AMD Freesync Monitors & Reviews Thread

[sontin]

I guess nVidia wont support it for a long time. I mean to provide the same quality like G-Sync they would need to optimize all of these displays. And then AMD would benefit from nVidia's work.

 

[Leadbox]

Any of these reviews test latency? That would be the final kick in the teeth for g-sync going on what Huddy claimed about it.

 

[imaheadcase]

The problem i see with these is they are little to late to the party.

The great thing about Gsync is monitors already been out, and 2nd versions of them are going out already that are better than the just release freesync monitors.

Yes they are more expensive, but a few hundred more is not really a concern if you are already using a Nvidia product. Most gamers that these are for don't care.

For instance the Acer XB270HU G-Sync.coming out is already superior to these monitors.

If these came out around same time be a different story, but i see no reason when someone would buy one of these even with a cheap amd card since won't hit the FPS to notice.

 

[QuantumPion]

I guess nVidia wont support it for a long time. I mean to provide the same quality like G-Sync they would need to optimize all of these displays. And then AMD would benefit from nVidia's work.

Yeah but they would rather not lose customers based on their monitor. It's in both companys' interest to support both, if they can. As far as I am aware, g-sync was only a proprietary module because that was the only way to make it work at the time. Now that there is async, g-sync may eventually become obsolete. Or the other way around, who knows.

 

[sontin]

Looking at the quality of the Freesync monitors - it just not good enough.
The module is not only a scaler they optimize the whole software and hardware stack for every G-Sync monitor.

We will see how fast AMD can evolve their Freesync brand but right now nVidia's way looks like the right one when there doesnt exist any quality standards.

 

[krumme]

Its DP1.2 vesa standard. The scalar companies is onboard.
Every new monitor i half a year will support it. Some will just disable the functionality and slap a gsynch label on and add 100usd to the price. Its simple but good tech. Thank you for the idea nv. Now we move on.

 

[Silverforce11]

So what I want to know is which models now (if there's any), has a lower min into the 30 or lower range?

40hz is pointless.

 

[SimianR]

Well the way I see it, is just like slapping Gsync on a monitor doesn't necessarily mean it's a quality monitor, doesn't mean slapping freesync in the description of a monitor means it's decent either. Consumers will have to do their research and review each monitor individually. I'm sure with time there will be more options and some standout go-to buys if a freesync monitor is what you're looking for.

 

[monstercameron]

So what I want to know is which models now (if there's any), has a lower min into the 30 or lower range?

40hz is pointless.

If one were to optimize their game settings for 50-60fps they could enjoy the 75Hz highs and the 48Hz lows, that's just one example.

I mean is it not better than a standard monitor? Even with a shallow vrr window...

 

[Silverforce11]

Yes I know that.. but some fps dips are unavoidable, particularly for those who max graphics. This is why we actually do need a lower min hz range. The point of FS or GS is to avoid stutter & lag at low fps, so the lower it goes the better.

So what I gather, these 11 monitors all have a 40hz min limit?

 

[sontin]

Its DP1.2 vesa standard. The scalar companies is onboard.
Every new monitor i half a year will support it. Some will just disable the functionality and slap a gsynch label on and add 100usd to the price. Its simple but good tech. Thank you for the idea nv. Now we move on.

It doesnt work this way. Without quality AdaptiveSync will die very fast. The reason why there is such a buzz about variable refresh rate is because of G-Sync. G-Sync just works. There is no additional ghosting, no 40Hz or even 48Hz limitation. You get a 100% optimized product.

If G-Sync would have introduced Ghosting in the same way like Freesync right now this whole talk had been dead immediately.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Yes they are more expensive, but a few hundred more is not really a concern if you are already using a Nvidia product. Most gamers that these are for don't care.

For instance the Acer XB270HU G-Sync.coming out is already superior to these monitors.

If these came out around same time be a different story, but i see no reason when someone would buy one of these even with a cheap amd card since won't hit the FPS to notice.

For Gsync, a few hundred extra doesn't matter, but apparently it's the low end AMD customer that are supposed to buy those monitors to make them worth it?

Also, I just read a review of XB270HU with Freesync. Guess it's somehow inferior to the gsync version...

 

[SimianR]

If G-Sync would have introduced Ghosting in the same way like Freesync right now this whole talk had been dead immediately.

With the G-Sync premium sure. How much is freesync really costing these manufacturers?

 

[Eymar]

It doesnt work this way. Without quality AdaptiveSync will die very fast. The reason why there is such a buzz about variable refresh rate is because of G-Sync. G-Sync just works. There is no additional ghosting, no 40Hz or even 48Hz limitation. You get a 100% optimized product.

If G-Sync would have introduced Ghosting in the same way like Freesync right now this whole talk had been dead immediately.

Yup I would have returned my ROG swift if it had ghosting. The Swift when I first got it actually had some shadow type ghosting, but thankfully resolved by changing Overdrive setting to Normal.

