Samsung Unveils Monitor With Qi Wireless Charging, Casually Mentions AMD FreeSync Support

Status
Not open for further replies.

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Unless the display is specifically pitched at gamers, Adaptive Sync support is not really worth mentioning - the rest of the display might not be tuned for high-end gaming and the FreeSync support is only mentioned because the display chipset Samsung used happened to support it. Since Adaptive Sync is a minor update to scaler chips, it will eventually become ubiquitous and hardly worth mentioning anymore.
 

therealduckofdeath

Honorable
May 10, 2012
783
0
11,160
70
Unless the display is specifically pitched at gamers, Adaptive Sync support is not really worth mentioning - the rest of the display might not be tuned for high-end gaming and the FreeSync support is only mentioned because the display chipset Samsung used happened to support it. Since Adaptive Sync is a minor update to scaler chips, it will eventually become ubiquitous and hardly worth mentioning anymore.
Syncing refresh rates has nothing to do with "high end gaming". The more automatic these features gets the easier it will be for normal users to enjoy the visuals in a game.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
3,078
106
20,970
2
Unless the display is specifically pitched at gamers, Adaptive Sync support is not really worth mentioning - the rest of the display might not be tuned for high-end gaming
I would argue that Adaptive Sync is even more useful for mid-range and low-end gaming where you're much more likely to have framerate issues. The real question is what range is this unit capable of, and are they shipping it with top-notch firmware to support all features properly (unlike certain recently released models by other manufacturers)?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't adaptive sync help with simple tasks running on low powered hardware such as watching movies or even just you tube clips? If your hardware supports it, I'd say getting adaptive sync would be a good idea for everyone who owns a desktop.
 

IInuyasha74

Splendid
Moderator
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't adaptive sync help with simple tasks running on low powered hardware such as watching movies or even just you tube clips? If your hardware supports it, I'd say getting adaptive sync would be a good idea for everyone who owns a desktop.
To be honest, I don't know if Freesync actually works when watching videos. I suppose it might be, but there isn't really going to be any kind of improvement here.

The reason it isn't a real issue here is because the GPU doesn't have any issue to decode the video in full speed. Most videos are encoded at 24 or 30 FPS, and so the frames are sent out in a very orderly fashion. There wouldn't be any observable tearing or other graphical anomalies occur, so Freesync wouldn't help.
 

IInuyasha74

Splendid
Moderator


It isn't a popular view, but honestly I agree. A lot of people seem to want 23-28 inch devices. I personally want something at least 32", and I'd probably really like something 40" or bigger. Mixed with that I'd love to have 4k, or at least 2K resolution support. I'm not so concerned with PPI. I'd like a display that is slightly too large for my field of vision, so that I actually have to look around a little at times to see things. Not excessively so, but to where I can really focus in on the screen without seeing the case or anything else.
 

zodiacfml

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2008
1,149
0
19,280
0
The shouldn't have bothered, just put a high amp or Samsung fast charging USB port there. I won't use wireless charging as it is slower and produces more heat.
 

wtfxxxgp

Honorable
Nov 14, 2012
173
0
10,680
0
24-27 inches is too small, make it 32 inches and 4k IPS and I'm sold.
So the fact that this monitor is a first to offer this wireless charging capability is lost on you I guess (and that was the whole purpose of the monitor, nothing else). Plenty of people have phones that can be charged wirelessly, but not plenty of people have $1000 GPU's that can drive 4k IPS, irrelevant of size.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

The interesting thing will be how much of a premium this display will carry over a similar display without Qi charging.
 
This.
...I would argue that Adaptive Sync is even more useful for mid-range and low-end gaming where you're much more likely to have framerate issues. The real question is what range is this unit capable of...
And, this.
The interesting thing will be how much of a premium this display will carry over a similar display without Qi charging.
At a high-cost premium, Qi charging just ain't worth it (to me). Adaptive Sync as it enters the mainstream and becomes ubiquitous at all price points is the story, here, but Samsung needs a 'hook' to appeal to the entire market while setting itself apart from other OEMs. Thus: wireless charging. Even nVidia owners will take a look at the right price point.

Also ... 23-inch (to 26") 16:9 is the typical desktop standard that the market wants these days (see what The Egg is selling). Over 220 units offered at this range versus 36 units *30" and Up*

 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

For me, 24" feels like just about the right size for most of my everyday uses, although I would really like to have QHD instead of 1200p for sharper text and neatly fitting most websites/documents in portrait orientation. My next display will probably be 27" UHD after prices come down some more.
 

obababoy

Honorable
Jul 24, 2013
55
0
10,640
2
Id rather have my Asus MG279Q and buy a $10 Qi charger online. This is a pretty monitor but I am sure the upcharge for dirt cheap Qi charging will be way too high.
 

Eric Swenson

Honorable
Mar 16, 2013
12
0
10,510
0
Sorry Samsung, I only buy 16:10 monitors.
2008 called and wants it's monitors back

Seriously I don't disagree with liking 16:10 but do vendors even ofter them anymore? I loved my old 1920x1200's but just upgrade to 2560x1440 or 4K and you'll get enough of a vertical upgrade that you won't care anymore.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

There are still some of them on the market but when you can choose between 1080p for less than $150 or almost $300 for 1200p, most people aren't going to think twice about 1200p and will get 1080p instead. A very similar story repeats for 1440p vs 1600p.

At the rate UHD display prices are dropping though, 1200p-1600p might be history a few years from now.
 

LordConrad

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2007
862
14
19,165
54

Higher resolutions do me little good unless accompanied by an appropriate increase in screen size (or good picture scaling). It's hard to read things below a certain size, even with my glasses.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

While you can use higher resolutions to put more information on the screen, you can also use the higher resolution and increased pixel density to enhance the readability of the information you had.

Reading fonts with lines only a single pixel wide strains eyesight considerably more than sharper/smoother edges with font strokes a few pixels wide. This is a large part of the reason why printed fonts are far more comfortable to look at even when printed on unbleached newspaper stock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS