• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

[AnandTech] Nvidia G-Sync Review

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

octoberasian

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
4,081
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7582/nvidia-gsync-review/3

Although G-Sync is limited to NVIDIA hardware (GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost or greater), the implementation seems simple enough that other manufacturers should be able to do something similar. That’s obviously the biggest issue with what we have here today - it only works with NVIDIA hardware. For die hard NVIDIA fans, I can absolutely see a G-Sync monitor as being a worthy investment. You might just want to wait for some more displays to hit the market first.
Click to expand...
Opinion:

The G-Sync board uses an Altera Arria V GX programmable FPGA 6.5536 Gbps transceiver . Though G-Sync is integrated as of the last Nvidia R331.93 driver, nothing about this screams proprietary other than Nvidia adding support for the hardware and a custom program to control the refresh rate and the VBLANK interval in its driver.

Arria even offers a development kit to program the transceiver for $3995 here:
http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/altera/kit-arria-v-gx.html

AMD and Intel can support this easily inside their own driver packages as well for their own GPUs by utilizing the dev kit to program the same dynamic refresh rate control as Nvidia.

And, according to AnandTech, there seems to be a 40% price premium added to the cost of the display if adding the G-Sync module.
 
I'm really interested in this tech, but I'll wait and see some more displays that come out with it. A good 1440p or 1600p would convince me to go back to Nvidia to try this as I'm in the market for a screen anyhow.

octoberasian said:
And, according to AnandTech, there seems to be a 40% price premium added to the cost of the display if adding the G-Sync module.
Click to expand...


Well, 40% on top of a VG248QE which is $280, so it seems like the module itself will be around $120 no matter what its stuck in.
 
In pathological cases the impact can be shocking, particularly if you’re coming from a 60Hz panel today (with or without v-sync). The smoothness afforded by G-Sync is just awesome.
Click to expand...

I really want to try this out.
 
octoberasian said:
And, according to AnandTech, there seems to be a 40% price premium added to the cost of the display if adding the G-Sync module.
Click to expand...
Ouch. The problem I foresee as this tech trickles down into less expensive displays is that corners are going to be cut elsewhere to hit low price points. On the higher end, with the 'top-tier' 144 Hz gaming displays, manufacturers are just going to up prices without compromising too terribly elsewhere, but there'll be squeezing on lower-tier models.
 
Idk I think it may be worth the 40% increase. I for one will definitely be picking up a monitor.
 
this is really exciting tech. i'd buy a nvidia card and a 2560x1440 G-sync monitor right now if it was available.
 
LigTasm said:
Well, 40% on top of a VG248QE which is $280, so it seems like the module itself will be around $120 no matter what its stuck in.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's correct, it's 40% on top of the $280 ASUS monitor.

So, actually, just think of how much your monitor cost you when you bought it new and add $120 to it for the G-Sync module, that's how much it'll add to the cost of the monitor, supposedly.

So, think of something cheap like a $100 1600x900 Acer monitor and adding G-Sync will make it $220. Or, a $300 or $400 1440p monitor from QNIX or such becoming $420 or $520 or more.

But, for what it does and the games that do benefit from it-- not every game seems to benefit from it if going by AnandTech-- it's probably worth the extra $120 premium for no screen tearing and smoother gameplay.

Again, I do hope other companies like AMD and Intel support it. It just looks like extra programming added to the Nvidia driver and controlling the VBLANK interval and frame monitoring from the game itself. It's something that could easily be added to drivers from AMD and Intel given that Altera provides an SDK for it.
 
I want 1440p 3d, ips and Gsync capable panel. Now. I will even pay 1000 for it.
 
wonderfield said:
Ouch. The problem I foresee as this tech trickles down into less expensive displays is that corners are going to be cut elsewhere to hit low price points. On the higher end, with the 'top-tier' 144 Hz gaming displays, manufacturers are just going to up prices without compromising too terribly elsewhere, but there'll be squeezing on lower-tier models.
Click to expand...

I am sure the price will come down eventually. $120 seems absurd for it. In some years it may even be a standard feature.

I hope they come out with one at 1080 for those of us who can't afford to spend $800-900 on video cards every year.
 
Unless AMD and Intel adopt it then it will fail.

I do hope that it does not, this looks very interesting, if AMD and Intel support it then I can see it getting adopted into the VESA standards

If it is just a simple thing that can be added to existing cards via drivers then I can see AMD adding support for GCN GPUs in 2014.
 
It will take some time to get G-Sync expanded out even beyond the ASUS unit.



