Official Acer [XB270HU] 27" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync IPS ULMB Monitor Thread

Any idea what the minimum refresh rate for g-sync is on this monitor? 30? 40? The TN Freesync equivalent reportedly has 40 Hz but I can't find a number for the XB270HU.

As for people asking whether gsync is any use at low fps, I recall reading that with g-sync, frames are always scanned at the maximum refresh rate. In other words, it takes 6.9 ms (1000/144) to show each frame when the max refresh is 144 Hz even if the GPU spits out frames at a slower pace. Compared to a 60 Hz refresh, the bottom of a scanned frame is shown 9.7 ms earlier at 144 Hz (16.6 - 6.9 ms) so there is less lag.
 
The minimum refresh rate for when G-Sync kicks in is 30, below that (or above) it forces into traditional vsync. The same goes for all G-Sync monitors, it's a spec for the G-Sync printed into all products.

Freesync again supports even 9 - 240 Hz but it will be down to monitor panel manufacturer to set the spec so you will have to watch the specifications clearly to get this info. Also Freesync allows the user to choose what will happen whenever the frame rate dips out of spec, if vsync is forced on or off. [Source: Sweclockers Freesync article]

To me it sounds like Freesync therefore is the superior one. Especially I'd prefer playing with vsync off all the time personally so that's a minus for me personally with G-Sync. I already pretty much play with vsync off all the time on my first gen 120Hz panel, well at least 80%+ of the time (but usually capping with frame limiting instead for games that the fps would go into several hundred fps).

I personally hope at least a 30 - 144 Hz Freesync capable display shows up sooner than later. IPS would be a big bonus but a good TN panel may be enough to sway me over.
 
Last edited:
RPGWiZaRD said:
The minimum refresh rate for when G-Sync kicks in is 30, below that it forces into traditional vsync. The same goes for all G-Sync monitors, it's a spec for the G-Sync printed into all products.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks!

Freesync again supports even 9 - 240 Hz but it will be down to monitor panel manufacturer to set the spec so you will have to watch the specifications clearly to get this info. Also Freesync allows the user to choose what will happen whenever the frame rate dips out of spec, if vsync is forced on or off. [Source: Sweclockers Freesync article]

To me it sounds like Freesync therefore is the superior one. Especially I'd prefer playing with vsync off all the time personally so that's a minus for me personally with G-Sync. I already pretty much play with vsync off all the time on my first gen 120Hz panel, well at least 80%+ of the time (but usually capping with frame limiting instead for games that the fps would go into several hundred fps).
Click to expand...

Yes, the spec is better on paper. It's the implementations that matter, though. ;) So far FS monitors tend to have min refreshes of 40 Hz or more which kind of sucks.

Agreed on the vsync matter. Vsync at < 30 fps is horrible. I hope nvidia will eventually let users choose between vsync on or off as well.
 
RPGWiZaRD said:
To me it sounds like Freesync therefore is the superior one. Especially I'd prefer playing with vsync off all the time personally so that's a minus for me personally with G-Sync.
Click to expand...

I (really) don't want to turn this thread into freesync vs gsync, but there are documented issues with ghosting on freesync displays (see: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displa...hnical-Discussion/Gaming-Experience-FreeSync-). It's pretty unclear whether freesync is actually equivalent to gsync in terms of implementation quality, or whether it ever will be.
 
RPGWiZaRD said:
The minimum refresh rate for when G-Sync kicks in is 30, below that (or above) it forces into traditional vsync. The same goes for all G-Sync monitors, it's a spec for the G-Sync printed into all products.

Freesync again supports even 9 - 240 Hz but it will be down to monitor panel manufacturer to set the spec so you will have to watch the specifications clearly to get this info. Also Freesync allows the user to choose what will happen whenever the frame rate dips out of spec, if vsync is forced on or off. [Source: Sweclockers Freesync article]

To me it sounds like Freesync therefore is the superior one. Especially I'd prefer playing with vsync off all the time personally so that's a minus for me personally with G-Sync. I already pretty much play with vsync off all the time on my first gen 120Hz panel, well at least 80%+ of the time (but usually capping with frame limiting instead for games that the fps would go into several hundred fps).

I personally hope at least a 30 - 144 Hz Freesync capable display shows up sooner than later. IPS would be a big bonus but a good TN panel may be enough to sway me over.
Click to expand...

Freesync range is just what was written in Vesa standard - only existing implementations at the moment are 48-75 and 40-144.

Also once your framerate falls below bottom VRR range then frequency is blocked at that 40 Hz range and display behaves like 40Hz screen with Vsync on/off which might be even worse than normal monitor.

