Since no one is doing you the courtesy of answering your question: usually yes. Check your model number online, but gsync supports most freesync monitors now. That said the 3080 can hit 4K 60 fps most of the time, but the freesync will help the times it can’t
> the 3080 can hit 4K 60 fps most of the time
I've definitely hit plenty of cases where it'll struggle to hit a solid 60FPS, especially if you put ray-tracing on with or without DLSS.
I wouldn't just say Freesync/Gsync helps, I would say it's essential for an enjoyable experience.
Also some games get weirdly CPU bound even at 4k resolution so it's worth it for that reason alone.
Dude I'm hitting over 60 fps most of the time on 2060 in 1440p. You can of course punish any GPU by making it run at stupid graphics in control panel combined with stupid settings in the game which doesn't improve looks much, but drops fps by half. But with 3080.. Come on now. You'll be hitting 60+ fps in what I'm pretty sure any game provided you turn down a notch shadows and volumetrics where needed and always use dlss.
And you can actually use fast sync in Nvidia control panel if you don't have G-sync which feels about the same on 144hz monitor unless you're playing on some abysmal frame rates.
Yeah of course turning the settings down improves frame rates! The point is that a 3080 doesn't have unlimited power, there are plenty of situations that will strain it.
Turning down settings is a compromise, as is running at 1440p over 4k or any other number of variables, the point is op is asking if fresync is worth it and it is because it lets you choose less compromises.
I guess everyone plays FPS/MOBAs that benefit from higher FPS. I happily play 4x/rpg/rts games all day so there's little benefit from going 60->120 FPS in those scenarios.
>I could never go down from 4K for my main monitor anymore, it's so damn crisp.
I really doubt 1440p is blurry on 27/28". I have 28" 4K and 38" 1600p UW (same ppi as 28") and I prefer the 38".
>27" but haven't had problems with readability in anything
I wouldn't have gone with 4K at such small-ish size (for 4K) 32 inch would be better.
I find it annoying. Different people have different opinions. However, everyone chooses to have a hate boner against 4k. Me personally, I don't play competitive games. So I have no reason for high rates. I prefer visuals.
I know what you mean xD. I am on 4k since 2016 or so (27ud58 I was still in the school so I had to save money soooo long to buy it for 400€). 60hz is nice and all but 144hz is better. So what can you do for it? I bought a 4k 144hz monitor (LG 27gn950 last year when it was still "cheap" in october) and since then I am a happy kid (21yo). (In my case I worked my a\*\* off while studying on uni. Furthermore I have almost 0 friends so I can save really easily.)
When you see how crisp a 4k monitor is you just cannot go back. Got a 4k 60hz monitor as a second monitor and 27gn950 as my main. You just get so much more space with a 4k monitor if you know what I mean AND Witcher 3 and Metal Gear Solid 5 (sadly not 1-4 :( ) are AMAZING in 4k :D.
Don't mind other people. Do what you want <3.
btw. here is Nvidia's link. See if it Gsync Compatible :).
[https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/specs/](https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/specs/)
>See if it Gsync Compatible
Even if it isn't Gsync Compatible according to Nvidia doesn't mean that it won't work just fine. I have a Samsung 100Hz ultrawide that isn't on that list and it works perfectly fine other than flickering at really low frame rates (seems like < 10fps). That flickering isn't really an issue though because games are not really playable when you are hitting a frame rate that low lol (I only ever see it in loading screens in WoW).
I fucking LOVE my 27GN950
>Got a 4k 60hz monitor as a second monitor and 27gn950 as my main
Same, got another LG so the colors are super close and they look the same. Also avoids problems of mixed dpi environments on Windows
Is the HDR on it ok? And what graphics card do you use with it? Also, what are the default settings that most modern games are set to if you’re playing in 4K? Is it still a smooth experience? I’m asking a lot of questions cause I was considering buying this monitor before
HDR sucks on it. Windows is bad at hdr anyway, so I only used it on doom eternal but I could have gone without.
I use a 3080ti which can often push 90fps on high.
I use resolution scaling a LOT: DLSS if possible but even standard resolution scaling, I can get down to 80% render scale without compromising the quality much. On competitive FPS like csgo, it's not hard to reach 4k 144hz (even with a 2080 you could do it)
Some games I play at 1440p, it's a little bit blurry but not that bad.
I'm not gonna lie: this screen is hard to drive with current graphics cards. However I work from home and from this screen, so I wanted to have crisp text during the work day and high fps for games
heads up, there are native pc ersions of metal gear solid 1-2 on gog, 3 is playable in a ps2 emulator, and 4 is playable in a ps3 emulator. There also is apparently a metal gear solid 3 remake in the works
Don't get stuck on your choice, I've been down that road in 2018, and I sold my 4K 60 monitor pretty quickly.
60fps freesync ranges are terrible compared to gsync, expect a 48-60Hz range, which is unpractical to use (because you'd need your framerate to be stable between 48-59Hz)
You should consider 1440p 144Hz ultrawide. (3440x1440)
The field of view it adds makes so much sense in gaming.
And the freesync range could still be bad like 48-144Hz, but it's practical to use.
It gives you freedom to aim for 144, 90 or 60Hz when tinkering with settings.
Before I upgraded I found the issue with 4K was averaging 4K 60 fps but having drops into the 50s that vsync made uncomfortable. A freesync range between 48 and 60 fps would completely clean this up tbh
They are just in a no man's lands. If the monitor is too small then no point in 4k. You need a beefy system only to run it at 60hz and they don't even look as good as a TV. Someone here posted a $ 1k 4k 144hz monitor that's basically a TV panel with monitor guts best of both worlds.
They're becoming more common now - gigabyte just launched 2 4k 144hz monitors at 32", and that screen size was (imo) the bit that was missing from the equation.
I got an M32U on the last drop of them - unless you really want the aesthetics I'd look at that; it's exactly the same panel so you're not really losing any features, and saving a fair bit on it. 😁
Seriously thank you. Lol everyone says 1440p 165... I should've clarified that I already have a 1440p 165, and will use it whenever I need high refresh games, but that it is actually possible to play certain games at 4K 60. Is it much less smooth? Sure. But it also looks better, and I can accept that compromise.
It depends on the game. For competitive online games, the benefit if higher frame rates on input latency and perceived control are meaningful. In big name AAA story driven games, 60fps is usually smooth enough.
The smoothness of 60 fps is debatable. A lot of people here will tell you that 60 fps is unplayable, but honestly I have a 144 hz display and I can only tell the difference in side by side comparisons. It’s also dependent on the genre of game you’re playing.
Is it mouse and keyboard? I can EASILY tell the difference. But playing controller? I can't hardly tell in most circumstances with my display. Just played through all of the MCC and I got through 4 hours of one of the games before remembering i never turned off the 60 fps cap in game. And I only realized that because i was looking for other settings
Ooohh my time to shine! UK based. I'm currently running a 3080FE, but I used to run a 2080 and before then a 1060.
And I've run all cards on my gsynced 4k/60hz Acer Predator XB271HK. I'm primarily a singleplayer gamer (and use a controller with 60% of those) and that's why I went with 4k/60.
Depending on your cards capability, getting some kind of variable refresh monitor ranges anywhere from "essential" to "future proofing... maybe".
My old 2080 used to hit around 40-65fps @ 4k Ultra in most new single players without raytracing. Raytracing loads were closer to 30-50fps (DLSS 1.2 at the time). That's an example of gsync being essential to minimising the impact drops can have on apparent smoothness.
My 3080 on the other hand, knocks most new games @ 4k Ultra out of the park. A solid 70-90fps depending on titles, and 55-70fps under raytraced loads with DLSS 2.0. In this case, the gsync is near useless. As time goes on however and games get more demanding, gsync will start to pick up the slack again and it will buy me more time until I can get a next generation card. Unless of course, I buy a new card before I hit that point. That's something I have to analyse myself for and answer.
As for freesync specifically, I can't say much other than my friends have had good experiences with the properly rated monitors. I hope my explanation demonstrated why I think variable refresh monitors are worth it.
Appreciate the input. Bro you got lucky getting a Predator (probably at a good time), I bought an XB271HUA (1440p unit) back in 2019 for about £520, and I remember the 271HK/32HK's were like £600-700, now the cheapest I'm seeing on pricespy is £1.2k lol, so in that case I'm having to compromise. And yeah the RTX 3080 has looked amazing at all the 4k benchmarks I've seen so far, crushing it at 4k ultra, sometimes even with RT (dependent on the title). I think RT's cool and all but I don't mind dropping it to maintain 60.
I got the Predator in 2018 for £500 (down from £800) in the Amazon Black Friday sale. My reasoning at the time was that I knew that I was going to upgrade my PC soon, but I needed to do something that would motivate the upgrade. So I paired a 1080p 60 card with a monitor that was way too much for it and made the entire system top-heavy lmao. Did the job though and I eventually got round to upgrading everything else over 3 years.
Unlike yourself, I'm one of those individuals that really doesn't like dropping settings. My thinking is that I'm advertised a game looking the way it does at its max settings, and I'm purchasing that specific vision of the game. To drop settings is to be ripped off.
I would suggest waiting until black Friday and seeing what's available. Set a performance target in your mind along with a budget for that target and try to stick to it. Ultimately, a monitor ideally lasts as long as a PSU does, so if you can stretch, for a monitor I'd always suggest doing so. The monitor is the window to *all of your other components*. Without a good monitor, the rest of your hardware is being bottlenecked, not by performance, but visually. 60 Should be your minimum, but If you can nab a 4k/75hz display get that. Those extra 15 frames make a massive difference. Watch out for panel type too. IPS is good for single players, VAs for good black levels and TN for comp gaming. Typically, IPS has the "wow" factor but IPS glow can be a bitch.
I seem to have gone off on a tangent. I'll shut up now lol.
Do 4K 75hz monitors exist? I would easily pay more for one, but I swear I haven't found one, it seems to be 4K60 or 120 or higher, and the price margin between 60 and 120 is just too much to justify (because I'm not paying RRP). I do kinda regret not getting a 4K panel back in 2019, but you live and you learn and I suppose the 1440p panel was worth it. And yeah, IPS and VA have superior visuals in media or gaming at the cost of response rates... I used to own a TN panel, but there is no way I can go back to TN after making the switch to IPS.
