Anyone else waiting for 1440p G-SYNC 120hz+

[xilanix]

I recently bought the highest end BenQ 144hz monitor, and noticed their coming out with new monitors next year, or sometime soon. To me, it doesn't seem like much of an upgrade because of the lightboost capabilities my monitor has anyways. While I'm not cheap by any means, I don't plan on buying any monitors, even G-SYNC compatible, until a 1440p G-SYNC 120hz+ monitor comes out. Already heard rumors about these being in development, and I don't see any point in buying anything else (if you already have a decent monitor) until then.

[Chief Blur Buster]

I recently bought the highest end BenQ 144hz monitor, and noticed their coming out with new monitors next year, or sometime soon. To me, it doesn't seem like much of an upgrade because of the lightboost capabilities my monitor has anyways.

While I'm not cheap by any means, I don't plan on buying any monitors, even G-SYNC compatible, until a 1440p G-SYNC 120hz+ monitor comes out. Already heard rumors about these being in development, and I don't see any point in buying anything else (if you already have a decent monitor) until then.

It's definitely true that strobing versus G-SYNC will be a big personal preference!

I should note that LightBoost eliminates motion blur (not stutters/tearing), while G-SYNC eliminates stutters/tearing (not motion blur). G-SYNC also reduces lag too. Someday, I'd love to see both simultaneously (variable-rate strobing) so all four motion blur/stutters/tearing/reduced lag occurs simultaneously. However, that's a difficult engineering issue, so generally the rule of thumb:

From my findings, with my own specific set of eyes (human preferences may vary):
LightBoost: Looks better at framerate=stroberate, so requires 120fps@120Hz to look really good
G-SYNC: Looks better at highly fluctuating framerate, due to the stutter/tearing elimination effect.

If we were able to sustain triple digit framerates at all times, G-SYNC would mostly not be necessary, since you can eliminate stutters/tearing simply by giving overkill of GPU during VSYNC ON (to eliminate sudden frame rate slowdowns) if you can tolerate the slight input latency that it often adds.

G-SYNC makes possible smooth-looking random-ish framerates, due to rendering timing staying in sync with presentation timing. So it often looks better than LightBoost for certain games like Battlefield4 where I found it difficult to reliably sustain triple-digit frame rates. That said, I want to have my cake and eat it all...

[xilanix]

What about this low persistence mode i've heard might be better than lightboost? Even thought we don't know much about it, the idea of a built in strobelight mode seems very promising.

[Chief Blur Buster]

What about this low persistence mode i've heard might be better than lightboost? Even thought we don't know much about it, the idea of a built in strobelight mode seems very promising.

That's referring to things like motion clarity, contrast, color/gamma, etc. Once NVIDIA lets websites talk further about the low persistence mode that was leaked in October, I'll be able to analyze it really closely.

However, fundamentally, from a human vision standpoint, these are scientifically consistent, regardless:
Generic Variable Refresh Rate (e.g. GSYNC) -- used properly, it can easily eliminate stutters/tearing but not motion blur
Generic Strobing (e.g. LightBoost) -- used properly, it can easily eliminate motion blur but not stutters/tearing

So the motion-quality-improving pros of each (GSYNC versus LightBoost) are actually separate attributes of motion quality.

Note: You can still eliminate LightBoost stutters/tearing using VSYNC ON and a powerful GPU. Since LightBoost can only strobe at 100Hz-120Hz, that requires an uber-powerful GPU (e.g. Geforce Titan or SLI) and tweaking game settings (lowering certain settings) in order to gain the framerate=refreshrate=stroberate nirvana of zero blurring/zero tearing/zero stutters (smooth motion experiences often rarely seen since the days of CRT's in arcades and pre-3D consoles from 8-bit and 16-bit era)

[Chickenfeed]

I've used one of the overclocked PCB korean import jobs, and in my experience the panel itself doesn't respond fast enough to properly display 120HZ despite them being capable of 120HZ input. Given the bulk of current 27" WQHD panels are IPS, unless they come through with some breakthrough substantially increasing their response time, I don't see this happening anytime soon personally. OLED may be another story. That said, I'd still like to see current 27" IPS panels + G-Sync on board.

Not to say WQHD couldn't be done on a TN panel, in my limited testing of a 27" TN unit (1080), the weak viewing angles coupled with the larger display were quite the compromise (ie washed out upper/lower boarders even while viewing the display dead on) This really reduces the attractiveness of TN being used for larger panels.

[Chief Blur Buster]

This really reduces the attractiveness of TN being used for larger panels.

There are occasionally exceptions.

I have several 24" and 27" 120Hz monitors here, and my experience is that some of the better 27" panels can have less vertical color shift than some 24" panels. Especially when viewed from below; the 27" ASUS VG278H doesn't fade as much as the 24" BENQ XL2411T does. Plus, the VG278H has a much better LightBoost picture, in my opinion.

[Chickenfeed]

Nice to hear there have been some improvements in those larger panels. My experience had be limited to one of the first gen 27" 3D displays ( don't recall the model ) That said, if a 1440P TN panel could be done with better viewing angles than the norm, that could be rather awesome.

The next issue after that though the insane amount of gpu grunt needed to get 100fps + at that resulution ( I currently game at 1440P although at 60HZ) I tested an overclocked unti (through overlord in California) at over 100HZ and even SLI 780s weren't enough without seriously compromising to visual quality options. At that point we need even more horse power!

[shadman]

I would get G-Sync for my Catleap 120Hz. Sure, I get very noticable amounts of motion blur for an IPS display, having seen my friends Ben-Q Lightboost (its so great!), but I still very much enjoy my:
1. Increased screen resolution, for gaming and desktop alike. Hard to beat when there are no 1440p 120H TN panels
2. Colors. Sure, many monitors are gorgeous, but still the IPS beats them, and with superior viewing angles as well!


It really depends though. I want to know what is coming in the near future to decide fully. If there are decently credible rumors to an OLED monitor with good specs, I might just wait for that

[Ahigh]

Gsync in general is something that will work for exploring 3d worlds that have varying performance. Any game that can easily achieve maximum performance every frame will look better with strobing. This includes simple 2d games and other things.

Many games that would get the most advantage from backlight strobing have become less popular as LCD screens have become more popular.

[RealNC]

A G-Sync 60Hz 1080p display would be enough for me. Higher resolutions would only lower my FPS in games and backlight strobing doesn't work reliably; it's said that it looks horrible if you can't maintain 120FPS in a game. Yeah, good luck getting 120FPS with high end, "next gen" games. Not everybody can afford SLI with two GTX 780 Ti cards.