the limitations or differences? From my perspective if you get solid VRR from 40 to 144hz with no artifacts then the function is being met. Assuming that, what else is there?

The lower the frames with FreeSync will inherently cause worse performance.

For example, using a PC sporting a 9800K/32GB/2080 Ti will show similar results with both Gsync and FreeSync. However, using a PC sporting an i3/8GB/1050, you will find the experience to be much better with Gsync, since the sync load is completely out of the equation with dedicated hardware inside the monitor.

FreeSync does not do as well with lower refresh. They are similar when you put it in a situation where the max refresh rate is achieved, but in the real world where not everyone has the latest and greatest, the difference is noticable.

[Warsmith Honsou]

i cant tell the difference between 1440p and 4k at around 27 inch, seems like a waste of money on not only the monitor but also the card to keep it running at a solid fps rate, maybe a perk of my eyes being pretty messed from looking at screens for so long.

[Ad Hominem]

Warsmith Honsou původně napsal:

i cant tell the difference between 1440p and 4k at around 27 inch, seems like a waste of money on not only the monitor but also the card to keep it running at a solid fps rate, maybe a perk of my eyes being pretty messed from looking at screens for so long.

Most people cant, assuming a 27" screen. It depends on how good your eyesight is and how far away you sit while gaming though. There comes a point with pixel density that the human eye, even with perfect 20/20 vision can't see the difference. I forget the actual number, but I think if you're inside of 2 feet away from your screen then you have a better chance of being able to tell the difference between 1440p and 4k. Of course, bigger screens also affect that pixel density which can make 4k viable for desktop gaming. But like you said, the hardware to run 4k 144hz consistent and smooth (on demanding big budget games) just isn't here yet.