# Where is all the 1080p IPS G-Sync screens?



## puma99dk| (Jul 13, 2016)

I have start to wonder if we will ever start to see 24inch 1080p IPS screen with G-Sync in that do 120~144hz?

Bcs all monitors I can find uses with 1080p that have G-Sync is using a VA or TN panel and it's for sure should be possible to do that bcs Asus pushes their ROG Swift PG278Q at 144hz with 1ms refresh rate at 1440p and Acer with their Predator XB270HU with 144hz at 4ms refresh rate for 1440p so a 1080p IPS panel at 1~5mhz with G-Sync in my mind doesn't sound completely unreal.

Why I am thinking about this is bcs more and more ppl states that after going beyond 24inch their rating in multiplayer games has gone down even I noticed if I connect my 21,5inch 1080p WLED monitor I have I do better at online games than with my 27inch could be that 27inch is just too big for competitive gaming?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 13, 2016)

G Sync was dead when it was born.

FreeSync exists and is here to stay.

High performance gaming rigs dont need either of them, what you really want is strobing backlight and high refresh at high FPS. At high refresh/fps, sync is irrelevant and strobe makes motion resolution really good. Put the Gsync money into GPU grunt, get a decent high refresh rate monitor without Gsync and you're golden.

About competitive play; Gsync doesn't play a part in this either. You DONT want any interference in your frame delivery by the GPU at all - no Vsync, no adaptive, and no Gsync - and you would prefer a lower resolution and screen size to a higher one. So again: the best monitors here are low-latency, high refresh rate monitors running your game at 100+ FPS, and a pipeline that is as clean as possible, so no frame limiting either.


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 13, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> G Sync was dead when it was born.
> 
> FreeSync exists and is here to stay.
> 
> ...



Problem for Freesync is Nvidia won't support it and I don't think u will get Nvidia to go Freesync as long as AMD is using it that's the problem.

It's more the size of the screen it self most of the pros do 21,5~24inch even in competitions and so bcs they should be so much better.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 13, 2016)

No I'm with him. I have a Freesync monitor. It's a gimmick that only matters when you're  frame limited. It's also 144hz so that is more important/useful.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 13, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> Problem for Freesync is Nvidia won't support it and I don't think u will get Nvidia to go Freesync as long as AMD is using it that's the problem.
> 
> It's more the size of the screen it self most of the pros do 21,5~24inch even in competitions and so bcs they should be so much better.



Lol, FreeSync isn't a proprietary tech like G-Sync. Anyone can use it, but NVIDIA's pride is too big to support it. NVIDIA, never change...


----------



## qurotro (Jul 13, 2016)

all I want is 1080p IPS 144Mhz....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2016)

Has anyone even tested a FreeSync monitor on a Pascal card yet?  Technically, Pascal cards should be able to drive FreeSync monitors because of DisplayPort 1.4 and HDMI 2.0b.  I suspect Pascal's driver support for adaptive sync is immature though so you'd get a better experience with an AMD card.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 13, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Has anyone even tested a FreeSync monitor on a Pascal card yet?  Technically, Pascal cards should be able to drive FreeSync monitors because of DisplayPort 1.3.  I suspect Pascal's driver support for adaptive sync is immature though so you'd get a better experience with an AMD card.



Remember Pascal cards are only DP 1.2 certified and DP 1.3 & 1.4 *ready.  *I suspect its like that because if they were certified anything above that they would have to handle Adaptive-Sync and all that would be left is driver side implementation.

More then likely they just don't want to give their users that option in-order to drive them to a more costly option.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2016)

VESA's website mostly just shows workstation graphics cards and it doesn't give any details about the standard they're certified to.  I've been looking to find more information and I've come up blank.

NVIDIA's website clearly shows DisplayPort 1.4.  If what you say is true, there's a case to be made against NVIDIA for false advertising.

Edit: I'm not seeing any mention of DisplayPort 1.2 in connection with Pascal.  Like Polaris, it's officially 1.3 and 1.4 ready (because the specification isn't official yet).  This means FreeSync monitors _should_ work on Pascal cards.

