Philips Releases Curved 1080p FreeSync Monitor For $349

[kewlguy239]

Philips announced the availability of its new 27-inch 279X6QJNS monitor, a curved 1920 x 1080 LCD display sporting AMD’s FreeSync variable refresh rate technology.

Philips Releases Curved 1080p FreeSync Monitor For $349 : Read more

 

[Chris Droste]

i would've gave it a shot were it a 1440p display. 27" is way too big for 1080 unless you're using it as a normal TV.

 

[sillynilly]

The article nailed it as this monitor is basically for a low-end gaming rig since any rig with some weight can easily push 1080 over 60fps on high to ultra settings. Good price point for someone with a budget rig though. Not the monitor for me, but I can see where this fits in the low end market.

 

[zambutu]

i would've gave it a shot were it a 1440p display. 27" is way too big for 1080 unless you're using it as a normal TV.

Oh ya? I use a 40" 1080p TV in my Face for gaming, and I will never go smaller again.

Regardless, i'm not sure why they need freesync on such a low spec monitor, I thought freesync was for serious gamers.

 

[hitman400]

i would've gave it a shot were it a 1440p display. 27" is way too big for 1080 unless you're using it as a normal TV.

Oh ya? I use a 40" 1080p TV in my Face for gaming, and I will never go smaller again.

Regardless, i'm not sure why they need freesync on such a low spec monitor, I thought freesync was for serious gamers.

He's not saying go small. He's saying 27" is too big for 1080p as a monitor because the bigger the screen is in your face with the same resolution, the more pix elated it will be. At 40" you should be going to 4k if you use it as a monitor (aka 16 inches away) 40" is insane to be in your face, don't your eyes hurt?

 

[xaephod]

I don't get how you can play at 1080p at anything over 24". At 28" my 1920x1200 is barely acceptable and I look forward to going well over 30" at either 1440 or 4K.

 

[vaughn2k]

Finally, at a reasonable price point, with 1080p, curved, at 27in... this is it!

 

[InvalidError]

Regardless, i'm not sure why they need freesync on such a low spec monitor, I thought freesync was for serious gamers.

Adaptive Sync will make movement smoother regardless of system specs: with normal refresh, the screen updates at fixed 16.667ms intervals for 60Hz and if the frame rendering is not done in time, the old image gets repeated while the new image gets delayed until the next refresh interval. This can quickly degenerate into significant stuttering.

With Adaptive Sync, if a frame is ready a few ms earlier than expected, the new refresh to paint it out can begin immediately and when the next frame is a little late, the next refresh cycle can be delayed by a few milliseconds to wait for it, producing a smoother overall feel despite irregular frame rate. In principle, Adaptive Sync benefits everyone from low-end to high-end.

 

[nukemaster]

I can see this being perfect for a small TV(variable refresh has a place for this too).

 

[eklipz330]

this doesn't seem to be much of a gaming monitor other than the inclusion of freesync...which only means ONE thing.

vendors are starting to include Freesync as a DEFAULT option. Excellent for AMD!

 

[ErikVinoya]

i would've gave it a shot were it a 1440p display. 27" is way too big for 1080 unless you're using it as a normal TV.

I don't understand the downvote. I do own a 23-inch 1080p monitor myself, and I'm pretty sure that if its a bit bigger, I'll be able to make out the individual pixels, let alone a 27-inch display

 

[firefoxx04]

For that price, I need 1440p. Sorry. 1080p is dated. I moved to 2560x1080 and will never go back, it's only up from here. My 7850 runs this res Bo problem.

 

[alextheblue]

In principle, Adaptive Sync benefits everyone from low-end to high-end.

Regardless, i'm not sure why they need freesync on such a low spec monitor, I thought freesync was for serious gamers.

Actually adaptive sync benefits lower-end machines a bit more. If you're already pushing a very high framerate with a high refresh monitor, you already don't suffer quite as much from stuttering and screen tearing is less noticeable. On a sub-60 FPS setup, stuttering is going to be worse (especially as you head towards the 30s), and screen tearing gets worse. Adaptive sync smooth's things out substantially and eliminates the tearing, as long as you're within the monitor's adaptive sync range.

Speaking of which: What's the range on this monitor? Perhaps I overlooked it. If it's 30-60, you're good to go. At any rate, I would prefer a faster refresh and a broad sync range, like at least 30-90. But for this design and at this price, it's potentially a good buy, depending on freesync range.

 

[zambutu]

i would've gave it a shot were it a 1440p display. 27" is way too big for 1080 unless you're using it as a normal TV.

Oh ya? I use a 40" 1080p TV in my Face for gaming, and I will never go smaller again.

Regardless, i'm not sure why they need freesync on such a low spec monitor, I thought freesync was for serious gamers.

He's not saying go small. He's saying 27" is too big for 1080p as a monitor because the bigger the screen is in your face with the same resolution, the more pix elated it will be. At 40" you should be going to 4k if you use it as a monitor (aka 16 inches away) 40" is insane to be in your face, don't your eyes hurt?

