News LG announces 21:9 monitors, including FreeSync model

I'm waiting on a curved ultra wide that supports freesync x.x

 

I wonder if there will be different degrees of curve for PC gaming. I imagine the one to suit me would have me half surrounded with a 180.

 

Really tempted by a curved 21:9 ... but they are still quite expensive.

 

I have a 21:9 LG and the support for it is not quite there yet. Some video players stretch the image and Blizzard does not support this aspect ratio in Starcraft 2.
The positive side is that games that do support it look a lot more immersive because of the FOV.

 

Only question now is will Nvidia also support FreeSync?

 

Short answer: No.

AMD currently has just 6 cards that support gaming with FreeSync aka Adaptive Sync most of their other cards only support it with video playback and power saving, whether Nvidia eventually support Adaptive Sync will depend on how many monitors support in years to come.

Even though both AMD & Nvidia have said the end results of FreeSync & G-Sync are pretty similar, I'm going to reserve judgment until a trusted source like BT get their hands on both techs for a side by side comparison.

 

Really? That is pathetic on their part then. Aside from this, I've yet to come across a released game without support!

 

Far Cry 4 didn't support 21:9 at launch either, but it was added later with a patch.

 

G-Sync is fantastic. I've not tried Free Sync to compare, but it is one of those upgrades like going to a ssd from hdd. I will not go back.

 

An effective cheap way to do a curved ultra-wide setup is to get 2 projectors and a warped screen. A couple of 1080p projectors will get the job done just fine.

For gaming purposes, I think 3 projectors rotated 90 degrees would be more useful; if you keep all displays in landscape view, you'll have a pretty limited vertical view. Unless you're playing a racing game in the driver's seat, you're not going to get a complete surrounding experience with all 3 displays in landscape.

 

all of the 2014 APU`s support it as well.

 

And how many of the 2014 APUs can run games at a decent frame rate on a 21:9 monitor ?

 

I think in the case of using an APU on a 21:9 monitor, you'll want to use that strictly for movies. Once 60FPS movies become more common, an APU will be unbeatable in terms of price vs performance.


As for whether G-sync or Freesync is better, it's a tough call. AMD has done adaptive sync with laptops several years before G-sync was a thing, primarily for power saving reasons. Also, Freesync is designed to be supported by any platform, which could possibly hinder its performance but also allows several sources to perfect it simultaneously. However, one thing I've always liked about nvidia is when they set their mind to something, they ALWAYS do a good job. Part of this is because they so finely integrate everything they do in their hardware and software. This suggests that g-sync could possibly be more optimized.

However, I don't really think it'll be easy to differentiate g-sync or freesync. They both have the same goal so really the only way you could tell them apart is if the GPU itself is powerful enough to keep up with the rendering.

 

Depends on the games and the settings

 

That was kinda my point, sure AMD's APU's support FreeSync (aka adaptive sync) but where it really counts they may as well not, much like lots of AMD GPU's support FreeSync but only 6 support gaming with it.

Not strictly true, AFAIK adaptive sync has been part of eDP since 2008 so it was VESA that introduced it not AMD, that is unless we know who was responsible for getting VESA to adopt eDP.

That's why i really, really hope BT can get their hand on the hardware need to do a side-by-side comparison for us all, hopefully cutting through the PR BS and giving it to us straight.

Anyone for Angry Birds ?

 

btw the resolution is

3440 x 1440
which does mean your average gaming card might be pushed to drive it at a constant 60 fps

 

That's the beauty of Freesync/G-Sync though isn't it ? You don't need a constant 60 fps for it still to look buttery smooth.

 

which is a good thing for those all AMD APU`s then isn't it

 

IDK, are AMD's APU's going to be able to deliver a decent average and minimum frame rate versus the old way of a constant frame rate, at least that's what i think maybe more important when looking at variable refresh rates.
If say an APU averages 40-50 fps with a minimum of 30fps is that still going to be acceptable/playable ?

The question is how low can the fps go with variable refresh rates before things start feeling or looking odd.