LG Electronics Launching AMD FreeSync Monitor Next Week

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gaidax

Honorable
Sep 27, 2013
1,024
1
11,660
123
Not bad, but I'd wait another year honestly. I don't want to marry to AMD, so I'd rather have a decent 1440p monitor that supports both GSYNC and Freesync together, I bet we will have such a hybrid one day.

4k is just off my reach, not because monitor is expensive, but because you need ridiculous setup to actually have decent FPS there with good quality settings, maybe 2 years or so when Nvidia pop out Pascal with HBM, it might be feasible enough - 4k with a single enthusiast GPU.
 

UncleVesper

Honorable
Jun 24, 2013
19
0
10,520
1
"LG Electronics has unveiled a new monitor aimed at PC gamers wanting the best frame rates from their AMD-based hardware."

If PC gamers wanted the best framerates, they would not buy a 4K monitor.
 

danlw

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2009
134
18
18,695
1
... not OLED.

LG is the champion of OLED in the TV space. They should move OLED into the monitor space also. I'd be perfectly happy with a G/FreeSync 1080p OLED monitor.
 

jdon

Honorable
Sep 30, 2013
34
0
10,540
3
... not OLED.

LG is the champion of OLED in the TV space. They should move OLED into the monitor space also. I'd be perfectly happy with a G/FreeSync 1080p OLED monitor.
OLED's lifespan still seems like an issue I don't want to deal with yet. I generally re-use monitors for many system builds, so age-dimming scares me.
 

Urzu1000

Honorable
Dec 24, 2013
413
10
10,815
11
so I'd rather have a decent 1440p monitor that supports both GSYNC and Freesync together, I bet we will have such a hybrid one day. .
I asked about this on another tech site that I frequent. "Further conversation with Nvidia has pointed out how difficult this might be. You'd need multiple display *outputs*, too, apparently. It's technically possible, but I think the bar is very high."
 

Bondfc11

Honorable
Sep 3, 2013
232
0
10,680
0
Not a gaming monitor at this point since nothing can run 4K properly. Sub 50-60FPS is so hard to deal with for me now that I have been spoiled at 80+ on a 1440 IPS panel.
 

Xenophage

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2009
71
1
18,635
0
You can display a 1080 image on a 4k monitor without any interpolation, if you desire higher framerates. What I'm really interested in is how low the freesync range will go. Since the Asus MG279Q is *still* not available (ugh!) this LG monitor is a consideration for me.
 

Larry Litmanen

Reputable
Jan 22, 2015
616
0
5,010
17
Not bad, but I'd wait another year honestly. I don't want to marry to AMD, so I'd rather have a decent 1440p monitor that supports both GSYNC and Freesync together, I bet we will have such a hybrid one day.

4k is just off my reach, not because monitor is expensive, but because you need ridiculous setup to actually have decent FPS there with good quality settings, maybe 2 years or so when Nvidia pop out Pascal with HBM, it might be feasible enough - 4k with a single enthusiast GPU.

I agree as far as 4K gaming, but if you use your monitor for other things like movies may as well jump into it. For example i don't care for movies but someone i know consumes all the media thru 4K TV so in that case you may as well get it and enjoy 4K movies for a year or two until you can get a 4K GPU.
 

edhem

Reputable
Feb 12, 2015
19
0
4,510
0
I don't think the price is worth it. Spending money on such a high resolution monitor does not really do anything to improve the gaming experience. I am using a 295x2 with 3x1080 monitors and they work just fine. If I could get a 1080 freesync monitor for about 150 dollars, I would consider it. At the moment it is not worth it.
 

Larry Litmanen

Reputable
Jan 22, 2015
616
0
5,010
17


Yeah but a year or two later 4K will be here and what will you be doing with a monitor. Just personally here i have no need for a second monitor and selling it on ebay after fees and shipping is pointless. Again if you have other uses than 4K gaming why not get it and enjoy it and really, really enjoy it once you can get that affordable 4K GPU and once the games are out there.

 
Most important question: What's the FreeSync range it supports?
This!! For Freesync to succeed we need manufacturers to be open about the refresh rate range of their monitors. Slapping the "FreeSync" word on a product actually tells us very little. It will become fantastic when products are clearly labelled/advertised and I don't think anyone would begrudge a market where you can choose to pick up very cheap "FreeSync (48-75hz)" monitors, or pay extra for "FreeSync (30-144hz)" displays.

Help us out Tom's... make sure you publish refresh-rate ranges with news like this and if the information isn't provided, ask for it and refuse to publish until it is. Then reviews should test monitors to check they actually perform without issues at their advertised refresh rates and call out any manufacturers who are mislabeling products or trying to cut corners.
 

nitrium

Distinguished
Jul 27, 2009
1,491
31
19,690
195
Not bad, but I'd wait another year honestly. I don't want to marry to AMD, so I'd rather have a decent 1440p monitor that supports both GSYNC and Freesync together, I bet we will have such a hybrid one day.
Hilariously nVidia could just support GSync AND FreeSync (probably with nothing more than a driver update). Naturally they refuse to do that because nVidia.
 

