• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Help me understand 144 HZ and g sync

S

SelenaGomez

Member
Ok does having 144 hz monitor mean that I can see up to 144 fps or does it mean that the picture quality is enhanced somehow regardless of my fps ? What if my gpu can only put out 55 fps maximum. Does that make 144 hz monitor useless?

also, where does g sync fit into all of this?
 
SelenaGomez said:
Ok does having 144 hz monitor mean that I can see up to 144 fps?
Click to expand...

Yes it means your screen will refresh 144 times per second. When you have high FPS this also means you will notice a benefit in responsiveness because when you input a command it shows on your screen that much faster.

It is not nearly as good if the FPS cannot keep up, but it will still help minimize the obviousness of tearing.

Gsync will refresh the screen only when the GPU creates a new frame matching your FPS and hz. There are some caveats though like if your FPS is too low it may need to draw a frame twice to prevent the monitor from flashing (monitors have a kind of minimum refresh rate, if the pixels don't refresh at least a certain number of times it causes issues.)
 
ermmm, no.

look, the whole Gsync thing is not easy to explain; rather, i put it to you: are you a hardcore player of shooter games?

if not, i would avoid spending money on a Gsync monitor.

monitors with high refresh rate (75hz, 100hz, 120hz, 144hz) do have a clearer, crispier image WHEN THERE IS A LOT OF FAST MOVEMENT onscreen; otherwise, they are pretty much the same as a normal monitor.

for some people, a 144hz/Gsycn monitor is a must buy. but, you will know you need it and you will know why.

otherwise, i suggest two alternatives;

1. get a cheaper, Freesync monitor and spend the cash you saved on a AMD video card.

2. buy a nice, large, IPS monitor.
IPS is a different technology than TN - TN is what all* high-refresh monitors use. IPS looks a lot nicer, the colors are deeper and the monitors has larger view angles.
 
DigDog said:
ermmm, no.

look, the whole Gsync thing is not easy to explain; rather, i put it to you: are you a hardcore player of shooter games?

if not, i would avoid spending money on a Gsync monitor.

monitors with high refresh rate (75hz, 100hz, 120hz, 144hz) do have a clearer, crispier image WHEN THERE IS A LOT OF FAST MOVEMENT onscreen; otherwise, they are pretty much the same as a normal monitor.

for some people, a 144hz/Gsycn monitor is a must buy. but, you will know you need it and you will know why.

otherwise, i suggest two alternatives;

1. get a cheaper, Freesync monitor and spend the cash you saved on a AMD video card.

2. buy a nice, large, IPS monitor.
IPS is a different technology than TN - TN is what all* high-refresh monitors use. IPS looks a lot nicer, the colors are deeper and the monitors has larger view angles.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Even if 144hz/Gsync is a "must" for him/her they will not just magically know about it. Information does not magically manifest itself, it starts with some research or maybe even a conversation on a forum like this one.

I also disagree that IPS looks nicer. IPS glow is TERRIBLE if you play dark games and watch dark movies. I bought a $500 monitor last month and went TN after my last purchase being IPS. TN has faster refresh times as well which leads to less ghosting and is going to be objectively better if you are looking for a 144hz experience. Are the colors as accurate? No they are not so don't use it for video and photo editing. Is there a minor shift in color accuracy across the screen? Yes there is but it is less noticeable to me than IPS glow across a large IPS screen.
 
well, i'll explain, but mostly because i don't want you to confuse mr Selina Gomez here.

1. actually, information does manifest itself magically. assuming that by magically we mean that you've played FPS games long enough to have topped out on skill and looking to find that extra 2% accuracy, then yeah, you would already know why you need a G-sync.

2. IPS doesn't look nicer, perse. IPS looks nicer "according to the vast majority of IPS-owning computer users, whose most common comment on the quality of IPS is the beautiful deep blacks", a fact i believe you will find hard to dispute. Personally, i have no problem with TN.