 

[sontin]

But right now the additional costs of G-Sync is justified by the better quality of the whole product. We dont know how much a Freesync monitor will cost when it will provide the same experience.

I mean besides the price of G-Sync people were surprised how good it worked. Think about the reaction if it would have introduced the same nasty ghosting...

 

[rgallant]

The problem i see with these is they are little to late to the party.

The great thing about Gsync is monitors already been out, and 2nd versions of them are going out already that are better than the just release freesync monitors.

Yes they are more expensive, but a few hundred more is not really a concern if you are already using a Nvidia product. Most gamers that these are for don't care.

For instance the Acer XB270HU G-Sync.coming out is already superior to these monitors.

If these came out around same time be a different story, but i see no reason when someone would buy one of these even with a cheap amd card since won't hit the FPS to notice.

that looks like a great gaming monitor , but is nv making it great or a new up dated panel tech. that could show up in monitors that also have AMD's Freesync ?

 

[Silverforce11]

Looks like the verdict is this round, out of the monitors reviewed so far, the Acer XG270HU is the best?

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_freesync_review/7

40-144 range is workable. 40/48-75 is not acceptable IMO, too tight a range.

 

[kawi6rr]

Great news looks like a good time for a monitor upgrade.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

that looks like a great gaming monitor , but is nv making it great or a new up dated panel tech. that could show up in monitors that also have AMD's Freesync ?

I have no doubt we'll see as 1440p120+ IPS monitor with Freesync, in fact I think ASUS's first 1440p120+ IPS (MG279Q) is likely to support Freesync

the main issue for me is whether or not it also has some sort of strobing feature to compete with the ULMB side of G-Sync, as that is a feature Freesync does not address.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Excuse my ignorance, but could someone explain to me what this ghosting issue people are talking about?

 

[Eymar]

@Cookie Monster

Link that was posted earlier: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displa...hnical-Discussion/Gaming-Experience-FreeSync- (Scroll to Ghosting concerns)

Youtube video from link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ylLnT2yKyA

 

[RussianSensation]

Looks like the verdict is this round, out of the monitors reviewed so far, the Acer XG270HU is the best?

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_freesync_review/7

40-144 range is workable. 40/48-75 is not acceptable IMO, too tight a range.

The theoretical limit for FreeSync technology is 9-240Hz.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync-First-Impressions-and-Technical-Discussion

Sooner or later we should see 30-144Hz monitors and monitors with faster panels that will reduce ghosting.

I guess nVidia wont support it for a long time. I mean to provide the same quality like G-Sync they would need to optimize all of these displays. And then AMD would benefit from nVidia's work.

1.

"When using the FreeSync display inside the VRR window, which is unique to each monitor model, the gaming experience is drastically improved over traditional VSync enabled or disabled configurations. You get a clean, tear-free and stutter-free animation and PC games look better than they ever have on an AMD GPU. The NVIDIA G-Sync experience and the AMD FreeSync experience in this case are basically identical."

2.

"Above the maximum refresh rate, AMD’s current solution is actually better than what NVIDIA offers today, giving users the option to select a VSync enabled or disabled state. G-Sync forces a VSync enabled state, something that hardcore PC gamers and competitive gamers take issue with."
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync-First-Impressions-and-Technical-Discussion

Ghosting concerns should be alleviated but more advanced panels, and some other issues he mentioned could be fixed in future drivers/firmware. Once these happen, FreeSync will be superior to GSync. The fact that FreeSync has the potential to become an industry wide standard already makes it a preferred solution long-term for brand agnostic PC gamers who don't want to be tied to specific GPU hardware for the life of the monitor. As FreeSync improves, should Intel adopt it, > 80% of the entire GPU market will be able to benefit from AdaptiveSync!

 

[Silverforce11]

The theoretical limit for FreeSync technology is 9-240Hz.

Yup but as a potential buyer looking for the best, I'll have to see some more reviews, currently its potentially the Acer 40-144hz or Samsung 4K with FS (wait for reviews). BenQ 40-144hz suffers ghosting so I don't even want to touch it and likewise for the LG 48-75 range is practically useless.

 

[RussianSensation]

Yup but as a potential buyer looking for the best, I'll have to see some more reviews, currently its potentially the Acer 40-144hz or Samsung 4K with FS (wait for reviews). BenQ 40-144hz suffers ghosting so I don't even want to touch it and likewise for the LG 48-75 range is practically useless.

I want 32-37" 4K monitor. AT lists the Samsung 31.5" 4K UE850 as a TN. Looks like I am waiting way longer than you! At this pace I won't even need to upgrade my GPUs until 2016-2017. Ha!

 

[sontin]

Yup but as a potential buyer looking for the best, I'll have to see some more reviews, currently its potentially the Acer 40-144hz or Samsung 4K with FS (wait for reviews). BenQ 40-144hz suffers ghosting so I don't even want to touch it and likewise for the LG 48-75 range is practically useless.

The Acer is suffering from ghosting, too.