If the 1000:1 ratio from LG was correct, then they could have eliminated the smearing at the cost of butchering that 5100:1 contrast ratio. But without IPS glow it would mean its still better than an IPS alternative at the same contrast ratio.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
31.5" 2560x1440 165 Hz VA G-Sync - LG 32GK850G
- Thread starter Vega
- Start date
I cannot wait to see some reviews from Newegg users... I've been waiting to upgrade my 32" 1080P display for a long time...
I will be more curious to see what Vega will have to say about it. If it's anything like his past monitor reviews it will be thorough and exactly what we need to make a decision.
Sorry I've decided to cancel my pre-order. It will probably be a decent screen, but I haven't had much satisfaction with VA panels in the past for fast paced motion. Until 120 Hz OLED (at 4K or monitor size) comes to fruition, I'll be sticking with TN pixel speed. TN motion clarity is the only reason I ever sway from OLED since OLED is currently only packaged really in TV sets at 4K 60 Hz. (1080P on 55" for 120 Hz is too blurry for me).
Supposedly in Q2 2018, there will be 240 Hz 2560x1440 TN G-Sync monitors in which they have dropped the non-overdrive pixel response times from ~5ms down to ~3ms. So this means with overdrive we can be talking ~2ms or faster "real" pixel response time motion clarity. That is approaching ULMB motion clarity with the benefit of G-Sync.
Supposedly in Q2 2018, there will be 240 Hz 2560x1440 TN G-Sync monitors in which they have dropped the non-overdrive pixel response times from ~5ms down to ~3ms. So this means with overdrive we can be talking ~2ms or faster "real" pixel response time motion clarity. That is approaching ULMB motion clarity with the benefit of G-Sync.
Q3 2018 production (Q4 avail?) for 31.5" 3840x2160 144hz. So almost a year later than the 27" versions.
See here for the roadmap: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/38.htm#auo_roadmap_oct17
No 240hz for 31.5", which makes sense. FPS gamers prefer 23-27" range.
See here for the roadmap: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/38.htm#auo_roadmap_oct17
No 240hz for 31.5", which makes sense. FPS gamers prefer 23-27" range.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
This makes for a sad gamer...
...also no Vega deconstruction of this panel
[I hear you man...]
brainfried
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 680
Which TN monitor are you using?
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,479
I can't imagine what a 32 inch TN would be like. Viewing angles are already just barely acceptable at 27 inches but 32? Yikes.
Well poo........
Anyone else here getting one?
If it doesn't get delayed. Quite a few panels being pushed back/down spec'd this year. At this rate we'll have 8k 144hz VR HMD's by the time a decent high speed 4k panel hits shelves.
If it doesn't get delayed
. Quite a few panels being pushed back/down spec'd this year. At this rate we'll have 8k 144hz VR HMD's by the time a decent high speed 4k panel hits shelves.one does not need *sync for 2560x1440. 1080ti is more than enough at this low resolution. so at 25x14 the only relevant spec is ULMB, which this monitor lacks.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Uh, what?
That's probably okay for today's games, but crank the details on games out tomorrow- yeah. Also, for games that you're fine playing at high detail settings and ~60Hz, or games that require you to play at 60Hz, VRR is still incredibly useful and thus desired.
Of course, so is ULMB for twitchers, so it's a good thing to point out.
you lost me there. You will be hard pressed to find a game title at 2560x1440 that a 1080Ti can not keep above 60Hz 100% of the time. Not even the worst game ever coded, Crysis. with 5.2Ghz mainstream CPUs a reality, this is true even for CPU limited games like AotS or Civ VI. Actually, the majority of games run above 100fps at max settings on a 1080ti:
http://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-gtx-1080-ti-review/
there are some tricks to make a GPU have as little lag and tear as possible without resorting to Gsync:
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/the-truth-about-pre-rendering-0.365860/page-12#post-5380262
https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3441&start=250#p28544
we can keep arguing all day: some people are more tolerant to motion blur, some people more tolerant to tearing.
And one can always pull the wild card " future games will bring a 1080ti down at 25x14", as no one can predict how poorly optimized any future game will be.
