It's almost as though some people play games on TVs. Weird concept I know.
NVIDIA waters down G-Sync Ultimate requirements
- Thread starter Kaotik
- Start date
Yes but do the consoles support freesync ?
Yes, both new consoles will support VRR. But your stipulation was that TVs are only useful for playing static framerate video.
They dont now? When will they? That together with VRS (variable rate shading) could improve things, in special the latter.
Not only the new ones, but last-gen console One X supports freesync functionality.
As far as I can parse, Xbox One S, One X, Series S, Series X supports freesync functionality even with HDMI 2.0 connections. The Series S and Series X supports HDMI 2.1 VRR.
EDITED: added One S to the list and to clarify the freesync functionality does not require HDMI 2.1 for last-gen consoles
Last edited:
Add Xbox One S to the Freesync list and you're there for MS, though I'm pretty sure it's not HDMI 2.0 functionality, but rather custom protocol over HDMI connection? It's supported only by Samsung AFAIK.
Sony supports (or rather will support I think?) HDMI 2.1 VRR on PS5, but nothing on last gen.
I couldn't recall is OneS did or not. Thanks for saying it does.
Yeah, I wasn't sure how to quite word it, but wanted to convey it does not require HDMI 2.1 to support the functionality. I'll edit the message to clarify that. At the same time, I'm not sure if they can say it's VRR, like if that's a specific implementation tied to HDMI Marketing or functional test suites.
Yeah, I wasn't sure how to quite word it, but wanted to convey it does not require HDMI 2.1 to support the functionality. I'll edit the message to clarify that. At the same time, I'm not sure if they can say it's VRR, like if that's a specific implementation tied to HDMI Marketing or functional test suites.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/q90-q90t-qled
Cheaper and flat out better than any high end HDR gaming monitor. That covers the majority of your follow up questions. Which 4k monitors support framerates higher than 144 hz?
You know TV's are just as popular as monitor for pc usage these days right?
arandomguy
Veteran
There is no standard in HDMI 2.0 (and prior) for variable refresh support akin to VESA adaptive-sync. As such VRR implementations require the use of vendor specific extensions (which HDMI allows for) that need to be supported by both the input device and the output display (well really the display's TCON).
I don't know if Microsoft's implementation for certain just uses the same extensions that AMD implemented for it's "Freesync over HDMI" but I believe there is cross compatibility (as in displays that support one support the other) so it's likely the same.
But this is different than the actual HDMI VRR (optional) standard implemented into HDMI 2.1.
This is just about the best non-OLED TV you can get and still doesn't support your argument that "high end monitors get trounced" my non-OLED TV's.
Compare it to this for example which isn't the highest end monitor on the market, but one of the better ones they've done a review for:
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/38wn95c-w
While the TV easily wins in HDR performance and it's associated metrics as expected given this isn't a FALD monitor, the monitor still comes out in front in:
- Grey Uniformity
- Viewing Angles
- Colour Accuracy (despite this being one specific area you claimed TV's are better in)
- Colour Gamut is a wash
- Refresh rate
- Gradient Handling
- Response Times
- Input Lag
https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/lg-ultragear-38gn950
Who said high refresh rate monitors needed to be 4K as well? 4K and high refresh rates are largely mutually exclusive so this makes no sense. But regardless, 144hz is still higher than 120hz and I doubt you'll find a serious esports player that thinks there's no benefit to the higher refresh rate.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
The biggest problem I have with high end monitors is the poor price performance ratio. They are close to or more expensive than a 55" OLED TV and at that point I just don't see why I should get a gaming monitor. I don't care about super high refresh rates because even high end hardware struggles with 4k60fps with everything cranked to max and even if I did, 120hz seems pretty good to me as well. Those gaming monitors still have poor HDR as well which I think is simply unacceptable if you are asking 1500+ bucks for it. For me a lot of those monitors feel more like a 500 ~ 700 dollar product. In my case if also play most of my games with a controller these days which makes getting a TV even more attractive because I won't need to use it as the default monitor when doing basic desktop stuff. So for me I'd have A) a great monitor (TV) for gaming while also having a great TV for watching movies etc. at the same time.
