Gsync worth it, for older eyes?

[waderunner]

I'm very curious about gsync. I've always played games just on 60Hz IPS.

Wondering, for those past 35 years of age, do you see a lot of difference with gsync, from 60Hz monitors?

 

[ShePearl]

For me, G-sync is a nice to have feature. But I would not miss it if display does not support it.

These days, HDR is a must for me.
Order of importance:
1. Appropriate screen size and resolution
2. Contrast ratio
3. Color accuracy
4. HDR
5. VRR

 

[waderunner]

Excellent list.

Irrespective of adaptive sync technology (G vs Free), where would you place refresh rate within that list?

 

[Archaea]

I'm very curious about gsync. I've always played games just on 60Hz IPS.

Wondering, for those past 35 years of age, do you see a lot of difference with gsync, from 60Hz monitors?

Opinions will be as varied as the quantity offered.

I personally wouldn’t give up VSS, and think it’s a very nice feature. Doesn’t matter if it’s freesync or gsync. I’ve tried both for an extended period and I really like them. It’s perhaps something you don’t notice as strongly at first, but once you’ve used it for six months it feels gross and clunky to play without it.

 

[Archaea]

For me, G-sync is a nice to have feature. But I would not miss it if display does not support it.

These days, HDR is a must for me.
Order of importance:
1. Appropriate screen size and resolution
2. Contrast ratio
3. Color accuracy
4. HDR
5. VRR

What monitor do you own with gsync?

 

[ShePearl]

What monitor do you own with gsync?

It’s in my sig.
I currently use two G-Sync monitors: S2716DG and AW3418DW

 

[XoR_]

G-Sync/Freesync influence aspect of monitor that have nothing to do with ability of eyes to properly focus on static image.
It also make it much easier for the eyes to focus on image because stuttering make it harder to predict where eyes should focus when tracking moving objects.

Another advantage is reduced input lag and/or no tearing depending if you use V-Sync or not.
Higher refresh rate monitors also have potential to improve motion clarity as long as your computer can maintain high frame rates in given game.

 

[SvenBent]

you got to ask yourself this question before even considering gsync

Are you annoying by tearing when you are running non sync?
otherwise gsync is just a fix to a fix on a problem you don't have to begin with

The next questions is. do you have issues with providingg enough FPS to you monitors refresh rater
If not then gsync will just provide you with increased input delay compared to jus running with v-sync due to the pollen communication under gsync

Gsync is only good (and then it is remarkable good) if you cannot uphold you FPS to your hz AND you want to avoid tearing
If none of these are a problem gsync will do jack shit for you, bsesides worsen input delay

 

[Archaea]

you got to ask yourself this question before even considering gsync

Are you annoying by tearing when you are running non sync?
otherwise gsync is just a fix to a fix on a problem you don't have to begin with

The next questions is. do you have issues with providingg enough FPS to you monitors refresh rater
If not then gsync will just provide you with increased input delay compared to jus running with v-sync due to the pollen communication under gsync

Gsync is only good (and then it is remarkable good) if you cannot uphold you FPS to your hz AND you want to avoid tearing
If none of these are a problem gsync will do jack shit for you, bsesides worsen input delay

Wrong

Vsync adds mouse input delay moreso than gsync or freesync. It’s noticably so. Load up the new tomb raider for instance. Turn off gsync or freesync, then turn on vsync, now turn off vsync, and turn on gsync or freesync. The difference in mouse lag and smoothness is evident to anyone with eyes. That’s the test I always run for friends and I’ve yet to have anyone say there isn’t a substantial difference. Even tested blind. Both friends who didn’t already have this tech — of my friends who have demoed this — bought into VRR after this demo. You don’t run vsync if you are running gsync or freesync.

 

[XoR_]

The next questions is. do you have issues with providingg enough FPS to you monitors refresh rater
If not then gsync will just provide you with increased input delay compared to jus running with v-sync due to the pollen communication under gsync

Gsync is only good (and then it is remarkable good) if you cannot uphold you FPS to your hz AND you want to avoid tearing
If none of these are a problem gsync will do jack shit for you, bsesides worsen input delay

And Earth is flat...

 

[criccio]

Having a G-Sync monitor then playing a game on a system without one... that alone makes it worth it.

 

[SvenBent]

Wrong

Vsync adds mouse input delay moreso than gsync or freesync. It’s noticably so. Load up the new tomb raider for instance. Turn off gsync or freesync, then turn on vsync, now turn off vsync, and turn on gsync or freesync. The difference in mouse lag and smoothness is evident to anyone with eyes. That’s the test I always run for friends and I’ve yet to have anyone say there isn’t a dramatic difference. Even tested blind. Both friends who didn’t already have this tech — of my friends who have demoed this — bought into VRR after this demo. You don’t run vsync if you are running gsync or freesync.

i dont know how many time we have to go over how gsync works before people will understan it.
Did you do any technical emprical data or abx testing, or this is this just another placebo argument that you "feelt" a difference"

also you do use vsync (or fast sync) with gsync. So you dont risc running with tearing under gsync when you fps goes above you hz.

