![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Is there a 21:9 G-Sync Monitor?
- Thread starter Trackr
- Start date
Yes.
Three off the top of my head:
Acer Predator z35 - 2560 x 1080, supposedly overclockable to 200hz, VA, curved - Due to VA being very slow at some transitions, smears like a mofo, but GREAT contrast
Acer Predator x34 - 3440x1440, overclockable to 100hz, IPS, curved - ips glow, possible backlight bleed...
Asus pg348q - see above, same panel as the x34 with different plastic and UI
Personally, I'd flip a coin between the x34 and pg348q. The z35's low resolution kills it IMO
Three off the top of my head:
Acer Predator z35 - 2560 x 1080, supposedly overclockable to 200hz, VA, curved - Due to VA being very slow at some transitions, smears like a mofo, but GREAT contrast
Acer Predator x34 - 3440x1440, overclockable to 100hz, IPS, curved - ips glow, possible backlight bleed...
Asus pg348q - see above, same panel as the x34 with different plastic and UI
Personally, I'd flip a coin between the x34 and pg348q. The z35's low resolution kills it IMO
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,150
There are no 21:9 144 Hz panels, yet. G-Sync uses some of the bandwidth of DisplayPort, and up until now the bandwidth used in DisplayPort 1.2 has been pretty much saturated at 3440x1440 100 Hz. Probably the reason the Z35 is only 2560x1080.
ziocomposite
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 192
You're definitely going to have to wait for DP 1.3^4 to get that type of Monitor. They're coming though I'd say sometime mid 2017. LG, Samsung, AOC seem to be on board for it. Scroll down the link to view the other options coming out
LCD and TFT Monitor News
Really happy with my current Acer X34. I only run a Single 980 TI so most AAA games have mixed settings to stay between 50-80 fps. It's when Gsync really shines though with that fluidity
Will upgrade when OLED Ultrawide/HDR monitors come out at a reasonable price. So not for a while lol =P
LCD and TFT Monitor News
Really happy with my current Acer X34. I only run a Single 980 TI so most AAA games have mixed settings to stay between 50-80 fps. It's when Gsync really shines though with that fluidity
Will upgrade when OLED Ultrawide/HDR monitors come out at a reasonable price. So not for a while lol =P
Well, there are DP 1.3/1.4 TCon's coming hopefully before 2018. BUT, I haven't heard anything about an upgraded DP 1.3/1.4 G-Sync Tcon. So these new displays may be simply fixed refresh. NVIDIA would need to design a completely new G-Sync chip based around DP 1.3/1.4 Will they? Hopefully, as G_Sync is a game-changer.
Reading current reviews on Newegg it sounds like ACER has been improving their QC and it's helping reduce the backlight bleed issue. It's not ever going to be gone with these panels, but it's getting better.
I think I will be going with an Acer myself pretty soon. I wouldn't quibble with the difference between 100hz and 144hz.
When you stepped up to 144hz, what were you coming from?
I just think it seems like a huge deal because you might have been jumping from 60 or 75 hz, over double is going to be significant. But with all the other changes in the 21:9 format, and the overall size and curved display, dropping from 144 to 100hz might just not feel so important for what you gain.
But in all honesty, I've never gamed past 75hz so I can't even say for sure.
I think I will be going with an Acer myself pretty soon. I wouldn't quibble with the difference between 100hz and 144hz.
When you stepped up to 144hz, what were you coming from?
I just think it seems like a huge deal because you might have been jumping from 60 or 75 hz, over double is going to be significant. But with all the other changes in the 21:9 format, and the overall size and curved display, dropping from 144 to 100hz might just not feel so important for what you gain.
But in all honesty, I've never gamed past 75hz so I can't even say for sure.
jpouza
n00b
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
- Messages
- 25
I had two 144Hz panels, my first game panel was a Philips 272G5 Gsync 1080p, awesome fluidity but a TN panel, my second panel was a Dell S2716DG 144Hz 1440p 16:9, also a great panel, but another TN trash with washed colors, so I decided to go with the X34, 100Hz are enough to me in gaming, I'm not a professional gamer and 21:9 aspect ratio w/ Curved IPS Gsync is a must have... 144Hz, 165Hz, to keep up with high resolutions and those high refresh rates you will suffer, even for 2x big Pascal cards in SLI, 165fps for example you'll get easily...in Overwatch only , I prefer to stay at 100fps w/ maxxed out details, filters etc
, I prefer to stay at 100fps w/ maxxed out details, filters etcIm an X34 user. Its a great screen for gaming (after all, this is what its made for) and web browsing. I dont watch movies on my PC so I cant really comment on that aspect.
