Do AdobeRGB, FreeSync and UHD real matter?

sich

n00b
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
20
Hi, guys. I have very strange question, i know. Please help me to distinguish between technology and marketing. Now i use Wide Gamut display with gb-r led in my notebook (DELL XPS l502x). I want to buy a new monitor, but i can't understand, what parameters are important. 4k resolution is very cool, but now we haven't hi-res content, except some games. Besides, uhd makes more load to hardware. FreeSync is cool, but does it matter for non professional gamer in 60Hz monitor? Does wide gamut make any sense for non-photographer? I read, that often adobergb makes some problems with oversaturation (i can't see it in my notebook display), but doesn't provide any advantages for typical pc user. Which technology is more important?

Please help me in all this. If you select a new monitor today, would you choose a device that supports adobe rgb and 2560x1440 resolution or freesync and uhd resolution, for example?

Sorry for my english.
 
AdobeRGB is useless unless you actually need it for your purposes. Which you don't if you don't know about it.

FreeSync and variable sync technologies in general are useful for situations where your frame rate is not guaranteed to match your display's refresh rate e.g. gaming.

UHD resolution is good for a number of things - superior text quality with OS scaling, increased 'desktop' space at 1:1 scaling, and better graphics when rendering at native resolution.

For gaming, your priority should be Freesync/G-Sync.

For desktop usage you may find a physically larger and higher resolution display more useful.

I've heard of displays from Korean manufacturers such as the Wasabi Mango with UHD and Freesync as well as large-format sizing which may be worth looking into if you want both of the above in one panel.
 
Wide color gamuts are currently unnecessary unless you do photography/video editing. In most cases they will do more harm than good because they will oversaturate anything designed to be viewed in sRGB. (this is partly Microsoft's fault, as color management in Windows is poorly handled)

Variable Refresh Rate technologies are essential if you play new games in my opinion. FreeSync/Adaptive-Sync for AMD, G-Sync for NVIDIA.
On a standard fixed refresh-rate display, if your framerate is not equal to the refresh rate, the game is going to be stuttering.
If you have V-Sync on you will also have input lag, or if you have V-Sync off you will have screen tearing.
VRR fixes all three of those. You won't get judder in games when your framerate fluctuates, there's no input lag, and there's no screen tearing.

UHD is not ideal on most displays right now. Unless you're buying something around 46" in size (the ideal) then you either have everything appearing quite small on the display, or you have to use display scaling.
1440p at 27" on the other-hand is designed to be viewed without any scaling, and is a reasonable monitor size. (some people don't want a 46" 'monitor' )
You'll also get much better performance in games at 1440p. UHD is 2.25x as many pixels so it's very demanding. Even a GTX 1080 will struggle at UHD resolutions in many games.
 
AdobeRGB and sRGB are color spaces. Without a way profile your monitor (test if the colors are really accurate) it is of little importance. Managing colorspace was really intended for the print industry as it moved to completely digital workflow. There was a need to make sure that if you edited a photo on a PC/Mac that when you printed it in Vogue, Elle or National Geographic that the printed image looked the same as the on on the PC. For most casual users it is of little importance and you can just "profile" it manually using visual cues and built in utilities. It won't be print accurate but it will be pleasing to your eye.

Everyone else already mentioned what variable sync rates do, just one more note; Adaptive-Sync (based on work done with FreeSync) is part of the current and future VESA standards and does not require a licensing fee or additional hardware to implement in a monitor. G-Sync is a proprietary technology created by nVidia and requires both licensing and extra hardware to implement, hence the reason why similar monitors with G-Sync cost more. I will not debate the merits of one over the other, just to say for the casual consumer they at a pretty basic level do exactly the same thing.

UHD has it's uses. I went from a multi-monitor Dell 240x setup to a single 43" and it was one of the best upgrades I have done this year. I don't game at 4K but having all that desktop space means I can truly have multiple windows open without overlapping and my productivity has increased. As a secondary benefit I am using less power with a single vs multi-monitor and I got rid of two very wide bezel sections in the middle of my screen. Most monitors even UHD ones will play any game you want at 1080p or 1440p.
 
