Acer Announces $499 Price Tag For XG270HU FreeSync Monitor

[chenw]

There is a completely different reason for 290/290x price hike: crypto-mining.

The cards were being bought up by miners in droves, which was the main reason for the price hike, AMD I don't think had anything to do with that.

 

[n3cw4rr10r]

Damn. That is a pretty significant price difference. G-Sync Monitor + GTX 980 or Freesync + R9 295X2 .... hmmmm. I would love to pick the AMD combo up but I am holding off for the R9-390x.

 

[CraigN]

Keep in mind 295X2 owners, FreeSync does not currently support Crossfire at launch.

From the PCPer article linked above:

CrossFire support isn’t included for any GPUs today though AMD is promising another driver update next month that will include it – apparently making sure that all the frame pacing work that went into the driver over the last 2 years is properly implemented and functional with FreeSync took a bit longer than expected.

However, here's hoping those FreeSync prices drive G-Sync prices down

 

[2late2die]

"$299.99 seems quite a markup for a better panel and a fancy stand"

Just to clarify - IPS usually has a significant markup anyway and an adjustable stand is nothing to sneeze at. Consider that if a non-adjustable stand puts your monitor at the wrong height or angle you pretty much have to buy a separate adjustable stand and that's gonna easily run you a $100 or more. So while I would've preferred the G-Sync model to be a $100 or so bucks cheaper - it's not an exuberant price.

 

[hannibal]

Still need monitors with adaptive sync vs g-sync that has exactly the same panel... Until we really can compare these. Until then it is more a comparison of different panels. Even the same producer would be nice, in that case because companies have different profit margins.

 

[obababoy]

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

Really Ninjawithagun? Pcper is an NVIDIA partnered website and are generally biased a bit towards NVIDIA. Listen to their podcasts. Now I enjoy everything they do and actually previously worked with one of the guys but they are biased none the less.

In regard to your claim I agree that in this case the GSYNC version is physically a superior monitor but you definitely pay for it! In my opinion neither version is worth it! The freesync version doesn't have a low enough refresh rate and the gsync version is way too expensive. I think $100 off of both versions would make it worth it.

 

[Larry Litmanen]

I play games, not very often to be completely honest but i never experienced that tearing issue that gSYNC, FreeSync, nSYNC or whatever suppose to fix.

 

[atwspoon]

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

I would only ever use the 144Hz... Much better for the eyes!

 

[CraigN]

I play games, not very often to be completely honest but i never experienced that tearing issue that gSYNC, FreeSync, nSYNC or whatever suppose to fix.

You are probably playing with V-Sync on then, or playing very close to 60FPS all the time.

I would only ever use the 144Hz... Much better for the eyes!

It's not a matter of choice when you're in the game. The Hz syncs with your FPS. The short range is concerning because if you drop below 40FPS, your game switches to V-Sync, and possibly can hitch and stutter until you get back over 40 FPS.

 

[mr grim]

I don't own a Gsync capable card nor a monitor with it but from what I have seen of freesync so far I don't even know why they have bothered to release it, the stutter even on their own software demo which look like it's hardly demanding is terrible, I would much prefer to use vsync then this rubbish, AMD talked the talk when NVIDIA released GSYNC but they can not walk the walk and I believe they only released info about their development of freesync at the time to impact on NVIDIA's sales of GSYNC monitors even though they new it was superior in every way, knowing that freesync could never compare.

 

[Strider_X]

I just purchased a GTX980 with plans for G-Sync, and I've been waiting for the right monitor to upgrade from an FHD Dell. Unfortunately Acer has missed on both the XG and XB.
XG - FREESYNC + TN $500
XB - G-Sync + IPS $800

What I need;
G-Sync + TN - and I'd gladly pay $600. I don't need IPS for FPS Gaming
This would mean GTX980 $550 + $600 = $1,150

But here are the only choices;

So GTX980 $550+XB $800 = $1,350
or 295X2 $850+XG $500 = $1,350

 

[hannibal]

Hmmm... Most credible test have shown that adaptive sync does work just fine at this moment, so it will just be better in later...
The other thing is that we need competition in picture tearing war. This means better monitors, better tearing handling and better prices to the consumers!
Adaptive sync / free sync is good for Nvidia users too!

 

[thor220]

Oh hey, I can buy a a 290x and this monitor for the same price as just the G-Sync version of the monitor. In other words, you can switch over to AMD and still not pay more than you would have had to with Nvidia. What's better is that you can sell your Nvidia card after than and actually be paying less.

 

[CraigN]

I don't own a Gsync capable card nor a monitor with it but from what I have seen of freesync so far I don't even know why they have bothered to release it, the stutter even on their own software demo which look like it's hardly demanding is terrible, I would much prefer to use vsync then this rubbish, AMD talked the talk when NVIDIA released GSYNC but they can not walk the walk and I believe they only released info about their development of freesync at the time to impact on NVIDIA's sales of GSYNC monitors even though they new it was superior in every way, knowing that freesync could never compare.

Then you haven't been seeing the same things. Other than the alleged slight ghosting issue, it does exactly as promised, as long as you stay within the confines of the refresh range, and if you go outside of it, at least AMD offers you the choice whether to disable V-Sync or auto-Vsync. (Nvidia doesn't give you a choice. It's auto-vsync, period. They're looking into changing that).

Oh hey, I can buy a a 290x and this monitor for the same price as just the G-Sync version of the monitor. In other words, you can switch over to AMD and still not pay more than you would have had to with Nvidia. What's better is that you can sell your Nvidia card after than and actually be paying less.

As a current owner of a great nvidia card and a great ROG Swift monitor with G-Sync, which currently DOES support SLI (FreeSync does not currently support Crossfire) I'm more than happy with not switching to Team Red's driver support (or lack thereof) and staying Team Green, even if I'm paying a premium.

FreeSync monitors can only mean good things for our price.

 

[Strider_X]

Oh hey, I can buy a a 290x and this monitor for the same price as just the G-Sync version of the monitor. In other words, you can switch over to AMD and still not pay more than you would have had to with Nvidia. What's better is that you can sell your Nvidia card after than and actually be paying less.

290X won't hit nearly the frame rate of GTX980 though...oh well, we'll see how prices evolve in the coming weeks. Maybe someone will announce a TN UHD 144hz G-sync

 

[eklipz330]

the fact that you can turn vsync off is a massive benefit

 

[mr grim]

I don't own a Gsync capable card nor a monitor with it but from what I have seen of freesync so far I don't even know why they have bothered to release it, the stutter even on their own software demo which look like it's hardly demanding is terrible, I would much prefer to use vsync then this rubbish, AMD talked the talk when NVIDIA released GSYNC but they can not walk the walk and I believe they only released info about their development of freesync at the time to impact on NVIDIA's sales of GSYNC monitors even though they new it was superior in every way, knowing that freesync could never compare.

Then you haven't been seeing the same things. Other than the alleged slight ghosting issue, it does exactly as promised, as long as you stay within the confines of the refresh range, and if you go outside of it, at least AMD offers you the choice whether to disable V-Sync or auto-Vsync. (Nvidia doesn't give you a choice. It's auto-vsync, period. They're looking into changing that).

Oh hey, I can buy a a 290x and this monitor for the same price as just the G-Sync version of the monitor. In other words, you can switch over to AMD and still not pay more than you would have had to with Nvidia. What's better is that you can sell your Nvidia card after than and actually be paying less.

As a current owner of a great nvidia card and a great ROG Swift monitor with G-Sync, which currently DOES support SLI (FreeSync does not currently support Crossfire) I'm more than happy with not switching to Team Red's driver support (or lack thereof) and staying Team Green, even if I'm paying a premium.

FreeSync monitors can only mean good things for our price.

I agree that competition is always good, we will at least see a price drop in G-Sync Monitors but from what I have seen at least G-Sync was running just fine on 60htz monitors with no stutter or lag worth mentioning and seems to do a much better job of handling higher presets in games with better overall results, Free-Sync on the over hand expects you to lower your game settings to allow it to perform as expected.