If you think gsync save you form tearing when fps is above hz you dont have the faintest clue above how sync and framebuffers works.

gsync slows down you monitors refresh rate to you fps so that Frame does have to wait for the next refresh cycle around.. under doublebbuffering having to wait for another refresh cycle mean a total stall of the GPU and thereby huge fps drops.
With gsync that is not the case because the monitor does no start the next refresh cycle until the frame is
however it still cant go above the monitors max refresh rate. which means it IS necessary to make bufferswap midt refresh cycle to keep the FPS above the Hz as long as you only have 2 frame buffers and tearing happens


at 120fps/120hz constant vsync has less delay then gsync. because there is only the frame to frame delay. to work with
under gsync you have the frame to frame delya + poll comminucation delay.
In both cased they both have the same frame to frame delay.
So yeah input delay IS bigger with gsync s vsync in some cases

Gsync is for low FPS situations.

And Earth is flat...

Your technical arguments are amazing.

 

[criccio]

i dont know how many time we have to go over how gsync works before people will understan it.
Did you do any technical emprical data or abx testing, or this is this just another placebo argument that you "feelt" a difference"

The difference in feeling between Vsync and Gsync is astronomical. Maybe you haven't used both side by side? Gsync feels like I'm running with no vrr settings at all while Vsync has a sluggish, delayed feeling.

 

[SvenBent]

The difference in feeling between Vsync and Gsync is astronomical. Maybe you haven't used both side by side? Gsync feels like I'm running with no vrr settings at all while Vsync has a sluggish, delayed feeling.

I never siad it wasnt i acutally clearly stated te diffrence "and then it is remarkable good"
But gsync only applies in certain situations AKA when FPS is slower than you Monitors refresh rate.

Because looking through all the marketing and placeboo. all it freaking does it slow down you monitor to you FPS rate. Which is amazing when needed, but is not always needed.

 

[HiCZoK]

60hz is enough. When it comes to talk about eye care, flicker free is much more important.
But gsync will not make any difference because it's not the backlgiht that changes flickering. It's the screen refresh (new image appearing) that changes.
I've tested few 240hz monitors and it was incredibly smooth but on rare occasion my head would hurt a bit. Like when scrolling websites at 240hz and so on. 144hz was a little bit easier on the eyes.

But You should be good with 60hz if You like that. Just make sure it's flicker free and low minimum brightness. Also if You sit very close to a very grainy monitor, the shimmer effect can also make Your head hurt. But most matte monitors are not that much grainy nowadays

 

[Archaea]

i dont know how many time we have to go over how gsync works before people will understan it.
Did you do any technical emprical data or abx testing, or this is this just another placebo argument that you "feelt" a difference"

also you do use vsync (or fast sync) with gsync. So you dont risc running with tearing under gsync when you fps goes above you hz.

If you think gsync save you form tearing when fps is above hz you dont have the faintest clue above how sync and framebuffers works.

gsync slows down you monitors refresh rate to you fps so that Frame does have to wait for the next refresh cycle around.. under doublebbuffering having to wait for another refresh cycle mean a total stall of the GPU and thereby huge fps drops.
With gsync that is not the case because the monitor does no start the next refresh cycle until the frame is
however it still cant go above the monitors max refresh rate. which means it IS necessary to make bufferswap midt refresh cycle to keep the FPS above the Hz as long as you only have 2 frame buffers and tearing happens


at 120fps/120hz constant vsync has less delay then gsync. because there is only the frame to frame delay. to work with
under gsync you have the frame to frame delya + poll comminucation delay.
In both cased they both have the same frame to frame delay.
So yeah input delay IS bigger with gsync s vsync in some cases

Gsync is for low FPS situations.








Your technical arguments are amazing.

I do not see tearing above 120hz refresh on my monitor when it transitions from gsync to fast sync. Nor did i see tearing above 75hz on my freesync monitors. I disable vsync in all instances. I never said I noticed tearing above gsync range or that it save me from tearing above gsync range, not did I think that — stop making crap up.

I can’t tell the difference between say 45hz (45fps) and 144hz (144hz)with VRR, but I’ll tell you when VRR is off (and vsync is on) in disgust every last time.

No we didn’t do abx. Get lost.

I had my guest close their eyes, or leave the desk. I made the settings switch and then had ten try again. Multiple times. They didn’t know which was which, but they clearly liked the VRR tech better - every single one who has demoed it liked VRR tech better.

I’ve used LCDs since about 2003, and always shot for maxing out the FPS to above the monitor refresh rate and using vsync until the last two years or so when I first tried freesync and since have traded out to gsync. Either VRR tech is significantly better/smoother/more enjoyable than just maxing out the static refresh rate of the monitors I’ve used over the years.

 

[XoR_]

OMFG

But gsync only applies in certain situations AKA when FPS is slower than you Monitors refresh rate.

Every knowledgeable G-Sync user use frame limiters like RivaTuner Statistics Server to limit their FPS to 2-5fps below refresh rate to always have this 'certain' situation happening and not enter V-Sync ON or OFF territory.

