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

[NateGSR117]

That kinda sucks If you ask me but if ppl are okay with it I don't see a reason not to get it

[Opcode]

That kinda sucks If you ask me but if ppl are okay with it I don't see a reason not to get it

Exactly what I've been saying. If you're aware of the 35-90 Hz range prior to buying the product then what is there to dislike. Sure it doesn't punch the full 144 Hz but you're not likely to hit frame rate that high at 1440p unless you're driving the display with multiple GPUs (or playing a game that runs on a potato). Albeit it is a bit disappointing for the manufacture to state one thing and it end up being another. Truthfully either way a dynamic range of 35-90 Hz is the honey pot for 60 FPS gaming.

 

GTX 980 + R9 290X

• Battlefield 4 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 50-60 FPS
• Crysis 3 - 2560x1440 - High Quality + FXAA = 53-65 FPS
• Shadow of Mordor - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 65-66 FPS
• Dragon Age: Inquisition - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality - 0x MSAA = 54-59 FPS
• The Talos Principle - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 65-71 FPS
• Far Cry 4 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 56-58 FPS

Taken from Anandtech benchmark database as prime example of a lot of games falling into that sweet spot.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Exactly what I've been saying. If you're aware of the 35-90 Hz range prior to buying the product then what is there to dislike. Sure it doesn't punch the full 144 Hz but you're not likely to hit frame rate that high at 1440p unless you're driving the display with multiple GPUs (or playing a game that runs on a potato). Albeit it is a bit disappointing for the manufacture to state one thing and it end up being another. Truthfully either way a dynamic range of 35-90 Hz is the honey pot for 60 FPS gaming.

 

GTX 980 + R9 290X

• Battlefield 4 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 50-60 FPS
• Crysis 3 - 2560x1440 - High Quality + FXAA = 53-65 FPS
• Shadow of Mordor - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 65-66 FPS
• Dragon Age: Inquisition - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality - 0x MSAA = 54-59 FPS
• The Talos Principle - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 65-71 FPS
• Far Cry 4 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 56-58 FPS

Taken from Anandtech benchmark database as prime example of a lot of games falling into that sweet spot.

 

I really do not follow your logic here.

 

AMD is advertising the FreeSync frame rate range as the full limit standardized by VESA (9Hz - 240Hz on AdaptiveSync), and yet the monitors do not support even close to the full range. Your justification is that the games do not have the power to push the frame rate, and so long as the potential consumers know about the limitation (which most won't), it will not be a problem worth worrying about.

 

Let's put aside the blatant false advertising for one minute; if the games are truly not capable of exceeding 90hz, then what is the point of 120hz and 144hz monitors, then? These monitors already have technical support for the frame rate limit, but the AdaptiveSync mechanism does not, so that excuse is thrown out the window. This is a half-baked solution at best, and you would basically be waiting for patches the same way people would be forced to for horribly unoptimized video games. You do not do that; you release a product/service fulfilling the advertised specifications on launch.

 

Also a little side note, isn't FreeSync only supposed to be for the GPU-software side of the equation, whereas AdaptiveSync covers the monitor side? Unless you have a really good explanation for this, it is a double standard.

[Sunako]

  Opcode I Keep seeing you reffer to this as Asus saying one thing and then coming out with a

different product or scaled back one From all the Announcements I saw before it came out I never

saw a Freesyn range advertised I only saw IPS type, 120hz with adaptive-sync. Later on Freesync 

Certified and the max  Frequency of the monitor go up.  Now that the monitor is out and instruction 

to enable Freesync mode is there first time we ever saw a Supported VRR. This leads me for one

to believe Asus had every intention of supporting the full range of the monitor. But some where along

the line there was a flaw found either in the signaling from the video card which would be caused by

Freesync or the scalers that are being designed for adaptive-sync and by proxy Freesync are unable

to support such frequencies at this time. Further hardware might be needed just like G-syn uses but

for now Asus and AMD don't seem to Want to comment on the matter.

[Guest Strangerbob]

Exactly what I've been saying. If you're aware of the 35-90 Hz range prior to buying the product then what is there to dislike. Sure it doesn't punch the full 144 Hz but you're not likely to hit frame rate that high at 1440p unless you're driving the display with multiple GPUs (or playing a game that runs on a potato). Albeit it is a bit disappointing for the manufacture to state one thing and it end up being another. Truthfully either way a dynamic range of 35-90 Hz is the honey pot for 60 FPS gaming.

 

GTX 980 + R9 290X

• Battlefield 4 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 50-60 FPS
• Crysis 3 - 2560x1440 - High Quality + FXAA = 53-65 FPS
• Shadow of Mordor - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 65-66 FPS
• Dragon Age: Inquisition - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality - 0x MSAA = 54-59 FPS
• The Talos Principle - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 65-71 FPS
• Far Cry 4 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality = 56-58 FPS

Taken from Anandtech benchmark database as prime example of a lot of games falling into that sweet spot.

 

Sincerely,

Fuck your sweetspot.

 

None of your business what FPS i will be getting or playing or what and how i intend to play.

 

If i pay for a 144hz freesync monitor i expect a x-144hz freesync implementation.

 

If they make it a 90hz monitor max

or CLEARLY IN BOLD advertise the freesync range right next to the resolution in EVERY spec sheet/column...

We wont have a problem.

[Opcode]

Sincerely,

Fuck your sweetspot.

 

None of your business what FPS i will be getting or playing or what and how i intend to play.

 

If i pay for a 144hz freesync monitor i expect a x-144hz freesync implementation.

 

If they make it a 90hz monitor max

or CLEARLY IN BOLD advertise the freesync range right next to the resolution in EVERY spec sheet/column...

We wont have a problem.

You're paying for a 144 Hz display not one that supports Adaptive-Sync all the way up to 144 Hz. There's a big difference between QQ'n about it and accepting the facts.

[Zah]

You're paying for a 144 Hz display not one that supports Adaptive-Sync all the way up to 144 Hz. There's a big difference between QQ'n about it and accepting the facts.

Then I'd rather pay for a g-sync monitor which functions the way it's designed, instead of a free-sync monitor which can't function when the games I REGULARLY PLAY go above 90hz.

[Opcode]

Then I'd rather pay for a g-sync monitor which functions the way it's designed, instead of a free-sync monitor which can't function when the games I REGULARLY PLAY go above 90hz.

That would be your decision and I don't see any problem with it. That or switch to a FreeSync display that does go up to 144 Hz (there's a few out already that do).

[Gdourado]

Over at overclock.net, there are already users with the MG279Q.

Let's see how they work in the real world...

[Godlygamer23]

Locked.