Utterly confused with my G-SYNC display

[speancer]

Hi

Some time ago, after using a standard 60 Hz IPS 27" 1440p display for years (BenQ GW2765HT), I've upgraded to Acer Predator XB271HU monitor - 27" 1440p IPS panel featuring 165 Hz refresh rate and native G-SYNC support.

Of course, it turned out to be a massive upgrade, I was astonished by fluidity, responsiveness and overall feel of such refresh rate from the very first move of my mouse cursor on the desktop I immediately felt it was true what people say, that you can see and feel the difference even on the desktop. My impressions in competitive FPS (I am a former CS 1.6/CS:GO player, currently The Global Elite rank) were just as good, I just happened to set three new personal bests during three first matches I played on the new screen (best score opening and 2x best KD on Deathmatch). Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but since the upgrade, my KD ratio improved overall. It just feels so much better. Switching back to 60 Hz feels like handicapping myself, so choppy and laggy Pretty sure it was holding me back a decent amount, although I still managed higher ranks in CS:GO.

Let's get to the point, sorry for long introduction!

My problem is how G-SYNC works, and actually also how V-SYNC works on this new display. I need a clarification from someone with far greater knowledge and experience, I've been searching for answers for a few days, finally decided to register on this forum and write this post.

First of all, most of explanations of V-SYNC I found online state that V-SYNC is supposed to cut FPS down and lock it on a lower threshold when your GPU can't match FPS with the display's refresh rate, so if I have 165 Hz refresh rate and FPS goes lower than that, frames should get locked on 80~, then 60, then 30 FPS... Except with triple buffering enabled, I guess? Though that rarely worked this way for me on the old monitor (on the new monitor it doesn't seem to work like that at all), usually the game would allow FPS to drop below 60 without going down to 30, terrible lag and stuttering would appear then, however. I remember some games actually going down to 30 FPS cap if 60 FPS could not be maintained, but that was a rarity. Why is it like this? Shouldn't that work in a constant manner? Also, going below refresh rate with V-SYNC ON should cause stuttering, shouldn't it? Because it doesn't on my new display... Thing is, on my old 60 Hz display, anything below 60 FPS feels horrible, even 59 frames per second are unplayable to me, with V-SYNC ON frame drops cause stutters and lag, V-SYNC OFF obviously causes tearing and also stuttering with variable frame rate... so why is it perfectly fine when I have frames below 165 on the new 165 Hz display, even when frame rate varies and fluctuates with only standard V-SYNC enabled and G-SYNC OFF?

I know that 60 Hz display has a delay of 16.66 ms to produce each frame, while on 165 Hz display that delay is only 6.06 ms. I figure it matters to the feel of the game and less lag in game controls?

I'm asking all this because on my Acer Predator I truly CANNOT see nor feel ANY difference between G-SYNC+V-SYNC OFF/G-SYNC+V-SYNC ON/V-SYNC+G-SYNC OFF WHATSOEVER. What's more, G-SYNC in one case felt worse than V-SYNC, I'll get back to that. V-SYNC seems to work great, no different to G-SYNC, and it does not cut down to lower FPS values below display refresh rate, I experience no stuttering nor tearing with only V-SYNC enabled, even when FPS vary and fluctuate quite a lot. And I have no idea why. Could that be because of G-SYNC module itself, even when I disable the G-SYNC function?

I've done pretty much testing in a few games:

- "Shadow of the Tomb Raider" showed completely no difference between G-SYNC ON with V-SYNC OFF, G-SYNC+V-SYNC ON and V-SYNC ON with G-SYNC OFF. No difference whatsoever. The game runs on about 45-70~ frames at highest settings in 2560x1440 resolution, I chose a place with lower frames for testing, running about 48-50 FPS, no matter what option I chose, they all looked and felt the same. Less frames in this game also feel incredibly better than on my old 60 Hz display. I did not notice any difference between Nvidia Control Panel and in-game V-SYNC.

