AOC Intros New Monitor With Nvidia G-SYNC
Tags:
-
Display
-
Monitors
- AOC
- Nvidia
Last response: in News comments
exfileme
September 22, 2014 1:15:20 PM
Here's another display that uses Nvidia's G-SYNC technology.
AOC Intros New Monitor With Nvidia G-SYNC : Read more
AOC Intros New Monitor With Nvidia G-SYNC : Read more
More about : aoc intros monitor nvidia sync
-
Reply to exfileme
husker
September 22, 2014 2:01:12 PM
Spoogemonkey
September 22, 2014 2:30:41 PM
Related resources
- New Nvidia G-Sync Monitors? - Forum
- New AOC monitor will not turn on - Forum
- Update my graphics card and get a new 120-144hz monitor or just get a G-Sync monitor only? - Forum
- Buy a new gaming monitor now or wait for G-sync? - Forum
- New Monitor with G-Sync - Forum
DelightfulDucklings
September 22, 2014 2:33:23 PM
Spoogemonkey
September 22, 2014 2:34:18 PM
Spoogemonkey
September 22, 2014 2:43:55 PM
pills161
September 22, 2014 3:50:22 PM
SirTrollsALot
September 22, 2014 4:03:33 PM
@ DelightfulDucklings:
Freesync isn't even close to free, it's going to be an optional feature in the new vesa standard, but that doesn't mean every monitor is going to start having it, nor that it won't be priced as a premium... or that it will work as well, until it's been around for a lot longer.
@pills161:
Yeah, the Asus Swift is also 1440p AND has an 8-bit panel. $700 for that is not unreasonable when a 1440p, 60hz IPS panel with no other features can easily cost $600.
This monitor is priced too high for what it is. $400 will buy you a very, VERY high quality BenQ 144Hz, 1080p panel, so by adding $50 for G-sync, AOC is trying to claim that this monitor is equivalent to one of the best 6-bit TN panels out there, which I kind of doubt.
Freesync isn't even close to free, it's going to be an optional feature in the new vesa standard, but that doesn't mean every monitor is going to start having it, nor that it won't be priced as a premium... or that it will work as well, until it's been around for a lot longer.
@pills161:
Yeah, the Asus Swift is also 1440p AND has an 8-bit panel. $700 for that is not unreasonable when a 1440p, 60hz IPS panel with no other features can easily cost $600.
This monitor is priced too high for what it is. $400 will buy you a very, VERY high quality BenQ 144Hz, 1080p panel, so by adding $50 for G-sync, AOC is trying to claim that this monitor is equivalent to one of the best 6-bit TN panels out there, which I kind of doubt.
-
Reply to DarkSable
m
1
l
thor220
September 22, 2014 6:06:42 PM
DarkSable said:
@ DelightfulDucklings:Freesync isn't even close to free, it's going to be an optional feature in the new vesa standard, but that doesn't mean every monitor is going to start having it, nor that it won't be priced as a premium... or that it will work as well, until it's been around for a lot longer.
@pills161:
Yeah, the Asus Swift is also 1440p AND has an 8-bit panel. $700 for that is not unreasonable when a 1440p, 60hz IPS panel with no other features can easily cost $600.
This monitor is priced too high for what it is. $400 will buy you a very, VERY high quality BenQ 144Hz, 1080p panel, so by adding $50 for G-sync, AOC is trying to claim that this monitor is equivalent to one of the best 6-bit TN panels out there, which I kind of doubt.
Actually freesync is free and will be part of the display port standard going forward
source - http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/09/22/amd-fr...
I would take that any day over the Nvidia tech that adds $200 to the price of the monitor and requires nvidia stuff. It's good to know that other gaming devices will be able to take advantage of freesync as well. No additional hardware is required for freesync so no change in pricing is needed.
"but that doesn't mean every monitor is going to start having it"
Yes every new monitor will have it. Why wouldn't new monitors use the faster and new display port spec?
-
Reply to thor220
m
0
l
soldier44
September 22, 2014 6:47:53 PM
Spoogemonkey
September 22, 2014 6:53:17 PM
Bondfc11
September 22, 2014 7:00:15 PM
osiris11235
September 22, 2014 8:26:18 PM
sdmitch16
September 22, 2014 8:26:53 PM
Drejeck
September 23, 2014 1:22:28 AM
icemunk
September 23, 2014 3:44:20 AM
FreeSync vs GSync:
1) Only a couple of the latest AMD cards work with FreeSync whereas NVidia's GTX600/700/900 series all work with GSync.
2) FreeSync monitors aren't even available yet.
3) FreeSync may cost more. Who knows? GSync is likely to cost more but the price will drop below a $50 premium in the near future which really isn't much for such a great feature.
4) AMD has an FAQ page which basically says FreeSync is "better" and one of their engineers said this on PCPER however what they are saying is practically a lie (defined as "intent to deceive").
AMD says that the PC and Monitor don't communicate after bootup which is why they have "less lag" than NVidia's solution, however I'm confused how they can effectively vary the frame rate in real time properly if there's no communication.
I suspect that AMD's FreeSync solution isn't as good but we have no monitors to compare. All we know so far for certain is that G-Sync works incredibly well and I believe that NVidia wouldn't have designed the G-Sync module if there was no need for it (no such module in FreeSync).
While I would prefer things to be open standard, I can appreciate that NVidia had to invest money to make this work. It's easy to scream about proprietary this and that but frankly we wouldn't have GSync or FreeSync if NVidia hadn't invested their own money.
I just wish there wasn't such a schism between cards now in terms of features.
1) Only a couple of the latest AMD cards work with FreeSync whereas NVidia's GTX600/700/900 series all work with GSync.
2) FreeSync monitors aren't even available yet.
3) FreeSync may cost more. Who knows? GSync is likely to cost more but the price will drop below a $50 premium in the near future which really isn't much for such a great feature.
4) AMD has an FAQ page which basically says FreeSync is "better" and one of their engineers said this on PCPER however what they are saying is practically a lie (defined as "intent to deceive").
AMD says that the PC and Monitor don't communicate after bootup which is why they have "less lag" than NVidia's solution, however I'm confused how they can effectively vary the frame rate in real time properly if there's no communication.
I suspect that AMD's FreeSync solution isn't as good but we have no monitors to compare. All we know so far for certain is that G-Sync works incredibly well and I believe that NVidia wouldn't have designed the G-Sync module if there was no need for it (no such module in FreeSync).
While I would prefer things to be open standard, I can appreciate that NVidia had to invest money to make this work. It's easy to scream about proprietary this and that but frankly we wouldn't have GSync or FreeSync if NVidia hadn't invested their own money.
I just wish there wasn't such a schism between cards now in terms of features.
-
Reply to photonboy
m
2
l
heydan
September 23, 2014 7:19:24 AM
This is something typical from nvidia (high prize), I don´t why you guys are surprise about that, and also why you want something higher than 1080p with Gsync, 2 high end cards are necessary to drive 144hz at this resolution , and there´s no actual configuration to drive 144hz at QHD or UHD, I think for that we need at least 1 or 2 more GPU generations
-
Reply to heydan
m
-2
l
kilthas_th
September 23, 2014 8:05:05 AM
Quote:
Of course, you'll need a Nvidia "Kepler" GTX GPU in order to receive the benefits that the G-SYNC tech provides.Maxwell disagrees (as does nVidia)
-
Reply to kilthas_th
m
0
l
rbarnhart
September 23, 2014 8:54:11 AM
Why is this creating a conflict among readers? It is really not a big problem boiling down to Nvidia vs AMD. Nvidia has offered up a proprietary more hardware based solution and AMD a free more software based solution.
I say "more" software based because it still requires changes to the hardware, hence the vesa standards change and requirement for certain gpu hardware. In fact, to no surprise Nvidia is adotping free-sync also. It would be foolish not too when it has been adopted as a standard for almost ALL upcoming display port monitors using 1.2a or better. Already, a large group of display makers have signed on for the carrying of the new standard, that will only increase.
That means we should all say win-win. For those who are happy with free-sync it will be available to just about anyone with only a marginal cost increase and work across both manufacturers cards. We should all thank AMD for that.
However, if you really are after the ultimate experience, a pure hardware solution will always be better as processing demand does not get placed unduly where we do not want it. For that option we can thank Nvidia, but be willing to pay the premium that is going to come with it. It will not be cheap as it will not have direct competition.
The only concern will be the direct comparison. If free-sync is really close in performance prices will not come down on Gsync because they will not move enough units. If there is a large enough difference then there will be an early niche market that should expand into more mainstream in a few years. Remember the vast majority of gamers do not have $400-$500 dispalys let alone gpus that can drive such a device. It will take time, but for now be grateful that the two companies are playing nice with each other on this topic.
I say "more" software based because it still requires changes to the hardware, hence the vesa standards change and requirement for certain gpu hardware. In fact, to no surprise Nvidia is adotping free-sync also. It would be foolish not too when it has been adopted as a standard for almost ALL upcoming display port monitors using 1.2a or better. Already, a large group of display makers have signed on for the carrying of the new standard, that will only increase.
That means we should all say win-win. For those who are happy with free-sync it will be available to just about anyone with only a marginal cost increase and work across both manufacturers cards. We should all thank AMD for that.
However, if you really are after the ultimate experience, a pure hardware solution will always be better as processing demand does not get placed unduly where we do not want it. For that option we can thank Nvidia, but be willing to pay the premium that is going to come with it. It will not be cheap as it will not have direct competition.
The only concern will be the direct comparison. If free-sync is really close in performance prices will not come down on Gsync because they will not move enough units. If there is a large enough difference then there will be an early niche market that should expand into more mainstream in a few years. Remember the vast majority of gamers do not have $400-$500 dispalys let alone gpus that can drive such a device. It will take time, but for now be grateful that the two companies are playing nice with each other on this topic.
-
Reply to rbarnhart
m
1
l
rohitbaran
September 23, 2014 10:28:22 AM
thor220 said:
Why is this creating a conflict among readers? It is really not a big problem boiling down to Nvidia vs AMD. Nvidia has offered up a proprietary more hardware based solution and AMD a free more software based solution. I say "more" software based because it still requires changes to the hardware, hence the vesa standards change and requirement for certain gpu hardware. In fact, to no surprise Nvidia is adotping free-sync also. It would be foolish not too when it has been adopted as a standard for almost ALL upcoming display port monitors using 1.2a or better. Already, a large group of display makers have signed on for the carrying of the new standard, that will only increase.
That means we should all say win-win. For those who are happy with free-sync it will be available to just about anyone with only a marginal cost increase and work across both manufacturers cards. We should all thank AMD for that.
However, if you really are after the ultimate experience, a pure hardware solution will always be better as processing demand does not get placed unduly where we do not want it. For that option we can thank Nvidia, but be willing to pay the premium that is going to come with it. It will not be cheap as it will not have direct competition.
The only concern will be the direct comparison. If free-sync is really close in performance prices will not come down on Gsync because they will not move enough units. If there is a large enough difference then there will be an early niche market that should expand into more mainstream in a few years. Remember the vast majority of gamers do not have $400-$500 dispalys let alone gpus that can drive such a device. It will take time, but for now be grateful that the two companies are playing nice with each other on this topic.
A lot of great points there mate, but go read the article that was released today... Nvidia isn't going to support FreeSync.
-
Reply to DarkSable
m
0
l
rbarnhart
September 23, 2014 10:53:48 AM
DarkSable said:
thor220 said:
Why is this creating a conflict among readers? It is really not a big problem boiling down to Nvidia vs AMD. Nvidia has offered up a proprietary more hardware based solution and AMD a free more software based solution. I say "more" software based because it still requires changes to the hardware, hence the vesa standards change and requirement for certain gpu hardware. In fact, to no surprise Nvidia is adotping free-sync also. It would be foolish not too when it has been adopted as a standard for almost ALL upcoming display port monitors using 1.2a or better. Already, a large group of display makers have signed on for the carrying of the new standard, that will only increase.
That means we should all say win-win. For those who are happy with free-sync it will be available to just about anyone with only a marginal cost increase and work across both manufacturers cards. We should all thank AMD for that.
However, if you really are after the ultimate experience, a pure hardware solution will always be better as processing demand does not get placed unduly where we do not want it. For that option we can thank Nvidia, but be willing to pay the premium that is going to come with it. It will not be cheap as it will not have direct competition.
The only concern will be the direct comparison. If free-sync is really close in performance prices will not come down on Gsync because they will not move enough units. If there is a large enough difference then there will be an early niche market that should expand into more mainstream in a few years. Remember the vast majority of gamers do not have $400-$500 dispalys let alone gpus that can drive such a device. It will take time, but for now be grateful that the two companies are playing nice with each other on this topic.
A lot of great points there mate, but go read the article that was released today... Nvidia isn't going to support FreeSync.
Hey man, thanks!
In light of this I am not sure what then to make of the report found here on the "rumor" on wccftech:
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-promises-support-freesync/
I agree with them, that SweClockers would not lie.
I also propose, right now it would not be wise for anything but support for Gsync from Nvidia in the press. It would work against their revenue stream to announce support for adaptive sync when their proprietary product is available and is already retailing. Especially when AMD's is still in the production phase and no concrete release date is on the radar from manufacturers.
It would be tantamount to saying that their product is optional and waiting will permit the free option. Saying that would dissuade buyers.
Bottom line... there is no better evidence than future behavior. I suppose in light of the Tom's article, I am possibly only speculating above. Thanks for the update though. Useful to get a broader perspective always.
Cheers!
-
Reply to rbarnhart
m
2
l
husker
September 23, 2014 3:02:40 PM
@photonboy
QUOTE: "Update:
Per above, I meant FreeSync may cost more than regular monitors, not GSync."
...uh no, you are still wrong, Free-Sync and Adaptive Sync will require special scaler hardware within the monitors as well as on the video cards. If you think this is not going to cost extra, then I have some swamp land in Florida you would be interested in buying...
QUOTE: "Update:
Per above, I meant FreeSync may cost more than regular monitors, not GSync."
...uh no, you are still wrong, Free-Sync and Adaptive Sync will require special scaler hardware within the monitors as well as on the video cards. If you think this is not going to cost extra, then I have some swamp land in Florida you would be interested in buying...
-
Reply to Ninjawithagun
m
1
l
cypeq
September 26, 2014 6:48:14 AM
Related resources
- New monitor for gaming? GSync or 21:9? What to choose? Forum
- How will AMD respond to Nvidia's new G-Sync technology? Forum
- New AOC i2353p Monitor looks grainy Forum
- SolvedNew video card for the motherboard, cooling fan spins but no signal on the monitor (Nvidia Geforce GT 630) Forum
- SolvedInstalled a new Nvidia 9400GT gpu, monitor shows no signal ! Forum
- Nvidia GTX 470 no signal to the monitor[new PSU] Forum
- New monitor on older pc and nvidia geforce2 mx400 Forum
- More resources
!