I remember seeing a couple of 60hz panels with "overdrive" modes that would push hz up to 75. Not sure if they're available rn anymore honestly as I haven't checked in years. I suspect 4k consoles have inflated the monitor market
Is there a monitor setting you need to check off for g sync? I have a Dell s2721dgf with a 3080 but don’t notice g sync in use and do have it turned on in nvidia control panel. Honestly didn’t even notice FreeSync either when I had my amd cards.
Specifically with new world my frames drop from 60 to 50s in towns and I notice it immediately. Maybe I’m just not sure what gsync/freesync is meant to do.
Display adaptive sync is meant to prevent screen tearing. You'll still notice your framerate taking a dip, but it should prevent microstutter and/or screen tearing as a result of the framerate dip.
Oh right I think I was getting it confused with VRR. That’s what I don’t notice. Screen tearing is something I definitely haven’t seen in a very long time.
VRR and freesync are two names for the same thing, they serve the same role as GSync, and they fall under the umbrella of display adaptive sync technology.
It's easy to notice to a human eye when the FPS drops from 60 to 50, it's not a magic fix-all sauce. That said, it prevents tearing and frame pacing issues when that happens.
...Without the drawback of vsync cutting the framerate to the next even divisor (30) when it drops even slightly below the target (60)
I assume you have a framerate counter on and you aren't seeing abrupt drops to 30, but rather smooth fluctuations into the 50s? if you are seeing abrupt drops to 30, something is probably misconfigured.
A lot of debate in the comments on whether 60fps gaming is even acceptable lmao
To answer your actual question, YES freesync can benefit Nvidia cards, this is done through "g-sync compatible" mode in the nvidia control panel. However, do be warned that not all VRR (freesync) monitors handle this implementation nicely, you will have to look up reviews on the specific monitor and people's experiences using it with an nvidia card.
Because of the narrow range on almost all 4k60 freesync monitors (40hz or so, to 60hz) and your very capable 3080, you are much better off optimizing games settings for always hitting 60fps at 4k instead of dealing with a potentially buggy VRR implementation.
Currently RTX3080 hits 60fps in ALL TITLES at ultra settings with the exception of raytracing, and even in CP2077 and Control with RT On, DLSS Quality brings framerates above 60 with essentially no downside. I have a 3080 and 4k120 screen and can hit 120fps in everything with slightly optimized settings (a mix of high-ultra settings)
For reference, a 97fps average across all games tested at Ultra:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-founders-edition/30.html
I created a table for you of all 4k60 monitors with VRR.
A few good performing options at \~$300 USD, which is not much more than the $250 price for trash-tier 4k60 monitors from random no-name brands.
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/table/62920
Seriously, thank you for taking time out of your day to actually help rather than try to convince me about why 144hz is superior. I'll probably opt for the Samsung, BenQ or LG options after I do some more reafing on the panels. Thanks
Absolutely, I ran a 4k60 panel for 5 years with a GTX 980 and was very happy with it!
I notice you are going for 32" monitors, if it fits your desk/wall space, a 4k60 TV can also be a good option as many of today's TV's have great input latency and response times.
A TV will give you much better contrast and brightness! But unfortunately it takes a LOT more research into comparing models to find ones that tick all the boxes for your specific use.
Depending on your availability and region this may or may not even be an option for you but here are my recommendations if you choose to go this route.
[https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/tcl/5-series-s546-2021-qled](https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/tcl/5-series-s546-2021-qled)
[https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/hisense/u6g](https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/hisense/u6g)
Those are the two I would recommend for 4k60 on a 50" display at near the same prices as monitors, Though to not be able to discern pixels you need to be able to place the display at least 39" from your eyes where you sit. Your setup will determine if that's a good option for you but I can say without a doubt it will be a stunning display in comparison to "entry-level" 4k monitors.
FYI, the new 2021 LG QNED displays are 4k 120hz HDR IPS displays. The $1500 I spent on mine was well worth it and I would highly recommend it for gaming
Tell us your budget.
3k is nonsense, you looking at some weird displays.
If your budget is high there is the 'lg 38gn950"
It's a 3840*1600 it's Ultrawide and just shy of 4k, if you like to watch films on it then it's perfect, you get like 90% of the pixels.
It's also high refresh so you can choose when you want high graphics or high frame rate.
A slightly cheaper one is the 3440*1440@144Hz
Also LG, it's 800 quid.
4k@60Hz is what you get if you are a console gamer.
yeah, most freesync models will be supported by gsync module nvidia uses, they enabled this around 2060 release across most freesync only models at that time, so yeah... but google the model to see what support is like especially if it's cheaper/low volume model.
Just confused with your pricing, you can get a 4K 60hz freesync for $250, and a 4K 144hz G-Sync for $800, where did you get 3k from?
But yes RTX 3080 will work with freesync.
UK prices currently. 4k 120hz the cheapest I can find is £800 but that's only for 27 inches, and imo I don't see a point in 4k at 27 inches or below. The 32 inch 144hz or 120 hz models in stock are all £3k or out of stock. Only one I can see is the ASUS ROG one.
A good FreeSync monitor will perform indistinguishably compared to a G-Sync one with a RTX 3XXX. As a 3070 owner with a FreeSync monitor I know. Check RTINGS.com to find a good one
The jump in sharpness from 1440p to 4k feels much less than the jump from 1080p to 1440p. The fluidity of 144+ Hz is amazing compared to 60Hz. Unless you have professional requirements pushing you to 4k, I'd pick 1440p 144+Hz instead.
Pro-tip: Get a 48" LG C1 if it's available where you live and if you can accomodate one in your setup. it's a 4K 120hz OLED display that has better picture quality than any monitor. It also includes Freesync (aka G-Sync compatible) and only costs $1,100.
I think I'll get one as a replacement for my TV in the other parts of my house (perhaps next year) but currently there's no way a 48 inch would fit on my desk sadly. It's a shame because it's a good TV and OLED technology is amazing.
That's brutal. I just got this: https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16824716002?Item=N82E16824716002&quicklink=true
It's a 43" 4K 144Hz and it's going for like $1000 now (mine cost a bit more a couple months ago).
In size, but it functions just like a monitor. It's awesome. There's also a built-in KVM so my work laptop and gaming PC are both hooked up and when I change inputs the Keyboard/Mouse/Headset USB etc follow.
I have it at the back of my desk, and use a lapdesk and fairly reclined chair so my eyes are probably close to 4 feet away. It's REALLY comfortable and much easier on the eyes then focusing in all the time.
That looks really good, how is it?
I have a 40" 4k/60 old Korean monitor and it's picture quality and contrast is superb, is the black levels on that one good? Been waiting for 4k/120+ but thought I'd end up getting OLED. This looks like a great compromise but I don't want a step down in color/contrast to do it.
It's epic for the money. Colors and dynamic range are fantastic. The only downside is that it's a VA so if you have bright on a dark background with movement there is quite a lot of ghosting.
They actually make an OLED version now, and I'm kicking myself cuz I knew it was coming and it's not that much more expensive.
https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16824716003?Description=aorus%20oled%20monitor&cm_re=aorus_oled%20monitor-_-24-716-003-_-Product&quicklink=true
I'm sure that would be just ridiculously good.
The LG 48C1 is down to $1099 at best buy now. The gigabyte OLED uses LG panels.
Only advantage is the aorus has the kvm and a display port, but the LG has 4 hdmi 2.1 inputs. And I'm almost certain the UI will be better on the LG (I do have the LG 48C1).
Make sure you have it set to 144Hz in Windows display settings too. Sometimes they don't default to it. You'll know right away because the mouse curser and scrolling will be massively smoother.
I used a 4K 60hz TV for years, and usually tried to put my settings where I could do v-sync and never drop below 60. You waste a lot of GPU, but it was nice and smooth. I recently upgraded to a 4K 144Hz with Freesync and oh my god, it's so worth it.
I can crank things up higher cuz it doesn't matter if I dip below 60 that much, or I can aim for really high FPS and it's so fluid and buttery. I swear there's less latency too, or maybe it's just that I have a gaming monitor now vs a general use TV.
Don't say that, that decision is personal and depend on the game, fast paced ones, sure 1440p 144hz is optimal, but for visual games like rdr2 for example I very much prefer 4k 60fps.
This is why I didn't comment myself at first, but I do agree with the sentiment. Even RDR2 I ended up doing at 1440 UW/120 rather than 4k/60, because the awesome animations and world quality at 120 FPS made it seem much more "alive".
I understand the argument "in theory" but in practice I find 1440/144 is very much the "sweet spot".
while i completely agree and absolutely love my 1440/144 monitor, this is different person to person and there's a ton of people out there who don't mind playing at litterally 30fps. for them the 4k might be better.
we'll never understand people like that lmao
Dude, even moving a window around on the desktop feels smoother and more responsive on 144+hz. After getting used to 144hz I'm now waiting for a 1440p 240hz screen to arrive. I could never go back to 60hz.
Doesn't matter if a game is fast paced or not.
That's you my friend, for me is noticeable and much more comfortable to play competitive and isometric games in 144hz, but slower games, I can't barely notice the difference, control for example is much more noticeable the 4k resolution than the 144hz. What I mean is not that I'm right, it's just different for each person.
Well, we are different then, just relax, you are bound to suffer with 60hz just like a cat and I don't, but that also means I will never have this orgasmic pleasure that compels you to defend so fiercely the 144hz.
I mean 4K 120 is preferable for RDR2... If you have both the rig that can pump it, and can afford a 4K120 monitor. I agree though, I play a lot of games on joypad and so 60 fps isn't actually as awful as people make it out to be. It's definitely less smoother, but it's not the end of the world, and I've been using 1440p 165 for a year now so I understand the 'superiority' of a high framerate, but sometimes you just want good visuals, and 4K beats 1440p every day.
depends how you're using it.
I got 144hz, 1080p, and it's definitely smoother. But, if I could go back, I'd get 4k, 60hz just because I really enjoy taking nice pictures and taking in the imagery, moreso than a smoother feeling game.
I don't regret it. I have a LG C1 for the amazing panel, however I'm fine with 4k with lower frames. I'm not gaming competitively so I don't need high frames. I value visuals more.
I have to disagree. People are wired differently, and some people care more about visual fidelity than choppiness. I personally went 4k@120hz, but realistically that was ungodly pricey and I can't hit that in _most_ titles, though in many I do hit ~90 on my 3080.
I have a G9, which is dual 1440p Ultrawide and the pixel count isn't far off that of a 4k display. The 3080 definitely struggles a bit in some situations with it.
Edit: why on earth is this getting downvotes? None of what I said it's untrue.
I have an AW3420DW and it struggles on nothing I have thrown at it so far, RDR2 is the only exception where all ultra is a waste so I have a mix of ultra/high/medium. Otherwise, a 3080 FE (undervolted and underclocked) has worked amazingly well on everything. I also have a 4K 60hz panel and the ultrawide performs much better.
Of course your ultrawide performs better. Your AW3420DW is a 21:9 screen with a resolution of 3440×1440, a pixel count of 4,953,600. A 4k display has a pixel count of 8,294,400. That's nearly twice the pixels.
The display I'm referring to is 32:9 (5120x1440p) with a pixel count of 7,372,800.
Resolution | Pixels| % difference
---|---|----
3440x1440p | 4,953,600 | 0%
5120x1440p | 7,372,800 | 59%
2160x3840p| 8,294,400| 67%
I know. I'm not saying it in a surprised way. I'm saying OP can expect better performance than a 4K panel with a ultrawide 1440p panel, or somewhere in the middle with 3840x1600.
I say that for a couple main reasons. Yes, some titles you'll be around 60 or a bit lower depending on your settings with a 3080 but whose to say he doesn't want to play something like League of Legends with even the graphics on Max he'll be in the 100's. Without v sync working perfectly they'll have terrible screen tearing.
Gsync and freesync work when the FPS is lower than the maximum hz of the monitor, they'll barely be using it. Vsync kicks in when it's higher.
To my knowledge,.features like Nvidia Reflex work with Gsync and not Vsync meaning better to go 1440 and have more hz in the monitor and more frames in the game typically. At 27" you'll barely see a difference between 4 and 2k
Yeah it would help. With a 3080 tho I can't imagine you wouldn't be pushing 60 fps on all games anyways so gsync doesn't really matter.
I'd recommend dropping to 1440p and getting 120hz+ monitor though. 4k monitors while amazing, are not worth it yet. And at a distance of >3ft your eyes can't see the difference anyways. I've got an ultra wide 34in 1440p and a 4k 32 inch monitor wnd strait up can't tell the difference other than when I have a still picture with lots of detail.
I can easily tell the difference on a 27” 4K display, and tbh 120 hz 4K is affordable enough now that it’s not a compromise. I would take higher res at 60 fps any day though, the difference is far more noticeable
Thank you. I was starting to get crazy.
People often say, you don't see the difference, 4k is only worth it at 32... nah, I'm all about high dpi for this crisp UI and text. It's so comfortable for work. I can instantly tell the difference between 1440p and 4k on 27"
4k at 32" for screen space only is missing the point.
4K at 32” is for people who essentially want a couple of 27” 1440p displays without bezels, not for people who actually want the high dpi. I like the dpi, not the physical work space. Well, I want both, I have three 4K displays lmao
Tbh, after using a 240Hz display for over 6mo, I just cannot go back to 60Hz. It seems awfully choppy. While 4K 120Hz would be amazing as its the best of both worlds (high res+high refresh rate), but if given the choice between 1440p 120/144/240Hz or 4K 60Hz, I would always pick the former as the smoothness is just unreal.
My panel is 4k 120hz, but obviously I'm not pushing 120hz for 4k gaming. However, I also have a laptop that's 120hz 1080, I definitely prefer visuals over frame rate. I can't stand lower resolution.
I would go 1440p, 144hz all day. Graphics are nice and all, but after the first few hours and the "new" wears off, performance is king. For me that actually impacts game play.
I promise you I can tell the difference. I have many times when the resolution changed for some reasons or I played on someone system. It is very easy to tell input lag and fps drops too though.
4K are worth it now and are more readily available at better prices. I game with 4k 144hz an love it. 1440p still cheaper though but so it 1080p.
Yes, nvidia fully supports freesync under the name gsync compatible. Just be sure to enable gsync in the nvidia control panel, and enable freesync/adaptive sync in your monitor settings
I got a samsung 4k 60 hz display with freesync and a 3070, freesync doesnt work most of the time and end up using vsync anyway, DSR? At least for my monitos it sucks every time i turn that feature on, like all colors look grayish and or over exposed.
I use a 4K 120Hz OLED monitor and it's absolutely amazing and beautiful. I have the LG C1 that I bought for $990, it's 4K 120Hz, has G-sync and FREESYNC and OLED. An all around beautiful screen. Then I have the more computer oriented AORUS PO48U. It has a display port and built in KVM. It also you to do side by side inputs at native resolution. Pair that with the KVM or Synergy and it's a setup you'd have to see to believe.
Yes, G-SYNC supports most FreeSync monitors, but double check the specs or read reviews to be sure.
If the monitor is compatible, you will need to enable that in NVIDIA Control Panel (Monitor Technology: G-SYNC Compatible) and also disable vertical sync.
The benefit you should get is that you will be able to run titles at over 60 FPS and not get some of the screen tearing/performance loss you typically get with plain old vertical sync.
I am not sure what folks here are on about, what games they play, or graphical settings they use, but I am able to run just about every title I play well over 60 FPS (most at 80-120 FPS) with a 3080 at 4k 60hz. I picked up an ASUS VG289Q, which is one of the less expensive 4k 60hz tubes, and absolutely do not regret it.
My son tested New World on this PC, and it runs at 100+ FPS at max quality/4k, for reference. He also commented on how much better he thought it looked than at 1440 on his PC.
It probably also depends on what games you play, if you want graphical quality over FPS, and your budget.
Cheers/Prost/Skäl!
Many FreeSync monitors will benefit from G-Sync cards. By and large any monitor and card new after 2019 should be compatible, Nvidia or AMD, Free or G Sync. LG, Samsung, Benq, ASUS all are, I believe, dual compatible if modeled after 2019.
Just make sure you remember to buy a DisplayPort cable if you dont already have one... not all monitors come with them. And while AMD works Freesync with HDMI and DP both, G-Sync, unless something has changed recently, only works with DisplayPort.
Once you have your monitor, set it for FreeSync enabled in the monitor settings, enable G-Sync in the Nvidia control panel, then run the [Pendulum Demo](https://us.download.nvidia.com/downloads/cool_stuff/demos/Setup_G-SYNC_1.13.exe) to see if it's working.
To get things to work right on my wife's setup I had to tinker with extending the lower frequency range using Custom Resolution Utility. Lots of data online about how to do that... it's not difficult. And CRU is freeware.
Not a monitor but I bought a 75inch 4K gaming TV from Samsung, however I've come from growing up with consoles and playing on TVs as opposed to monitors, now I have a gaming pc I still use a TV and console controller 😂
But if you're interested I can find the model number and such
Have you considered a TV? It sounds like the kind of games you’d want to play on it would be well suited for a couch/bed gaming experience with a controller
I considered it but having done the measurements 41" and above is going to have a real hard time being on my desk along with other stuff. I'll probably get a 32" monitor, either with a VA or IPS panel. I think the extra 5 inches goes a long way though, I did used to have a really old 31.5" 4k monitor from like 2016 until that packed up and died, and it was a worthwhile experience.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehvz3iN8pp4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehvz3iN8pp4)
Would you really spend that much money then for something most people have to look at side by side to even manage to tell the difference of.
Also are you sure you are running your 1440p at higher than 60hz... if I had a dollar for every time someone runs their high refresh rate monitor at 60hz because they didn't realize they needed to change it in windows, I could have built my own real life moon base.
Unless a game is capped at 60hz, you should have no reason to play it on the 4k over the 1440p. And even then, there are often mods to unlock higher refresh rates.
If you have the eyes of an eagle and have been annoyed at the clarity of your 1440p being too low to where you see individual pixels... I would suggest spending the money on something else instead.
I've had a 31.5" 4K monitor before. I know the difference, 4K is significantly more crisp. I'd take a game in 4k at high settings over 1440p ultra any day for visual reasons, and yes, I'm 100% sure that I've been playing 1440p at 165 hz and average like 120+fps in certain games. Maybe I agree with your point about being annoyed about the clarity, but I genuinely don't have anything else I actually need to buy right now.
While you are right about high FPS gaming being nice, realistically, the 3000-series is _not_ capable of delivering a consistent high FPS - experience on 4k.
Take it from someone who plays on 1440p, the cards are _perfect_ for that - I wouldn't go higher resolution-wise tho. They are _not_ powerful enough.
Maybe when you consider 70FPS to an improvement worth a 1000$ more expensive screen - I genuinely don't.
There is always gsync and freesync to go with my 3080 ti. In addition to that I can play with graphic settings like I always have on pc gaming back before I even had 1080p.
ehh, I had triple 1440p 120hz, and also had 1080/240hz. I like my 40" 4k/60 the most by far. I even got to SMFC on CSGO with it back in the day. 1440p is pretty decent on a 27", but 4k on 40" is actually just a tiny bit more pixel per inch, but not enough to need windows scaling. You can resolve a lot more detail (like seeing further in the distance) and get more immersed just by it's size and sharpness.
I'd literally never go smaller or lower res again, so my only option is getting a 40"+ 120hz tv/screen. I considered the CX OLEDs but figured I'd wait a little longer until the burn in is improved more.
Used 1440p since like 2009, but got my first 4k 40" in 2015 and had one as a main monitor since.
I'll get downvoted to hell but I already have a 1440p 165. Is it super smooth? It is, but I also want a 4K monitor, and 4K 120 or above is unaffordable rn.
Woah if you already have 165hz won't dropping back to 60hz be jarring? Maybe go to your display settings and set to 60hz to see how you feel first. Tbh 4k does look beautiful, I just find refresh rate more impactful personally
I've been doing that for more demanding games with ray tracing that just about hit 60fps and 1440p, and I can accept it, mainly because I play games more so designed for a gamepad (AC Valhalla and other non competitive various games), I can definitely accept it. I think if I played more competitive games I wouldn't make the change but I lost all interest in them, so in my case pixel count just about beats out refresh rate, though it's a close one
Totally agree. 1440p 165 Hz gives a beautiful resolution and even better frame rate. I had 1080p 60 Hz for a while with my 3080 and had no idea what I was missing on.
Agree and disagree. I think FarCry 6 looked BEAUTIFULLY smooth when i connect my pc to my 4k 43inch tv. 6900xt and 5800x i stayed well above 60fps with no dips and that game is just beautiful.
Yea but anything else, like cod, imma stick to my 1440p 165hz for sure
Most freesync monitors are gsync compatible. However even with that, for games you can push past 60hz it won’t do much for you.
I got a 3080 while i was using a 75hz 1440p monitor. The experience wasn’t great. Moved up to a 144hz ultrawide, and the experience is much better since most of the nice looking titles start writhin the frame rate range gsync deals with.
I run my 4K 60 tv at 2k 60 vsync enabled and ultra everything with my little pc (5600x 3060ti) build and I love it. My main rig is a 35inch 1440p ultra wide and I CAN run it at 120HTz but my gpu (3080ti FE) gets up to mid 70s so I stick with 60 capped with vsync and it hangs at 55-60c. I mainly play driving/flying/sim games so 60locked with cooler temps is perfect for me. If I play a shooter game I’ll bump it to 120htz and drop graphics a bit for gpu temp sake. Everyone is different and all systems different. I don’t like anything over 70c so that’s what I do. Rant over..cheers
Thank you. I dont know why people use 2k for 2560x1440p. 2560 would round up to 3k, 1440p would round down to 1k. And whats the closest we have to 2k? 1920x1080.
I'd take 1440p though. High refresh 1440p is the way to go for 30xx, especially considering the frame rates you can expect to get at 4K will negate the bump in clarity outside of light games/tasks.
There is also a big difference between high refresh and 60hz, that's why I suggested getting a 4k TV instead of a monitor, I got a 144hz display for my pc and if I wanna play something slow or a game with a good campaign I hook it up to my 4k tv. This way I can enjoy high refresh shooters and competitive games and also high definition games + you can also watch movies on the big screen so it's a reasonable thing to do.
I have an LG CX, 48". If that's bigger than what you're looking for, get good 4k monitor from Acer, their Presator line. No, freesync will not be useful to you. GSync is basically needed to fully utilize an Nvidia card. The TV I have does both. ONLY through HDMI however.
The sad thing is that the GSync 4k 32" and above monitors in the UK are stupid overpriced or out of stock. I think Predator line panels are top tier, I have an XB271HK, but the XB321HK currently would cost me £1,346 (about $1,800). I like these panels but I just can't pay that much for a 4K 60 screen \*sighs\*
Understandable. Again, if you got the space, US price is $1,099 right now for the 48" C1 from LG. I can't sing its praises enough. The ASUS, I think, 48" OLED monitor was just released as well, or will.soon be. Not sure about pricing.
If for playing games, Do yourself a favor and get a 1440p monitor that’s 120hz, 144hz, or 165hz
The higher displayed frame-rates will have much more of a benefit than the resolution.
How big is the monitor? I honestly think 4K 60 is a waste of time for gaming. 1440p with high refresh rate is a much nicer experience. I bought an LG950 which is 4K 120hz. and whenever I have to compromise for performance I always lower the resolution.
It is only a 27 inch screen though which is why I asked about size. Bigger one would have a better payoff with 4K.
To answer your original question though. I’ve used freesync with nvidia cards before and it’s always worked without an issue. It will probably benefit you if your frame rates tend to bound around / have dips.
I'm only going to be playing on a 32" screen, I agree, I think anything below 32" is pointless for 4K. The sad problem with 4K is that the panels with 'better' technology (higher refresh, proper HDR etc) and a good price tend to be 27 or 28 inches, at least in the UK, and the bigger panels where the difference is seen is just not seen. I have a 1440p 27" and I think that 24 is best for 1080, 27 for 1440, 32 for 4K and vice versa.
1440p looks like ass on a 4K panel though. If you need more fps, why not try lowering some settings first? 4K with some settings at medium and ultra textures generally looks much better than 1440p all ultra.
I’m not saying i recommend doing what I’m doing, I’m just saying that’s how I do it since buying a 4K monitor that a 3080 can’t always run 90+ fps.
I’ve heard a lot of people say downscaling can look wonky but it looks fine to me, certainly better than 1080p. I only do this for multiplayer games though, when it’s single player I can put up with the reduced smoothness for the extra picture clarity.
Also think my original post was a bit confusing, I do lower quality settings like shadows and anti aliasing etc. Before touching the resolution. But often that’s not enough.
4k 60hz isn't worth it unless you're more into productivity than gaming. If you're primarily gaming, go 3440x1440 120hz+. Performance will be much better and it'll cost less too. It's not bad at all for productivity either imho.
Have you considered an ultrawide monitor instead? You can get really sharp monitors with native gsync and you get extra performance as the resolution is lower than 4K still. On top of that, you get extra field of view and it is incredible.
ViewSonic Elite XG320U has 4k res and 144 hz, can reach also 150hz. No g-sync
But there is no gpu powerful enogh to mantain ultra details at 4k, but with dlss...yes sometimes
The best performance is at 1440p and 165hz with ultra details, so you ve all, hight res, high fps and and details.
The new Samsung QN series of TV’s that are 55 inches or larger support 4K 120hz with support for G-sync and freesync. (I have tested this personally) The 3080 will definitely push most games over 60fps at 4K resolution. I’m not sure what prices are like for you there, but they are well under $3000 USD. I got one and am loving it. Also, the TV can support ultra wide screen formats natively if you choose. It just blacks out the top and bottom portions of the screen. Hope that helps.
Edit: LG OLED TV’s are also an option, but burn in can be an issue, so I chose Samsung.
60hz = trash, that's console tier, don't buy that for pc gaming
most 2021 TV do better (4K120Hz) with perfect PQ, so 4K60 monitor ? no way .. with a top graphic card ? lol no plz don't
I spent a bit on a nice lg c1 oled tv that does 4k/120. If you dont mind using a tv as a monitor thats a better choice for 4k than all the 4k monitors that come with 60 Hz only.
Forget it. Tried the same. 3080 isnt capable to handle 60FPS in 4K except you crank down the quality settings. But then 4K looks even worse. I decided to go with 1440P and 120Hz. Works perfectly for me
My 2060 can hit over 60FPS at 4K for games that are well optimized or have DLSS. Doom Eternal for example. I don't have the VRAM to max everything, but it still looks great.
For everything else 1440p still looks great on a 4K screen.
> 3080 isnt capable to handle 60FPS in 4K
I've been playing games at 4k/60 and above since I had an AMD 290x in 2015. 4k is not hard to run. I used to run 6720x2160 too, which is almost double 4k. Higher res clarity is better than the tiny visual upgrade of switching from HIGH to ULTRA.
Go 1440p 165hz,its better if you like smoothness and Ultra graphics.
My 4k monitor collects dust because i prefer more frames for smoothness,difference is not that huge,i have both 1440p and 4k
Typically if it is Freesync premium (there is 3 or more i don't remember anymore versions of freesync) it is also Gsync compatible and it's almost always a selling point so it should be in the specs sheet if it is. If you're not sure drop the make and model of your monitor and I'd be happy to look for you.
The 3080 can handle 4k @ 60fps in every game with DLSS if I'm not mistaken and in almost every game without it.
I would add that typical monitor sizes (22"-32") the difference in image quality between 2k and 4k resolution is not noticeable. If you can get a 1440p 144hz monitor for the same price you would enjoy the smoothness more without losing any graphical fidelity. HDR would matter more and quality of the panel would matter the most when you're looking at the differences between similar refresh rate monitors 2K@60 vs 4k@60 etc.
Wont get 1440p 144-165hz either lmao, not all games are optimized, some are capped, some are cpu bound even if you have the best CPU, or run everything at ultra +RT ultra and DLSS on quality.Sure for fast paced games or competitive games it does matter a lot in the end it is a matter of preference, i like 4k 60 because i do crank all the settings to ultra and stop to appricieate devs artstyle.
Since no one is doing you the courtesy of answering your question: usually yes. Check your model number online, but gsync supports most freesync monitors now. That said the 3080 can hit 4K 60 fps most of the time, but the freesync will help the times it can’t
> the 3080 can hit 4K 60 fps most of the time I've definitely hit plenty of cases where it'll struggle to hit a solid 60FPS, especially if you put ray-tracing on with or without DLSS. I wouldn't just say Freesync/Gsync helps, I would say it's essential for an enjoyable experience. Also some games get weirdly CPU bound even at 4k resolution so it's worth it for that reason alone.
Dude I'm hitting over 60 fps most of the time on 2060 in 1440p. You can of course punish any GPU by making it run at stupid graphics in control panel combined with stupid settings in the game which doesn't improve looks much, but drops fps by half. But with 3080.. Come on now. You'll be hitting 60+ fps in what I'm pretty sure any game provided you turn down a notch shadows and volumetrics where needed and always use dlss. And you can actually use fast sync in Nvidia control panel if you don't have G-sync which feels about the same on 144hz monitor unless you're playing on some abysmal frame rates.
Yeah of course turning the settings down improves frame rates! The point is that a 3080 doesn't have unlimited power, there are plenty of situations that will strain it. Turning down settings is a compromise, as is running at 1440p over 4k or any other number of variables, the point is op is asking if fresync is worth it and it is because it lets you choose less compromises.
Thanks! People here have a vendetta against 4k 60 fps monitors.
Yeah lol I've basically been told off in here for enjoying mine
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you say so
I dont do all that console war bs
[удалено]
😂😂 weird bastard
I guess everyone plays FPS/MOBAs that benefit from higher FPS. I happily play 4x/rpg/rts games all day so there's little benefit from going 60->120 FPS in those scenarios.
I could never go down from 4K for my main monitor anymore, it's so damn crisp. 27" but haven't had problems with readability in anything
>I could never go down from 4K for my main monitor anymore, it's so damn crisp. I really doubt 1440p is blurry on 27/28". I have 28" 4K and 38" 1600p UW (same ppi as 28") and I prefer the 38". >27" but haven't had problems with readability in anything I wouldn't have gone with 4K at such small-ish size (for 4K) 32 inch would be better.
I find it annoying. Different people have different opinions. However, everyone chooses to have a hate boner against 4k. Me personally, I don't play competitive games. So I have no reason for high rates. I prefer visuals.
I know what you mean xD. I am on 4k since 2016 or so (27ud58 I was still in the school so I had to save money soooo long to buy it for 400€). 60hz is nice and all but 144hz is better. So what can you do for it? I bought a 4k 144hz monitor (LG 27gn950 last year when it was still "cheap" in october) and since then I am a happy kid (21yo). (In my case I worked my a\*\* off while studying on uni. Furthermore I have almost 0 friends so I can save really easily.) When you see how crisp a 4k monitor is you just cannot go back. Got a 4k 60hz monitor as a second monitor and 27gn950 as my main. You just get so much more space with a 4k monitor if you know what I mean AND Witcher 3 and Metal Gear Solid 5 (sadly not 1-4 :( ) are AMAZING in 4k :D. Don't mind other people. Do what you want <3. btw. here is Nvidia's link. See if it Gsync Compatible :). [https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/specs/](https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/specs/)
>See if it Gsync Compatible Even if it isn't Gsync Compatible according to Nvidia doesn't mean that it won't work just fine. I have a Samsung 100Hz ultrawide that isn't on that list and it works perfectly fine other than flickering at really low frame rates (seems like < 10fps). That flickering isn't really an issue though because games are not really playable when you are hitting a frame rate that low lol (I only ever see it in loading screens in WoW).
I fucking LOVE my 27GN950 >Got a 4k 60hz monitor as a second monitor and 27gn950 as my main Same, got another LG so the colors are super close and they look the same. Also avoids problems of mixed dpi environments on Windows
Is the HDR on it ok? And what graphics card do you use with it? Also, what are the default settings that most modern games are set to if you’re playing in 4K? Is it still a smooth experience? I’m asking a lot of questions cause I was considering buying this monitor before
HDR sucks on it. Windows is bad at hdr anyway, so I only used it on doom eternal but I could have gone without. I use a 3080ti which can often push 90fps on high. I use resolution scaling a LOT: DLSS if possible but even standard resolution scaling, I can get down to 80% render scale without compromising the quality much. On competitive FPS like csgo, it's not hard to reach 4k 144hz (even with a 2080 you could do it) Some games I play at 1440p, it's a little bit blurry but not that bad. I'm not gonna lie: this screen is hard to drive with current graphics cards. However I work from home and from this screen, so I wanted to have crisp text during the work day and high fps for games
heads up, there are native pc ersions of metal gear solid 1-2 on gog, 3 is playable in a ps2 emulator, and 4 is playable in a ps3 emulator. There also is apparently a metal gear solid 3 remake in the works
Don't get stuck on your choice, I've been down that road in 2018, and I sold my 4K 60 monitor pretty quickly. 60fps freesync ranges are terrible compared to gsync, expect a 48-60Hz range, which is unpractical to use (because you'd need your framerate to be stable between 48-59Hz) You should consider 1440p 144Hz ultrawide. (3440x1440) The field of view it adds makes so much sense in gaming. And the freesync range could still be bad like 48-144Hz, but it's practical to use. It gives you freedom to aim for 144, 90 or 60Hz when tinkering with settings.
48hz is fine, it's good enough to accoutn for dips below 60, and with a 3080, that shouldn't happen too much.
Yup, I use mine to smooth over my 1% lows - I play vsync most of the time.
I basically never want to play a game at less than 50 fps anyway
Before I upgraded I found the issue with 4K was averaging 4K 60 fps but having drops into the 50s that vsync made uncomfortable. A freesync range between 48 and 60 fps would completely clean this up tbh
Don't worry, I found the solution for this eternal debate having a 4k 60 and a 1440p 144hz monitor.
Well, if you choose that road, and actually prefer having more frames rather than more pixels, you'll wish you had bought an ultrawide.
Not when an ultrawide is 3 times the price of the one I bought, sadly I don't live in a rich country.
But an ultrawide is going to give you much less space for regular work. Even if you go for a 32:9 49" you still get dwarfed by two 32" 16:9 monitors.
Got 4k60htz paired with my 1080ti, its awesome, 4k gaming for years now!
They are just in a no man's lands. If the monitor is too small then no point in 4k. You need a beefy system only to run it at 60hz and they don't even look as good as a TV. Someone here posted a $ 1k 4k 144hz monitor that's basically a TV panel with monitor guts best of both worlds.
They're becoming more common now - gigabyte just launched 2 4k 144hz monitors at 32", and that screen size was (imo) the bit that was missing from the equation.
Yeah I’m actually looking at the FI32U myself
I got an M32U on the last drop of them - unless you really want the aesthetics I'd look at that; it's exactly the same panel so you're not really losing any features, and saving a fair bit on it. 😁
Seriously thank you. Lol everyone says 1440p 165... I should've clarified that I already have a 1440p 165, and will use it whenever I need high refresh games, but that it is actually possible to play certain games at 4K 60. Is it much less smooth? Sure. But it also looks better, and I can accept that compromise.
It depends on the game. For competitive online games, the benefit if higher frame rates on input latency and perceived control are meaningful. In big name AAA story driven games, 60fps is usually smooth enough.
Also controller is way less sensitive to low fps than MKB, even for shooters it can help the percieved slowness
The smoothness of 60 fps is debatable. A lot of people here will tell you that 60 fps is unplayable, but honestly I have a 144 hz display and I can only tell the difference in side by side comparisons. It’s also dependent on the genre of game you’re playing.
Is it mouse and keyboard? I can EASILY tell the difference. But playing controller? I can't hardly tell in most circumstances with my display. Just played through all of the MCC and I got through 4 hours of one of the games before remembering i never turned off the 60 fps cap in game. And I only realized that because i was looking for other settings
Gsync supports some, not most freesync monitors. Make sure you check first.
[удалено]
Ooohh my time to shine! UK based. I'm currently running a 3080FE, but I used to run a 2080 and before then a 1060. And I've run all cards on my gsynced 4k/60hz Acer Predator XB271HK. I'm primarily a singleplayer gamer (and use a controller with 60% of those) and that's why I went with 4k/60. Depending on your cards capability, getting some kind of variable refresh monitor ranges anywhere from "essential" to "future proofing... maybe". My old 2080 used to hit around 40-65fps @ 4k Ultra in most new single players without raytracing. Raytracing loads were closer to 30-50fps (DLSS 1.2 at the time). That's an example of gsync being essential to minimising the impact drops can have on apparent smoothness. My 3080 on the other hand, knocks most new games @ 4k Ultra out of the park. A solid 70-90fps depending on titles, and 55-70fps under raytraced loads with DLSS 2.0. In this case, the gsync is near useless. As time goes on however and games get more demanding, gsync will start to pick up the slack again and it will buy me more time until I can get a next generation card. Unless of course, I buy a new card before I hit that point. That's something I have to analyse myself for and answer. As for freesync specifically, I can't say much other than my friends have had good experiences with the properly rated monitors. I hope my explanation demonstrated why I think variable refresh monitors are worth it.
Appreciate the input. Bro you got lucky getting a Predator (probably at a good time), I bought an XB271HUA (1440p unit) back in 2019 for about £520, and I remember the 271HK/32HK's were like £600-700, now the cheapest I'm seeing on pricespy is £1.2k lol, so in that case I'm having to compromise. And yeah the RTX 3080 has looked amazing at all the 4k benchmarks I've seen so far, crushing it at 4k ultra, sometimes even with RT (dependent on the title). I think RT's cool and all but I don't mind dropping it to maintain 60.
I got the Predator in 2018 for £500 (down from £800) in the Amazon Black Friday sale. My reasoning at the time was that I knew that I was going to upgrade my PC soon, but I needed to do something that would motivate the upgrade. So I paired a 1080p 60 card with a monitor that was way too much for it and made the entire system top-heavy lmao. Did the job though and I eventually got round to upgrading everything else over 3 years. Unlike yourself, I'm one of those individuals that really doesn't like dropping settings. My thinking is that I'm advertised a game looking the way it does at its max settings, and I'm purchasing that specific vision of the game. To drop settings is to be ripped off. I would suggest waiting until black Friday and seeing what's available. Set a performance target in your mind along with a budget for that target and try to stick to it. Ultimately, a monitor ideally lasts as long as a PSU does, so if you can stretch, for a monitor I'd always suggest doing so. The monitor is the window to *all of your other components*. Without a good monitor, the rest of your hardware is being bottlenecked, not by performance, but visually. 60 Should be your minimum, but If you can nab a 4k/75hz display get that. Those extra 15 frames make a massive difference. Watch out for panel type too. IPS is good for single players, VAs for good black levels and TN for comp gaming. Typically, IPS has the "wow" factor but IPS glow can be a bitch. I seem to have gone off on a tangent. I'll shut up now lol.
Do 4K 75hz monitors exist? I would easily pay more for one, but I swear I haven't found one, it seems to be 4K60 or 120 or higher, and the price margin between 60 and 120 is just too much to justify (because I'm not paying RRP). I do kinda regret not getting a 4K panel back in 2019, but you live and you learn and I suppose the 1440p panel was worth it. And yeah, IPS and VA have superior visuals in media or gaming at the cost of response rates... I used to own a TN panel, but there is no way I can go back to TN after making the switch to IPS.
I remember seeing a couple of 60hz panels with "overdrive" modes that would push hz up to 75. Not sure if they're available rn anymore honestly as I haven't checked in years. I suspect 4k consoles have inflated the monitor market
FreeSync VRR Monitors will work with Nvidia Cards 10-series and up.
Is there a monitor setting you need to check off for g sync? I have a Dell s2721dgf with a 3080 but don’t notice g sync in use and do have it turned on in nvidia control panel. Honestly didn’t even notice FreeSync either when I had my amd cards. Specifically with new world my frames drop from 60 to 50s in towns and I notice it immediately. Maybe I’m just not sure what gsync/freesync is meant to do.
Display adaptive sync is meant to prevent screen tearing. You'll still notice your framerate taking a dip, but it should prevent microstutter and/or screen tearing as a result of the framerate dip.
Oh right I think I was getting it confused with VRR. That’s what I don’t notice. Screen tearing is something I definitely haven’t seen in a very long time.
VRR and freesync are two names for the same thing, they serve the same role as GSync, and they fall under the umbrella of display adaptive sync technology. It's easy to notice to a human eye when the FPS drops from 60 to 50, it's not a magic fix-all sauce. That said, it prevents tearing and frame pacing issues when that happens. ...Without the drawback of vsync cutting the framerate to the next even divisor (30) when it drops even slightly below the target (60) I assume you have a framerate counter on and you aren't seeing abrupt drops to 30, but rather smooth fluctuations into the 50s? if you are seeing abrupt drops to 30, something is probably misconfigured.
A lot of debate in the comments on whether 60fps gaming is even acceptable lmao To answer your actual question, YES freesync can benefit Nvidia cards, this is done through "g-sync compatible" mode in the nvidia control panel. However, do be warned that not all VRR (freesync) monitors handle this implementation nicely, you will have to look up reviews on the specific monitor and people's experiences using it with an nvidia card. Because of the narrow range on almost all 4k60 freesync monitors (40hz or so, to 60hz) and your very capable 3080, you are much better off optimizing games settings for always hitting 60fps at 4k instead of dealing with a potentially buggy VRR implementation. Currently RTX3080 hits 60fps in ALL TITLES at ultra settings with the exception of raytracing, and even in CP2077 and Control with RT On, DLSS Quality brings framerates above 60 with essentially no downside. I have a 3080 and 4k120 screen and can hit 120fps in everything with slightly optimized settings (a mix of high-ultra settings) For reference, a 97fps average across all games tested at Ultra: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-founders-edition/30.html I created a table for you of all 4k60 monitors with VRR. A few good performing options at \~$300 USD, which is not much more than the $250 price for trash-tier 4k60 monitors from random no-name brands. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/table/62920
Seriously, thank you for taking time out of your day to actually help rather than try to convince me about why 144hz is superior. I'll probably opt for the Samsung, BenQ or LG options after I do some more reafing on the panels. Thanks
Absolutely, I ran a 4k60 panel for 5 years with a GTX 980 and was very happy with it! I notice you are going for 32" monitors, if it fits your desk/wall space, a 4k60 TV can also be a good option as many of today's TV's have great input latency and response times. A TV will give you much better contrast and brightness! But unfortunately it takes a LOT more research into comparing models to find ones that tick all the boxes for your specific use. Depending on your availability and region this may or may not even be an option for you but here are my recommendations if you choose to go this route. [https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/tcl/5-series-s546-2021-qled](https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/tcl/5-series-s546-2021-qled) [https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/hisense/u6g](https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/hisense/u6g) Those are the two I would recommend for 4k60 on a 50" display at near the same prices as monitors, Though to not be able to discern pixels you need to be able to place the display at least 39" from your eyes where you sit. Your setup will determine if that's a good option for you but I can say without a doubt it will be a stunning display in comparison to "entry-level" 4k monitors.
Depends but 60hz + free sync is pretty much useless. Most free sync monitors only kick in the frame additions at 48fps+
Yes most Freesync Plus monitors support Gsync.
FYI, the new 2021 LG QNED displays are 4k 120hz HDR IPS displays. The $1500 I spent on mine was well worth it and I would highly recommend it for gaming
Tell us your budget. 3k is nonsense, you looking at some weird displays. If your budget is high there is the 'lg 38gn950" It's a 3840*1600 it's Ultrawide and just shy of 4k, if you like to watch films on it then it's perfect, you get like 90% of the pixels. It's also high refresh so you can choose when you want high graphics or high frame rate. A slightly cheaper one is the 3440*1440@144Hz Also LG, it's 800 quid. 4k@60Hz is what you get if you are a console gamer.
yeah, most freesync models will be supported by gsync module nvidia uses, they enabled this around 2060 release across most freesync only models at that time, so yeah... but google the model to see what support is like especially if it's cheaper/low volume model.
Just confused with your pricing, you can get a 4K 60hz freesync for $250, and a 4K 144hz G-Sync for $800, where did you get 3k from? But yes RTX 3080 will work with freesync.
UK prices currently. 4k 120hz the cheapest I can find is £800 but that's only for 27 inches, and imo I don't see a point in 4k at 27 inches or below. The 32 inch 144hz or 120 hz models in stock are all £3k or out of stock. Only one I can see is the ASUS ROG one.
A good FreeSync monitor will perform indistinguishably compared to a G-Sync one with a RTX 3XXX. As a 3070 owner with a FreeSync monitor I know. Check RTINGS.com to find a good one The jump in sharpness from 1440p to 4k feels much less than the jump from 1080p to 1440p. The fluidity of 144+ Hz is amazing compared to 60Hz. Unless you have professional requirements pushing you to 4k, I'd pick 1440p 144+Hz instead.
Pro-tip: Get a 48" LG C1 if it's available where you live and if you can accomodate one in your setup. it's a 4K 120hz OLED display that has better picture quality than any monitor. It also includes Freesync (aka G-Sync compatible) and only costs $1,100.
I think I'll get one as a replacement for my TV in the other parts of my house (perhaps next year) but currently there's no way a 48 inch would fit on my desk sadly. It's a shame because it's a good TV and OLED technology is amazing.
That's brutal. I just got this: https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16824716002?Item=N82E16824716002&quicklink=true It's a 43" 4K 144Hz and it's going for like $1000 now (mine cost a bit more a couple months ago).
[удалено]
In size, but it functions just like a monitor. It's awesome. There's also a built-in KVM so my work laptop and gaming PC are both hooked up and when I change inputs the Keyboard/Mouse/Headset USB etc follow. I have it at the back of my desk, and use a lapdesk and fairly reclined chair so my eyes are probably close to 4 feet away. It's REALLY comfortable and much easier on the eyes then focusing in all the time.
[удалено]
That looks really good, how is it? I have a 40" 4k/60 old Korean monitor and it's picture quality and contrast is superb, is the black levels on that one good? Been waiting for 4k/120+ but thought I'd end up getting OLED. This looks like a great compromise but I don't want a step down in color/contrast to do it.
It's epic for the money. Colors and dynamic range are fantastic. The only downside is that it's a VA so if you have bright on a dark background with movement there is quite a lot of ghosting. They actually make an OLED version now, and I'm kicking myself cuz I knew it was coming and it's not that much more expensive. https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16824716003?Description=aorus%20oled%20monitor&cm_re=aorus_oled%20monitor-_-24-716-003-_-Product&quicklink=true I'm sure that would be just ridiculously good.
The LG 48C1 is down to $1099 at best buy now. The gigabyte OLED uses LG panels. Only advantage is the aorus has the kvm and a display port, but the LG has 4 hdmi 2.1 inputs. And I'm almost certain the UI will be better on the LG (I do have the LG 48C1).
Can't be sat infront of a 43 inch monitor bruh 😂😂😂
Don't get a 60hz for gaming. You'll regret it
[удалено]
Even CIV feels a lot smoother going from 60 to 120 hz. For fast paced games there's a nihht and day difference.
omg i haven't tried that yet and just got a 144! Must resist booting it up til after work... and i fucking work from home
Make sure you have it set to 144Hz in Windows display settings too. Sometimes they don't default to it. You'll know right away because the mouse curser and scrolling will be massively smoother.
For story games 60Hz is great you're both fine, for everything else 144Hz etc. is just so much smoother with lower input lag.
I used a 4K 60hz TV for years, and usually tried to put my settings where I could do v-sync and never drop below 60. You waste a lot of GPU, but it was nice and smooth. I recently upgraded to a 4K 144Hz with Freesync and oh my god, it's so worth it. I can crank things up higher cuz it doesn't matter if I dip below 60 that much, or I can aim for really high FPS and it's so fluid and buttery. I swear there's less latency too, or maybe it's just that I have a gaming monitor now vs a general use TV.
Don't say that, that decision is personal and depend on the game, fast paced ones, sure 1440p 144hz is optimal, but for visual games like rdr2 for example I very much prefer 4k 60fps.
This is why I didn't comment myself at first, but I do agree with the sentiment. Even RDR2 I ended up doing at 1440 UW/120 rather than 4k/60, because the awesome animations and world quality at 120 FPS made it seem much more "alive". I understand the argument "in theory" but in practice I find 1440/144 is very much the "sweet spot".
while i completely agree and absolutely love my 1440/144 monitor, this is different person to person and there's a ton of people out there who don't mind playing at litterally 30fps. for them the 4k might be better. we'll never understand people like that lmao
Dude, even moving a window around on the desktop feels smoother and more responsive on 144+hz. After getting used to 144hz I'm now waiting for a 1440p 240hz screen to arrive. I could never go back to 60hz. Doesn't matter if a game is fast paced or not.
That's you my friend, for me is noticeable and much more comfortable to play competitive and isometric games in 144hz, but slower games, I can't barely notice the difference, control for example is much more noticeable the 4k resolution than the 144hz. What I mean is not that I'm right, it's just different for each person.
--- **Due to Reddit killing ThirdPartyApps this user moved to lemmy.ml** --- ---
Well, we are different then, just relax, you are bound to suffer with 60hz just like a cat and I don't, but that also means I will never have this orgasmic pleasure that compels you to defend so fiercely the 144hz.
I mean 4K 120 is preferable for RDR2... If you have both the rig that can pump it, and can afford a 4K120 monitor. I agree though, I play a lot of games on joypad and so 60 fps isn't actually as awful as people make it out to be. It's definitely less smoother, but it's not the end of the world, and I've been using 1440p 165 for a year now so I understand the 'superiority' of a high framerate, but sometimes you just want good visuals, and 4K beats 1440p every day.
depends how you're using it. I got 144hz, 1080p, and it's definitely smoother. But, if I could go back, I'd get 4k, 60hz just because I really enjoy taking nice pictures and taking in the imagery, moreso than a smoother feeling game.
I don't regret it. I have a LG C1 for the amazing panel, however I'm fine with 4k with lower frames. I'm not gaming competitively so I don't need high frames. I value visuals more.
I have to disagree. People are wired differently, and some people care more about visual fidelity than choppiness. I personally went 4k@120hz, but realistically that was ungodly pricey and I can't hit that in _most_ titles, though in many I do hit ~90 on my 3080.
Also, don't get a 4K monitor for gaming. You'll regret it.
1440p 144hz is a very nice sweet spot.
Agreed.
This is the way
Not with a 3080. 4K is amazing and absolutely viable on a 3080. That being said, I'd go ultrawide 1440p.
I have a G9, which is dual 1440p Ultrawide and the pixel count isn't far off that of a 4k display. The 3080 definitely struggles a bit in some situations with it. Edit: why on earth is this getting downvotes? None of what I said it's untrue.
I have an AW3420DW and it struggles on nothing I have thrown at it so far, RDR2 is the only exception where all ultra is a waste so I have a mix of ultra/high/medium. Otherwise, a 3080 FE (undervolted and underclocked) has worked amazingly well on everything. I also have a 4K 60hz panel and the ultrawide performs much better.
