New Monitor!

[Pilotasso]

So I decided to buy a new high refresh rate monitor. My current unit (see below) has GREAT color reproduction (used to be for photo productivity) but 60Hz feels its not enough anymore. My eyes. :cry:

 

My current monitor is a second hand ASUS PB278Q IPS QHD (1440P) 60Hz from 2014.

 

 

Now that both AMD and NVIDIA cards can use adaptive Sync (Freesync and not Freesync2 nor G-sync since those are tied to each respective GFX brand) with 144Hz refresh rate, low frame rate compensation, with great color is where I want to go, so I came up with this at the local stores:

Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD IPS 27" QHD 16:9 144Hz FreeSync 1MS response

 

 

There are better monitors with true HDR out there but they are either G-sync or Freesync2 that locks my future upgrades to either AMD or NVIDIA and I want to have some flexibility in choosing between the 2, so I decided to compromise with fake HDR and freesync1.

 

 

BTW Pixio PX277h is not sold here. They have an equivalent panel but without the RGB bling for 100$ less but thats not an option to me soo...

 

what do you think?

 

aBYCAsDNFq8

AKCaVtn3tRs

Edited January 27, 2019 by Pilotasso

[BitMaster]

Whats the difference between FS and FS2 btw ? Will Nvidia not support FS2 ?

 

But indeed, I would certainly think twice now before buying into Gsync and the Green Hell.

 

Freesync(2) is indeed an option if it runs.

 

 

But right now, with locked 60-TiR-fps,...who honestly cares ( what a shame ! ) ?

[Pilotasso]

FS2 is specifically tied to AMD GPU's as G-sync is to NVIDIA's. Only freesync 1 is universal now.

[BitMaster]

So when Intel comes along with it's GPU's, we'll see FreeSync interpretation #3 ?

 

This is confusing indeed. might as well get a Freesync then and hope the best for the next 5-8years or so.

[Pilotasso]

they will likely see freesync 1 support as it is an universal interface (i.e. no proprietary chip inside the monitor)

[Hekktor]

I just recently went from 1440p to 1600p ultra wide. I don't quite get why one would need very high (60+?) frame rates for DCS? We do need consistent frame times to avoid stutter. This is much more important than fast fps.

 

Old movies are projected 24 or 25 pictures a second.

30FPS with consistant fame times, synced to the monitor at all times and situations in the game (regardless of head motion / view direction altering) would be enough imho.

 

Personally I much better like the ultra wide screen real estate over some stutter from time to time - immersion wise I have a better feeling of sitting in a cockpit. (I don't like VR for various reasons)

[BitMaster]

I just recently went from 1440p to 1600p ultra wide. I don't quite get why one would need very high (60+?) frame rates for DCS? We do need consistent frame times to avoid stutter. This is much more important than fast fps.

 

Old movies are projected 24 or 25 pictures a second.

30FPS with consistant fame times, synced to the monitor at all times and situations in the game (regardless of head motion / view direction altering) would be enough imho.

 

Personally I much better like the ultra wide screen real estate over some stutter from time to time - immersion wise I have a better feeling of sitting in a cockpit. (I don't like VR for various reasons)

 

 

Have you ever flown 144fps low-level-flight with Mach 1 ?

 

That's when you see 60,90 and 120+ difference

[Pilotasso]

I play other games as well. I'm setting up the monitor as we speak.

[Pilotasso]

Have tested freesync on my 1080Ti with the Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD monitor and it has been smooth sailing. :)

[BitMaster]

:thumbup:

 

Nice man !