Deepcool CG560 chassis review
Fractal Design Torrent Black RGB TG review
Core i9 12900K DDR4 3600 vs DDR5 5200 performance review
Corsair H150i Elite LCD review
Seasonic Syncro Q704 chassis + Connect PSU review
Fractal Design Ion+ 2 Platinum 860W PSU Review
Crucial P5 Plus PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe review
Fractal Design Lumen S28 RGB review (LCS)
WD Red SN700 NVMe SSD review
Core i9 12900K processor review
Philips 272G5DYEB 27-Inch G-SYNC Monitor
Announced back in january, soon in stores will be the 27-inch Philips 272G5DYEB display with NVIDIA G-SYNC. With a refresh rate of 144 Hz, this display updates the screen content nearly two and a half times more often than a standard monitor.
By letting the GPU control the refresh, it delivers ultra-smooth image motion that includes the critical images that are otherwise missing on displays with standard refresh rates. So players can target objects more accurately - and level up their game.
NVIDIA G-SYNC - groundbreaking display technology
One drawback of gaming with a standard monitor, at least for serious gamers, is the lower refresh rate, which can make objects appear to jump suddenly from one spot to another on the display. The NVIDIA G-SYNC chipset is designed for gamers who are looking for a display that can game just as hard and fast as they can. The Philips 272G5DYEB NVIDIA G-SYNC monitor, with its advanced graphics support, is more than a match for the sharp, fast responses of experienced gamers. It redraws the screen image up to 144 times per second, making objects less likely to jump around and easier to target accurately.
The revolutionary performance of G-SYNC is achieved by synchronizing the display refresh rates to the Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) of the computer's graphics card, essentially giving the GPU control over the timing of display updates. The monitor refresh rate constantly adapts to the frame rate which is communicated by the GPU. This eliminates the screen tearing and stuttering that detract from a truly immersive gaming experience. It also significantly reduces input lag. As a result, scenes appear instantly, objects are rendered with dazzling sharpness and clarity, and gameplay becomes super smooth throughout. In short, it gives serious gamers a seriously competitive edge.
With a spacious 27-inch screen, a response time of 1 ms GTG and Full HD support, gamers can also expect dazzling viewing from the new display, with sharp, brilliant colours and superior image reproduction.
Connectivity with blazing speed
With such a powerful and responsive kit as the Philips 272G5DYEB display with NVIDIA G-SYNC, the connection between PC and display has to measure up. The new gaming display ensures that the PC connection will never be a performance choke point. With excellent performance and zero latency, DisplayPort technology offers gamers the high-speed imaging and refresh rates to match the singular performance of the G-SYNC display. It delivers better performance than the DVI standard, supporting cables of up to 15 meters in length and data transfer rates of 21.6 Gbps. The USB 3.0 ports ensure users benefit from fast USB transfer - around 10 times speedier than the USB 2.0 standard. These connectivity choices make the new Philips display a superb choice not only for gaming and movies, but also for general office and home use.
The new Philips 272G5DYEB display with NVIDIA G-SYNC will be available end of October 2014 at a suggested retail price of $699/€699/£499.
Philips Display Innovations Premiering at IFA 2014 - 09/03/2014 08:38 AM
MMD, the leading technology company and brand license partner for Philips Monitors, unveils at IFA 2014 various innovations which are attuned to the way people work and live - such as the quest for he...
Philips Adds 24-Inch 241B4LPYCB and 27-Inch 271S4LPYEB PowerSensor Displays - 06/24/2014 08:13 AM
Philips announces two new PowerSensor displays that use intuitive human sensor technology to detect user presence and automatically reduce monitor brightness when users step away, reducing energy cons...
Philips 288P6LJEB 28-Inch 4K LCD Ultra HD Monitor - 06/12/2014 07:29 AM
Philips has just announced the availability of their new 4K LCD monitor ’288P6LJEB’ in the US first. First introduced back in April, this new 28-inch LED-backlight monitor provides...