G-sync below 30 fps range is multiplying frames to stay in 30-60 range so that's much better behaviour than just v-sync off.

GSYNC%20vs%20FreeSync.png


Also option to vsync off above upper range is interesting but optimally we want to use fps limiter to stay a bit below maximum.
 
Gsync does look better than freesync overall.. If nvidia reduced the price a bit it would be better.
 
Yes , what I've read is that g-sync multiplies/dupes frames at sub 30fps so that the refresh rate doesn't crap out or isn't starved for frames to display.

Really much under 60fps average is a total freeze-frame zone though (frozen on the same world action state through multiple hz of screen updates). Personally I have zero interest in my frame-rate range even dipping that far down let alone playing at those numbers as the average frame rate with +/- frame rate roller coaster for pretty still-shot/screenshot graphics settings.
You don't start to notice an increase in hz motion flow and motion articulation until around 75 - 85hz/fps either, with 100 fps average being a more suitable target lower threshold vs graphics settings for a 5:3 ratio motion definition/articulation increase vs 60hz-fps. As discussed earlier, the higher frame rates are also required to get appreciable blur reduction.

Imo if you are getting that low of framerate vs your chosen settings, bottoming out more or less, you are probably better off getting a 1080p g-sync monitor where you would get a lot higher frame rate. Otherwise you would be losing out on the increased motion definition/flow/articulation/animation (motion definition), and blur reduction (motion clarity) that these modern monitors provide and would only be benefiting from the g-sync (lack of stutter/judder/or v-sync tradeoffs).

Less dot's per dotted line = less defined/articulated motion paths, less defined motion flow of individual objects and of moving the entire game world relative to your viewpoint when mouse-looking and movement-keying. Also potentially less animation cycle definition.

60hz-120hz-30-15_onesecondframe.jpg


(simulated graphic obviously)
120hz-vs-60hz-gaming.jpg
 
Last edited:
There are still games capped at 60 fps or even 30, or games that can't run at a good framerate because of bad coding (no matter how good your rig is) and I personally do play such games because behind the technical issues, they can still be great games worth playing.

So the behaviour of g-sync with low framerates matters to me and it seems the Swift is still the best in this area. I'm all happy to play at 100+ fps but it's not always realistic or applicable. I play a lot of very different games. G-sync's flexibility is what sold me on it. If I were playing games that run at 100+ fps all the time I honestly wouldn't care and would use ULMB or buy a new desk and get a FW900.
 
Yes I just wanted to be clear that in those scenarios people are essentially running a low hz monitor.
- Retarding motion definition/articulation.
- Losing any increase in motion clarity
(possibly making the blur even worse than a 60hz monitor at lower fpz-hz linked in g-sync, and in the acer's case with increased response times at lower hz ranges).

The main draw of this kind of monitor tech is 1440p at high hz with the lowest response time possible, with g-sync (and ulmb option) as a great additional feature.

I can understand the flexibility comment for some games like old code games and emulators that may be locked at low frame rates, but in cases where gamers can trade-off to a scenario of a crippled hz monitor at low frame rate for higher static graphics quality I wanted to be clear of what you would be losing - which ends up being most of the superior features of these modern gaming monitors. Also consider the cost of these monitors and the fact that you could get a much easier to render 1080p g-sync monitor for higher frame rates. Of course it's everyone's own money/monitors and they can do whatever they want with them :p
 
Last edited:
supastar1568 said:
I'm in the process of doing some monitor shopping, however, i have a really dumb question...what games are people playing that they can push over 60 fps on a 1440p/144hz monitor to fully reap the benefits of g-sync/free-sync?

I'm personally a graphics first kinda guy, so if I'm getting over 60 fps than my settings are too low or I'm playing the wrong game. That's just me though since I don't do any serious tournament gaming.
Click to expand...

The real benefits of G-Sync actually come when your frames are between 40-60fps. The perceived smoothness will be as good at 40fps as it is at 60, it's really the sweet spot.

If you can push over 100fps in 1440p you'd be better off using the UMLB mode instead.
 
I disagree. When people mention frame rate they really mean *average* frame rate which fluctuates dynamically quite a bit in demanding games. G-sync is great for the for the frame rate roller coaster at average frame rates well above 60fps-hz.

This graph is a good example
http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTQxNTI2MzIyN1ZrcExKTXo1Q2lfNF8xX2wuZ2lm

Current ULMB modemonitors mute the screen too much and does nothing for judder during fps swings. 100hz limit for strobing on the acer could be too slow making it borderline flashy as well. I prefer g-sync mode. At high fps, the motion clarity is more of a soften blur rather than a smear blur. You are also getting way more motion definition/articulation at higher hz-fps, and conversely losing out on both the motion definiton and blur reduction at 60hz-fps and less.
 
