AMD Freesync Monitors & Reviews Thread

[ShintaiDK]

It's panel technology that needs to change, not g or free sync as they can go lower

Its the scalars. But it dosnt really matter for the enduser where the blame is. When you for example game at 40fps on a 48fps minimum freesync monitor and it feels worse than a regular monitor. Then you dont associate it with anything good.

I cant even gaurantee 30FPS minimum in 2560*1440 with a superclocked GTX980 across the board unless I sit and tweak settings to avoid it. So for me gsync and freesync is still some early beta rubbish thats half baked. And I seen quite a few people that completely dropped any hopes for it as well after the first minimum FPS ranges for adaptive sync panels came out. These people simply ended up with good old regular monitors.

And thats really a shame. Because the technology itself is good. But it doesnt help if it leaves a bad impression.

 

[Leadbox]

Its the scalars. But it dosnt really matter for the enduser where the blame is. When you for example game at 40fps on a 48fps minimum freesync monitor and it feels worse than a regular monitor. Then you dont associate it with anything good.

I cant even gaurantee 30FPS minimum in 2560*1440 with a superclocked GTX980 across the board. So for me gsync and freesync is still some early beta rubbish thats half baked. And I seen quite a few people that completely dropped any hopes for it as well after the first minimum FPS ranges for adaptive sync panels came out. These people simply ended up with good old regular monitors.

The syncs work right down to single digit hz, you cant blame it for panel limitations. These people you write about are clowns that expected too much.

 

[richaron]

Its the scalars. But it dosnt really matter for the enduser where the blame is. When you for example game at 40fps on a 48fps minimum freesync monitor and it feels worse than a regular monitor. Then you dont associate it with anything good.

I cant even gaurantee 30FPS minimum in 2560*1440 with a superclocked GTX980 across the board unless I sit and tweak settings to avoid it. So for me gsync and freesync is still some early beta rubbish thats half baked. And I seen quite a few people that completely dropped any hopes for it as well after the first minimum FPS ranges for adaptive sync panels came out. These people simply ended up with good old regular monitors.

And thats really a shame. Because the technology itself is good. But it doesnt help if it leaves a bad impression.

Adaptive refresh monitors will feel much better, or about even, compared to "good old regular monitors".

All I can see is another area where "AMD" has it's nose ahead & you are being negative about "AMD's" technology. Tell me how it's worse.

Edit: Sorry, phone being weird when posting.

 

[Black Octagon]

Its the scalars. But it dosnt really matter for the enduser where the blame is. When you for example game at 40fps on a 48fps minimum freesync monitor and it feels worse than a regular monitor. Then you dont associate it with anything good.

I cant even gaurantee 30FPS minimum in 2560*1440 with a superclocked GTX980 across the board unless I sit and tweak settings to avoid it. So for me gsync and freesync is still some early beta rubbish thats half baked.

And by "sit and tweak settings" you mean change "extreme" visual quality to "high", right? Sounds intolerably time consuming..

 

[Silverforce11]

I find it hard to believe going sub 30 fps would be worse on a GS/FS monitor than a normal monitor. At such low fps, it becomes a slideshow and a stuttery mess, not enjoyable regardless. The input lag and latency would make it unplayable.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The syncs work right down to single digit hz, you cant blame it for panel limitations. These people you write about are clowns that expected too much.

Adapt

And by "sit and tweak settings" you mean change "extreme" visual quality to "high", right? Sounds intolerably time consuming..

3 examples on why its not consumer friendly. Dont be amazed if the technology somewhat stalls in progression either then.


The issue needs to be solved before moving on. Its all about the 99% crowd, not the 1%.

 

[richaron]

3 examples on why its not consumer friendly. Dont be amazed if the technology somewhat stalls in progression either then.


The issue needs to be solved before moving on. Its all about the 99% crowd, not the 1%.

So adaptive refresh is at worst about even with "good old fasion" monitors. At worst: not noticeably worse. And much better for those who can make use of it. It's 100% who can use this compared to "good old regular monitors".

