Nvidia’s new G-Sync monitors let you switch between 1440p and 1080p

cybereality

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,789
The most interesting aspect of these new displays is the dual-format 1080p mode that transforms these 27-inch monitors into 25-inch ones to support games that might not hit super-high frame rates at 1440p. Nvidia says these monitors will shrink to 25 inches, with extra bezels around the display to support the lower 1080p resolution.
Click to expand...

https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/4/22866475/nvidia-g-sync-esports-monitors-1080p-1440p-support

Maybe I am missing something, but isn't this just 1:1 pixel mode? Meaning what we could do on LCD monitors since like 15 years ago?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Sounds just like lowering the resolution without scaling.

Don't ALL monitors support this?
Click to expand...
Not all monitors in hardware. I recall it used to be an exclusive feature a long time ago (like over 10 years) but even today there are some monitors here and there that don't support it.

Even so, you can do it in software by creating a custom resolution or by using the Nvidia/AMD GPU scaling feature. Unless I am missing something here, you can do this already with basically anything.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Sounds just like lowering the resolution without scaling.

Don't ALL monitors support this?
Click to expand...
Some do, most don’t. In this case it seems that it’s using a switchable input each would contain a different register for pixel locations so that 0,0 is only top left for 1440p and 1080p starts elsewhere in the array. Very interesting idea, I am most intrigued by a 360hz refresh rate, that’s absolutely insane to me.
 
Not sure about 360Hz, but I bought a 240Hz monitor and used it for a few months just to see and it wasn't anything amazing.

It definitely looked smoother, especially for old games like HL2, but it didn't look twice as smooth as 120Hz. It looked better, sure, but not a huge difference from say 144Hz.

Plus, on any new games, there is no way you will get 240 fps, let alone 360 fps, so the whole thing is rather pointless unless all you play is CS:GO.
 
I asked fl0m, one of the biggest CSGO streamers, if he planned on upgrading his 240hz to 360 and he scoffed and said it wasn't worth it. He said you can't even tell th difference and he wasn't going to give up his resolution for it since he's one of the very rare CSGO players that plays at 2560x1440
 
Also, my 4K 144Hz monitor has BFI with FreeSync, and that looks better than brute forcing it with 360Hz.
 
27 inch monitor us still has a bigger footprint if you could shrink it into a 25 inch with 4k =/
 
cybereality said:
t all monitors in hardware. I recall it used to be an exclusive feature a long time ago (like over 10 years) but even today there are some monitors here and there that don't support it.

Even so, you can do it in software by creating a custom resolution or by using the Nvidia/AMD GPU scaling feature. Unless I am missing something here, you can do this already with basically anything.
Click to expand...

Maybe I have just been very lucky in my monitor purchasing, but I think every single monitor I've owned in the flat panel era had supported this, with options for scalers bring stretch to fill screen, stretch to correct aspect ratio or 1:1.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Maybe I have just been very lucky in my monitor purchasing, but I think every single monitor I've owned in the flat panel era had supported this, with options for scalers bring stretch to fill screen, stretch to correct aspect ratio or 1:1.
Click to expand...
Yeah, all the monitors I've had supported 1:1, but I also do research before buying. If you just buy any random monitor there is no guarantee.
 
This feels like they finally wanna ditch the 24.5" 1080p panels probably due to lackluster sales at this point outside a smaller competitive group and came up with this built-in "shrinked" format in order to cater to those low-res pro e-sports CSGO players. Wonder if you can play at the reduced 25" size screen at other resolutions too? The most common setting to this day is still 1280x960 stretched.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Maybe I have just been very lucky in my monitor purchasing, but I think every single monitor I've owned in the flat panel era had supported this, with options for scalers bring stretch to fill screen, stretch to correct aspect ratio or 1:1.
Click to expand...
A good quality panel with a good interface will do this, it’s one of the optional parts of the VESA specification. It’s one of those things where the top 20% will do it, the remaining 80% of lower quality or budget options will not.
 
What I want to see is how NVidia has done this, if you have to go menu hunting or play with the options on either the monitor or the drivers then this already exists and they are just taking something that many likely don’t know is a thing and bringing attention to it as a marketing ploy and if so, yay???

But if they have added a new command to the GSync hardware that can detect your game settings set resolution and change it on the fly then that’s something new and pretty cool.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Maybe I have just been very lucky in my monitor purchasing, but I think every single monitor I've owned in the flat panel era had supported this, with options for scalers bring stretch to fill screen, stretch to correct aspect ratio or 1:1.
Click to expand...
Even if the monitor doesn't support it, you can do it at the video card level. NVIDIA drivers have supported 1:1 pixel scaling through the video card for some time now.
 
This is the only advantage CRT had over LCD. Changing the resolution changed the resolution of the monitor and you would just resize it to fit if needed.