I "wish" it were 144hz but keep in mind you already need serious graphics hardware to get 100 fps at 3440 x 1440 in AAA games (Im running 2 x Titan X Pascals in SLI and even that doesn't guarantee 100 fps in some titles). So getting 144 in some titles will be tough with today's current graphics cards (if 144hz 3440 x 1440 was currently available).
The future is bright though. An x34 now is a great gaming display and keep the original box in good shape and you can sell it on eBay for a decent price when 144hz 3440 x 1440's show up next year.
I "wish" it were 144hz but keep in mind you already need serious graphics hardware to get 100 fps at 3440 x 1440 in AAA games (Im running 2 x Titan X Pascals in SLI and even that doesn't guarantee 100 fps in some titles). So getting 144 in some titles will be tough with today's current graphics cards (if 144hz 3440 x 1440 was currently available).
The future is bright though. An x34 now is a great gaming display and keep the original box in good shape and you can sell it on eBay for a decent price when 144hz 3440 x 1440's show up next year.
spine
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,722
Just thought I'd chime on the Z35, having just got one and taken for a spin last night...
The contrast ratio on it is over-rated imho. I guess standards have must've slipped (further!?) over the years, but the blacks are most definitely not the "inky black blacks that blend into the bezel" kinda thing normally associated with AMVA. My old Sony 40" 1080p HDTV (Sony/Samsung old skool PLS panel) has better blacks and contrast imho. I was hoping the Z35 would be upgrade here, but it's actually worse.
Regarding the black/grey smearing, it was barely noticable, and I wouldn't describe it as "smearing" per se; it's more like an artifact you sorta notice if look for it, but I was mostly playing Overwatch to test, and that's quite a bright game, so...
It cost me £635, and I'm keeping it, but I wouldn't recommend it.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,312
In my experience, like skypine hinted at .. 100fps-hz average is required to appreciably realize the benefits of a high hz monitor which would typically ride a fps-hz graph "vibrating" dynamically in a range from around 70fps to 140fps with variable hz (g-sync). The arbitrary ulta ceiling cutoff set by devs any generation isn't going to be standing pat it's only going to go higher with the newer gpus.
For me personally, as long as I can get 100fps-hz average at very high settings, or better yet "very high+" (custom) settings, I am very happy with the balance between still graphics fidelity and fx vs motion clarity (blur reduction), smoothness and motion definition, pathing (and even increased animation cycle definition).
Having more than 100hz as a ceiling is still a benefit because at 100fps-hz average, your frame rate is varying all over the place like a noisy sound wave graph and going from 70 to 138 and in some games spiking into the 160's unless you artificially cap it. Some people cap their frame rate because g-sync can apparently add some input lag if you go over the maximum refresh of your monitor. There are also simpler to render games like TF2 and TF2 clones as well as a lot of isometric games that would get very high frame rates, and perhaps a few well optimized games on high end gpus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my next desk gaming monitor, I am looking forward to reviews of the 27" 16:9 2560x1440 and 35" 21:9 3440 x 1440 200hz VA panels due out end 2016/Q1 2017. I will likely get one of those.
These should carry me for what I guess will be 3 - 5 yrs (probably the longer end for me) until I feel oled and HDR has matured enough and is available in more tv and monitor models (as well as having more avail content), and becomes merely expensive rather than what I consider cost prohibitive.
VA screens have much greater black depth and detail in blacks than IPS and TN. A calibrated IPS or TN screen usually has a contrast ratio of 750:1 to 900:1 (some list 1000:1). This is also compromised by your room lighting and any ambient lighting level/location shifts to your eyes post calibration however. A non-zone lit, non-dynamic VA monitor is usually around 4800:1 contrast ratio (list 5000:1). The 2560 x 1080 VA samsungs were 3000:1 and the eizo fg2421 was around 4860:1 . The 1080high samsungs also were only tight on motion clarity to 120fps-hz and started to lose it at higher, but I am fine with that sweet spot personally if I can get 5x or more contrast ratio. We will have to see what the first batch of 1440 high VA modern gaming monitors will be able to do in those facets.
======================================================
post by igluk
For me personally, as long as I can get 100fps-hz average at very high settings, or better yet "very high+" (custom) settings, I am very happy with the balance between still graphics fidelity and fx vs motion clarity (blur reduction), smoothness and motion definition, pathing (and even increased animation cycle definition).
