Oh. Of course you do. Major surprise.
Any competitive gamer that has experience with it, will attest to it being excellent. It works. I assume that AMD won't be getting anything equivalent to motion blur reduction technology since they've said nothing about it. G-sync covers the low framerate area, lightboost/ULMB covers high framerates.....Anyway, so if AMD doesn't get it, you won't get it on an official basis. (I assume, since nvidia poured their R+D dolloars into it) Maybe hacks will still work, I don't know.
I think he was only objecting to how you basically describe them as the same thing, as they aren't really the same feature like you claim.
ULMB is a feature included into G-Sync monitors, but it isn't necessarily a feature that will always be included. For instance, I doubt we'll see it included in the 4K G-Sync monitors as we're currently limited to 60Hz at that resolution due to the bottleneck with DisplayPort (would need DP1.3 to get 4K120), unless they can get those monitors to run at 85-120Hz if they are run at 1080p (which would be a pretty awesome feature).
On that note on the whole IPS vs TN vs AMVA thing, here's hoping OLED takes off in the next 5 years. Still to this day there are signifncant issues prevent mas production of consumer size big screens or monitors, hopefully those get ironed out.
I can't believe it's 2014 and LCD technology hasn't progressed further; I want something new to come.
OLED beats them all. Fundamentally, LCDs suck, because they're throwing away half the light. Emissive patterning like OLED doesn't have that problem. Backlight bleed, black levels, color shifts, all of that nonsense goes away.
The problem with OLED is lifetimes. It's fine for a smartphone, but it's awful for a desktop display with a much longer expected lifetime. It's not a situation where it just fails outright, but rather there's a gradual decay in brightness as the display is used. Higher brightness causes it to decay faster, and the colors themselves don't have the same decay rates - blue decays fastest, then green, and red is the most stable. But, that means you'll get luminance changes in your color channels over the lifetime of the device, which change based on what you're looking at, so play a game with a HUD for long enough (or leave the display on the Windows lock screen) and you'll start to preferentially decay certain pixels more than other pixels, which results in a mess of an image.
Once they get the remaining issues ironed out, OLED will be the clear winner. Pattering the emitters is just better than patterning an absorption layer that works off of polarization.
Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of time. It's also a matter of physics. If there were a way to get LCs behave to get us IPS performance at TN speeds, we would already be doing it.
From my understanding ULMB capability is contained within the G-Sync module itself, as one of its functions. Perhaps my use of the word "feature" was incorrect, as I did not mean to imply that they do the same thing, but rather that the hardware that enables them is part of the same module. So the complaint that ULMB or G-Sync lose value because you can't use them simultaneously is not entirely valid, since you can't get them separately at this point.
I am not certain that you can claim that ULMB won't always be included with G-Sync. I can't see a reason why after designing it into the module they would take the time to take it out again.
On that note on the whole IPS vs TN vs AMVA thing, here's hoping OLED takes off in the next 5 years. Still to this day there are signifncant issues prevent mas production of consumer size big screens or monitors, hopefully those get ironed out.
Basically, I find good points and bad points with all panels. IPS is great for productivity and work but has issues with ghosting due to issues inherent to IPS electronics. Only panel type with 10 bit color (although 10 bit color does NOT work unless you have a quadro or firepro card..) and 10 bit color is only useful for professional applications such as video/photo editing. GAmes do not use 10 bit color. Good for work and slower paced games, not the best at all games though. I think the swift is the best gaming monitor so far, based on reviews i've read and it is a TN. Obviously TN panels have the viewing angle issue, but the panel itself on the swift is a very good one. Still that doens't prevent viewing off center angles. I'll also say that I think AMVA panels are excellent - they don't get much mention here but every VA i've seen had black levels/contrast ratios that IPS and TN could only dream of achieving. Both TN and IPS don't really have true blacks when viewed by the eye. VA and especially Plasma excels at black levels/contrast ratios where TN/IPS fall flat on their face.
