Asus MG279Q 144Hz IPS monitor seems to have FreeSync support
Click here to post a comment for Asus MG279Q 144Hz IPS monitor seems to have FreeSync support on our message forum
Anarion
I'd highly prefer 30hz to 120hz range. 40 Hz minimum is a bit too high and no card would be pushing 144 frames per second at 2560x1440 anyway.
fantaskarsef
Some people use more than one card.
Anyway, if the quality control on this screen is anything like the Swift's (or the Acer's), I'm fairly sure there will be some reads in the forums about dead pixels.
IchimA
when my financial problems will go away I will gladly buy one ... but for now I keep my money for the bank !
kaioshin
as far as i understand there is physical limitation on IPS monitors, and they can't go far beyond 40 fps (36-37 maybe most, bellow that it may be damaged) Gsync is duplicating frames if fps drops bellow that limit, that's why u will see higher range on those monitors, imo Async could go in those ranges with driver update...
but this baby is monitor i've been waiting for years!!!
kanej2007
Stunning monitor and not too badly priced...
Hopefully Hilbert will get a sample in to test & review.
Dorlor
If only Nvidia would stop being twa**, and support freesync, rather than trying to milk people with their unnecesarry g-sync modules...
Denial
Yeah the lower bound on freesync needs to be at least 30hz, or they need to do what G-Sync does.
Also someone really needs to look into the blur thing within the Freesync operating range.
southamptonfc
No gamer is interested in either 30 or 40hz.
Of course 144fps is possible, that's what high end graphics cards are for and detail settings in games.
Denial
But games do dip that low. Like when Crysis 3 came out -- QHD with even amazing setups you're definitely going below 40fps. The entire point of G-Sync/Freesync is that 30-40fps feels like 60+.
The problem with FreeSync atm, is that when it drops below the Freesync range it essentially locks the monitor at the bottom refresh rate. In this case it's 40. So you get a combination of stuttering and frame tearing (if you choose V-Sync off). Which is worse then if you had a monitor without Freesync at all.
southamptonfc
I disagree, the whole point of g-sync/freesync is that you get tear-free graphics without needing to hit the monitors refresh rate all the time. The whole 30fps feeling like 60 is marketing BS.
I have a 144hz gsync monitor and trust me, you'll never make 30fps feel like 60fps - these things are not magic hats.
IMO, if you're planning on playing games at 30-40fps don't buy a 144hz monitor!
Denial
I have two G-Sync monitors, both a PG278Q and a Acer XB270HU. And yeah, they don't make 30fps feel like 60 entirely, but they definitely significantly improve the perceivable performance of 30fps-60fps. After that the noticeable improvements essentially fall off.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7582/nvidia-gsync-review/2
Anand says here:
I agree with him. The sweet spot for G-Sync is between 40-60 and it still definitely improves performance sub 40.
On a freesync monitor like this one, performance below 40 results in noticable stuttering, more noticeable then a traditional monitor. Regardless, your 144hz comment only applies to this monitor. There are 4K 60Hz Freesync monitors with 40-60Hz window. The issue with Freesync applies here as well.
southamptonfc
Well maybe there are 2 kinds of people who get different things from gsync.
I think people who say things like above just aren't sensitive enough, when the framerate drops from 144 to 120 I notice it. 60fps or below is a slideshow with or without gsync.
I can also see tearing at over 120fps which is where gsync really improves my gaming experience and frags!
My point is that below 40fps is already stuttering.
Denial
For me it depends entirely on the game. If I'm playing something like 'Life is Strange' or "Vanishing of Ethan Carter' I don't really mind what my FPS is so long as the game is running at max graphics. 60fps is fine, if it dips here and there G-Sync makes it acceptable. If I'm playing CS:GO, Unreal 4, Dota, etc -- more competitive games, I definitely try to max my fps as much as I can.
But yeah, it's always going to be different strokes for different folks.
Fox2232
G/Freesync removes/reduces V-Sync based stutter for 30~60fps or any other.
This improves feeling of fluidity and continuity of image flow. While I would not want to play any game under 50fps, both G/Freesync have bigger improvements to users experience lower the fps is.
Day games will use predictive analysis to use variable motion/temporal blur based on fps will make G/Freesync more impressive. And much more enjoyable at 30~50fps.
Prince Valiant
That's how I look at things, decent FPS (preferably 40+) with maxed settings for single player and max FPS for competitive MP games. I don't expect to ever hit 144FPS for a newer game on my single card setup. Even with some ridiculous tri/quad-SLI 980/TitanXYZ or CF 290X setup on water you're left to the mercy of the games and profiles as I understand it?
Any word of a release date on this? I've been waiting on this and the XG270HU for a while now 🙁.
Ven0m
There's a difference in way we perceive animation if it's got discrete frames that drop below something around 41 fps. So I wouldn't blame them that much for setting FreeSync range to 40fps+. On the other hand, it would be good if it supported 30fps+ (or less) for these 99th percentile spikes. 48fps limit is rough.
There are some competitive games that tend to drop in frame rate from time to time, eg BF4 (well, BFBC2 and BF3 had the same) - it can run super-smooth most of the time, but it's got framerate spikes, especially when a lot of explosions happen at once, paired with some extra smoke. And I'm talking about drops from >100fps to <40. If you decrease details too much, you're less likely to spot opponents on time.
