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

[mvitkun]

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

Compared to a 60Hz monitor......not compared to a 90Hz monitor.

60-75Hz is a tiny window, but it makes a huge difference.

But I'd assume the difference between 90-120Hz or 90-144Hz is about as small as the difference between 120-144Hz.

[Doobeedoo]

Obviously tech needs better implementation.

 

Just wait. People tend to jump on everything first gen or whatever. I'm fine with current monitor, I won't pay for monitor same price like for a new rig just to get somewhat better resolution with higher Hz while still have to choose between TN/IPS. I'd rather wait for something new and more worth the price.

[Guest Strangerbob]

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.

 

Thats none of your business how often i will have over what fps... and in what games.

 

My brain is super sensitive and I see MAJOR difference between 90 and 144 and i play lots of OLD games.

If im paying for a 144hz panel, i expect a proper VRR implementation thats according to the panels best capabilities.

[mvitkun]

Thats none of your business how often i will have over what fps... and in what games.

 

My brain is super sensitive and I see MAJOR difference between 90 and 144 and i play lots of OLD games.

If im paying for a 144hz panel, i expect a proper VRR implementation thats according to the panels best capabilities.

I'm just making sure, as sarcasm is hard to identify on the internet, but you're being facetious right?

[Valentyn]

Compared to a 60Hz monitor......not compared to a 90Hz monitor.

60-75Hz is a tiny window, but it makes a huge difference.

But I'd assume the difference between 90-120Hz or 90-144Hz is about as small as the difference between 120-144Hz.

 

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

 

I honestly have to say it certainly does offer a better experience. I play quite a bit of WoW, and other similars games and even there you notice the drop from 120+ fps to anything under 100fps. Dropping to 60 and lower is very noticeable. 

When it comes to fast paced games such as FPS, it extremely noticeable to the point it can feel jarring. 

 

I notice any and all big fps drops, and running with G-Sync truly alleviates the issues. 

 

Hopefully future FreeSync monitors widen their usable range, as the moment I think it would be really nasty running over 90fps and seeing it drop below it only to suddenly have FreeSync kick in out of nowhere. Unless of course FreeSync will limit the game's max FPS to the FreeSync limit of 90fps.

[Ryan Shrout]

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.

 

First, I LOVE being questions as biased then actually have the issue we reported on all called a "defect." Really brings everything home for me.

 

Secondly, the issue ASUS appears to have is that the scalar they implemented for an IPS display can only support that 35-90 Hz range. Other scalars might have been able to hit other ranges, but no current FreeSync enabled scalar can hit 350/40-144 Hz on IPS. Why? I honestly don't know why. But I know that's the case now. 

[Guest Strangerbob]

I'm just making sure, as sarcasm is hard to identify on the internet, but you're being facetious right?

 

100% serious and real.

 

Quite annoyed by your question to be honest.

[Nineshadow]

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

How can you know?

[SurvivorNVL]

First, I LOVE being questions as biased then actually have the issue we reported on all called a "defect." Really brings everything home for me.

 

Secondly, the issue ASUS appears to have is that the scalar they implemented for an IPS display can only support that 35-90 Hz range. Other scalars might have been able to hit other ranges, but no current FreeSync enabled scalar can hit 350/40-144 Hz on IPS. Why? I honestly don't know why. But I know that's the case now. 

Just have to say, off-topic, but welcome to the forum, Ryan!  I know you've been here for a bit, but welcome!

[Guest Strangerbob]

First, I LOVE being questions as biased then actually have the issue we reported on all called a "defect." Really brings everything home for me.

 

Secondly, the issue ASUS appears to have is that the scalar they implemented for an IPS display can only support that 35-90 Hz range. Other scalars might have been able to hit other ranges, but no current FreeSync enabled scalar can hit 350/40-144 Hz on IPS. Why? I honestly don't know why. But I know that's the case now. 

 

I did also mention PCper revealing the gsync defect of flickering at very low fps dips in load screens and whatever.

 

Anyway, thank you for the latest info from asus as to why this monitor doesnt have a proper implementation of freesync due to a incomplete (i really want to say defective) freesync scalar.

[patrickjp93]

So it finally comes to light there may be an in-born limitation in or a trade-off required for FreeSync support. I'm shocked by the naïveté displayed by so-called tech enthusiasts. Would Nvidia really invest in an expensive FPGA they can change on the fly in addition to GPU drivers/firmware if something like this wasn't looming?

[Ryan Shrout]

I lurk everywhere.

 

I really think THIS is the biggest question as Nineshadow commented on: "err... it's not a freesync defect. It's a poor monitor implementation"

 

The truth is we DO NOT KNOW for sure either way. And if it is poor implementation, does AMD bear responsibility for certifying it, etc.?

[Glenwing]

First, I LOVE being questions as biased then actually have the issue we reported on all called a "defect." Really brings everything home for me.

 

Secondly, the issue ASUS appears to have is that the scalar they implemented for an IPS display can only support that 35-90 Hz range. Other scalars might have been able to hit other ranges, but no current FreeSync enabled scalar can hit 350/40-144 Hz on IPS. Why? I honestly don't know why. But I know that's the case now.

Thanks for reporting on this issue and bringing it to our attention. Surely if there is an issue like this, potential FreeSync buyers would want to actually know about it before buying it right? I mean even if you don't report on it, it's not like the problem won't still be there once the monitor gets to your doorstep.

As far as I know this goes back to the ghosting problems with the XL2730Z; according to tftcentral FreeSync interferes with the anti-ghosting measures on the monitor (voltage overdrive), and will require a driver update as well as a monitor firmware update to fix. From what I've heard, ASUS has managed to get their voltage overdrive working at the same time as FreeSync but with an upper limit of 90Hz, resulting in this cap... But that's just the word on the street.

[Ryan Shrout]

That seems like as logical an explanation as any, but so far, I haven't gotten any feedback from ASUS or AMD to be sure.

[NAP51DMustang]

So it finally comes to light there may be an in-born limitation in or a trade-off required for FreeSync support. I'm shocked by the naïveté displayed by so-called tech enthusiasts. Would Nvidia really invest in an expensive FPGA they can change on the fly in addition to GPU drivers/firmware if something like this wasn't looming?

Except there are monitors that support freesync upto the 144hz cap.(Benq has one)

[Opcode]

People blow things out of proportion. This display hit the market with no FreeSync support what so ever (it was marketed as just another 144 MHz gaming display). Then shortly after came FreeSync support and people wonder why it has a 35-90 Hz range. Maybe they didn't use a good enough scaler to reach or exceed beyond what they initially predicted of 120 Hz. Either way I'd still buy it based on it's picture quality and other aspects the monitor may have going for it as 60 FPS is the sweet spot in gaming (a lot of games are being hard locked to 60 FPS now days as it's a good practice) and 35-90 Hz gives a real flexible over and under for frame rates around 60.

[MeDownYou]

 

Actually the range of free-sync is RIDICULOUSLY large if implemented correctly (between 9hz and 240hz)

 

It's that particular monitor that you should be complaining about not free-sync.

[patrickjp93]

Except there are monitors that support freesync upto the 144hz cap.(Benq has one)

None which function with FreeSync in that range. They all top out around 90-100, or they sacrifice input lag and color.

[Opcode]

None which function with FreeSync in that range. They all top out around 90-100, or they sacrifice input lag and color.

You have a source for your claims? As several well known reviews state otherwise.

[Glenwing]

People blow things out of proportion. This display hit the market with no FreeSync support what so ever (it was marketed as just another 144 MHz gaming display). Then shortly after came FreeSync support and people wonder why it has a 35-90 Hz range. Maybe they didn't use a good enough scaler to reach or exceed beyond what they initially predicted of 120 Hz. Either way I'd still buy it based on it's picture quality and other aspects the monitor may have going for it as 60 FPS is the sweet spot in gaming (a lot of games are being hard locked to 60 FPS now days as it's a good practice) and 35-90 Hz gives a real flexible over and under for frame rates around 60.

 

It's not like this suddenly became FreeSync-capable out of the blue. It's been known to be an AdaptiveSync monitor since the original unveiling in January and FreeSync fans have been waiting for it. It was expected to go up to 144Hz with that enabled (or 120Hz at the time of CES), so yes this is indeed a downgrade from the original expectation. Just because the CES model was only a prototype and thus hadn't been submitted for official FreeSync certification, don't try to spin it as if it was never supposed to have FreeSync and suddenly we've gained 35-90 FPS FreeSync mode when we had nothing before and we're complaining about it.

[Opcode]

It's not like this suddenly became FreeSync-capable out of the blue. It's been known to be an AdaptiveSync monitor since the original unveiling in January and FreeSync fans have been waiting for it. It was expected to go up to 144Hz with that enabled (or 120Hz at the time of CES), so yes this is indeed a downgrade from the original expectation. Just because the CES model was only a prototype and thus hadn't been submitted for official FreeSync certification, don't try to spin it as if it was never supposed to have FreeSync and suddenly we've gained 35-90 FPS FreeSync mode when we had nothing before and we're complaining about it.

It wasn't until later that ASUS decided that they will support FreeSync with it. They even stated the display will go up to 120 Hz with FreeSync at that time. Then it rose to 144 Hz and now we finally have a 35-90 Hz variable range. Which means AMD wasn't on the back burner at any point to say hey this is how it has to be done if you want to most out of it. Ultimatly though yes, it was never intended to be a FreeSync display as it sat at CES 2015 as just another 144 Hz gaming monitor with adaptive sync. It wasn't until April that AMD announced it being FreeSync certified. Keep in mind that the monitor doesn't need to support the entire frequency range of the display to be FreeSync enabled. The question is why would the company say 120 Hz and then advertise it as 144 Hz if the adaptive range doesn't exceed 90 Hz.

[Glenwing]

It wasn't until later that ASUS decided that they will support FreeSync with it. They even stated the display will go up to 120 Hz with FreeSync at that time. Then it rose to 144 Hz and now we finally have a 35-90 Hz display. Which means AMD wasn't on the back burner at any point to say hey this is how it has to be done if you want to most out of it. Ultimatly though yes, it was never intended to be a FreeSync display as it sat at CES 2015 as just another 144 Hz gaming monitor with adaptive sync.

 

You say "just another 144Hz monitor with AdaptiveSync" as if it's a mundane thing and FreeSync is something special. If I recall correctly ASUS and AMD both stated at CES that FreeSync would work on any AdaptiveSync monitor, ASUS doesn't have to specifically decide to support FreeSync. They decided to implement AdaptiveSync (and therefore FreeSync) from the beginning. The reason it wasn't certified already at CES was because the display itself wasn't finalized yet. They were still working on validating the display for 144Hz, which they also stated at CES.

[Opcode]

You say "just another 144Hz monitor with AdaptiveSync" as if it's a mundane thing and FreeSync is something special. If I recall correctly ASUS and AMD both stated at CES that FreeSync would work on any AdaptiveSync monitor, ASUS doesn't have to specifically decide to support FreeSync. They decided to implement AdaptiveSync (and therefore FreeSync) from the beginning. The reason it wasn't certified already at CES was because the display itself wasn't finalized yet. They were still working on validating the display for 144Hz, which they also stated at CES.

Adaptive-Sync is what FreeSync leverages display side. Although keep in mind that Display Port standard is not the only thing that makes FreeSync work display side. As I stated in the original thread about this display it should work with FreeSync regardless if it's certified or not as FreeSync relies on Adaptive-Sync. We don't know the fundamentals of the other hardware inside the display (scaler) that's responsible for adaptive refresh ranges outside the 35-90 Hz scope that the manufacture states.

[Glenwing]

Adaptive-Sync is what FreeSync leverages display side. Although keep in mind that Display Port standard is not the only thing that makes FreeSync work display side. As I stated in the original thread about this display it should work with FreeSync regardless if it's certified or not as FreeSync relies on Adaptive-Sync. We don't know the fundamentals of the other hardware inside the display (scaler) that's responsible for adaptive refresh ranges outside the 35-90 Hz scope that the manufacture states.

 

I'm well aware of all this. In the post I originally quoted, you said the display had no FreeSync support and that it suddenly gained FreeSync support later. As I said, since the display supports AdaptiveSync it has always been known to work with FreeSync (even if uncertified), this is nothing new and has been expected since the beginning. The original expectation was an upper FreeSync limit of 120Hz, and later 144Hz, and now it's only 90Hz. So it's less than expected and disappointment is entirely justified. It didn't suddenly gain 35-90Hz FreeSync capability when it had none before, as your post implied.

[Opcode]

I'm well aware of all this. In the post I originally quoted, you said the display had no FreeSync support and that it suddenly gained FreeSync support later. As I said, since the display supports AdaptiveSync it has always been known to work with FreeSync (even if uncertified), this is nothing new and has been expected since the beginning. The original expectation was an upper FreeSync limit of 120Hz, and later 144Hz, and now it's only 90Hz. So it's less than expected and disappointment is entirely justified. It didn't suddenly gain 35-90Hz FreeSync capability when it had none before, as your post implied.

My post didn't imply that at all is where I think you're getting the mix up. My original post implied that the display wasn't initially built with FreeSync in mind and proof of that is it sat at CES 2015 as a working unit without any type of FreeSync notoriety. Hence we don't know if AMD stepped in and suggested they start making hardware changes to the display that would of likely ultimately changed its dynamic frequency range outcome. Which means ASUS likely built the display with a 35-90 Hz dynamic range long before it even became part of the FreeSync migration. Once they got into cahoots with AMD they likely went "yep, 35-90 Hz is good enough for us" and bang FreeSync certified.