You are right, MVA and PVA are actually strong in their own right and being labelled as IPS is shady. Yes, I too agree that the tradeoff of response vs accuracy is relevant and an important personal factor.
I'm hoping these OLED screens and tech being pushed in VR trickle down to consumer monitors sooner rather than the tired wait we've all been in with OLED.
With the push for Adaptive Sync, it feels good Monitors are getting attention again and being scrutinized more rigorously.
Don't think the graphics card can do anything, all it can do is say when to refresh. It's up to the firmware in the monitor to work out how to do overdrive. I suspect it's more complex then normal as with you average monitor you just need to calculate all the overdrive settings for a fixed fps. With variable refresh you need different overdrive settings for different fps. Can't see why monitor makers can't add that but it would take more work.
That is an interesting solution but it is just a workaround. I would definitely prefer a TN panel that did not require this. It kind of negates some of the reason to get an IPS panel. I wonder if you can tell the difference in action or not.
Here is what the nvidia guy said about the issue:
Makes sense. If the game is running at 30fps, then the monitor is only refreshing at 30Hz, which may be below its minimum refresh rate. In that case the frame begins to decay before the next one is shown. I was under the impression that the monitor would keep refreshing a version of the image if another one hasn't been sent (perhaps interpolated to reduce stutter in some way), but that would require onboard memory, which is probably what the gsync module does. Perhaps free sync doesn't do this, or perhaps the driver stores the image and refresh that? But then the driver would need to know things about the monitor, such as when it is getting close to its minimum refresh. Obviously there is a problem with lower frame rates on both, however.
The spokesman also gave the nod to this explanation of how the tech works:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync-First-Impressions-and-Technical-Discussion
The discussion was about ghosting, not flicker/judder (which is what the above blurb from Nvidia was about)
I was thinking that perhaps the ghosting came from the frame fading or AMD's poor interpolation.
No.Question: Would I be able to do a firmware update or something to enable my monitor to utilize AdaptiveSync?
This is my monitor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824160162
Connected via DisplayPort to my R9 290.
And, if it IS possible, what are the risks?
Is this a supposition or a fact? If it is a supposition I would ask that you not spread it as fact without a source, this creates issues on the forums where users who come here for information and are not as technically literate have a hard time distinguishing someones assumption from another persons statement of fact.
It's a fact that premium monitors have better quality parts and have more strict validation.
Without more information from nVidia, everything else (aka magic stuff) is only speculation.
If true that is bad as overdrive solutions often cause more problems than they are worth
The G-Sync panels and the non G-Sync panels that are their counterparts are already "premium." I don't think the G-Sync model is getting an even stricter validation than its counterpart. It is simply a supposition you made and now you are trying to defend it by presenting your own strawman.
No. Overdrive is only bad when it's to aggressive (aka overshooting)
In moderate use, it's extremely useful and is used in all IPS panels today.
This image is from the Phillips 272G5DYEB Gsync monitor. It's showing ghosting. This test was done to show the effect of "SmartResponse", their overdrive. If you look at every monitor review where they do this test (There's nothing invented special here. They do them all of the time.) you'll see ghosting on every monitor, Gsync, Freesync, or not.
SOURCE
This "test" that PCPer did, has it ever been used in any other reviews? Not that I'm aware of. We've seen PCPer do this type of thing before, which is why I'm suspicious.
Yes, the professional line monitors from (Apple?,) Dell, Iiyama and HP have better quality parts and more strict validation. The panels we're talking about get a check for dead pixels and an additional Q-OK sticker.It's a fact that premium monitors have better quality parts and have more strict validation.
That would make for very weird dynamic contrasts. A good implementation of Overdrive really is the best fix.I still speculate they are modifying the colors displayed to ensure a change can occur from one frame to the next.
This image is from the Phillips 272G5DYEB Gsync monitor. It's showing ghosting. This test was done to show the effect of "SmartResponse", their overdrive. If you look at every monitor review where they do this test (There's nothing invented special here. They do them all of the time.) you'll see ghosting on every monitor, Gsync, Freesync, or not.
SOURCE
This "test" that PCPer did, has it ever been used in any other reviews? Not that I'm aware of. We've seen PCPer do this type of thing before, which is why I'm suspicious.
It's not a supposition.
Go read reviews of less expensive G-Sync models and you will see that the quality isn't as great as a Swift. Yeah, I know, *shocker*.
More expensive monitors tend to have better image quality, with out without G-Sync.
That would make for very weird dynamic contrasts. A good implementation of Overdrive really is the best fix.
The test is called PixPerAn and TFTCentral puts screenshots from it in all their reviews. They've recently gone one step further and included pursuit camera footage to show the visual effect of blur reduction modes like ULMB.
PCPer are good for frame time analyses and their monitor reviews are "ok"' compared to most others. But they're several orders of magnitude below TFT Central.
A consistent implementation takes some development effort (per panel variant) and probably makes it harder to mix panels from different sources. A lot of consumer screens can have wildly different panels in them despite the same model number.Is this really anything special via the hardware module then?
A consistent implementation takes some development effort (per panel variant) and probably makes it harder to mix panels from different sources. A lot of consumer screens can have wildly different panels in them despite the same model number.
I/m not sure how you were addressing my post. Unless you were simply adding more info to it?
I also think you are being too kind to PCPer. That's just my opinion though.
I was adding more info. But you also asked if the pics were used in "other" reviews so in that sense I was also addressing it