I can't tell the difference between 60 Hz and 170 Hz. So I don't think this would be a feature I would ever shop for. I also can't see the flicker from CRT monitors under florescent lights so it might just be my eyes.
 
cybereality said:
Not sure about 360Hz, but I bought a 240Hz monitor and used it for a few months just to see and it wasn't anything amazing.

It definitely looked smoother, especially for old games like HL2, but it didn't look twice as smooth as 120Hz. It looked better, sure, but not a huge difference from say 144Hz.

Plus, on any new games, there is no way you will get 240 fps, let alone 360 fps, so the whole thing is rather pointless unless all you play is CS:GO.
Click to expand...
sure but....they often have better panels with response times which are better even at "lower" refresh rates, such as 60hz and 120hz. Not ALWAYS. But, most of the time. Especially with recent panels.

I bought a 240hz 1080p panel, mostly because its response times at 60hz are fantastic. And its so great for fighting games.
 
I think the thing about these monitors is that the Gsync chip handles all of the high quality scaling, as well as the digital vibrance feature, which they are now calling Esports Vibrance. So....it theoretically takes a small load off the GPU?

I assume they are able to do it all with minimal processing lag. But it would be interesting to compare the input lag of a good, typical monitor Vs. one of these with all of the features turned on.
 
Parja said:
If it's going from 27" 1440p to 25" 1080p, that's not 1:1 pixel scaling. 27" 1440p is ~108.8 DPI. 25" 1080p is ~88.1 DPI, so there's definitely some weird scaling going on.
Click to expand...
Correct. 25" isn't 1:1 scaling.

For 1:1 pixel scaling, a 1080p mode at ~108.8 DPI would be roughly a 20" monitor.

Napkin math says to pull off a so-called 25" with 1:1 scaling the resolution would need to be 2370x1333. But that's not mod-8, so let's just call it 2368x1336.

I'd say they are scaling 1080p input to 25", but marketing the whole notion of 25" to appease those die-hard 1080p users who are used to that typical(?) size.

The keyword here is marketing. Because any sane person would just scale the whole thing up to the full 27" and just deal with the extra real-estate. I don't think the scaling between 25" and 27" is going to look dramatically different.
 
chameleoneel said:
I think the thing about these monitors is that the Gsync chip handles all of the high quality scaling, as well as the digital vibrance feature, which they are now calling Esports Vibrance. So....it theoretically takes a small load off the GPU?

I assume they are able to do it all with minimal processing lag. But it would be interesting to compare the input lag of a good, typical monitor Vs. one of these with all of the features turned on.
Click to expand...

Originally the g-sync module had no scaler at all so you were forced to rely on GPU scaling (not necessarily a bad thing, GPUs are fast). So I think you may right that this is just an evolution of the module which may be a good or a bad thing eventually, I can't tell yet.
 
Absalom said:
Correct. 25" isn't 1:1 scaling.

For 1:1 pixel scaling, a 1080p mode at ~108.8 DPI would be roughly a 20" monitor.

Napkin math says to pull off a so-called 25" with 1:1 scaling the resolution would need to be 2370x1333. But that's not mod-8, so let's just call it 2368x1336.

I'd say they are scaling 1080p input to 25", but marketing the whole notion of 25" to appease those die-hard 1080p users who are used to that typical(?) size.

The keyword here is marketing. Because any sane person would just scale the whole thing up to the full 27" and just deal with the extra real-estate. I don't think the scaling between 25" and 27" is going to look dramatically different.
Click to expand...
2074x1166 27" would roughly scale down to 1920x1080 25" at a 1:1 ratio. I'm never trusting a napkin of yours that I find.
 
kalston said:
Originally the g-sync module had no scaler at all so you were forced to rely on GPU scaling (not necessarily a bad thing, GPUs are fast). So I think you may right that this is just an evolution of the module which may be a good or a bad thing eventually, I can't tell yet.
Click to expand...
maybe originally...but for about two years now, gsync monitors have had a 6 point scaler.
 
Last edited:
cybereality said:
Not sure about 360Hz, but I bought a 240Hz monitor and used it for a few months just to see and it wasn't anything amazing.

It definitely looked smoother, especially for old games like HL2, but it didn't look twice as smooth as 120Hz. It looked better, sure, but not a huge difference from say 144Hz.

Plus, on any new games, there is no way you will get 240 fps, let alone 360 fps, so the whole thing is rather pointless unless all you play is CS:GO.
Click to expand...
Another thing to consider with these high refresh monitors-----is if the response times of the panel can even give you the marketed experience.

For 60fps, each frame is about 16ms. So, to get a true 60fps experience, the panel needs to refresh at least about that quickly. Nowadays, its not difficult to find IPS panels which can refresh at least 17ms, across all of their transitions. So, a full 60fps experience without smearing, should be attainable. (However, there are still some VA panels with extra long dark transitions in the 20's, leading to smearing).

