PG278Q too late for United States? Newer better monitors releasing...

[shenook]

Ok been waiting on the PG278q. Was announced for release in April, then May, then June, then July, now August. How much you want to bet September comes into the mix in the USA? Yes I know, cheaper than buying in Europe but wasn't really worried about cost.

Anyhow it seems Acer now has a 4k display (3840 x 2160 pixels) with Gysnc. Available in EAME, Japan & Taiwan now and United states Q3/Q4.

Seems to have a viewing angle similar or better than PG278q. My only last tibdit is what the refresh rate might be. Might be the PG278 competition needed to keep prices and availability promises in check.

Not trying to start a flame war please. Just looking to see if there are more details on the Acer and how the PG278Q compares to this 28 inch Acer.

Acer model below - article by Acer USA
http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/press/2014/77934

[jasonvp]

shenook wrote:
Anyhow it seems Acer now has a 4k display (3840 x 2160 pixels) with Gysnc.

According to the specs, it can only run that rez at 60Hz via the DP. So it'll never actually benefit (terribly) from GSYNC at that rez.

[shenook]

Jason,

Thanks for the information. I did some more research on this and it seems Gsync works best at sub 60hz & 60 fps on modern games. When you reach 120 and 144hz gsync has little benefit. According to other forums. At 144hz I'll use the motion blue option instead of gsync on the pg278q. As for the 60hz at that resolution is a limitation of display port 1.2. Need Display port 1.3 actually to approach 120hz and not sure if that's even ratified as a standard yet. So the question is, is it worth having:
higher resolution with low response time
or
go with lower resolution with low response time but higher frame possibilities in some select older games. (exception super rigs) Both have gsync so.......

[NavasC]

As an owner of the VG248QE with the GSYNC Kit, I can vouch for GSYNC being particularly effective sub-60FPS, but I disagree in that I think it's still very effective in the high FPS range. You don't get any stuttering when you get frame drops on faster paced, competitive games that can go from 144 fps to 60 fps when six people decided they want to toss a frag grenade at the same time. ULMB would be better for some games over GSYNC, yes, but I think it still does great work at the high FPS range as well.

[jasonvp]

NavasC wrote:
but I disagree in that I think it's still very effective in the high FPS range.

Yeah, I'm not sure which sources the OP was reading when he came up with opinion that GSync wouldn't be very helpful in the higher refresh rates. If your GPU is able to keep a constant (not average... constant) frame rate at or above 144Hz, then, no G-Sync likely wouldn't be that big of a help. You could hard-set the frame rate in the game's config file and be done. But if, at any point, the frame rate drops below 144Hz, it would be ideal to have the panel adjust its refresh rate so that the GPU and panel are in sync.

[K4K33]

I've soon had this ROG Swift for three weeks now, and in my opinion the G-Sync sweet spot is around 90-140 fps for first person shooters. It's just so crazy smooth without any tearing, stuttering or input lag. Going from 60fps to over 100fps there's quite a bit of motion blur reduction, and you can feel the difference in mouse smoothness since the monitor's refresh rate is tied to the fps number.

For some people 60hz G-Sync might be enough, but for me it's not. I've used 120hz LCD panels since 2009, so I'm kinda picky about the mouse movement and motion blur.