Been thinking of jumping on the hdr gsync 120hz bandwagon, but hesitant due to potential ghosting, motion blur, imperfections

[er557]

What I first considered was the rog strix PG43UQ, recently released, but being pricey I went to the next best thing, XG438Q, can be found refurbished for 800$. It is va 120hz, gsync hdr, 43" 4k, from what it seems- perfection, however many issues seem to plague these panels, shared with acer predator CG437K, such as people complain about motion blur, skipped frames, smearing and light bleeds and what have you, even text seems to not be rendered perfectly due to BGR configuration rather than RGB. My option is sit on the money with my 40" 60hz regular VA, which does not suffer from any of those issues, and wait for technology to mature and maybe in a few years 165hz or more. The favourable reviews and the itch are strong in this matter, though.
Just throwing these models out there so people can know what is available in value segment for gaming large format displays.

 

[mtcn77]

Technically it is a freesync if it works. Gsync comes with a module which conflicts with native lcd overdrive.

 

[er557]

but then nvidia drivers are certified to support freesync as well, dont they? they keep adding more displays to the list

 

[Jetster]

Is it me or are Gsync monitors more expensive

 

[mtcn77]

Then, hdr impacts the green team's performance, but you didn't hear it from me...

 

[Vya Domus]

Is it me or are Gsync monitors more expensive

Been living under a rock ?

Indeed they are way more expensive than equivalents with or without Freesync.

 

[er557]

in addition to hdr performance impact, i am in for a hit due to me using pascal 1080 SLI with gsync, the two are a receipe for another dip in fps. Although, the smoothness is better overall and less noticeable disturbances such as micro stuttering. I am doubtfull though, will new games will even reach 120hz on 4k ultra with dual 1080 SC

 

[Regeneration]

Gsync and Freesync aren't really needed for monitors with high refresh rate. There is no tearing when FPS is lower than refresh rate.

 

[er557]

true, but it already comes with the package, it is not like you can find a 120hz hdr monitor with these features WITHOUT any sort of freesync/gsync, for less money.

 

[Vayra86]

You are setting yourself up for every early and late adoption woe in the book here.

SLI and Gsync are a confused mess and HDR is arguably worse than that. And all these display innovations merely serve to hide or reduce the impact of an inferior panel tech. Be aware of that. And consider the growing demand and push for OLED.

Bottom line is paying premium for sub optimal gear.

will new games will even reach 120hz on 4k ultra with dual 1080 SC

A resounding NO. And that's considering the optimal situation where you actually have support and good scaling. So your list of demands to actually have a benefit here is long. You need SLI support and proper scaling, you need Gsync to work properly, and you need HDR support. HDR support also locks down other image tweaks, at least on the Strix; makes sense because it uses a new table that doesn't mix well with standard color space settings.

I'd just cross HDR off your list of 'must haves' and look for the best panel with that wishlist instead. Or lacking that, accept HDR is just a gimmick.

Much more interesting panel features IMO, especially at high refresh from 120hz and up, are variable strobe (ELMB) or at least just having the option for BFI. It elevates VA to a whole other level on its own and that together with high refresh rate is pretty much all you will really need or want.

Some other thoughts...

43 inch @ 4K seems like a reasonable PPI but its still right on that problematic axis of resolution vs view distance vs neck cramps from screen diagonal..., but you could also explore the 31,5 - 32 inch'ers perhaps and rearrange your viewing position. That would allow you to keep similar PPI at a lower resolution, say 1440p instead (these panels are readily available and generally quite good, both VA an IPS), and it would give your 1080 SC SLI combo more reasonable loads too.

4K is really still early adopters territory and so is HDR. High refresh, while feasible on current technology, also has its issues: ghosting/overshoot and crosstalk for example. All of this is a result of inferior panels and until OLED is mainstream, no matter the marketing they push around it, everything else is quite simply just junk you should pay the bare minimum for. Sounds harsh...but the whole LCD thing started as a cost cutting measure because CRT was going to be impossible for mass production at the current scale. Then we iterated for decades.... but its still fundamentally shit.