Why are you so negative about anything related to AMD technology?

 

[Leadbox]

The issue needs to be solved before moving on. Its all about the 99% crowd, not the 1%.

The 99% crowd probably don't care about the odd stutter or tear. Why are you lamenting the syncs and not the failing panel tech.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The 99% crowd probably don't care about the odd stutter or tear. Why are you lamenting the syncs and not the failing panel tech.

You have to see it in the eyes of the average user.

Both ´syncs are being marketed as the holy grail. They may be, but if someone in the chain underdelivers it fails. And they blame the ´syncs and not the panel maker.

 

[richaron]

You have to see it in the eyes of the average user.

Both ´syncs are being marketed as the holy grail. They may be, but if someone in the chain underdelivers it fails. And they blame the ´syncs and not the panel maker.

The average user usually blames the CPU, or the brand name.

It's narrow minded (or biased) to think they'd blame the technology since:
1) All user experience will be better, or even, compared to un-synced experience.
2) All sync panels are new: having latest tech and usually latest specs anyway.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The average user usually blames the CPU, or the brand name.

It's narrow minded (or biased) to think they'd blame the technology since:
1) All user experience will be better, or even, compared to un-synced experience.
2) All sync panels are new: having latest tech and usually latest specs anyway.

If it at least was so, but it isnt.

From observations and measurements I've taken, the BENQ panel 'sticks' at 40 Hz when game FPS levels drop <40 FPS. For that situation, the BENQ panel behaves like a fixed 40 Hz refresh rate display, and does what you would expect if V-Sync is on or off (judder or tearing). I will say that since it is refreshing at a relatively low rate, that the judder / tearing is more pronounced than it would be on a regular 60 Hz LCD.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displa...hnical-Discussion/Inside-and-Outside-VRR-Wind

 

[richaron]

If it at least was so, but it isnt.



http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displa...hnical-Discussion/Inside-and-Outside-VRR-Wind

So the Monitor runs at lowest rate and/or refreshes with every new frame. I think it's arguable whether that's worse than fixed useless refreshes and/or tearing. But I would have agreed with you had we still been in the CRT days.

Hence my past qualifiers: "about even". You did catch the time I forgot to write it.

If this the only area you think sync monitors are worse? Many would see this as an unnoticeable or an equally bad representation of low framerates.

If this is the only negative then you must consider sync monitors as a great step forwards.

 

[richaron]

If it at least was so, but it isnt.



http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displa...hnical-Discussion/Inside-and-Outside-VRR-Wind

The most efficient (& obvious) solution is to run the monitor at the lowest refresh rate when the GPU is putting out lower frame rates. As we stated before it's not the sync technology's fault (or even the panel's) if the monitor can not run at it's lowest rate smoothly.

Nor will average people blame the technology when, if they do experience something less than hoped for, they simply blame the CPU or the brand name on their computer.

 

[SoulWager]

The most efficient (& obvious) solution is to run the monitor at the lowest refresh rate when the GPU is putting out lower frame rates. As we stated before it's not the sync technology's fault (or even the panel's) if the monitor can not run at it's lowest rate smoothly.

Nor will average people blame the technology when, if they do experience something less than hoped for, they simply blame the CPU or the brand name on their computer.

But the low framerate fallback case should be running at the monitor's maximum refresh rate, in order to minimize the severity of the judder and tearing. Right now, it's just sticking at the minimum, so it looks worse than a fixed 60hz monitor when you're below the VRR region.

 

[Leadbox]

But the low framerate fallback case should be running at the monitor's maximum refresh rate, in order to minimize the severity of the judder and tearing . Right now, it's just sticking at the minimum, so it looks worse than a fixed 60hz monitor when you're below the VRR region.

FTFY.

 

[SoulWager]

FTFY.

No, there are two fallback cases, if you use v-sync off as the fallback you get tearing, but a lot less input lag and maybe less judder.