Someone who has access to a Pascal card and a FreeSync monitor could easily test.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2016)

qurotro said:


> all I want is 1080p IPS 144Mhz....




Buy a 1440P 144hz IPS and move on.


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 13, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Buy a 1440P 144hz IPS and move on.



U gonna tell that to all the competitive gamers that go to all the big challenges around the world that do 1080p and do best on a 24inch screen?

We r seeing the same with smartphone bigger is better, and before smartphones we saw ur cellphones getting smaller and smaller then we hit the smartphones they were small and now bigger and bigger.


This here is basically me wondering where they r since it doesn't sound like it's impossible to add G-Sync bcs there r 1080p IPS with 144hz at 1ms out there it's just op to Nvidia to make the model so it can be added or the manufacturers to make the screens.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> U gonna tell that to all the competitive gamers that go to all the big challenges around the world that do 1080p and do best on a 24inch screen?
> 
> We r seeing the same with smartphone bigger is better, and before smartphones we saw ur cellphones getting smaller and smaller then we hit the smartphones they were small and now bigger and bigger.
> 
> ...



Competitive gamers don't use gsync? Also at 1ms we are talking TN not IPS, plenty of those exist.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jul 13, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> U gonna tell that to all the competitive gamers that go to all the big challenges around the world that do 1080p and do best on a 24inch screen?
> 
> We r seeing the same with smartphone bigger is better, and before smartphones we saw ur cellphones getting smaller and smaller then we hit the smartphones they were small and now bigger and bigger.
> 
> ...



are you a competitive gamer? is that why you are searching for the monitor type in the title?

either way, if you need a 1080p High refresh rate monitor ,W/ Gstink, you will likely need to sacrifice your panel preference, or Your refresh rate, it seems as tho the type Your speaking of is not available, so I would just pick the area You CAN sacrifice in, and go with the best option that closest fits your wants. Many monitors unofficially overclock, maybe you can find one that does, and go that route?
btw, any responses on Your Nvidia thread?? it looked dead last time i looked

Sadly this one is the closest it seems to get to what You want....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1098333-REG/aoc_led_monitor_g2460pg.html

or if your willing to give up on the 1080p part, you can go with....

*THIS*

it seems like manufacturers are banking on the fact that gamers will be moving up from 1080p , but it is still by far the commonplace, so it only seems reasonable for them to start making High refresh rate 1080p units....


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 13, 2016)

@jboydgolfer 
I am just saying that I noticed going back to my smaller screen I do a better gameplay in multiplayer games, and I prefer IPS bcs it looks better and I don't like going back to a TN or VA panel if I can avoid it.

@cdawall
there r IPS panels at 1ms otherwise u r saying the manufactures r lying about ur products they r making?


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> there r IPS panels at 1ms otherwise u r saying the manufactures r lying about ur products they r making?




Mind showing me one? i can show you dozens of 4/5ms response time ones and those are already walking into the $700+ range from reputable companies.


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 13, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Mind showing me one? i can show you dozens of 4/5ms response time ones and those are already walking into the $700+ range from reputable companies.



Asus' ROG Swift is spec'ed to be 1ms

Link: https://www.asus.com/uk/Monitors/ROG_SWIFT_PG278Q/specifications/

*Response Time : *1ms (Gray to Gray)

WQHD resolution sadly no 24inch Full-hd


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 13, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> Asus' ROG Swift is spec'ed to be 1ms
> 
> Link: https://www.asus.com/uk/Monitors/ROG_SWIFT_PG278Q/specifications/
> 
> ...



I have the Freesync version of that monitor. It's fantastic.


----------



## Slizzo (Jul 13, 2016)

The 278 is a TN panel. The 279 is an IPS screen.


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 13, 2016)

Slizzo said:


> The 278 is a TN panel. The 279 is an IPS screen.



Ty no monitor expert I remember more cpu, mobo, ram, gfx what's needed for different things.

well than the 279 has 4ms still really good for a IPS with 165hz.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> Asus' ROG Swift is spec'ed to be 1ms
> 
> Link: https://www.asus.com/uk/Monitors/ROG_SWIFT_PG278Q/specifications/
> 
> ...



