It may not be possible to have quick transitions in the slowest area of VA’s transitions due to physics. I don’t know. Even very premium panels, like the Sharp designed for satellite viewing (B-grade or possibly A- grade panels went into the consumer-priced Eizo gaming monitor), had a few slow transitions.
Similarly, IPS seems to have a contrast limitation well below what VA can muster.
"According to VESA, they are going this route because AdaptiveSync/MediaSync certification requires numerous specialized tools and significant know-how, which OEMs are unlikely to have access to."
Wouldn't an OEM need those things to develop and test their products prior to submitting them for testing?
No, not always. If it's a large maker, like Samsung, or LG, who make their own panels and controller boards, sure, they are very likely to already have in-house testing.
However, quite a lot of OEMs just slap together some random LCD panel, some random controller board, and install their own firmware onto the ROM.
On a first glance it does sound a lot like G-Sync Compatible Certification that has been around for a while, and also covers HDMI. It would be interesting if someone were able to do a side by side comparison of the two and see what overlap there is, or isn't.
I don't feel it would affect displays too much. Higher end gaming models going forward would probably be targeted to meet all VESA and significant GPU vendor specific schemes, assuming sufficient convergence between them. Lower price displays probably will still not be able to meet any of these. So little will change apart from an extra sticker on higher end displays.
It seems to be a recognition of problems with VESA's original implementation of AdaptiveSync as a standard that they originally didn't have a certification program associated with the standard but now, after 8 years, they do; whereas NVIDIA, who introduced the technology that spurred the creation of the VESA standard, had a certification program all along.
It's a shame that they made the hard requirement for AdaptiveSync to be a minimum of 60hz. Many games don't handle running above 60hz and average a framerate between 59hz and 60hz. Which will disable any AdaptiveSync system that doesn't support sub 60hz.
It would have been great to see AdaptiveSync have a minimum target of 48hz and be a superset of MediaSync.
You need to read it careful, 60hz is the maximum minimum, as it can't be higher than 60 for the minimum range. On the Vesa page for the cert, it says "≤ 60 Hz" which mean it can be less.
Offhand I'd expect they'd just use frame doubling to turn that 59/60fps into 118hz or 120hz and then be nicely in the range of the supported AdpativeSync refresh rates. Don't need to double things to run at 48 hz if you can just triple them to run at 72 hz or even quadruple them to 96 hz for media sync.
Range of 60-144 is needed - but this is the minimum range in both directions. A screen can have 48-144, or 60-360, or 48-360 or anything.
Also, the screen always runs at the same few ms of refresh per frame (at most 1000/144 = 7 ms, it can be lower for even faster screens). It just displays the same image twice if needed (or 3, 4 ... times). If the screen supports LFC (and these are required to), and if the screen doesn't flicker (again, covered here), you aren't going to even notice whether the screen displays 60 FPS content at 60 FPS or at 120 FPS (because the amount of blur will be from the 144 FPS maximum)
Finally, note that 48-60FPS is required for the media tick, while a lot of movies are 24 FPS. But this range of 48-60 is still sufficient - movies will have the GPU simply repeating the frame twice while the screen runs at (effectively) 48 FPS. There is no LFC available but it isn't needed when the framerate doesn't vary much (or at all - movies).
Interesting the bit about the need to test only at max refresh rate. I suppose various monitor reviewers have tested the lower refresh rates at fixed refresh rates rather than with AdaptiveSync active and frame rate limiter. If VESA's claim is true variable overdrive would be unneeded.
This new AdaptiveSync standard however does not specify any maximum value for G2G times, so I guess some cheap VA panel with response time at worst 50ms can still meet the spec.
If a few transitions are very slow but the rest are okay, the benefits of VA may be worth it for some buyers. In particular, those who value a large contrast ratio but don’t want the issues OLED has.
Others will prefer things like better colour/gamma consistency, within the reduced contrast gamut — which IPS provides. IPS pixels are also faster than VA, at least in the specific transitions VA struggles with.
I read all of this and the only thing that went through my mind was "But what's the trick? How will the manufacturers trick consumers if the standard is actually meaningful?"
Let's find whichever modern day Bonaparte was responsible for reforming VESA into an useful organization and put them in charge of reorganizing the USB mess.
One of the "tricks" is setting 60 hz as the minimum threshold. I have concern that setting that bar may harm consumers in the long run if manufacturers end up settling for that as that would result in worse products than currently available.