Also the professional reviewers who have covered the Acer agree that the IPS glow is barely noticeable; i could imitate you and suggest that since most Asus TN G-syncs had shit panels, then all TN must have shit panels; but i won't.

Finally, the statement "TN has higher refresh rates" kinda falls apart when considering that these are both 1ms, 144hz panels; the actual refresh rates specifications are right here in the machine details, in this very thread, right in front of your eyes.


a smiley for you
🙂
 
I just find that there are only 2 g-sync monitors that are 144mhz and ips. They are both $1000 in Canada. I cant justify paying that since i also need to buy a new graphics card which a 1080 will cost another $1000 here. So, I think i may have to get a freesync monitor that is 144mhz and TN. Still not many choices for good ones. Seems that there a re soo many compaints for any IPS monitors. I have neve bought an AMD card but since they are coming out with the Polaris and Vega they might actually be good cards to buy. I would rather g sync but cant afford it.
 
Last edited:
the marketing slick refresh rates are total unreliable garbage (e.g. "GTG 1MS!!11!!1" and the laughable "1:100000000000 contrast ratio" junk). This is well known. The only measurement worth using is actual pixel overdrive / ghosting measurements like they do on Blur Busters or TFT Central.

All else being equal, higher refresh rate almost always means less blurring (with some few exceptions). But as between the various 120/144hz monitors some definitely have much more blurring than others.
 
Last edited:
Considering 144hz monitors are twice as expensiveas 60hz atleast where i live,60hz is still best value for money.
 
DigDog said:
well, i'll explain, but mostly because i don't want you to confuse mr Selina Gomez here.

1. actually, information does manifest itself magically. assuming that by magically we mean that you've played FPS games long enough to have topped out on skill and looking to find that extra 2% accuracy, then yeah, you would already know why you need a G-sync.

Finally, the statement "TN has higher refresh rates" kinda falls apart when considering that these are both 1ms, 144hz panels; the actual refresh rates specifications are right here in the machine details, in this very thread, right in front of your eyes.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the smiley DigDog my post is not "against" you I just disagree with some of what you are saying.

1. No this still does not happen because someone would still need to understand what Gsync was, thus a conversation or research still needs to happen. I don't know that I agree with your assertion that Gsync increases accuracy either especially when compared to other options that are currently exclusive to the adaptive sync technologies available but I don't want too go to far in this conversation.

As for your other points. There are going to be bad versions of every type of monitor available on the market, you are always going to need to research your purchase and you cannot rely just on the generalization that it uses x technology or process.

And as for the 1ms gtg response time listed by the manufacturer, just like the 1million to 1 contrast ratio.. I do not suggest you trust that number. Instead look on a site like tftcentral.co.uk where they test the monitors.



BenQ XL2730z 1ms TN 144hz

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/benq_xl2730z.htm

reality is 2.3ms with highest overdrive (some overshoot) and 3.1 with the best balance of overdrive that does not cause overshoot

Acer Predator XB270 1ms IPS 144hz

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm

Reality is 4.8ms with highest overdrive (very severe overshoot) and 5.9ms with the best balance of overdrive that does not cause overshoot

So you can see this is a top of the line vs top of the line gaming panel shoot out here between the two technologies. Other panels from the competition with similar specifications - indisputably the TN panels in the same "class" vs an IPS or VA have a better response time. IPS will have better color reproduction. VA will have the best blacks. It is a choice the consumer must make and there are always trade offs but my statement about the TN panel response time is true.
 
Headfoot said:
All else being equal, higher refresh rate almost always means less blurring (with some few exceptions). But as between the various 120/144hz monitors some definitely have much more blurring than others.
Click to expand...

Yea there are definitely caveats. The widescreen VA panel that released has 200hz refresh rate but it has issues with pixel color change from some colors and has blurring on those colors 🙁 which makes me sad because the deep VA blacks and high contract with lack of IPS glow makes for an amazing picture.

