G-Sync monitors clarification (owners)

Hey All,

So I've been looking to upgrading from my BenQXl2720z. When using this monitor 60fps is fine in conjunction with 60hz but personally between 80-100hz is the sweet spot when it comes to game fluidity/motion while anything higher is not as perceptible to me.

My GPU is the 980 TI and play mostly single player/action games with no multiplayer gaming. With the recent influx of 1440p G-Sync capable monitors I've been wanting to upgrade. Having never seen a G-sync monitor I don't know how it actually performs.

My assumption is if the hardware is capable of holding/locking fps to hz for the most part G-sync may not be necessary.

Non gsync 60hz vs 100hz there is perceptible fluidity not just visually but with input selection (Mouse, keyboard, pad) as well. When G-sync is enabled is the fluidity more similar to 100hz when it's fluctuating? Is there a difference between 100hz non g vs 100hz g enabled? Is there a difference between gsync running between 30-60hz or 60-100hz?

These are really odd questions I know but hope everyone who has experienced/owned can chime in.

Best,
Zio

ziocomposite said:

Non gsync 60hz vs 100hz there is perceptible fluidity not just visually but with input selection (Mouse, keyboard, pad) as well. When G-sync is enabled is the fluidity more similar to 100hz when it's fluctuating? Is there a difference between 100hz non g vs 100hz g enabled? Is there a difference between gsync running between 30-60hz or 60-100hz?

Click to expand...

Hey man.. so i can give you my opinion.. even though its not the end all be all.

I can't tell the difference between G-Sync and Non G-Sync unless its actually in game and starts to chug a bit. I have an ROG Swift and an XL2720T (120HZ) that are both under my desk right now and get tagged in and out occasionally. I cannot tell the difference in motion clarity really between the two of them. The swift obviously looks much better than the XL2720Z in terms of pixel density, but as far as motion while gaming goes, you really have to look hard.

From my experience, if you have a decent amount of graphical horsepower (i have the 980TI as well) than you really don't see a WHOLE lot of frame tearing to begin with, when you're running a high refresh rate monitor. It's alot harder to discern, and just plain happens less.

I think G-Sync is most effective in the mid-lower quadrant where someone maybe has a 970 and a 4k display and the game is running at like 40FPS. It will help ALOT there.

In terms of having a 980ti and an ROG Swift, i think its insurance for a problem that you'd rarely encounter anyway.

Hope this helps OP.

Personally I feel that gsync makes no difference in how responsive the keyboard and mouse feels. 100fps non gsync feels just as responsive as 100fps with gsync in terms of how the mouse and keyboard feel (assuming you are NOT using vsync as that itself would add input lag). I would agree with above that gsync seems to make the biggest impact on lower frame rates but with the higher frame rates it really just eliminates any sort of screen tearing.

Motion fluidity is amazing with G-Sync. Whether or not input lag is affected in any way is a moot point. The clarity of motion that is achieved with G-Sync will make your reactions better just from your visual acuity being able to better see and predict what is happening on screen. I think that the 70-110 FPS range is the sweet spot with a 144 Hz G-Sync display. This is where I am at in most games with a TITAN X on a PG278Q running at 2560x1440. The maximum framerate is such that you never get close to the upper refresh rate, so you'll never hit the V-Sync wall if you have it enabled or get to the point where the screen is tearing again having exceeded the maximum refresh rate. Regardless of whether or not the framerate fluctuates G-Sync still accounts for the small changes that are nearly imperceptible to create near infinitely smooth motion.

So while change in input response is negligible the psychological and physiological effect of the motion clarity will make your enjoyment better than without, and could possibly make you a better player. Most people who have experienced a variable refresh display, G-Sync or Adaptive-Sync, agree that they will never go back to a regular display. It's that much of a game changer.

Thanks to everyone for providing valuable experience.

The main thing I can see that will happen when upgrading to a 1440p monitor (still pending ultrawide vs wide) is that FPS is definitely going to take a hit. With a single 980 Ti newer games will more than likely be running between 50-110 fps varying in settings. Just thinking about this my main worry is the reduction of fluidity that will result visually having only used regular monitors. It seems like G-Sync is something that needs to be really experienced 1st hand. Now the difficult part is trying to get a quality one at that.

Once again, much appreciated and back to the lurking shadows I go.