Adobe-RGB- if you need to ask, you don't need it.
Free-Sync- If your graphics card can not deliver 60fps 24x7 at the display's resolution, you need it, or you need to lower the in-game quality settings.:LOL:
UHD: as long as you are willing to go to at least 34"for 3440x1440, 2560x1440 is the highest resolution you can use confortably at smaller monitors. At 40" 4k is amazing, but be ready for neck pain.
 
AdobeRGB is useless unless you actually need it for your purposes. Which you don't if you don't know about it.
Does it mean that if i choose between two monitors (sRGB and AdobeRGB) with similar price, i must pick sRGB variant? And does it mean, that wide gamut doesn't improve user expirience of typical customer?
For desktop usage you may find a physically larger and higher resolution display more useful.
As i can see, Windows has some problems with high resolution and old software. So I'm not sure of optimal purchase 4k/27' monitor instead of 2k/27'.

Wide color gamuts are currently unnecessary unless you do photography/video editing. In most cases they will do more harm than good because they will oversaturate anything designed to be viewed in sRGB. (this is partly Microsoft's fault, as color management in Windows is poorly handled)
How about other OSs? How about sRGB emulation mode in such monitors (for sRGB-designed graphics)? It provides more pretty picture in comparison with native sRGB monitors or not?

zone74,
WheresWaldo,
geok1ng,
So, i don't need AdobeRGB, 4k (for 24'-27'), but then what i really need?..I thought it was the basic parameters by which I can choose the device.
 
One of the problems with your questions, is there is no frame of reference. You have not told us what you actually do with your PC. So we are guessing here.

Adobe-RGB isn't much of a standard anymore, most monitors are already sRGB. The bulk of the sRGB monitors are around 90% of the sRGB gamut. There are wide-gamut sRGB monitors but for casual use, even gaming it is usually unnecessary to add that expense.

Unless you eyesight is very good trying to use 4K desktop resolution in anything smaller than 40-49" monitors will require display scaling. Gaming in 4k is still not a single GPU reality, so you need to ask yourself, Can I live with those issues. 1440p at screen sizes in the 27-32" range is a very good as it usually does not require Windows to do any display scaling.
 
Does it mean that if i choose between two monitors (sRGB and AdobeRGB) with similar price, i must pick sRGB variant? And does it mean, that wide gamut doesn't improve user expirience of typical customer?

As i can see, Windows has some problems with high resolution and old software. So I'm not sure of optimal purchase 4k/27' monitor instead of 2k/27'.


How about other OSs? How about sRGB emulation mode in such monitors (for sRGB-designed graphics)? It provides more pretty picture in comparison with native sRGB monitors or not?

zone74,
WheresWaldo,
geok1ng,
So, i don't need AdobeRGB, 4k (for 24'-27'), but then what i really need?..I thought it was the basic parameters by which I can choose the device.

sRGB is the standard for computer graphics and basically everything produced for consumer viewing. Wide gamut will get you nothing but inaccurate colors (i.e. colors not displayed as intended) in regular use cases. Pretty or not, they will be completely disconnected from reality (and that's not pretty IMO).

2560x1440 is a safe resolution and pixel density at 27".

For FreeSync or G-Sync, you know that you require a supported GPU, right? If you intend to use the monitor with your notebook, it probably won't work.
 
Variable refresh is essential for all gaming--not just new games.

Variable refresh is arguably more useful for old games than it is for new games.
 

For FreeSync or G-Sync, you know that you require a supported GPU, right? If you intend to use the monitor with your notebook, it probably won't work.

I understand.
sRGB is the standard for computer graphics and basically everything produced for consumer viewing. Wide gamut will get you nothing but inaccurate colors (i.e. colors not displayed as intended) in regular use cases. Pretty or not, they will be completely disconnected from reality (and that's not pretty IMO).
Thank you. I thought about buying Benq SW2700PT with wide gamut, but now i undestood that it can be a bad idea.
One of the problems with your questions, is there is no frame of reference. You have not told us what you actually do with your PC. So we are guessing here.
Oh, okay. Now i use Wide Gamut display with gb-r led in my notebook (DELL XPS l502x), 15', 1080p, TN-Film, glossy. I use 125% windows scale factor. Some info about my monitor: Review Dell XPS 15 Notebook (i5-2410M & GT 540M)
My primary use cases are web surfing, text formatting and programming for a long time. Sometimes i can watch movies or play games (rare).
 
Back
Top