Having more than 100hz as a ceiling is still a benefit because at 100fps-hz average, your frame rate is varying all over the place like a noisy sound wave graph and going from 70 to 138 and in some games spiking into the 160's unless you artificially cap it. Some people cap their frame rate because g-sync can apparently add some input lag if you go over the maximum refresh of your monitor. There are also simpler to render games like TF2 and TF2 clones as well as a lot of isometric games that would get very high frame rates, and perhaps a few well optimized games on high end gpus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my next desk gaming monitor, I am looking forward to reviews of the 27" 16:9 2560x1440 and 35" 21:9 3440 x 1440 200hz VA panels due out end 2016/Q1 2017. I will likely get one of those.
These should carry me for what I guess will be 3 - 5 yrs (probably the longer end for me) until I feel oled and HDR has matured enough and is available in more tv and monitor models (as well as having more avail content), and becomes merely expensive rather than what I consider cost prohibitive.
VA screens have much greater black depth and detail in blacks than IPS and TN. A calibrated IPS or TN screen usually has a contrast ratio of 750:1 to 900:1 (some list 1000:1). This is also compromised by your room lighting and any ambient lighting level/location shifts to your eyes post calibration however. A non-zone lit, non-dynamic VA monitor is usually around 4800:1 contrast ratio (list 5000:1). The 2560 x 1080 VA samsungs were 3000:1 and the eizo fg2421 was around 4860:1 . The 1080high samsungs also were only tight on motion clarity to 120fps-hz and started to lose it at higher, but I am fine with that sweet spot personally if I can get 5x or more contrast ratio. We will have to see what the first batch of 1440 high VA modern gaming monitors will be able to do in those facets.
======================================================
post by igluk
Last edited:
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,150
The thing you have to remember with VA panels are their pixel response time. A best-case scenario would be 8ms, making anything above 120 Hz useless as the smearing of color from previous frames would make any benefit in motion clarity that you would gain from a higher refresh rate null. In more realistic terms one should expect a response time of 10-11ms to avoid overshoot, making the highest effective refresh rates you would want to use with a VA panel around 90-100 Hz.
To get away from the compromises of faster panel types we really need to wait for OLED to mature further.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,312
I did say that in my reply pretty much. Though I didn't reference it I was going by tftcentral's reviews.
Considering 100fps-hz (average) is difficult enough to achieve, 120hz sounds like a doable sweet spot or clarity ceiling of sorts. With the motion clarity sinking sub 100fps-hz and over 120fps-hz, your band of clarity is still better on the over 100fps part of the graph much of the time. You can also cap your frame rate at 120fps if necessary. It's a minor trade-off losing it above 120 but gaining 3x to 5x the contrast ratio vs a TN or IPS (860:1 or 940:1 optimal conditions vs 3000:1, 4850:1 ? will have to see the numbers on the new 1440 VA panels).
I agree about oled but realistically I won't be buying a oled tv or gaming monitor until the smoke clears and they are more common in 3 - 5 years. I'm very happy with my high contrast 4k VA tv and can wait 3 - 5 yrs for an expensive yet not $10000+ 70" oled with hdr. I can wait on oled monitors until variable hz, high hz gaming ones are more common and any wrinkles worked out. A suitable high rez VA gaming monitor will hold me over until then, assuming the reviews are good.
Considering 100fps-hz (average) is difficult enough to achieve, 120hz sounds like a doable sweet spot or clarity ceiling of sorts. With the motion clarity sinking sub 100fps-hz and over 120fps-hz, your band of clarity is still better on the over 100fps part of the graph much of the time. You can also cap your frame rate at 120fps if necessary. It's a minor trade-off losing it above 120 but gaining 3x to 5x the contrast ratio vs a TN or IPS (860:1 or 940:1 optimal conditions vs 3000:1, 4850:1 ? will have to see the numbers on the new 1440 VA panels).
I agree about oled but realistically I won't be buying a oled tv or gaming monitor until the smoke clears and they are more common in 3 - 5 years. I'm very happy with my high contrast 4k VA tv and can wait 3 - 5 yrs for an expensive yet not $10000+ 70" oled with hdr. I can wait on oled monitors until variable hz, high hz gaming ones are more common and any wrinkles worked out. A suitable high rez VA gaming monitor will hold me over until then, assuming the reviews are good.
Last edited:
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,312
TFT central on the eizo fg2421
LCD and TFT Monitor News
Claims on some of the new va's of 4ms (tftcentral news)
===============================================
3000:1 contrast not 4860:1 but still 3x or more contrast ratio/black depth than the typical 860:1 or 940: of TN or IPS gaming monitors (fully calibrated and in optimal, static lighting conditions).
Can probably guess what kind of numbers a 2800:1 ~ 3000:1 contrast will give in the black depth category and can see how poor most monitors are.