Of course there are advantages to having a real monitor as well but personally I think the pricing just doesn't make sense.
Of course there are advantages to having a real monitor as well but personally I think the pricing just doesn't make sense.
Yes I do agree the pricing is rubbish relative to what you get. And HDR leaves a lot to be desired in all but the very highest end FALD monitors. TV's certainly make a lot of sense for a large number of users. I'm really just arguing against blanket statements like "mediocre GSYNC Ultimate monitor that is quite a bit worse in nearly every way" and "High end gaming monitors get trounced by Samsung and Sony TVs as well".
These statements simply aren't true. What is true though is that you'll pay a lot more for something of comparable quality in a monitor form factor than a TV form factor.
My personal decision of monitor vs TV which makes me inclined to pay more is driven by a few factors:
- My PC is in the living room and already plugged into an OLED TV. But it's also on a desk with an independent monitor which for me has huge advantages in terms of being able to use the PC for work and other non gaming activities, as well as being able to use the PC and the TV at the same time (which with a wife and two kids is basically essential).
- Keyboard and Mouse based games which probably only make up around 20% of my gaming time on average are much better done from the desk
- The actual perceived viewing area is much bigger with my 27" monitor than my 55" TV due to the setup of the room. i.e. my couch is around 10ft from the TV whereas my desk chair is around 2-3ft from the monitor. So while not as comfortable as couch gaming, this results in greater immersion.
- My desk space is limited so while I've certainly considered swapping my monitor out for a TV (specifically the 48" LG CX), it's unfortunately not practical as that would be both too big for the desk, and probably too big for the viewing distance too.
- Most importantly (for me), I find 21:9 far superior to 16:9 for gaming and so my next gaming screen absolutely has to be in that aspect ratio.
- Last one which I'm sure many will scoff at but that 38GN950 above which is the monitor I have my eye on has a really cool ambilight type function which I expect to further increase immersion, especially in a dark room. Essentially my expectation is that the ambient light, the 21:9 aspect ratio, and the relatively huge perceived viewing area should take immersion far beyond what I can achieve from my TV at it's normal viewing distance.
arandomguy
Veteran
As long as you're fine with the form factor of TVs and feature set they are going to for the foreseeable future be better in terms of consumer content consumption value than a gaming monitor due to a variety of a technical, economic, and market challenges that differ from those TVs face. I know the line of thinking is that monitors are just smaller and therefore should be cheaper but it's not that simple in terms of the different challenges between each segment. Really small (mobile devices), mid size (monitors), and large (TVs) displays are effectively different markets entirely.
Some things like Grey uniformity are a lottery. I specifically bought a pre calibrated 24inch LG monitor to avoid the headache (and to avoid my ridiculous high level of bad luck with electronics).
Yes it's more expensive than similarly specced monitor with no calibration certificate, but Its awesome. A simple click of a button to buy, and I get what I buy. No ridiculous surprises. No need to physically go to the store and check their stock one by one to get the one that's good.
Grey uniformity and color accuracy may test marginally higher in vacuum tests, but when actually consuming content those advantages are not able to materialize. Viewing angles is just down to VA vs IPS and nothing can be done about it. Input lag you are looking at single digit MS differences. Who is going to notice that? I grant you the form factor point. Keep in mind the TV beat the monitor you linked in every single overall metric they apply a score to. This while that monitor costs 45% more than the TV!
Well "better but not to a noticeable degree" is a long way away from being "mediocre", "quite a bit worse", and "getting trounced" isn't it.
And besides, the gaming variant of this is already factory calibrated so should offer a noticeable improvement over the TV out of the box.
See above.
See above.
This is irrelevant as monitors and TVs are scored on different criteria at that site and thus the scores aren't comparable.
Which isn't something I've ever argued against. I acknowledge you have to pay more for a comparable experience if you want a monitor form factor and/or a wide screen aspect ratio.
When consuming actual content the monitor is quite mediocre by comparison. Games/movies will look quite a bit worse while the small benefits will be unnoticeable. No one is going to notice a few MS of input lag and arent going to sit at an odd angle from their TV.
Similar threads
