AOC Announces Q3279VWF Display: 31.5”, MVA, 2560×1440, FreeSync

19 Comments

View All Comments

• guidryp - Monday, October 30, 2017 - link

  This is exactly the size, resolution I want in my next display. When I saw Freesync, in the title I was hoping it was a High Refresh panel, but no, still 60Hz max. :(

• Martijn ter Haar - Monday, October 30, 2017 - link

  The concept of a FreeSync monitor with a 60Hz refresh rate completely baffled me at first. PC gamers looking for a FreeSync gaming monitor would never buy a 60Hz monitor. Then it dawned on me that the consoles have AMD hardware and usually have framerates in the 30-60 Hz rate. Of course the Xbox One X is launched now, so maybe it is aimed at that market?

• DanNeely - Monday, October 30, 2017 - link

  Higher refresh rates do give more, but G/Freesync is still useful on 60hz monitors. Not everyone can afford a GPU capable of pumping out >60FPS in all circumstances.

• Sancus - Monday, October 30, 2017 - link

  Freesync is minimally useful for 60hz though, since it usually only functions down to 48fps(on this monitor) or 40fps on some monitors. Gsync has no minimum framerate, because it can frame double and triple, which Freesync cannot do.

• rhysiam - Monday, October 30, 2017 - link

  Just for the record, Freesync does have LFRC which does exactly what you're talking about here at a driver level. By all accounts, it works pretty well. However, you require a Freesync range where max refresh is at least 2.5 times min refresh for LFRC to work. This monitor obviously isn't anywhere near that so I agree it's not much of a value-add for gaming.
  
  I've said it before and I'll say it again, AMD really should have used some sort of tier system with Freesync (like bronze, silver, gold, etc). Or alternatively designed the logo with a space for min & max refresh rates and required companies to include that information in order to use the logo. The tech itself is actually solid, but the "value" it adds depends entirely on the implementation. At the moment any monitor manufacturer can squeeze out a tiny freesync range and slap the "Freesync" logo on the box. Job done. There's very little marketing incentive from the manufacturer to implement a decent (like 40-144hz) freesync range. Yet for most consumers, the value difference between a 40-60hz panel and a 40-144hz panel is massive. With little marketing incentive to pursue decent implementations, monitor manufacturers just implement the bare minimum and as a result, consumers tend to see Freesync as a poor-man's GSync... and who can blame them? AOC can even push a press release that says "Freesync" and not even disclose the refresh rate range. That's just allowing the Freesync label to be dragged through the mud IMHO.
  
  How many of us read this article because we saw the words 1440 & Freesync in the title? I did. I bet I'm not alone. If it had to say "Freesync Bronze" or Freesync (40/60), I wouldn't be here and, I suspect, Freesync would have a much better reputation. Or at least non-expert consumers would have an easier time understanding what they're actually buying.

• Alexvrb - Monday, October 30, 2017 - link

  Dangit you beat me too it. Also it doesn't want to post today for some reason... getting the endless loading. Well leaving out LFC there's the other part:
  
  "Gsync has no minimum framerate, because it can frame double and triple, which Freesync cannot do."
  
  Gsync or not if your framerate is tanking hard, that doesn't mean your game won't run like poo. Either way, even if you've only got a 30/40-60 range, it still can be handy. There's many cases where some is running at the target 60 FPS MOST of the time, with dips when stuff hits the fan. Dipping into the 50s or 40s is a lot less painful with adaptive sync.
  
  If a budget build can get that for basically no added cost, that's better than a no adaptive sync. If your budget is vast then you're probably going to get a serious monitor, so the whole argument about it being "minimally useful" is highly subjective to how much cash you have. With that being said if you're a gamer on a budget that plays the kinds of games where framerates are important, you might choose to sacrifice a little resolution for a higher refresh rate. For the same price as this 1440p 60hz display, you can get a same-size 1080p 144hz FS unit. Or get a slightly smaller display and get both.

• Samus - Tuesday, October 31, 2017 - link

  FreeSync simply isn't as good as Gsync for FPS's and high frame rate applications. But it's a lot cheaper, and since most panels (especially IPS/*VA panels) are limited to 60Hz-75Hz, as as other have said, most videocards can't push more than 60FPS at QHD, Gsync is mostly useless.
  
  But in the end, you don't really need either. If you buy a decent 144Hz TN panel, drive it at 144Hz in windows, and simply turn VSYNC on, you're going to have a pretty good experience assuming your hardware can keep the frame rate that high. A GTX 1060 or VEGA56 have no trouble driving any game at 1920x1080 at 100+FPS.
  
  But then you are capped at 1080P which is really inadequate for monitors over 24".
  
  Personally, I'm still using just that though. A GTX 980, a Philips 1080P 24" TN 144Hz panel, and Battlefront 2, has no trouble keeping things above 100FPS, and it's awesome. The only time the panel sucks is when you are NOT playing games. The mouse cursor is buttery smooth in windows at 144Hz, but the colors and contrast of the TN panel are just awful for even basic web browsing. Being a dedicated gaming PC, it's fine. But don't we all want a PC that does everything, with a 27-30" 144Hz VA panel?

• rhysiam - Tuesday, October 31, 2017 - link

  "FreeSync simply isn't as good as Gsync for FPS's and high frame rate applications. But it's a lot cheaper, and since most panels (especially IPS/*VA panels) are limited to 60Hz-75Hz, as as other have said, most videocards can't push more than 60FPS at QHD, Gsync is mostly useless"
  
  It's generalisations like this that highlight why AMD have screwed up their marketing for Freesync. With a decent 30-144 or 40-165 freesync panel, there is very little to pick between GSync and Freesync. Even in a blind side-by-side test when asking someone to specifically look for differences and pick a winner only a handful of people can separate them. Ask people to try one and then 24 hours later try another and decide which offers the best "experience", I'd be very surprised if anyone could really separate them.
  
  But the problem is Freesync really depends on the implementation. It can be anywhere from fantastic to only useful in unlikely edge cases. The GSync label has a much higher perceived value because it more or less guarantees a smooth experience. The Freesync label requires you to dig into the specs (which aren't always provided) to find out where on the spectrum between a minor value add (may worth $10 extra for a 40-60hz range) to a really fantastic gaming feature (maybe worth $150 extra for a 30-144hz range).
  
  That allows people to generalise about Freesync as a whole not being as good... when it actually fact is **can** be basically the same... it's just often not.

• JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, October 30, 2017 - link

  As far as I know, FreeSync is an AMD developed technology, but it does not exist on all technology that uses AMD products. FreeSync support is required on both the display and the device generating the video feed.
  
  In this case, while AMD FreeSync is typically done over DisplayPort connections, of which no Xbox on the market supports. Now AMD FreeSync is an optional, but supported, feature of HDMI 2.1 (I think), but I _still_ don't believe it's supported on any existing or upcoming Xbox models.
  
  So no, I don't think Freesync is viable for home console gamer usage. At least for the time being.

• JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, October 30, 2017 - link

  Actually, I stand corrected:
  
  https://www.pcworld.com/article/3189175/gaming/xbo...
  
  Apparently this is "old" news, but I hadn't come across it until I looked it up. So yeah, it might just work out for Xbox One X.