Yup and TN...


----------



## qurotro (Jul 13, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Buy a 1440P 144hz IPS and move on.


The price are ridiculous high... and not pretty much choices though...that's why I still living with my U2312...


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 13, 2016)

Slizzo said:


> The 278 is a TN panel. The 279 is an IPS screen.


 Right! Sorry, still an awesome panel.


----------



## arbiter (Jul 13, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> G Sync was dead when it was born.
> FreeSync exists and is here to stay.





puma99dk| said:


> Problem for Freesync is Nvidia won't support it and I don't think u will get Nvidia to go Freesync as long as AMD is using it that's the problem.





RejZoR said:


> Lol, FreeSync isn't a proprietary tech like G-Sync. Anyone can use it, but NVIDIA's pride is too big to support it. NVIDIA, never change...


Problem though, g-sync works up to refresh hz of monitor. Freesync on other hand you need to check the monitor as to eliminate ghost can limit monitor. asus has 2 monitors PG278Q and MG279Q. One is g-sync and can do 144hz+,  freesync one with it off can do 144hz, turn freesync on 90hz max. Some monitor makers do allow full rate but ghost does happen where on g-sync it you can't see it.
G-sync is far from dead as in terms of working like it should its still a good 1-2 years ahead of where freesync is.



INSTG8R said:


> I have the Freesync version of that monitor. It's fantastic.


as above i will also point out the freesync version "FreeSync™ technology supported (35Hz-90Hz)"



FordGT90Concept said:


> Has anyone even tested a FreeSync monitor on a Pascal card yet? Technically, Pascal cards should be able to drive FreeSync monitors because of DisplayPort 1.4 and HDMI 2.0b.





FordGT90Concept said:


> NVIDIA's website clearly shows DisplayPort 1.4. If what you say is true, there's a case to be made against NVIDIA for false advertising.
> Edit: I'm not seeing any mention of DisplayPort 1.2 in connection with Pascal.  Like Polaris, it's officially 1.3 and 1.4 ready (because the specification isn't official yet).  This means FreeSync monitors _should_ work on Pascal cards..


If i remember right adaptive sync is an OPTIONAL part of the spec not required.



puma99dk| said:


> Ty no monitor expert I remember more cpu, mobo, ram, gfx what's needed for different things.
> well than the 279 has 4ms still really good for a IPS with 165hz.


there is also Acer XB271HU which is same panel as the asus one.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 13, 2016)

Yes the Freesync I rarely use actually just in heavier games like GTA V, Division and TW3. Otherwise I'm shooting for 144hz but 90 is still more than enough


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 13, 2016)

arbiter said:


> there is also Acer XB271HU which is same panel as the asus one.



Yeh when we talk 27 inch just wish there was 24 inches bcs these big once cost more then i am willing to pay for a monitor and i am thinking about stepping down to a 24 inch.


----------



## Beastie (Jul 14, 2016)

Gsync works great. As long as you *aren't paying too much more for it* I'd recommend it. I was just playing Dirt rally and the game is noticably less smooth without it, even at  around 120 fps.
 Of course if I had enough GPU or reduced the settings enough to just set framerate at 120 or 144 fps that would be great without gsync.

 I'm not playing first person shooters very much so I'm not fussed about the last millisecond of response.

 Freesync is better value but atm seems to have a more limited frequency range compared to gsync on otherwise similar panels.. This may well be fixable at some point through software, IDK.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 14, 2016)

Competitive gamer myself.. higher refresh reigns king no matter what, but i plug in my 1050P screen when i want better colours and image quality.. simple as that.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 14, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> Problem for Freesync is Nvidia won't support it and I don't think u will get Nvidia to go Freesync as long as AMD is using it that's the problem.
> 
> It's more the size of the screen it self most of the pros do 21,5~24inch even in competitions and so bcs they should be so much better.



