Choosing the right PC monitor for Cave´s Steam releases?

[bytestorm]

Hey!
Now that Cave is going to release Mushi for Steam (and hopefully more titles), I started thinking about upgrading my setup for the "optimal" experience. (by that I mean as good as I can get on the pc).
The pc hardware would be the easier issue, but what monitor would be best? (I dont want to use any CRT based monitor, only flat ones please).

What to think about? Maximum ms? refreshrate? best panel? inputlag? 60hz va 144hz etc..

What is the best specs to look for when choosing a monitor for shooters?

Would be terrible to end up with ghosting/artifacs in fast movements, or screen tearing..
Would be grateful for any pointers/tips!

[tacoguy64]

There is a Display advice thread

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... pc+display

But you are on the right track,
you want an ips panel, and with either freesync or gsync, and resolution as high as you can get them.

[bytestorm]

There is a Display advice thread

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... pc+display

But you are on the right track,
you want an ips panel, and with either freesync or gsync, and resolution as high as you can get them.

Sweet! I need to update myself on freesync and gsync since I saw the word freesync for the first time this morning actually when checking throu some monitors

Also read about how 144hz was amazeballS compared to 60hz since the vsync would make it 60 again or what nots..

Thanks for the thread tip! Man I am so wanting to play neowww!

[BazookaBen]

Dedinitely get a Freesync monitor (or gsync if you don't mind being forced to only use Nvidia cards). When you have Freesync on, you monitor will display frames as they arrive from the graphics card. So in a sense, it doesn't have a refresh rate. This allows you to leave vsync off, getting 0 input lag, while at the same time eliminating tearing. It's truly the best development for game monitors in a long time.

And I don't think 144hz would be a good thing for Cave games, since they're all probably limited to 60fps anyway. Though if you set the monitor to 120hz mode it would still look ok, since that is an even multiple of 60.

[ZellSF]

G/Freesync, 1440p and 120+hz all are going to be pretty useless for Cave's Steam releases. But I would never buy a computer monitor without those features.

[bobrocks95]

Most important thing will be IPS with a rotatable stand.

[BazookaBen]

G/Freesync, 1440p and 120+hz all are going to be pretty useless for Cave's Steam releases. But I would never buy a computer monitor without those features.

I'd say Freesync is pretty important, especially if Cave didn't optimize the game's input lag Like when Ikaruga first came out on Steam, it had like 3 frames of input lag with vsync on. With vsync off, it was fine. So with Freesync would help out quite a bit in that situation.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't think that 144Hz is necessary for Cave games unless you're actually going to aim for that framerate in some games, and that can save you money. 144Hz does correspond with the monitor using a faster panel with less input lag and better pixel response, but there are still monitors with excellent blur aspects that don't support this fast response time. You'd just have to look at some reviews to see if you can save enough, or get a monitor to you liking, at 60-90Hz adaptive synced instead of going the whole way with 120Hz+ adaptive synced.

In a way, this is the flip image of the deal with TN panels: They do provide an edge in blur reduction and fastest response time over IPS/PLS panels, but they come at the cost of otherwise inferior visuals.

Dedinitely get a Freesync monitor (or gsync if you don't mind being forced to only use Nvidia cards).

In practice, going with FreeSync forces you to get an AMD card. Their recent releases are promising, but Team Green still has the edge without yet implementing HBM. I also count AMD's drivers and shorter term of support (2010-ish cards aren't supported for DX12, but some nVidia contemporaries are) against the red guys.

In the future, FreeSync should be more compelling as Intel will support it (though they might decide to go with G-Sync as well). It's still unclear what's happening (if anything) on the console front.

Personally, I'm resigned to probably having to go the G-Sync route. If at all possible, I hope to wait until 2016 and the die shrink to get a better idea which team is going to have the edge. On the down side, I might need a new monitor in addition to my new PC, and I'd like to make use of adaptive sync if possible.

Incidentally, non-vsynced analog connections will also be low-lag, but at the cost of tearing and especially weird phase patterns moving all across the screen.

[BazookaBen]

I'm just thinking Nvidia will eventually support Freesync since it is part of the Displayport standard. Might take a while though.