There are several issues here - one is that each G-Sync module must be tuned to the specific panel and PCBs used for that panel. As of now, the OEM makers - ASUS, BENQ, etc have the tech from Nvidia and are implementing them the best way they see fit (read: in whatever way makes them the most money). This goes to my point that people claiming exclusivity have no idea what they are talking about. The tech has been released to OEM makers already. The second issue is that of development. Since the tech must be tuned for each application it means it will take time for the modules to make their way into a bunch of different panel formats since R&D and production is pricey.



We here at Overlord are small potatoes and have not been given such worldly access to the OEM specs for G-Sync. We couldn't do much with it anyway since we don't have a large R&D department to make custom PCBs with the modules properly tuned to our panel (IPS) and TCONs.



After a conversation with Nvidia last week the whole expansion to IPS - and more importantly as far as we here at Overlord are concerned - to IPS/1440 panels is in the works. I am waiting to hear back on where in the R&D timeline the 1440/IPS G-Sync module is. Until then I continue to hammer home with Nvidia that the holy grail, short of a real 4k at 60hz or above, not the hybrids out now, is a 1440/120Hz selectable/G-Sync model. TN at 1080 is ok if you run 3 panels, but a single panel? Please. With GPUs ramping up each quarter it seems, soon 3 x 1440/120/GSYNC will be attainable and price effective compared to the upcoming 4K models.



Bottom line I think people don't understand that you cannot take the module and just plug it into a different setup. The module must be engineered to each specific application making it more time consuming and ultimately more expensive.
Click to expand...
http://overlordforum.com/topic/603-nvidia-g-sync/page-2#entry6702
 
almendragrande said:
This. I recently tried out an ASUS VG248QE coming from a HP ZR30W. While gaming was ultra smooth the image quality & colors were just awful.
Click to expand...

You're correct. Unless you have software and hardware to calibrate displays , you're never going to get the colors right.

Right now I have 2 of the 248s... Both of them had disgusting settings out of the box. I ended up calibrating both displays and both weren't really even the same. In my experiences calibrating plasma and led, the calibration can be shared across other units with little tweaking. These guys weren't even in th same state when it came to calibration.

Goodluck getting each individual color profile to load properly for each monitor too. Sometimes I'll boot into windows running opposite cals. Pisses me off to no end.
 
KickAssCop said:
I want 1440p 3d, ips and Gsync capable panel. Now. I will even pay 1000 for it.
Click to expand...

Supposing that they have some quality control on it, right (well minus 3D I don't give a crap about 3D)? Quality control on 1440p panels at the moment is currently hilariously bad. It's so bad that I figured out (and correctly so) that I was better off just going with a 300$ Qnix. Even if a 1440p had all of those features and retailed at 1000$ chances are it would have as bad (if not worse) quality control than current panels.

Anyway, I wanna see this technology in action on Qnix's at some point. Someone over there in Korea/China can get that chip cheap, right? They friggin' better.
 
Another tech that is useless for most people...

I have a hp zr30w(2560x1600) and love it. The only upgrade I can go to is 4k. Resolution is one thing that is always an upgrade for me, I can only go up...

Also having a r290 doesn't help either...
 
Last edited:
Novel idea, but at the end of the day 96+fps gaming @120hz will solve 99% of the tearing issues people perceive.
 
This sounds useful for those that can't maintain >60fps at all times. For those of us that have heavily invested in video cards to ensure that the fps is >60, this sounds like a waste of money.
 
pandora's box said:
This sounds useful for those that can't maintain >60fps at all times. For those of us that have heavily invested in video cards to ensure that the fps is >60, this sounds like a waste of money.
Click to expand...

Not really. What g-sync does is eliminate the stutter and tear when the framerate becomes not consistent, and if your framerate *is* consistent at 60 that means you can pile on more image quality features without degrading the experience in terms of smoothness. For instance, Metro: LL looks pretty jarring when the framerate is variable going between 30 to 60 constantly. With g-sync, from what reviewers indicate, it is completely smooth even with the framerate being variable between 30-120. The current problem with monitors is that they're not tied to the framerate the GPU is spitting out, gsync changes that.

Also, it should be mentioned that vsync introduces input lag. G-sync also solves that issue.

On the downside, anand indicated that gsync does not support surround yet, and doesn't support windowed games (I rarely, if ever, played fullscreen windowed personally). Although AT mentions that nvidia is working on correcting this, this isn't going to be a huge issue for most users. All in all gsync isn't for everyone. But pretty darn cool from what i've read so far. It lets you get more smoothness with less hardware, since variable framerates are the bane of smoothness - due to the way monitors more or less expect 60hz/60 fps to be spit out of the GPU. Also, if you have high end hardware this just means you can pile on more AA or image quality features without detracting from the smoothness - even if it *isn't* 60 fps. The article at anand goes through this, i'm personally the most excited about this. Finally, SGSSAA won't be out of the question for AAA games. (and won't require 2000$+ of GPU)
 
Last edited:
Would prefer to try it first before I judge how useful it is (or isn't). Same thing as 120 Hz.
 
