Last year, when I was first exposed to NVIDIA’s G-SYNC technology, I turned to one of our contacts at the company and said, “The moment someone comes out with a nice 4K version, I’ll hand over my credit card”. At the time, I had been riding along on a 30” HP display with a resolution of 2560x1600, and quite frankly, was itching to upgrade. After all, smartphones and tablets were already available with high-resolution screens that put the pixel densities of typical PC displays to shame. And after years of upgrading every other part of my personal workstation (multiple times), I was yearning for something new. There really wasn’t anything better available at the time, though. Save for a smattering of relatively small, 3K and 4K laptop displays, we haven’t quite gotten to the same type of pixel densities available on today’s high-end ultra-mobile devices, but thankfully the display space has really heated up as of late. 4K displays have generated a large part of the excitement, and today, we can show you the first one that supports NVIDIA’s G-SYNC technology, the 28” Acer XB280HK...
Acer XB280HK 4K G-SYNC Gaming Monitor Review
Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your HotHardware Forums forum account, or Register a new forum account.
I'm on an Overlord Computer 27" 1440p OC @ 112hz and I love it. It's an ips and the high refresh rate is great. The next obvious step for an upgrade is 4k, and it's nice to see prices coming down but even with gsync I wouldn't buy a 60hz display. I'm still waiting on a 4k 90hz minimum display. Sure 120-144hz would be good but I seriously doubt any non outrageous GPU setup could run games at 4k over 90hz anyways.
Even if some games had trouble running at 90Hz+ at 4K, the higher refresh rate is awesome when just working / computing at the desktop. Mouse movements are so smooth and fluid (if you've got a good mouse) and everything from simple animations to dragging windows is nicer.
G-SYNC still has many benefits @ 60Hz though. If you're running games that can't sustain 60 FPS, which can be common at 4K, minimizing stutter and lag is a good deal.
I'll be waiting until 4k with 120-144hz screens are out at a decent price. With the way things are going now next year we should a big stream of them coming in with competitive prices.
I need that 120+hz as well. I don't think I could go down to 60hz even for 4k.
I want a 30-inch, 4K 90Hz display with G-Sync. 120 would be even better. And I want it for no more than $1K. I'm not asking for much. :)
Similar to other responses, I'll be waiting for the higher refresh rate simply because I want a jump in technology in multiple areas to justify the price. I have a feeling I don't know what I'm missing though. As someone who runs multiple demanding apps simultaneously with multiple browsers open, the screen real-estate will be very welcome without having to add monitors to an existing array.
Higher refresh rates would be awesome, but no single graphics cards exist that would be able to play games at 4K anywhere near 120 or even 60 FPS. 30 at best assuming u were lucky enough to pick up one of the new 980 GTX cards b4 they all went out of stock.I'm more concerned about the fact that this is a TN panel. I dropped $400 on a monoprice IPS display last year and nothing short of an IPS panel will get me to upgrade despite the alluring G-Sync tech.
A pair of 780 Tis in SLI should get you pretty playable frame rates, I would think. But yes, IPS for sure.
you're probably right about the SLI 780's but I've never done that with my rigs. SLI offers great performance gains but I could never justify spending 1K on graphics cards. Especially when u consider that when the next latest and greatest thing comes out in a year u now have two cards that are outdated instead of one. I just don't have the budget to invest in something like that sadly. Besides I want that VXGI, DSR and MFAA the Maxwell architecture will provide. 780's are so 2000 and late :P Sorta disappointed about the 28nm size though. Was looking forward to the 22nm. Actually let's skip that at this point and go straight to 14nm.
G-sync VS none G-sync 120-144hz monitors hmm...
I don't notice any screen tearing at 144 or higher with my Benq.
Not to mention, what kind of hardware do you need to push 4k at 120-144hz?
So a what we all really want is greater than 24", H-IPS or PLS panel, 4k resolution, color LED backlighting, very low response time, 120~144hz speed, with dynamic refresh rate (hopefully the open standard that works with all video cards), for under $1k.
@InfinityzeN1 Is that TOO much to ask : )
You clearly lack even a basic understanding of how 'gsync' functions.
At absolutely NO time does gsync reduce input latency (or any other form of latency). You are completely misrepresenting the undeniable and clearly documented (document with 'gsync', too) fact that adding additional scalar(s) will ALWAYS increase input latency.
Now, as very few of you seem to understand the way gsync functions vs. vsync, vsync is not constantly applying additional latency as you see from an added scalar, vsync's input latency it's fully reliant on your ability to generate frames more quickly than the refresh rate. In other words, vsync is relative, gsync is constant and unavoidable added input latency.
You seem to have glossed over the fact that ALL gsync monitors have clearly measurable increased input latency that can indeed be felt very easily.
I wonder how and exactly why you've managed to ignore, fail to notice or intentionally decided not to mention these clear deficiencies brought on by using additional scalar(s) for a 'problem' that can easily be addressed through consortium-based efforts, WITHOUT significantly increasing costs to consumers.
This 'review' seriously lacks integrity.