Definitely agree with you 100% check multiple review sites like TFTCentral before buying. Then also make sure to look into how many issues people are having with them. For instance lots of review sites love the X34 but if you go on reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace or search on the internet you will find people having to return 4 or 5 to get one without bad BLB and lots of people with panels failing a few months into purchase.

Buying a monitor is honestly the most stressful purchase to me, companies wont take back monitors with a dead pixel as defective, panels often have a high variance from monitor to monitor in terms of BLB and it appears to be even more so with the curved screens. Ugh.
 
DigDog said:
well, i'll explain, but mostly because i don't want you to confuse mr Selina Gomez here.

1. actually, information does manifest itself magically. assuming that by magically we mean that you've played FPS games long enough to have topped out on skill and looking to find that extra 2% accuracy, then yeah, you would already know why you need a G-sync.

2. IPS doesn't look nicer, perse. IPS looks nicer "according to the vast majority of IPS-owning computer users, whose most common comment on the quality of IPS is the beautiful deep blacks", a fact i believe you will find hard to dispute. Personally, i have no problem with TN.

Also the professional reviewers who have covered the Acer agree that the IPS glow is barely noticeable; i could imitate you and suggest that since most Asus TN G-syncs had shit panels, then all TN must have shit panels; but i won't.

Finally, the statement "TN has higher refresh rates" kinda falls apart when considering that these are both 1ms, 144hz panels; the actual refresh rates specifications are right here in the machine details, in this very thread, right in front of your eyes.


a smiley for you
🙂
Click to expand...
AFAIK there are no "1ms" IPS panels, the fastest I've seen officially claimed is 4ms. Where you may have been thrown off is there is an IPS and a TN version of the Acer XB270HU, the TN is "1ms".
 
Shopping for a monitor that isnt 1080p is the most stressful and annoying thing. I have only bought 1 led monitor in my life 8 years ago and never paid attention to them since the monitor was and still is a good monitor. Now i feel like the monitors are either too expensive or missing one aspect that I want. I want a 1440p, 144hz, IPS (THAT DOESN'T HAVE HORRIBLE BLB) that isnt $1000 CDN. The BLB makes me not even want to bother thinking baout paying $1000 if i have to return the monitor and make it a luck of the draw type deal. SO IRRITATING
 
because the 1ms, 2ms, 4ms, 5ms response time is NEVER an accurate measure of the ... response. it's just some marketing number that means nothing.

tearing occurs during fast movement. technically, tearing occurs in many more occasions but is noticeable only during said fast movements.

for example, i have a really low end monitor from a cheap brand, 60hz. i play QuakeLive and Reflex without issues - no tearing, but it does get slightly blurry during really fast transitions. Gync would eliminate that through BOTH high refresh rate and synching of frames and refresh.

it's totally feasible to play on a normal 60hz monitor and never notice tearing; what makes tearing more noticeable is running with very low frame rates.

for selena, i would recommend the following:

1. a 1070 should be plenty of power. the benchmarks are out, and if you can get 60+ FPS in high end titles (which it should) you won't need a -sync monitor.

2. you should ALWAYS shop for monitors in a physical store; be clear that you will buy only if they guarantee a return if it has BLB or glow (or dead pixels).
for example, the first asus gsync had very bad BLB, but only on *some* monitors, you could still get lucky and find one that was perfect.

3. IPS is good but TN is also good. don't buy this "it's old technology", TN is perfectly fine, and while IPS is somewhat superior (deeper blacks, wider viewing angles, more accurate color reproduction) you can get a good TN panel and never feel like you are on an inferior technology.



Freesync is the alternative from AMD to Gsync. It does the same thing, essentially, and it's substantially cheaper. RIght now, i cannot recommend a AMD video card, because the 1070 and 1080 are just so much better, but AMD said they are bringing out a 480 for $200, release date is june 29.
We will have to wait to see if it's any good, but you could possibly get that and the Acer ​​XG270HU​, which is 144hz, Freesync 4k and 27", for a total of $600 for both.
 
