Last year's introduction of Nvidia's G-Sync variable refresh technology definitely gave gamers something to buzz about. Though AMD’s competing FreeSync standard recently grabbed some of the spotlight, Nvidia’s ecosystem has had more time to mature, and as a result, enthusiasts have a few more choices available.
Asus was first to market with its ROG Swift PG278Q, a monitor that still commands over $700 as of this writing. Following that, we reviewed screens from BenQ (XL2430G) and AOC (G2460PG), which sell at lower price points. So far, they’ve all proven to be excellent gaming monitors. The addition of G-Sync certainly makes them that much better-suited for fast-paced action.
Recently, we got our hands on the first of two Acer G-Sync-capable displays you'll see reviewed on Tom's Hardware. And this one offers something new: Ultra HD resolution. We’re talking about the XB280HK 28-inch monitor.
Since we published our reviews of the first two FreeSync-capable screens, BenQ’s XL2730Z and Acer’s XG270HU, there has been much debate about the merits of one technology over the other. In my game play tests, I can't tell the difference. To delve deeper into the nuances of G-Sync, we obtained a Digital Storm gaming PC and loaded it up with several popular titles. My impressions and findings are on page seven of this article.
Is this the ideal tool for gaming in Ultra HD? Let’s take a look.
Contrast ratio, brightness, chromacity & gamma tracing is where XB280HK looses the ground, but to be fair, most of the gamers won't be noticing much difference at all. But it is kind of disappointing to see Planar do better in these fields than Acer utilizing the same panel. I don't know, maybe the overdrive somehow worsen the results?
But ofcourse, it does well on uniformity and response time. Makes me wonder why XB280HK doesn't have ULMB if it's supposed to be a bundled feature with G-Sync. That should've helped in 60Hz panels more, rather than 144Hz ones.
But anyway, XB280HK looks promising, although I don't think 4K is what I prefer for gaming+life (although I do for gaming only).
It's 1.2a I presume. Since that's what is capable of 4K@60Hz other than HDMI 2.0
People that like to play games also like to play games in ultra HD resolutions.
ULMB uses flickering to lower persistence, which reduces the motion blur. If you've ever used 60hz CRT monitors, you'll know that flickering is painful on the eyes. This is why ULMB mode is not offered on 60hz monitors, and likely won't be offered on anything less than 75-85hz.
Top end GPU's can handle 4K just fine. You just don't play it at max settings. What is better, medium to high settings and 4K, or maxed at 1080p? That is a subjective question, and will vary from person to person.
That said, I prefer higher refresh rates than 60hz, so I'll be going 1440p before 4K.