Full G-SYNC vs Compatible with HDR

[rushboarduk]

The other day I managed to watch most of the live build of LTT's 10 PCs, and noticed they want to use Asus PG278QR monitors.  However, I've been looking at instead the PG279 model, and the AORUS AD27QD.  Both are IPS with 2560x1440 resolution, though whilst Asus's is completely G-SYNC at 165Hz, AORUS' is only G-SYNC Compatible and 144Hz, but incorporates HDR filtering as well.

 

Even after viewing the Nvidia Secret Lab video, I'm not certain I'll ever completely understand G-SYNC's "variable override" technology, but wanted to ask if the HDR is worth the trade-off in refresh rate.

[Sorenson]

GSync compatible means it’s really high quality monitor. GSync regular is where it’s still a good panel but also has hardware in the monitor to prevent tearing.

 

I would go with the Aorus if it has a nicer panel. I don’t think you would ever notice the difference between 144 and 165hz

[TrigrH]

HDR is garbage on almost all monitors. You need a really bright display with plenty of zones to get the most of HDR.

[Jurrunio]

Gsync compatible pretty much means a Freesync monitor that matches Gsync test requirements. . HDR compatible is more of a joke until you get to some really high end ones. I dont think there are good HDR monitors with high refresh rate tbh, though I'm not up to date on that

[jones177]

2 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

Gsync compatible pretty much means a Freesync monitor that matches Gsync test requirements. . HDR compatible is more of a joke until you get to some really high end ones. I dont think there are good HDR monitors with high refresh rate tbh, though I'm not up to date on that

I quit like my "joke" HDR. 

 

I was buying a LG 38WK95C-W anyway so I was not expecting anything out of its cheesy HDR. After watching countless Hardware Unboxed videos I expected it to be bad. 

It wasn't. I used it first with the Assassin's Creed Origins and then Odyssey. The effect was not super dramatic but I liked it better on than off.

 

Today I installed Shadow of the tomb Raider on the computer with the LG 38WK95C-W. I only wanted to see if I could get a playable frame rate with RTX on without DLSS and use ultra shadows. I could do it at 4k without anti aliasing but I find that at 3840 X 1600 a little bit a AA is needed. The game would not play at the monitors native resolution with RTX enabled. It was stuck a 75hz and 3440 X 1440 and HDR did not work since it needs 60hz(cheezy HDR). To try and force 60hz I switched HDR in Windows before launching the game and it worked. The images were so good that it put 4k without HDR to shame. 

 

The monitor uses HDR10 and from what I read it is an open source standard. It probably does not come close to HDR 1000 but I still like it.

 

 

 

[Jurrunio]

9 minutes ago, jones177 said:

I quite like my "joke" HDR. 

feel the "real" HDR, and you'll find out why most of them are a joke

[jones177]

18 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

feel the "real" HDR, and you'll find out why most of them are a joke

That is the trouble.

If there was a 4k HDR 1000 32" monitor available I would get it. 

 

This is the list I am looking at. https://displayhdr.org/certified-products/

The only monitor that comes close is the LG 32UL950 and it is only HDR 600 and it may be in the joke category. I would hate to pay over a $1000 for one to find out it was.

 

 

 

 

 

[rushboarduk]

I appreciate your comments, jones177, but I can't afford 4K - such monitors at 144Hz are, by design, meant to take full advantage of the HDR certification.

 

I was looking at the AORUS because it is interesting to see something with HDR on the G-SYNC table, but still affordable to most users.