Do I need a G-Sync ready Monitor?

[Gabby2805]

I'm in the process of saving up for and putting together a 4k gaming rig. I'd like a GTX 980Ti (yes I know I will need to SLI soon for the best results) and obviously, a 4K monitor.

 

I'm a little torn between the Samsung U28E850R and the Asus PB287Q 4K monitors. I'm slightly preferring the Samsung at the moment but I noticed it is 'FreeSync' enabled. Will either of these monitors be ok with a 980Ti or will I get screen tear? None of the affordable 4K monitors seem to have G-Sync.

 

Thanks

[Lurick]

I'm running the Asus PB287Q right now myself with 980TIs and I have to say its an excellent monitor, never noticed any issues with display output.

[Citadelen]

FreeSync is for AMD (and future Intel iGPUs) only, G-Sync moniters have a special chip in them that Nvidia charges for, which means they're more expensive. You need a G-Sync moniter to remove tearing on a Nvidia GPU.

[Qi_Forever]

My pennies worth.

 

Yes, like the gentleman above said you can use either of those monitors.  Freesync off.

 

To be honest in my opinion decent 4k gaming is still a couple of years away.

 

Personally I would rather buy an Asus PG279Q swift 2.5k IPS 165Hz.  If it is for gaming only 

 

 Movies and TV on the other hand are a totally different kettle of fish

 

Those monitors are stuck at 60Hz.  Generally gamers like 60 FPS min.

 

Dual 980TI's might make 4k games playable, It could also be a massive headache trying to get SLI to run smoothly, if at all in some games.

 

I do wish you best of luck.

[StormEye]

36 minutes ago, Qi_Forever said:

Dual 980TI's might make 4k games playable, It could also be a massive headache trying to get SLI to run smoothly, if at all in some games.

^That.

[Gabby2805]

22 hours ago, Citadelen said:

FreeSync is for AMD (and future Intel iGPUs) only, G-Sync moniters have a special chip in them that Nvidia charges for, which means they're more expensive. You need a G-Sync moniter to remove tearing on a Nvidia GPU.

Right thank you, yes I knew that FreeSync was just for AMD but will I definitely get tearing with an NVIDIA card without a Gsync monitor? Can I stop the tearing by capping at 60fps or something?

[Gabby2805]

22 hours ago, Qi_Forever said:

My pennies worth.

 

Yes, like the gentleman above said you can use either of those monitors.  Freesync off.

 

To be honest in my opinion decent 4k gaming is still a couple of years away.

 

Personally I would rather buy an Asus PG279Q swift 2.5k IPS 165Hz.  If it is for gaming only 

 

 Movies and TV on the other hand are a totally different kettle of fish

 

Those monitors are stuck at 60Hz.  Generally gamers like 60 FPS min.

 

Dual 980TI's might make 4k games playable, It could also be a massive headache trying to get SLI to run smoothly, if at all in some games.

 

I do wish you best of luck.

Thank you, I completely understand your point.

 

I'm glad that I can use those monitors

 

My dilemma was that I've planned this amazing rig that should definitely be able to run most games in 1080p at 60fps. So, I thought I should get a good monitor to realise the potential of the build. I did initially think about getting a monitor with a higher refresh rate instead but I'm a very headache-prone person and my eyes tire easily so I don't think I'd be able to play in anything above 60fps. So, I thought 4K offered the most opportunity instead. 

 

I know 4K gaming is kind of only just lifting off the ground but I do intend to SLI in the future and from what I've seen all the well known games seem to have no problem running in SLI in 4K.

[Gabby2805]

I've just realised that I can get a Gsync 4K monitor for just £100 more, I think its worth it!

 

I'm now considering the Acer XB281HKBMIPRZ, any thoughts?

[VZX]

It's still TN panel. 

It's still has 60Hz limit. 

Maxwell is nearing its end of life cycle. 

 

I personally think it's not wise to go 4k right now unless you have serious issue of seeing pixels in FHQ/QHD displays. 

And 4k@28" has tiny text for a normal viewing distance. 

[ApexTypeA]

Yes. 

[bigneo]

I agree with @VZX...

 

4k at normal viewing distance, at 100% scale, 28'' screen size everything in OS is too small (for me). I had my scalability to 150% it was perfect for the OS part, but some games went blur just because OS was scaled... I know it's because the games I play do not support 4k scalability yet, perhaps never will, but it was an annoying experience. Not only with games but some applications also. Skype for example, was blurry for a long time until it got fixed. I also used to play League of Legends for a while and they say that scalability is there, but it's not while you don't get blurry imagine in the game itself something is still wrong. HP bars, for example, do not match the size of the name, a map is maxed out and still too small. On the login or lobby, there was still blurry image. 

