FreeSync, G-Sync Go Head to Head in New Monitor Comparison

For most of the time they’ve existed, it’s been difficult to examine FreeSync and G-Sync in a side-by-side equivalent configuration. The problem is, there have been so many variables to account for, making a declaration as to which is the better product has been intrinsically difficult.

They differ in two significant ways: The QG G-Sync panel costs $600, while the QX is $320, and the QX is the absolute and clear winner of the comparison.

This was, the Tom’s Hardware authors note, not what they expected to find. They write,

When we first conceived this experiment, we expected the result to swing in favor of the G-Sync monitor. G-Sync monitors usually have more features and perform a little better in our color and contrast tests. We hypothesized that while you’re paying a premium for G-Sync, those monitors perform slightly better in other areas related to image quality.

Our testing of the AOC Agon AG241QG and AG241QX proved that theory wrong.

While I’ll refer to you to the THG article for the details, the QX panel proved to be far better calibrated out of the box. It also offers a brighter white, deeper black, vastly better contrast ratios, and a much better default experience. That’s important, particularly if you don’t color calibrate your monitor with separate hardware after purchase.

As far as FreeSync versus G-Sync performance, the two were identical. No visual differences could be detected in testing. The dynamic range on the QX panel is nearly 2x larger than the QG, and this also had an impact on game visuals in-testing.

There are valid questions about the benefit of pairing G-Sync / FreeSync with high refresh rates in the first place, given that these technologies make their heaviest impacts at low refresh rates.

Does this mean FreeSync displays are automatically better than G-Sync? It does not. It’s fascinating to see two monitors put head to head like this, but the relative comparison between any two displays is always going to come down to the amount of work put into each panel and how the two compare head-to-head. A single monitor comparison isn’t going to provide that.

But there are two things we can say about this kind of comparison. First, the higher prices on G-Sync displays are clearly no guarantee that these panels are better-calibrated or superior in any fashion compared with much less expensive FreeSync displays. Second, there’s no difference in feature implementation between the high-end G-Sync and FreeSync solutions, once the refresh rate is sufficiently wide to allow for low framerate compensation (LFC) on AMD displays. The QX panel here, with its 30-144Hz range, more than meets AMD’s 2.5x preferred range requirement. And given that the cheaper display is also fully G-Sync compatible, there’s literally no reason to buy the more expensive panel. Despite Jen-Hsun’s comments at CES to the contrary, FreeSync works, has been proven to work, and works just beautifully on Nvidia graphics cards.

Continue reading

Nvidia Goes All-In On G-Sync With New ‘BFGD’ Ultra-High-End Displays

Nvidia is bringing some of the highest-end displays imaginable to market in 2018, with 4K panels, 120Hz refresh rates, low latency displays, integrated Nvidia Shields, and support for 1,000 nits of brightness in HDR. Yowza.

Nvidia: New GeForce GPUs Long Way Off, Giant G-Sync Displays Coming Soon

Nvidia isn't giving any hints on when next-generation GPUs will be available, but it expects its Big Format Gaming Displays to hit market sooner rather than later.

Nvidia GPU Performance Craters When G-Sync, SLI Are Used Together

Nvidia's G-Sync improves perceived frame rate and a game's presentation. SLI makes games run faster. But put them both together and what you end up with is something often markedly less than the sum of its parts.

Nvidia Admits Defeat, Will Support G-Sync on FreeSync Displays

Nvidia will support VESA Adaptive Sync with a driver update, unlocking FreeSync capability on GeForce GPUs.