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
Intel Launches AMD Radeon-Powered CPUs
Intel's new Radeon+Kaby Lake hybrid CPUs are headed for store shelves. Here's how the SKUs break down and what you need to know.
Scientists Confirm the Presence of Water on the Moon
Scientists have confirmed the discovery of molecular water on the moon. Is there any of it in a form we can use? That's less clear.
Review: The Oculus Quest 2 Could Be the Tipping Point for VR Mass Adoption
The Oculus Quest 2 is now available, and it's an improvement over the original in every way that matters. And yet, it's $100 less expensive than the last release. Having spent some time with the Quest 2, I believe we might look back on it as the headset that finally made VR accessible to mainstream consumers.
SpaceX Launches ‘Better Than Nothing’ Starlink Beta
Those lucky few who have gotten invitations to try the service will have to pay a hefty up-front cost, and the speeds aren't amazing. Still, it's a new generation of satellite internet.