Last edited:
Except the Rog Swift and XL2730Z probably use the same panel... the Freesync XL2730Z exhibits ghosting as well, but nothing on the Swift.
 
deasnutz said:
Really? You don't think the ghosting might have to do with the panel? Come on man.
Click to expand...

Panel difference is definitely something to take into consideration. It does bring up two points, though:

1. Nvidia has said that there is more to VRR then just matching display refresh to frame output. They claim that the G-snyc board also dynamically adjusts other parameters of the display, such as switching voltage, to help eliminate issues such as the ghosting observed. While the ghosting observed on the Freesync displays is not definitive proof that Nvidia has extra "secret sauce", it does corroborate their claims.

2. Given the ghosting and narrow VRR Hz ranges on the currently available Freesync panels its safe to say that the quality of the overall display is inferior to current Gsync panels, so it's tough to say how much of a difference in price Gsync adds vs Adaptive Sync, as these are not apples-to-apples comparison from a quality or experience standpoint.

Personally I hope Freesync / Adaptive Sync is (or becomes) just as good as Gsync without the extra cost or proprietary hardware, but the early panels are a bit disappointing. Still lots of time to figure those things out, though.
 
deasnutz said:
Really? You don't think the ghosting might have to do with the panel? Come on man.
Click to expand...

The source of the ghosting doesn't really matter, it's just something to keep in mind when you are comparing current gsync options with current freesync options. Maybe future freesync options won't exhibit the issue, but I don't see how that affects purchasing choices wrt the Acer XB270HU.
 
Sancus said:
The source of the ghosting doesn't really matter, it's just something to keep in mind when you are comparing current gsync options with current freesync options. Maybe future freesync options won't exhibit the issue, but I don't see how that affects purchasing choices wrt the Acer XB270HU.
Click to expand...

The added context doesn't make up for an ignorant comment about Gsync vs. FreeSync, but it helps.
 
I agree that the review should have done more testing then just throw out three image captures and call it a day. Given that the Asus and Benq don't use the same panel, which was my mistake for assuming, means they should have done more testing on the issue since there are more variables in play now.

I can see how ghosting would be more prevalent on a 75 Hz IPS.
 
BenQ's XL series monitors usually suffer from some overshoot ghosting and perform worse than the newer AHVA/IPS/PLS panels at low refresh rates (24 & 60hz). Setting the AMA to Off slows down the pixel response times considerably, but might be the best option for gamers using the Free-Sync BenQ with underpowered cards. Measurements for the XL2430T and XL2720Z which likely are quite similar to the XL2730Z:

http://www.prad.de/new/monitore/test/2014/test-benq-xl2430t-teil9.html#Reaktionsverhalten
http://www.prad.de/new/monitore/test/2014/test-benq-xl2720z-teil9.html#Reaktionsverhalten

NVM, it seems the PG278Q is worse:

http://www.prad.de/new/monitore/test/2014/test-asus-pg278q-teil8.html

If the reviewer set the AMA to Off it might explain the ghosting, otherwise it is likely a Free-Sync related issue.
 
Last edited:
NCX said:
BenQ's XL series monitors usually suffer from some overshoot ghosting and perform worse than the newer AHVA/IPS/PLS panels at low refresh rates (24 & 60hz). Setting the AMA to Off slows down the pixel response times considerably, but might be the best option for gamers using the Free-Sync BenQ with underpowered cards. Measurements for the XL2430T and XL2720Z which likely are quite similar to the XL2730Z:

http://www.prad.de/new/monitore/test/2014/test-benq-xl2430t-teil9.html#Reaktionsverhalten
http://www.prad.de/new/monitore/test/2014/test-benq-xl2720z-teil9.html#Reaktionsverhalten

NVM, it seems the PG278Q is worse:

http://www.prad.de/new/monitore/test/2014/test-asus-pg278q-teil8.html

If the reviewer set the AMA to Premium it might explain the ghosting, otherwise it is likely a Free-Sync related issue.
Click to expand...

That is definitely not overshoot. Just plain old slow response time.
 
nomu said:
That is definitely not overshoot. Just plain old slow response time.
Click to expand...

I meant to type AMA Off, but the pink tint in the image (not the video which I just watched) does kind of make it look like a combination of coloured overshoot and ghosting. One would think that the PG278Q would show similar ghosting since they both overshoot when using their best overdrive settings and have slow pixel response times when not.
 