Spazturtle said:
Unless AMD and Intel adopt it then it will fail.
Click to expand...

Why?

G-Sync is a tech that, if it proves to work as the previews have demonstrated, will bring more people back to NV. NV already has monitor partners and doesn't need AMD's help to sell the G-Sync tech. It is obviously an enthusiast level product.

NV has no reason to give the tech to AMD as it would do the opposite of what NV is trying to accomplish. Much like PhysX which didn't die when it remained a proprietary tech of NV, G-Sync doesn't need AMD to survive. G-Sync will just be another feature to make NV cards more attractive than AMD cards to certain buyers.

G-Sync is like Mantel. Both are technologies that are designed to get people to buy a red or a green card.
 
almendragrande said:
This. I recently tried out an ASUS VG248QE coming from a HP ZR30W. While gaming was ultra smooth the image quality & colors were just awful.
Click to expand...

You do realize (rhetorical question?) that the ZR30w is a wide gamut monitor meant to be used in color managed programs for work right? Otherwise the colors will be quite over-saturated and inaccurate. When it comes to displaying colors accurately in games the VG248QE absolutely curb stomps the ZR30W unless you are using the AMD EDID setting.

-------

Can't wait! Eizo will likely be the first to release a 23-24" IPS/PLS/AHVA panel with G-Sync next year to replace the FS2333, or maybe BenQ will release an AHVA (AUO's version of IPS) panel with G-Sync.
 
Last edited:
Spazturtle said:
Unless AMD and Intel adopt it then it will fail..
Click to expand...

Intel does not make a video card why would they need to adopt this? Unless you think someone will want to push a high end monitor with integrated graphics?

AMD also caters more to the budget market and not the high end market.
 
PRIME1 said:
Intel does not make a video card why would they need to adopt this? Unless you think someone will want to push a high end monitor with integrated graphics?

AMD also caters more to the budget market and not the high end market.
Click to expand...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.
 
Cr4ckm0nk3y said:
NV has no reason to give the tech to AMD as it would do the opposite of what NV is trying to accomplish. Much like PhysX which didn't die when it remained a proprietary tech of NV, G-Sync doesn't need AMD to survive. G-Sync will just be another feature to make NV cards more attractive than AMD cards to certain buyers.

G-Sync is like Mantel. Both are technologies that are designed to get people to buy a red or a green card.
Click to expand...

But, nothing about this says it's proprietary other than Nvidia tacking on their nameplate on it.

The FPGA that's used is programmable and even the company that provides it has a dev kit to make software for it.

It also communicates over DisplayPort, and the software included with the Nvidia driver controls not only the frame rate but the VBLANK interval of the monitor. With the dev kit, which costs $3995 from their website, a company like AMD can easily create a similar software to control the VBLANK interval and frame rate to be used on their cards.

Unless there is something hardware-wise that locks it to Nvidia by detecting the video card type over DisplayPort, I just don't see it.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Would prefer to try it first before I judge how useful it is (or isn't). Same thing as 120 Hz.
Click to expand...
120 Hz isn't life-changing, but it's...well, life-changing. I don't know if G-Sync is going to be that significant an improvement, but 120 Hz certainly is.
 
xoleras said:
Not really. What g-sync does is eliminate the stutter and tear when the framerate becomes not consistent, and if your framerate *is* consistent at 60 that means you can pile on more image quality features without degrading the experience in terms of smoothness. For instance, Metro: LL looks pretty jarring when the framerate is variable going between 30 to 60 constantly. With g-sync, from what reviewers indicate, it is completely smooth even with the framerate being variable between 30-120. The current problem with monitors is that they're not tied to the framerate the GPU is spitting out, gsync changes that.

Also, it should be mentioned that vsync introduces input lag. G-sync also solves that issue.

On the downside, anand indicated that gsync does not support surround yet, and doesn't support windowed games (I rarely, if ever, played fullscreen windowed personally). Although AT mentions that nvidia is working on correcting this, this isn't going to be a huge issue for most users. All in all gsync isn't for everyone. But pretty darn cool from what i've read so far. It lets you get more smoothness with less hardware, since variable framerates are the bane of smoothness - due to the way monitors more or less expect 60hz/60 fps to be spit out of the GPU. Also, if you have high end hardware this just means you can pile on more AA or image quality features without detracting from the smoothness - even if it *isn't* 60 fps. The article at anand goes through this, i'm personally the most excited about this. Finally, SGSSAA won't be out of the question for AAA games. (and won't require 2000$+ of GPU)
Click to expand...

So a simple solution would be to use a framerate limiter to your monitor refresh rate. No input lag like vsync introduces.
 
Framerate limiters always give me tearing though. It's one of the "lesser of two evils" type of deals; I don't use fps limiters because of that reason.

Like I said though, this sounds pretty exciting; you can get much more image quality for less with g-sync. Variable framerate doesn't affect smoothness as it does currently, you can literally pile a lot more IQ options on without a negative effect from what i'm reading at AT and hardwarecanucks. Variable framerate was the bane of smoothness, gsync seems to alleviate that quite a bit. It should be mentioned that not everyone can peg a game at 60 fps, not everyone spends 2000$+ on GPUS, and not everyone gets 60 fps constant in crysis 3 with it maxed out. I'd say the majority of PC gamers do have dips in FPS here and there, which is what g-sync attempts to address in terms of input lag and smoothness.
 
xoleras said:
Framerate limiters always give me tearing though. It's one of the "lesser of two evils" type of deals; I don't use fps limiters because of that reason.

Like I said though, this sounds pretty exciting; you can get much more image quality for less with g-sync. Variable framerate doesn't affect smoothness as it does currently, you can literally pile a lot more IQ options on without a negative effect from what i'm reading at AT and hardwarecanucks. Variable framerate was the bane of smoothness, gsync seems to alleviate that quite a bit. It should be mentioned that not everyone can peg a game at 60 fps, not everyone spends 2000$+ on GPUS, and not everyone gets 60 fps constant in crysis 3 with it maxed out. I'd say the majority of PC gamers do have dips in FPS here and there, which is what g-sync attempts to address in terms of input lag and smoothness.
Click to expand...


Oh don't get me wrong I think Gsync is a needed change for monitor tech. I just don't see myself going out and replacing my $500+ monitor with a gsync one. I think you'll find a lot of other people feel the same way.
 
This would be perfect for when everyone is hooking their SteamBox to their new shiny 4K HDTV in the living room. But until 4K prices come down to reasonable standards, I don't see people replacing their screens for this. But for a SteamBox in a high end home this would be perfect.
 
xoleras said:
Variable framerate doesn't affect smoothness as it does currently, you can literally pile a lot more IQ options on without a negative effect from what i'm reading
Click to expand...
Although the monitor will be able to update non-isochronously, you'll still want a solid, consistent frame rate for smoothness. All of the inherent time domain-related issues of real-time rendering remain, but G-Sync should yield some nice improvements (if not a full solution) to the display end of the problem.
 
Cr4ckm0nk3y said:
Why?

G-Sync is a tech that, if it proves to work as the previews have demonstrated, will bring more people back to NV. NV already has monitor partners and doesn't need AMD's help to sell the G-Sync tech. It is obviously an enthusiast level product.

NV has no reason to give the tech to AMD as it would do the opposite of what NV is trying to accomplish. Much like PhysX which didn't die when it remained a proprietary tech of NV, G-Sync doesn't need AMD to survive. G-Sync will just be another feature to make NV cards more attractive than AMD cards to certain buyers.

G-Sync is like Mantel. Both are technologies that are designed to get people to buy a red or a green card.
Click to expand...

Phys-X, you mean that thing NVIDA loses money on? They have to pay developers to use it, Phys-X is one of the slowest physics engines out their, even running on NVIDIA GPUs their are faster phys engines.

Why would people buy a monitor that only works with one brand of GPU?

G-Sync is nothing like Mantel, Mantel is an API that allows devs to better optimise apps for the GCN arch.
 
Spazturtle said:
Why would people buy a monitor that only works with one brand of GPU?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. Unfortunately, it doesn't in any way apply to G-Sync.

Spazturtle said:
G-Sync is nothing like Mantel, Mantel is an API that allows devs to better optimise apps for the GCN arch.
Click to expand...
Mantle. And, yes, he is correct when he says that both are technologies being positioned to drive adoption of vendor-specific hardware.
 
wonderfield said:
Mantle. And, yes, he is correct when he says that both are technologies are being positioned to drive adoption of vendor-specific hardware.
Click to expand...

Not really correct on Mantle. Mantle is going to be open source. If Nvidia wants to, they can take advantage of the API with their own hardware.
 
AMD has never claimed that Mantle will be "open source". In fact, when asked whether Mantle is open source, AMD's response has simply been "no". What they have claimed is that Mantle will allow for some level of functionality with non-GCN-based architectures.

G-Sync-based displays will also allow for some level of functionality with AMD and Intel hardware: they act simply as standard displays with fixed, isochronous refresh rates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top