Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Apr 1, 2017.
Who wants a 60hz TN monitor?
It is already possible, you just gotta lower your settings from ultra.
eh more with this curved crap
ROG SWIFT PG27UQ
only intresting to me, but 4 k rahter have 1440p
dont know about 60hz cause i never owned anything higher higher but I still perfer TN over IPS and it will remain like that till responses times on LCD/LED drop to CRT response times
You'll be waiting forever then due to the fact that high refresh rate CRTs have virtually 0ms lag/response time.
Regardless some IPS displays are already superior to even 1ms TN displays.
Just check out something like XB270HU where total lag is better than the ASUS PGQ279 thats 1ms TN display(both 144/165hz)
At this point, IPS being slower is an irrelevant argument nowadays.
No point in buying TN unless restricted by a budget
I need that PG27UQ in my life
So the 1440p hdr 165hz is TN model right? Because I am looking for 2560 rez 27" IPS 120 or higher monitor with HDR. I don't get the 4k really I have 65" 4k tv and then you can see the difference I have a 32" 4k monitor the pixel density is so tight you can't see any difference but for gaming anything above 27" you have to turn your head which for FPS or racing sims is loosing crucial time.And also 4k you can get 60fps in games I don't think we have the hardware for 4k to run above 100fps which is the whole point of the monitor to run the games above 100fps .
Can the majority of people even see the difference between 1ms and 4ms? mean we are talking about 1/1000 of a second here, the only people that might need 1ms are pro gamers, even then i'm sure its debatable if the human eye can even see such a tiny difference without it being a placebo effect. Though i might spend the rest of today researching such a thing since i'm curious about it
Somebody who wants to spend ~$260 for a 27" 2560 x 1440 monitor with excellent color reproduction?... The reviews I've read thus far *all* state plainly that the color gamut reproduction is as just as good as IPS, even if the viewing angles aren't quite--though I spend my time 18"-24" in front of the monitor--so viewing angles or of no concern for me--never have been.
Look, I know lots of tricks to simply shutting off vsync and far exceeding 60 fps even on 60Hz monitors... Been doing it for years. And most of the time, believe it or not, I know how to do it so that page tearing is not a problem. I rarely ever see page tearing these days.
Anyway, just wanted to know if anyone had seen a review on this puppy I might have missed; seemed a proper context for the question...I'll likely order it today.
HDR has been around since Farcry and before. It looked just fine in software. I don't get why developers abandoned HDR through software in PC games. Feeling bad for consoles up until they had HDR TV's I guess?
Just another money grab.
Farcry through software HDR. I mean this could be adjusted to look different in other games. Values saturation etc. Puzzles me if a game from like 06 and 08 can do it....then ahh well another mystery to solve.
Old HDR games render in 10bit then map to 8bit. So the output is still 8bit, it just blows the contrast out and makes it look a little brighter/darker. But it's not actually giving you an expanded contrast/color range.
It's almost like running DSR 4K with 1080p monitor vs actually having a 4K monitor. There is some benefit but it's not the entire benefit.
Having played several games/movies/shows in HDR on my TV - I hope to god it catches on in everything. It's a significant improvement, it doesn't require much work for the dev to support it and there is no major performance impact outside of slightly added latency (which is a solvable problem). I'd argue that the image impact going from non-HDR to HDR is better than going from 1440p to 4K. Although I'd obviously take both. Which is why I plan on buying the PG27UQ, despite the fact that it's probably going to cost $2000 or more.
Poor choice IMO when there are options like this for cheaper.
1440P, VA panel overclockable up to ~100hz good colour etc.
I take it you've never seen anything >60hz because I would take a garbage TN display with poor colours with 144hz over a 60hz panel for pure gaming.
I'm in for the 27VQ. I hope it stays below $1K.
Price....Price...PRICE of the PG27UQ.... PLEASE!
Quantum dot is used as backlight enhancement in these monitors. It's a grid of quantum dots (duh) placed in front of the backlight. It enhances the backlight's color gamut. It can be used with any kind of LCD panel. It's not limited to VA.
