Cold not 120hz

I didn't know that.

Now you have to choose the right monitor for the GPU you have. It makes things difficult for me to choose a new GPU but saying that, the premium for GSync monitors could put people off buying NVIDIA GPU's.

The thing about GSYNC and 30 hz is that below 30 hz it doubles the frames so it still does variable refresh.

So, the limit on single frame refresh is 30, but then it doubles frames, and then at 20 fps, it triples frames, etc etc...

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Dissecting-G-Sync-and-FreeSync-How-Technologies-Differ

That should help.

So, below 30hz is no problem. GSYNC handles that and by doubling it allows for the rest of the tech to continue to use adaptive refresh, giving a smoothed experience all the way down. FreeSync doesn't do this doubling/tripling/quad... etc.

Even the best GSync monitors only go down to 30/35Hz. The Asus PG279Q for example, and that's over £700.
The Asus MG279Q FreeSync monitor can go down to 35Hz with less headroom but it's closer to £450 and the range could be increased as well, if you're into that sort of thing. The former has a much higher top-end but something like £250/300 more...
The BenQ XL2730Z FreeSync monitor, same size and resolution as the others mentioned for £450 with a range of 40-144Hz.

60-75Hz is very limited here but very capable if you have a GPU that allow for 60FPS+, as said earlier, you can try increase it to something like 50-75Hz, to get more out of the monitor. If you don't want to or not able to, then it's probably not for you, spend a bit more on a better monitor if that's the case. The AOC G2460PF FreeSync monitor for example, supposedly 48-144Hz with an update later to support down to 35Hz. Just over £200.

One thing I've noticed. It seems with GSync monitors they're more reluctant to mention the range. Don't let that fool you though.

I have yet to see a FreeSync monitor without a limiting adaptive sync range. The most common limits seen are 40-60 or 45-90. This 60-75 is terrible.

I don't know if the tech will get better as it's hard to tell just how much it would cost to run a FreeSync monitor at the full range of a monitor.

Perhaps G-Sync is as expensive as it is in comparison because they offer the full range? (Probably not, it's likely a combination of proprietary and a better controller).

Either way, caution is advised here. This is fledgling hardware that isn't as robust as G-Sync right now.

For 100 quid, is it worth picking up this monitor? I'm leaning to no.

Let's not forget, the discussion started when you were blaming AMD for hard coding limited adaptive-sync ranges on FreeSync monitors when in fact it's not them that do. It's AOC, Acer, etc. That was the original point. It's now turned into something else.

What am I disagreeing with? Risks when overclocking? There's always a risk, I never said there wasn't. The fact that you're talking about FreeSync as if this was the only monitor available that supports it is concerning.

Overclocking any hardware has it's risks, I don't see the problem here. It's a cheap FreeSync monitor, probably the cheapest. Not all FreeSync monitors have this kind of adaptive-sync range. The technology will only get better.

I don't think this is the take away from the conversation. I am, and will, be concerned about this AMD technology that is both new and unproven.

If you don't want to agree with my points, specifically, 'hacking' a monitor to get it within remotely reasonable Hzs.. Then we can stop talking! I want others to realize this is a risky purchase and should have that knowledge available.

I don't think FreeSync is for you.

The side effect of overclocking is reduced life span. If you want to be pedantic, you can call it 'effect' or 'side effect' does it matter?

You hope there is a controller that prevents you from breaking it? That's a big hope as you can overvolt graphics cards quite easily and break them.

There has been plenty of development in a very old technology (Graphics Cards) and yet you can break them easily while overclocking them.

So, do you think a brand new tech will be safe to tweak? I don't.

FreeSync and GSync are new technologies, they'll improve quickly we should hope.
The FreeSync implementation was to be as unrestricted as possible because to be regulated, it would cost more.
Adaptive-sync is a VESA standard, so if anyone's to blame it's them.

The thing I meant about iOS and Android is that Apple being NVIDIA in this case, things are done in house, the technology/hardware is designed for the software and vice versa, so it works as it should. Were as you can get a bunch of Android devices that don't run very well but not because of Android (in most cases), but because of the hardware/software changes and the design choices the handset manufacturer made, so FreeSync will have a similar fragmentation as Android. It's not a good thing but like I said, it's a new technology.

We don't know of any side effects to modifying the range. It's a bit like overclocking a monitor or even a GPU for example, it depends how much headroom the hardware has.
If the controller is capable of 50-75Hz, then it will work at that range, if not, it won't be side effects you'll experience, more like effects. And even then. I'd hope the controller has a safety mechanism to prevent it going beyond what the hardware is capable of (not what AOC set in the EDID).

That's my point, this is a major flaw in the design of FreeSync, to allow implementations so poor as to only call it FreeSync for revenue.