I'm confused as to why that's an issue, GPU can handle 2x/3x rate, so if e.g. 24fps content, can display at 72Hz, every frame just lasts 3Hz.
I would like lower frames than that even, but as long as ms refresh rate is fine, then drops down to 20/30fps for scenes will still be fine as monitor can just show a frame for longer (GPU support already exists for adaptive refresh rate).
It all depends on... Vesa HDR system is so broken that you can put elephants through the holes. Hopefully they make better job this time... but I am not too sure that they will
They did it backwards compared to HDR which started with the HDR1000 and 600 standards that actually required premium hardware to implement and then added HDR400 which any garbage with a high powered backlight can get a checkbox for.
With variable refresh, their initial standard is the garbage tier anyone can meet with minimal effort; now they're adding in house premium standards on top.
1. Is it possible for VA panels to meet the pixel transition speed spec, or is this a way for IPS to kill VA competition in gaming displays?
IPS has much lower contrast and almost no IPS displays ship with a polarizer to fix IPS glow. IPS panels may also tend to have worse uniformity since the panel production method involves rubbing. Some buyers may be happier with some of the transitions being slow to gain the advantages VA has. VA panels tend to have a few transitions that are really slow. Those could prevent them from meeting the average VESA is using.
2. ‘60-144 is the smallest range that qualifies.’
That seems ridiculous, considering how important it is to handle rates below 60 FPS. What am I missing?
I thought main point of variable refresh has been to smooth the experience of frame rates below 60. A major problem has been displays not going low enough.
"That seems ridiculous, considering how important it is to handle rates below 60 FPS. What am I missing?"
Low Framerate Compensation (LFC). Any framerates below 60 will just have the frames get doubled (or tripled) to bring the framerate in line with the refresh rate range of the monitor.
I think I understand how it works but the article confused me because it says:
‘A compliant display needs to support a variable refresh rate range of at least 60Hz to 144Hz – the minimum, magical 2.4x range needed for low framerate compensation (LFC) support. Displays can go below this for the minimum (e.g. 48Hz) and above that for the maximum (see: 360Hz displays), but 60-144 is the smallest range that qualifies.’
Why bring up 48Hz at all, if frames are going to be doubled or tripled below 60? Is it that a display can have a native range below 60 and LFC only kicks in below that?
Does doubling/tripling of frames cause input/processing latency?
This is certainly the best news i've read in along time. Thank you, thank you, thank you VESA for doing this - and thank you Ryan for your piece on it.
I've been a proponent for better refresh rates since CRT days, but from my first LCD more than 20y ago, I also longed for anything over 60 in those too. In my opinion that could have been dealt with already then, so this is like 15-20 years late in my book. The last 10y's or so with higher refresh has been very good so far (got a 3440x1440 144hz 1,5y ago myself), but now we also need better standards to know what's what. The 1ms advertising is ridiculous and useless for consumers.
I - for one - will make a toast to this standard being useful and applicable - let's hope there's not gonna be too many 1.1's and 1.4a's and all that!
Is GtG really among the slowest transitions as stated? I thought it was (among) the fastest. I was told ages ago that fully saturated green to blue (and similar transitions) are the slowest and often many times slower than the fastest change the screen achieves in GtG (the advertised number), and that even white to black or vice versa is much slower than tiny change in greys.
Not that most of these corner case transitions really matter - most of content changes gradually and you aren't noticing longer transitions when everything is completely different anyway, so the (new measurement of) GtG is actually pretty representative of how fast transitions actually seem.
G2G doesn't refer to gray as in "gray[scale] or color", but rather gray as in "black, white, or gray". LCD subpixels are only one color each, so they are effectively monochrome. You can think of them as moving along a spectrum of values ranging from black to white (0 to 255 for an 8bpc display)
Notably, B<->W transitions are already super fast because a display just sets the max voltage; you don't even need overdrive for this. G2G transitions, in this context, are transitions where subpixel values are switching from one middle state to another. That requires a lot more finesse, and even with overdrive you can't entirely floor it without getting ghosting.
Saturated green to blue, in turn, would be one such G2G transition. However it's likely not the slowest, since a fully saturated pixel that's purely red, green, or blue implies that that the relevant subpixel is running at its highest state (e.g. 255). So in this context, that would actually be an example of a fast B/W transition; to go from green to blue, you'd just drop green to 0 (black) and raise blue to 255 (white), which as laid out above can be done very quickly.