Also worth noting, the premium HDR standard
STANDARD 1: More than 1,000 nits peak brightness and less than 0.05nits black level. (LCD)
STANDARD 2: More than 540 nits brightness and less than 0.0005 nits black level. (OLED)
=============================
Upcoming monitor news
LCD and TFT Monitor News
Claims on some of the new va's of 4ms (tftcentral news)
===============================================
3000:1 contrast not 4860:1 but still 3x or more contrast ratio/black depth than the typical 860:1 or 940: of TN or IPS gaming monitors (fully calibrated and in optimal, static lighting conditions).
Can probably guess what kind of numbers a 2800:1 ~ 3000:1 contrast will give in the black depth category and can see how poor most monitors are.
Also worth noting, the premium HDR standard
STANDARD 1: More than 1,000 nits peak brightness and less than 0.05nits black level. (LCD)
STANDARD 2: More than 540 nits brightness and less than 0.0005 nits black level. (OLED)
=============================
Upcoming monitor news
Last edited:
So I have a single 1070 card and was planning on an X34 and one of my ASUS MX279H 1080P monitors at 60hz on the side for Teamspeak, a browser, and such while the game runs on the X34?
Would you think this is an unreasonable expectation?
Would I need to lower the refresh rate on the X34 to say 75hz or maybe even 60hz if supported?
What are your thoughts?
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,312
I've run a 120hz 1080p monitor and later a 144hz 2560x1440 swift next to my 60hz ips and other 60hz monitors for years. I had to turn scaling on the 60hz monitor's in the nvidia control panel or videos would run laggy though.
You can also set your desktop refresh rate to whatever you want and in nvidia's driver applet under 3d settings set the higher hz display's preferred refresh to "highest available". Then when you switch to full screen the monitor will run at the max hz.
You can also set your desktop refresh rate to whatever you want and in nvidia's driver applet under 3d settings set the higher hz display's preferred refresh to "highest available". Then when you switch to full screen the monitor will run at the max hz.
Thank You elvn
No. This makes no sense.
You always leave the refresh rate on the monitor set to 100hz, and your video card gives you what it gives you (g-sync helps make it seem smoother)
Even with adaptive sync, lowering the refresh rate on the monitor lowers the high end of what the computer will try to produce, will it not?
And if you "artificially cap" one monitor at an acceptable level can that not "reserve" resources for another monitor that may not have an adaptive sync capability?
Would lowering the refresh rate on a non-adaptive sync monitor not leave more resources for an adaptive sync capable monitor to run more demanding applications as well as possible?
I am sure that much would depend on the graphics card and how it manages multiple displays and it's native resources. It's possible that some cards could benefit and others would not because of how the card manages it's resources with multiple displays.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,312
Icpiper was specifically asking about mixed refresh rate monitor arrays, usually combining one or more 60hz monitors with a high hz monitor.
I just wanted to let you know about the playback/stutter issue that can happen if you run an array of different refresh rate monitors. The fix I found online was to enable gpu scaling on the 60hz monitors and leave it off on the 120hz+ monitors I've had.
In regard to setting your desktop refresh rate lower than your monitor's max. I don't think it matters resource wise. The only reason people were running lower hz on their desktops was because their cards were running too hot at 144hz desktop on the first crop of overclocked g-sync modules, never idling. So you could run your desktop refresh rate at 120hz, then go into your nvidia driver's 3d settings and set the preferred refresh rate of that monitor to "highest available". That way when you run a game in full screen mode, it will go back up to the max refresh rate of 144hz.
I doubt that the second scenario is necessary on a 120hz or less monitor, or that it would be desirable. 100hz+ looks great on the desktop so no reason to miss out. Like I said, I've run a few different arrays of high hz monitors mixed with 60hz ones.
I just wanted to let you know about the playback/stutter issue that can happen if you run an array of different refresh rate monitors. The fix I found online was to enable gpu scaling on the 60hz monitors and leave it off on the 120hz+ monitors I've had.
In regard to setting your desktop refresh rate lower than your monitor's max. I don't think it matters resource wise. The only reason people were running lower hz on their desktops was because their cards were running too hot at 144hz desktop on the first crop of overclocked g-sync modules, never idling. So you could run your desktop refresh rate at 120hz, then go into your nvidia driver's 3d settings and set the preferred refresh rate of that monitor to "highest available". That way when you run a game in full screen mode, it will go back up to the max refresh rate of 144hz.
I doubt that the second scenario is necessary on a 120hz or less monitor, or that it would be desirable. 100hz+ looks great on the desktop so no reason to miss out. Like I said, I've run a few different arrays of high hz monitors mixed with 60hz ones.