Refresh rate + response time really does matter!

The pro gamers have known since the 1990s that high refresh rates are key. Fatal1ty was playing at 120hz back in the 90s.

When I was younger the best I could get was 85 hz on my old crt.

These days I play at 100 hz on my laptop.

Also all the big name streamers play with gsync/vsync off for no input lag. A compromise is gsync on but vsync off but that still adds input lag.

Ok so I got the color setup even better now (I'm such a stickler I don't give up until I have it perfected). Ran into someone from Epic Games playing the new Unreal tonight who also just got this monitor and I'm helping him set it up, lol. But yea, I got the color pretty much on par with my two 4k screen now and boy it wasn't as easy! Crazy this is the first time I've had to use the color settings within the nvidia control panel in conjunction with the displays settings to get the picture right so therefor if you where limited to just the displays built in adjustments (game console, dvd player, etc) you would never be able to get it looking great. But that's cool I'm helping someone from Epic games set it up, lol.

What model do you have?

Also worth noting is that most of the ultra-wide monitors I looked at use an older HDMI standard (HDMI 1.4) - seems the companies are cutting corners (i.e. being cheap bastards) because there's no reason they couldn't simply use the latest tech (especially given the prices they expect consumers to shell out for the gsync models).

Basically, for many of these monitors, you have to use a DisplayPort cable to enable the best refresh rate.

Here's the one I bought - a USB C TO Mini dp cable (Mini dp, since that's Displayport type on my laptop).
www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073S6V9CD/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1


Edit: it's a USB C connection on my laptop and mini-DP connection to my monitor from the laptop. Using mini-DP on monitor to connect my laptop, frees up the regular-sized DisplayPort In (of which, there's only 1) on the monitor for connecting my desktop PC. i.e. connecting the laptop with a mini-DP cable and desktop with regular DP cable.

This monitor has a DP Out as well - for daisy-chaining multiple monitors apparently.

I just overclocked this monitor to 100Hz using my laptop. Seems very stable so far.

Even though the Dell XPS-15 laptop has an Nvidia 1050 gpu, custom resolutions can only be done through the Intel HD Graphics Control Panel. The XPS-15 has some wonky dual gpu setup (Nvidia/Intel gpu's) where Nvidia driver settings are relegated/nerfed in favor of Intel drivers/UI. Anyway, had to select timing standard "CVT-RB" in order for it to successfully overclock to 100Hz. Doesn't work with the other 2 timing standards the Intel drivers gave me to choose from.

Another weird thing is that it won't overclock to a refresh rate lower than 100, such as 85Hz. Probably the fault of Intel gpu drivers again.

Very true. A bunch of features in the Nvidia settings are nerfed or missing. For example, the "fast" vsync setting isn't available at all (even though it's mentioned in the settings description). The worst thing about this laptop (Nvidia Optimus), in regards to gaming, is the 30fps limit that's enforced when the laptop is running on battery/unplugged. I tweaked all the settings and couldn't get rid of this problem.

Of course, the XPS15 was advertised as having the longest battery life for a 15" laptop. Obviously, that comes at a cost and it's why I accepted a laptop with a weaker gpu (1050). It's not that big of deal to me, because I also own a gaming desktop PC. But yeah, you're right. If your primary gaming rig is a laptop, avoid ones with Nvidia Optimus like the plague.

Thanks! That fixed it - I can now unplug my laptop and see well above 30fps.

However, using the vsynctester.com tool, it seems that my Acer monitor can't do Vsync correctly when the monitor refresh is overclocked to 100Hz. Vsync only works (more or less.. not perfect - using Adaptive & Fast vsync) at 75Hz refresh with my laptop setup.

Note: this tool doesn't work with Google Chrome. It always shows failed test with Chrome. Using Microsoft Edge, the tool appears to work like it should. Haven't tried it with other web browsers.
www.vsynctester.com/

The instructional video (below) says that Vsync problems could be the result of monitor timings (not refresh rate, but some other timings settings that might need to be adjusted). Par for the course, Intel Graphics setting doesn't allow manual adjustment of these timings, whilst the Nvidia graphics drivers do allow adjusting the timings (for non-Optimus drivers, that is). But at least, if this turns out to be the issue with my laptop, I still might be able to resolve the Vsync @100hz problem on my other setup (desktop PC - which doesn't have Optimus drivers).



Edit: Alternatively, the problem could simply be that my laptop has low-end gpu (1050) and it probably doesn't consistently maintain 100fps or above (which I read could result in Vsync issues @100hz refresh).

Yep, that's been a myth for ages.

I plainly notice a difference going from 75fps to 100fps on this monitor. In fact, I think the 100fps without Vsync looks better than 75fps with Vsync. The tearing isn't that noticeable at 100fps either.

Of course, not as big of difference as going from 30fps to 75fps.

You can also "feel" the difference and that difference in feeling is HUGE and makes an ASTRONOMICAL difference in games like UT! (hell, I'm even enjoying the smoothness in games like Tomb Raider). I plugged my 4k screen back in the other day to compare and boy is the lag and ghosting is so much more noticeable now that I've been glued to a 144hz high response display! Just moving the cursor around you can see the difference! Also, I found a super quick and simple way to calibrate this monitor and now it looks on par with my 4k image quality wise. Using the image below...



