HP Omen X 27 Gaming Monitor is: 27" TN, 2560 x 1440, 240 Hz, FreeSync 2 and HDR
Click here to post a comment for HP Omen X 27 Gaming Monitor is: 27" TN, 2560 x 1440, 240 Hz, FreeSync 2 and HDR on our message forum
stickem
This monitor would pair better with GSYNC.......these vendors got to stop with this FreeSync crap........%80 of gamers use Nvidia products and not all FreeSync products are Gsync compatible. People would pay for 1440p 240hz 1ms GSync..........these vendors got to work something out with Nvidia.
IchimA
maybe for you ! but the price will go up about 200 euros with a Gsync module --- Some of us are happy with Freesync 2
stickem
True, I know money is a factor for a majority of people. The issue I take with this is that AMD doesn't have a graphics solution (besides the 5700XT) that is really capable of driving really high frame rates at 1440p to better take advantage of the 240hz where areas Nvidia does (2070, 2080, 2080 Ti, and the SUPER varients). I really hate that Nvidia charges so much for the GSync module too but as for me I am willing to pay for it.
Exodite
Does adaptive sync, any variant, even make sense for 240Hz gaming?
Honest question, because I don't know.
I would assume that the point of high refresh gaming is to reduce lag and as such you wouldn't use adaptive sync. Yes, FreeSync and GSync are miles better than VSync in this regard but they still introduce more lag than running without sync.
I could obviously be wrong about the point of high-refresh gaming, as I have no relationship to that or the competitive scene overall, but if the point is less lag then the added cost of a GSync module wouldn't make sense for the product.
Denial
There is nothing wrong with Freesync/Gsync Compatibility - it opens up the monitor to both vendors and when implemented properly works fine. In fact I've read multiple people say the Gsync Compatibility monitors run better than previous Gsync monitors they've owned.
BReal85
Yes, that's why G-Sync monitors are much more expensive. 😀 And most monitors are using Freesync because people opt for the cheaper monitors.
1. If there is one GPU that can handle 1440P high frame rate, why would you need more?
2. Willing to pay for what? What does G-Sync give to you what Freesync can't and worth $100+?
EspHack
a monitor with a 40mm fan
ladcrooks
Bold claim - FreeSync crap........%80 of gamers use Nvidia products - can you show me anything to back that up?
stickem
Not a bold claim, it's fact. Just for one reference, go pull up Steam's hardware surveys.......pretty telling there. A vast majority of graphic cards used are Nvidia and it isn't even close!
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-GeForce-GTX-1060-tops-Steam-s-GPU-survey-while-RTX-cards-and-AMD-s-RX-Vega-make-an-appearance.407236.0.html
and
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard
And forgive me, it's closer to %75 Nvidia and the remaining %25 is a mix of AMD and Intel integrated graphics.
ladcrooks
THANKS FOR THE REPLY - I WILL HONOUR THAT 😉
But do not forget the millions of computers out there that have cards but do not play games or only now and then, or do not use steam. Funny thing is all my mates have radeons 😳
Have a like on me 😛
ladcrooks
Just looked at that ad above the ' Brennan ' looks a good bit of kit 😎
Prince Valiant
I can't imagine why anyone would want to spend a premium to get GS if FS performs the same. If there was a FS version of my monitor for less I would've bought that.
Aura89
G-Sync and Free-Sync do not perform the same.
That being said i don't hold the sentiment the guy you quoted does, i wish there were variants of both, so we had a choice, rather then be forced to go with one or the other.
I've heard and have witness and experienced myself the exact opposite, but ofcourse, it'll depend on the exact monitors in question.
Reardan
There are monitors with the choice. Take the LG 34gk950f and LG 34gk950g. These monitors are basically the same, one with a gsync module, one with freesync support, and the gsync one comes with a variety of limitations the freesync one doesn't have such as 120hz instead of 144hz, no backlight blur reduction, no HDR, its a little less bright, the contrast is a little worse, no HDMI 2.0 support, and no Displayport 1.4.
So, same panel, same monitor, but its overall significantly worse. The only real advantage it has is lower input lag, 10ms vs 1ms. Overall, I can't say which problems are limitations of gsync itself and which are cost savings to try to fit the gsync module into the monitor but the gist of the point is: Gsync isn't necessarily some hallmark of quality and in fact can have its own limitations.
Fox2232
Yes, AdaptiveSync makes sense on 240Hz screen. It makes difference in comparison to VSync.
Aura89
If they don't have the same features then they aren't the same. There's no reason the gsync one wouldn't be able to do 144hz, among everything else you stated.
Reardan
Yeah you're right, it's not clearly not the same. One has gsync which seems to, either directly or indirectly, be limiting the performance of the monitor in various ways. It's the same panel, same manufacturer.