- "A Plague Tale: Innocence" showed a different result. On highest settings and 1440p resolution sometimes I'd deep a little below 60 frames. With G-SYNC ON and V-SYNC OFF, the game would stutter... G-SYNC+V-SYNC ON resulted in no stuttering, and... disabling G-SYNC and leaving V-SYNC enabled changed nothing. So, the game worked the same on V-SYNC only, no stuttering, no tearing, deeps below 60 frames basically unnoticeable.

- "DOOM Eternal" showed the very same results as "Shadow of the Tomb Raider". No difference whatsoever. G-SYNC/G-SYNC+V-SYNC/V-SYNC/V-SYNC+TRIPLE BUFFER, all the same, no matter how much frames would fluctuate. Of course it would give me a choppy feel when frames dived too low, but overall, game works good usually between 70-120~ FPS with no problem at all, no stuttering, no tearing, on normal V-SYNC with G-SYNC OFF. What's interesting to me is a fact that the in-game V-SYNC works much better then V-SYNC through Nvidia Control Panel. The latter one would induce significant input lag, clearly noticeable in game, while in-game V-SYNC feels responsive, as much as G-SYNC.

- "CONTROL" was pretty much the same, the only difference was that V-SYNC, for whatever reason, would eat a few frames, so I had lower frame rate with V-SYNC ON and a bit higher frame rate with G-SYNC ON, and that's it. No stuttering, no tearing, G-SYNC pretty much redundant again. Also, this game is horribly bad optimised anyway.

- "Dishonored 2" seems like a broken engine game, and it has a history of terrible optimisation. No matter what I tried, the game would stutter, typically while frames changed a decent amount from higher to lower. Capping frame rate to a constant value, that would not fluctuate, was the only way to stop it. No tearing though, no difference between G-SYNC/G-SYNC+V-SYNC/V-SYNC (disabling in-game V-SYNC and enabling Nvidia Control Panel V-SYNC resulted in no change).

- "Counter-Strike: Global Offensive" does not need G-SYNC and should have it disabled at all times with uncapped FPS, so this technology is completely redundant for e-sports in my honest opinion, as the lowest delays are achieved with no syncs and no frame caps with the highest possible FPS. CS:GO operates on such high frame rates that tearing is unnoticeable anyway (easily 250-400+ FPS on my system).

To sum up:

1) please explain that to me, how is this possible that V-SYNC works so good, that games work well with only normal V-SYNC enabled, even without triple buffering, despite variable, fluctuating frame rates, with no stuttering nor tearing, while G-SYNC appears so useless to me, not making any noticeable difference? Does G-SYNC module work/make a difference somehow, even when G-SYNC function is disabled in Nvidia Control Panel?
2) why V-SYNC once actually cap frames on the lower threshold when constant frame rate cannot be maintained (like from 60 FPS to 30 FPS, actually happened extremely rarely to me), and another time it doesn't, and it allows lower frame rate at the cost of stuttering and lagging (most of the time in my experience) in case of my old display, but it doesn't seem to be the case on the new one, even with G-SYNC disabled?
3) is there a difference in how V-SYNC works between standard and high refresh rate monitors?
4) is there a difference in how standard and high refresh rate monitors handle variable frame rates (excluding sync technologies) ?
5) is less time between frames being produced directly responsible for better feel of game controls (16.66 ms for 60 Hz versus 6.06 ms for 165 Hz) ?
5) could you explain why in "DOOM Eternal" V-SYNC enabled through Nvidia Control Panel (with G-SYNC OFF) induced significant input lag and actual frame cut down cap, while in-game V-SYNC works flawlessly, basically the same as G-SYNC, without such issues?

I stumbled upon many opinions in the Internet, some people seemed to agree with me, saying that for them G-SYNC was completely redundant and they noticed no difference between G-SYNC and V-SYNC, like me. Needless to say how much I am disappointed, especially for the premium price that native G-Sync monitors are sold for. Why would I pay extra if I observe no difference between G-SYNC and V-SYNC? I'm actually going to get some other display, I especially bought this one for native G-SYNC support (as it appeared as the perfect all-rounder for both my competitive and AAA titles' needs), as I have a GTX 980Ti GPU, so I can't use Free-Sync nor G-SYNC Compatible.