Do these Freesync monitors even support strobing?
If not then they are not Quake and CS compatible hence useless :eek:
 
XoR said:
Do these Freesync monitors even support strobing?
If not then they are not Quake and CS compatible hence useless :eek:
Click to expand...

Case by case - implemnting strobing is left to panel manufacturers.

2730Z has it, Acer 1440p TN and LG ultrawide IPS don't have it
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
A lot of us have solid ones. I got mine a few days before halloween last year and knock on wood it's been great. I just got a second 780ti sc and it is better than ever, so glassy smooth at 100fps +/-, I love it.

It doesn't seem to be the massive panel lottery/sub-grade panel scenario that the eizo fg2421 was/is. There is some heat/hate on the subject though, possibly due to the high price.

I was concerned at first when I heard some reports of duds and a few "blurry text" bug failures in threads, but then following up on them, once they had stock, the RMA return seems to be 3 days to get out your door and then around a week back to you. With a 3 year warranty that's pretty comforting. Yes it would be inconveinient to return it, but it's not my only monitor I could wait a week if I had to. The 3year warranty and no obvious denial of RMA being evident is comforting.
 
elvn said:
A lot of us have solid ones. I got mine a few days before halloween last year and knock on wood it's been great.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the one I had was fine, but I sent it back because I just couldn't get used to the drab colors. I'm an IPS snob. ;)
 
Starrbuck said:
Yeah, the one I had was fine, but I sent it back because I just couldn't get used to the drab colors. I'm an IPS snob. ;)
Click to expand...

I bumped the vibrancy up - out of the box they can be a little less vibrant. In games, what I use it for, the extra ips % of color range is pretty meaningless as most (if not all) games don't make use of it. I find it's color vibrant/saturated in games. The only difference in games between it and ips would be the TN shift/"shaded" gradient band at the top (uniformity) which isn't really evident while gaming, and that it's not glossy (might look a little less lush/"wet" than glossy but the vibrancy/saturation helps at higher brightness/contrast). Of course the other diff from typical ips (outside of these modern gaming ones) would be the very low (~1ms) response time, the overdrive implementation, high hz and g-sync(+ulmb option) at 2560x1440.

I'm closely following the new ips gaming monitors though b/c I'd consider getting a 21:9 one by end of 2016 if they are good enough.
 
Last edited:
I have several personal issues with today's monitors:

1. I want 5K-ish for clarity (using now with UP2715K)
2. I want curved 21:9 for best ever ratio and comfort/productivity (used LG34UC97)
3. I want IPS for colors and clarity (gloss-AG, IGZO IPS please, used UP3214Q)
4. I want 144Hz for obvious reasons even at desktop (used ROG Swift PG278Q)
6. I want <any>Sync


Curved 34" 6880x2880 @ 144Hz IGZO IPS?

It can be done. We have the tech. 5k euro? I'm fine, just make it soon.

On topic, I can't find a monitor that suits me :(

ATM thinking about buying again ROG Swift for its refresh...
 
I'm really getting impatient waiting for the US retail release. I have a GTX 980 enabled system just waiting to be hooked up to this thing. (I know I won't hit 144Hz with one 980, more interested in the 40-60fps G-sync IPS goodness)
 
toncij said:
I have several personal issues with today's monitors:

1. I want 5K-ish for clarity (using now with UP2715K)
2. I want curved 21:9 for best ever ratio and comfort/productivity (used LG34UC97)
3. I want IPS for colors and clarity (gloss-AG, IGZO IPS please, used UP3214Q)
4. I want 144Hz for obvious reasons even at desktop (used ROG Swift PG278Q)
6. I want <any>Sync


Curved 34" 6880x2880 @ 144Hz IGZO IPS?

It can be done. We have the tech. 5k euro? I'm fine, just make it soon.

On topic, I can't find a monitor that suits me :(

ATM thinking about buying again ROG Swift for its refresh...
Click to expand...

One day man...one day.Although monitors are making some good progress towards that goal with the new Acer that's supposely a curved 21:9 3440x1440 144Hz G Sync IPS. Until then we'll just have to settle for 2 or more monitors that each have what we like. I'm personally going with this XB270HU along with a curved 40+ inch 4k monitor as my set.
 
Looks like it was up for sale on the acer webstore for about 20 min, now it shows out of stock, we must be getting close. Someone on twitter said he got one ordered. Time to start scanning amazon and newegg till it pops up there.
 
I just ordered one, completely winged it. I haven't had an LCD in many years. Looks promising!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top