 

[er557]

Thanks for that insight, what prompted me to look into the panel was this review

ASUS ROG Strix XG438Q Review: It's So Good, ASUS Will Hate This Review

ASUS ROG Strix XG438Q - 43-inch 4K 120Hz, the best fun I've had on a gaming monitor EVER!

www.tweaktown.com

And this is my current panel

Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC

The Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC is a 40-inch 4K monitor. Can this desk-destroyer topple its rivals?

www.trustedreviews.com

although circa 2015, I enjoy it still and have zero issues in gaming

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I would wait till something with FALD comes out at a similar price or get one of those 48 inch oled tvs coming out when they drop in price. Every edgelit tv i've seen with HDR sucks and with the cheaper of the two asus monitors only doing 450 nits of brightness hdr will look terrible on it, it should be passable on the UQ... Unless you don't care about HDR whatsoever and just want a 120hz 43 inch monitor.

 

[er557]

A conclusion might be: dont toy with what works, dont fix it, wait with patience and get something nice instead, like a 16TB hdd, I do need to archive the internet.

 

[EarthDog]

Gsync and Freesync aren't really needed for monitors with high refresh rate. There is no tearing when FPS is lower than refresh rate.

true, but it already comes with the package, it is not like you can find a 120hz hdr monitor with these features WITHOUT any sort of freesync/gsync, for less money.

screen tearing can occur above or below the refresh rate of the monitor. When the monitors refresh rate and GPU aren't in sync.

Also...what @Vayra86 said.

 

[X71200]

Get yourself a nice ultrawide and call it a day.

 

[er557]

I dont like the lacking vertical resolution in those, and do like the more square real estate that traditional screens offer. second, I dont want to downgrade from true 4k, and most games dont support ultrawide so well, especially the older games.

 

[Jetster]

Been living under a rock ?

Indeed they are way more expensive than equivalents with or without Freesync.

Yep, last monitor I bought was $540 like 8 years ago. Now Im looking for a 1440 ultra wide

 

[er557]

Go budget 4k, even my 1440p ips with superb colors seemed lacking compared to 4k, after which you never look back

 

[X71200]

Ultrawide is a whole lot better experience than 60 Hz massive screen in your face. I'll never go back to a TV or 4k monitor again. It's faster, easier to run and to look at.

I'd highly suggest you actually investigate it.

 

[er557]

The question is would you even consider upgrading , while having a perfectly stable monitor with zero issues sitting on my desk, the con being it is a 2015 part.

Damn, I hate the upgrade itch, I seem to catch it every three to four years, even though I wear a protective mask...

 

[londiste]

HDR is not worth it in a monitor today:
- FALD (the few there are) monitors have their problems even though prices are outrageous.
- HDMI 2.1 and DP 2.0 are not there yet, so 2160p high refresh rate is likely to run into bandwidth issues.
- Freesync/GSync with HDR are not compatible (or not fully compatible). Both AMD and Nvidia have their proprietary HDR in form of Freesync 2 and GSync Ultimate. Neither is perfect and we still have no idea where standardization goes with this.

For HDR in games I would look at TVs in short term, in this year and next. Personally - LG's OLEDs. 48" sounds like borderline usable size for gaming monitor.

 

[TheLostSwede]

I dont like the lacking vertical resolution in those, and do like the more square real estate that traditional screens offer. second, I dont want to downgrade from true 4k, and most games dont support ultrawide so well, especially the older games.

Just to pour some salt in the wound, you don't have true 4K, you have consumer 4K. True 4K is 4096x2160... Those screens are really expensive though.
That said, I agree, it's really hard using something else when you're used to a 4K screen.

The question is would you even consider upgrading , while having a perfectly stable monitor with zero issues sitting on my desk, the con being it is a 2015 part.

Damn, I hate the upgrade itch, I seem to catch it every three to four years, even though I wear a protective mask...

I know the feeling. The upgrade itch is pure evil...

 

[londiste]

High refresh rate and VRR are things you probably do not know you are missing until you actually use them for a while

 

[FreedomEclipse]

LG 27GL850-B

/thread

 

[X71200]

GL850 is really good, but he's looking to blow $800+ so he might as well get something bigger and fancier.