I know it's a long read, I will greatly appreciate your help

[jorimt]

1) please explain that to me, how is this possible that V-SYNC works so good, that games work well with only normal V-SYNC enabled, even without triple buffering, despite variable, fluctuating frame rates, with no stuttering nor tearing, while G-SYNC appears so useless to me, not making any noticeable difference? Does G-SYNC module work/make a difference somehow, even when G-SYNC function is disabled in Nvidia Control Panel?

Subjectivity.

Some notice V-SYNC stutter/input lag at higher refresh rates, others simply don't. Unless you've configured G-SYNC incorrectly, then it seems you have a very high tolerance for minute differences in frame pacing, stutter, and input lag between syncing methods. It's also possible since you're a relatively new high refresh convert, that the contrast between 60Hz and 165Hz is still the biggest thing you're noticing.

As for the G-SYNC module making a difference with V-SYNC when G-SYNC is disabled, nope.

2) why V-SYNC once actually cap frames on the lower threshold when constant frame rate cannot be maintained (like from 60 FPS to 30 FPS, actually happened extremely rarely to me), and another time it doesn't, and it allows lower frame rate at the cost of stuttering and lagging (most of the time in my experience) in case of my old display, but it doesn't seem to be the case on the new one, even with G-SYNC disabled?

Modern double buffer V-SYNC methods don't always create half refresh lock; it can be game dependent. That, and 165Hz V-SYNC is far superior to 60Hz V-SYNC due the increased scanout speed (frame delivery speed) per frame (6.1ms per vs. 16.6ms per).

3) is there a difference in how V-SYNC works between standard and high refresh rate monitors?

Only that more updates are occurring per second on a high refresh rate display, and again, the delivery speed of a single frame is higher, regardless of framerate. As such, 60Hz uncapped V-SYNC has much higher input lag than 165Hz uncapped V-SYNC:

4) is there a difference in how standard and high refresh rate monitors handle variable frame rates (excluding sync technologies) ?

No, see above comments. The only difference is scanout speed and how many scanout cycles occur per second (aka max refresh rate).

5) is less time between frames being produced directly responsible for better feel of game controls (16.66 ms for 60 Hz versus 6.06 ms for 165 Hz) ?

Yes.

5) could you explain why in "DOOM Eternal" V-SYNC enabled through Nvidia Control Panel (with G-SYNC OFF) induced significant input lag and actual frame cut down cap, while in-game V-SYNC works flawlessly, basically the same as G-SYNC, without such issues?

I assure you, DOOM's in-game V-SYNC isn't objectively the same as properly configured G-SYNC (I own both that game and your monitor model, btw), but perhaps it differs from the NVCP solution in this case (double buffer vs. triple buffer, flip mode method, etc). I wouldn't know though, because I'm using G-SYNC + NVCP V-SYNC + 141 FPS RTSS limit for that game currently.

Also, FYI, G-SYNC and V-SYNC look identical if with V-SYNC, you're sustaining FPS above your refresh rate at all times. The only difference between the two visually is input lag in this case (G-SYNC + V-SYNC reverts to V-SYNC behavior without an FPS limit set below the refresh rate to keep it in range):

[speancer]

Thank you very much for answering, I have some further questions concerning this subject, if you don't mind continuing.

Let's start with subjectivity you mentioned. It sounds quite odd to me, that it's the thing I would not notice. I've done extensive testing, comparing my impressions with both sync methods in a few games, and I find that hard to believe I would remain unaffected by these kinds of negative effects of display, that's why I was so confused with how much useless I actually found G-SYNC to be for me. I mean, how can one not notice stuttering? I sure notice it, playing with stuttering, lagging or tearing was always unbearable to me, although on the new display tearing seems to be very slight when no sync is used. I guess that's thanks to the shorter scanout as well? V-SYNC or G-SYNC alike, I don't experience any of these negative effects. I am not trying to undermine your expertise, I'm just a little confused and new to all this.

