You don't HAVE to, there are a couple of IPS-type 144Hz screen options. The Acer Predator XB270HU and Asus MG279Q are out now, with the Asus ROG Swift PG279Q and Eizo Foris FS2735 launching soon.
Considering how popular they've been, I'm a little surprised OEMs are still introducing TNs in the same price range.
What are you referring to by IPS glow? I have one, so I'm going to guess the phenomenon where an all black screen will appear slightly lit? In practice I don't notice it, since the screen is rarely pitch black. Maybe if you like playing Doom 3 without a flashlight mod. ;)
The main issue with them is the price. Unless you buy one of those cheap Korean import screens, IPS mainly show up in expensive professional or gamer models.
Your always better off with BenQ than Asus when it comes to TN panels, I own the XL2420TE a $400 144hz 1ms Lightboost/Motion Blur panel. I will not be upgrading for years.
Well, there's the ASUS PG2749Q, which is a 27" 1440p 144Hz IPS display with G-Sync. It's not out yet, although Acer has a display out that uses the same panel.
It'd be nice if AMD and nVidia could form a working group to unify G-Sync and FreeSync.
AMD joined a group and they all made Async. Freesync is AMD's branding on Async. Any product that supports Async should work with a Freesync monitor. VESA standards are _Standards_. There's nothing to unify regarding the two platforms.
They could adopt it, sure, but each implementation (G-Sync versus FreeSync) does things that the other does not. If nVidia simply adopted FreeSync, it would be worse in some ways, and if AMD adopted G-Sync, the same is true.
Umm, I think you're missing a REALLY important point here. Nvidia's G-Sync is a Proprietary interface. Nvidia is NOT going to let anyone adopt it without paying a royalty at the very least assuming they will let you adopt it in the first place. AMD's Freesync has been adopted into the VESA standards which is free for anyone to use. Literally you can create your own Freesync monitor by reading the specifications and building the circuits yourself. You cannot with G-Sync. In G-Sync you MUST use the scaler chip that Nvidia provides.
That is not true. 1) Freesync is not superior, it has minor pros and cons compared to GSync 2) no perf difference: "performance hit" is around 2% according to AMD, or not existing according to Anandtech 3) freesync DOES have port restriction: it also works only on Displayport (it is "DisplayPort Adaptive Sync" standard after all). Monitor itself can support other ports, but not for Freesync
BTW, only 'noticeable' advantage of Freesync is that it is cheaper, while only 'noticeable' advantage of GSync is that it support ULMB blur reduction. And, while I have GSync monitor, I'm really glad that Freesync monitors are also now available, since it will put pressure on NVidia to reduce prices of their GSync adapter.
nVidia sure can implement it ... with Pascal. If they want, that is. Maxwell apparently does not have the right HW to support the necessary VESA standard.
Unlike AMD partners however, nVidia clearly caught the ghosting issue and implemented some solution in its scaler chip. I suppose for FreeSync monitors, we will have to wait for next get scaler chips, that will resolve the ghosting issue, and then for AMD drivers solution for low-fps scenarios.
Nothing's stopping nVidia from enabling support in their drivers but Jen Hsun Huang's ego. That, unfortunately, is very large obstacle. Judging by the first DX12 benchmarks and information, however, there is no reason to go nVidia at this point:
G-Sync predates the VESA standard, and the VESA standards in some respects is not as capable. An updated standard that included some of the better aspects of G-Sync (such as actual hardware changes to the scaler) would be the best of both worlds.
G-sync predates freesync, but one of the major architects for AMD also HAPPENS to be the VESA board vice chairman. AMD played dirty pool, why would Nvidia choose to lower their (unfortunately more expensive) standards to fall into compliance with a glitchy (ghosting) standard?
IPS is better (and just as fast on the IPS version as TN), TN is cheaper, there I settled it :P
I hope to see a comparison review of the two when it's out, I was thinking of getting the IPS version myself, but looking at recent high end TN screens it may well do for my use if the viewing angles are good enough. Would hopefully save some money :)
Actually, recent TN panels seem to have more than decent color and recent IPS panels are much faster than older one. So, if you shop carefully (and pay accordingly) you'll find that the differences are becoming less pronounced.
Personally, I'm waiting for the EIZO Foris FS27, which is IPS Freesync 144Hz...
The problem with TN panels isn't that they can't do decent color, it's that they only do decent color at the center of the screen when you are staring straight on. On a 24" or larger TN panel, colors at the top of the screen will be TOTALLY different. For example, it's difficult for me to distinguish green and blue at the top of larger TN monitors.
This. You can have perfect color reproduction in the middle of a 27" TN screen and still have gradients from top to bottom. If you have a TN screen the viewing angle test at Lagom does a pretty good job illustrating the point. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/viewing_angle.php
For smaller TN screens you can see the effect by tilting the screen a little (or standing up). For larger TN screens, just looking at the top and the bottom from a fixed location is usually enough to see the effect.
Note: You may need to fix your gamma settings and/or do other screen calibrations to get the screen to respond how it should (I.E. even Dell IPS monitors show the lagom text in red when the gamma is off. When corrected, they show up as grey as they should.). The site can help you do a quick and dirty calibration that should be good enough for these purposes, but colorimeter calibrations are better (or spectrometers for those who can afford it). http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
I know that TN is getting to be good enough colour wise for me recently, but as LtGoonRush below you already says, the viewing angles are the main problem still with TN. It's those that would make me go IPS if the difference is big enough. My current TN screen is certainly terrible in that regard...Screen becomes much darker and colours go off when I look at any part of the screen at an angle. Wait and see I guess :)
Supposedly, the technical differences between the TN and IPS technologies are what limit IPS to 60 hz. As in, the switching mechanism for IPS is physically slower than TN. Someone can make a 144 hz IPS, but this updates the screen once every 5.9 ms. If the switching time from color to color is slower than this, what would be the point? Before the switching is even finished you're giving the materials new orders, this might actually blur things, I'm not really sure.
What I think is supposed to help this is the switch from amorphous silicon TFTs to IGZO. IGZO has higher carrier mobility, so that carriers move faster under electric fields. You can make the TFTs thinner, as well, and this should all help alleviate the limitations of the electronics. However, I don't think this will make IPS catch up to TN, as TN panels should become faster, too. But it should help. Also, Indium is expensive compared to silicon.
I'm not really read up on it, so I don't know any of this for sure. Someone else should probably comment.
Yes, but my point is that it is simply not a decision of some manager to say take IPS and take 144hz and combine them and voila. There is/was some engineering to be done, the two are not inherently compatible.
The electronics can most definitely be made faster for IPS and IPS does make sense at 144Hz. You are correct in your assertion that TN will usually also benefit from these advances and will likely remain faster than IPS for the foreseeable future. The question is at what point do I cease to notice / care about the difference. When do other considerations dominate?
40% last time I've checked on Steam. That's certainly negligible market share.
And why support Freesync for free when you could drop all ports but one DP, make your monitor 120$ more expensive and support nVidias proprietary crap? Decisions decisions.
You haven't looked in a while it seems: I just checked steam stats: 52.47% nVidia, 19.69% intel, 27.34% AMD/ATI, 0.5% other. Fury was nice but repeated rebrands in the mid range has been hurting them a bit I think. Price/performance is still generally fine and better than nvidia in many cases, but people like new cards.
That means 85% of the entire graphics card market will benefit from a FreeSync monitor. It's about time NV stops being greedy with their proprietary tech and offers consumers options to buy a joint GSync+FreeSync monitor if they so desire, which also requires that their GPUs support FreeSync as well.
When WQHD monitors with 25" came out (e.g. Dell) I thought "wow, the perfect compromise between high-DPI and no scaling". Bought one and really love it! Just using 110% or 120% scaling in Firefox for longer reading and/or especially small text.
Having owned both the ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q and no the Acer Predator XH270HU, I would definitely want IPS and less ridiculous anti glare coatings any day.
The PG278Q is far too bright on the lowest brightness setting (excluding ULMB) and the contrast pales in comparison.
