Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/g-sync-ces-2019-announcements/
and here for tested and confirmed displays with what level of G-sync compatible they meet.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/specs/
Haven't checked what that display meets for G-Sync but whether it's acceptable really depends on you.
All G-sync monitors are Freesync by default.
But if you can afford it, I would recommend a panel with actual G-Sync
Ok thanks, like i said i have never used FreeSync so cannot level with that comparison i have no problem buying a G-sync and spending the extra i just seen this model and liked it, i dont want to go up to 1440p but i fancied getting a 1ms IPS Panel, i also like 240hz although not essential so this monitor ticked all the boxes, cant seem to find a full G-sync version, if G-sync compatible is not the same i will stay well clear i love G-sync cant do without it tbh, maybe i will just wait and see what pops up, thanks for the help.
Thanks, did not know all G-sync could do freesync
It's up to you whether you go for a Freesync or G-Sync. Personally I think G-Sync is over-priced and Freesync works just fine but if money is no problem then G-Sync is great.
One thing I would say is that Freesync support on the 20 series is better than the 10 series, but if the monitor actually says it is G-Sync compatible there should be no problem at all.
Thanks for your input, it seems people's opinion differs on this matter now i really dont know what to do lol.
It's a cheaper way to do G-SYNC using the FreeSync style with the cable, which AMD does. Yet not as effective as the module controlling the sync.
There are actually three types of G-SYNC:
G-SYNC compatible
- Uses Adequate Variable refresh rate range, not a G-SYNC module.
G-SYNC
- Certified with Nvidia quality testing with overclocking, using a G-SYNC module.
G-SYNC Ultimate (also known as G-SYNC HDR)
- Certified with Nvidia to work with HDR +1000 nits, highest refresh rates and response times, using a G-SYNC module.
Thanks, i know this, i just want to know is the difference noticible between G-sync and G-sync compatible as i am looking for a 1080p IPS panel and the only one i have found is G-sync compatible.
1080p resolution doesn't take as much GPU (graphics processing) to keep the FPS up to max. You could just get a high-end graphics card over using a G-SYNC module for the same cost.
The G-SYNC really kicks in when trying to run higher resolutions and/or refresh rates (120Hz+) of monitors. When in hardcore gaming, an explosion or action might cause a drop in FPS, the G-SYNC takes those FPS output and syncs it with the monitor, so the change in FPS is smooth rather than a leap. That prevents screen tears/ripping (two or more frames displayed at the same time) and screen stuttering (the display waiting upon the next frame).
I would strongly suggest G-SYNC with a 1400p monitor that reaches up to 165Hz refresh rate or if you are using a UltraHD 4K, again it can be 120Hz or higher. Higher the refresh the better the future proof. G-SYNC can then take a graphics card that can support a min 30 FPS (ideally higher) and keep it smooth while giving an upgrade path for the future.
At 1080p, it's not as needed. I would recommend investing in a higher-end graphics card instead to get overall a better and smoother performance. Maxing out the FPS which that monitor can handle. You could even V-SYNC it to the max, so long there's no drops. You won't have a stutter/tearing issue anyways. G-SYNC compatible is fine, it's there because the 1080p monitor can support up to 240Hz, which you would not likely reach. The human eye doesn't see in FPS, but rather the smoothness of frames flipping and therefore it gives it a smoother experience and future proof at a cheaper cost.
My current monitor is 240hz and so is the new one, my card is a 1080 i will be getting a new card but i am waiting on the 30xx series, i have always had G-sync so have no experiance without it, from what you are saying G-sync picks up the big frame drops, im guessing then that G-sync compatible does the same but maybe just not as good or if the frame drop is large.
The only real different you would notice is between going from TN to an IPS. TN is normally a faster response time, but IPS has brighter and richer colours with more of a viewing angle. IPS is catching up to TN response times in the higher end models, so you get the best of both worlds. Other than that, it's not much of an upgrade.
You would be better sticking with the monitor you got, or upgrading to 1440p, 165Hz with IPS Panel to make it worth the upgrade. That would give you 70% more pixels as well and a notable difference between them, but your graphics card could still support it with a G-SYNC module. Then in the future, you can optionally upgrade the graphics card and peak the 165Hz.
Check the costs, but I would rather highly recommend to you:
Acer Predator XB271HU
(or)
Asus ROG Swift PG279Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTHr96NueA
Note: The model numbers and get the latest build, older models have screen bleeding issues (such as the XB270HU) with the IPS Panel. This is rare, but due to the slim edges, the backlight can leak from the sides. Just something to be aware of. In New Zealand, we have consumer act and quality control, so can return them for a full refund, replacement and repair, if you do ever have that minor issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mje_fmayu0k
ps: Unless you wanted it for a duel monitor display, rather than a replacement upgrade? However, in that case TN and IPS would look odd next to each other.