Secondly, let's talk about setting G-SYNC up a bit. I've seen your extensive article about G-SYNC, of course, including optimal settings. I don't think I set anything incorrectly, I did everything as you recommend. G-SYNC enabled for full screen only, NVCP V-SYNC enabled, only fullscreen mode in-game, all additional sync thingies disabled. I did not really have to set FPS cap, as my system is a few years old now and not so powerful anymore (duh, time for upgrade with Nvidia Ampere and AMD Zen3 ), and you advise to only cap frames if they go beyond refresh rate - in AAA games they usually don't, in CS:GO it doesn't matter, because I don't use any sync for it. I tried capping frames anyway, as explained, -3 FPS to max refresh rate, I used NVCP for frame cap. I set Low Latency Mode to On. My power setting is set to high performance by default, I just edit CPU frequency scaling index, I set it to minimum 5% instead 100%, I see no point for the cores to run at 100% all the time. My mouse is of course high-end model with PMW3366 sensor and 1000 Hz polling rate. I guess I did everything right?

I played "DOOM Eternal" again for a while, shooting through the same level several times, switching between G-SYNC, V-SYNC and no sync at all... No difference for me. Not a single, tiniest stutter. There's a little bit of tearing without any sync, of course, other than that, everything feels equally good and responsive. If there is a difference, it's so little I struggle to notice any, same with no sync vs V-SYNC (except little tearing obviously). I find myself pretty affected by lagging of any sort in games, so maybe I'm delusional

Would you answer an off-topic question, please? In my opinion, there is still pretty much blur in rapid movement on this monitor we have (and ULMB just destroys brightness and cuts refresh rate), also I definitely notice ghosting. Extreme overdrive is hilarious, crazy overshoot and inverse ghosting visible, Normal overdrive setting seems ok, but ghosting is noticeable with fast mouse movements. Do you have any problem with that? My unit also suffers from pretty bad backlight bleed in bottom right corner, sadly. I am surely changing my display soon for something else, I get irritated by these trails occurring behind rapidly moving objects. Probably gonna try something with 240 Hz and decent blur reduction, like BenQ Zowie XL2546 with DyAc.

[jorimt]

Let's start with subjectivity you mentioned. It sounds quite odd to me, that it's the thing I would not notice. I've done extensive testing, comparing my impressions with both sync methods in a few games, and I find that hard to believe I would remain unaffected by these kinds of negative effects of display, that's why I was so confused with how much useless I actually found G-SYNC to be for me.

How long has it been since you switched from 60Hz to high refresh? Because, as I said, the biggest difference you're going to notice at first is the refresh rate; everything else will get drown out at first. It was that way for me as well.

When I first made the switch from you're basic office-use 16:10 1080p 60Hz Dell Utrasharp to this monitor, I actually wasn't even finding the refresh rate difference worth it, let alone G-SYNC, and tried a couple of 1440p 60Hz Ultrasharp models before switching back to this one.

In my case, this was because I had mainly been playing 3rd person SP games with a controller, where slow panning and lack of a need for precise aim made the high refresh and G-SYNC less noticeable. But after I started playing more FPS games with a mouse and keyboard, it slowly became evident both were worth it (and definitely noticeable after time) for my use case.

I mean, how can one not notice stuttering? I sure notice it, playing with stuttering, lagging or tearing was always unbearable to me, although on the new display tearing seems to be very slight when no sync is used. I guess that's thanks to the shorter scanout as well? V-SYNC or G-SYNC alike, I don't experience any of these negative effects. I am not trying to undermine your expertise, I'm just a little confused and new to all this.

Let's discount stuttering for the moment. G-SYNC only fixes V-SYNC stutter anyway, not system-side stutter. The primary difference here is input lag between the two.

So let's take a scenario where you're playing a game that doesn't half refresh lock with it's standalone V-SYNC method, and your FPS is within the refresh rate with both G-SYNC and standalone V-SYNC. V-SYNC is typically going to have 1 to 1 1/2 frame higher input lag than G-SYNC in that scenario.

At 60Hz, this is an additional 16.6ms to 24.9ms of input lag. However, at 165Hz, it's only an additional 6.1ms to 9.15ms of input lag. If you've just recently made the switch from 60Hz, that level of additional input lag is peanuts (no matter how sensitive you are) compared to what you were dealing with on a 60Hz display. You may ultimately become able to distinguish that input lag difference, or maybe not. Again, this is difficult to talk about because it is all subjective.