Doesn't hurt at all. I survived Coleco Vision in the 80's, Atari Resolution, 320x200 on the Amiga and on and on. Certainly 4k would be awesome, but until I can afford to run that kind of setup at 40 inches, 1080p at this size provides a level of immersion that only VR can top (or 3x40" eyefinity, but i'm done with eyefinity).

 

[nukemaster]

Doesn't hurt at all. I survived Coleco Vision in the 80's, Atari Resolution, 320x200 on the Amiga and on and on. Certainly 4k would be awesome, but until I can afford to run that kind of setup at 40 inches, 1080p at this size provides a level of immersion that only VR can top (or 3x40" eyefinity, but i'm done with eyefinity).

So true
Some good memories of games at ultra low resolution.

 

[Somesuchnonsense]

Welp. Looks like every new monitor coming out will have Freesync. And why not, doesn't add to the cost much and it's just another checkbox for the manufacturer.

 

[ohim]

seems the cheaper Freesync option started to get traction, hope it will make Nvidia to call it a flop with their G-sync.

 

[cats_Paw]

Response time seems bad, might be prone to ghosting. 27 inch is okish but for me the perfect size for a "monitor" is 34 inches.
I use a 50 inch plasma now as a monitor and while its great for single plaer, for multiplayer its too big.

 

[sillynilly]

seems the cheaper Freesync option started to get traction, hope it will make Nvidia to call it a flop with their G-sync.

BOO!!! As a green player I love Gsync. We need them both since we need both AMD and Nvidia to keep pushing each other in the GPU power department. If one or the other tanks how in the world we will play games in 8K once the industry starts shoving that down our throats???

 

[InvalidError]

BOO!!! As a green player I love Gsync. We need them both since we need both AMD and Nvidia to keep pushing each other in the GPU power department.

We do not need FreeSync nor Gsync. FreeSync is merely AMD's marketing brand for their side of AdaptiveSync support, it serves no purpose beyond marketing gimmick. The only thing Nvidia fans need is for Nvidia to swallow their misplaced pride and simply implement their own support for AdaptiveSync.

AS is part of the DP1.4/2.0 spec, obstinately refusing to put support in will only harm Nvidia in the long run since every display, even the $80 Shenzhen special, will eventually have FreeSync built-in as it adds negligible cost to scaler manufacturers - many AS-enabled scalers today are simply old scalers with updated firmware.

 

[ErikVinoya]

We do not need FreeSync nor Gsync. FreeSync is merely AMD's marketing brand for their side of AdaptiveSync support, it serves no purpose beyond marketing gimmick. The only thing Nvidia fans need is for Nvidia to swallow their misplaced pride and simply implement their own support for AdaptiveSync.

AS is part of the DP1.4/2.0 spec, obstinately refusing to put support in will only harm Nvidia in the long run since every display, even the $80 Shenzhen special, will eventually have FreeSync built-in as it adds negligible cost to scaler manufacturers - many AS-enabled scalers today are simply old scalers with updated firmware.

Is this AdaptiveSync different from the VSync setting -> Adaptive in the Nvidia control panel? I don't have a gsync monitor, but I got that setting, and it sometimes works. Note, sometimes lol

 

[nukemaster]

Vsync makes the video card sync frames to the screen refresh rate. It removes the page tear effect, but can cause input lag because the card is waiting for the screen to be ready for the next frame or sending the same one again because a new one is not ready yet.

Active Sync and Gsync(variable refresh rate) allows the monitor to sync to the video card instead so if the card is putting out 50 frames a second the monitor will adjust to that. It does it in real time(at any refresh rate within the monitors variable window) so the screen should never display a partial frame and input delay should also be reduced(well as much as it can at a given frame rate).

 

[sr1030nx]

Any idea what the freesync range is?

 

[cscott_it]

The whole "freesync featured" will just become more pervasive with time, as it requires little overhead in resources to develop, since it just relies on DP and Spec compliance. Honestly, I wish nVidia would contribute to it, but like Vulcan (heavy mantle inclusion), they will wait until an non-competitive body controls it, despite the offer of inclusion.

It would be better for everyone that games.

 

[sillynilly]

BOO!!! As a green player I love Gsync. We need them both since we need both AMD and Nvidia to keep pushing each other in the GPU power department.

We do not need FreeSync nor Gsync. FreeSync is merely AMD's marketing brand for their side of AdaptiveSync support, it serves no purpose beyond marketing gimmick. The only thing Nvidia fans need is for Nvidia to swallow their misplaced pride and simply implement their own support for AdaptiveSync.

AS is part of the DP1.4/2.0 spec, obstinately refusing to put support in will only harm Nvidia in the long run since every display, even the $80 Shenzhen special, will eventually have FreeSync built-in as it adds negligible cost to scaler manufacturers - many AS-enabled scalers today are simply old scalers with updated firmware.

Nvidia is doing their bit with AS - they call it Gsync and have determined it's the way the company wants to go. You can complain all you want, but I think it works great and have no issues with different approaches to correct the problem - cost increase or not. I doubt Nvidia will be harmed in any way as they continue to dominate the GPU market. Will Gsync be dumped in the future? Maybe - or maybe a different approach, but you seem to be a bit hurt Nvidia chose to adopt a particular standard over another.