Slow transitions would be things like Orchid to YellowGreen, where all three subpixels need to make significant transitions, but are going to stop a decent bit short of 0 or 255.
Thanks. I meant that changing one pixel in one direction while the next one moves the other way is slower than driving just one pixel or all pixels the same way... but this doesn't seem to matter. Still, the first IPS screen on rtings list doesn't show much faster black-to-white or vice versa - the best values are with small changes in the middle, in particular 60-80% for that screen https://i.rtings.com/assets/products/THr7PS9A/acer... ((OLED, on the other hand, is obviously the fastest when going to black, it just turns the pixel off))
It would be nice if all manufacturers would scrap all old fashion port connectors too and all would migrate to USB-C video port and cable even in TV's and scrap poor hdmi... And nvidia and radeon graphics cards scrap huge displayport connector and replace it with type -c and make support of Thunderbolt 4 or future 5. Laptop started having thunderbolt 4 the small monitors has it too only graphics cards and TV's lacking... DisplayProt connector partially migrated to usb-c cabling... so they should scrap big old fashion connector.. And HDMi too should migrate to type-c ... If this would be done long time ago we wouldn't have fiasko with behind poor HDMi version .. So even GTX series graphics cards nd RTX 20 series would have output usb-c via displayport protocol and TV's would have usb-c connectors too so there will be no lack of support like HDMi crippled all monitors and gpus...
What, just to make sure no one with a game console can actually use it? It's expensive enough to use retro consoles now that analogue inputs are so rare, without doing away with THE current video standard as well.
"displays that need to be “overclocked” in any fashion to meet the minimums won’t quality."
So no monitors will qualify then? I mean "overdrive" is "overclocked" and every HFR display needs to overdrive to reach their response times (which a lot of the time then still don't meet what they advertise) so how will any display qualify o.O
That is probably a differentiation between refresh rate and pixel acceleration. Overclocking a display typically refers to the former rather than the latter.
Overclocking refers to a very specific scenario of where a display doesn't officially support a refresh rate out of the box, but can do it if you enable an additional mode at your own risk. You sometimes see this with 165Hz displays, where they don't actually go beyond 144Hz without enabling this overclocking mode.
Put another way, if a manufacturer wants to advertise their display as supporting a high refresh rate, then they need to enable it out of the box. If they're unwilling to do that, then there's likely an important catch.
What’s the point of adaptive sync at only 48 Hz minimum? I thought the point was to make sure a game runs smoothly even when frame rates drop during heavy scenes.
Apparently frame doubling and tripling is used to get the framerate within the 60–144 range. What I wonder is if that has drawbacks versus having a wider refresh rate range at the low end, such as some kind of processing lag or artifacting.
Does it? An AdaptiveSync display with a 60-144 range does not meet the MediaSync spec, which requires non-LFC refresh rates down to 48Hz. This may not matter much in practice due to LFC, but I’d the display was 48-144 it would be labeled as such instead of 60-144.
Ryan, Nearly every other outlet didn't cover this release in such great detail, including bits like the LFC. Thank you for covering this is such great detail.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
Back to Article
Rezurecta - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
This seems like a great way to go! Let's get rid of all the shenanigans that companies do so they can upsell crappy products as gaming monitors.Great article. Thank you.
DanNeely - Tuesday, May 3, 2022 - link
Average GTG still leaves room for crappy worst case outliers; but it's still a huge step forward from the status quo.Oxford Guy - Wednesday, May 4, 2022 - link
It may not be possible to have quick transitions in the slowest area of VA’s transitions due to physics. I don’t know. Even very premium panels, like the Sharp designed for satellite viewing (B-grade or possibly A- grade panels went into the consumer-priced Eizo gaming monitor), had a few slow transitions.Similarly, IPS seems to have a contrast limitation well below what VA can muster.
smartthanyou - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
"According to VESA, they are going this route because AdaptiveSync/MediaSync certification requires numerous specialized tools and significant know-how, which OEMs are unlikely to have access to."Wouldn't an OEM need those things to develop and test their products prior to submitting them for testing?
meacupla - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
No, not always. If it's a large maker, like Samsung, or LG, who make their own panels and controller boards, sure, they are very likely to already have in-house testing.However, quite a lot of OEMs just slap together some random LCD panel, some random controller board, and install their own firmware onto the ROM.
porina - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
On a first glance it does sound a lot like G-Sync Compatible Certification that has been around for a while, and also covers HDMI. It would be interesting if someone were able to do a side by side comparison of the two and see what overlap there is, or isn't.I don't feel it would affect displays too much. Higher end gaming models going forward would probably be targeted to meet all VESA and significant GPU vendor specific schemes, assuming sufficient convergence between them. Lower price displays probably will still not be able to meet any of these. So little will change apart from an extra sticker on higher end displays.
