Dumb Choice?

[bigbeard86]

I know someone that bought two 980s and put them in sli to play on a 15ms 60hz monitor. why would anyone do this? This person believes games "feel" smoother. Should it not be the exact opposite, where one is pushing frames the monitor cannot render (vsync off)?

 

[Ocellaris]

And the problem is?

Never mind you just updated the post... VSYNC turned off? That sounds like a bad time.

People make odd choices and there isn't much you can do about it. Mutual friend of mine recent built a new system with an Intel 6 core CPU, $400 motherboard, 32GB of RAM, and he is using non SSD drives and a GTX 670.

 

[TroyX]

100fps on a 60hz monitor does feel better than 60fps on 60hz monitor with Vsync off.


I can assure you because I have the same setup, waiting for Acer 1440p with Gsync to come.

 

[bigbeard86]

100fps on a 60hz monitor does feel better than 60fps on 60hz monitor with Vsync off.


I can assure you because I have the same setup, waiting for Acer 1440p with Gsync to come.

Explain how it "feels" better when the frames are not being displayed, and even worse, with vsync off? Do you base all of your logic on "feelings" and devoid your decisions of facts?

 

[n=1]

Placebo effect

 

[TroyX]

no placebo, bf4 feels a lot better when it runs over 60fps on my 60hz monitor.

 

[filip]

It feels better because you never dip below 60fps, ever, and that makes for buttery smooth game play.
But the SLI is a bit much, I still get buttery smooth game play with a GTX780 on my 60hz.

 

[bigbeard86]

no placebo, bf4 feels a lot better when it runs over 60fps on my 60hz monitor.

http://www.geek.com/games/futuremark-confirms-nvidia-is-cheating-in-benchmark-553361/


Nice way to derail the thread, by the way, after making an illogical previous post.

why did you edit your post?

 

[bigbeard86]

it just feels faster and more responsive, its a fact.

Are you seriously equating feelings with facts?

if you consistently get over 60fps minimum, it will never feel smoother (be it 61fps or 600fps), because you are limited with 60hz. in fact, it will even be worse, since one will be pushing far more frame rate than the monitor can exhibit, when one uses vsync off.

 

[TroyX]

Are you seriously equating feelings with facts?

if you consistently get over 60fps minimum, it will never feel smoother (be it 61fps or 600fps), because you are limited with 60hz. in fact, it will even be worse, since one will be pushing far more frame rate than the monitor can exhibit, when one uses vsync off.

if you cap BF4 at 60fps and 120fps there is still a big difference between the two in movement and speed of the game, it also feels to run smoother, even though its on a 60hz display.

 

[filip]

Are you seriously equating feelings with facts?

if you consistently get over 60fps minimum, it will never feel smoother (be it 61fps or 600fps), because you are limited with 60hz. in fact, it will even be worse, since one will be pushing far more frame rate than the monitor can exhibit, when one uses vsync off.

Its the dips that count. If you play at 60fps you will have dips below 60fps. If you play At 100fps the dips will be in the high 60's and 70's. This means (in theory) that you never experience the dips while playing the game at 100 fps.

 

[David-Duc]

No resolution has been mentioned. What if that guy is using a 2160p display?

 

[bigbeard86]

1080p.

 

[durquavian]

Actually 100fps on a 60hz monitor CAN feel better. Two reasons:

1: the word feel is entirely subjective and completely relevant to ones opinion. It doesn't mean every person will have the same result.

2: Granted many of those frames wont be seen or drawn to the monitor but it is in fact possible that input lag will feel lessened and smoothness will increase. Simply put @60 fps each of those 60 frames is likely not rendered perfectly even or timed ie:16.67ms. So some frames may have a slight stutter in movement though the frame it self is posted exactly @16.67ms intervals. Say the first frame took 16.67ms to draw, the second 14.45ms, and the third 17.03ms. Granted the difference between those frames would be difficult to discern, however you might feel (subconscious determines) that the motion is not quite fluid. This is the biggest problem some people have understanding FEELING.

Now at 100fps on 60hz there will likely be tearing but, and here is the kicker, it will be hard to distinguish. Again simply, say you are turning your field of view at a constant velocity. If any of you remember: FCAT and the frame issue where a pole would have a break in the frame where the bottom and top half were shifted out of phase just inches or so. So partial frames in a 60hz environment are easier to see when below 60, @ say 47fps. That pole would be easy to pick out even to the naked eye. However at 100fps that same pole would not be shifted nearly as much, (and this is why some people didn't notice microstutter as much with CF where some did) at 100 fps the distance being covered between frames is far shorter. Also why pro gamers like 300 fps, well the decreased input lag.

 

[Deleted member 89018]

Hmm. I'd think that with vsync off, he'll have the higher framerates, which would make the game more responsive and the motion more fluid - even if you're getting tearing on the display.

He may not "see" it, because, as you've pointed out, the screen can only refresh at 60hz. But he might "feel" it because the game is actually being rendered at a higher framerate, and that provides a benefit for much smoother interaction with it (in this case, the "feel" of the thing can be how responsive it is to input).