This AOC monitor is only being considered because it has FreeSync on it. Without FreeSync, it'd be ignored. But the FreeSync on this one is so entirely gimped (60-75hz) it's almost just a sticker on the window.

I'm worried that FreeSync is not a very good standard and you don't know what you are getting when someone calls their monitor "FreeSync capable".

You almost need a secondary label, "FreeSync, with decent refresh rates".

The Apple/Android thing is a reasonable comparison, but in this case, the Apple product is actually superior, where as in Android versus Apple, you can get the same quality for less.

So my concern is that they added the bear minimum for FreeSync and there is a high chance that 'hacking' it will cause it to fail fairly quickly.

GSync is not the same as FreeSync. NVIDIA have much more control over the hardware that's released, and it shows in the premium you pay for it.

It is a cheap monitor.

FreeSync monitors are facing these limitations because of what I said above. There's no strict control over the hardware like with GSync. The royalties, etc, isn't there with FreeSync, it's a bit like the iOS and Android situation. You will see similar fragmentation because it's much less controlled.

FreeSync has flaws, of course it does.

Yep, I just purchased myself.
I'm spending a small fortune on Ebay tonight.
LOL

I'm confused, are you saying the monitor would cost 88 quid after the CUKFLASH rebate?

Again, you continue with the flawed starter for 10 that I'm not understanding something. You are seriously missing out here. Don't bother replying with "But you just don't get it!" It's becoming a bit of a joke.

Similar monitors are capable of any resolution GSYNC. Even under 30 hz (by doubling).

60-75 hz is a horrendously gimped refresh rate, but perhaps its because it's a cheap monitor?

But why are the 600+ freesync monitors facing similar limitations? There has been no explanation from AMD why there are no monitors that support FreeSync at a robust range!

Also, are you willing to accept the limitations of FreeSync?

NVIDIA G-Sync versus AMD FreeSync

GSYNC Pros

Included ULMB Blur Reduction mode
Low processing lag since no scalers included
NVIDIA has larger graphics card market share than AMD
Very few bugs or issues with G-sync operation since introduction

FreeSync Pros

Very low cost to implement
Multiple interface options can still be provided
Scalers can still be provided
Vsync on/off option for frequencies out of supported FreeSync range
Some very minor performance benefits over G-sync

GSYNC Cons

Cost premium to add G-sync module
Limited connectivity interfaces at present (expected to change)
Lack of scaler support

FreeSync Cons
No integrated blur reduction mode
Possible additional processing lag added by scalers
Some early teething problems with FreeSync affecting overdrive circuits on monitors.

If anybody is interested in this monitor I found a an Ebay seller offering these for £108.36 delivered.
Use Voucher Code (at least this is what I used) - CUKFLASH for 20% OFF until 10PM..

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/381443609721?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

Personally I decided to upgrade my Intel 4460 to a 4790K.

Bagged it for £200.
:-)

Let's put this another way as you're not understanding it. HDMI 1.4 specification was released in May, 2009 which supports UHD up to 30Hz, back then we didn't have consumer UHD TV's, in this country anyway, HDMI in this case being AMD. It's like accusing HDMI of limiting Samsung producing UHD TV's when in reality it was the display technology.

But actually he is right. You don't understand.
AOC's cheap hardware is the limiting factor. This enables the price to be low. This is a good thing for budget gamers.
Better controllers able to take advantage of adaptivesync/freesync vastly superior range are more expensive and can be found in more expensive monitors. Why don't you take a look before trying to blame AMD.
If you have issues ask Nvidia why comparable G-Sync monitors cost up to £180 more for what is essentially the same thing.
If this AOC was G-Sync it would easily cost at least £100 more.

FreeSync didn't set the range for the monitor, AOC did. In practice, yes, the dynamic range for adaptive-sync (FreeSync) is 9-240Hz but we're limited by controller technology at the moment. I can't tell you why AOC limited the range to 60-75Hz, I gave possible reasons above.

If FreeSync was the limiting factor, you couldn't modify the adaptive-sync range for the monitor and get a higher range, as it would be hardcoded into CCC, but it isn't, because what you modify to get a higher range is the monitor, not AMD drivers.

I didn't design the monitor, AOC did. I guess a lot of people aren't fully aware of the adaptive-sync ranges. 60-75Hz is a perfectly good range for FreeSync if you can keep a game above 60FPS which in this day and age, with poor optimizations, it's not easy with a lot of games.

You don't understand, that's why I keep saying it. FreeSync is a technology using the adaptive-sync specification. The controller that regulates the frames is "lackluster" as you put it.

It's sounding more and more like FreeSync has limits that are not clear to the consumer. The technology spec says it can support 9-240hz, but in practice, every monitor that has come out with FreeSync has had very obvious limits installed into it. 60-75hz here? That's an outrage.

But there is a reason, and I really suspect it is based in how FreeSync was implemented, not just how AOC designed this monitor.