The PG278Q is an excellent choice. The Acer Predator X34 is also getting pretty good reviews if you want a 21:9 monitor. There is an IPS version of the PG278Q, incidentally called the PG279Q, but the only thing really different from the TN-based PG278Q is better viewing angles at the cost of lower response times. Color accuracy might actually be a little better on the PG278Q.

The 980 Ti is plenty of card for 2560x1440 in most cases. The only games that will give you trouble are outliers like The Witcher 3. Like I said, with a TITAN X I am getting around 70-80 FPS in most games using very high quality settings at that resolution. Some games will be higher (obviously older ones) and some will be lower.

G-Sync is borderline useless for contemporary games.

G-Sync and FreeSync only shine when you run emulators. If you use MAME, Mortal Kombat runs at 54hz. Street Fighter 2 runs at 59.63hz. Virtually no arcade game ran at 60hz. This means they all stutter on a traditional 60hz LCD.

On a G-Sync monitor, those games are liquid smooth because they're actually updating at 54hz etc.

If you're into emulation, variable refresh is a game changer for flat panel monitors. If you're not, it's pretty much a waste of money.

Armenius said:

The PG278Q is an excellent choice. The Acer Predator X34 is also getting pretty good reviews if you want a 21:9 monitor. There is an IPS version of the PG278Q, incidentally called the PG279Q, but the only thing really different from the TN-based PG278Q is better viewing angles at the cost of lower response times. Color accuracy might actually be a little better on the PG278Q.

The 980 Ti is plenty of card for 2560x1440 in most cases. The only games that will give you trouble are outliers like The Witcher 3. Like I said, with a TITAN X I am getting around 70-80 FPS in most games using very high quality settings at that resolution. Some games will be higher (obviously older ones) and some will be lower.

Click to expand...

No love for XB270HU?

60 FPS at 60Hz with zero dropped frames, perfect frame-pacing (check an Afterburner, or ideally FRAPS, frame-time graph), and V-Sync enabled, is exactly as smooth as G-Sync is all the time.

Your standard monitor is only ever that smooth at 60 FPS though, while G-Sync is always that smooth, since the refresh rate is synchronized to the framerate. As soon as your framerate deviates from 60 FPS on a standard display, you get stuttering.

G-Sync can't fix things like the game engine itself stuttering (e.g. hitching up as things load in, in an open world game) but as long as the game does not have those problems, even fluctuating framerates should appear smooth.

G-Sync is not a fix for low framerates though. Below a certain threshold - and it's different for everyone - we no longer perceive motion to be completely smooth. For me that's about 45-50 FPS. For some people, that seems to be below 30 FPS (though I suspect that's due to limited exposure to higher framerates, or just being used to never hitting a steady 60 FPS at 60Hz) and for people that are used to high refresh rate displays, it might be even higher than 60.
That's why I was never too concerned about the "limited window" with the first lot of Adaptive-Sync (FreeSync) displays; even a 40-75Hz range still goes below the range that I consider to have smooth gameplay.

If you're only playing older games where you can truly keep the framerate locked to the refresh rate by using V-Sync, you won't gain anything from a G-Sync monitor other than eliminating the latency of V-Sync. If you're playing newer game releases, where even a 980Ti struggles to hit 60 FPS, G-Sync should be a big improvement.

Marm0t said:

I have an ROG Swift and an XL2720T (120HZ) that are both under my desk right now and get tagged in and out occasionally. I cannot tell the difference in motion clarity really between the two of them.

Click to expand...

G-Sync is a technology to eliminate tearing, latency, and greatly improve motion smoothness.
Variable Refresh Rate displays require that the display is flicker-free (sample-and-hold) so G-Sync does nothing for motion clarity.

For motion clarity, you need to use a strobed (impulse-type) display, or a G-Sync display with ULMB enabled. (note: enabling ULMB disables G-Sync)
But with impulse-type displays, your framerate must be locked to your refresh rate, or else you will get extremely bad judder.

MistaSparkul said:

Personally I feel that gsync makes no difference in how responsive the keyboard and mouse feels. 100fps non gsync feels just as responsive as 100fps with gsync in terms of how the mouse and keyboard feel (assuming you are NOT using vsync as that itself would add input lag). I would agree with above that gsync seems to make the biggest impact on lower frame rates but with the higher frame rates it really just eliminates any sort of screen tearing.

Click to expand...

Well obviously the benefit of G-Sync is that you have a fixed 1ms+1 frame latency, instead of the minimum 2 frames of latency that V-Sync requires. (and it is often 4+ frames by default in many games)

At higher framerates, the cost of an additional frame of latency is reduced.
At 144 FPS that would be 7.94ms G-Sync vs 13.88ms V-Sync. (assuming the minimum 2 frames)
At 30 FPS that would be 34.33ms G-Sync vs 66.67ms V-Sync - worse if it's a game that has 3 or 4 frames of latency by default. (100ms, 133.33ms, or worse!)

If you're comparing G-Sync to V-Sync Off, then G-Sync technically has 1ms higher latency.
But I've never understood how anyone could play games with V-Sync off, because the screen tearing and stuttering is so bad.

bigbluefe said:

G-Sync is borderline useless for contemporary games.

Click to expand...

Assuming you have infinite hardware power, that is.
Even with a pair of 980Ti's in SLI, a lot of newer games will drop below 60 FPS at 1440p (or even 1080p) on Ultra settings.

bigbluefe said:

G-Sync and FreeSync only shine when you run emulators. If you use MAME, Mortal Kombat runs at 54hz. Street Fighter 2 runs at 59.63hz. Virtually no arcade game ran at 60hz. This means they all stutter on a traditional 60hz LCD.
On a G-Sync monitor, those games are liquid smooth because they're actually updating at 54hz etc.
If you're into emulation, variable refresh is a game changer for flat panel monitors. If you're not, it's pretty much a waste of money.

Click to expand...

I agree that emulation can really benefit from VRR technologies, since many different arcade systems do not run at 60Hz. (though you do have the option of adjusting the speed so they run at 60Hz if you are more concerned about stuttering than 100% accuracy)

You should consider a CRT or strobed LCD. Putting SINKs into a monitor is pointless.

chenw said:

No love for XB270HU?

Click to expand...

In my opinion. I'm not a fan of Acer displays, personally. I also prefer the response time of a TN over an IPS-based technology for gaming.

But on that note, Dell has their own 27" G-Sync display available next week (October 27). The S2716DG uses the same panel as the PG278Q (AU Optronics TN, 2560x1440 at 144 Hz with G-Sync) and costs the same amount ($799.99 USD).

rabidz7 said:

You should consider a CRT or strobed LCD. Putting SINKs into a monitor is pointless.

Click to expand...

If CRTs could be retrofitted with Variable Refresh Rate support, you would absolutely be a fan of it.
Either you lack an understanding of what this technology does (likely, since you keep calling it "SINK" technology) or you're spreading FUD because you somehow feel threatened by it despite CRTs already being out of production for a decade.
It is definitely not "pointless" and solves some very real problems with displays and real-time rendering.

Fundamentally, trying to synchronize the game - where performance is highly variable - to the display, is a Sisyphean task.
It requires ever more powerful hardware, and the demands of modern games on their highest settings seem to be outpacing what today's hardware is capable of, even if you had an unlimited budget for your rig.

Synchronizing the display to the framerate makes a whole lot more sense. It just wasn't possible with impulse-type displays.
VRR tech should have been the standard for flat panel displays ever since they were introduced, with fixed-refresh rate operation being optional.

I was under the impression that if you were sick and tired of tearing you wanted to have G-sync or Freesync.

Buy a gsync monitor from a seller like Amazon where you can easily send it back. Hardly anyone who tries it goes back, those that do go to a 4K monitor from having gsync probably didnt need smooth motion to begin with. 1440p Gsync is bliss.

You will not notice it if all you do is play CS:GO at 144hz. You will notice it if you play a variety of newer titles as they are released, where even with a 980ti the framrate can be between 30-100FPS depending on the game and scene thats being rendered.

It especially shines in demanding FPS games where your framerate dips below 60 with bells and whistles turned on. The motion is smoother and its quicker to get on target. K/D ratio will most likely improve and the overall experience will feel nicer.

The only titles I dont notice it in are isometric games, unless you pan the view quickly.

VulcaN said:

The only titles I dont notice it in are isometric games, unless you pan the view quickly.

Click to expand...

I find stuttering to be most visible when things are moving at a constant speed (panning a camera with the keyboard or gamepad rather than using a mouse) and when things are moving slowly. Any dropped frames show a very noticeable "jump" in the image.