G-Sync does not add any input lag. No additional buffering is needed to make it work. Frame is displayed on screen as quickly as it is drawn and it works the same for V-Sync OFF and ON which setting only make difference for cases when frame is drawn faster than display frame time.

With 60Hz G-Sync monitor I would notice any additional input lag if it was there.
V-Sync ON adds a ton of input lag regardless if you can sustain frame rates above display refresh or not. It is and always was terrible...
To quote you you don't have the faintest clue above how sync and frame buffers works (with applied spelling corrections ofc.)

V-Sync ON is terrible and even V-Sync OFF is terrible. Thanks to some clever engineers at Nvidia we have Fast Sync and everyone with any operating brain cell should use it instead Vsync OFF, with or without G-Sync.

Your technical arguments are amazing.

Don't you agree Earth is flat?
I assumed you would...

 

[bigbluefe]

You don't stop seeing frames when you hit 35 dude.

 

[bigbluefe]

I love how this video has to be reposted every single time someone asks because no one mentions it.

The best reason for variable refresh is game emulators.

 

[criccio]

Playing BotW in CEMU at 3440x1440 I can only manage 60fps in ahrines. Elsewhere it's..less. Gsync does really help, you're correct.

 

[waderunner]

OP here, thanks for the discussion. I can generally keep games running at 60fps (GTX 1070), to match my current refresh rates. I use vsync to avoid tearing, and do not notice (or maybe just not bothered) by input lag. Maybe when I make a switch to VRR I will. I could see where a 144Hz Gsync monitor would be useful, as I wouldn't be able to maintain 144fps in games. Don't think I'm ready to drop $600+ on an IPS Gsync right now I've already got good IPS panels for work, media and (right now) gaming. But maybe I'll give one of the Dell tn's a try, the next time they hit an attractive price point.

 

[criccio]

Dells TN based Gsync displays are incredible. The whole TN vs IPS thing is far less important in 2018. TNs have improved a lot unless you really need viewing angles or to run it in portrait mode.

A buddy has the 27" TN Dell Gsync panel and honestly, I have zero complaints using it and I use a 34" IPS ultrawide at home.

 

[XoR_]

OP here, thanks for the discussion. I can generally keep games running at 60fps (GTX 1070), to match my current refresh rates. I use vsync to avoid tearing, and do not notice (or maybe just not bothered) by input lag. Maybe when I make a switch to VRR I will. I could see where a 144Hz Gsync monitor would be useful, as I wouldn't be able to maintain 144fps in games. Don't think I'm ready to drop $600+ on an IPS Gsync right now I've already got good IPS panels for work, media and (right now) gaming. But maybe I'll give one of the Dell tn's a try, the next time they hit an attractive price point.

Are you aware that you can use RivaTuner Statistic Server to set FPS limit to 60fps and use FastSync and get exactly the same result as with V-Sync ON but without added input lag?

So far it worked in all games I tested but those running in OpenGL/Vulcan

There is absolutely no point to torture yourself with V-Sync

 

[Deleted member 222586]

i dont know how many time we have to go over how gsync works before people will understan it.
Did you do any technical emprical data or abx testing, or this is this just another placebo argument that you "feelt" a difference"

also you do use vsync (or fast sync) with gsync. So you dont risc running with tearing under gsync when you fps goes above you hz.

If you think gsync save you form tearing when fps is above hz you dont have the faintest clue above how sync and framebuffers works.

gsync slows down you monitors refresh rate to you fps so that Frame does have to wait for the next refresh cycle around.. under doublebbuffering having to wait for another refresh cycle mean a total stall of the GPU and thereby huge fps drops.
With gsync that is not the case because the monitor does no start the next refresh cycle until the frame is
however it still cant go above the monitors max refresh rate. which means it IS necessary to make bufferswap midt refresh cycle to keep the FPS above the Hz as long as you only have 2 frame buffers and tearing happens


at 120fps/120hz constant vsync has less delay then gsync. because there is only the frame to frame delay. to work with
under gsync you have the frame to frame delya + poll comminucation delay.
In both cased they both have the same frame to frame delay.
So yeah input delay IS bigger with gsync s vsync in some cases

Gsync is for low FPS situations.

Your technical arguments are amazing.

Well, be it as it may, the concept "constant framerate" doesn't exist today. Framerate is a variable element and thus you will never be at a given range forever.

So, even if you were right and Vsync introduced less input lag at +144fps on a 144hz compared to Gsync... anytime you had a small flinch you would be skipping frames left and right and the smoothness would go down the drain.

Which is what happens with the consoles. If you look at graphs by many reviews, for instance, you will see that the average framerate is 30fps but because they are not dead even the frametimes are jumping left and right and it is a stutter-fest.

Still, would you have some links where they analyze the input lag added by the Gsync module? I had never heard of such lag, so I'm curious for real.

I do not see tearing above 120hz refresh on my monitor when it transitions from gsync to fast sync. Nor did i see tearing above 75hz on my freesync monitors. I disable vsync in all instances. I never said I noticed tearing above gsync range or that it save me from tearing above gsync range, not did I think that — stop making crap up.

