PG278Q vs VG248QE

[ZTylerDurden]

Hi guys!

I'm starting to get the g-sync itch really bad at this point and although I love my IPS, I really REALLY love the concept of variable frame rates being smoothed out.

Anyways, I still want a native 1080p/1200p monitor. I feel that graphic intensive games will drive frame rates below 50 which is where gsync begins to lose its charm. Are there any major advantages with the PG278Q over the 1080p VG248QE assuming the latter is equipped with gsync? Let's assume 1440p isn't one of the advantages since I'm satisfied with 1080p. Thanks!

[flood]

graphic intensive games will drive frame rates below 50 which is where gsync begins to lose its charm

no...
gsync is enormously helpful for frame rates between roughly 40 to 140.

gsync 50fps looks 9237852 times better than 50fps on a 60hz screen.

[ZTylerDurden]

Ok I'm sold, it does appear to run smoothly above 40fps. That's 10 more frames to leverage with gsync. 1440p it is.

Edit:

Ok let's say I'm concerned about dropping under 40fps (Crysis 3, Star Citizen). Any major advantages of the PG278Q?

[ManuelG_NVIDIA]

Also the panel on the PG278Q looks better than the VG248QE IMHO which you would probably notice coming from an IPS panel you said you love.

[ZTylerDurden]

Ok perfect thanks guys that's all I needed to know!

[Chief Blur Buster]

Ok let's say I'm concerned about dropping under 40fps (Crysis 3, Star Citizen). Any major advantages of the PG278Q?

It looks good all the way down to 30fps, it smoothly throttles framerates upwards and downwards. It's a display equivalent of a continuously variable transmission (CVT) -- since it eliminates the stutters of framerate changes of a non-GSYNC monitor.

[Edmond]

Dunno, if you like IPS and think TN is garbage (as i do)

I would suggest you hold out till mid September or smth. AMD promised to deliver their proptotype freesync monitor in September.
And the last time we saw freesync in action was @ gamescom... and that was on a 1440p ips panel. So fingers crossed for September and for competition doing the thing its supposed to.
However, real cuntsumer monitors with freesync would appear in q1-q2 2015.

And yes, gsync/freesync > all.

[ZTylerDurden]

What do you guys think of this article saying the sweet spot for fast twitch gaming with gysnc is 50-60fps rather than the discussed 40fps above?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... ync-review

[slickric21]

What do you guys think of this article saying the sweet spot for fast twitch gaming with gysnc is 50-60fps rather than the discussed 40fps above?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... ync-review

I completley agree with that in my testing over that last week with my AOC Gsync display.

If you are playing a fast paced or online First Person Shooter, you never really want to drop below say 55fps (for me, maybe different for the next person). Anything less than this and you notice the lag or jerkiness of aiming.
However I will also say that framerate variance also effects it alot.

Let me give you an example, if I play BF4 Multiplayer with unlocked framerate, fps can go from 120fps right down to 45fps in an instant (In the trees on Caspian Border with smoke or explosion)...this feels awful for your aiming and movement, makes it seem very laggy in that moment.
However, if I cap my fps ingame to say 60fps, those moments when framerate dips into the 40's dont feel so bad.
But of course, capping to 60fps has its downsides (slower response times etc).

Slower paced games, or games which you can play using a Controller feel better at lower fps for sure.

[flood]

no one said anything about a sweet spot. higher fps is always better, except for gsync when you hit the refresh rate and then there's more input lag. so the "sweet spot" for gsync would be around 120-140 fps.

I'd estimate 40-50fps with gsync would be like the minimum "decent" gaming framerate for most people. for myself, and probably many others here, the minimum decent framerate would be around 80...

about that article: if bf4 is a fast twitch shooter, then i don't know what quake live is.

Slower paced games, or games which you can play using a Controller feel better at lower fps for sure.

i think you mean that
slower paced games suffer less from lower fps than faster games
rather than
lower fps looks better than higher fps on slower paced games