Philips 284E5QHAD 28-Inch MHL-Ready Full HD Monitor - 01/20/2014 10:20 AM
Philips hits back with their new MHL-ready Full HD monitor, the 284E5QHAD. Adopting a MVA panel, this new 28-inch LED-backlight monitor provides 1920 x 1080 Full HD resolution, 3000:1 contrast ratio, ...
Philips 288P6 28-inch 4K Ultra HD Monitor - 01/06/2014 11:24 AM
The Philips UltraClear Display debuts today, combining 4K UHD high resolution with a color depth of 1.07 billion colors to deliver brilliant performance, screen clarity and detail with four times the ...
Arioch13
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 2014-10-15
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 2014-10-15
#4938212 Posted on: 10/15/2014 07:33 PM
It must be a truly engrossing experience to have a 144hz monitor drop 70 frames every other minute because of cpu bottlenecks and poor optimisation in games.
I doubt even CS:S would maintain a 144 frame minimum on any hardware, they just aren't optimised to that level.
Factor in the sheer number of video cards you need to get those framerates ( which is even more of a cpu bottleneck ) and it just wouldn't be worth the trouble.
Something that is better on paper than in RL I imagine.
Just like 4K monitors, when you need tri-sli 980s to get 60 frames in all the latest games ( Crysis 3? ). We have a lot of tech that is ahead of what the other hardware can supply.
You do not need Tri SLI for most top end cards to get 60FPS at 4k in most games I tried even at Ultra settings. with some tweaking. You also need less "filler" effects on to make them look amazing when your gaming at 4k. See the Guru 3D results on the subject for accurate figures.
This is speculation rather from someone that actually does game with this sort of hardware so doesn't add much (sorry but it is pretty obvious to anyone that does). I have machines which hit 199 ceilings in BF3 and BF4 if I play at 1920x1080 or 2560x1440. I have high end hardware but a lot of people have something equivalent. I play on Ultra with a few options like Motion Blur turned off because I don't like them. When playing on a 4k screen I turn down AA because it doesn't seem to matter so much. I will get a 144ghz screen or better yet a GSynch enabled monitor at some point in the near future also.
I cant speak for Crysis 3 as I did not rate the engine greatly being more diluted by cross platform ambitions than truly state of the art but the problem you refer can typically be traced to one problem. Cheap assed console ports. Your right there, they will never work properly for the very reasons the Ubisoft guys said recently. They aim to reuse as much of the code as possible. The aim of the game is cheap, not with reasonable quality.
Crap console ports are crap console ports. Shadows of Mordor although a good game is still a game troubled by being a port and performance issues for example. No SLI support and a very bad field of view (because consoles can do nothing else). I would argue that bad performance, limited field of view and all those other things are not the PC gaming experience. Just a small subset caused by unethical companies doing what companies with very short term objectives caused by poor strategy likely to bite them on the ass eventually. Games like DR3 and anything on ID Tech 5 are never going to run well (perhaps until we get DX12) because they are coded for another platform and it is far cheaper (as the Ubisoft guy said) to use as much code as possible.
However, we get games and experiences far in excess of the odd console port. Personally, I get the occasional console port but they are not my focus. Games I can mod and which use the hardware properly are more the bread and butter of my gaming experience and other designed for purpose engines such as Frostbyte 2 and others are the thing that keeps me gaming. If it was left to console ports for gaming I would have stopped buying games years ago.
It must be a truly engrossing experience to have a 144hz monitor drop 70 frames every other minute because of cpu bottlenecks and poor optimisation in games.
I doubt even CS:S would maintain a 144 frame minimum on any hardware, they just aren't optimised to that level.
Factor in the sheer number of video cards you need to get those framerates ( which is even more of a cpu bottleneck ) and it just wouldn't be worth the trouble.
Something that is better on paper than in RL I imagine.