I can’t tell the difference between say 45hz (45fps) and 144hz (144hz)with VRR, but I’ll tell you when VRR is off (and vsync is on) in disgust every last time.

No we didn’t do abx. Get lost.

I'm sorry but if you can't make out the difference between 45fps and 144fps your arguments are completely invalid. It is a day and night difference.

Your opinions can't be taken into account if you can't appreciate such a huge difference.

OMFG View attachment 66817

Every knowledgeable G-Sync user use frame limiters like RivaTuner Statistics Server to limit their FPS to 2-5fps below refresh rate to always have this 'certain' situation happening and not enter V-Sync ON or OFF territory.

G-Sync does not add any input lag. No additional buffering is needed to make it work. Frame is displayed on screen as quickly as it is drawn and it works the same for V-Sync OFF and ON which setting only make difference for cases when frame is drawn faster than display frame time.

With 60Hz G-Sync monitor I would notice any additional input lag if it was there.
V-Sync ON adds a ton of input lag regardless if you can sustain frame rates above display refresh or not. It is and always was terrible...
To quote you you don't have the faintest clue above how sync and frame buffers works (with applied spelling corrections ofc.)

V-Sync ON is terrible and even V-Sync OFF is terrible. Thanks to some clever engineers at Nvidia we have Fast Sync and everyone with any operating brain cell should use it instead Vsync OFF, with or without G-Sync.


Don't you agree Earth is flat?
I assumed you would... View attachment 66818

Fast-sync only works above your screens refresh rate...

 

[XoR_]

Fast-sync only works above your screens refresh rate...

Nonsense
When you get above refresh rate you get obvious frame skipping
When you are below refresh rate it you get exactly the same result as with tripple-buffered v-sync but without added input lag
And when you are clever and use RTSS (RivaTuner Statisctics Server) and set frame rate limit to exactly your refresh rate (or divided by 2, 3, etc.) and can sustain it you get fluid motion like with v-sync without adding any input lag.

The last trick works best when you have your monitor refresh rate at exactly at refresh rate so 60.000Hz and not any eg. 59,94Hz or something like 60.03Hz. Might need some tweaking in CRU (Custom Resolution Utility) and while at it try to overclock your display to something like 70-77Hz as many "simpler" monitors can support. Some monitors when connected to HDMI at GPU side (DVI can and maybe even need! to be connected at monitor side) cag go past 166MHz limit and overclock even higher.

When you use RTSS to set frame limit to match refresh rate and with V-Sync OFF have tearing jump around the same area all the time then FastSync will act exactly the same as V-Sync ON but without input lag and have no frame skipping at all. If tearing moves (no matter if up or down) then frame skip will occur at the same frequency as it takes this tear to get from one place to the same place again.

I tested it and It is working just as I described so save yourself time and instead of trying to argue just get it to working on your system if you have NV and monitor without VRR. With high refresh rate monitor you might find constant 72fps at 144Hz monitor to be much better looking than uncapped frame rate and any frame skips will be less noticeable because it will be displayed. If you have VRR display you can test this by disabling G-Sync/Freesync.

 

[Archaea]

I'm sorry but if you can't make out the difference between 45fps and 144fps your arguments are completely invalid. It is a day and night difference.

Your opinions can't be taken into account if you can't appreciate such a huge difference.

You apparently didn’t read my post.

Without VRR sure I can
With VRR (within freesync or gsync range) it doesn’t make a lick of difference down to 48hz for freesync or a bit lower for gsync - it still feels buttery smooth)

 

[Deleted member 222586]

Nonsense
When you get above refresh rate you get obvious frame skipping
When you are below refresh rate it you get exactly the same result as with tripple-buffered v-sync but without added input lag
And when you are clever and use RTSS (RivaTuner Statisctics Server) and set frame rate limit to exactly your refresh rate (or divided by 2, 3, etc.) and can sustain it you get fluid motion like with v-sync without adding any input lag.

The last trick works best when you have your monitor refresh rate at exactly at refresh rate so 60.000Hz and not any eg. 59,94Hz or something like 60.03Hz. Might need some tweaking in CRU (Custom Resolution Utility) and while at it try to overclock your display to something like 70-77Hz as many "simpler" monitors can support. Some monitors when connected to HDMI at GPU side (DVI can and maybe even need! to be connected at monitor side) cag go past 166MHz limit and overclock even higher.

When you use RTSS to set frame limit to match refresh rate and with V-Sync OFF have tearing jump around the same area all the time then FastSync will act exactly the same as V-Sync ON but without input lag and have no frame skipping at all. If tearing moves (no matter if up or down) then frame skip will occur at the same frequency as it takes this tear to get from one place to the same place again.

I tested it and It is working just as I described so save yourself time and instead of trying to argue just get it to working on your system if you have NV and monitor without VRR. With high refresh rate monitor you might find constant 72fps at 144Hz monitor to be much better looking than uncapped frame rate and any frame skips will be less noticeable because it will be displayed. If you have VRR display you can test this by disabling G-Sync/Freesync.

Nonsense?!

How could triple-buffered vsync net different results than Fast-sync below refresth rate when they do exactly the same thing? (at below refresh rate). Also, triple buffer only works on OpenGL.