 

Maybe it is fixed now for a lot of things but eventually, I sold my 4k, I think at 28'' it's bit OTT at this time, still. Only you will know if you are happy with it or not, I'm just talking my experience.

[VZX]

18 minutes ago, bigneo said:

I agree with @VZX...

 

4k at normal viewing distance, at 100% scale, 28'' screen size everything in OS is too small (for me). I had my scalability to 150% it was perfect for the OS part, but some games went blur just because OS was scaled... I know it's because the games I play do not support 4k scalability yet, perhaps never will, but it was an annoying experience. Not only with games but some applications also. Skype for example, was blurry for a long time until it got fixed. I also used to play League of Legends for a while and they say that scalability is there, but it's not while you don't get blurry imagine in the game itself something is still wrong. HP bars, for example, do not match the size of the name, a map is maxed out and still too small. On the login or lobby, there was still blurry image. 

 

Maybe it is fixed now for a lot of things but eventually, I sold my 4k, I think at 28'' it's bit OTT at this time, still. Only you will know if you are happy with it or not, I'm just talking my experience.

DPI scaling also defeat the purpose using 4k for more screen real estate. In the case of 150% DPI scaling, It simply turns the 3840x2160 resolution into 2560x1440 resolution. With, probably, more blur than a native 2560x1440 resolution on 28" display.

 

4k is really hard to adapt in desktop computing. People still build their desktop content with the assumption users are using 80~120 DPI display. 4k's 160 DPI pose a serious problem.

Even if there will be a 37~39" 4k display in the future, I still think they are hard to be adopted. A display that big require the user to take farther viewer distance in order to view the whole screen. And we'll have "DPI too small for that viewing distance" problem again.

 

I truly believe 34"~35" UW will become a long lasting standard.

[Gabby2805]

20 hours ago, bigneo said:

I agree with @VZX...

 

4k at normal viewing distance, at 100% scale, 28'' screen size everything in OS is too small (for me). I had my scalability to 150% it was perfect for the OS part, but some games went blur just because OS was scaled... I know it's because the games I play do not support 4k scalability yet, perhaps never will, but it was an annoying experience. Not only with games but some applications also. Skype for example, was blurry for a long time until it got fixed. I also used to play League of Legends for a while and they say that scalability is there, but it's not while you don't get blurry imagine in the game itself something is still wrong. HP bars, for example, do not match the size of the name, a map is maxed out and still too small. On the login or lobby, there was still blurry image. 

 

Maybe it is fixed now for a lot of things but eventually, I sold my 4k, I think at 28'' it's bit OTT at this time, still. Only you will know if you are happy with it or not, I'm just talking my experience.

I see...well this might sound stupid but you dont always have to have it in the full 4K resolution right? I wouldn't mind turning it down to 1440 or even 1080, its just nice to have the 4K option there for when my rig can handle it and the situation is practical...

[VZX]

5 hours ago, Gabby2805 said:

I see...well this might sound stupid but you dont always have to have it in the full 4K resolution right? I wouldn't mind turning it down to 1440 or even 1080, its just nice to have the 4K option there for when my rig can handle it and the situation is practical...

Why would you turn it down to 1440 and 1080? The only reason one would go for 4k for gaming right now is that you find the display is too blurry for your game.

4k for desktop computing is inconvenient, there simply no good reason for that.

 

Let's say you insist to get 4k just for gaming. Your rig is 100% dedicated for gaming and nothing else, however

4k is premature for now

> Only 1 type of IPS available in market AFAIK, the rest are TN.

> Limited to 60Hz. Not only from the monitor port, but also from the GPU (No Display port 1.3 connection).

 

Better wait for Pascal/ Zen release and see how well 4k can be played with them. And if things going well, better 4k display will be available in the market.

[bigneo]

I think 4K is nice, but at 28'' everything is still too small. If I went for another 4K the screen size should be not less than 32''.

[Gabby2805]

13 hours ago, bigneo said:

I think 4K is nice, but at 28'' everything is still too small. If I went for another 4K the screen size should be not less than 32''.

Ahh thanks I appreciate your opinion! But, my eyes tire easily and I'm quick to headaches so I don't think having a screen that big would be a good idea for me. My main reason is gaming so it seems like games scale well. For browsing and stuff I'll just deal with the scaling or even temporarily turn the resolution down. If worst comes to worst, I have a crappy monitor somewhere if I need it for when I'm not gaming, but I'll keep my laptop for work and browsing etc, my PC is pretty much just for gaming.