Yojimbo - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
It seems to be a recognition of problems with VESA's original implementation of AdaptiveSync as a standard that they originally didn't have a certification program associated with the standard but now, after 8 years, they do; whereas NVIDIA, who introduced the technology that spurred the creation of the VESA standard, had a certification program all along.SirDragonClaw - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
It's a shame that they made the hard requirement for AdaptiveSync to be a minimum of 60hz. Many games don't handle running above 60hz and average a framerate between 59hz and 60hz. Which will disable any AdaptiveSync system that doesn't support sub 60hz.It would have been great to see AdaptiveSync have a minimum target of 48hz and be a superset of MediaSync.
DougMcC - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
OTOH: maybe game developers will realize they can't cap at 60 any more to get included in reviews.Mysteoa - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
You need to read it careful, 60hz is the maximum minimum, as it can't be higher than 60 for the minimum range. On the Vesa page for the cert, it says "≤ 60 Hz" which mean it can be less.kpb321 - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
Offhand I'd expect they'd just use frame doubling to turn that 59/60fps into 118hz or 120hz and then be nicely in the range of the supported AdpativeSync refresh rates. Don't need to double things to run at 48 hz if you can just triple them to run at 72 hz or even quadruple them to 96 hz for media sync.Zizy - Tuesday, May 3, 2022 - link
Range of 60-144 is needed - but this is the minimum range in both directions. A screen can have 48-144, or 60-360, or 48-360 or anything.Also, the screen always runs at the same few ms of refresh per frame (at most 1000/144 = 7 ms, it can be lower for even faster screens). It just displays the same image twice if needed (or 3, 4 ... times). If the screen supports LFC (and these are required to), and if the screen doesn't flicker (again, covered here), you aren't going to even notice whether the screen displays 60 FPS content at 60 FPS or at 120 FPS (because the amount of blur will be from the 144 FPS maximum)
Finally, note that 48-60FPS is required for the media tick, while a lot of movies are 24 FPS. But this range of 48-60 is still sufficient - movies will have the GPU simply repeating the frame twice while the screen runs at (effectively) 48 FPS. There is no LFC available but it isn't needed when the framerate doesn't vary much (or at all - movies).
Guspaz - Sunday, May 22, 2022 - link
They require LFC support so 60-144 effectively means 0-144 in practice.Infy2 - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
Interesting the bit about the need to test only at max refresh rate. I suppose various monitor reviewers have tested the lower refresh rates at fixed refresh rates rather than with AdaptiveSync active and frame rate limiter. If VESA's claim is true variable overdrive would be unneeded.This new AdaptiveSync standard however does not specify any maximum value for G2G times, so I guess some cheap VA panel with response time at worst 50ms can still meet the spec.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, May 3, 2022 - link
If a few transitions are very slow but the rest are okay, the benefits of VA may be worth it for some buyers. In particular, those who value a large contrast ratio but don’t want the issues OLED has.Others will prefer things like better colour/gamma consistency, within the reduced contrast gamut — which IPS provides. IPS pixels are also faster than VA, at least in the specific transitions VA struggles with.
Wereweeb - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
I read all of this and the only thing that went through my mind was "But what's the trick? How will the manufacturers trick consumers if the standard is actually meaningful?"Let's find whichever modern day Bonaparte was responsible for reforming VESA into an useful organization and put them in charge of reorganizing the USB mess.
limitedaccess - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
One of the "tricks" is setting 60 hz as the minimum threshold. I have concern that setting that bar may harm consumers in the long run if manufacturers end up settling for that as that would result in worse products than currently available.Spunjji - Tuesday, May 3, 2022 - link
Why? Frame-rate doubling covers you down to 30HzRSAUser - Saturday, May 7, 2022 - link
I'm confused as to why that's an issue, GPU can handle 2x/3x rate, so if e.g. 24fps content, can display at 72Hz, every frame just lasts 3Hz.I would like lower frames than that even, but as long as ms refresh rate is fine, then drops down to 20/30fps for scenes will still be fine as monitor can just show a frame for longer (GPU support already exists for adaptive refresh rate).
haukionkannel - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
It all depends on...Vesa HDR system is so broken that you can put elephants through the holes.
