In keeping good relations to AMD (who, along with NVIDIA too, reads Blur Busters forums from time to time, as long-time lurkers)...jorimt wrote:Hm, yeah, only G-SYNC monitors w/modules use variable overdrive (99% of FreeSync monitors do not), so FreeSync may have just exasperated this overdrive limitation at 240Hz w/lower framerates anyway.
....I'll just add that by "FreeSync", you meant "...The historical lack of dynamic overdrive in most FreeSync monitors..."
Yeah, that's me being Switzerland again.
Actually, I think some of them don't even bother to overdrive re-tune for 144Hz. Many of the 2017-era and 2018-era 240Hz monitors are fixed horizontal scanrate.jorimt wrote:is it using the same internal overdrive preset parameters at a physical 144Hz scanout (6.9ms) as it is at a physical 240Hz scanout (4.2ms)? I'm assuming it is, since monitor manufacturers don't expect someone who buys a 240Hz panel to underclock it to 144Hz right off the bat, but (while I'm assuming some reviewers have probably tested this very scenario) it would be interesting to confirm.
They are internally scanrate-converting any refreshrate to full 1/240sec scanout velocity. While this made it simpler to introduce the first 240Hz panels, this has some unintended side effects on input lagency (monitor motherboard buffering a slow-scanning 60Hz video input for a fast-scanning onto panel at 1/240sec) as well as overdrive tuning differences since tuning for a 144Hz @ 1/240sec scanout velocity is slightly different from 144Hz @ 1/144sec scanout velocity.
Correct, different ovedrive is currently being used on my GSYNC monitor 144Hz versus 144fps@240Hz.
The GSYNC's dynamic overdrive looks different on my GSYNC monitors, IIRC consistent 144fps@240Hz tended to look a bit better than fixed-Hz 144Hz on the same GSYNC monitor. So yes, it seems to be clearly using a different overdrive formula in these modes (possibly NVIDIA's overdrive formulas in GSYNC mode, and manufacturer's overdrive formulas in non-GSYNC mode).
Whether one of the two manages to match an average 144Hz monitor (as a baseline), is indeed meritworthy of further testing.
Still.... Many of us are pleased with our 240Hz monitors, imperfections nonwithstanding.
The 240Hz GSYNC monitors that I've seen generally looked better (at lower frame rates) than the 240Hz FreeSync monitors whenever GSYNC was enabled. It actually looked better than turning off GSYNC and trying to use VSYNC OFF. Or trying to use lower-Hz fixed-Hz (e.g. fixed 144Hz versus GSYNC 144fps@240Hz) -- the variable overdrive tuning was sometimes superior to the fixed overdrive tuning.
I believe (in time) one of us will really need to do tests of all the overdrive quality at all the various framerates during VRR. It's very hard to automate but it is something that will need to be done.
There certainly seems to be some issues with overdrive all over the place (especially in monitors without dynamic overdrive). And reasons need to be found -- whether it's the panel fault or the lack of overdrive tuning, etc -- why it is bothering a subset of people -- even as it is not bothering the rest of us.
Some of us are more sensitive to other display effects. Absolute Lag. Latency Uniformity (along panel surface). Motion Blur. Flicker. Ghosting. Coronas. Brightness. Smoothness. Frameskips. Stutters. Tearing. Etc. Everybody's vision sees differently and it's pretty clear that some people are more sensitive to the teething problems of early 240Hz monitors (being 240Hz introduced barely two years ago).
I've alluded to this a year ago already, what I take issue is the blanket global "240Hz is worthless" posts which I will definitely go on the warpath against. Full stop. Period. However. Let's look at this. As long as you're avoiding global-blanketism, I certainly appreciate how Notty_PT worded his final sentence in his first post "This isn´t by any means an universal truth. This is my opinion, point of view and personal experience. This thread is only telling you that to me 240hz weren´t worth it".
As long as we're accepting of the different things that humans are sensitive to, I certainly have no problem agreeing that there are teething problems in the 240Hz monitors, maybe moreso than some of us would have expected. There's certainly problems in some of them that affects some people. But it isn't affecting all of us -- for some of us, benefits of 240Hz massively outweighs things we aren't sensitive to. Certainly, this isn't universally true for everybody, but it certainly isn't universally false for everybody. It belies the fact our vision are bothered by different kinds of limitations and also other variables (like enabling GSYNC ON / versus using fixed-Hz, etc)
We can at least all agree that monitors need to keep getting better over time (and they should!).