Acer Announces $499 Price Tag For XG270HU FreeSync Monitor

[Guest]

With both FreeSync and G-Sync now available, companies like Acer are quickly implementing both technologies into two variants of the same monitor.

Acer Announces $499 Price Tag For XG270HU FreeSync Monitor : Read more

 

[eklipz330]

wow! hot hot hot! the disparity between prices is pretty massive, and one has to think how dramatically this will affect the gsync monitor purchases... but one thing is obvious... with the money saved, you can get a beast of a video card!

i might have to pick this up!! acer kicked some real butt this CES. i guess they're pretty focused on being the leaders in gaming monitors!

 

[eklipz330]

so looking at reviews, the range looks to be like 40-144hz... if only it was like 21-144hz, that would perfect. i think i'll be sitting this one out until we can get a monitor with a wider range of frequencies

 

[nitrium]

Are there any nVidia fans STILL defending the 100% proprietary G-Sync (this from as a long time nVidia buyer)? There is zero reason nVidia won't support FreeSync other than that it cannablises the sales of their technology. Unless you're also a shareholder of nVidia, I utterly fail to see how nVidia's customers can staunchly support nVidia needlessly gouging them like this. Are nVidia GPUs being bundled with Vaseline and a stick to bite down on yet?

 

[Fr33Th1nk3r]

I'll stick with a regular monitor. I change brands a lot.

 

[siman0]

my thing is free sync with my dual r9 295X2 cards and this acer monitor looks like it has thin bezels. I've been looking for an excuse to upgrade my 5 monitor set up. the bezels look much thinner. I wonder what they will look like debezeled.

 

[TechyInAZ]

Nice monitor! Though I'm a little bit disappointed that it is not IPS.

I hope Nvidia does allow Geforce products to use FreeSync monitors, since it makes no sense to me why Geforce would actually think putting a dedicated chip into the monitors is better since the DP standard already has adaptive sync as a feature.

 

[jerm1027]

[quotemsg=15540305,0,269381]Are there any nVidia fans STILL defending the 100% proprietary G-Sync (this from as a long time nVidia buyer)? There is zero reason nVidia won't support FreeSync other than that it cannablises the sales of their technology. Unless you're also a shareholder of nVidia, I utterly fail to see how nVidia's customers can staunchly support nVidia needlessly gouging them like this. Are nVidia GPUs being bundled with Vaseline and a stick to bite down on yet?[/quotemsg]

As soon as the R9 300 series come out, I'm selling my GTX 760. I love EVGA, but I'm done with NVidia. G-Sync was one of the reasons I bought their solution, but putting such a ridiculous premium on it, and refusing to adopt an OPEN technology is just another in long list of issues I've had with them. There was driver and licensing issues that plagued Linux for the longest time, and as primarily Linux user, it's a serious concern. Then there was their misleading specs regarding the 970; they don't even care about user experience as long as they already have your money. I'd happily switch to ream Red. I've been a long time AMD user, but every time I switch to nvidia, they give me a reason to regret it. Nvidia is pretty much dead to me at this point.

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

There is a little formula used by the manufactures regarding the minimum refresh rate: If X spends 500$ / 500E on a monitor, then X would not have a problem to spend Y money for a GPU that can handle a minimum of 40FPS ^^.
Really, my top dollar for a monitor is 200, so this hardware is way out of my range.

 

[Mike Coberly]

Show me where to get one and I'll pick it up right now. Until it's actually available to replace my Acer GN246HL, this is just another ad.
We were told the price days ago ( here on Tom's no less, http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-project-freesync-launch,28759.html )

 

[chenw]

I was excited to see this until I saw that it has 1ms response time as opposed to 4ms... That explains part of the $300 discount

However I do hope this monitor fares better, the first Free-Sync reviews does NOT look promising.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

i think many of you arent understanding why the gsync variant is more expensive, its 144hz IPS! try find another 144hz 1440p ips! and then add gsync! it would be a similar price for the same panel with freesync. I would actually be interested in a teardown to see what exactly is inside comparing the gsync chipset to the freesync.

 

[rhysiam]

I was excited to see this until I saw that it has 1ms response time as opposed to 4ms... That explains part of the $300 discount

Um... what? You'd prefer a longer response time? You realise the cheaper monitor has a lower response time yes?