What's the point of a monitor that only allows FreeSync when you are at 60-75 frames? That's usually the time you don't really notice it.

You can keep saying "No, you don't understand" all you want, but I do understand what's going on here. FreeSync technology is, in its current state, lackluster.

No, you really don't understand. The controller inside the monitor is what regulates the frames and determines what the monitor is capable of, not AMD. The limitation is due to monitor technology (and due to cost couldn't use a higher quality one) or AOC have other plans if the controller is capable of much more. We don't know why AOC have limited the monitor to 60-75Hz, it might be that they restricted it so they can oversell another monitor with the same controller with a higher range.


Even the most expensive FreeSync monitors don't cover the entire Hz spectrum of the monitor, they usually go down to 35Hz or so. It's not a limitation set by adaptive-sync or FreeSync, it's a limitation of the controller, or what I said above, a way for them to populate the market with multiple monitors using the same controller with different limitations, we don't know yet. FreeSync itself has a range of 9–240Hz.

Adaptive-sync is a VESA/DisplayPort specification so if anyone's to blame for the lack of wide ranges (or more strict control over the range), apart from the display/controller manufacturers, it's VESA/DisplayPort, FreeSync is just using the specification

What you edit here http://wccftech.com/amd-freesync-hack-expands-refresh-rate-range/ I believe is the adaptive-sync range of the monitor, not the FreeSync range. But as FreeSync uses the adaptive-sync specification, it's effected.

GSync monitors on the other hand are different, they don't use the same standard. NVIDIA developed it. The controller inside those are made and regulated by NVIDIA, that's why there's a £200 price premium on it.

No, I understand exactly what you're modifying. AMD created the software / hardware requirements. AOC is just following their spec.

Surely it's AMD's issue that this range is hard coded and small in a large number of FreeSync devices.

I again ask why are most (all?) FreeSync devices limited in the same way?

I don't think you understand what you'd be modifying here to increase the range.

AOC set the min/max range for the monitor not AMD. All you'd be doing is increasing the range set by AOC.

But why is there a limit in the first place? What's being hidden by AMD? Are they simply so behind in software that its just a configuration issue?

I *highly* doubt AMD is that inept that they couldn't do what the hack is doing, there is a reason why they have limited the range and it's very important to point out that you may run into serious problems if you adjust the range.

Because 60-75Hz is a small range for adaptive-sync. I can't imagine they'll be side effects.

Just so folks know, the Freesync range that comes standard with these monitors can now be hacked.

http://wccftech.com/amd-freesync-hack-expands-refresh-rate-range/

GCN 1.1+ (285, 380, 290/x, 390/x, Fury/X/Nano)

​so, which graphic card would I need to support freesync?

Oh, I have the same settings except for the stealth mode, must try it. Also must admit I'm lazy with the OSD's...too many games not enough will power lol.

The best setup I've found is this, I've had no issues with any game lately. Remember to disable any OSD from Origin or Steam if you have problems.

Application detection level: Low
Stealth mode: Off
Custom Direct3D support: On

Use RTSS myself, don't see the point in running my GPU hot and loud. Only thing I dislike is some games can get huffy with the detection level and minimise on startup so i have to add them as exceptions or create a custom detection level but that doesn't happen often

It doesn't.

Whats the reviews on these monitors? I also want to replace my TV as i use for both pc and consoles. Got the amd r9 270x gaming edition. would there be a benefit in using this monitor for consoles or just for pc?

RTSS's framerate limiter gives more stable frametimes and framerate, I've used both. You should give it a try.

Here's an example in The Witcher 3.





You can either run the game in fullscreen with vsync enabled. Or you can run the game in borderless windowed and disable vsync.
RTSS needs to be running and set to your preferred framerate.

AMD GPU's are known to have unstable frametimes as you can see above with the red lines, so this helps a lot.

Its a great feature. What are you talking about.
I use if on for my Nano build. geez
I see you are still giving poor advice to people.

Seems a very strange range to have Freesync available on (60-75 hz), almost pointless really, most people would want Freesync available from 30-60hz really. Other than that, good deal :smiley:

Don't use that CCC feature, it's not good. It causes unstable frame rate and stutters as it's a GPU limiting method. Use RTSS to frame limit as it uses the CPU.

You can get better ones for the same price if you're just using it for console gaming. It's going 100 because its a freesync moniter, so its targeted at pc gamers with amd gpus.

Would this work for console gaming? I assume as it has HDMi its ok? I'm thinking to use headphones and go that route and sell my TV as i only watch my shows online

Awesome price for 1ms Gaming Monitor

Only 1 HMDI input tho, which is really pretty dumb

I know a lot of threads have this sort of comment, but anywho:

I've had some rough dealings with AOC customer support and there wasn't any stage where I thought they were competent or knew anything about anything. I'm definitely avoiding them from now on.

Thanks OP.. Good price