All about trade-offs. I can't believe it's 2014 and LCD technology hasn't progressed further; I want something new to come. In the meantime, you have to pick your poison based on what you do with your monitor. But I really hope OLED takes off sometime in the next few years.
Indeed. I like AMVA a lot as well, I was surprised that the viewing angles are actually good and (AM)VA in general excels with deep blacks and contrast ratios. Very noticeable especially with movies, it's an awesome panel tech and a shame it doesn't get more attention. Not perfect just like nothing is perfect with any panel tech, but very nice.
I'm not sure how VA fares in terms of fast response/ghosting, as I didn't game for an extended period on one... but by those other metrics they're pretty awesome. I like them a lot. Is that the 32 inch 4k panel you bought? If so, looks like a great panel. I think 28 inch is way too small for 4k (given Windows DPI problems) but 32 inches would be just perfect for 4k IMO.
I haven't seen anyone here say any panel is perfect, you need a re-read before you wind up qualifying for your label.
I've also seen Linus' review and he said exactly what I've been saying; you can still tell it's TN and it's still not as good as IPS in the metrics IPS excels at, regardless of all the hype. It's good at what it's marketed on; response times, gsync, high refresh rate and less blur as a result of those metrics for those susceptible to it.
ULMB and G-Sync are the same feature...they're both on the G-Sync module. You can't get one without the other.
From my understanding ULMB capability is contained within the G-Sync module itself, as one of its functions. Perhaps my use of the word "feature" was incorrect, as I did not mean to imply that they do the same thing, but rather that the hardware that enables them is part of the same module. So the complaint that ULMB or G-Sync lose value because you can't use them simultaneously is not entirely valid, since you can't get them separately at this point.
I am not certain that you can claim that ULMB won't always be included with G-Sync. I can't see a reason why after designing it into the module they would take the time to take it out again.
Well, no joke. Duh, you don't use ULMB and g-sync in the same situations. It's a button press on the swift IIRC. You would never need to use ULMB and G-sync at the same time, it just depends on the situation. Not that it matters because it takes practically no effort to switch between the two, but the short version is:
Low frame rates = g-sync. High frames = ULMB. They both cover the entire gamut of gaming. ULMB doesn't benefit much at low framerates while g-sync does, and the opposite is true of high framerates where g-sync becomes less beneficial and then ULMB/lightboost becomes tremendously beneficial.
ULMB and g-sync are two different solutions for two different scenarios. G-sync won't benefit you if you're playing Black Ops 2 and your framerate is 300 fps. But you can bet that ULMB will create a tremendous difference. It doens't matter though. Switching between the two modes is trivial and takes probably 2 seconds, depending on which game you're playing. Clearly if you're playing crysis 3 at 1440p cranked to the max you're not going to use ULMB because ULMB would not create a tremendous difference when your frames are going to dip low a lot. But g-sync would help there. Just depends on the game and like I said, switching between the two modes takes a second if that.
The scary thing is that even the best IPS monitors in the worst case take nearly 25ms to change a pixel.They can on average achieve 13ms but they almost never reach the spec sheet and the claims of the manufacturers of 5ms. Even at 60hz IPS screens aren't even done changing by the time the next screen comes along, which its why its not uncommon to have 2 screens worth of information bleeding into the current one. We do see those after images, we perceive the poor blur. Its well within the eyes tolerances, everyone can see it just not everyone cares. Blind trials on high speed panels have repeatedly shown that people can absolutely tell the difference. Its not really that some people don't notice, everyone does, its just that some people never saw better than what they are using.
You can't use them simultaneously is the issue. What isn't valid? Are you saying you wouldn't want gsync and ULMB at the same time? Of course you would. If I'm using Gsync, the main feature that people are touting these monitors for ULMB will be off. Unless you are running at or above the refresh rate you will need to forgo ULMB. That's going to be most of the time for most users.
PCPer is showing a demo of G-Sync surround today using the Swift x3!
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Live-Stream-We-Want-Your-Questions
This is big. Last I heard was that they were "working on" G-Sync surround. Guess they've got it up and running.