You don't actually need QD to do that, you could instead use a good backlight. However, QD is a way of using a cheap backlight and then enhance its color gamut by having the light go through the QD grid, which costs much less than a good backlight.
Obviously, the cheap backlight won't be reflected in the price of those monitors. They'll still sell them expensive because, hey, Quantum Dot sounds expensive...
"True" QD displays are not LCDs (meaning not TN, not IPS, nor any other kind of LCD.) They're more similar to OLED, and they don't need a backlight since their pixels produce their own light. But they're not available yet (only prototypes exist.)
As it states in the news :
A step upwards is the 2K model at 165 Hz tagged ROG SWIFT PG27VQ. This again will be a curved screen however this model is HDR ready and has a quantum dot technology display with GSYNC adapter.
When you're spending $260 and looking for a 27" 2560x1440 monitor with excellent color reproduction, you would go for any of the Korean monitors as some are now available as low as $200, particularly models that do not overclock. Models that do start at ~$300, and overclock to 90-120Hz. Heck, the Pixio PX277 is $390, has an AHVA panel and ships out of the box at 144Hz with FreeSync support (57-144Hz).
As for TN, even if color gamut is equivalent, are white level, gamma, contrast ratio, and panel uniformity equivalent as well? It's not only about color gamut.
Whatever you do, if you don't have VSync enabled you will get frame tearing. With VSync off, even if FPS = refresh rate, your GPU would start rendering the frame at an offset to when your monitor refreshes. If FPS =/= refresh rate, frame rendering and monitor refreshes will never be synchronized except one by luck every several thousand / million frames (if anything).
Also, there's no "knowing how to do it". It's just a simple toggle, whatever the tool offering you the option. You can frame cap at your refresh rate to reduce stutter / input latency, but that's all really.
The only technologies that eliminate tearing are VSync, G-Sync, and FreeSync.
Agent, these panels are AHVA, not VA. So that makes them IPS-like.
The True10 models have been known not to overclock beyond 60Hz without frameskipping. They also comes with 1 frame (@60Hz) of input latency and color reproduction and contrast ratio aren't that great. That is, unless matters have changed just recently.
But this is indeed an example of what one might buy at that price point. I'm pretty sure at that price point at least a monitor or two at a particular moment in time would be single-input and overclockable, just like the Catleap 2B / Overlord were in 2012, Catleap 2B / Overlord / Qnix in 2013-2015, CrossOver 2795QHD in 2015-2016, etc... (supplied certain timeframes only, monitors probably extended out of those timeframes).
Right I know that. That is why I said even though software it still looked good enough. It still added that layer of immersion that you didn't have before.
To just simply remove it from games to force people into buying a monitor with hardware HDR is still kinda meh to me.
Otherwise we could have it in ME:A right now...without a new monitor. It should be an option not forced.
While it may be a better quality HDR, not all of us have thousands to spend on new hardware to do something that could be done before that was good enough for a lot of people. Options would be nice here I think. At least for PC's you could at least revert to software HDR as an option if hardware isn't detected, aka the monitor.
I'm not budging on my Acer Predator XB1, and you know, it kinda goes back to what I said further up. It's disappointing to see that they are letting consoles drag down the PC market in HDR. We've had it for years....2006 and before. No point in removing it for PC's. PC devs should not shaft the PC gamer market on HDR cuz of TV's. If someone wants a higher quality HDR and can afford it they can, but those who want it on a powerful enough rig should not have to succumb to that. A Geforce 6800 AGP 8x can run Farcry HDR, I had it and did it. There really is no excuse to not have it as an option, not to replace HDR10, but an option to revert if no hardware is detected.
I'm kind of intrigued by the ROG SWIFT PG27VQ, so is it 2560x1440 IPS with gsync and 165Hz? If so it has pretty much the same specs as the current generation but without the curve and HOPEFULLY a better quality panel this time around...