Just like 4K monitors, when you need tri-sli 980s to get 60 frames in all the latest games ( Crysis 3? ). We have a lot of tech that is ahead of what the other hardware can supply.
You do not need Tri SLI for most top end cards to get 60FPS at 4k in most games I tried even at Ultra settings. with some tweaking. You also need less "filler" effects on to make them look amazing when your gaming at 4k. See the Guru 3D results on the subject for accurate figures.
This is speculation rather from someone that actually does game with this sort of hardware so doesn't add much (sorry but it is pretty obvious to anyone that does). I have machines which hit 199 ceilings in BF3 and BF4 if I play at 1920x1080 or 2560x1440. I have high end hardware but a lot of people have something equivalent. I play on Ultra with a few options like Motion Blur turned off because I don't like them. When playing on a 4k screen I turn down AA because it doesn't seem to matter so much. I will get a 144ghz screen or better yet a GSynch enabled monitor at some point in the near future also.
I cant speak for Crysis 3 as I did not rate the engine greatly being more diluted by cross platform ambitions than truly state of the art but the problem you refer can typically be traced to one problem. Cheap assed console ports. Your right there, they will never work properly for the very reasons the Ubisoft guys said recently. They aim to reuse as much of the code as possible. The aim of the game is cheap, not with reasonable quality.
Crap console ports are crap console ports. Shadows of Mordor although a good game is still a game troubled by being a port and performance issues for example. No SLI support and a very bad field of view (because consoles can do nothing else). I would argue that bad performance, limited field of view and all those other things are not the PC gaming experience. Just a small subset caused by unethical companies doing what companies with very short term objectives caused by poor strategy likely to bite them on the ass eventually. Games like DR3 and anything on ID Tech 5 are never going to run well (perhaps until we get DX12) because they are coded for another platform and it is far cheaper (as the Ubisoft guy said) to use as much code as possible.
However, we get games and experiences far in excess of the odd console port. Personally, I get the occasional console port but they are not my focus. Games I can mod and which use the hardware properly are more the bread and butter of my gaming experience and other designed for purpose engines such as Frostbyte 2 and others are the thing that keeps me gaming. If it was left to console ports for gaming I would have stopped buying games years ago.
LesserHellspawn
Senior Member
Posts: 671
Joined: 2010-03-27
Senior Member
Posts: 671
Joined: 2010-03-27
#4938309 Posted on: 10/15/2014 08:58 PM
I got my Swift for that suggested retail price. I wouldn't pay more than 500 for a 1080p part.
I got my Swift for that suggested retail price. I wouldn't pay more than 500 for a 1080p part.
exzeth
Senior Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 2006-12-09
Senior Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 2006-12-09
#4938491 Posted on: 10/16/2014 12:40 AM
Does not matter. Irrelevant if game companies are dumbing everything down to 30fps because of "limitations". Haha.
Does not matter. Irrelevant if game companies are dumbing everything down to 30fps because of "limitations". Haha.
fantaskarsef
Senior Member
Posts: 12524
Joined: 2014-07-21
Senior Member
Posts: 12524
Joined: 2014-07-21
#4938658 Posted on: 10/16/2014 08:06 AM
Agreed.
I got my Swift for that suggested retail price. I wouldn't pay more than 500 for a 1080p part.
Agreed.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 2009-05-05
Hitting 120/144 consistently is difficult but that's not entirely the point of displays with a high refresh rate. Even if your graphics card is outputting less than 120 FPS, maybe even less than 60 FPS, the display still refreshes at 120 Hz thereby giving you a smoother experience. Sure some of those frames are going to be repeats but the effect is the same.
4K of is a different story but since this is new technology this isn't exactly surprising. Actually one of the more realistic benefits of 4K right now is that you don't necessarily need to force any additional AA when running at native.
As for CS:GO, I wouldn't be surprised if you were able to average well above 200 FPS at 1080p, even with a single GTX 980... you could test