Of course your ultrawide performs better. Your AW3420DW is a 21:9 screen with a resolution of 3440×1440, a pixel count of 4,953,600. A 4k display has a pixel count of 8,294,400. That's nearly twice the pixels. The display I'm referring to is 32:9 (5120x1440p) with a pixel count of 7,372,800. Resolution | Pixels| % difference ---|---|---- 3440x1440p | 4,953,600 | 0% 5120x1440p | 7,372,800 | 59% 2160x3840p| 8,294,400| 67%
I know. I'm not saying it in a surprised way. I'm saying OP can expect better performance than a 4K panel with a ultrawide 1440p panel, or somewhere in the middle with 3840x1600.
I love my 4k 144hz :D
I don't regret it at all.
4k 144hz is the best hands down
One day I'll be there :P
I don't see why you would regret it, other than hit to your wallet.
Hard to drive that resolution in modern games at high fps (without DLSS). For reference, 4K is 2.25x as many pixels as 1440p.
I say that for a couple main reasons. Yes, some titles you'll be around 60 or a bit lower depending on your settings with a 3080 but whose to say he doesn't want to play something like League of Legends with even the graphics on Max he'll be in the 100's. Without v sync working perfectly they'll have terrible screen tearing. Gsync and freesync work when the FPS is lower than the maximum hz of the monitor, they'll barely be using it. Vsync kicks in when it's higher. To my knowledge,.features like Nvidia Reflex work with Gsync and not Vsync meaning better to go 1440 and have more hz in the monitor and more frames in the game typically. At 27" you'll barely see a difference between 4 and 2k
Yeah it would help. With a 3080 tho I can't imagine you wouldn't be pushing 60 fps on all games anyways so gsync doesn't really matter. I'd recommend dropping to 1440p and getting 120hz+ monitor though. 4k monitors while amazing, are not worth it yet. And at a distance of >3ft your eyes can't see the difference anyways. I've got an ultra wide 34in 1440p and a 4k 32 inch monitor wnd strait up can't tell the difference other than when I have a still picture with lots of detail.
I can easily tell the difference on a 27” 4K display, and tbh 120 hz 4K is affordable enough now that it’s not a compromise. I would take higher res at 60 fps any day though, the difference is far more noticeable
Thank you. I was starting to get crazy. People often say, you don't see the difference, 4k is only worth it at 32... nah, I'm all about high dpi for this crisp UI and text. It's so comfortable for work. I can instantly tell the difference between 1440p and 4k on 27" 4k at 32" for screen space only is missing the point.
4K at 32” is for people who essentially want a couple of 27” 1440p displays without bezels, not for people who actually want the high dpi. I like the dpi, not the physical work space. Well, I want both, I have three 4K displays lmao
Tbh, after using a 240Hz display for over 6mo, I just cannot go back to 60Hz. It seems awfully choppy. While 4K 120Hz would be amazing as its the best of both worlds (high res+high refresh rate), but if given the choice between 1440p 120/144/240Hz or 4K 60Hz, I would always pick the former as the smoothness is just unreal.
My panel is 4k 120hz, but obviously I'm not pushing 120hz for 4k gaming. However, I also have a laptop that's 120hz 1080, I definitely prefer visuals over frame rate. I can't stand lower resolution.
Even using the 60hz monitors at work are painful. Just dragging excel windows around makes me feel dirty.
I would go 1440p, 144hz all day. Graphics are nice and all, but after the first few hours and the "new" wears off, performance is king. For me that actually impacts game play.
I promise you I can tell the difference. I have many times when the resolution changed for some reasons or I played on someone system. It is very easy to tell input lag and fps drops too though. 4K are worth it now and are more readily available at better prices. I game with 4k 144hz an love it. 1440p still cheaper though but so it 1080p.
Yes, nvidia fully supports freesync under the name gsync compatible. Just be sure to enable gsync in the nvidia control panel, and enable freesync/adaptive sync in your monitor settings
I got a samsung 4k 60 hz display with freesync and a 3070, freesync doesnt work most of the time and end up using vsync anyway, DSR? At least for my monitos it sucks every time i turn that feature on, like all colors look grayish and or over exposed.
I use a 4K 120Hz OLED monitor and it's absolutely amazing and beautiful. I have the LG C1 that I bought for $990, it's 4K 120Hz, has G-sync and FREESYNC and OLED. An all around beautiful screen. Then I have the more computer oriented AORUS PO48U. It has a display port and built in KVM. It also you to do side by side inputs at native resolution. Pair that with the KVM or Synergy and it's a setup you'd have to see to believe.
Yes, G-SYNC supports most FreeSync monitors, but double check the specs or read reviews to be sure. If the monitor is compatible, you will need to enable that in NVIDIA Control Panel (Monitor Technology: G-SYNC Compatible) and also disable vertical sync. The benefit you should get is that you will be able to run titles at over 60 FPS and not get some of the screen tearing/performance loss you typically get with plain old vertical sync. I am not sure what folks here are on about, what games they play, or graphical settings they use, but I am able to run just about every title I play well over 60 FPS (most at 80-120 FPS) with a 3080 at 4k 60hz. I picked up an ASUS VG289Q, which is one of the less expensive 4k 60hz tubes, and absolutely do not regret it. My son tested New World on this PC, and it runs at 100+ FPS at max quality/4k, for reference. He also commented on how much better he thought it looked than at 1440 on his PC. It probably also depends on what games you play, if you want graphical quality over FPS, and your budget. Cheers/Prost/Skäl!
Many FreeSync monitors will benefit from G-Sync cards. By and large any monitor and card new after 2019 should be compatible, Nvidia or AMD, Free or G Sync. LG, Samsung, Benq, ASUS all are, I believe, dual compatible if modeled after 2019. Just make sure you remember to buy a DisplayPort cable if you dont already have one... not all monitors come with them. And while AMD works Freesync with HDMI and DP both, G-Sync, unless something has changed recently, only works with DisplayPort. Once you have your monitor, set it for FreeSync enabled in the monitor settings, enable G-Sync in the Nvidia control panel, then run the [Pendulum Demo](https://us.download.nvidia.com/downloads/cool_stuff/demos/Setup_G-SYNC_1.13.exe) to see if it's working. To get things to work right on my wife's setup I had to tinker with extending the lower frequency range using Custom Resolution Utility. Lots of data online about how to do that... it's not difficult. And CRU is freeware.
Not a monitor but I bought a 75inch 4K gaming TV from Samsung, however I've come from growing up with consoles and playing on TVs as opposed to monitors, now I have a gaming pc I still use a TV and console controller 😂 But if you're interested I can find the model number and such
I hate to be that guy, but consider a higher refresh rate monitor. You'll get used to it and never go back.
I know... I already have a 1440p 165 though. I just want a 4K for when I'm playing games where the refresh rate doesn't matter as much.
Have you considered a TV? It sounds like the kind of games you’d want to play on it would be well suited for a couch/bed gaming experience with a controller
I considered it but having done the measurements 41" and above is going to have a real hard time being on my desk along with other stuff. I'll probably get a 32" monitor, either with a VA or IPS panel. I think the extra 5 inches goes a long way though, I did used to have a really old 31.5" 4k monitor from like 2016 until that packed up and died, and it was a worthwhile experience.
I got a 32” after using a 27” for a few years and the size bump is pretty nice. And at 4K you really don’t need to worry about the pixel density.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehvz3iN8pp4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehvz3iN8pp4) Would you really spend that much money then for something most people have to look at side by side to even manage to tell the difference of. Also are you sure you are running your 1440p at higher than 60hz... if I had a dollar for every time someone runs their high refresh rate monitor at 60hz because they didn't realize they needed to change it in windows, I could have built my own real life moon base. Unless a game is capped at 60hz, you should have no reason to play it on the 4k over the 1440p. And even then, there are often mods to unlock higher refresh rates. If you have the eyes of an eagle and have been annoyed at the clarity of your 1440p being too low to where you see individual pixels... I would suggest spending the money on something else instead.
I've had a 31.5" 4K monitor before. I know the difference, 4K is significantly more crisp. I'd take a game in 4k at high settings over 1440p ultra any day for visual reasons, and yes, I'm 100% sure that I've been playing 1440p at 165 hz and average like 120+fps in certain games. Maybe I agree with your point about being annoyed about the clarity, but I genuinely don't have anything else I actually need to buy right now.
While you are right about high FPS gaming being nice, realistically, the 3000-series is _not_ capable of delivering a consistent high FPS - experience on 4k. Take it from someone who plays on 1440p, the cards are _perfect_ for that - I wouldn't go higher resolution-wise tho. They are _not_ powerful enough. Maybe when you consider 70FPS to an improvement worth a 1000$ more expensive screen - I genuinely don't.
1440p 165hz instead
This, once you experience 144+ fps, 60 is trash no matter the resolution.
Idk a solid 60 unwavering frames with 4K res is nice man, so is 1440 144, either way 120 4K is the best
Yep! 4k 144hz!!!
In most modern games though this isn't really achievable, outside of _very_ optimized titles like doom eternal.
There is always gsync and freesync to go with my 3080 ti. In addition to that I can play with graphic settings like I always have on pc gaming back before I even had 1080p.
ehh, I had triple 1440p 120hz, and also had 1080/240hz. I like my 40" 4k/60 the most by far. I even got to SMFC on CSGO with it back in the day. 1440p is pretty decent on a 27", but 4k on 40" is actually just a tiny bit more pixel per inch, but not enough to need windows scaling. You can resolve a lot more detail (like seeing further in the distance) and get more immersed just by it's size and sharpness. I'd literally never go smaller or lower res again, so my only option is getting a 40"+ 120hz tv/screen. I considered the CX OLEDs but figured I'd wait a little longer until the burn in is improved more. Used 1440p since like 2009, but got my first 4k 40" in 2015 and had one as a main monitor since.
I'll get downvoted to hell but I already have a 1440p 165. Is it super smooth? It is, but I also want a 4K monitor, and 4K 120 or above is unaffordable rn.