And also, both will introduce input lag. It is simply impossible to use vsync or fast sync without lag. Simply impossible. Well, maybe if you have 2x or 3x your refresh rate you might have 0 added lag...

Lastly... fastsync at below the refresh rate will introduce unnevenness and stutter. It is the nature of the beast.

You apparently didn’t read my post.

Without VRR sure I can
With VRR (within freesync or gsync range) it doesn’t make a lick of difference down to 48hz for freesync or a bit lower for gsync - it still feels buttery smooth)

It doesn't make a difference? 48hz vs 144hz? Again, if you can't feel a difference your opinions are simply invalid in this topic. The difference in fluidity and smoothness is like night and day.

 

[Archaea]

It doesn't make a difference? 48hz vs 144hz? Again, if you can't feel a difference your opinions are simply invalid in this topic. The difference in fluidity and smoothness is like night and day.

... with gsync or freesync that’s kind of the point.

 

[Deleted member 222586]

... with gsync or freesync that’s kind of the point.

How could it?

The point of using Gsync or Freesync is to avoid stutter AND tearing at below refresh rate. 30 frames VS 120 frames will still make all the difference in the world.

 

[Archaea]

How could it?

The point of using Gsync or Freesync is to avoid stutter AND tearing at below refresh rate. 30 frames VS 120 frames will still make all the difference in the world.​

You don't have to take my word for it. I came to my own conclusion before ever even reading these articles. (these things also apply to Freesync in my experience).

VERY first hit on a bing search for "gsync smoother"

https://www.cnet.com/news/nvidia-g-sync-is-a-smooth-move-for-pc-games/

"In practice, the effect is visually similar to watching a big-screen TV with a dejudder filter turned on, which is a form of video smoothing some call the "soap opera effect." It's generally unwanted on TVs, but here it's a plus. Motion is smoother, screen tearing is nonexistent, and each of the games we tried, from Metro: Last Light to the new Dying Light, looked great."

"In a sense, G-Sync gave us the illusion of a better frame rate, thanks to its especially smooth motion. Comparing the two, anyone would pick the G-Sync version."


VERY first hit on a google search for "gsync smoother" that wasn't reddit or forum thread.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/review-nvidia-g-sync-makes-your-pc-games-look-amaz/1100-6424349/

"Even then, there's still an advantage to running G-Sync. With it switched on (running on a the ASUS ROG PG278Q in this case), there's no screen tearing at all, while stuttering is completely eliminated. The difference is night and day, and I've never played games that looked and felt as smooth as they do while using G-Sync. Going back to V-Sync (on or off) further highlights the improvements of G-Sync, with games looking awfully juddery without it. Given the current niche nature of G-Sync, it's unlikely you'll be able to head down to your nearest electronics store to check it out and see the differences for yourself, but trust me when I say that $200 monitor markup is more than worth it."

"With G-Sync, it's not as important that your game runs at a fixed 60fps frame rate, for which you'd typically have to turn down some settings, or invest in better graphics hardware. I found that anything from 35fps and up looked fantastic on G-Sync, with none of the noticeable fluctuations in frame rate that you'd get from a regular monitor"

"The smoothness that G-Sync brings to games can be astonishing at times. Once I'd experienced games without the stutter and screen tearing that have come to be part and parcel of a gaming experience (particularly on PC), I found it very hard to go back. Even better is how G-Sync enabled me to crank up all the settings without worrying about hitting a minimum of 60fps. That's a big deal not just for players, but for developers that often have to fight against visual fidelity in order to reach a minimum frame rate target."

 

[Deleted member 222586]

You don't have to take my word for it. I came to my own conclusion before ever even reading these articles. (these things also apply to Freesync in my experience).

VERY first hit on a bing search for "gsync smoother"

https://www.cnet.com/news/nvidia-g-sync-is-a-smooth-move-for-pc-games/

"In practice, the effect is visually similar to watching a big-screen TV with a dejudder filter turned on, which is a form of video smoothing some call the "soap opera effect." It's generally unwanted on TVs, but here it's a plus. Motion is smoother, screen tearing is nonexistent, and each of the games we tried, from Metro: Last Light to the new Dying Light, looked great."

"In a sense, G-Sync gave us the illusion of a better frame rate, thanks to its especially smooth motion. Comparing the two, anyone would pick the G-Sync version."


VERY first hit on a google search for "gsync smoother" that wasn't reddit or forum thread.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/review-nvidia-g-sync-makes-your-pc-games-look-amaz/1100-6424349/

"Even then, there's still an advantage to running G-Sync. With it switched on (running on a the ASUS ROG PG278Q in this case), there's no screen tearing at all, while stuttering is completely eliminated. The difference is night and day, and I've never played games that looked and felt as smooth as they do while using G-Sync. Going back to V-Sync (on or off) further highlights the improvements of G-Sync, with games looking awfully juddery without it. Given the current niche nature of G-Sync, it's unlikely you'll be able to head down to your nearest electronics store to check it out and see the differences for yourself, but trust me when I say that $200 monitor markup is more than worth it."