Hopefully they make better job this time... but I am not too sure that they will
DanNeely - Tuesday, May 3, 2022 - link
They did it backwards compared to HDR which started with the HDR1000 and 600 standards that actually required premium hardware to implement and then added HDR400 which any garbage with a high powered backlight can get a checkbox for.With variable refresh, their initial standard is the garbage tier anyone can meet with minimal effort; now they're adding in house premium standards on top.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, May 4, 2022 - link
The premium experience of having a million nits burn ads into one’s brain!haukionkannel - Friday, May 6, 2022 - link
The pity is that even HDR1000 can be garbage...https://youtu.be/_ohhXyPGzWs
The standard has been done so poorly that it has no meaning!
Oxford Guy - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
1. Is it possible for VA panels to meet the pixel transition speed spec, or is this a way for IPS to kill VA competition in gaming displays?IPS has much lower contrast and almost no IPS displays ship with a polarizer to fix IPS glow. IPS panels may also tend to have worse uniformity since the panel production method involves rubbing. Some buyers may be happier with some of the transitions being slow to gain the advantages VA has. VA panels tend to have a few transitions that are really slow. Those could prevent them from meeting the average VESA is using.
2. ‘60-144 is the smallest range that qualifies.’
That seems ridiculous, considering how important it is to handle rates below 60 FPS. What am I missing?
I thought main point of variable refresh has been to smooth the experience of frame rates below 60. A major problem has been displays not going low enough.
Ryan Smith - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
"That seems ridiculous, considering how important it is to handle rates below 60 FPS. What am I missing?"Low Framerate Compensation (LFC). Any framerates below 60 will just have the frames get doubled (or tripled) to bring the framerate in line with the refresh rate range of the monitor.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, May 3, 2022 - link
Is that part of this new spec?What is the minimum framerate that the spec demands? I believe I recall reading complaints about some monitors not going low enough.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, May 4, 2022 - link
I think I understand how it works but the article confused me because it says:‘A compliant display needs to support a variable refresh rate range of at least 60Hz to 144Hz – the minimum, magical 2.4x range needed for low framerate compensation (LFC) support. Displays can go below this for the minimum (e.g. 48Hz) and above that for the maximum (see: 360Hz displays), but 60-144 is the smallest range that qualifies.’
Why bring up 48Hz at all, if frames are going to be doubled or tripled below 60? Is it that a display can have a native range below 60 and LFC only kicks in below that?
Does doubling/tripling of frames cause input/processing latency?
RSAUser - Saturday, May 7, 2022 - link
Brought up because movies are at ~24, show each frame twice for 48.Oxford Guy - Saturday, May 7, 2022 - link
So this spec should have gone down to 48?haakon_k - Monday, May 2, 2022 - link
This is certainly the best news i've read in along time. Thank you, thank you, thank you VESA for doing this - and thank you Ryan for your piece on it.I've been a proponent for better refresh rates since CRT days, but from my first LCD more than 20y ago, I also longed for anything over 60 in those too. In my opinion that could have been dealt with already then, so this is like 15-20 years late in my book. The last 10y's or so with higher refresh has been very good so far (got a 3440x1440 144hz 1,5y ago myself), but now we also need better standards to know what's what. The 1ms advertising is ridiculous and useless for consumers.
I - for one - will make a toast to this standard being useful and applicable - let's hope there's not gonna be too many 1.1's and 1.4a's and all that!
Zizy - Tuesday, May 3, 2022 - link
Is GtG really among the slowest transitions as stated? I thought it was (among) the fastest.I was told ages ago that fully saturated green to blue (and similar transitions) are the slowest and often many times slower than the fastest change the screen achieves in GtG (the advertised number), and that even white to black or vice versa is much slower than tiny change in greys.
Not that most of these corner case transitions really matter - most of content changes gradually and you aren't noticing longer transitions when everything is completely different anyway, so the (new measurement of) GtG is actually pretty representative of how fast transitions actually seem.
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, May 3, 2022 - link
G2G doesn't refer to gray as in "gray[scale] or color", but rather gray as in "black, white, or gray". LCD subpixels are only one color each, so they are effectively monochrome. You can think of them as moving along a spectrum of values ranging from black to white (0 to 255 for an 8bpc display)Notably, B<->W transitions are already super fast because a display just sets the max voltage; you don't even need overdrive for this. G2G transitions, in this context, are transitions where subpixel values are switching from one middle state to another. That requires a lot more finesse, and even with overdrive you can't entirely floor it without getting ghosting.