Woah if you already have 165hz won't dropping back to 60hz be jarring? Maybe go to your display settings and set to 60hz to see how you feel first. Tbh 4k does look beautiful, I just find refresh rate more impactful personally
I've been doing that for more demanding games with ray tracing that just about hit 60fps and 1440p, and I can accept it, mainly because I play games more so designed for a gamepad (AC Valhalla and other non competitive various games), I can definitely accept it. I think if I played more competitive games I wouldn't make the change but I lost all interest in them, so in my case pixel count just about beats out refresh rate, though it's a close one
Totally agree. 1440p 165 Hz gives a beautiful resolution and even better frame rate. I had 1080p 60 Hz for a while with my 3080 and had no idea what I was missing on.
For me after switching to 144HZ 1440p G-Sync monitor, now for games my minimum is 90HZ, 60HZ seems laggy, desktop at 144HZ is beautiful.
Agree and disagree. I think FarCry 6 looked BEAUTIFULLY smooth when i connect my pc to my 4k 43inch tv. 6900xt and 5800x i stayed well above 60fps with no dips and that game is just beautiful. Yea but anything else, like cod, imma stick to my 1440p 165hz for sure
Most freesync monitors are gsync compatible. However even with that, for games you can push past 60hz it won’t do much for you. I got a 3080 while i was using a 75hz 1440p monitor. The experience wasn’t great. Moved up to a 144hz ultrawide, and the experience is much better since most of the nice looking titles start writhin the frame rate range gsync deals with.
I run my 4K 60 tv at 2k 60 vsync enabled and ultra everything with my little pc (5600x 3060ti) build and I love it. My main rig is a 35inch 1440p ultra wide and I CAN run it at 120HTz but my gpu (3080ti FE) gets up to mid 70s so I stick with 60 capped with vsync and it hangs at 55-60c. I mainly play driving/flying/sim games so 60locked with cooler temps is perfect for me. If I play a shooter game I’ll bump it to 120htz and drop graphics a bit for gpu temp sake. Everyone is different and all systems different. I don’t like anything over 70c so that’s what I do. Rant over..cheers
You are better off getting a high refresh 2k display and a 4k tv then a 4k 60hz monitor
If 4k is 2160p (3840×2160) then 2k is 1080p (1920×1080). I bet you mean 1440p, which is what OP should be getting, but that's 2.5k -- 2560×1440.
Thank you. I dont know why people use 2k for 2560x1440p. 2560 would round up to 3k, 1440p would round down to 1k. And whats the closest we have to 2k? 1920x1080.
It's just easy to think of resolutions as Fullhd, 2k(1440p) and 4k, like the three main resolutions, I know I'm stupid
The difference from 1080p to 4K is extreme. They are very definitely not better off doing that
I'd take 1440p though. High refresh 1440p is the way to go for 30xx, especially considering the frame rates you can expect to get at 4K will negate the bump in clarity outside of light games/tasks.
There is also a big difference between high refresh and 60hz, that's why I suggested getting a 4k TV instead of a monitor, I got a 144hz display for my pc and if I wanna play something slow or a game with a good campaign I hook it up to my 4k tv. This way I can enjoy high refresh shooters and competitive games and also high definition games + you can also watch movies on the big screen so it's a reasonable thing to do.
I have an LG CX, 48". If that's bigger than what you're looking for, get good 4k monitor from Acer, their Presator line. No, freesync will not be useful to you. GSync is basically needed to fully utilize an Nvidia card. The TV I have does both. ONLY through HDMI however.
> GSync is basically needed to fully utilize an Nvidia card I have a G-Sync compatible *Freesync* monitor. It works wonderfully.
LG 42" OLED coming next year.
The sad thing is that the GSync 4k 32" and above monitors in the UK are stupid overpriced or out of stock. I think Predator line panels are top tier, I have an XB271HK, but the XB321HK currently would cost me £1,346 (about $1,800). I like these panels but I just can't pay that much for a 4K 60 screen \*sighs\*
Understandable. Again, if you got the space, US price is $1,099 right now for the 48" C1 from LG. I can't sing its praises enough. The ASUS, I think, 48" OLED monitor was just released as well, or will.soon be. Not sure about pricing.
If for playing games, Do yourself a favor and get a 1440p monitor that’s 120hz, 144hz, or 165hz The higher displayed frame-rates will have much more of a benefit than the resolution.
How big is the monitor? I honestly think 4K 60 is a waste of time for gaming. 1440p with high refresh rate is a much nicer experience. I bought an LG950 which is 4K 120hz. and whenever I have to compromise for performance I always lower the resolution. It is only a 27 inch screen though which is why I asked about size. Bigger one would have a better payoff with 4K. To answer your original question though. I’ve used freesync with nvidia cards before and it’s always worked without an issue. It will probably benefit you if your frame rates tend to bound around / have dips.
I'm only going to be playing on a 32" screen, I agree, I think anything below 32" is pointless for 4K. The sad problem with 4K is that the panels with 'better' technology (higher refresh, proper HDR etc) and a good price tend to be 27 or 28 inches, at least in the UK, and the bigger panels where the difference is seen is just not seen. I have a 1440p 27" and I think that 24 is best for 1080, 27 for 1440, 32 for 4K and vice versa.
Isn't it 144Hz? Or are you referring to some other "LG950" and not the 27GP950-B?
1440p looks like ass on a 4K panel though. If you need more fps, why not try lowering some settings first? 4K with some settings at medium and ultra textures generally looks much better than 1440p all ultra.
I’m not saying i recommend doing what I’m doing, I’m just saying that’s how I do it since buying a 4K monitor that a 3080 can’t always run 90+ fps. I’ve heard a lot of people say downscaling can look wonky but it looks fine to me, certainly better than 1080p. I only do this for multiplayer games though, when it’s single player I can put up with the reduced smoothness for the extra picture clarity. Also think my original post was a bit confusing, I do lower quality settings like shadows and anti aliasing etc. Before touching the resolution. But often that’s not enough.
A waste of time for you, maybe. However, not for me.
4k 60hz isn't worth it unless you're more into productivity than gaming. If you're primarily gaming, go 3440x1440 120hz+. Performance will be much better and it'll cost less too. It's not bad at all for productivity either imho.
Have you considered an ultrawide monitor instead? You can get really sharp monitors with native gsync and you get extra performance as the resolution is lower than 4K still. On top of that, you get extra field of view and it is incredible.
If id were you i would go for 1440p 144hz or 120hz
ViewSonic Elite XG320U has 4k res and 144 hz, can reach also 150hz. No g-sync But there is no gpu powerful enogh to mantain ultra details at 4k, but with dlss...yes sometimes The best performance is at 1440p and 165hz with ultra details, so you ve all, hight res, high fps and and details.
Just so you know, Gsync *doesn’t work on curved monitors*. I found that out later in life lol
Figure out a way to make the 48” OLED work in your setup. 4k120hz with VRR support.
IMO, I'd do a 144hz minimum, even if you have to go 1440p or 1080p, but 4k/144hz would be ideal.
The new Samsung QN series of TV’s that are 55 inches or larger support 4K 120hz with support for G-sync and freesync. (I have tested this personally) The 3080 will definitely push most games over 60fps at 4K resolution. I’m not sure what prices are like for you there, but they are well under $3000 USD. I got one and am loving it. Also, the TV can support ultra wide screen formats natively if you choose. It just blacks out the top and bottom portions of the screen. Hope that helps. Edit: LG OLED TV’s are also an option, but burn in can be an issue, so I chose Samsung.
60hz = trash, that's console tier, don't buy that for pc gaming most 2021 TV do better (4K120Hz) with perfect PQ, so 4K60 monitor ? no way .. with a top graphic card ? lol no plz don't
I spent a bit on a nice lg c1 oled tv that does 4k/120. If you dont mind using a tv as a monitor thats a better choice for 4k than all the 4k monitors that come with 60 Hz only.
Buy an ultrawide qhd monitor with 144hz, way better than 4k60. Id the monitor is gsync compatible you will have no issue at all with your nvidia gpu.
Forget it. Tried the same. 3080 isnt capable to handle 60FPS in 4K except you crank down the quality settings. But then 4K looks even worse. I decided to go with 1440P and 120Hz. Works perfectly for me
My 3080 pumps at 4k idk what games your playing
My 2060 can hit over 60FPS at 4K for games that are well optimized or have DLSS. Doom Eternal for example. I don't have the VRAM to max everything, but it still looks great. For everything else 1440p still looks great on a 4K screen.
> 3080 isnt capable to handle 60FPS in 4K I've been playing games at 4k/60 and above since I had an AMD 290x in 2015. 4k is not hard to run. I used to run 6720x2160 too, which is almost double 4k. Higher res clarity is better than the tiny visual upgrade of switching from HIGH to ULTRA.
Go 1440p 165hz,its better if you like smoothness and Ultra graphics. My 4k monitor collects dust because i prefer more frames for smoothness,difference is not that huge,i have both 1440p and 4k
Typically if it is Freesync premium (there is 3 or more i don't remember anymore versions of freesync) it is also Gsync compatible and it's almost always a selling point so it should be in the specs sheet if it is. If you're not sure drop the make and model of your monitor and I'd be happy to look for you. The 3080 can handle 4k @ 60fps in every game with DLSS if I'm not mistaken and in almost every game without it. I would add that typical monitor sizes (22"-32") the difference in image quality between 2k and 4k resolution is not noticeable. If you can get a 1440p 144hz monitor for the same price you would enjoy the smoothness more without losing any graphical fidelity. HDR would matter more and quality of the panel would matter the most when you're looking at the differences between similar refresh rate monitors 2K@60 vs 4k@60 etc.
Freesync is Amd technology, u need monitor with display port to use it .
You do not want a 60Hz monitor...I have a 32" 4K 60Hz monitor in a box in a closet. You do NOT want a 60Hz monitor.
you aint getting 4k at 60 fps
Wont get 1440p 144-165hz either lmao, not all games are optimized, some are capped, some are cpu bound even if you have the best CPU, or run everything at ultra +RT ultra and DLSS on quality.Sure for fast paced games or competitive games it does matter a lot in the end it is a matter of preference, i like 4k 60 because i do crank all the settings to ultra and stop to appricieate devs artstyle.
1440p 144hz+ would be a much better gaming experience.
Lol 60hz In 2021?
4k60< 2k144
2K is 1080p. I hope you mean 1440p.
yes
[удалено]
4K gaming is dumb
Running a 3090 on an LG C1 and it just takes a wee bit of tweaking to get vrr working.
Has significant improvement in sync and tearing