"With G-Sync, it's not as important that your game runs at a fixed 60fps frame rate, for which you'd typically have to turn down some settings, or invest in better graphics hardware. I found that anything from 35fps and up looked fantastic on G-Sync, with none of the noticeable fluctuations in frame rate that you'd get from a regular monitor"

"The smoothness that G-Sync brings to games can be astonishing at times. Once I'd experienced games without the stutter and screen tearing that have come to be part and parcel of a gaming experience (particularly on PC), I found it very hard to go back. Even better is how G-Sync enabled me to crank up all the settings without worrying about hitting a minimum of 60fps. That's a big deal not just for players, but for developers that often have to fight against visual fidelity in order to reach a minimum frame rate target."

I'm quoting you so that I can eliminate the greens and the reds. Being colour blind it destroys my ability to read. Will answer after I read and understand your post.

---

edit: and this proves? The point of VRR (variable refresh rate, which is what Gsync and Freesync are) is to eliminate tearing and stutter, together, at once. Vsync isn't good enough.

This still doesn't affect the underlying difference between 50 and 120fps. That can't be fixed.

 

[Archaea]

I'm quoting you so that I can eliminate the greens and the reds. Being colour blind it destroys my ability to read. Will answer after I read and understand your post.

---

edit: and this proves? The point of VRR (variable refresh rate, which is what Gsync and Freesync are) is to eliminate tearing and stutter, together, at once. Vsync isn't good enough.

This still doesn't affect the underlying difference between 50 and 120fps. That can't be fixed.

You are stuck like a broken record. The gamespot review said 35hz and up felt identical using gsync to higher FPS. The CNET review said it eliminates the judder of slower frame rates making it feel very smooth through the entire gsync supported frame rate spectrum. Your response ‘it isn’t true’. Sounds like it’s subjective to subjective perception delta.

Since you’ve already come to your own conclusion (what have you tested by the way?) and I to mine through my own testing - then I suppose there is no path forward to agreement. I’ll keep enjoying my gsync (or freesync) and smoother, better gaming experience in the meantime.

 

[AORUS]

I'm very curious about gsync. I've always played games just on 60Hz IPS.

Wondering, for those past 35 years of age, do you see a lot of difference with gsync, from 60Hz monitors?

I have a UHD Gsync monitor and I am over 42 I don't see what all the hype is about coming from a 1080p@60 old monitor but the image is much better on a UHD not game play

 

[XoR_]

Nonsense?!

How could triple-buffered vsync net different results than Fast-sync below refresth rate when they do exactly the same thing? (at below refresh rate). Also, triple buffer only works on OpenGL.

Are you Nvidia engineer to know what these sync methods do internally?
No? Then why do you use bold and underline at word 'exactly'?

And I would not be that certain about Tripple Buffering as few years ago you had to enable it somehow (eg. using D3DOverrider - also from RivaTuner) to even get ability to have fps hit 31-59fps as normal v-sync then immediately went from 60fps to 30fps when frame times became slower than refresh time 16.6ms and this was expected behaviour and make total sense with Double Buffering as when you already render frame longer than refresh time then after you wait for buffer swap to even start rendering next frame you won't make with next frame until you already begun drawing duplicated frame and now have to wait with next frame. So if game would run at 55fps normal V-Sync would get you 30fps and Tripple Buffered V-Sync 55fps. Now . Because that isn't the case today we obviously have to use additional buffer instead of waiting hence conclusion that we actually have Tripple Buffering... or maybe not it exactly but all the added buffering behaves exactly like it. And good because normal V-Sync that we had in the past was completely not usable imho and still added input lag.

And also, both will introduce input lag. It is simply impossible to use vsync or fast sync without lag. Simply impossible. Well, maybe if you have 2x or 3x your refresh rate you might have 0 added lag...

Actually FastSync have less input lag than V-Sync OFF
How it works is anyone's guess but this is what testing show.
With G-Sync ON this is also the case. Probably FastSync being tuned for lowest input lag also disables completely pre-rendering of any frames. It is not like NV have any reason to optimize FastSync for frame rate and could disable internal input lag increasing crap they added to win some benchmarks.

Lastly... fastsync at below the refresh rate will introduce unnevenness and stutter. It is the nature of the beast.

Did some more testing with game which show nice constantly moving scene in intro (Mirrors Edge) at 30Hz locked to 25fps and here you are right, V-Sync ON is more 'fluid' than FastSync with less jerkiness.
But boy oh boy, the difference in input lag is MASSIVE!!!!111
Like I said, not sure how it exactly works but FastSync is even faster than V-Sync OFF which obviously with all the tearing going on have even more and uglier stuttering than FastSync.

At 30Hz and 30fps frame cap motion is perfectly fluid and game is strangely playable with the mouse.

 

[Deleted member 222586]

You are stuck like a broken record. The gamespot review said 35hz and up felt identical using gsync to higher FPS. The CNET review said it eliminates the judder of slower frame rates making it feel very smooth through the entire gsync supported frame rate spectrum. Your response ‘it isn’t true’. Sounds like it’s subjective to subjective perception delta.