Secondly, let's talk about setting G-SYNC up a bit. I've seen your extensive article about G-SYNC, of course, including optimal settings. I don't think I set anything incorrectly, I did everything as you recommend. G-SYNC enabled for full screen only, NVCP V-SYNC enabled, only fullscreen mode in-game, all additional sync thingies disabled. I did not really have to set FPS cap, as my system is a few years old now and not so powerful anymore (duh, time for upgrade with Nvidia Ampere and AMD Zen3 ), and you advise to only cap frames if they go beyond refresh rate - in AAA games they usually don't, in CS:GO it doesn't matter, because I don't use any sync for it. I tried capping frames anyway, as explained, -3 FPS to max refresh rate, I used NVCP for frame cap. I set Low Latency Mode to On. My power setting is set to high performance by default, I just edit CPU frequency scaling index, I set it to minimum 5% instead 100%, I see no point for the cores to run at 100% all the time. My mouse is of course high-end model with PMW3366 sensor and 1000 Hz polling rate. I guess I did everything right?

Yes, sounds fine to me. Out of curiosity though, have you ever enabled the "Refresh Rate num" option in the monitor OSD? It's a yellow number readout that appears at the top right of the screen, and when G-SYNC is engaged, it will fluctuate with the framerate to signify G-SYNC is functioning.

I played "DOOM Eternal" again for a while, shooting through the same level several times, switching between G-SYNC, V-SYNC and no sync at all... No difference for me. Not a single, tiniest stutter. There's a little bit of tearing without any sync, of course, other than that, everything feels equally good and responsive. If there is a difference, it's so little I struggle to notice any, same with no sync vs V-SYNC (except little tearing obviously). I find myself pretty affected by lagging of any sort in games, so maybe I'm delusional

I don't disbelieve you. All I know is I can tell the difference on this same monitor between these scenarios, but it's going to depend on the individual. I will say for some games, it is harder to tell, and for other it's easier. That, and I never use standalone V-SYNC any more, so I'm not constantly switching back and forth between that and G-SYNC and trying to tell the minute differences apart at this point.

there is still pretty much blur in rapid movement on this monitor we have (and ULMB just destroys brightness and cuts refresh rate), also I definitely notice ghosting. Extreme overdrive is hilarious, crazy overshoot and inverse ghosting visible, Normal overdrive setting seems ok, but ghosting is noticeable with fast mouse movements. Do you have any problem with that? My unit also suffers from pretty bad backlight bleed in bottom right corner, sadly. I am surely changing my display soon for something else, I get irritated by these trails occurring behind rapidly moving objects. Probably gonna try something with 240 Hz and decent blur reduction, like BenQ Zowie XL2546 with DyAc.

Extreme overdrive is unusable on this monitor, yes. As for Normal overdrive and ghosting, I'll give you a little tip; 165Hz overdrive is slightly worse on this panel than 144Hz. Downclock and try again. TFT Central tested this on this panel (not model) and found that 165Hz has slightly slower GtG than 144Hz, so I use 144Hz myself, because, while slight, I can notice the difference as well.

As for backlight bleed, it's par for the course on these edge lit models, especially with IPS, as it is also prone to IPS "Glow," something that TN is not (though TN can obviously have backlight bleed as well).

Regarding trails, for one, FYI, this is still about the best 144Hz 1440p IPS panel you're going to get where GtG levels are concerned (there is a Viewsonic IPS model that recently released that has slightly faster GtG, but it has other issues). Secondly, the "irritation" factor depends on how you play. I'm a peripheral player. That is, I primarily focus on the center of screen/crosshair. But yes, if you're the type to dart your eyes around a lot and deviate from the crosshair to navigate and make shots, overdrive artifacts are going to be more noticeable, and you're better off looking into a monitor that has a lower GtG.

If you're not opposed to 1080p and want to stick with IPS, I'd recommend something like the ViewSonic
XG270, or a TN panel for faster GtG performance with less ghosting/overdrive artifacts. That, and 240Hz is even better for comp twitch shooters. And yes, if you don't notice a difference with G-SYNC at 165Hz, you'll notice it even less at 240Hz, so maybe you're better off with a 240Hz TN (with or without G-SYNC) at this point if you can tolerate sub 1440p.

