G Sync Monitor

[neodad]

Is it worth paying the premium?  I am thinking of a new rig with the GTX 1080 card.

Thanks
neodad

[Gman]

It depends - Gsync does improve the quality a bit, especially any tearing/etc issues, but IMO it's a bit down the list in terms of what's best for a gaming monitor.  Getting the size you want is probably the primary concern, the next is the hz rate - 144 to 165 is optimal, but if you go for a large 34/35+ gaming monitor, their 100hz work just fine - anything in triple digits is miles better than 60hz is the point.  Next is the screen type, VA, TN, IPS - IPS in my opinion is the best balance of performance with visual appearance.  If you're hardcore into FPS gaming, as in playing as a paid pro, then TN/VA may be better due to a bit faster performance, but that's so small that most of us, even competitive FPS players, shouldn't really care.  IPS looks better in the vast majority of situations in games and in room lighting/etc, at least to me, and I've owned 1/2 dozen gsync performance monitors in the last year or two.

Gsync does have an effect, no doubt, and the thing is many of the decent quality gaming monitors already have the tech included.  You can however find 24, 27, and larger sized monitors in both 1080p and 1440p in the 144hz range without it, there is a recent thread here IIRC with this exact spec monitor in it.

So, if you're going with a 1080 and want a gaming/high performance LCD monitor to match, decide which size, which resolution, and then come back and post that, and many here will give you options in terms of Gsync, hz rate, and type (VA/TN/IPS) to choose from.  You do need to decide what size/res first though IMO, once that is narrowed down, it's easy to tighten the parameters and give you a good 3 or 4 options.

I primarily use Asus ROG Gsync 27" in 1440p, but I've had 4k Acer Gsyncs and Acer 27" IPS 1440P as well.  The Gsync does have an effect, you don't appreciate it until you flip it off, and then you really can see the smoothing effect it has.  It's just that there are other features IMO which have a great effect for the $, but if $ isn't a huge issue, then for sure, get an LCD with it.

Some simple options without knowing your pref - for $400 you can get a 24" AOC 1080p Gsync VA 144hz, a great option for this game, for $706 you can get an Acer Predator 27" Gsync 1440p IPS which IMO is one of the 2 best available options for gaming right now.

More here, Tom's 2017 best Gsync list - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-monitors,4533-3.html

[neodad]

Thanks Gman

I should have added 144hz, 1ms and 1080.  The AOC looks like the good choice.

[Gman]

Yep, bang for the buck it's impossible to beat for what you're after IMO.  I have 1440p and 4k monitors but still prefer to play this game at 1080p - heh, so if this is your primary game, IMO on a 24 or 27 1080 is still the best res/size for the size of targets on the screen. 

This Acer Predator may work too, it's cheaper than the AOC, $350, 1080 p 144hz Gsync.  I've had one of these Predator types in 27" before, the base is extremely sturdy and tough.


https://www.amazon.com/Acer-Predator-XB241H-bmipr-1920x1080/dp/B01C05C1OK

[Bizman]

A friend just got a used 56" monitor, 1080p@60 Hz. Monitor, not a TV. He loves the immersion, doesn't see the grid etc.

I fully agree that 144 Hz would be much more fluent and 4K richer in detail. However, for certain tasks even coarse graphics are fine enough. In the case of my friend it's another flying sim combined with less than stellar eyesight.

[streakeagle]

I have been flying on a 46-inch 1080p LCD tv for several years.  I have it as close to my face as feasible to maximize the field of view... which ends up being around 70 degrees. It looks pretty amazing compared to playing on a 20-inch monitor despite the much larger pixels.

I now have an Oculus Rift. The field of view and 1:1 head tracking of the Rift is utterly amazing, but the resolution is too low to clearly read gauges/displays in a modern cockpit. The Rift does work really well with Aces High, but I still miss the resolution and clarity of the 46-inch TV.

When TV prices drop at Christmas, I am going to try to find a 4K TV that will work well with a PC. Most of the recommended TV's are way too expensive, but almost any of the TV's that will meet my criteria will be quite an upgrade over my 2006 Mitsubishi TV... certainly lighter and make far less heat while being larger. I am looking to get 50 to 65 inches this time.

Every time I check out dedicated PC monitors, the price vs size is horrible. I know you can get much higher refresh rates and these fancy gsync/freesync upgrades, but at 4K, I am going to be lucky to get anywhere close 60 Hz in DCS World with my GTX 1080. My exceptionally good experience with the old LCD TV has sold me on the idea that a $400-$1,000 TV is much better for my needs than a $400-$1,000 monitor... and it can double as a TV, too