Since you’ve already come to your own conclusion (what have you tested by the way?) and I to mine through my own testing - then I suppose there is no path forward to agreement. I’ll keep enjoying my gsync (or freesync) and smoother, better gaming experience in the meantime.

No, I'm not the one that is stuck. A reviewer can say that the earth is flat: it doesn't make it so.

100 fps will ALWAYS be, and feel, smoother than 50fps. This isn't even a discussion. It is a fact. You can check it for yourself: lock your framerate at 30fps and go play a first person shooter. Simply try to aim. Now, lock your framerate (lower your graphical settings if you must) at 120fps. Try the same game again. The difference, as I have been saying, is night and day.

This is an exaggeration, but you get what I'm saying.

Also, I own a Samsung freesync 144hz. So yes, I have done the testing.

And I'm not saying that you should or shouldn't use gsync/freesync. That would be an entirely subjective discussion. For instance I don't care about tearing (I'm impervious to it) so I never use sync of any kind. But I understand that it bothers many people, which is why Freesync / Gsync are a success. But more framerate = better. Well there are exceptions when you run Freesync / Gsync because of how they operate.

Are you Nvidia engineer to know what these sync methods do internally?
No? Then why do you use bold and underline at word 'exactly'?

And I would not be that certain about Tripple Buffering as few years ago you had to enable it somehow (eg. using D3DOverrider - also from RivaTuner) to even get ability to have fps hit 31-59fps as normal v-sync then immediately went from 60fps to 30fps when frame times became slower than refresh time 16.6ms and this was expected behaviour and make total sense with Double Buffering as when you already render frame longer than refresh time then after you wait for buffer swap to even start rendering next frame you won't make with next frame until you already begun drawing duplicated frame and now have to wait with next frame. So if game would run at 55fps normal V-Sync would get you 30fps and Tripple Buffered V-Sync 55fps. Now . Because that isn't the case today we obviously have to use additional buffer instead of waiting hence conclusion that we actually have Tripple Buffering... or maybe not it exactly but all the added buffering behaves exactly like it. And good because normal V-Sync that we had in the past was completely not usable imho and still added input lag.

Oh, so you need to be an Nvidia engineer to know how stuff works? Is that it?

NVIDIA themselves explained how fast-sync works. I can fetch you a video in which an NVIDIA employee explains what is interesting about it. It is exactly the same as a triple buffering BUT without stalling the whole system when all the buffers are full AND while working on DirectX. But as with triple buffering you get jerkiness as frames aren't displayed evenly, and input lag. It is the nature of the beast.

Actually FastSync have less input lag than V-Sync OFF
How it works is anyone's guess but this is what testing show.
With G-Sync ON this is also the case. Probably FastSync being tuned for lowest input lag also disables completely pre-rendering of any frames. It is not like NV have any reason to optimize FastSync for frame rate and could disable internal input lag increasing crap they added to win some benchmarks.

OK. Officially you don't have a clue.

There is no possible way to have less input lag than when you run sync-less. IMPOSSIBLE. The only reason that you get tearing is that you never skip a frame, and that if your framerate is above the screen refresh you will draw several frames into one scanout, and thus tearing. It is when you use sync of any sort that you avoid tearing, but you do that by skipping frames (or making them wait). Thus input lag.

Of course, triple buffering (and fast-sync) introduce less lag than vsync (double buffering) because they add an additional buffer and thus the queue is smaller, but they do add lag regardless. Vsync on (double buffering) adds around 3 frames of input lag; fast-sync and triple-buffering adds 2 frames of lag and g-sync adds 1 or a bit less of input lag.

Did some more testing with game which show nice constantly moving scene in intro (Mirrors Edge) at 30Hz locked to 25fps and here you are right, V-Sync ON is more 'fluid' than FastSync with less jerkiness.
But boy oh boy, the difference in input lag is MASSIVE!!!!111

When you apply vsync and force it to 25fps you get a very problematic result. On a 60hz screen you can only have frametimes multiple of 16.6ms (1/60 of a second). So, you will double the first frame, then triple the second one. All in all, you get a 33ms timeframe, then a 50ms timeframe and so on. Jerky.

Fastsync is even worse because it will scan frames that were potentially already drawn, etc. A catastrophy.

Like I said, not sure how it exactly works but FastSync is even faster than V-Sync OFF which obviously with all the tearing going on have even more and uglier stuttering than FastSync.

At 30Hz and 30fps frame cap motion is perfectly fluid and game is strangely playable with the mouse.

A game at 30fps is playable, yet, unless you need to have pinpoint accuracy. Try to play an FPS and make precise movements. It is very, very hard to do.You lack resolution, to put it bluntly.

 

[XoR_]

There is no possible way to have less input lag than when you run sync-less. IMPOSSIBLE. The only reason that you get tearing is that you never skip a frame, and that if your framerate is above the screen refresh you will draw several frames into one scanout, and thus tearing. It is when you use sync of any sort that you avoid tearing, but you do that by skipping frames (or making them wait). Thus input lag.

