Out of the 2 monitors I bought, 1 was good and 2 were bad. One of them was dead on arrival and was replaced. The replacement looks to be running well. The other one has been getting uneven coloration and it has this nasty split down the middle of the monitor from time to time. Also there are the issues I mentioned before. It has a timing issue with the AMD R9 290x and won't let me run at 60 hz on any resolution. It tends to display dark, it's contrast ratio is also not that good. I don't like the look of dynamic contrast ratio. Just a note on the future, avoid cheap junk. I think when I get a new Video card in Q1 2017, I will see if it can run 4k @60hz without flickering on the monitor. If there is still flickering, swap it for an IPS from LG.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
monitors are cheap because everyone i know stopped buying them and just use their tv instead, the couch is more comfy then the computer desk anyhow, and tvs nowadays are just as good if not better than any monitors. nothing beats playing my favorite mmorpg or other game than reclined on my couch on a 80 inch 4k 240hz tv which upconverts lower resolutions automatically.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
monitors are cheap because everyone i know stopped buying them and just use their tv instead, the couch is more comfy then the computer desk anyhow, and tvs nowadays are just as good if not better than any monitors. nothing beats playing my favorite mmorpg or other game than reclined on my couch on a 80 inch 4k 240hz tv which upconverts lower resolutions automatically.
There is no such thing, at least as computer monitor specs are generally stated. That "240 Hz" TV can't genuinely do 240 completely independent frames per second. If you're lucky, maybe it can do 60. Depending on how old it is, it might not even be that, as monitor connections with the bandwidth to handle 3840x2160 at 60 Hz are a relatively recent phenomenon.
A 1920x1080 resolution scaled up to 3840x2160 isn't going to look any better than running it at 1920x1080 on a native 1920x1080 screen. If it's rendered at 2560x1440 and scaled up to 3840x2160, that will look worse outright than running it on a screen with a native resolution 2560x1440. Upscaling is a compatibility hack for videos where the data simply uses a lower resolution. It's not what you want to do for gaming unless you just don't have enough video card power for the monitor you bought.
It seems like G-sync monitors cost a lot more than Free sync monitors.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
It seems like G-sync monitors cost a lot more than Free sync monitors.
They cost more for you to buy because they cost more to build. FreeSync is just AMD's name for their implementation of the industry standard Adaptive Sync. To make a FreeSync monitor, you don't need to pay AMD a cent. Intel is probably going to support it soon, too, and has said as much.
In order to build a FreeSync monitor, you just use off-the-shelf scalers that support it (recent and reasonably high quality) and you're done. You have to have scalers to build a monitor anyway, so if you're making a nice monitor, it's often pretty much free to add FreeSync support.
G-Sync, on the other hand, is proprietary to Nvidia. In order to build a G-sync monitor, you have to buy some $100 module from Nvidia, in addition to all of the other parts that you'd normally use to build a monitor. So that adds $100 to the cost of building the monitor, which translates to about an extra $150 or so at retail due to various markups along the way.
Thus, you'd typically expect a G-sync monitor to cost about $150 more than an otherwise identical FreeSync monitor. If you're into adaptive sync (which if you're a gamer, you should be) and buying a monitor and video card at the same time, that $150 is a big enough discrepancy to dismiss Nvidia out of hand outside of the high end. That's why I expect Nvidia to eventually support adaptive sync, too, but they're taking their sweet time getting their driver situation in order.
Comments
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236466
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Out of the 2 monitors I bought, 1 was good and 2 were bad.
One of them was dead on arrival and was replaced. The replacement looks to be running well.
The other one has been getting uneven coloration and it has this nasty split down the middle of the monitor from time to time.
Also there are the issues I mentioned before. It has a timing issue with the AMD R9 290x and won't let me run at 60 hz on any resolution. It tends to display dark, it's contrast ratio is also not that good. I don't like the look of dynamic contrast ratio.
Just a note on the future, avoid cheap junk. I think when I get a new Video card in Q1 2017, I will see if it can run 4k @60hz without flickering on the monitor. If there is still flickering, swap it for an IPS from LG.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
A 1920x1080 resolution scaled up to 3840x2160 isn't going to look any better than running it at 1920x1080 on a native 1920x1080 screen. If it's rendered at 2560x1440 and scaled up to 3840x2160, that will look worse outright than running it on a screen with a native resolution 2560x1440. Upscaling is a compatibility hack for videos where the data simply uses a lower resolution. It's not what you want to do for gaming unless you just don't have enough video card power for the monitor you bought.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
In order to build a FreeSync monitor, you just use off-the-shelf scalers that support it (recent and reasonably high quality) and you're done. You have to have scalers to build a monitor anyway, so if you're making a nice monitor, it's often pretty much free to add FreeSync support.
G-Sync, on the other hand, is proprietary to Nvidia. In order to build a G-sync monitor, you have to buy some $100 module from Nvidia, in addition to all of the other parts that you'd normally use to build a monitor. So that adds $100 to the cost of building the monitor, which translates to about an extra $150 or so at retail due to various markups along the way.
Thus, you'd typically expect a G-sync monitor to cost about $150 more than an otherwise identical FreeSync monitor. If you're into adaptive sync (which if you're a gamer, you should be) and buying a monitor and video card at the same time, that $150 is a big enough discrepancy to dismiss Nvidia out of hand outside of the high end. That's why I expect Nvidia to eventually support adaptive sync, too, but they're taking their sweet time getting their driver situation in order.