[Ed Oscuro]

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. But we were also thinking that consoles would support FreeSync too - not that these issues are related in any way, but the value of FreeSync is somewhat less.

Personally I like the slightly better-appearing tech behind G-Sync, but it definitely comes with a cost and adaptive sync gets at least most of the way there. Also, it is damn hard to figure out much about the true relative merits of the technologies, with some early anti-nVidia FUD about "1 frame lag maximum" and some anti-AMD spew about the "min/max supported FreeSync range" which doesn't seem to apply for many monitors anymore (if at all).

The space does seem to be moving: Now we've got ULMB working with adaptive sync panels. Hopefully, prices will go down and we'll also get past the magical 30" barrier for 16:9, even!

[BONKERS]

Depends on what the port supports.

If it's 60hz only, you can get away with a PC CRT monitor probably and be lag and blur free.

[BazookaBen]

Depends on what the port supports.

If it's 60hz only, you can get away with a PC CRT monitor probably and be lag and blur free.

The lag thing is the issue. Some games, especially ports, don't do vsync very well, so even on a CRT you will have input lag. In those instances the Freesync monitor would be better because you could turn off Vsync.

[ZellSF]

I've noticed no difference whatsoever in 60 FPS vsync&framelimited and 60 FPS gsynced.

If you buy a gsync monitor expecting much lower input lag, you're in for a disappointment.

[Ed Oscuro]

Some Vsync implementations do quite well on the lag front, but others don't.

On a CRT I expect you'd get a good enough picture, and vsync indeed shouldn't be needed, though that's not really a flexible purchase to make for a computer. Doesn't hurt to have a VGA PC CRT around though.

[BazookaBen]

I've noticed no difference whatsoever in 60 FPS vsync&framelimited and 60 FPS gsynced.

You can't make a blanket statement like that. Some games have crappy vsync, other games don't. Ikaruga, when it was first released on Steam, added 3 frames of lag with vsync on. I think it's way better now, but back then you would have been WAY better off on a gsync monitor.

[ZellSF]

I've noticed no difference whatsoever in 60 FPS vsync&framelimited and 60 FPS gsynced.

You can't make a blanket statement like that. Some games have crappy vsync, other games don't. Ikaruga, when it was first released on Steam, added 3 frames of lag with vsync on. I think it's way better now, but back then you would have been WAY better off on a gsync monitor.

Ikaruga is included as one of the games I've tried the first version of both on a vsync and gsync monitor.

I can tell you that there was not 3 frames of input lag difference. Maybe 1.

I can also tell you it did not have 3 frames of input lag on either setup. That's an error on your setup (understandable, lots of random shit can factor in on PC input lag).

And I don't rely on games vsync implementations ever, I use driver enforced vsync (as should you).

[bobrocks95]

And I don't rely on games vsync implementations ever, I use driver enforced vsync (as should you).

Wouldn't that explain why you didn't see the 3 frames of lag Ikaruga had? That kind of skews results on whether or not GSync helped doesn't it?

[ZellSF]

And I don't rely on games vsync implementations ever, I use driver enforced vsync (as should you).

Wouldn't that explain why you didn't see the 3 frames of lag Ikaruga had? That kind of skews results on whether or not GSync helped doesn't it?

Uh, no? If a game uses terrible sync implementations and you leave the driver default sync options, it's still going to be the same.

You should always be using driver enforced sync for that reason, and then the input lag difference between g-sync and v-sync is minimal.

[zanardi]

In practice, going with FreeSync forces you to get an AMD card. Their recent releases are promising, but Team Green still has the edge without yet implementing HBM. I also count AMD's drivers and shorter term of support (2010-ish cards aren't supported for DX12, but some nVidia contemporaries are) against the red guys.

In the future, FreeSync should be more compelling as Intel will support it (though they might decide to go with G-Sync as well). It's still unclear what's happening (if anything) on the console front.

Personally, I'm resigned to probably having to go the G-Sync route. If at all possible, I hope to wait until 2016 and the die shrink to get a better idea which team is going to have the edge. On the down side, I might need a new monitor in addition to my new PC, and I'd like to make use of adaptive sync if possible.

Incidentally, non-vsynced analog connections will also be low-lag, but at the cost of tearing and especially weird phase patterns moving all across the screen.

Hilarious post.
G-Sync is Nvidia DRM. How will Intel support this?
Anybody can support VESA Adaptive-Sync and name it whatever they want.
Almost all AMD GCN cards support DX12. Nvidia is the one who has a big problem with DX12 including the 980TI.
Are you talking about short term. How is Kepler doing?

[Ed Oscuro]

This is a complicated topic, but I think I can describe it simply.

The Ashes benchmark, or 980ti DX12 feature level support, are discussions at the fringes of GPU technology. We're at the end of the 28nm process node's lifetime, so buying a GPU now is quite unwise if you don't absolutely need it. I hope that people who bought a Maxwell card, or who will buy a Fury X, simply have to get the best performance for bleeding-edge games today. That choice has little to do with future-proofing. It's not clear that any of this is going to ultimately result in a win or loss for either of the parties, especially with a next generation of DX12 cards with HBM, and built on the 14nm node.

On the other hand, mentioning older cards - whose performance in modern games is naturally irrelevant for discussing bleeding-edge games - has more relevance to myself and to Shmups Forum. Here there are a lot of users who are very interested in low-cost, dependable components for use with retrogaming and emulation. For these users, getting the best long-term driver support is important. Of course it's possible that this is just a historic aberration, a one-time deal, but I am not highly inclined to trust that. How the GPU makers issue driver support is, to me, real evidence, and it also dovetails with other information.

Yes, it's true that nVidia has been using vendor lock-in for a long time, and it's true that this isn't pro-consumer. However, going head-to-head with Intel hasn't gone well for AMD, who seems to be learning from nVidia a bit in creating some unique, hard-to-directly-compare cards in the Fury X and Nano. Everybody is looking to uniquely position themselves. You ask "how could Intel support G-Sync?" They could do what some people suggested AMD do - reverse-engineer it. They might even be able to freely license it, as they still have a cross-licensing agreement with Intel. Not supporting G-Sync has as much to do with AMD's and Intel's marketing and tactics against nVidia as it does with nVidia itself - no player is simply inert in the market here.

AMD appears to be using planned obsolescence to push users towards newer or more expensive cards (or rebrands). This is understandable, because AMD doesn't have lots of money. Understanding driver support for Terascale and GCN products is messy. To me, the feature lineup as such isn't the issue. The issue is that AMD has not extended support for its older cards as long or as transparently as nVidia did.

For example, you mention Kepler. Kepler is doing fine! It is an old card, just as modern DX12 cards will be old when that next process node rolls around. But it supports the DX12 API, in case you want to pull a bit more life out of the card. Any cards "above" the GTX 650 Ti BOOST support G-Sync, which helps gamers today, without needing to buy a new card or wait for the graphics card market to shake out. This is pretty simple to understand in comparison with the spotty AMD support of FreeSync for even newer cards - some of them are rebrands, but others like the R9 280x don't support it, when it's not clear they can't. For AMD, Graphics Core Next is not the clear dividing line on support. For DX12 API support, GCN seems to be where they've drawn a line in the sand - Terascale and older architectures don't get it. Why they don't get it is, again, unclear to me, except that they clearly are saving money not doing so.

The sleeping giant is Intel - their latest Iris Pro IGP seems to be good enough for anything we'd likely throw at it. It's not clear whether it will support FreeSync later; that probably requires a new CPU. It seems safe to believe it'll support DX12 at an API level at least.

There's no simple "good/bad" story to tell. AMD's clearly making some decisions to avoid spending money, and nVidia's clearly got its own thing going on too. It is up to each individual person to decide whether the bigger problem is shorter software support or vendor lock-in.

I am very unhappy with the prospect of an nVidia-only monitor. But I'm also unhappy with the still-undelivered potential of FreeSync on consoles. Most of all, though, I'd like to see how the market shakes out, and I'd also like to see the 14nm process generation too.