Yet I have less input lag with Fast Sync which is proof it must use less buffering.
In older days of DOS games and software mode Windows games and 3dfx games you had less input lag than what we get with V-Sync OFF today. This should be big indicator there is more buffering under the hood.
FastSync bring input lag down significantly, back to levels I remember from the past. You could not play Quake at 25fps with input lag that you get today with V-Sync OFF let alone V-Sync ON. But you can play games just fine at 25fps with FastSync just fine.

Why do you even argue about it?
Best protocol to follow is to test how each new game you install behaves with various sync setting before playing it to pick best setting for it. I follow it myself and so far noticed FastSync to reduce input lag significantly even compared to V-Sync OFF and even when using G-Sync.

If you want to use V-Sync ON then go for it. Just do not post stupid things about some theories because theories do not matter but how things actually behave in real world and everyone can test how FastSync work in given game just by trying it out.

Of course, triple buffering (and fast-sync) introduce less lag than vsync (double buffering) because they add an additional buffer and thus the queue is smaller, but they do add lag regardless. Vsync on (double buffering) adds around 3 frames of input lag; fast-sync and triple-buffering adds 2 frames of lag and g-sync adds 1 or a bit less of input lag.

Yup, double buffering use 3 buffers and triple buffering use 2 buffers. It makes total sense

BTW. These BlurBusters tests are incomplete and their recommended settings stupid.
They should test FastSync with frame rate limit of monitor refresh rate like I recommend testing, it would make much more sense.

 

[AORUS]

OP here, thanks for the discussion. I can generally keep games running at 60fps (GTX 1070), to match my current refresh rates. I use vsync to avoid tearing, and do not notice (or maybe just not bothered) by input lag. Maybe when I make a switch to VRR I will. I could see where a 144Hz Gsync monitor would be useful, as I wouldn't be able to maintain 144fps in games. Don't think I'm ready to drop $600+ on an IPS Gsync right now I've already got good IPS panels for work, media and (right now) gaming. But maybe I'll give one of the Dell tn's a try, the next time they hit an attractive price point.

The eyes can't see behind 60hz and when you get older in life your eyes weakling so 144hz would make no difference all this graphic charts and video on YouTube showing differences is all 'BS' avoid the Gsync marketing hype carp and stick with free sync monitors IMO.

 

[Deleted member 222586]

Yet I have less input lag with Fast Sync which is proof it must use less buffering.

Could you please share your test results?

In older days of DOS games and software mode Windows games and 3dfx games you had less input lag than what we get with V-Sync OFF today. This should be big indicator there is more buffering under the hood.
FastSync bring input lag down significantly, back to levels I remember from the past. You could not play Quake at 25fps with input lag that you get today with V-Sync OFF let alone V-Sync ON. But you can play games just fine at 25fps with FastSync just fine.

Again, care to share your results?

Best protocol to follow is to test how each new game you install behaves with various sync setting before playing it to pick best setting for it. I follow it myself and so far noticed FastSync to reduce input lag significantly even compared to V-Sync OFF and even when using G-Sync.

Simply impossible. Gsync produces less input lag than FastSync, unless your framerate is well, well above your refresh rate.

If you want to use V-Sync ON then go for it. Just do not post stupid things about some theories because theories do not matter but how things actually behave in real world and everyone can test how FastSync work in given game just by trying it out.

The what?! You are the one posting non-sense all the time. You have no idea how any of this technology works to the point that you are posting impossible, flat-earth like stuff. And, of course, no testing of any kind to back it up. As usual.

BTW. These BlurBusters tests are incomplete and their recommended settings stupid.
They should test FastSync with frame rate limit of monitor refresh rate like I recommend testing, it would make much more sense.

So you didn't even check the review. Nice of you.

Also, they did check FastSync while keeping the framerate equal to the refresh rate.

See a pattern there? Gsync has LESS input lag than Fast Sync. At the same time, Gsync has MORE input lag than being sync-less.

Clear as a day. Sync-less has less input lag than Gsync, which has less input lag than Fast Sync.

PS: if you want to see why they limit the framerate 2 frames below the refresh rate, this is why:

The eyes can't see behind 60hz and when you get older in life your eyes weakling so 144hz would make no difference all this graphic charts and video on YouTube showing differences is all 'BS' avoid the Gsync marketing hype carp and stick with free sync monitors IMO.

Horse shit. Pure and simple.

 

[Archaea]

prava, you’ve got a 144hz freesync monitor. Please tell me you are using a freesync capable AMD card to make your decision on VRR.

 

[Deleted member 222586]

prava, you’ve got a 144hz freesync monitor. Please tell me you are using a freesync capable AMD card to make your decision on VRR.

Yes, I did a lot of testing with it on an AMD-capable card. A Fury X, to be accurate.

In any case, there is no need to do personal testing. Things are what they are. Magic doesn't exist. Do you have an VRR system? Then it is very easy to test. Limit the fps at 50fps, then at 142fps (provided you have a 144hz monitor). There are 2 huge things to notice. First the responsiveness of the system, and then the smoothness of it.

Still, I don't see why it is so hard to grasp. More frames = more information, therefore the movement is sharper.