[disq]

Extreme overdrive is unusable on this monitor, yes. As for Normal overdrive and ghosting, I'll give you a little tip; 165Hz overdrive is slightly worse on this panel than 144Hz. Downclock and try again. TFT Central tested this on this panel (not model) and found that 165Hz has slightly slower GtG than 144Hz, so I use 144Hz myself, because, while slight, I can notice the difference as well.

I thought that we should always use max refresh rate when GSYNC is on?!

AFAIK i have the same panel (viewsonic xg2703-gs) and i use 165hz. Should i just go back to 144hz and keep OC disabled?
This monitor doesn't have any Overdrive setting, just Response Time (Normal, Advanced & Ultra Fast) which i think is the same thing. I'm currently using the Advanced setting

[Chief Blur Buster]

And yes, if you don't notice a difference with G-SYNC at 165Hz, you'll notice it even less at 240Hz

As a general rule of thumb, destuttering near max Hz will be less noticeable at higher Hz than at lower Hz, since the frametime difference of 1/230sec vs 1/240sec is smaller than the frametime difference of 1/155sec vs 1/165sec, so framerate fluctuations can get less noticeable at higher refresh rates.

Now -- for lower frame rates -- testing a 165Hz IPS 4ms-rated versus a well-tuned 240Hz TN 1ms-rated G-SYNC .... it kind of depends on how the GtG behaviours and overdrive tuning is done.

The faster GtG of the TN panel is noticeable even at moderate frame rates such as 120fps-150fps, clearer on the 240Hz 1ms-rated TN than the 165Hz 4ms-rated IPS. Meaning, mid-range G-SYNC framerates (150fps-ish) can look clearer on a 240Hz TN G-SYNC display than a 165Hz IPS G-SYNC display, thanks to the GtG bottleneck. Rated GtG ideally needs to be a tiny fraction of a refresh cycle to prevent interfering with motion clarity.

Now, this is no guarantee of what a specific individual may notice during VRR. Everybody sees differently.

<Aside>
This will continue in the refresh rate race to retina refresh rates, where ultra-high Hz (1000Hz+) will cause appearance and latency of all sync technologies to converge to identicalness -- VSYNC ON, VSYNC OFF and G-SYNC looking identically low lag, tearingless, and stutterless, and also simultaneously blurless (ULMB without needing strobing). That's why Blur Busters has been an advocate of seeing eventual quadruple-digit refresh rates, and ASUS now has roadmapped that (thanks in part to Blur Busters). Think of 1000fps@1000Hz holy grail as essentially GSYNC II + ULMB II merged and strobeless -- basically full brightness blur reduction without latency, without strobe-amplified microstuttering, and without needing to flash a backlight.
</Aside>

[Chief Blur Buster]

I played "DOOM Eternal" again for a while, shooting through the same level several times, switching between G-SYNC, V-SYNC and no sync at all... No difference for me. Not a single, tiniest stutter. There's a little bit of tearing without any sync, of course, other than that, everything feels equally good and responsive. If there is a difference, it's so little I struggle to notice any, same with no sync vs V-SYNC (except little tearing obviously). I find myself pretty affected by lagging of any sort in games, so maybe I'm delusional

I mean, how can one not notice stuttering? I sure notice it, playing with stuttering, lagging or tearing was always unbearable to me, although on the new display tearing seems to be very slight when no sync is used. I guess that's thanks to the shorter scanout as well? V-SYNC or G-SYNC alike, I don't experience any of these negative effects. I am not trying to undermine your expertise, I'm just a little confused and new to all this.

Tearing visibility diminishes at higher Hz
Tearing is less visible at higher Hz because one frame's tearline is visible for only one refresh cycle, even if that frame is displayed over multiple refresh cycles. Even at 30fps low frame rates, 60Hz creates a 1/60sec tearline and 240Hz creates a 1/240sec tearline.