Truth is : as of today it is pretty rare to find games/driver/monitor that allows Gsync+ULMB at same time, all the rare cases reported are in monitors whose resolution does not need Gsync qhen gaming with a 1080ti.
There is no ULMB at 34x14, so for this resolution *sync is required. Also at this resolution blind tests reveled that Vega+freesync feels at least as playable as 1080ti+Gsync.
So we are down to 25x14. there are plenty of ULMB options at 25x14. and most sane gamers ( not only twitchers!) with a 1080ti would rather play using ULMB than using gsync.
That doesn't really make sense. VRR is always useful and 25x14 is far from a "low resolution". In many games still a 1080 ti/Titan X can't even do a perfectly steady 60fps with the highest settings. Source: that's the hardware I have. And if you check the right reviews (and don't just look at the pointless max fps numbers) you will see it for yourself.
ULMB addresses a different issue, inherent to LCDs - but at the cost of perfect smoothness OR your typical v-sync input lag (you decide which trade-off is acceptable to you - tearing, slight microstuttering or input lag, all explained very well on blurbusters several times over). So like Vega, I'd much rather go the 200hz+ g-sync route (+ very low pixel response times) eventually (right now it's limited to small TN panels with a not so great picture quality).
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
So please share your results with us; there much more 1080ti reviews out there than there are posts on this thread.
surely you can point us towards games where a 1080ti does reach 60fps because the game is GPU LIMITED BY THE 1080TI.
I think this is what happens when someone has an opinion, and demands others accept it as fact. It is time for you to understand that others, many of them, see VRR as relevant for a 2560x1440 display. That's how opinions work - they differ. This isn't something you can disprove with internet warrior links.
Mass Effect Andromeda, Assassin's Creed Origins, Rise of the Tomb Raider (Geothermal Valley is a bitch), GTA V with shadows on ULTRA, Black Desert Online... just to name a few I could come up with in 10 seconds. All games I have played through extensively (not done with Andromeda or Origins yet but already ran into more than one GPU heavy spot). That's at 1440p with the highest settings and I'm not using crazy AA settings (just lightweight post-process AA or AA off altogether).
Those games have places where the framerate drops below 60 on a 1080 ti/Titan Xp. Sometimes it's definitely CPU related - but not always. Hardware reviewers only test a few very specific parts of the games they have at their disposal (and very often they just use the canned benchmarks...) so you can't just read them and conclude "you will always have >60fps with a 1080 ti" for example. Which seems to be what you are doing.
brainfried
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 680
I've been using Free/G-Sync on 1440p for more than two years. It allows me to smoothly run my games between 100 and 144fps without practically no additional input lag, no tearing and very fluid motion.
Last edited:
Are you kidding me? There are plenty of games that even my Titan-Xp at 2000+ MHz cannot keep at 165 FPS with 2560x1440. Including one of the most popular games; PUBG. VRR is extremely important in that game and others.
Now this fallacy is called moving the goalposts. Learned it last week when someone ( falsely) accused me of using it. The goalpost is 60fps, which kalston claims can not be done with a 1080ti.
Now debunking the myth , game by game:
Mass Effect Andromeda
min 72, average 86
Assassin's Creed Origins
min 59.7 average 78.3
Rise of the Tomb Raider
4k: 52 min, 59 average; 34x14: 59 min and 73 avrg. This one was benched at geothermal valley
GTA V. this game was reviewed a lot, but most reviews did not specify what settings are on shadows. Samples: A 72, 100; B 144 avrg; C 100 avrg; D 80+ avrg
Black Desert Online . No benchs, lowest i watched was 52- may dip lower than that- , but the game is know to be CPU limited for quite a long time.
Those are just quick benchmarks. I play my games thoroughly. From one location to another in the game there can be huge differences in framerate. For example in GTA V if you leave the city and go the countryside, your fps will tank with grass on ultra, even with a 1080 ti. Even more so if you use MSAA.
And very often they use "presets" (and say so in your links) which do not actually max all settings (in most games there are a few settings that are not completely maxed out when just enabling the "ultra" preset).
It's also clearly indicated that they used the canned benchmark on AC Origins btw... on which I get over 80fps average on 1440p with manually maxed settings. Try that again while running over the rooftops of Alexandria.