Last edited:
DigDog said:
because the 1ms, 2ms, 4ms, 5ms response time is NEVER an accurate measure of the ... response. it's just some marketing number that means nothing.

tearing occurs during fast movement. technically, tearing occurs in many more occasions but is noticeable only during said fast movements.

for example, i have a really low end monitor from a cheap brand, 60hz. i play QuakeLive and Reflex without issues - no tearing, but it does get slightly blurry during really fast transitions. Gync would eliminate that through BOTH high refresh rate and synching of frames and refresh.

it's totally feasible to play on a normal 60hz monitor and never notice tearing; what makes tearing more noticeable is running with very low frame rates.

for selena, i would recommend the following:

1. a 1070 should be plenty of power. the benchmarks are out, and if you can get 60+ FPS in high end titles (which it should) you won't need a -sync monitor.

2. you should ALWAYS shop for monitors in a physical store; be clear that you will buy only if they guarantee a return if it has BLB or glow (or dead pixels).
for example, the first asus gsync had very bad BLB, but only on *some* monitors, you could still get lucky and find one that was perfect.

3. IPS is good but TN is also good. don't buy this "it's old technology", TN is perfectly fine, and while IPS is somewhat superior (deeper blacks, wider viewing angles, more accurate color reproduction) you can get a good TN panel and never feel like you are on an inferior technology.



Freesync is the alternative from AMD to Gsync. It does the same thing, essentially, and it's substantially cheaper. RIght now, i cannot recommend a AMD video card, because the 1070 and 1080 are just so much better, but AMD said they are bringing out a 480 for $200, release date is june 29.
We will have to wait to see if it's any good, but you could possibly get that and the Acer ​​XG270HU​, which is 144hz, Freesync 4k and 27", for a total of $600 for both.
Click to expand...

Thanks for advice. I think I will wait for the Polaris Benchmarks at least. I can get the xg270hu for $500 CDN cheaper than the pg279q
 
Without freesync/gsync the monitor will update at a fixed frequency. If you have vsync on then the monitor will have to wait for the video card to show next frame, this result in no tearing, but can give some jutter. With no vsync, you will see tearing without jutter. With gs/fs the monitor will wait for the videocard to show next frame, so you get neithe stutter or tearing as long as you are within the fs/gs range. But higher fps and hz is still better, but cost more and requires a lot of gpu power.
 
I will say Gsync has been AMAZING. Coming from 65hz on my last display to 100hz was a game-changer. Gsync does a great job to reduce tearing and it is definitely noticeable in a FPS.
 
Gsync and Freesync do a lot more than just preventing tearing. When you're using it, lower framerates appear smoother and hitches / stuttering due to your frame rate fluctuating are significantly reduced or eliminated altogether
 
SelenaGomez said:
Ok does having 144 hz monitor mean that I can see up to 144 fps or does it mean that the picture quality is enhanced somehow regardless of my fps ? What if my gpu can only put out 55 fps maximum. Does that make 144 hz monitor useless?

also, where does g sync fit into all of this?
Click to expand...

without g-sync -Your monitor will refresh at a constant rate and your video card refreshes whatever it can. if your monitor is refreshing 60hz per second and your GPU refreshes 60 FPS it's smooth looking. Once they get out of sinc the graphics look jagged which will be 99 percent of the time.. G-sync makes the monitor be the slave of the video card. if you have monitor 60hz and video card 90 FPS you will get overlapping screen draws and see the struggle between these 2 pieces of hardware. G-sync makes them dance together on time to eliminate overlapping screen drawing or tearing effects

Before g-sync was 144hz. Get a fast video card and fast monitor and hope for the best. With g-sync now you can make them refresh in unison all the way up to 144hz. And if the FPS dip down into the 60-70's you won't really notice it.

The first thing you will notice about g-sync is how suddenly everything looks really smooth. To me it was worth it just for the looks. I don't think it made me a better player but the games look better to the eyes.

You can't notice it in video reviews very well, you actually have to sit behind it to really see what it's like.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top