However I do hope this monitor fares better, the first Free-Sync reviews does NOT look promising.

The reviews here on Toms, Anandtech and at Guru3D were all generally positive, tentatively so because it's early days. But the reviews I saw suggested it was subjectively as good as G-Sync.

 

[chenw]

[quotemsg=15541066,0,1287211]

I was excited to see this until I saw that it has 1ms response time as opposed to 4ms... That explains part of the $300 discount

Um... what? You'd prefer a longer response time? You realise the cheaper monitor has a lower response time yes?

However I do hope this monitor fares better, the first Free-Sync reviews does NOT look promising.

The reviews here on Toms, Anandtech and at Guru3D were all generally positive, tentatively so because it's early days. But the reviews I saw suggested it was subjectively as good as G-Sync.[/quotemsg]


I was referring to the ghosting and the small ranged of FPS that FreeSync actually worked.

Also the 1ms vs 4ms response time isn't the response time itself. 1ms is TN territory, 4ms is IPS, which explains why the further price reduction (I was counting G-Sync as $200 premium).

 

[iam2thecrowe]

[quotemsg=15541081,0,1796090][quotemsg=15541066,0,1287211]

I was excited to see this until I saw that it has 1ms response time as opposed to 4ms... That explains part of the $300 discount

Um... what? You'd prefer a longer response time? You realise the cheaper monitor has a lower response time yes?

However I do hope this monitor fares better, the first Free-Sync reviews does NOT look promising.

The reviews here on Toms, Anandtech and at Guru3D were all generally positive, tentatively so because it's early days. But the reviews I saw suggested it was subjectively as good as G-Sync.[/quotemsg]


I was referring to the ghosting and the small ranged of FPS that FreeSync actually worked.

Also the 1ms vs 4ms response time isn't the response time itself. 1ms is TN territory, 4ms is IPS, which explains why the further price reduction (I was counting G-Sync as $200 premium).
[/quotemsg]

ghosting can be seen in many monitors, and is not necesarily due to freesync. it can be the panel/firmware or a combination of both. Small range of fps where it works could be a concern though...

 

[rhysiam]

[quotemsg=15541137,0,388413]ghosting can be seen in many monitors, and is not necesarily due to freesync. it can be the panel/firmware or a combination of both. Small range of fps where it works could be a concern though...[/quotemsg]

The Adaptive-sync/freesync standard supports refresh rates as low as 9hz, (9-60, 17-120hz, 21-144hz). The current 40hz minimums are a limitation of the current (small) crop of monitors on the market. It'll be interesting to see how monitor manufacturers go about this in future, but I wouldn't be surprised to see wide refresh rate support becoming a feature on higher end monitors.

In any case, there's no limitation with the technology itself.

 

[chenw]

That is to be expected yes.

I'll be interested in how this compared to the Swift, but even more interested if there would be an IPS version.

 

[Computered]

The difference between IPS and TN is something that gets exaggerated a lot. There is a color reproduction difference but with the exception of low quality TN the difference is not so terrible as it is made out. Also the whole viewing angle thing is just BS, your sitting in front of your monitor for gaming. If you where standing above it or sitting way off to the side of it then I would understand but no one games that way.

As for the small Freesync range, 144 to 40 is not exactly small. Also the fressync standard allows for as low as 9MHz on the refresh rate.

 

[Nuckles_56]

As for the small Freesync range, 144 to 40 is not exactly small. Also the fressync standard allows for as low as 9MHz on the refresh rate.

Wow, 9 MHz is so slow

 

[renz496]

[quotemsg=15540305,0,269381]Are there any nVidia fans STILL defending the 100% proprietary G-Sync (this from as a long time nVidia buyer)? There is zero reason nVidia won't support FreeSync other than that it cannablises the sales of their technology. Unless you're also a shareholder of nVidia, I utterly fail to see how nVidia's customers can staunchly support nVidia needlessly gouging them like this. Are nVidia GPUs being bundled with Vaseline and a stick to bite down on yet?[/quotemsg]

some people are going to defend them because as it is nvidia implementation still better when the frame rates did not hit the minimum frequency of VRR. AMD think the problem can be solved with driver update so let just hope that will be the case because when they first talk about FreeSync they said their gpu have the necessary tech for FreeSync for three generations already but in the end only GCN 1.1 based (and above) card capable running FreeSync in games.
also people with GSync panel have the choice to use ULMB which i think AMD has still have no answer since nvidia come up with their Light Boost technology.

