NVIDIA waters down G-Sync Ultimate requirements

Kaotik

Kaotik

Drunk Member
Legend
Supporter
NVIDIA has silently updated it's G-Sync Ultimate requirements.

Gone is at least the requirement of DisplayHDR 1000, and they've now certified at least two DisplayHDR 600 displays (MSI Optix MEG381CQR, LG 34GP950G) and even one DisplayHDR 400 display (Acer X34 S) to fit under G-Sync Ultimate -branding.

They changed the description of G-Sync Ultimate on their G-Sync page to read "Lifelike HDR" instead of "Best HDR 1000 nits" in late november last year.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1350813574369783816

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/specs/

https://hexus.net/tech/news/monitors/147304-nvidia-waters-g-sync-ultimate-specification/
 
It looks like the DisplayHDR 400 one was in error so they're shifting the requirements to DisplayHDR 600 or better so there's more monitors in the "Ultimate" pile.
 
I think the largest defining difference is that they're not requiring FALD to be in a "G-Sync Ultimate" monitor, and that UltraWide LG doesn't even have any kind of local dimming at all. Not even edge-lit.
 
From a pragmatic stand point regarding this "controversy" I'm not sure what the expectations are here? DisplayHDR 1000 displays (or equivalents) simply from an industry stand point have not made much ingress and it still looks like they won't anytime soon. The technologies to enable the, either FALD or per pixel emissive displays (eg. OLED, at least for monitor applications), simply are not far along and seem to continuingly be behind expectations scheduling wise.

When the spec was made I'm guessing there was a different forecast and possibly there was also an intent to push the industry in that direction. Seems to me you have to adjust given the the realities of the market.

Realistically I'm guessing we're lookin at more of a mid 2020s timeline for "wide" adoption/availability even in the high end space for that level of HDR. Fun note I remember back around 2010 when there was excitement about the possibility of wide OLED monitors being available in 5 years, haha...
 
Scale down (or scale up from mobile devices) is that simple from both a technology (manufacturing wise) and economic/business perspective. Monitors are in this middle ground between the 2 markets and face different challenges. It's also split into 3 very dissimilar camps.

We'll see if more competition now due to the growth of the gaming segment will push the market forward more. We have now BOE and Sharp also entering the market to join AUO, Innolux, LG, and Samsung. Also TVs adopting more gaming features due to HDMI 2.1 will put some pressure from that side as well.

We've gone from what 4 years (or so) of only 1 high refresh IPS panel (at 1440p) on the market to now 4 at 1440p alone and maybe soon 5 by the end of the year.
 
trinibwoy said:
I’m not touching HDR on PC until emissive tech comes to monitors. FALD is a joke and brightness levels aren’t there yet.
Click to expand...

Yup, using a FALD display for my PC and after the novelty, I've immediately disabled FALD as it is REALLY distracting and REALLY bad for anything that has large patches of black or high contrast areas with lots of dark colors contrasted with bright colors. Like dark movies, games, or just my desktop.

Regards,
SB
 
trinibwoy said:
I’m not touching HDR on PC until emissive tech comes to monitors. FALD is a joke and brightness levels aren’t there yet.
Click to expand...

Silent_Buddha said:
Yup, using a FALD display for my PC and after the novelty, I've immediately disabled FALD as it is REALLY distracting and REALLY bad for anything that has large patches of black or high contrast areas with lots of dark colors contrasted with bright colors. Like dark movies, games, or just my desktop.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...
FALD itself is not a joke. Monitor manufacturers cheaping out and using too few zones and calling it FALD is, though.
 
trinibwoy said:
I’m not touching HDR on PC until emissive tech comes to monitors. FALD is a joke and brightness levels aren’t there yet.
Click to expand...

HDR is about more than just brightness though. Colour accuracy and contrast are a huge part of it, probably the more important parts IMO. I'm using an LG C6 (yep it's old but I love 3D) which only hits around 600nits but naturally has amazing contrast levels and colour reproduction. Over the last couple of years I've noticed several games that look significantly better on the C6 in HDR mode than they do on my (admittedly pretty average) monitor in RGB mode in terms of colour accuracy. For me, HDR is more about the colours than it is about the brightness.

Unfortunately if you're waiting for a good OLED gaming monitor I suspect you'll be waiting for a very long time, if it ever arrives at all.

techuse said:
They should just make TVs in smaller sizes. Monitors are very sub par by comparison.
Click to expand...

Meh, only if they start doing 21:9 TV's. Admittedly the CX onwards seems to check all the boxes for a high end gaming monitor outside of footprint and aspect ratio (i.e. excellent response times, high refresh rate, high resolution, VRR) but no other TV does that I'm aware of. And you'll pay A LOT for a CX, especially the 48" version ironically.

Silent_Buddha said:
Yup, using a FALD display for my PC and after the novelty, I've immediately disabled FALD as it is REALLY distracting and REALLY bad for anything that has large patches of black or high contrast areas with lots of dark colors contrasted with bright colors. Like dark movies, games, or just my desktop.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...

Out of interest what are you using?