 

[CraigN]

I agree that competition is always good, we will at least see a price drop in G-Sync Monitors but from what I have seen at least G-Sync was running just fine on 60htz monitors with no stutter or lag worth mentioning and seems to do a much better job of handling higher presets in games with better overall results, Free-Sync on the over hand expects you to lower your game settings to allow it to perform as expected.

Not sure where you're reading that. I haven't seen that perception anywhere. G-Sync runs fine on 60 Hz and 144 Hz monitors, and it auto switches to V-Sync when you go above the refresh rate. FreeSync does, literally the same thing, except gives you the choice whether or not you want to disable V-Sync when you go above/below the monitor refresh rates.

PCper DOES mention that GSync handles below-monitor refresh rates better than FreeSync does currently.

Neither of these have anything to do with lowering/raising your settings though. If you're hitting the sweet spot in the functioning refresh rate range, reviews have said the two are very comparable.

The only place lag or stutter is mentioned is when FreeSync drops below the minimum refresh rate on the monitor. This happens because FreeSync just sets the monitor back to 60Hz, and enables V-Sync. PCPer speculates that G-Sync avoids this issue by doubling the current framerate and setting that as the monitor's current refresh rate, with V-Sync on. Assuming that's true, it would explain why GSync has much less (but still evident) stuttering below 30FPS.

 

[Johan Kryger Haglert]

Yeah.

Because a 60% price increase for sure would had been totally unreasonable and non-heard off for an IPS + ergonomic stand monitor vs a TN one.

I'm not saying G-sync cost extra. It likely does.

But it's not the same monitor if one remove that one uses G-Sync and the other FreeSync.

 

[CraigN]

Yeah.

Because a 60% price increase for sure would had been totally unreasonable and non-heard off for an IPS + ergonomic stand monitor vs a TN one.

I'm not saying G-sync cost extra. It likely does.

But it's not the same monitor if one remove that one uses G-Sync and the other FreeSync.

^ Agreed. Some would value the IPS at at least a $100 upgrade and the ergonomic stand at anywhere from $25-$50 I'm sure, if not more.

It wouldn't surprise me if the G-SYNC licensing was anywhere from $99-$150.

 

[teamninja]

Actually a lot of reviewers has been saying that it is good but not as good as G-snyc, problems with ghosting and the range is limited so G-sync price tags will most likely drop in accordance with free sync

 

[photonboy]

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

G-Sync is superior.

"extremely important to stay in a variable refresh mode at the low end of the LCD panel's variable range. I'll gladly take the potential slight flicker of G-Sync over the 40 Hz judder/tearing of the BENQ. The take home point from my observations is that when gaming lower than the variable range, FreeSync panels retain the disadvantages of the V-Sync on/off setting, but amplify those effects as the panel is refreshing at an even lower rate than a standard display (e.g. 60 Hz)."

and

"It’s a clever trick that keeps the VRR goals and prevents a degradation of the gaming experience. But, this method requires a local frame buffer and requires logic on the display controller to work. Hence, the current implementation in a G-Sync module."

*Thus the G-Sync module is required to get the best experience. NVidia will continue to develop this technology for an even better experience.

Meanwhile AMD has been spinning a lot of LIES:
"The published refresh rate is more than a bit misleading..."

They misled about licensing fees and about latency differences.

**The WORST monitor you can get is a Freesync monitor with a range of 40Hz to 60Hz. The new asynchronous mode auto disables below and above this range. Thus, your game would be fairly SMOOTH between 40FPS and 60FPS but how often can you keep a game firmly in that range? Not often. Thus the game would keep toggling between smooth and tear/lag (depending if VSync is on or not).

Do some research people.

Other:
NVidia will have a version of G-Sync with no hardware module which is essentially FreeSync. I suspect they will end up with a term to differentiate the two like "G-Sync Ultra" or something.

They also currently charge between $40 and $60 for the module. The monitor manufacturers set the price so that's why monitors like the SWIFT cost a lot (though it's got more than just the module going for it). The cost of the module will drop over time. Keep in mind new products often cost more. The module also replaces the existing scaler so that's a cost the manufacturer doesn't pay so less than $30 premium to the manufacturer isn't too far off.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

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

I would only ever use the 144Hz... Much better for the eyes!

i dont see why they cant double or triple the hz in comparison to fps when fps gets low. so you can still have your gsync/freesync on with, for example, 30fps, but x4 the refresh rate to 120hz @ 30fps. Have a threshold, like under 60fps the refresh rate should be 2x, 3x or 4x to maintain high refresh rates

 

[somebodyspecial]

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?

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync-First-Impressions-and-Technical-Discussion/Gaming-Experience-FreeSync-
Yes, because ghosting etc.
"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."

Ok, so they know about the problem, but the jury is still out on if it can be fixed or not. For now though:
"My time with today’s version of FreeSync definitely show it as a step in the right direction but I think it is far from perfect. It’s fair to assume that after telling me FreeSync would be sent to reviewers as far back as September of last year, AMD found that getting display technologies just right is a much more difficult undertaking than originally expected. They have gotten a lot right: no upfront module costs for monitor vendors, better monitor feature support, wide vendor support and lower prices than currently selling G-Sync options. But there is room for improvement: ghosting concerns, improving the transition experience between VRR windows and non-VRR frame rates and figuring out a way to enable tear-free and stutter-free gaming under the minimum variable refresh rate."

"FreeSync is doing the right things and is headed in the right direction, but it can’t claim to offer the same experience as G-Sync. Yet."

Until they get it right, Gsync WORKS. IF you think, "good enough" is ok, feel free to purchase something they need to still fix Oops, many things they need to fix I'll always take proprietary if it is BETTER. IE, Cuda vs. OpenCL. When proprietary sucks, I'll pass. For me, I'm waiting for a die shrink from both sides before any decision is made on GPU, so the same can be said of the monitors and I have plenty of time to see who wins, if prices drop etc.

Having said that, My i7-4790+board arrives tomorrow, so AMD lost me there. I can no longer wait on my paltry cpu. They still have a shot at my gpu/monitor combo but good enough is not acceptable. I want the best or at least no discernible difference between them. PERIOD. By that I mean I need lowest heat (live in AZ), great watts/perf. AMD would need to fix things on freesync side or all things being equal I go NV with Gsync since it is the better option (currently, and until proven otherwise). I kind of suspected there were problems which is why no reviewers were running games until the monitor hit. It's pretty clear so far, the gsync module has a purpose and NV commented it's the fine tuning in there that kills ghosting etc. Clearly not easy to fix everything, as even NV has issues on a per monitor basis or we'd have dozens. They also had trouble with some rev of the silicon before, so maybe we'll start seeing more gsync monitors now that that is supposedly fixed. No need for NV to support Freesync until AMD can prove it works as good as gsync. They already made gsync and it works, so why waste money that AMD is spending now if they never get it working? That would be pointless.

To any buying now, obviously on AMD's side you're a beta tester they hope to fix later in new monitors, assuming they can actually pick parts that FIX the issues. They can't fix the ones you buy now, as it's parts related. You'll live with the ghosting etc. Best to AVOID these monitors until we see if they can "cherry pick" parts that WORK right.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Yeah.

Because a 60% price increase for sure would had been totally unreasonable and non-heard off for an IPS + ergonomic stand monitor vs a TN one.

I'm not saying G-sync cost extra. It likely does.

But it's not the same monitor if one remove that one uses G-Sync and the other FreeSync.

^ Agreed. Some would value the IPS at at least a $100 upgrade and the ergonomic stand at anywhere from $25-$50 I'm sure, if not more.

It wouldn't surprise me if the G-SYNC licensing was anywhere from $99-$150.

There is no lic fee. They made that clear. It's a module fee of $40-60 that is it. Anything that happens after that is monitor makers slapping on extra realizing they can sell the best for extra bucks, at least until AMD fixes stuff that Pcper and others have noted.