Saturated green to blue, in turn, would be one such G2G transition. However it's likely not the slowest, since a fully saturated pixel that's purely red, green, or blue implies that that the relevant subpixel is running at its highest state (e.g. 255). So in this context, that would actually be an example of a fast B/W transition; to go from green to blue, you'd just drop green to 0 (black) and raise blue to 255 (white), which as laid out above can be done very quickly.
Slow transitions would be things like Orchid to YellowGreen, where all three subpixels need to make significant transitions, but are going to stop a decent bit short of 0 or 255.
Zizy - Wednesday, May 4, 2022 - link
Thanks. I meant that changing one pixel in one direction while the next one moves the other way is slower than driving just one pixel or all pixels the same way... but this doesn't seem to matter. Still, the first IPS screen on rtings list doesn't show much faster black-to-white or vice versa - the best values are with small changes in the middle, in particular 60-80% for that screen https://i.rtings.com/assets/products/THr7PS9A/acer... ((OLED, on the other hand, is obviously the fastest when going to black, it just turns the pixel off))davebyrd - Tuesday, May 3, 2022 - link
an industry-neural?Ethos Evoss - Wednesday, May 4, 2022 - link
It would be nice if all manufacturers would scrap all old fashion port connectors too and all would migrate to USB-C video port and cable even in TV's and scrap poor hdmi... And nvidia and radeon graphics cards scrap huge displayport connector and replace it with type -c and make support of Thunderbolt 4 or future 5.Laptop started having thunderbolt 4 the small monitors has it too only graphics cards and TV's lacking... DisplayProt connector partially migrated to usb-c cabling... so they should scrap big old fashion connector.. And HDMi too should migrate to type-c ...
If this would be done long time ago we wouldn't have fiasko with behind poor HDMi version ..
So even GTX series graphics cards nd RTX 20 series would have output usb-c via displayport protocol and TV's would have usb-c connectors too so there will be no lack of support like HDMi crippled all monitors and gpus...
cakeisamadeupdrg - Thursday, May 5, 2022 - link
What, just to make sure no one with a game console can actually use it? It's expensive enough to use retro consoles now that analogue inputs are so rare, without doing away with THE current video standard as well.Tongle - Wednesday, May 4, 2022 - link
"displays that need to be “overclocked” in any fashion to meet the minimums won’t quality."So no monitors will qualify then? I mean "overdrive" is "overclocked" and every HFR display needs to overdrive to reach their response times (which a lot of the time then still don't meet what they advertise) so how will any display qualify o.O
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 5, 2022 - link
That is probably a differentiation between refresh rate and pixel acceleration. Overclocking a display typically refers to the former rather than the latter.Ryan Smith - Friday, May 6, 2022 - link
Overclocking refers to a very specific scenario of where a display doesn't officially support a refresh rate out of the box, but can do it if you enable an additional mode at your own risk. You sometimes see this with 165Hz displays, where they don't actually go beyond 144Hz without enabling this overclocking mode.Put another way, if a manufacturer wants to advertise their display as supporting a high refresh rate, then they need to enable it out of the box. If they're unwilling to do that, then there's likely an important catch.
sonicmerlin - Thursday, May 5, 2022 - link
What’s the point of adaptive sync at only 48 Hz minimum? I thought the point was to make sure a game runs smoothly even when frame rates drop during heavy scenes.Oxford Guy - Saturday, May 7, 2022 - link
Apparently frame doubling and tripling is used to get the framerate within the 60–144 range. What I wonder is if that has drawbacks versus having a wider refresh rate range at the low end, such as some kind of processing lag or artifacting.Mugur - Friday, May 6, 2022 - link
Can a monitor have both logos? Adaptive and Media?Ryan Smith - Friday, May 6, 2022 - link
No. If you have AdaptiveSync, you already exceed the MediaSync specs.Guspaz - Sunday, May 22, 2022 - link
Does it? An AdaptiveSync display with a 60-144 range does not meet the MediaSync spec, which requires non-LFC refresh rates down to 48Hz. This may not matter much in practice due to LFC, but I’d the display was 48-144 it would be labeled as such instead of 60-144.losergamer04 - Monday, May 9, 2022 - link
Ryan,Nearly every other outlet didn't cover this release in such great detail, including bits like the LFC. Thank you for covering this is such great detail.