Freesync range 35-90 only, on 144hz asus MG279Q?

[Guest Strangerbob]

Heres the article from PC per:

 

http://www.pcper.com/news/Displays/ASUS-MG279Q-144-Hz-Display-Caps-90-Hz-FreeSync

 

I dont know if PCper is nvidia biased or something, but they just made another article showing a big freesync defect. Supposedly the new 1440p 144hz IPS Asus MG279Q has a freesync range of 35-90hz only. WHY? beats me.

 

(To be fair they also uncovered a gsync defect a few months ago - the one where gsync flickers like mad if fps ever drops below 1fps - on load screens and such.)

 

What happens over 90hz? It turns into vsync or vsync off obviously. 

So again, if you actually will use this display you effectively need to put up a global FPS cap of 89fps to never let freesync hit its upper limit.

On 144hz max you could just set it to vsync mode and not bother with a cap. Cuz the vsync input lag @ 144fps/144hz is really negligible, not to mention you wont stay @ exact 144fps for very long on most modern games. 

 

First the freesync ghosting crap and now this?

IF this is true, then im scared off freesync forever and will GLADLY pay 150$ more for gsync. You know - to actually have a SOLUTION to the age old problems, not another trade off scenario.

 

edit:

Or is it all entirely ASUS`s fault and noone elses. Just cant think why ASUS would deliberately cripple their own product like this.

 

edit2:

Oh, and 90hz IS NOT OK for gaming, WHEN i am paying for a 144hz monitor.

Then it should be a 90hz max monitor and be cheaper. Cuz then the LCD yields will be better.

[Str_Mape]

You could always get a monitor from a different manufacturer and not just boycott Freesync because of a bad monitor implementation.

[Humbug]

err... it's not a freesync defect. It's a poor monitor implementation

[Sunako]

   First Asus put off labeling the monitor as Freesync and now they choose to only enable it from 35-90hz

I can't tell if its Asus trying to make sure  buyers only get the best exp. and not tarnish their own name

because there is something wrong with Freesync. Or it them trying to keep ADM's name looking better

Eithere way there is a reason behind not allowing Freesyn up to the max refresh of the monitor.

[DavidTheWin]

PCPer doesn't have an NVidia bias just because they point out flaws in AMD's technology; pointing things like this out in their reviews is their entire job. If a reviewer missed something like this in their review then I wouldn't watch their reviews.

[Fetzie]

IF this is true, then im scared off freesync forever and will GLADLY pay 150$ more for gsync. You know - to actually have a SOLUTION to the age old problems, not another trade off scenario.

 

So it is AMD's fault that ASUS fucked up the implementation?

[Sunako]

@Fetzie My question IS why does the monitor work @ 144hz just fine without Freesync  Asus limited it 

by choice. It might not be Asus that messed up but a fundamental problem with Freesyn. Asus has already 

shipper the monitors and in the OSD it says Freesync 35-90hz  not pcper attacking them ore making information

up.

[qwertywarrior]

why u ask

 

its because there are many scalers

some cant handle mid to high some can

[Valentyn]

So it is AMD's fault that ASUS fucked up the implementation?

 

 

@Fetzie My question IS why does the monitor work @ 144hz just fine without Freesync  Asus limited it 

by choice. It might not be Asus that messed up but a fundamental problem with Freesyn. Asus has already 

shipper the monitors and in the OSD it says Freesync 35-90hz  not pcper attacking them ore making information

up.

 

Can you honestly state the same for all the current manufacturers that produce FreeSync displays? None of them have a wide refreshrate window for FreeSync.

 

So they're all doing it on purpose?

[That Norwegian Guy]

90hz is my ideal spot to be for gaming, anything higher works the GPU harder for no added benefit.

 

That said, does it crap out at 89 or 90? You say 89 but it sounds like it should be 90.

[Valentyn]

90hz is my ideal spot to be for gaming, anything higher works the GPU harder for no added benefit.

 

That said, does it crap out at 89 or 90? You say 89 but it sounds like it should be 90.

 

I'd say we need to wait for reviews. I know G-Sync's current range on available monitors is 144hz, Mine usually caps it around 143, Just in case it seems.

I wonder if FreeSync will do something similar and cap it at 89. The minimum of 35 isn't an issue for me, and I think that's fine. 

[Sunako]

Val its not about a narrow ranger here but asus chose to lilit freesync mode lower then that of the max refresh of the monitor. The monitor works just fine from 90-144 but freesync can not be used at that point.

[MrDynamicMan]

I still don't really care about freesync/gsync. Costs a lot and doesn't help too much. And it locks you downs to a Nvidia/AMD

[Gdourado]

The problem I see is not lag, but stutter...

Imagine that you have a game running at 144 fps. That is out of freesync, but you may have vsync enabled.

If the fps drops to 130, then 123, then 105 then back to 144, since all those dips are out of freesync range, you will get stutter, one of the problems freesync was supposed to solve. Stutter and tearing.

Really disappointed as I have a 290X and was really hoping for a good freesync implementation.

[mvitkun]

You could always get a monitor from a different manufacturer and not just boycott Freesync because of a bad monitor implementation.

err... it's not a freesync defect. It's a poor monitor implementation

So it is AMD's fault that ASUS fucked up the implementation?

Poor implementation?

It goes lower than any other FreeSync monitor, the rest only go to 40Hz.

Sure it'd be nice if it had the full range (35-144), but if the choice is between what LG did (48-X) or this (35-90) then I'd take this any day of the week.

I mean you'll more often be at sub 48 fps than you'll be at over 90 fps.

And if you get more fps than that just turn up VSR (or just add the resolution via registry), turn up a few settings, and make the game look better since XSync will make it smoother at low fps.

 

Or you could use an FPS limiting factor in an overclocking tool (Precision X, Afterburner, etc) and make your pc run quieter.

[EChondo]

I do not have an opinion on this until we have some more testing about this issue. It could just be a problem on ASUS's end, it wouldn't be the first time, so it's just a wait and see for me.
 

PCPer doesn't have an NVidia bias just because they point out flaws in AMD's technology; pointing things like this out in their reviews is their entire job. If a reviewer missed something like this in their review then I wouldn't watch their reviews.

Agreed, I remember when Ryan reported and even tested AMD's frame pacing problems and people were calling him a Nvidia fanboy for talking "crap" on AMD. Uh no? He is reporting on an issue that has existed for years that no one really noticed/could test for until then and he followed up on it for months. If he was a Nvidia fanboy he wouldn't have reported on it and kept it a secret!

[Valentyn]

Val its not about a narrow ranger here but asus chose to lilit freesync mode lower then that of the max refresh of the monitor. The monitor works just fine from 90-144 but freesync can not be used at that point.

Hardly Asus, as no other FreeSync monitor has the full range of refreshrate currently as well. 

The LG's also all have a narrow FreeSync range. 48-75hz. Are LG purposely limiting it as well?

 

It's a FreeSync, and controller issue. Which is Why G-Sync's range is so much better at the moment, it's a custom controller.

 

FreeSync will improve as controllers improve. Asus just put in the best they could.

[Sunako]

The LG panels cap out at 75Hz top end it does period. This monitor does 144 and the stop freesync above 90hz two different stories. This monitor works find above 90-144 hz when out of freesync mode. Asus is confident in the panel all the way up to the max refresh as long as freesync is not enabled.

the fact that freesync isn't supported to the max refresh of the monitor just makes me question. We know asus has made several good monitors with high refresh rates before. athat and rather jumping to conclusions that I am referring to a narrow vrr I am not. I am questioning the choice to limit the vrr lower then the max that the monitor.

It just makes me further believe that the hardware nvidia uses was the right path and freesync being done its way might be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time arm made great claims then in real use it doesn't come together. Its reminding me of Bulldozer type of event all over again.

[spartaman64]

The LG panels cap out at 75Hz top end it does period. This monitor does 144 and the stop freesync above 90hz two different stories. This monitor works find above 90-144 hz when out of freesync mode. Asus is confident in the panel all the way up to the max refresh as long as freesync is not enabled.

the fact that freesync isn't supported to the max refresh of the monitor just makes me question. We know asus has made several good monitors with high refresh rates before. athat and rather jumping to conclusions that I am referring to a narrow vrr I am not. I am questioning the choice to limit the vrr lower then the max that the monitor.

It just makes me further believe that the hardware nvidia uses was the right path and freesync being done its way might be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time arm made great claims then in real use it doesn't come together. Its reminding me of Bulldozer type of event all over again.

 

 

Poor implementation?

It goes lower than any other FreeSync monitor, the rest only go to 40Hz.

Sure it'd be nice if it had the full range (35-144), but if the choice is between what LG did (48-X) or this (35-90) then I'd take this any day of the week.

I mean you'll more often be at sub 48 fps than you'll be at over 90 fps.

And if you get more fps than that just turn up VSR (or just add the resolution via registry), turn up a few settings, and make the game look better since XSync will make it smoother at low fps.

 

Or you could use an FPS limiting factor in an overclocking tool (Precision X, Afterburner, etc) and make your pc run quieter.

 

 

 

 

 

Can you honestly state the same for all the current manufacturers that produce FreeSync displays? None of them have a wide refreshrate window for FreeSync.

 

So they're all doing it on purpose?

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-freesync-review-with-the-acer-xb270hu-monitor,1.html

http://techreport.com/review/28073/benq-xl2730z-freesync-monitor-reviewed

theres a acer and a benq 144hz free sync monitor not sure if they have the same problems

[mvitkun]

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-freesync-review-with-the-acer-xb270hu-monitor,1.html

http://techreport.com/review/28073/benq-xl2730z-freesync-monitor-reviewed

theres a acer and a benq 144hz free sync monitor not sure if they have the same problems

They both have 40-144Hz VRR windows.

Yes it has a larger window but how often will you be over 90fps in modern games in comparison to how often you're under 40fps?

I don't know about you but I more often dip below 40 than go over 90.

And in games like DOTA where you see constant fps over 100fps you could just use DSR/VSR/downsampling.

[spartaman64]

They both have 40-144Hz VRR windows.

Yes it has a larger window but how often will you be over 90fps in modern games in comparison to how often you're under 40fps?

I don't know about you but I more often dip below 40 than go over 90.

And in games like DOTA where you see constant fps over 100fps you could just use DSR/VSR/downsampling

if you are buying a 144hz monitor you probably have the hardware to push games to 144hz

[mvitkun]

if you are buying a 144hz monitor you probably have the hardware to push games to 144hz

What single GPU from AMD has enough power to push 144fps in modern titles?

The FreeSync Crossfire drivers release date is TBA, they decided to delay it, and unless you're playing on low/medium settings you're gonna have a hard time getting 144fps even on a 290X.

[spartaman64]

What single GPU from AMD has enough power to push 144fps in modern titles?

The FreeSync Crossfire drivers release date is TBA, they decided to delay it, and unless you're playing on low/medium settings you're gonna have a hard time getting 144fps even on a 290X.

certain games benefit from 144hz and other games you wont really notice and the games that benefit from 144hz are usually easy to run like cs go

[mvitkun]

certain games benefit from 144hz and other games you wont really notice and the games that benefit from 144hz are usually easy to run like cs go

Okay so here's the question then.

Is the difference between 90Hz and 120/144Hz significant?

The HTC Vive VR headset and Occulus' most recent devkit used 90hz displays, and if they think that 90Hz is acceptable for a display that's a couple centimeters from your face then going above 90hz probably has much less benefit than going above 60hz does.

[spartaman64]

Okay so here's the question then.

Is the difference between 90Hz and 120/144Hz significant?

The HTC Vive VR headset and Occulus' most recent devkit used 90hz displays, and if they think that 90Hz is acceptable for a display that's a couple centimeters from your face then going above 90hz probably has much less benefit than going above 60hz does.

i havent had a 144hz monitor but lots of people say that it offers a much smoother experience