'Pro's' are who they are because they invest a retarded amount of time practicing very specific things in very specific games. Are you really a competitive gamer? Because if so, Gsync shouldn't be on your list in the first place, and 'eye candy' ingame is irrelevant to you, so IPS is already not interesting in the least, you would want the fastest TN money can buy because those 3 ms GTG response are the difference between life and death.

If you are REALLY competitive, you'd get a Benq 1080p 120+hz TN and be done with it.

Why are you so hung up on 'sync' if you are also hung up on smaller screen sizes to be competitive? You can't really have both and still think you're buying the best panel for 'the job'. Any panel that uses Gsync or Freesync, is unable to use strobing backlight and/or the maximum refresh rate. Those three can't play together. But maxed out refresh/fps and strobing backlight CAN play together, and when they do, it's a dream.

So make up your mind  Also, for everyone but the highest gaming gods all these numbers really don't mean much. If you have a good quality panel that can do more than 100 hz and a gaming rig that can push 100 fps or more, you're basically sorted and you can find a resolution and panel type that you just 'like'. For example, I game at nights, so I stayed clear of the IPS panels and got a 120hz VA. It has better blacks and higher contrast, and not the IPS glow that you really notice in darkness and blacks on-screen. Bottom line: get that which suits your gaming best, and don't base your choice on a difference of 1-3 ms response or whatever. If that's the thing that makes you competitive, you just need to 'git gud'


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 14, 2016)

@Vayra86 If I ever go TN again I been looking at these 2 monitors Acer Predator XB241H 144hz and G-Sync and costs around $488 / €361 / €431 (Price in my country) or this one Asus ROG Swift PG248Q 180hz and G-Sync looks like it will be priced a little higher but nuth major over the Acer comming hopefully around $523~568 / £395~429 / €471~511 anything higher then this won't make it worth the prices since it's like set to a little under £400 in the UK and €499 in Germany so I hope only lower or some price as the Acer.


----------



## Niteblooded (Jul 15, 2016)

G-Sync is not dead despite what some people *want*
G-Sync came first and AMD answered (brilliantly I might add) with FreeSync, but if people can't understand why Nvidia would want to protect their baby than its either hate talking or they've never taken pride in their own work
G-Sync is technically better so you're not just paying for a licensing fee, you are also paying for better technology.   How much that is worth to people is up to them.
More importantly most of points brought up in this topic did not answer the question.   It's just people pushing their agendas and their viewpoint on someone.   The hate and non-stop bickering in the GPU threads is just sad.   Carrying it over to threads like this is just pathetic.
Now let's bust some misinformation.   I'm going to talk strictly G-Sync here since the OP has a GTX 1070 and is asking for a G-Sync monitor.

G-Sync doesn't tamper with frames.   The concern from some gamers is input lag.  G-Sync does add some input lag but we are talking 2ms.   It is extremely important to note that every monitor has input lag and that input lag is *NOT* constant.   It will vary probably around 20ms at times so if you think you notice 2ms you are most likely noticing the natural peak Vs natural valley.   The real concern is when you have games that reach a FPS above your monitor's refresh rate.   Think low graphic games like TF2 and CS:GO.  Now that input lag becomes noticeable because you might be hitting 300 FPS on a 144Hz monitor.   BUT... and here we go correcting another statement...

G-Sync monitors come with backlight strobing with the expense of turning off G-Sync.   So in the Nvidia Control Panel you can set it on a game-by-game basis,... so turn G-Sync off and turn on Ultra Low Motion Blur (ULMB) for the games this applies to.   The contrast will suffer a bit due to the backlight strobing and there will be a very small input lag hit (~4ms) and since G-Sync is off tearing will come back.   It might be the best option for games like CS:GO especially since many pro gamers want that magical 300 FPS number.   The motion blur will be reduced 90+% which is exactly what you are aiming for if you are going to use backlight strobing.

The other option if you want to keep G-Sync on for all games is to force a frame rate cap.   Some of the newer games have this option.   The older ones don't so for CSGO for example you will have to do fps_max # in the dev console so it gets saved to config.cfg.   If the monitor goes up to 144Hz than I would max it around 136-140.  Some people go as low as 120 but many have success with 136.


Supposedly 27" panels have less contrast ratio degradation than 24" panels so perhaps that is a clue as to why most of the G-Sync panels are 27" and above, but I have yet to see a source state why there are no 24" IPS G-Sync panels.   At this point I probably wouldn't count on it, especially with 1080p.   As someone who has switched from a big screen to a smaller screen before I understand why you would want a 24" over a 27".   I think its because there is less real estate for your eyes to scan leading to faster decision making.   I don't understand why someone with a GTX 1070 though would want a 1080p monitor.   Now that pretty much any new graphics card can dominate 1080p you can tell its on its way out the door.   Maybe you change your monitors faster than you change your GPUs but I don't.   I would go with a 1440p monitor.  The 1070 should do just fine with 1440p and if you buy a great monitor now it can possibly last you many years.

What I do agree with is you need to decide what is more important to you.   If you're trying to enter the competitive scene and want to be a pro gamer and possible Twitch streamer than go with a 24" TN panel with a 1ms response time and the highest refresh rate you can find.   If you just simply want to be good in the games you play than buy a solid gaming monitor (my vote to pair with your GTX1070 is IPS, G-Sync, 1440p) and get used to a 27" monitor.   If you lower the monitor so its not sitting high it won't seem so daunting in front of you.   It does take awhile adjusting to a 27" and while even now its still not ideal I'm used to it.   It was worth it to get 144-165Hz and G-Sync.   I can't go back now.   I absolutely can't stand 60Hz monitors for gaming now and console gaming feels like I'm playing in mud its that slow ...I actually thought I got hacked when I hopped on to play with friends, it was that bad.   G-Sync keeps up with fast paced games beautifully.  I know you play OW so I will just say this, I can snipe Tracer and you know how fast she moves.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 15, 2016)

Niteblooded said:


> G-Sync is not dead despite what some people *want*
> G-Sync came first and AMD answered (brilliantly I might add) with FreeSync, but if people can't understand why Nvidia would want to protect their baby than its either hate talking or they've never taken pride in their own work
> G-Sync is technically better so you're not just paying for a licensing fee, you are also paying for better technology.   How much that is worth to people is up to them.
> More importantly most of points brought up in this topic did not answer the question.   It's just people pushing their agendas and their viewpoint on someone.   The hate and non-stop bickering in the GPU threads is just sad.   Carrying it over to threads like this is just pathetic.
> ...



It's an awful lot of text to repeat what I've just said up here in different wording. The facts remain: if you're paying a huge premium for Gsync, it's far more worthwhile to invest it in more GPU so you can run every title at higher refresh & fps, and it is more beneficial to your motion resolution at high refresh rates to have strobing instead of Gsync. You basically say this yourself. High refresh doesn't need Gsync, and sub 60 hz/fps is something any PC gamer would want to avoid. So the bottom line is, that the actual use cases for Gsync are extremely limited. Hence, it is unwise to pay a premium for it. Regardless if the tech is superior and regardless of all the great marketing regarding tearing - tearing can be eliminated *while* having all the perks of a panel that does not use Gsync. In high end gaming ACTUAL PRACTICE Gsync is a limiting tech rather than an improvement, because it denies strobe and because it only really matters at low fps.

And the cherry on top: Pascal offers Fast Sync.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 15, 2016)

Related: Fast forward to 15 minutes:


----------



## Niteblooded (Jul 16, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> It's an awful lot of text to repeat what I've just said up here in different wording. The facts remain: if you're paying a huge premium for Gsync, it's far more worthwhile to invest it in more GPU so you can run every title at higher refresh & fps, and it is more beneficial to your motion resolution at high refresh rates to have strobing instead of Gsync. You basically say this yourself. High refresh doesn't need Gsync, and sub 60 hz/fps is something any PC gamer would want to avoid. So the bottom line is, that the actual use cases for Gsync are extremely limited. Hence, it is unwise to pay a premium for it. Regardless if the tech is superior and regardless of all the great marketing regarding tearing - tearing can be eliminated *while* having all the perks of a panel that does not use Gsync. In high end gaming ACTUAL PRACTICE Gsync is a limiting tech rather than an improvement, because it denies strobe and because it only really matters at low fps.
> 
> And the cherry on top: Pascal offers Fast Sync.