On the XB270HU I don't notice the IPS glow that much to be honest, unless the screen is totally blank, the reduction in anti glare coating more than makes up for it.
I may be a little biased of course, I had to get the PG278Q serviced after 6 months after it completely failed. ASUS replaced the panel once it was still broken then couldn't get me a reasonable time frame for another, so I waited until I could get the XB270HU.
I don't notice motion blur much at all, in fact it seems better than the PG278Q because of the "screen door" artifacting at high frame rates that occured.
Only have one dead pixel on my XB270HU (far left), the replacement (but faulty) PG278Q panel also had one somewhere.
Then there is the old TN vertical viewing angle issue which I could not eliminate no matter what angle the screen was to me, rather has IPS glow any day.
Is there a specific reason why monitors come with a relatively odd refresh rate of 144 Hz? I know there are 120 Hz monitors too, but most are 144 Hz (and obviously it's better since higher). Why isn't it simply 150 or 180 Hz?
I'd guess 120 and 144 Hz are good frequencies to pick because they're multiples of 24. After all, movies are 24 fps.
*
Apart from that, is there any info about the FreeSync refresh range for this monitor? Sadly many high refresh rate FreeSync monitors have suffered from a high minimum.
Also, has there been any developments on AMD driver side in regards to possibly introducing frame multiplying for low fps?
Having owned both TN and IPS monitors I can say they both have their fundamental pros and cons with the nature of their respective technology. TN has its color and viewing angle deficiencies but has the advantage of super fast pixel response times, which is why they are rated as low as 1ms gray to gray. Perfect for high refresh rate usage. IPS has excellent color reproduction and viewing angles but slower pixel response times. Then you have VA panels with their superior contrast and black levels. Maybe I'm just sensitive to it, but even with a 60hz TN vs a 60hz IPS, both rated at 5ms pixel response time, I notice a significant difference with motion. With IPS I see lots of image smearing with motion but significantly less or none on TN. Ive decided that I prefer motion resolution and pixel speed over color and viewing angles. No perfect tech with lcd unfortunately. Just tradeoffs. The speed of TN goes hand-in-hand with high refresh rates. I haven't tried a 120hz + IPS yet so I can't comment there. From what I gather, high refresh rates can't fix or compensate for slow pixel response times which are responsible for smearing and ghosting. I do believe 120hz + on ips would definitely help with responsiveness and overall fluidity. Like I said, I could just be more sensitive to motion blur than others. Also, this all depends on the type of games you play. Fast, twitch, FPS type games as well as quick 3d slash'em games like DMC are amazing on a fast TN. Smearing or ghosting reduces the experience for me. I think that to get the most benefit from high refresh monitors, you need the fastest pixel response possible. This is my personal opinion based on my experience. Not in any way bashing IPS. I love IPS. TN can only TRY, and I emphasize, TRY, (with artificial methods like dithering, not to mention having to view from dead center) to come close to the native color reproduction of an IPS screen, but it's just not in the cards. There's a reason why professional graphic designers, etc, use ips displays.
Certainly you are more likely to get a faster screen at a lower cost with TN than with IPS. IPS gamers have to be very selective of which monitor they use as many IPS screens have multiframe response times and >30ms input lag. That said, there are IPS monitors that do significantly better. The HP ZR24W, was the first IPS I used that seemed game worthy. Certainly not the equal of TN for speed, but usable. There are much better options now with the introduction of 144Hz IPS monitors that actually have faster response times to go with it. I have two with their respective reviews linked in earlier posts.
That all said, color reproduction on TN is far better than it once was as well. The better TN panels have replaced 6bit w/dithering panels with true 8bit panels giving them a much larger color space. Color accuracy is also better. Viewing angle remains an issue, particularly at larger screen sizes, though.
Forget the small size not 4k monitors. They all are just waste of money, they all lose to good quality low input lag 4k TV. The ideal size lies around 50". Look at Samsung 50JU7500 or 7100 or if you want larger gamut look at JS nanodots models
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
59 Comments
Back to Article
osteopathic1 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Begin the TN versus IPS war in the comment sectionFlunk - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
If you want 144hz you have to buy a TN, that's how it is, who needs a flame war?FriendlyUser - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
ASUS will happily sell you the MG279Q, which is an IPS version at 144Hz with FreeSync. Priced at around $600 in Europe.Samus - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
That's unfortunate. And as far as I'm concerned no 144Hz monitors are newsworthy until that changes.todlerix - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
He was wrong, MG279Q - $580 on Amazon right now.todlerix - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Couldn't find an edit button, to clarify... 2560x1440@144hz, IPS, Made by ASUS. The article is about the 278, but the 279 is already out, IPS version.JTWrenn - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
From what I am reading in the reviews wait a while on any asus monitor products. They are having some serious production issues.medi03 - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
What kind of "serious production issues"?Mr Perfect - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
You don't HAVE to, there are a couple of IPS-type 144Hz screen options. The Acer Predator XB270HU and Asus MG279Q are out now, with the Asus ROG Swift PG279Q and Eizo Foris FS2735 launching soon.Considering how popular they've been, I'm a little surprised OEMs are still introducing TNs in the same price range.
todlerix - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
IPS have the downsize of IPS glow... do they have any other common issues?Salvor - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Higher response time, usually ~5ms vs ~1ms for TN. Doesn't matter for many things, but if you're a pro gamer or something it's nice.BurntMyBacon - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
The response time of some of the 144Hz IPS "Sync" monitors is pretty decent.Lag is usually a bigger issue for me than response time.
Lag The referenced monitors do quite well in this regard. Compares nicely to Asus ROG Swift PG278Q. See Response Time and Lag sections:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.h...
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg279q.ht...
SeanJ76 - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
Duh!! We are in a gaming forum........Alexvrb - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Is price an issue? Because if it is... price. Response time as Salvor mentioned CAN be an issue too but some high-end IPS units are pretty decent.Mr Perfect - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
What are you referring to by IPS glow? I have one, so I'm going to guess the phenomenon where an all black screen will appear slightly lit? In practice I don't notice it, since the screen is rarely pitch black. Maybe if you like playing Doom 3 without a flashlight mod. ;)The main issue with them is the price. Unless you buy one of those cheap Korean import screens, IPS mainly show up in expensive professional or gamer models.
looper - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
Get the Eizo FG2421 (1920x1080), far better color, and fast... and it has been great for FPS (BF4) gaming...SeanJ76 - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
Your always better off with BenQ than Asus when it comes to TN panels, I own the XL2420TE a $400 144hz 1ms Lightboost/Motion Blur panel. I will not be upgrading for years.Bobberr - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
XB270HU?Guspaz - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Well, there's the ASUS PG2749Q, which is a 27" 1440p 144Hz IPS display with G-Sync. It's not out yet, although Acer has a display out that uses the same panel.It'd be nice if AMD and nVidia could form a working group to unify G-Sync and FreeSync.
testbug00 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
AMD joined a group and they all made Async. Freesync is AMD's branding on Async. Any product that supports Async should work with a Freesync monitor. VESA standards are _Standards_. There's nothing to unify regarding the two platforms.Nvidia is off doing it's own thing with Gsync.
T1beriu - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
nVidia has the liberty to adopt FreeSync anytime they please. It's a royalty-free standard. Nothing's stopping them. But they won't.Guspaz - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
They could adopt it, sure, but each implementation (G-Sync versus FreeSync) does things that the other does not. If nVidia simply adopted FreeSync, it would be worse in some ways, and if AMD adopted G-Sync, the same is true.foxalopex - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Umm, I think you're missing a REALLY important point here. Nvidia's G-Sync is a Proprietary interface. Nvidia is NOT going to let anyone adopt it without paying a royalty at the very least assuming they will let you adopt it in the first place. AMD's Freesync has been adopted into the VESA standards which is free for anyone to use. Literally you can create your own Freesync monitor by reading the specifications and building the circuits yourself. You cannot with G-Sync. In G-Sync you MUST use the scaler chip that Nvidia provides.medi03 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Not really.Freesync is superior, no perf hit, easier to implement, no port restrictions, can even work over hdmi.
Nenad - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
That is not true.1) Freesync is not superior, it has minor pros and cons compared to GSync
2) no perf difference: "performance hit" is around 2% according to AMD, or not existing according to Anandtech
3) freesync DOES have port restriction: it also works only on Displayport (it is "DisplayPort Adaptive Sync" standard after all). Monitor itself can support other ports, but not for Freesync
BTW, only 'noticeable' advantage of Freesync is that it is cheaper, while only 'noticeable' advantage of GSync is that it support ULMB blur reduction.
And, while I have GSync monitor, I'm really glad that Freesync monitors are also now available, since it will put pressure on NVidia to reduce prices of their GSync adapter.
ppi - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
nVidia sure can implement it ... with Pascal. If they want, that is. Maxwell apparently does not have the right HW to support the necessary VESA standard.Unlike AMD partners however, nVidia clearly caught the ghosting issue and implemented some solution in its scaler chip. I suppose for FreeSync monitors, we will have to wait for next get scaler chips, that will resolve the ghosting issue, and then for AMD drivers solution for low-fps scenarios.
anubis44 - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link
Nothing's stopping nVidia from enabling support in their drivers but Jen Hsun Huang's ego. That, unfortunately, is very large obstacle. Judging by the first DX12 benchmarks and information, however, there is no reason to go nVidia at this point:http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/08/directx-12-t...
tamalero - Friday, August 28, 2015 - link
Except they hardly do, they want to shove their proprietary ala Apple on your face.CUDA is a fine example.
Murloc - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
AMD is already following the VESA standard. It's nvidia that's not doing so.Guspaz - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
G-Sync predates the VESA standard, and the VESA standards in some respects is not as capable. An updated standard that included some of the better aspects of G-Sync (such as actual hardware changes to the scaler) would be the best of both worlds.DurzoLR - Monday, August 24, 2015 - link
G-sync predates freesync, but one of the major architects for AMD also HAPPENS to be the VESA board vice chairman. AMD played dirty pool, why would Nvidia choose to lower their (unfortunately more expensive) standards to fall into compliance with a glitchy (ghosting) standard?Cow86 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
IPS is better (and just as fast on the IPS version as TN), TN is cheaper, there I settled it :PI hope to see a comparison review of the two when it's out, I was thinking of getting the IPS version myself, but looking at recent high end TN screens it may well do for my use if the viewing angles are good enough. Would hopefully save some money :)
FriendlyUser - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Actually, recent TN panels seem to have more than decent color and recent IPS panels are much faster than older one. So, if you shop carefully (and pay accordingly) you'll find that the differences are becoming less pronounced.Personally, I'm waiting for the EIZO Foris FS27, which is IPS Freesync 144Hz...
LtGoonRush - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
The problem with TN panels isn't that they can't do decent color, it's that they only do decent color at the center of the screen when you are staring straight on. On a 24" or larger TN panel, colors at the top of the screen will be TOTALLY different. For example, it's difficult for me to distinguish green and blue at the top of larger TN monitors.BurntMyBacon - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
This. You can have perfect color reproduction in the middle of a 27" TN screen and still have gradients from top to bottom. If you have a TN screen the viewing angle test at Lagom does a pretty good job illustrating the point. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/viewing_angle.phpFor smaller TN screens you can see the effect by tilting the screen a little (or standing up). For larger TN screens, just looking at the top and the bottom from a fixed location is usually enough to see the effect.
BurntMyBacon - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
Note: You may need to fix your gamma settings and/or do other screen calibrations to get the screen to respond how it should (I.E. even Dell IPS monitors show the lagom text in red when the gamma is off. When corrected, they show up as grey as they should.). The site can help you do a quick and dirty calibration that should be good enough for these purposes, but colorimeter calibrations are better (or spectrometers for those who can afford it). http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/Cow86 - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
I know that TN is getting to be good enough colour wise for me recently, but as LtGoonRush below you already says, the viewing angles are the main problem still with TN. It's those that would make me go IPS if the difference is big enough. My current TN screen is certainly terrible in that regard...Screen becomes much darker and colours go off when I look at any part of the screen at an angle. Wait and see I guess :)Kalessian - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Supposedly, the technical differences between the TN and IPS technologies are what limit IPS to 60 hz. As in, the switching mechanism for IPS is physically slower than TN. Someone can make a 144 hz IPS, but this updates the screen once every 5.9 ms. If the switching time from color to color is slower than this, what would be the point? Before the switching is even finished you're giving the materials new orders, this might actually blur things, I'm not really sure.What I think is supposed to help this is the switch from amorphous silicon TFTs to IGZO. IGZO has higher carrier mobility, so that carriers move faster under electric fields. You can make the TFTs thinner, as well, and this should all help alleviate the limitations of the electronics. However, I don't think this will make IPS catch up to TN, as TN panels should become faster, too. But it should help. Also, Indium is expensive compared to silicon.
I'm not really read up on it, so I don't know any of this for sure. Someone else should probably comment.
Guspaz - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
There is already a 144Hz IPS panel on the market.Kalessian - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
Yes, but my point is that it is simply not a decision of some manager to say take IPS and take 144hz and combine them and voila. There is/was some engineering to be done, the two are not inherently compatible.BurntMyBacon - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
See Response Time and Lag sections:http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.h...
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg279q.ht...
The electronics can most definitely be made faster for IPS and IPS does make sense at 144Hz. You are correct in your assertion that TN will usually also benefit from these advances and will likely remain faster than IPS for the foreseeable future. The question is at what point do I cease to notice / care about the difference. When do other considerations dominate?
TristanSDX - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Do FreeSync make sense ? AMD GPU market share is low and still shrinking.medi03 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
40% last time I've checked on Steam.That's certainly negligible market share.
And why support Freesync for free when you could drop all ports but one DP, make your monitor 120$ more expensive and support nVidias proprietary crap?
Decisions decisions.
Salvor - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
You haven't looked in a while it seems: I just checked steam stats: 52.47% nVidia, 19.69% intel, 27.34% AMD/ATI, 0.5% other. Fury was nice but repeated rebrands in the mid range has been hurting them a bit I think. Price/performance is still generally fine and better than nvidia in many cases, but people like new cards.RussianSensation - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Intel plans to support VESA Adaptive-Sync displays (aka AMD's FreeSync).http://techreport.com/news/28865/intel-plans-to-su...
That means 85% of the entire graphics card market will benefit from a FreeSync monitor. It's about time NV stops being greedy with their proprietary tech and offers consumers options to buy a joint GSync+FreeSync monitor if they so desire, which also requires that their GPUs support FreeSync as well.
http://jonpeddie.com/images/uploads/publications/P...
http://jonpeddie.com/publications/market_watch/
Hxx - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Here is hoping that it will be about $300 because thats how much these TN panels are worth especially since freesync is free.MrSpadge - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
When WQHD monitors with 25" came out (e.g. Dell) I thought "wow, the perfect compromise between high-DPI and no scaling". Bought one and really love it! Just using 110% or 120% scaling in Firefox for longer reading and/or especially small text.looper - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
This Eizo is the best gaming monitor out there, IMHO.http://gaming.eizo.com/products/foris_fg2421/
trab - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
Having owned both the ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q and no the Acer Predator XH270HU, I would definitely want IPS and less ridiculous anti glare coatings any day.The PG278Q is far too bright on the lowest brightness setting (excluding ULMB) and the contrast pales in comparison.
On the XB270HU I don't notice the IPS glow that much to be honest, unless the screen is totally blank, the reduction in anti glare coating more than makes up for it.
I may be a little biased of course, I had to get the PG278Q serviced after 6 months after it completely failed. ASUS replaced the panel once it was still broken then couldn't get me a reasonable time frame for another, so I waited until I could get the XB270HU.
I don't notice motion blur much at all, in fact it seems better than the PG278Q because of the "screen door" artifacting at high frame rates that occured.
Only have one dead pixel on my XB270HU (far left), the replacement (but faulty) PG278Q panel also had one somewhere.
Then there is the old TN vertical viewing angle issue which I could not eliminate no matter what angle the screen was to me, rather has IPS glow any day.
rxzlmn - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
Is there a specific reason why monitors come with a relatively odd refresh rate of 144 Hz? I know there are 120 Hz monitors too, but most are 144 Hz (and obviously it's better since higher). Why isn't it simply 150 or 180 Hz?hulu - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
I'd guess 120 and 144 Hz are good frequencies to pick because they're multiples of 24. After all, movies are 24 fps.*
Apart from that, is there any info about the FreeSync refresh range for this monitor? Sadly many high refresh rate FreeSync monitors have suffered from a high minimum.
Also, has there been any developments on AMD driver side in regards to possibly introducing frame multiplying for low fps?
BurntMyBacon - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
I believe the Acer XB270HU is a G-Sync monitor.Nenad - Friday, August 28, 2015 - link
I did not see refresh range for this monitor, but for its IPS variant (Asus MG279Q) FreeSync range is 35 - 90HzYukaKun - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
Insta buy for me.It's gonna hurt mah' pocket, but the smile on my face will be worth it.
Cheers!
Cptmurphi - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
Having owned both TN and IPS monitors I can say they both have their fundamental pros and cons with the nature of their respective technology. TN has its color and viewing angle deficiencies but has the advantage of super fast pixel response times, which is why they are rated as low as 1ms gray to gray. Perfect for high refresh rate usage. IPS has excellent color reproduction and viewing angles but slower pixel response times. Then you have VA panels with their superior contrast and black levels. Maybe I'm just sensitive to it, but even with a 60hz TN vs a 60hz IPS, both rated at 5ms pixel response time, I notice a significant difference with motion. With IPS I see lots of image smearing with motion but significantly less or none on TN. Ive decided that I prefer motion resolution and pixel speed over color and viewing angles. No perfect tech with lcd unfortunately. Just tradeoffs. The speed of TN goes hand-in-hand with high refresh rates. I haven't tried a 120hz + IPS yet so I can't comment there. From what I gather, high refresh rates can't fix or compensate for slow pixel response times which are responsible for smearing and ghosting. I do believe 120hz + on ips would definitely help with responsiveness and overall fluidity. Like I said, I could just be more sensitive to motion blur than others. Also, this all depends on the type of games you play. Fast, twitch, FPS type games as well as quick 3d slash'em games like DMC are amazing on a fast TN. Smearing or ghosting reduces the experience for me. I think that to get the most benefit from high refresh monitors, you need the fastest pixel response possible. This is my personal opinion based on my experience. Not in any way bashing IPS. I love IPS. TN can only TRY, and I emphasize, TRY, (with artificial methods like dithering, not to mention having to view from dead center) to come close to the native color reproduction of an IPS screen, but it's just not in the cards. There's a reason why professional graphic designers, etc, use ips displays.BurntMyBacon - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
Certainly you are more likely to get a faster screen at a lower cost with TN than with IPS. IPS gamers have to be very selective of which monitor they use as many IPS screens have multiframe response times and >30ms input lag. That said, there are IPS monitors that do significantly better. The HP ZR24W, was the first IPS I used that seemed game worthy. Certainly not the equal of TN for speed, but usable. There are much better options now with the introduction of 144Hz IPS monitors that actually have faster response times to go with it. I have two with their respective reviews linked in earlier posts.That all said, color reproduction on TN is far better than it once was as well. The better TN panels have replaced 6bit w/dithering panels with true 8bit panels giving them a much larger color space. Color accuracy is also better. Viewing angle remains an issue, particularly at larger screen sizes, though.
SanX - Saturday, August 22, 2015 - link
Forget the small size not 4k monitors. They all are just waste of money, they all lose to good quality low input lag 4k TV. The ideal size lies around 50". Look at Samsung 50JU7500 or 7100 or if you want larger gamut look at JS nanodots modelsSeanJ76 - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
@FreeSync.....I guess Asus missed the review of G-Sync vs FreeSync...SeanJ76 - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-freesync-v...