Kaotik said:
FALD itself is not a joke. Monitor manufacturers cheaping out and using too few zones and calling it FALD is, though.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware there are only really 3 true FALD monitors on the market right now and they all use over 300 zones (others with even more are on the way). As far as I'm aware that's more than most "HDR" TV's outside of the likes of OLED/QLED. Most monitors with local dimming zones use edge lighting and have only a handful of zones. I guess they would have quite limited benefit.
 
pjbliverpool said:
Meh, only if they start doing 21:9 TV's. Admittedly the CX onwards seems to check all the boxes for a high end gaming monitor outside of footprint and aspect ratio (i.e. excellent response times, high refresh rate, high resolution, VRR) but no other TV does that I'm aware of. And you'll pay A LOT for a CX, especially the 48" version ironically.
Click to expand...
You'll pay a lot less than you will for a mediocre GSYNC "Ultimate" monitor that is quite a bit worse in nearly every way.
 
techuse said:
You'll pay a lot less than you will for a mediocre GSYNC "Ultimate" monitor that is quite a bit worse in nearly every way.
Click to expand...

You're being melodramatic with your "mediocre" description. The highest end monitors on the market will produce a better picture than 99% of TV's out there, before we even take the gaming specific features into account. Naturally OLEDs will win in this regard, because... they're OLEDs. Ultimately though, a monitor is about footprint. It's about being able to sit 3ft away from it and it still be usable. PPI is generally much higher than even top end TV's and 21:9 beats the living daylights out of 16:9 every day of the week and twice on Sundays for immersion (just ask Hollywood). Sure you can replicate this on a 16:9 TV with custom resolutions & borders, but it's fiddly, doesn't always work, and results in a much larger screen than you need with much if it being wasted.
 
pjbliverpool said:
You're being melodramatic with your "mediocre" description. The highest end monitors on the market will produce a better picture than 99% of TV's out there, before we even take the gaming specific features into account. Naturally OLEDs will win in this regard, because... they're OLEDs.
Click to expand...
High end gaming monitors get trounced by Samsung and Sony TVs as well, and those are just LCD. It isn't just OLED.
 
techuse said:
High end gaming monitors get trounced by Samsung and Sony TVs as well, and those are just LCD. It isn't just OLED.
Click to expand...

Is what aspect? PPI? Refresh Rate? Response times? Aspect Ratio? VRR support? Connectivity? Colour gamut?

None of the above.

Where non OLED high end TV's come out on top is in HDR quality/brightness and contrast ratio's. That's it (oh, and speakers). And it may just be personal preference but I value all of the above in a gaming display over eyeball searing lens flare.
 
pjbliverpool said:
Is what aspect? PPI? Refresh Rate? Response times? Aspect Ratio? VRR support? Connectivity? Colour gamut?

None of the above.

Where non OLED high end TV's come out on top is in HDR quality/brightness and contrast ratio's. That's it (oh, and speakers). And it may just be personal preference but I value all of the above in a gaming display over eyeball searing lens flare.
Click to expand...
In nearly all areas of IQ. Response times are so close you wouldn't know the difference. Higher PPI is a result of a smaller screen which should bring the price down, not be argued as some feature benefit. I doubt anybody would be able to notice the diff between 120 and 144 hz. TVs support VRR and have better color. I'm not sure what you mean by connectivity.
 
Last edited:
techuse said:
In nearly all areas of IQ.
Click to expand...

Quantify this. Colour gamut? Colour accuracy? Pixel Response times? Contrast Ratio's? Viewing Angles? Brightness levels? Local dimming zones?

Different displays will excel in different areas but outside of OLED you're not going to get any single display that beats out the best gaming in monitors in all of these areas.

Response times are so close you wouldn't know the difference.
Click to expand...

Again, quantify this. What non-OLEDs model in particular are you referring to and what are their pixel response times? And who won't notice? eSports players?

Higher PPI is a result of a smaller screen which should bring the price down, not be argued as some feature benefit.
Click to expand...

And yet the 48" LG CX is more expensive than the 55". And of course it's a benefit if you want to sit closer to the screen on a desk like most PC gaming setups demand due to their dependency on keyboard and mouse for input..

I doubt anybody would be able to notice the diff between 120 and 144 hz.
Click to expand...

Try telling that to eSports gamers. And 144hz is no-where near as high as gaming monitors can go.

TVs support VRR
Click to expand...

Which TV's? Remember we're talking non-OLED here which I already acknowledged above are insurmountable from an image quality perspective. Do they support both Gsync and Free-sync as would potentially be required by PC gamers? Whats the VRR range? What happens when they go below that range? There are several PC monitors available that support both Freesync and GSync in ranges of 1-160+hz. What do these TV's support?

and have better color.
Click to expand...

Define this and back it up with evidence. Plenty of monitors have very wide colour gamuts and very high accuracy levels - as devices that can be used for professional content creation this should be self evident. Which TV's do you believe are better in this respect and how do they compare in the other areas?

I'm not sure what you mean by connectivity.
Click to expand...

The ability to display 4K at 120hz or above for a start. Very few TV's support HDMI 2.1 right now.[/quote][/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Nvidia Pulsar - variable refresh rate with backlight strobing
Replies
9
Views
1K
xz321zx
X
S
Nvidia ULMB2 (ultra-low motion blur 2 strobing for gsync monitors)
Replies
9
Views
2K
xz321zx
X
Cyan
GSync; how does it actually work? Some people say that limiting framerate to 58 fps is okay...
Replies
4
Views
3K
Cyan
Cyan
D
NVIDIA opens GSync
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
35K
DavidGraham
D
Back
Top