James Tote

Reputable
Jun 10, 2015
1
0
4,510
0
Unless they get the min refresh down to something really low that you're likely never to go bellow then it won't really matter what the minimum is since soon you go just 1 frame bellow it you'll still have the issue of it either tearing due to no v-sync or juddering as it drops even further due to v-sync compared to g-sync which doesn't have the problem.
 


Definitely good information to have with freesync monitors. There's always a different max and min refresh rate by which freesync operates for a given make and model of monitor. As a video card's frame rates are continuously changing, any frame rates your video card puts out outside the refresh frequency range (under or over) of the freesync monitor will give you tearing and all the junk you don't want from a non-adaptive sync monitor.
 


The thing is with some of these free sync monitors, the min refresh by which freesync operates is in the mid-40s. You can achieve smooth video performance from the mid-20s and up (in fact most movies run between 24 and 30fps at the theater). One of the biggest benefits of having a dynamic-sync tech monitor is being able to have a video card that pumps out framerates with minimums in the 30s while still achieving smooth video performance across the board without having to turn on laggy stuttery v-sync. If the minimum refresh rate for a dynamic sync monitor is too high, you may as well just run with a 120Hz or 144Hz monitor with a two high-end video cards to minimize the noticeable tearing.

With my g-sync monitor, I've been able to use a single GTX 980 (I've always run with two flagships in SLI prior to G-sync) and get smooth video performance across the board. I used to run an SLI setup with two 780s to keep frame rates in general well beyond the 60fps mark on a standard high refresh monitor to minimize (really nearly eliminate) noticeable tearing. With the dynamic sync monitor, I now only need one video card.

These dynamic sync technologies are great, can be very advantageous, and even save you money in the long run (as in only having to purchase one video card instead of two over generations of cards) if implemented well (e.g. any G-sync monitor). If not implemented well (like with a ~30Hz refresh rate range by which freesync operates), they're just lip service.
 

Which is why it's so important for sites like Toms to call out the refresh rate ranges of FreeSync monitors. There's nothing inherently wrong with the FreeSync standard, it's just that we need to distinguish the not-so-exciting 48-75hz monitors from (hopefully in the not-too-distant-future) 30-120hz ones. The latter, as you point out, really are game-changing. That's why we need Toms and others to educate consumers and keep the pressure on monitor manufacturers to chase wider refresh rates, not just slap a "FreeSync" label on a 48-75hz monitor and be done with it.
 

none12345

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2013
431
2
18,785
0
Im drooling but i cant afford a proper video card setup for a 4k monitor. Its too soon for those on a budget.

Maybe with the next gen graphics cards in 2016.

4k is pretty much the last resolution jump well ever need for desktop use. For 27" at average viewing distance, the average human cant see pixels any smaller then that. People with exceptional vision(top 1%) could benefit from one more jump in pixel density tho. Obviously an ultra wide screen would need more pixels, and VR screens will need more pixels.
 


People were saying this same thing about 24" 1080p screens 5 years ago. The thing is with higher pixel densities for a given sized screen, you no longer have need for GPU hogging MSAA processing. Details can also be far more granular. I don't think I need 4K now, but I bet I'll change my mind in a few years when I have a 34" 4K g-sync monitor.
 

scolaner

Reputable
Jul 30, 2014
1,282
0
5,290
2
That's why we need Toms and others to educate consumers and keep the pressure on monitor manufacturers to chase wider refresh rates, not just slap a "FreeSync" label on a 48-75hz monitor and be done with it.
We appreciate what you, and other commenters, are asking for here. We have a lot of the same questions, and we'll hopefully answer them when we get a chance to test out this new tech in depth.
 

Thanks for the response and I'm glad to hear you'll be looking into this more in future announcements and reviews.

In the long run I personally want to see the FreeSync standard do well. If monitor manufacturers are able to get minimum refresh rates down to 30hz we should get all the benefits of adaptive sync within an open standard without expensive modules or vendor lock in. The problem is if the FreeSync brand becomes synonymous with 48-75hz monitors, it's going to (rightly) be viewed as the poor-mans version of GSync. I think cheaper 48-75hz monitors have their place, but if that's all that needs to be done to label a monitor "FreeSync", then where's the incentive to invest in driving down minimum refresh rates?

In the car industry, I'm willing to bet that once MPG (or KM/L) became a recognised standard and started appearing on spec-sheets for new cars, R&D into fuel efficiency increased. In that way consumers got more information to help them choose the right product for them and, as long as there were enough consumers willing to pay for a fuel efficient car, companies get rewarded for innovating in fuel efficiency.

We need the same for FreeSync. Clear labeling of refresh rate ranges will help us make informed purchases, and provide incentive to develop greater ranges and lower minimum refresh rates.

Back to this article... Windows Central states that this monitor is a 40-60hz display. Any chance you can confirm that? Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY