AOC Intros New Monitor With Nvidia G-SYNC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spoogemonkey

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2007
10
0
18,510
0
To bad this monitor is a step backward (and nearly twice the price) from my 4 year old ASUS monitor with 1920x1200 resolution.
Didn't realize monitors were available four years ago with gsync and 144hz. What model is it???
 
Jan 5, 2013
450
0
10,860
28
I like the tech and certainly think it'll be a nice improvement but that is way too high of a price for a feature like this. Hopefully the alternative, Freesync (I think that's what it was called?), will make this a feature we can get for only a small premium.
 

pills161

Honorable
Nov 11, 2013
87
0
10,660
5
The Asus one is still much better, bigger screen and appears to have better response time, although price is way too high. We need more Gsync monitors so we can drive the prices down a bit.
 
@ DelightfulDucklings:
Freesync isn't even close to free, it's going to be an optional feature in the new vesa standard, but that doesn't mean every monitor is going to start having it, nor that it won't be priced as a premium... or that it will work as well, until it's been around for a lot longer.

@pills161:
Yeah, the Asus Swift is also 1440p AND has an 8-bit panel. $700 for that is not unreasonable when a 1440p, 60hz IPS panel with no other features can easily cost $600.

This monitor is priced too high for what it is. $400 will buy you a very, VERY high quality BenQ 144Hz, 1080p panel, so by adding $50 for G-sync, AOC is trying to claim that this monitor is equivalent to one of the best 6-bit TN panels out there, which I kind of doubt.
 


Actually freesync is free and will be part of the display port standard going forward

source - http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/09/22/amd-freesync-deal/1

I would take that any day over the Nvidia tech that adds $200 to the price of the monitor and requires nvidia stuff. It's good to know that other gaming devices will be able to take advantage of freesync as well. No additional hardware is required for freesync so no change in pricing is needed.

"but that doesn't mean every monitor is going to start having it"

Yes every new monitor will have it. Why wouldn't new monitors use the faster and new display port spec?
 

soldier44

Honorable
May 30, 2013
443
0
10,810
6
Haven't gamed at 1080p since 2008. Been on a 30 inch 2560 x 1600 since then and tired of waiting for a 30 + inch IPS 120-144 hz display at 2K so I'm going up to a IPS 4K display over 30 inches @ 60hz when LG releases there 31 incher in the next few months.
 

Bondfc11

Honorable
Sep 3, 2013
232
0
10,680
0
Async is an optional part of the standard and while there are ICs that will be made with the standard included - that is still a ways from having a proper scalar that can do Async as well as Gsync is done.
 

Drejeck

Honorable
Sep 12, 2013
131
0
10,690
1
This is a 2460PQU with G-syng. Has phenomenal input lag. Better than the VG248QE but misses the latter higher cd/m and strobelight which is usefull when you go 3D. More G-sync monitors please.
 
FreeSync vs GSync:

1) Only a couple of the latest AMD cards work with FreeSync whereas NVidia's GTX600/700/900 series all work with GSync.

2) FreeSync monitors aren't even available yet.

3) FreeSync may cost more. Who knows? GSync is likely to cost more but the price will drop below a $50 premium in the near future which really isn't much for such a great feature.

4) AMD has an FAQ page which basically says FreeSync is "better" and one of their engineers said this on PCPER however what they are saying is practically a lie (defined as "intent to deceive").

AMD says that the PC and Monitor don't communicate after bootup which is why they have "less lag" than NVidia's solution, however I'm confused how they can effectively vary the frame rate in real time properly if there's no communication.

I suspect that AMD's FreeSync solution isn't as good but we have no monitors to compare. All we know so far for certain is that G-Sync works incredibly well and I believe that NVidia wouldn't have designed the G-Sync module if there was no need for it (no such module in FreeSync).

While I would prefer things to be open standard, I can appreciate that NVidia had to invest money to make this work. It's easy to scream about proprietary this and that but frankly we wouldn't have GSync or FreeSync if NVidia hadn't invested their own money.

I just wish there wasn't such a schism between cards now in terms of features.
 

heydan

Distinguished
Jul 24, 2009
97
0
18,630
0
This is something typical from nvidia (high prize), I don´t why you guys are surprise about that, and also why you want something higher than 1080p with Gsync, 2 high end cards are necessary to drive 144hz at this resolution , and there´s no actual configuration to drive 144hz at QHD or UHD, I think for that we need at least 1 or 2 more GPU generations
 

rbarnhart

Honorable
Jan 18, 2014
48
0
10,540
1
Why is this creating a conflict among readers? It is really not a big problem boiling down to Nvidia vs AMD. Nvidia has offered up a proprietary more hardware based solution and AMD a free more software based solution.

I say "more" software based because it still requires changes to the hardware, hence the vesa standards change and requirement for certain gpu hardware. In fact, to no surprise Nvidia is adotping free-sync also. It would be foolish not too when it has been adopted as a standard for almost ALL upcoming display port monitors using 1.2a or better. Already, a large group of display makers have signed on for the carrying of the new standard, that will only increase.

That means we should all say win-win. For those who are happy with free-sync it will be available to just about anyone with only a marginal cost increase and work across both manufacturers cards. We should all thank AMD for that.

However, if you really are after the ultimate experience, a pure hardware solution will always be better as processing demand does not get placed unduly where we do not want it. For that option we can thank Nvidia, but be willing to pay the premium that is going to come with it. It will not be cheap as it will not have direct competition.

The only concern will be the direct comparison. If free-sync is really close in performance prices will not come down on Gsync because they will not move enough units. If there is a large enough difference then there will be an early niche market that should expand into more mainstream in a few years. Remember the vast majority of gamers do not have $400-$500 dispalys let alone gpus that can drive such a device. It will take time, but for now be grateful that the two companies are playing nice with each other on this topic.
 


A lot of great points there mate, but go read the article that was released today... Nvidia isn't going to support FreeSync.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY