Gsync worth it, for older eyes?

[AORUS]

Could you please share your test results?



Again, care to share your results?



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



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.




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:

View attachment 67153




Horse shit. Pure and simple.

Another chart Pure and simple marketing crap that makes more money out of the consumers, type in google ' Graphics benchmarker cheats' they both have don't it NVidia and AMD. also google 'Why Do We Need 120Hz/144Hz Monitors If The Human Eye Can't See Beyond 60Hz?' it's the brain, not the eye, does the seeing. Pure and simple and seeing with the brain is often called 'imagination,'

The truth hurts the manufacturers pocket

 

[waderunner]

Just FYI, here's a youtube video I came across over the weekend, where someone tests input lag in fastsync vs vsync, and also discusses screen tearing.

It's about 15 minutes long, but I think the guy does a good job on the analysis, and for me was worth watching:

 

[AORUS]

Thanks for the video

 

[AORUS]

This is also a good test

 

[XoR_]

bla bla bla double buffering use 3 frames and tripple buffering use 2 frames, I am frame master and BlurBusters tested FastSync at monitor native "58fps" limit because there are native 58Hz monitors...

I think it should be obvious that if you fine-tune your monitor refresh rate and use frame good frame limiter like RTSS and thus can keep tearing line at basically the same level all the time then you won't get any tearing or stutter with FastSync either and avoid input lag that V-Sync adds. Of course this line likes to go very slowly up or down so occasional frame drop can happen but once in a very long time. And if there is fps drop then it will stutter but so will V-Sync...

If person do Fast Sync tests using limiter at not refresh rate and then complain about stuttering then obviously this person have unlike myself must have low IQ.
I do claim various things about things people did not thought of and they do often disagree... always however without actually testing what I said. The best way to get applause is to say what everyone else says, not to innovate

If you own GPU that can do FastSync then it is a matter of finding that sweet spot refresh rate (for me it is actually something like 60.006Hz not exactly 60.000 - so you need to fiddle with refresh rate and find which works best) that make tearing line stay at as constant position as possible so that above and below it you have perfectly fluid motion and then turn FastSync and enjoy gaming in with V-Sync ON quality but with input lag like V-Sync OFF... as long as you have powerful ennough GPU that is

My wild claim #1 is: that because FastSync feels to be very responsive input lag with FastSync is the one you get below tear line (you see more current in-game events there) when doing V-Sync OFF. So if you have tear line period of one minute then once in a minute you will have one frame drop and game will sync itself to avoid adding input lag. This of course is wild speculation on my part and need further testing to prove or disprove.

My wind claim #2 is that because at low FPS like for example 10fps FastSync feels considerably more responsive than V-Sync OFF below tear line there must be less buffering going on. Only thing that comes to mind is pre-render limit being at 0 in this case. You cannot set it to 0 since some time and many people reported new 1 is not old 0 and old 0 having less input lag and new 1 having the same input lag as new 1. This too is only wild speculation. The best I have.

Interesting fact: with G-Sync + FastSync you still need to set fps limit to be a little smaller (2-3 frames) than refresh rate to avoid occasional frame skipping. Which is completely ridiculous because for example I can get perfect sync at 60fps with FastSync without G-Sync but I cannot do the same with G-Sync
Oh, and at lower FPS G-Sync do feel similar enough to non-G-Sync + FastSync (as long as frame limiter is divided by integer value) to to call it 'the same'. Though if G-Sync actually adds lag or not I do not really know. That said G-Sync is preferable because when there is frame rate drop it will keep everything smootch.

Either way, in all games I tested so far FastSync + RTSS + perfectly synced monitor = great input lag reduction and no tearing and no stuttering and imho it is the good thing for NV users who 60Hz displays and also to those who have 120-144Hz displays without G-Sync as they can for example set 60-72fps limit to get fluid motion or even 40-48fps limit for more demanding games. Do what you want with that information.

Oh, and if you have AMD card... shit f*ck out of luck I guess and go cry to your momma about it, not me.

This is my last reply.

Just FYI, here's a youtube video I came across over the weekend, where someone tests input lag in fastsync vs vsync, and also discusses screen tearing.

