Which 1440p Freesync monitor?

Gimpymoo · 11 Jan 2016 at 20:13

Budget around £400 but cheaper ideally if possible.

Just got rid of an Acer G277HU which as an introduction to 1440p was awesome but for gaming, it was pathetic. Even 60fps youtube content looked bug eyed.

Even with all onboard options disabled, it had some AWFUL "flickering". My 8 year old HP W2207 looked smoother.

Thanks.

Panos · 11 Jan 2016 at 22:16

Unfortunately this

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/iiya...g-widescreen-led-monitor-black-mo-124-iy.html

went out of stock over the weekend at OCUK. And at good price also, if lucky look around...

Next in line is this at £429

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...escreen-led-slim-bezel-monitor-mo-087-as.html

If you do not want 2560x1080 at 29" or 4K monitors which are in between.

Gimpymoo · 12 Jan 2016 at 00:34

My basket at Overclockers UK:

1 x Asus MG278Q ROG Dominator 27" 2560x1440 TN FREESYNC 144Hz Gaming Widescreen LED Slim Bezel Monitor -= £429.95

Total: £441.05
(includes shipping: £11.10)

Is that a good monitor?

The liyama is not 144hz though is it?

Spuddy · 12 Jan 2016 at 00:39

Very good monitor indeed

Gimpymoo · 12 Jan 2016 at 00:58

Although I only had 1440p for a few days, no way can I go back to anything lower.

It just bring things alive.

How does 1080p scale on 1440p panels?

Also, viewing angles are not a problem they once were are they? As in, lift your cheeks to fart and you lose the picture?

artur_k · 12 Jan 2016 at 03:00

Gimpymoo said:
My basket at Overclockers UK:

1 x Asus MG278Q ROG Dominator 27" 2560x1440 TN FREESYNC 144Hz Gaming Widescreen LED Slim Bezel Monitor -= £429.95

Total: £441.05
(includes shipping: £11.10)

Is that a good monitor?

The liyama is not 144hz though is it?

Last week I bought the Asus mg278q from a well known online store for £366 delivered. Great monitor for gaming. I had to calibrate it for pictures though as it was way off.

Viewing angles are a lot better than iiyama 27 inch I had before. I'd say good enough for farting

TheMorningStar · 12 Jan 2016 at 07:37

arthur, we don't mention competitor sites directly, edit your post man before you get suspended

artur_k · 12 Jan 2016 at 14:35

TheMorningStar said:
arthur, we don't mention competitor sites directly, edit your post man before you get suspended

Edited

PCM2 · 12 Jan 2016 at 14:46

artur_k said:
Edited

Price-hinting isn't advised either.

Warbie · 12 Jan 2016 at 14:58

Gimpymoo said:
How does 1080p scale on 1440p panels?

It's not pretty. Significantly worse than on a 1080p panel.

Gimpymoo · 12 Jan 2016 at 15:04

Warbie said:
It's not pretty. Significantly worse than on a 1080p panel.

Thanks.

My only concern is native 1440p is going to require serious grunt moving forwards... no?

I currently have a R9 390.

Is the IPS variant, MG279Q worth the extra and is the differene between response rate (1ms and 4ms) noticeable when gaming?

TheMorningStar · 12 Jan 2016 at 17:20

Gimpymoo said:
Thanks.

My only concern is native 1440p is going to require serious grunt moving forwards... no?

I currently have a R9 390.

Is the IPS variant, MG279Q worth the extra and is the differene between response rate (1ms and 4ms) noticeable when gaming?

heh I'm after 1440p 144hz eyefinity, I'm hoping AMDs next gen is as spectacular as we are lead to believe. I'm willing to buy 2 cards if needed to drive 3x1440p, I'll try with one first mind. 390 should be fine for 1 monitor mind, sure as time goes on you will need more but we get a massive jump this coming gen.

regarding the latency question, I don't really think it matters, there is latency up and down the system and that extra 3ms probably accounts for nothing, I'm sure a professional competitive gamer would say otherwise but meh. Modern high end TNs are supposed to be pretty good compared to how they were 5 years ago, viewing angles are better, colour is better, to me it's not worth the extra and i do actually watch a metric ****ton of movies and tv shows on the PC but it's not like everything's in pastel shades. The new monitors at CES that have the greater contrasts look interesting mind but god knows when they will hit.

Blackjack Davy · 12 Jan 2016 at 19:24

Gimpymoo said:
Thanks.

My only concern is native 1440p is going to require serious grunt moving forwards... no?

I currently have a R9 390.

You probably won't be able to run everything balls out. 1080p yes, 1440p no. How much of a compromise is acceptable varies I guess.

Skyrim runs in Ultra regardless but I've had to turn off the ENB, or at least DoF, SSAO, etc.

Warbie · 12 Jan 2016 at 20:43

Gimpymoo said:
Thanks.

My only concern is native 1440p is going to require serious grunt moving forwards... no?

Whether it's worth it - honestly i'd say no. But this probably goes against most opinions on this forum! I wasn't blown away by 1440p at all. 144hz and freesync, on the other hand , was nice and something I want from now on. I prefer a large screen too and would much prefer a 32" 1440p over a 27", for example. This isn't to say the increase in res wasn't appreciated, but it's a double edge sword with the extra clarity resulting in a loss in frame rate. I have a 390x btw and had no trouble with most games maxed at 60fps in 1440p - but what's the point in having 144hz if you're going to slum it at 60 fps!