 

[Leadbox]

No, there are two fallback cases, if you use v-sync off as the fallback you get tearing, but a lot less input lag and maybe less judder.

Sorry, what was I thinking. My bad.

 

[SoulWager]

You have to see it in the eyes of the average user.

Both ´syncs are being marketed as the holy grail. They may be, but if someone in the chain underdelivers it fails. And they blame the ´syncs and not the panel maker.

That would still be AMD or Nvidia's fault, for giving a subpar monitor freesync/gsync certification/branding.

 

[Eymar]

But the low framerate fallback case should be running at the monitor's maximum refresh rate, in order to minimize the severity of the judder and tearing. Right now, it's just sticking at the minimum, so it looks worse than a fixed 60hz monitor when you're below the VRR region.

Yeah I agree on max refresh rate. It's probably not in the VESA spec on how to handle below VRR region scenario explicitly (ie. up to monitor manufacturer and not the videocard via some timing message). However, to use max refresh rate would probably require a frame buffer (to redraw same image). I hope how monitor handles this scenario is in every review.

 

[ShintaiDK]

That would still be AMD or Nvidia's fault, for giving a subpar monitor freesync/gsync certification/branding.

Agreed. If you want a brand name to stay good, you make sure its good. You dont hope that others will do it for you. Specially not when it cost extra. Because then the brand name becomes worthless.

We should basically have Freesync, G-Sync and A-Sync. Where A-Sync would be the garbage can so to say that VESA is to account for. A place where all the lower/uncertified parts gets thrown in.

 

[SoulWager]

Yeah I agree on max refresh rate. It's probably not in the VESA spec on how to handle below VRR region scenario explicitly (ie. up to monitor manufacturer and not the videocard via some timing message). However, to use max refresh rate would probably require a frame buffer (to redraw same image). I hope how monitor handles this scenario is in every review.

It's not in the VESA spec, because ensuring minimum framerate is the responisibility of the DP source, the a-sync spec just covers the interface stuff. There's either something wrong with AMD's drivers, or the monitors can't handle a quick frame immediately after a slow one. Hopefully it's a quick fix in the drivers.

 

[Vesku]

Agreed. If you want a brand name to stay good, you make sure its good. You dont hope that others will do it for you. Specially not when it cost extra. Because then the brand name becomes worthless.

We should basically have Freesync, G-Sync and A-Sync. Where A-Sync would be the garbage can so to say that VESA is to account for. A place where all the lower/uncertified parts gets thrown in.

Agree with this, however this may actually be the "cream of the crop" with current standard monitor components.

 

[3DVagabond]

And by "sit and tweak settings" you mean change "extreme" visual quality to "high", right? Sounds intolerably time consuming..

Yeah, I can't even believe they allow for adjusting settings. We should all just play on consoles and forget about all this laborious tweaks and adjustments. I mean, what is it they expect us to do? /sarc

 

[Final8ty]

Double post.

 

[Final8ty]

Ghosting on the BenQ... Is they ghosting on the BenQ? With or without Freesync on stock factory settings Yes..
Is it possible to fix it with simple tweak? Yes..

The contrast on the BenQ and AMA settings is set far to high, because it's a competitive gaming monitor they reduce all the brightness and colour to make it easy to spot people.. My older BenQ was the same..

Some tweaking of contrast lower down to 40% and change AMA to high from premium... Ghosting is now gone.. I also switch from FPS mode to standard.

No it turns out the after playing more with the settings that contrast was the biggest issue here.. It was far to high.
I used display calibration patterns to adjust and 40% is the spot where ghosting was completely gone while keeping detail in contrast..

Another simple way us enable dynamic contrast but I find it added to much contrast and you lost details in some white.

So yeah I was wrong with AMA setting to some point


No problem
It's one thing BenQ get back lash for its there choice on stock factory settings.. If you know what you doing yiu can get some very good IQ from the display.
But after all its aimed at competitive gaming that were there market is, one reason they used in most of the csgo competitive leagues is there response time is unreal.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=27808891#post27808891