For 120hz, you would cut the response time in half. So, around 8-9ms. to get most of the refresh transitions to fit into 120fps. I think Hardware Unboxed is usually happy when a monitor delivers at least about 85% of its frames within the refresh window (typcially, when all of the transitions are measured across all of the colors, you get a spread of response times). Already, you would need a pretty great panel for 8ms in most transitions. An IPS which can do 10 or 11ms on most of its transitions, would feel pretty good here for 120hz. There are a fair amount of IPS monitors with 144hz/160hz/ and even 240hz, which don't actually achieve better response times than that. and therefore, don't really deliver a true experience at their full refresh rate.

For 240hz, you would need one of the very best IPS panels, to get around 4ms in most transitions, to be able to get most frames truly refreshed in time with 240hz. There aren't many panels which can actually do it.

for 360hz, you would need a nice TN panel. I don't think there are any IPS panels yet, which can really deliver that. (Theoretically, OLED should be great for 360hz. As they usually don't go higher than about 3ms on their longest transitions. and are fractions of milliseconds for many of their transitions).

So the point being--------the 240hz monitor which you used, may not have actually been fully capable of delivering most response transitions fast enough, to get most/all of the benefit of 240hz. And that would be a large factor in why it didn't look much better than 120hz. The panel may not have been fully capable of it.

All that said, there are also some diminishing returns, even with a fully capable panel. It could be that you have a fully capable panel and just don't feel the perceived benefit is worth it. Which is fine! I just wanted to clear this up.
 
Last edited:
It was this monitor, the Nixeus EDG27240.

https://www.nixeus.com/nxedg27240

The panel was TN and I did not see any smearing, it was clear as day, so I don't think response time was the issue.

But seeing as there is almost no information on the monitor online, who knows?
 
cybereality said:
It was this monitor, the Nixeus EDG27240.

https://www.nixeus.com/nxedg27240

The panel was TN and I did not see any smearing, it was clear as day, so I don't think response time was the issue.

But seeing as there is almost no information on the monitor online, who knows?
Click to expand...
Yeah I couldn't find any in depth reviews with response times. However, it seems like a pretty high quality TN panel, based on what I could find. And quality TN panels shouldn't have much trouble delivering 4ms in most transitions, for a true or mostly true 240hz experience.

The other thing about TN panels is the image quality is usually pretty basic. Lacking contrast and often lacking color volume. I think higher than 120hz will feel like more of an improvement, when we can get it on displays with truly good image quality.
 
Last edited:
chameleoneel said:
Yeah I couldn't find any in depth reviews with response times. However, it seems like a pretty high quality TN panel, based on what I could find. And quality TN panels shouldn't have much trouble delivering 4ms in most transitions, for a true or mostly true 240hz experience.

The other thing about TN panels is the image quality is usually pretty basic. Lacking contrast and often lacking color volume. I think higher than 240hz will feel like more of an improvement, when we can get it on displays with truly good image quality.
Click to expand...
A lot of good TN panels out there these days can do 2ms without issue. The PG278Q was already down to 2.5ms 8 years ago.
 
Why are we still focusing on resolutions well bellow those of cheap gaming consoles?
 
Jumpem said:
Why are we still focusing on resolutions well bellow those of cheap gaming consoles?
Click to expand...
Because "esports," that's why. All the kids want to mimic what all their favorite gamers are doing in competitive games with the false expectation that it will make them better.
 
Yeah, it's silly too. You can probably run CS:GO at 4K 144 fps easily on a mid-range card. Not sure why everyone still dead set on 1080p.
 
cybereality said:
Yeah, it's silly too. You can probably run CS:GO at 4K 144 fps easily on a mid-range card. Not sure why everyone still dead set on 1080p.
Click to expand...


I don't get it either, if somehow it was 1440p at 144hz, or 1080p at 240+hz then I could see the value. Not even sure thats possible.
 
Jumpem said:
Why are we still focusing on resolutions well bellow those of cheap gaming consoles?
Click to expand...
Because resolution isn't the only metric, and also possibly that the GPU market is so backed up those running 970s still have an option to push high hertz when they can and lower resolution when they can't.

I guess thats the only use case I can see for this monitor.
 
cybereality said:
Yeah, it's silly too. You can probably run CS:GO at 4K 144 fps easily on a mid-range card. Not sure why everyone still dead set on 1080p.
Click to expand...
It's the belief that larger pixels means enemies or targets are easier to spot. There is also the false belief that higher resolution means more input lag and higher frame time. Is running a low 4:3 or 5:4 resolution on widescreen monitors still a thing in """professional""" gaming?
 
But you're seeing a clearer picture with more detail. If anything, it should increase your kills cause now you can see enemies further away or catch small details. It doesn't make sense.
 
Armenius said:
You obviously haven't played the remaster on Xbox, but it reinforces the clearer picture idea.

Click to expand...

Nope, I actually kinda loathed the game due to how shitty the actual graphics during gameplay where so I never got into it, but yes, the point was how badly pixelated Perfect Dark was on the N64, particularly for any engagement medium-long range the character models just turned into an un-aliased mess of pixels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top