Gimpymoo · 12 Jan 2016 at 21:02

Warbie said:
Whether it's worth it - honestly i'd say no. But this probably goes against most opinions on this forum! I wasn't blown away by 1440p at all. 144hz and freesync, on the other hand , was nice and something I want from now on. I prefer a large screen too and would much prefer a 32" 1440p over a 27", for example. This isn't to say the increase in res wasn't appreciated, but it's a double edge sword with the extra clarity resulting in a loss in frame rate. I have a 390x btw and had no trouble with most games maxed at 60fps in 1440p - but what's the point in having 144hz if you're going to slum it at 60 fps!

That is my concern.

My gaming nowadays consists of Arma 3 which is an FPS write off anyway, so no loss there, Minecraft, Trackmania, Indie games and bits and bobs so FPS is not generally an issue. I play few "AAA" games nowadays, I just want a nice experience.

21:9 would be an option HOWEVER * x 1080 is not enough in my opinion, * x 1440 is where its at but the price of those is beyond me.

So, 27" @ 1080p or 27" @ 1440p. I have tried my "goto" games at 1440p and the experience was much improved from my current 1680x1050 - LOL

The 1440p panel I had was an Acer G277HU which to be honest was pants.

Marketed as 1ms but actually relied on overdrive to achieve this which caused corruption in some games and the panel itself suffered from AWFUL PWM flicker to the point of making me feel awkward. Side by side, my 8 year old HP w2207 was more pleasant to look at. For some reason, at that res however, motion blur seemed to exaggerated?

Too many choices at the moment with no overall clear winner?

Panos · 12 Jan 2016 at 23:04

Few things.

Those TN panels Samsung is making, and they power all the 144hz 2560x1440 monitors are PERFECT. I have a 2730Z and believe me, doesn't feel like TN. (compared to eg the 2410T)

However if you can afford the extra £10-15 for the IPS get it.

Second FPS and R9 390
With Freesync you only have to make sure you can maintain the minimum FPS constantly. The tech is working then, and it doesn't matter if you are at 35fps or 80fps. The graphics are smooth.

The Asus has 35-90fps Freesync band. So if you see a game where you generate 70+ fps, settings are low go higher

TN panel viewing angles.
Do you plan to view the monitor from 20 degrees angle?

Gimpymoo · 13 Jan 2016 at 00:28

The IPS would be fine but the 35-90hz limit on Freesync is confusing.

Trackmania maxed out runs at stupid FPS.

So, even with this new monitor, I would still get screen tearing on my 144hz monitor right if the game is running at say 200fps maxed out?

Panos · 13 Jan 2016 at 07:58

Gimpymoo said:
The IPS would be fine but the 35-90hz limit on Freesync is confusing.

Trackmania maxed out runs at stupid FPS.

So, even with this new monitor, I would still get screen tearing on my 144hz monitor right if the game is running at say 200fps maxed out?

Freesync monitor have different bandwidth limits.

My XL2730Z works between 40-144, the Asus 35-90. I can only tell you from the first one, which I play Trackmania, with max out settings.
I have set the limiter, so my cards, even the 295X2, consumes less power while the screen looks smooth.

Same applies to the War Thunder which at max out settings generates stupid fps.

When you see the tech working, 35 - 90 or 144 look the same. (144 is tad more smooth)

PCM2 · 13 Jan 2016 at 08:07

Panos said:
Few things.

Those TN panels Samsung is making, and they power all the 144hz 2560x1440 monitors are PERFECT. I have a 2730Z and believe me, doesn't feel like TN. (compared to eg the 2410T)

However if you can afford the extra £10-15 for the IPS get it.

Second FPS and R9 390
With Freesync you only have to make sure you can maintain the minimum FPS constantly. The tech is working then, and it doesn't matter if you are at 35fps or 80fps. The graphics are smooth.

The Asus has 35-90fps Freesync band. So if you see a game where you generate 70+ fps, settings are low go higher

TN panel viewing angles.
Do you plan to view the monitor from 20 degrees angle?

Firstly, it is AUO who makes those TN panels and not Samsung. Secondly they are certainly not perfect (no monitor panel is these days or there would be no room for progress). And thirdly, your eyes subtend various different viewing angles as you gaze at different parts of a screen even when sitting directly in front of it. As a result, the viewing angle limitations of a 27" TN are significant enough to cause colours to lose saturation lower down the screen and become inappropriately deep further up.

Gimpymoo · 13 Jan 2016 at 10:21

Panos said:
Freesync monitor have different bandwidth limits.

My XL2730Z works between 40-144, the Asus 35-90. I can only tell you from the first one, which I play Trackmania, with max out settings.
I have set the limiter, so my cards, even the 295X2, consumes less power while the screen looks smooth.

Same applies to the War Thunder which at max out settings generates stupid fps.

When you see the tech working, 35 - 90 or 144 look the same. (144 is tad more smooth)

Thank you.

I would prefer 40-144. I expect all the games I play to be above 40 (except Arma) or is TN the only choice if wanting higher adaptive synch limits?

Any IPS panels with such limits? 90 seems too low for my liking.