Strobing backlight has plenty advantages but its not the end all be all solution.   As I pointed out, it too comes with a slight input lag.   It makes contrast suffer.   It creates the same flickering that CRTs were famous/infamous for which is hard on some people's eyes.   I'm one of those people.   I'd rather limit my FPS than choose ULMB but with a G-Sync panel you at least have the option of either of the two solutions.   Choices are grand.

Tearing, stuttering and other artifacts are only more pronounced at lower FPS but not mutually exclusive to lower frame rates.   Ford's video above even confirms that.   Also when you see reviews you are seeing the average FPS.   The dips and peaks can be quite varied and that is when artifacting typically happens.   You can be cruising at high frame rates with no action and then when explosions and multiple enemies start engaging your frame rates can dip.   G-Sync smooths out those peaks and valleys.   When that happens I would rather it be the enemies distracting me and not various forms of monitor artifacts.   I absolutely would not recommend a G-Sync/FreeSync panel to a CS:GO pro gamer, but most gamers are far more varied than that in their gaming.   Many gamers like to play current games.

Then you have Tomorrow's games that will push your hardware even harder.   Unless you can afford to buy the latest and greatest hardware as soon as it comes out you can't be sure you will always be sitting above 60 FPS in every game, especially at higher resolutions.   And even if you can afford to buy those brand new expensive graphics cards every year, why not buy a better monitor?   Most people upgrade their monitor a LOT less often than they do a GPU.   And a monitor is your primary output source.   You can have the best damn graphics card in the world but if your monitor sucks, your picture is still going to suck.

You can sit here and tell me the actual use cases for G-Sync are extremely limited but I know how bad my previous monitors (I've tried a few) were at artifacts (tearing, stuttering, etc.) and it was every single time I played a game.   Besides, last I checked I was posting on a PC Enthusiast forum.    Maybe your advice works on Dell forums where people just want a PC that works but I don't represent the general PC crowd.   I push my PC and I buy hardware to support that.   You don't want G-Sync, good for you.   That doesn't mean what works for you is what everyone else should follow.  


*FastSync*
FastSync is not meant to replace G-Sync or FreeSync.   It is for high frame rate issues.   So rather than letting the monitor handle situations where your FPS is greater than your monitor's refresh rate (again think TF2, CS:GO, etc.), Nvidia's FastSync steps in and provides you a tear free environment while keeping input lag down to minimum.   So G-Sync has you covered in the low FPS realm and FastSync has you covered in the super high FPS realm.  In fact, that video Ford posted states that.   So yes, FastSync is the cherry on top. 

Another good resource, especially on G-Sync... Blurbusters on Input Lag with G-Sync.   Best in-depth study on the subject.


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 16, 2016)

I don't mean to be rude, BUT

TL;DR


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 16, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> there r IPS panels at 1ms otherwise u r saying the manufactures r lying about ur products they r making?


Not likely, and yes, they ARE lying. You have to realize some manufacturers are now claiming to be using IPS panels, merely because some in the industry are claiming that panels like AHVA produce indistinguishable results. Yet the acronym itself suggests only in viewing angle. There's a lot more than wide viewing angle that separates TN from IPS.

http://www.pcgamer.com/acer-unveil-super-quick-144hz-g-sync-ips-monitor/

The truth is, true IPS panels take longer to refresh, because the structure of their crystals is more complex. LCD technology is flawed, the industry SO needs to move past it.


----------



## Niteblooded (Jul 19, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> I don't mean to be rude, BUT
> 
> TL;DR




Wouldn't it be nice if you could solve all debates in less than 10 words and an emoticon?