Anyway you claimed "one does not need *sync for 2560x1440. 1080ti is more than enough at this low resolution. so at 25x14 the only relevant spec is ULMB, which this monitor lacks." which is complete crap and that's it. I'm fine with people preferring ULMB over VRR but you can't make a claim like that.
And very often they use "presets" (and say so in your links) which do not actually max all settings (in most games there are a few settings that are not completely maxed out when just enabling the "ultra" preset).
It's also clearly indicated that they used the canned benchmark on AC Origins btw... on which I get over 80fps average on 1440p with manually maxed settings. Try that again while running over the rooftops of Alexandria.
Anyway you claimed "one does not need *sync for 2560x1440. 1080ti is more than enough at this low resolution. so at 25x14 the only relevant spec is ULMB, which this monitor lacks." which is complete crap and that's it. I'm fine with people preferring ULMB over VRR but you can't make a claim like that.
Last edited:
You were talking about 60 fps but why should goalpost be 60 fps when we are looking for at least 144 Hz monitor? Anything below 144 and you benefit g-sync.
Last edited:
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,479
60fps is doable on a 1080 ti but for a good ULMB experience I'd typically want to stick closer to an avg of 120fps which cannot really be done due to cpu limitations or it would involve dropping the settings so low it kinda defeats the purpose which makes gsync still relevant at this resolution.
I agree with you:
in games like Black Desert Online you will not have ULMB with any hardware in existence.
But then again, you can play BDO with Vsync anyway. it is not like a frame of lag will hurt your gaming experience on that kind of game.
On the games that are not CPU limited, but one can not reach 120fps consistently, it is a choice:
you can use higher settings, gsync, and deal with lower refresh rates and motion blur.
or you can use lower settings, Vsync, 120hz and no motion blur.
Choosing which alternative has clearer images and more immersive experience is almost but not quite a personal matter. any shadow quality you gain is lost by the blur and lower refresh rates...
any game that is worth to be played at high refresh rates without motion blur should be played at high refresh rates without motion blur.
60 FPS goalpost? Why on Earth would I be talking about 60 FPS 2560x1440 in a 2560x1440 165 Hz monitor thread.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
So you're saying when you can't use ULMB you should just use 60hz v-sync? Wow! You realize how terrible the experience would be in Black Desert, for example, with any hardware in existence? A constant stuttery mess except when you're running around in the desert holding those impressive 60fps of course. I guess you don't care about stuttering and input lag but VRR is popular because many people do. Have you ever experienced VRR yourself? You keep linking blurbusters but I'm beginning to doubt you understand what you're reading and I'm also not convinced you have first hand experience with it.
But like I said, I have no problem with you preferring ULMB with slightly lower settings over g-sync with higher settings. That's your choice. But even with the best hardware ULMB is not achievable on many recent games and having to use v-sync instead of VRR is a compromise many of us are not willing to make (or v-sync off, for that matter).
Last edited:
Actually the best pursuit camera images available are from VA models. they were not afraid of response times at all, marketing a 165hz VA. Blurry as hell would be my guess.
This was the goalpost that i was debunking and i stand behind my claim: 1080ti is plenty for 25x14, having to choose between gsync or ULMB at this resolution and owing a 1080ti, there many more situations where ULMB is usable and few, if any, situations where gsync is better because the 1080ti can not keep 60fps.
Of all the games argued over, i concede that on BDO, which is CPU limited, *sync is better, because ULMB is impossible and the game can really dip below 60fps on the best hardware available today.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Remember that your goalpost is also today; now for many, that's not a big deal, just upgrade, right?
But at the same time most of us go through a period of, 'it still works, why fix it?' and just drop settings and/or live with lower framerates when playing games further into a GPUs life. Also, G-Sync is (and FreeSync2 should be) useful at any framerate >25: it literally means no tearing, no judder, and no extra input lag. I want it on all of the time.
But at the same time most of us go through a period of, 'it still works, why fix it?' and just drop settings and/or live with lower framerates when playing games further into a GPUs life. Also, G-Sync is (and FreeSync2 should be) useful at any framerate >25: it literally means no tearing, no judder, and no extra input lag. I want it on all of the time.
I brought up 60fps only because that is well below the minimum required framerate for ULMB to be a good experience, which happens to be 85fps (lowest ULMB mode I've seen on those gaming monitors is 85hz and I'd strongly recommend to aim for 120fps+ for a really great experience). How the hell can you claim there are "many more situations where ULMB is usable" when you just proved that to be false with a small selection of games? And by the way BDO is a MMO, so of course it has CPU bottlenecks. However is the most GPU demanding MMO on the market today, even in 1080p it makes my 1080ti run at 100% TDP 100% of the time. And between 1080p and 1440p my framerate gets cut in half. From 1440p to 4k, you can cut it in half again. Does that really sound like a CPU bottleneck to you? Most people claiming it has a heavy CPU bottleneck have an AMD CPU or low clocked Intel one. Of course there are situations where the CPU is probably the main problem regardless (like cities and mass pvp although they are still extremely demanding on the GPU unlike something like WoW where it's truly all about the CPU).
And anyway, 5ghz CPUs don't magically solve the CPU bottlenecks of all games. And if those happen to be good games you care about well... you can kiss ULMB goodbye.
There are plenty more games where you simply cannot always count on a steady 60fps+ framerate at 1440p with the best hardware anyway (let alone 85...). Sometimes even lowering settings won't cut it (well 60 should be fine with minor concessions but 85 is tough). You seem to have a very limited gaming experience, especially of recent and demanding titles.
Last edited:
This person doesn't understand what opinions are. It is pointless. I only hope for the sake of others that they are not in a managerial position.
He literally just said he stands behind his claim that VRR is worthless for 2560x1440. He's not saying he doesn't prefer it, he wants the world to accept it as fact. Welcome to the internet.
And it doesn't even make sense:
"there many more situations where ULMB is usable and few, if any, situations where gsync is better because the 1080ti can not keep 60fps."
The 1080 Ti cannot keep 60fps, therefore 144hz ULMB is more usable than G Sync? That's actually opposite of reality. If the 1080 Ti cannot keep 60fps, then ULMB cannot be used, and G Sync can benefit as your framerate varies.
He's ironically supporting his own counter claims, and cannot even realize it. But don't worry, all of us using VRR on QHD panels are fools, and hopefully he keeps tying to show us the objective truth: that "one does not need *sync for 2560x1440".
He literally just said he stands behind his claim that VRR is worthless for 2560x1440. He's not saying he doesn't prefer it, he wants the world to accept it as fact. Welcome to the internet.
And it doesn't even make sense:
"there many more situations where ULMB is usable and few, if any, situations where gsync is better because the 1080ti can not keep 60fps."
The 1080 Ti cannot keep 60fps, therefore 144hz ULMB is more usable than G Sync? That's actually opposite of reality. If the 1080 Ti cannot keep 60fps, then ULMB cannot be used, and G Sync can benefit as your framerate varies.
He's ironically supporting his own counter claims, and cannot even realize it. But don't worry, all of us using VRR on QHD panels are fools, and hopefully he keeps tying to show us the objective truth: that "one does not need *sync for 2560x1440".
Last edited:
ever heard of Vsync?
even tried to read the links i posted about how it is possible to have tear-free ULMB and minimize lag while doing it?
i have conceded that BDO does not run well on any hardware. i do believe it is CPU bound because the numbers are pretty similar between 1070 and 1080ti videos ( haven't found any in-depth performance review- this may be a fine material for a [H] article). Actually, most BDO performance threads are from users who upgraded their graphics and observed ZERO benefit.
too bad you can not concede that there are many more situations where a 1080ti can run tearless+blurless than situations where ULMB is impossible with a 1080ti at 25x14.
So far of all the games listed, only in BDO i acknowledge that.
even tried to read the links i posted about how it is possible to have tear-free ULMB and minimize lag while doing it?
i have conceded that BDO does not run well on any hardware. i do believe it is CPU bound because the numbers are pretty similar between 1070 and 1080ti videos ( haven't found any in-depth performance review- this may be a fine material for a [H] article). Actually, most BDO performance threads are from users who upgraded their graphics and observed ZERO benefit.
too bad you can not concede that there are many more situations where a 1080ti can run tearless+blurless than situations where ULMB is impossible with a 1080ti at 25x14.
So far of all the games listed, only in BDO i acknowledge that.