Looking for a budget display for competitive gaming.. 1080p , 24 - 27 inch, 144 - 240hz, 1 ms response. I only have two questions: is it worth buying into g-sync for high performance and low quality also is a TN display sufficient or would IPS be worth the extra cash?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Competitive Gaming Displays?
- Thread starter bubzee
- Start date
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,477
Well the two questions are pretty subjective since some may want the variable overdrive that gsync offers while others are fine without it, and some may be ok with a TN panel while others will not be. I've personally been using the Asus XG248Q 240Hz panel for Apex Legends and it's been great. It's on the nvidia list of official gsync compatible monitors and I can vouch for that. Gsync has been working perfectly on it ever since the Jan driver update enabled it for this monitor. I don't care for edge lit IPS panels because they look just as garbage as an TN panel for me anyways since I own an OLED TV and the Acer X27 FALD monitor. I got the Asus purely for it's 240Hz performance and nothing more and have been pretty satisfied with it.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,477
You would need displayport in order to use 240Hz. I would say it's worth it over the VG248QE since it's not a super expensive upgrade. The cheapest I've seen a 240Hz go for was $230, some Acer model.
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,752
Gsync is a must have for competitive gaming imo.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,302
https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/3/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"
Karker
so functionally and properly setup, gsync and quite possibly gsync-compatible* should have lower input lag than even an uncapped frame rate?
if this is the case, why arent competitive gamers doing this?
jorimt
Most competitive gamers play with V-SYNC OFF and uncapped framerates above the refresh rate, the scenario of which typically can still have less input lag than properly configured G-SYNC, especially at lower refresh rates:
https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/9/
What you may instead be referring to is the lag that is prevented by sustaining the FPS at/above a set FPS limit at all times, which effectively keeps the pre-rendered frames queue at “0.” This reduction should apply regardless of syncing method (or lack thereof) in use, and, in the case of standalone V-SYNC OFF, whether the FPS and FPS limit is above or below the refresh rate.
"
----------------------------------------------------------------
I think there is a big difference between playing "competitively" as a vocabulary word , aggressively trying to win and gain ranking and/or rewards while still prioritizing any kind of aesthetic graphics fidelity on moderately to very demanding graphics games
and playing in actual competition class where frame rate and input lag are usually prioritized over everything so your frame rate minimums have to be very very high.
G-sync is generally used to up your graphics settings so your frame rate , your actual frame rate RANGE, can straddle lower values without stutters and stops, "hiccups" on frame rate potholes, etc. So it's maintaining smoothness while you get better graphics aesthetics than your gpu can really handle optimally.
On the high end of a frame rate graph, g-sync can prevent tearing but it's recommended for regular gaming that you cap your frame rate below the max refresh rate of your monitor anyway to avoid reverting back to v-sync and input lag or tearing with nothing on. In competitive gaming, the graphics settings are often so low, or the games so un-demanding themselves, that you can just stay above the max hz of the monitor if possible , uncapped and with no VRR.
----
Also remember that higher Hz for the most part doesn't mean anything unless you are filling those Hz with newer frames of game action. Playing 80fps on a 4k 240hz display is probably a 50fps - 80fps - 110fps range graph dynmaically so 50hz - 80hz - 110hz smoothly with VRR/g-sync. In that case 165hz , 240hz etc are pretty meaningless unless you are playing simple to render games, games from 2012 like CSGO, or very low settings, or lower resolutions etc. with massive frame rates. Historically for legit professional competition - frame rate minimums are running above the max Hz of the monitor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"
Karker
so functionally and properly setup, gsync and quite possibly gsync-compatible* should have lower input lag than even an uncapped frame rate?
if this is the case, why arent competitive gamers doing this?
jorimt
Most competitive gamers play with V-SYNC OFF and uncapped framerates above the refresh rate, the scenario of which typically can still have less input lag than properly configured G-SYNC, especially at lower refresh rates:
https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/9/
What you may instead be referring to is the lag that is prevented by sustaining the FPS at/above a set FPS limit at all times, which effectively keeps the pre-rendered frames queue at “0.” This reduction should apply regardless of syncing method (or lack thereof) in use, and, in the case of standalone V-SYNC OFF, whether the FPS and FPS limit is above or below the refresh rate.
"
----------------------------------------------------------------
I think there is a big difference between playing "competitively" as a vocabulary word , aggressively trying to win and gain ranking and/or rewards while still prioritizing any kind of aesthetic graphics fidelity on moderately to very demanding graphics games
and playing in actual competition class where frame rate and input lag are usually prioritized over everything so your frame rate minimums have to be very very high.
G-sync is generally used to up your graphics settings so your frame rate , your actual frame rate RANGE, can straddle lower values without stutters and stops, "hiccups" on frame rate potholes, etc. So it's maintaining smoothness while you get better graphics aesthetics than your gpu can really handle optimally.
On the high end of a frame rate graph, g-sync can prevent tearing but it's recommended for regular gaming that you cap your frame rate below the max refresh rate of your monitor anyway to avoid reverting back to v-sync and input lag or tearing with nothing on. In competitive gaming, the graphics settings are often so low, or the games so un-demanding themselves, that you can just stay above the max hz of the monitor if possible , uncapped and with no VRR.
----
Also remember that higher Hz for the most part doesn't mean anything unless you are filling those Hz with newer frames of game action. Playing 80fps on a 4k 240hz display is probably a 50fps - 80fps - 110fps range graph dynmaically so 50hz - 80hz - 110hz smoothly with VRR/g-sync. In that case 165hz , 240hz etc are pretty meaningless unless you are playing simple to render games, games from 2012 like CSGO, or very low settings, or lower resolutions etc. with massive frame rates. Historically for legit professional competition - frame rate minimums are running above the max Hz of the monitor.
Last edited:
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,752
Gsync is definitely better if your framerate isn't reaching your maximum refresh rate.
If your framerate is exceeding your monitor's refresh rate it's more complicated.
If you have an uncapped framerate any frames exceeding the refresh rate will have tears, presenting conflicting data. You only get reduced delay on part of the screen. It makes tracking targets harder especially when the scanline is intersecting a player's body.
If the game's frame pacing is good any extra frames you would get without a cap would essentially be junk frames. They're actually dentrimental instead of useful.
If a game's frame pacing is bad a cap could possibly add some lag. Then you have to see if it's enough to counter balance the tears.
Gsync capped framerate is the best imo.
Gsync + vsync off with no cap is the best otherwise.
If your framerate is exceeding your monitor's refresh rate it's more complicated.
If you have an uncapped framerate any frames exceeding the refresh rate will have tears, presenting conflicting data. You only get reduced delay on part of the screen. It makes tracking targets harder especially when the scanline is intersecting a player's body.
If the game's frame pacing is good any extra frames you would get without a cap would essentially be junk frames. They're actually dentrimental instead of useful.
If a game's frame pacing is bad a cap could possibly add some lag. Then you have to see if it's enough to counter balance the tears.
Gsync capped framerate is the best imo.
Gsync + vsync off with no cap is the best otherwise.
Make sure it's an 8-bit TN panel and you should be fine. Modern TN panels are nothing like the crap you find on cheap laptops or cheap office monitors. They only do sRGB color space but that is fine because that is what all games use anyway. Main fault of TNs is viewing angles but in my experience on the nicer displays this isn't a real issue anymore, it hasn't bothered me for all the years I've used an ASUS PG278Q. TN panels will give you the lowest response times which is nice for competitive gaming.
To save money you could get a Freesync display that works well with Nvidia cards.
To save money you could get a Freesync display that works well with Nvidia cards.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,302
If you are running frame rates far exceeding the max hz of your monitor you could probably just cap it 5 fps below the max hz of the monitor and run that frame rate solid without tearing even with g-sync off since the frame rate theoretically would never change. I've never tried that personally though.
Imagine a world where your gpu outpaced all of your games by that much .. hah!
EDIT.. Dug up some better info from blurbusters.com which was in regard to running lightboost but applies here. Not as cut and dry as I had proposed.
"
If you have a sufficiently powerful GPU, it is best to run at a frame rate massively exceeding your refresh rate. This can reduce the tearing effect significantly.Otherwise, there may be more visible tearing if you run at a frame rate too close to your refresh rate, during VSYNC OFF operation. Also, there can also be harmonic effects (beat-frequency stutters) between frame rate and refresh rate. For example, 119fps @ 120Hz can cause 1 stutter per second.
Therefore, during VSYNC OFF, it is usually best to let the frame rate run far in excess of the refresh rate. This can produce smoother motion (fewer harmonic stutter effects) and less visible tearing. Alternatively, use Adaptive VSYNC as a compromise."
Last edited:
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,302
I had that monitor for several years and the color indeed was very good. There is some "shadow" to the corners or as a shadow gradient of the content from the top depending how high it is on your desk and at what angle - especially on solid fields of bright color, but that also happens with VA shift on some monitors in the corners or on the L/R sides depending on view distance. The size of the monitor and the viewing distance are big factors. I don't think a TN would do well much larger than 27" at regular desk distances. For "competitive" gaming people usually want smaller so they can see more of the screen at once anyway. The only other critique I had of the PG278Q is that I was coming from a glossy screen which I prefer, so I didn't like that it had AG coating. It was the first legitimately manufactured high hz 1440p gaming display and had g-sync so other options with those specs were non-existent.
I agree with everything you said. The AG coating on mine is actually an improvement over the Dell 3008WFP I had before it. Now years later the PG278Q is still serving me very well, only planning to upgrade to the 4K 43" 120 Hz ASUS XG438Q if they manage to get it to market.
Criticalhitkoala
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,987
TBH I have a very decent Gsync 165 hz display, and also a 144hz freesync display, and I think the difference in the gsync has reached a more placebo effect for me. Not that it doesn't make a difference...it's just my eyes are kinda shitty now compared to how they used to be. So my vote is if you are young, and you have a very nice video card then get gsync. But if the $150 premium means you can get better video card...do that first and then get Gsync.