It is pretty old test. We have 2018 now.
And the way to use FastSync is to lock framerate exactly to monitor refresh rate, otherwise you will get stuttering and frames stuck in frame buffer waiting to be displayed.
Neither BlurBusters not this Battle(non)sense guy tested this configuration. Such a shame

 

[XoR_]

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.

Totally not true
Sharpness is way better as you go higher Hz + higher fps and you get input lag reduction as well and eventual stutter is also reduced and if you use V-Sync OFF tearing visibility is also greatly reduced

4096x2160 makes enormous difference vs 3840x2160 (especially for watching 3840x2160 movies on it ) and 144Hz does not make any difference vs 60Hz... you truly are a very strange guy... or girl... or whatever the hell you are

 

[Archaea]

This is also a good test

first guy can't = 1/5.

linus can however = 5/5.





I don't doubt that some people can tell. I think I could tell the difference between 75hz and 60hz, but when I tried 75hz and 144hz - both freesync for gaming - I couldn't really tell the difference. They both seemed incredibly smooth. If I took a window on the desktop and spun it around as fast as possible with the mouse I think I could tell the difference between 75hz and 144hz -- but in gameplay - nah - it just didn't matter to my eyes.

Now - if you repeat that same test with freesync on or off, or gysnc on and off - I bet I'd be 5/5 too - as I can feel the vsync lag and sense the judder that occurs without freesync or gsync. Different people apparently see differently --- surprise.

 

[AORUS]

Totally not true
Sharpness is way better as you go higher Hz + higher fps and you get input lag reduction as well and eventual stutter is also reduced and if you use V-Sync OFF tearing visibility is also greatly reduced

4096x2160 makes enormous difference vs 3840x2160 (especially for watching 3840x2160 movies on it ) and 144Hz does not make any difference vs 60Hz... you truly are a very strange guy... or girl... or whatever the hell you are

Everyone to there own opinion on the matter, Yes there is big difference with 4K @4096x2160 compare that with a UHD @3840x2160 for movies because you add 256 more pixels to the image that's if your TV/Monitor supports 4096x2160 if it don't then you are stuck at UHD level and it don't matter if it say 4K UHD because it just a UHD @3840x2160 near 4K,

Yes I am male the last time I looked Been strange is better then perfect and always right in this world.

 

[AORUS]

first guy can't = 1/5.

linus can however = 5/5.

I don't doubt that some people can tell. I think I could tell the difference between 75hz and 60hz, but when I tried 75hz and 144hz - both freesync for gaming - I couldn't really tell the difference. They both seemed incredibly smooth. If I took a window on the desktop and spun it around as fast as possible with the mouse I think I could tell the difference between 75hz and 144hz -- but in gameplay - nah - it just didn't matter to my eyes.

Now - if you repeat that same test with freesync on or off, or gysnc on and off - I bet I'd be 5/5 too - as I can feel the vsync lag and sense the judder that occurs without freesync or gsync. Different people apparently see differently --- surprise.

Yes I saw the second part but it looked more scripted IMO, then the first part like most of his YouTube channels,

the only strange thing in the second part was his friend would leave the phone on the desk face up every time to change the settings on the computer why didn't he leave it on the chair near the camera he must known what setting to change wouldn't he? OR linus facing the wall for that matter.

Imagine linus got it wrong he would lose face in front of his YouTube fans so he would have scripted it & cut it again & again to get it right that is why the phone was on the desk. he might have got just 4/5 but he want to be perfect 5/5 like always.

 

[Bankie]

I've tried both Freesync and Gsync and to be honest they seem to do next to nothing for me. They make a noticeable difference in the Nvidia Pendulum and AMD Windmill demos but in games I don't get near the stuttering/screen tearing that they show with out V/G/Free-Sync. 144hz with VRR and Vsync off feel buttery smooth to me as long as there aren't WILD fps swings (from 100+ fps to sub-60) and I guess I just don't notice tearing unless it's constant and at slow refresh rates. The only time in recent years that tearing has bothered me was in Dark Souls 3 and that was with Gsync turned on.

 

[BIGGRIMTIM]

I am an over 40 gamer and suffer from migraine headaches. I switched to a Gsync high refresh rate display about a year ago and it has made a big difference for me. I tried to go back to 60 Hz while away from home and would rather not play without high refresh and Gsync. That being said I think the high refresh might be more important than Gsync.

 

[AORUS]

I've tried both Freesync and Gsync and to be honest they seem to do next to nothing for me. They make a noticeable difference in the Nvidia Pendulum and AMD Windmill demos but in games I don't get near the stuttering/screen tearing that they show with out V/G/Free-Sync. 144hz with VRR and Vsync off feel buttery smooth to me as long as there aren't WILD fps swings (from 100+ fps to sub-60) and I guess I just don't notice tearing unless it's constant and at slow refresh rates. The only time in recent years that tearing has bothered me was in Dark Souls 3 and that was with Gsync turned on.

Playing games on a 2560×1440 or 3840×1080 with 144hz is a lower resolution to a 4K @4096x2160 or UHD @3840x2160 level that most gamers play like me, the only small problem is playing at 4K is only @60hz but that will soon change when NVidia brings out their 120hz 65" display this year.

for an example:
Samsung 3840x1080 VA FREESYNC 144Hz Gaming Quantum DOT HDR Widescreen Curved Monitor $1,617.22 when you could buy a LG Electronics OLED55B7A 55-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart OLED TV (2017 Model) for $1,596.99.

I am an over 40 gamer and suffer from migraine headaches. I switched to a Gsync high refresh rate display about a year ago and it has made a big difference for me. I tried to go back to 60 Hz while away from home and would rather not play without high refresh and Gsync. That being said I think the high refresh might be more important than Gsync.

If you suffer from migraine headaches you shouldn't be play games/ use your monitor too much, having a high refresh rate might reduce eyestrain but with lower resolution @ 2560×1440 or 3840×1080, IMO I would go with a 60hz with a higher resolution @4k is better for the eyes then lower.​

 

[Aix.]

If you suffer from migraine headaches you shouldn't be play games/ use your monitor too much, having a high refresh rate might reduce eyestrain but with lower resolution @ 2560×1440 or 3840×1080, IMO I would go with a 60hz with a higher resolution @4k is better for the eyes then lower.

So the guy already gave you his experience results - that a high refresh rate Gsync monitor eased his migraines - and your advice is to get a lower refresh rate monitor with a higher resolution?

I can't believe we have anyone willing to come to the display subforum at [H] spouting this "the human eye can't see more than 60 fps" nonsense in 2018. Years ago I had one of those beautiful Catleap 2560x1440 IPS monitors - and I ditched it immediately for a 1080p TN panel after playing at 144 Hz. You might be willing to prioritize resolution over Hz (nothing wrong with that) but claiming high refresh rates are just marketing hype does nothing but make you look like a fool.

 

[AORUS]

So the guy already gave you his experience results - that a high refresh rate Gsync monitor eased his migraines - and your advice is to get a lower refresh rate monitor with a higher resolution?

I can't believe we have anyone willing to come to the display subforum at [H] spouting this "the human eye can't see more than 60 fps" nonsense in 2018. Years ago I had one of those beautiful Catleap 2560x1440 IPS monitors - and I ditched it immediately for a 1080p TN panel after playing at 144 Hz. You might be willing to prioritize resolution over Hz (nothing wrong with that) but claiming high refresh rates are just marketing hype does nothing but make you look like a fool.

What are you afraid of the truth on 'HZ'? I wasn't give anyone advice if you read it I said 'IMO' it doesn't mean to follower me it's just my opinion, and Gsync is just all marketing hype, again IMO.

 

[fwiler1]

I am an over 40 gamer and suffer from migraine headaches. I switched to a Gsync high refresh rate display about a year ago and it has made a big difference for me. I tried to go back to 60 Hz while away from home and would rather not play without high refresh and Gsync. That being said I think the high refresh might be more important than Gsync.

I'm with ya. At 48 I can feel a big difference with high refresh rates, and really appreciate the smoothness. It's like a relief from strain. At 60hz I'm dead after about an hour.

If you suffer from migraine headaches you shouldn't be play games/ use your monitor too much, having a high refresh rate might reduce eyestrain but with lower resolution @ 2560×1440 or 3840×1080, IMO I would go with a 60hz with a higher resolution @4k is better for the eyes then lower.

No. It's the refresh rate. 4k makes no difference.

 

[Nenu]

Gsync worth it, for older eyes?

I suggest Optrex.