LG Announces World’s First 21:9 Freesync Monitor

[Creig]

Since this is mostly a gaming technology on expensive monitors, Intel isn't even a player.

As FreeSync is based off Adaptive Sync (an industry standard), it will eventually make it way into inexpensive monitors as well. It simply requires an updated scaler, so the cost difference to make a monitor AS compliant is negligible.

Laptops and low end computer systems will benefit from Adaptive Sync more than high end systems. They will be the ones most likely to be running below 60 FPS and will thus be the most susceptible to tearing. Also, AS has power saving properties for static desktop content and low framerate videos. Both of which would appeal to corporations and laptop manufacturers, which are Intel's bread and butter.

So I would be highly surprised if Intel does not jump on the Adaptive-Sync bandwagon as well.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

This is great news! Now I can display even fewer lines of text on the same screen! All we need now is one more generation of stupidity so we can have nice things like 45,238:9 screens. Thanks LG for being the world's first in a race to make screens even more useless.

I actually kind of agree.

Wide screens are great, to a point. IMHO, 16:10 is the sweet spot, as I can easily snap two full pages, one to each half of the screen.

16:9 is less useful to me. 21:9 may be great for gaming and consuming media, but it seems like it would be pretty bad for productivity, unless some sort of new snapping standard comes around.

I mean, my PLP is kind of wide at a 4960x1600 total, which amounts to a 31:10 aspect ratio, but the difference there is that a full screen window on each of the portrait monitors and a window snapped to each side of the center 16:10 monitor is actually a very good setup for productivity.

 

[John721]

This is stupid. If it can't do better than 60Hz, no one will care.

Nope. Personally, I'm not willing to accept a TN panel to get 120hz, but I'm very willing to eliminate screen tearing from an IPS with freesync.

 

[tetris42]

Nope. Personally, I'm not willing to accept a TN panel to get 120hz, but I'm very willing to eliminate screen tearing from an IPS with freesync.

Yeah I mean I used a CRT a LONG time because I hated the picture quality on LCDs. I held out until the first IPS monitors came out that were fast enough for gaming. For me, 60fps is fine. Yes, I can see the difference with a higher framerate, but it's subtle. In the past it's totally been worth the tradeoff of not having the brightness or colors shift if I shift my head around a few inches and having better picture quality.

 

[XViper]

I'm very interested to see freesync in action on this. I may buy one and see if it's worth it. I have a 34UC97 and there is some stuttering and tearing. With freesync, I should not see tearing.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Nope. Personally, I'm not willing to accept a TN panel to get 120hz, but I'm very willing to eliminate screen tearing from an IPS with freesync.

Agree here.

My desktop is used maybe 90% of the time for productivity/web/email, 9% of the time for media (music/video/film) and 1% of the time for games.

Moving to TN and 120hz would hurt 99% of what I do for a small improvement in 1% of what I do.

Not worth it. IMHO. Until (AM)OLED becomes available on large monitors, for me it's IPS or nothing.

In fact, Freesync / Gsync aren't a big deal to me either. I tend to sync stuff to 60hz whenever possible.

Maybe my eyes are bad, but I can't see a difference above 60fps (even 30fps looks good to me) but I can definitely feel the difference in mouse lag.

I don't play any fast twitchy FPS:es anymore though, so 60fps is fine.

I tend to target 60FPS sync for multiplayer shooters (like Red Orchestra II)

For single player FPS games, I crank up the eye candy and don't mind if it drops to 30fps.

For certain turn based strategy games (Like Civ5) even 15fps is acceptable.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I feel like 21:9 isn't an ideal aspect ratio.

I'd consider one, if they stretched it rather significantly in size though.

It would have to be large enough to match a 30" 16:10 screen in height.

21:9 is still a very awkward size to snap things too for productivity purposes.

 

[butterfliesrpretty]

21:9 is amazing for productivity, what are some of you talking about. It gives you extra real estate without having to deal with bezels. I wish it was available in 120/144 hz but I can deal without it.

 

[Michaelius]

Existence of 40" 4K displays at same price points pretty much makes 21:9 1440p pointless.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Existence of 40" 4K displays at same price points pretty much makes 21:9 1440p pointless.

I would agree.

I see no need to increase resolution just so I have to scale up my UI.

If I am going to up the res to 4k, give me more useable screen real estate and match the pixel density of my 2560x1600 at 30".

The only think keeping me from going 4k today (apart from the money bit, andf the fact that I already have a perfectly decent PLP setup (1200-2560-1200)x1600 ) is the lack of 16:10.

IMHO 16:10 is the perfect aspect ratio for getting work done. I strongly dislike 16:9, and 21:9 just seems like it would be waaay too wide for work.

 

[Michaelius]

You are getting more workspace with 3840x2160 screen than with 2560x1600 even with wrong aspect ratio.

Everything else is just a matter of finding one with pixel size and features you want

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

The only thing keeping me from going 4k today (apart from the money bit, and the fact that I already have a perfectly decent PLP setup (1200-2560-1200)x1600 ) is the lack of 16:10.

Ugh, just as I type this, I get home and discover a VERY annoying and new hot pixel on my late 2010 (out of warranty) U3011...


...what to do...