 

[Ninjawithagun]

Yes, I'll stick with my GSYNC monitor because it is SUPERIOR in both qualiy and performance - thank you very much. FreeSync has a lot of issues right out of the gate with screen tearing and stuttering because of the way FreeSync works and has no capability to double frame rates when below the minimum refresh rate of the panel. For an education on how flawed FreeSync is, I recommend you go here and read the entire article WITH AN OPEN MIND and not a fanboy mind:

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

Oh, and did I mention that FreeSync only works with a hand full of graphics cards and does NOT work in Crossfire configurations, to include onboard Crossfire configurations like that of the R9 295X...NUFF SAID...GSYNC FTW!

 

[renz496]

[quotemsg=15541137,0,388413][quotemsg=15541081,0,1796090][quotemsg=15541066,0,1287211]

I was excited to see this until I saw that it has 1ms response time as opposed to 4ms... That explains part of the $300 discount

Um... what? You'd prefer a longer response time? You realise the cheaper monitor has a lower response time yes?

However I do hope this monitor fares better, the first Free-Sync reviews does NOT look promising.

The reviews here on Toms, Anandtech and at Guru3D were all generally positive, tentatively so because it's early days. But the reviews I saw suggested it was subjectively as good as G-Sync.[/quotemsg]


I was referring to the ghosting and the small ranged of FPS that FreeSync actually worked.

Also the 1ms vs 4ms response time isn't the response time itself. 1ms is TN territory, 4ms is IPS, which explains why the further price reduction (I was counting G-Sync as $200 premium).
[/quotemsg]

ghosting can be seen in many monitors, and is not necesarily due to freesync. it can be the panel/firmware or a combination of both. Small range of fps where it works could be a concern though...[/quotemsg]

yes the ghosting is not due to freeSync. but this is where it get interesting:

The question now is: why is this happening and does it have anything to do with G-Sync or FreeSync? NVIDIA has stated on a few occasions that there is more that goes into a VRR monitor than simply integrated vBlank extensions and have pointed to instances like this as an example as to why. Modern monitors are often tuned to a specific refresh rate – 144 Hz, 120 Hz, 60 Hz, etc. – and the power delivery to pixels is built to reduce ghosting and image defects. But in a situation where the refresh rate can literally be ANY rate, as we get with VRR displays, the LCD will very often be in these non-tuned refresh rates. NVIDIA claims its G-Sync module is tuned for each display to prevent ghosting by change the amount of voltage going to pixels at different refresh rates, allowing pixels to untwist and retwist at different rates.

For its part, AMD says that ghosting is an issue it is hoping to lessen on FreeSync monitors by helping partners pick the right components (Tcon, scalars, etc.) and to drive a “fast evolution” in this area.

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

 

[chenw]

[quotemsg=15541358,0,582075]The difference between IPS and TN is something that gets exaggerated a lot. There is a color reproduction difference but with the exception of low quality TN the difference is not so terrible as it is made out. Also the whole viewing angle thing is just BS, your sitting in front of your monitor for gaming. If you where standing above it or sitting way off to the side of it then I would understand but no one games that way.

As for the small Freesync range, 144 to 40 is not exactly small. Also the fressync standard allows for as low as 9MHz on the refresh rate. [/quotemsg]

Oh I know that, I own a TN (Swift to be exact) and I don't regret it. There are problems with IPS as well (the BLB on black for example).

According to XL2730z's spec though, it states that its DP only supported 56~144hz, which is kind of low on the low end.

 

[ToonBE]

nVidia users are the new Apple users: defending overpriced products with shabby arguments.

 

[Nossy]

Well hopefully gsync monitor's prices will drop. I am eyeing the Acer Predator XB270HU.

R9 300x? Pftt...If it's anything like the R9 290/290x launch...you'll pay more than the MSRP. My guess is that it'll be marked up 2x MSRP within the first three months of launch. Lets hope AMD they don't make that same mistake.