Mouse microstutter weak link
Are you using 1000Hz mouse at high-dpi setting such as 1600dpi or higher? Modern sensor accurate at high DPI? High resolution mouse pad? Clean mouse feet? Mouseturns exactly as smooth as keyboard strafe left/right? Try testing some mouse slowturns and if they're steppy, increase mouse DPI and lower in-game sensitivity, until mouse slowturns is silky TestUFO-smooth. By eliminating the mouse microstutter weak link, we can more analyze other stutter sources.

Human vision differences, and eye-tracking habits
Stutter visibility can change depending on whether your eyes are tracking the motion or not. Different people have different stutter sensitivities. For some, stutter is only visible at low frame rates, some people have a reduced motion sensitivity or is partially motion blind (Akinetopsia), or you might just not see it nearly as much as motion blur. It is said that 12% of the human population is color blind.
Also, try viewing some stutter simulation demos high-Hz stutter versus no microstutter.

[jorimt]

I thought that we should always use max refresh rate when GSYNC is on?!

AFAIK i have the same panel (viewsonic xg2703-gs) and i use 165hz. Should i just go back to 144hz and keep OC disabled?
This monitor doesn't have any Overdrive setting, just Response Time (Normal, Advanced & Ultra Fast) which i think is the same thing. I'm currently using the Advanced setting

I'm only referring to the overclock for this specific panel, see:
https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/as ... erclocking

May or may not be different for the Viewsonic or Acer model, but I've noticed the slight increase in GtG with 165Hz on mine. Also, yes, "Response Time" is the same thing as the overdrive presets.

If you want to test for yourself, simply view the below test pattern at 165Hz, then downclock to 144Hz (disable the overclock in the monitor OSD), and test again:
https://www.testufo.com/ghosting

It may or may not be noticeable on your panel, but just a heads up to owners of this panel in general.

[disq]

I'm only referring to the overclock for this specific panel, see:
https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/as ... erclocking

According to that review, the PG279Q uses an M270Q008 V0 panel but the XB271HU which is the one OP have (and i believe you also do) have an M270DAN02.3 panel - https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/ac ... .htm#panel - which is the same as the ViewSonic XG2703-GS - https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/viewson ... ifications

If you want to test for yourself, simply view the below test pattern at 165Hz, then downclock to 144Hz (disable the overclock in the monitor OSD), and test again:
https://www.testufo.com/ghosting

It may or may not be noticeable on your panel, but just a heads up to owners of this panel in general.

Yes, the ghosting is slightly more noticeable while using 165hz when checking that page. Guess it's better to just stick with the 144hz and keep OC off. It's only a +21hz increase after all and probably there are no real benefits between these two

[jorimt]

According to that review, the PG279Q uses an M270Q008 V0 panel but the XB271HU which is the one OP have (and i believe you also do) have an M270DAN02.3 panel - https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/ac ... .htm#panel - which is the same as the ViewSonic XG2703-GS - https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/viewson ... ifications

Hmm, it's been a while, so I did some digging:

- Acer XB270HU (panel = AU Optronics M270DAN02.3)
- Acer XB271HU (panel = AU Optronics M270DAN02.6)
- Viewsonic XG2703 (panel = AU Optronics M270DAN02.3)
- Asus ROG Swift PG279Q (panel = AU Optronics M270Q008 V0)

So the PG279Q and XB271HU indeed have different panel numbers.

That said, all I remember when I was investigating this four years ago to choose between the two (Vega's post on Overclock is ultimately what helped me decide: https://www.overclock.net/forum/18082-b ... em-15.html), is that, sans the revision numbers, they were released around the same time, and were effectively the same zero-bezel IPS panel (TFT Central never reviewed the XB271HU for whatever reason).

If you want to test for yourself, simply view the below test pattern at
Yes, the ghosting is slightly more noticeable while using 165hz when checking that page. Guess it's better to just stick with the 144hz and keep OC off. It's only a +21hz increase after all and probably there are no real benefits between these two

Again, it could vary (I actually wasn't aware that the Viewsonic used the slightly older panel until now), but the overdrive difference between 144Hz and 165Hz (with 165Hz overdrive performance being slightly worse) is apparent on my panel.

Anecdotal, but something worth mentioning in the context of the OP's comment about ghosting.