Thanks for your help!! i have already got both of these monitors in my basket on amazon lol, i have been looking at them for a while (although i think the Acer one is 4ms responce) but i am very sceptical of making the jump to 1440p because i like high frame rates, some games i currently dont get as high as i would like already, take COD warzone for example, i lock that at 120fps because its all over place otherwise, i can only presume i would lose a considerable amount of FPS if i was using 1440p so i would be playing below 100fps that for me is not acceptable, the new cards are not due to be released until September at the earliest i think and i am not buying a 20 series for the 30 series to come out in a few months, i think i will just sit tight and see what i feel like over the next few months, i just really wanted an IPS for the better looks now that the one i seen was 1ms, i think ill just hang on it a bit longer and see how i feel.
I have a Freesync monitor and I haven't seen a problem with it. I believe that in tech terms G-Sync is supposed to be better, especially if you have a rubbish graphics card that allows the framerate to drop below 30Hz, but people seem to prefer the cost saving of Freesync, even on very expensive monitors. If you look at companies that offer two versions of a particular monitor usually people will go for Freesync rather than G-Sync. This probably means that people aren't seeing a lot of difference between the two. They would rather save on the type of sync available and spend their money on things like faster refresh rate and HDR.
The G-sync module 'tax' doesn't cost that much. I got my G-sync monitor for a little more (I think 50 quid) more than the freesync version...
Maybe if you're talking the latest top end 2160p144hz panels. But even then, I doubt.
G-sync doesn't ''kick in'' when running high refresh rates.... It has full range support from 1hz to monitors max. (Except on the lower end, where I think about 36hz, it starts duplicating frames to bring refresh rate back up.)
It doesn't make stutters smoother. If you're dropping FPS that hard, doesn't matter what tech you're using, you're going to stutter.
G-sync use isn't to combat that, but to combat the small framerate differences of around the average FPS. To smoothen that out, a less MICROstuttery experience.
It doesn't prevent tearing. G-sync displays tear when there is a large variance in framerate (yes, even the ones with the modules.)
It doesn't.
If you're getting a big frame drop. G-sync will not smoothen it out.
It will drop, and tear.
Response time doesn't matter, so long as it's below the time it takes for the monitor to update to the next frame.
So, if your refresh rate is 144hz, you would need to make sure your (AVERAGE) response time is below 6.9ms. From there, it doesn't matter if it's 5ms, 2ms, 1ms, or even .1ms. It's all going to be the same.
Think of it like this; there's a big straight road, and every 10m there's a traffic light, and it's always red when you get to it.
You have to wait for the light to go green before you can continue going.
The car is the pixels response time, and the traffic lights are the refresh rate.
You can get to the next light as fast as you want, it doesn't matter though, you've still gotta wait before you get to move again.
And, most IPS displays these days get a fine response time, so it doesn't matter.
All IPS monitors suffer from bleeding. How much, that depends on each panel. Some can have tons, some have barely any.
Lastly, a little nit-pick with grammar;
>Duel monitor
Why would you make monitors fight? B^)
The difference between the two are pretty minimal.
At a fundamental level, they work the same; they sync the monitors refreshrate to the GPUs FPS output.
However, there are some slight differences between the two.
For starters, the ACTUAL G-sync monitors are all validated to work by Nvidia. (AFAIK)
They also have full range of coverage. 1hz to whatever hz is the max on the display.
And they're confirmed to properly display all colour and brightness correctly when in use.
With G-sync COMPATIBLE, it's the same as Freesync, but works on Nvidia cards.
Freesync has a lower, and an upper range. What that range is depends on the monitor. But it could be something like 58hz-144hz, if you drop below that, you're not going to get any sync, just like if you go above it.
I think they (Nvidia) have gotten these displays, and confirmed they worked without issue. (Like flickering, blurring, tearing, etc.)
So, they should be fine in that regard.
The G-sync module also does a better job of syncing the framerate/refresh rate. Because it's a hardware solution, Freesync is software, so it does have some variance.
Will you get that much of a difference from the two? No, you probably wouldn't notice a difference.
Both are really good, and will be fine.
Just take into account the lower range of G-sync Compatible (Freesync) monitors if you've got lower FPS.
I still would recommend an actual G-sync monitor.
(And, I did read something about AMD cards being able to use G-sync, but I don't know what happened to that, could give it a look.)