Well the Acer 43" is suppose to have a MSRP of $1299 in the US so I don't expect the ASUS to cost more than that.
If you go back to the product link on the 1st message. It now shows a RRP of 1099 pounds which usually means it will have a similar price in the US. If this info is correct. it's a very reasonable price
Acer doesn't have Freesync 2 tho, which means no HDR with Freesync.
Not sure what you mean by "so I'll rather have G-sync"? These displays were never planned to have G-Sync, and if you'd rather have G-Sync with a RTX 2080 why are you getting this display?Means nothing for me as I'll be using a RTX 2080 so I'll rather have G-Sync. I also rather have HDR 1000 for when I want to watch 4K HDR content (although mostly I would watch those on my 65" 4K that hit over 1500 cd/m2 at home but there I times I want to do that in my office).
Means nothing for me as I'll be using a RTX 2080 so I'll rather have G-Sync. I also rather have HDR 1000 for when I want to watch 4K HDR content (although mostly I would watch those on my 65" 4K that hit over 1500 cd/m2 at home but there I times I want to do that in my office).
Most people are taking this opportunity to get away from G-Sync.
That means I am stuck with Jensen cards.
then I will now be on the Standard that the new Xbox, PlayStation and manufacturers are all going towards.
You will see far more RDNA + FreeSync in the future, more-so than you will see g-sync.
I thought these displays were strictly Freesync only? You're talking G-Sync in Nvidia's drivers? I thought that was just adaptive sync compatibility?Because G-Sync is the main competing version of VRR that this display uses? Well within a reasonable topic of discussion that the topic display may not have the optimal form of VRR. I await the tests to see how it pans out.
Who speak'em Chine?
I thought these displays were strictly Freesync only? You're talking G-Sync in Nvidia's drivers? I thought that was just adaptive sync compatibility?
Right. That's what I thought. So I get confused when people say these displays are G-Sync when they're marketed as Freesync.I think it gets confused because I believe Nvidia brands the Adaptive Sync screens tested and certified to work with their new drivers using some of the G-Sync branding, despite it having nothing to do with the G-Sync technology.
Not sure what you mean by "so I'll rather have G-sync"? These displays were never planned to have G-Sync, and if you'd rather have G-Sync with a RTX 2080 why are you getting this display?
I have a 2080Ti and hoping either of these displays work well with the Freesync compatibility of Nvidia's drivers. Probably be seeing less "G-Sync" equipped displays just for this reason.
It says "nVidia G-Sync Compatible for PC /Console
For example, my 240Hz FreeSync monitor works with both AMD and Nvidia. However, on AMD the range seems better, especially with low framerates between 30 and 50. With Nvidia, everything is good above 50fps, but lower becomes a bit choppy.
But with AMD is is practically playable down to around 30fps, it still feels okay. Obviously I would like higher framerates, but I was surprised that 30fps was playable.
G-Sync Compatible: Freesync monitors that Nvidia has certified to work with their GPUs. Other displays may be G-Sync compatible but untested.
Yeah, but it's not true Gsync. It's the driver compatibility with VRR. Nvidia is intentional muddying the waters here a bit.
Right. That's what I thought. So I get confused when people say these displays are G-Sync when they're marketed as Freesync.
I meant that displays that have a physical G-Sync chip in them typically have superior VRR/overdrive. I am currently using a Freesync monitor in "G-Sync compatible mode" and it's not near as good as "real" G-Sync display.
Considering there are much more Nvidia cards out there than AMD, you'd think display manufacturers would want to test their newly released Freesync displays stringently for Nvidia compatibility.
At least Asus will, have no idea about Acer tho.All evidence points to them doing just that- at the glacial speed of the display industry, at least. And it's a bit of a new thing. I had no idea that Nvidia was going to allow 'G-Sync Compatible' branding with stickers and labels and so on when they enabled support for DP VRR. They didn't skip a beat with the switch in narrative, as well a company with their competitive nature should be expected to, and on balance at least they're following through with sorting stuff out and getting 'official' information on performance and compatibility visible to consumers.
Wouldn't it suck to have the fastest GPU options available?
So you don't put your consoles in the living room with the big TV and the couch?
Given AMD's lackluster and very late release of 'RDNA', the evidence supports the opposite.
So you are pretending not know that G-sync monitors cost more and People have been moving over to freesync for the last few years. So much so... that Jensen had to relent and enable "freesync" compatibility..?
You know none of this..? and you have 10K post in 11 years..?
Pretending? I'm not pretending anything. Specifically, I'm not pretending to know 'for a fact' what sales numbers are nor what customer motivations are.
Might want to head back to math class.
Yes, you are pretending not to know that Nvidia's G-Sync monitors cost more.
And then feigning ignorance about price/performance and pretending not to know, that a higher cost G-sync chip, effects sales...
Or to not have known, that Nvidia enable "FreeSync" compatibility... even though in earlier post you acknowledge knowing this.
But have zero clue why Nvidia finally relented. No clue... hunh?
Putting you on ignore. I understand your purpose here.