Frag Maniac said:


> Not likely, and yes, they ARE lying. You have to realize some manufacturers are now claiming to be using IPS panels, merely because some in the industry are claiming that panels like AHVA produce indistinguishable results. Yet the acronym itself suggests only in viewing angle. There's a lot more than wide viewing angle that separates TN from IPS.
> 
> http://www.pcgamer.com/acer-unveil-super-quick-144hz-g-sync-ips-monitor/
> 
> The truth is, true IPS panels take longer to refresh, because the structure of their crystals is more complex. LCD technology is flawed, the industry SO needs to move past it.


AHVA is absolutely a horrible name and it leads to nothing but confusion as it makes people think it is part of the VA panel family.  It is not true IPS due to trademark issues but AHVA still uses In-Plane Switching technology so it is still IPS at its core.   It is the same reason Samsung calls their panels PLS except AHVA is built by AU Optronics.   AHVA has the same perks as IPS (great picture quality and viewing angles) and the same downsides (ips glow, best response time = 4ms).

More on AHVA


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 19, 2016)

Niteblooded said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if you could solve all debates in less than 10 words and an emoticon?


It would be nice, since hand gestures can't be seen online. 
It's only my opinion, but I find those that prattle on are only trying to gain e-peen and feel superior to others.
I'm sure succinct answers are preferred.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 19, 2016)

Niteblooded said:


> AHVA is absolutely a horrible name and it leads to nothing but confusion as it makes people think it is part of the VA panel family.  It is not true IPS due to trademark issues but AHVA still uses In-Plane Switching technology so it is still IPS at its core.   It is the same reason Samsung calls their panels PLS except AHVA is built by AU Optronics.   AHVA has the same perks as IPS (great picture quality and viewing angles) and the same downsides (ips glow, best response time = 4ms).
> More on AHVA


I agree, the acronym is confusing. However, though it does use in plane switching, the response on AHVA is not as low as 4ms, and actually a bit slower than 5, and it says so right in that link you provided.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 20, 2016)

Frag Maniac said:


> I agree, the acronym is confusing. However, though it does use in plane switching, the response on AHVA is not as low as 4ms, and actually a bit slower than 5, and it says so right in that link you provided.



When you are in front of a true (P)VA panel, you will definitely see the difference in technology. AHVA is not PVA and not 'vertical alignment' technology. A true VA panel has a tone shift, and IPS has glow. A true VA panel has unmatched static contrast and MUCH deeper blacks and a lower black point luminance whereas IPS/AHVA is stuck to around 1000:1 static contrast. Response times are similar, though VA has more trouble with pixel refresh in darker hues which can cause 'smearing', an issue that goes away almost entirely when the panel is warmed up.


----------



## Niteblooded (Jul 22, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> It would be nice, since hand gestures can't be seen online.
> It's only my opinion, but I find those that prattle on are only trying to gain e-peen and feel superior to others.
> I'm sure succinct answers are preferred.


Right!  The guy with a paltry post count, who pretty much only posts in low traffic threads and doesn't share his system specs is the guy going for epeen. 
Your insults aren't even seemingly witty.  I find your posts in general lack substance and you troll more than you help.

I do a lot of research on monitors and thought I would share what I learned so that people who are about to spend hundreds of dollars can make a more informed decision.   Problem is people are extremely quick to hate on variable refresh rates (especially G-Sync since Nvidia is evil and all) but most don't have the whole story.   So you need words for that.

*tldr;* Probably blew by your comprehension limit. Oh well. 



Frag Maniac said:


> I agree, the acronym is confusing. However, though it does use in plane switching, the response on AHVA is not as low as 4ms, and actually a bit slower than 5, and it says so right in that link you provided.



Yes monitor manufacturers always like to advertise best case scenario.  That is why you read reviews from sites like TFT Central so you can get a better idea of what you're actually buying.   TFT Central does a very in-depth review and expose not just response times but also refresh rates and input lag.


edit:
@mods & @OP
Sorry and don't worry... /thread


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 22, 2016)

Niteblooded said:


> *tldr;* Probably blew by your comprehension limit. Oh well.


You're just proving my point.


----------