First make sure the image isn't being scaled (zooming in a web browser or Windows 10 desktop scaling - I used my photo editor with Windows scaling disabled for the program). Then adjust the monitors brightness and contrast to 100%. Next adjust the RGB for each color until each block look as close to each other in brightness, color, and blends together as one solid box as close as possible. Sitting a few feet back while slightly squinting can help. If you find that you need the overall picture to be a tad brighter or darker then use the RGB controls to control the brightness and not the brightness and contrast (so in other words, make sure to adjust the each RGB evenly to lighten or darken the picture in which I only had to add +1 to my RGB after doing the process above to get the desired brightness I needed.) Using this method should get you set to the 2.2 video/image gamma standard. Using this method was so quick and easy compared to just adjusting settings blind turkey and running into black crush, shifted colors, poor brightness and contrast and then scratching it and starting over. Don't ask me how it works but it did. You should also see a faint circle in the whitest and darkest bands in the grey scale above. I also used the images below to verify my white and black levels where all there and not being crushed...




I can see perfect detail all the way through each level of brightness. Home video and photos now looks like I'm looking through a window into reality. I guess my TVs came out of the box with fairly decent calibration and this monitors out of the box calibration was piss-poor and it REALLY needs to be set correctly to look right! The person who told me to set the brightness at 100% also said that if it is too bright than you can knock it down to 75% and go from there but 100% worked for this monitor. This person also said that they have the professional color meters (he's a photographer) and said that there's almost no difference in end result from using this method and using dedicated calibration hardware that costs a lot of money.

So for the Asus PG279Q this is my calibrated setting:

GameVisual=Racing mode (seems like all the people giving calibration guides on this monitor, including Toms Hardware seem to like to use Racing Mode as a baseline and I agree after trying them all)
Brightness 100
Contrast 100
Color Temp: User Mode R57 G36 B66
Image: Overdrive Normal



So as you can see from the above, this monitor is very GREEN out of the box as the green had to be turned down the most. I was close to bringing this monitor back because I was just struggling so hard to get the image to look great across the board (from games, to video, to photos) and now everything just falls into place. I'm even seeing detail in the clouds of my desktop background that I've never seen before. Proper calibration is absolutely crucial on some displays that are piss-poor out of the box. So glad I don't have to keep messing with settings and can just use it now, lol.

I'm not really an FPS gamer any more, but I do love me some graphics. As I'm getting older I think my reaction time to twitch games puts me in the realm of not being so competitive. One of my older monitors had its power buttons broken when I had it in storage for a year, I've been looking to replace it. I had no idea that LCD displays had changed so much. Although my video card at present probably won't give the full 4k capabilities, I picked up a ViewSonic XG2700-4K, so that my next video card upgrade down the road will give me an added boost (I might even go AMD for the FreeSync capabilities!). I'll move my current gaming monitor to the side and use this in its place, then I can switch over if I really need those extra FPSes. I've been a long time ViewSonic fan, but I haven't had their brand for many years, time to get back to them.

Seems like switching to OLED and focus on improving that tech (instead of tinkering indefinitely with traditional LED displays) would, at least partially, negate the need for things like HDR. Of course, I'm just speculating on the possibilities and could be wrong.

Technically, you don't have to wait a few months for the HDR feature, if you follow Emig5m's suggestion at the start of this thread and use a 4K tv in place of a PC monitor.
Of course, that's only if you don't mind a jumbo sized screen.

It seems many 4K tv's are ahead of the curve (compared to PC monitors) with newer features and lower priced relatively speaking. 



Here's a 50 incher 4K from Vizio
, for under $600. 
Link:
Vizio M series


I'd wager that if you try to find something vaguely similar in a PC monitor (32" and up and with HDR10 only, no Dolby Vision) it would be priced over a $1000. Not sure why PC monitors cost extra for older tech... perhaps gamers' requirement for lower latency and higher refresh makes PC monitors more difficult/costly to manufacture? But no, the larger monitors 32" and up (from last year anyway) don't really have high refresh rates. The ultra-wide monitors (3440x1440) I looked at topped out at 100Hz.

The specs on that ViewSonic look great - 4K, IPS, and low latency.

My suggestions about waiting it out for HDR were based on my monitor. I did the calibration outlined in this thread and found my monitor's contrast leaves much to be desired. I've calibrated it as well as I can and it's not bad looking... just very difficult to get the faintest contrast levels to show (and impossible with Contrast set to 100). Highest I can get the Contrast setting without white levels being washed out is about 84. 

Calibrate it and make sure you're happy with it. The factory calibration (even with the "sRGB" preset enabled, which i think is supposed to be accurate) sucked a$$ on my monitor.

Thanks for the tips.  I bought a calibration disk for my plasma TV ages ago and I've carried it around with me for a long time, not sure if it's still valid these days but I'll check it out again.  If not, it looks like from the previous posts in here, I can use test images also.