Also, more rendering power would mean more consistent frame times, as durquavian has mentioned, and that will contribute to smoother gameplay, a fact we've seen demonstrated quite a lot these past two years since sites started reporting on frame latencies in GPU reviews.

So no, I don't think it is a "dumb choice" - I think the thing you're missing is that just because you can't see every one of those frames as they're rendered doesn't mean they aren't there, and their presence does allow for smoother gameplay.

 

[bigbeard86]

You people should be philosophers.

It is just that you seem to have forgotten that sync technologies aim to match rendered frames with the monitor's refresh rate. Yet what some of you claim is that, not matching frames by a monitor's output somehow makes the game feel smoother than if one would match the monitor output. It is unbelievable some of you have been here for so many years yet cannot comprehend something so simple.

 

[GiGaBiTe]

Explain how it "feels" better when the frames are not being displayed, and even worse, with vsync off? Do you base all of your logic on "feelings" and devoid your decisions of facts?

On game engines where everything is tied to frames, running at higher frame rates than the screen can display is a good thing.

A good example would be the Quake engine and many of the forks off the Quake engine (like Half-Life, Source engine, etc.) Every frame that's calculated also includes game logic, so if you have a really low frame rate, the game tends to stop working in a way you'd expect.

The most obvious breakage is hitscan starts to act wonky so you could be firing clips of bullets and only a fraction of them would hit anything. But you can get so low that physics and NPCs stop working properly also.

On the other end, having a really high frame rate makes the game run better, even if your monitor is dropping the extra frames. Since NPCs "think" every frame, they tend to act smarter since they have more time to process data in the world. Hitscan also behaves better, as do several other bits of game logic. Though as going too low can cause problems, going too high can also make things act equally as wonky.

On the other hand, games that use async threads for different parts of the game where nothing is explicitly tied to each other, the effect of higher or lower frame rates is different. There could be a benefit, but I'm not as experienced with such game engines to say anything about them.

 

[Joga]

But having a higher than 60 FPS framerate *does* make a difference on a 60 Hz monitor (as long as Vsync is off). A higher framerate will have more tearing, sure, but each small sliver of screen will show a more recent moment. Here's a very rough mockup:

Imagine you're looking at a pole (black rectangle) and quickly flick the viewpoint across the screen (so that the pole appears to be quickly moving from left to right).

With Vsync on, it looks like this:

No tearing. The pole starts on the far left and stays there throughout the whole refresh.

60 fps, but now with vsync off:

There is one tear on the screen, but the bottom half shows a more recent picture. The pole's movement is further along in time. This is why turning off vsync reduces input lag - even though there's tearing, you can see your movement translated to the screen as soon as the frame is ready; it doesn't have to wait for anything.

Now, 60 Hz, vsync off, and an arbitrarily high framerate (greater than 120):

Now there are many small slivers of screen, and the ones toward the bottom of the screen are very, very recent. This is why people say >60 FPS *feels* better even on a 60 Hz monitor. Even if it's just a sliver of a new image, you can still basically see it and get a sense of your position.

Having a high refresh monitor (120 or 144 Hz) obviously helps even more since you can see the whole new/more recent frame, rather than just a partial frame, but it's the same idea. If you had 1000 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor, sure you'd have a ton of tears on-screen and it would look like a very steep staircase, but you'd be seeing your camera movement translated to the screen practically in real-time, even if you're never seeing a whole frame.

If you're interested in how vsync works/how frames get drawn to the monitor, Anandtech had a good article a while back talking about it and comparing vsync off vs. double-buffered vsync vs. triple-buffered vsync (along with timing diagrams).

 

[Deleted member 89018]

You people should be philosophers.

It is just that you seem to have forgotten that sync technologies aim to match rendered frames with the monitor's refresh rate. Yet what some of you claim is that, not matching frames by a monitor's output somehow makes the game feel smoother than if one would match the monitor output. It is unbelievable some of you have been here for so many years yet cannot comprehend something so simple.

It sounds to me like you've already made up your mind and you're ignoring the information being presented to you.

You are also conflating the "look" of the thing (display of rendered frames) with the "feel" of the thing (responsiveness of input). If you want to just avoid that part of the conversation you probably shouldn't have asked this question in the first place, because it's wholly relevant to what your friend has said, and what a lot of us have tried to explain.

 

[Dayaks]

You need 980s in SLI to max some games at 1080P. For whatever reason on my parents computer I have to unlock Vsync to make it seem as smooth as my 50Hz monitor at home (wife broke the DP cable,running hdmi till I get a new DP cable). I am going to try to reinstall drivers on that PC, could be setup related? There seem to be a few good explanations on this thread already.

 

[bigbeard86]

But having a higher than 60 FPS framerate *does* make a difference on a 60 Hz monitor (as long as Vsync is off). A higher framerate will have more tearing, sure, but each small sliver of screen will show a more recent moment. Here's a very rough mockup:

Imagine you're looking at a pole (black rectangle) and quickly flick the viewpoint across the screen (so that the pole appears to be quickly moving from left to right).

With Vsync on, it looks like this:

No tearing. The pole starts on the far left and stays there throughout the whole refresh.

60 fps, but now with vsync off:

There is one tear on the screen, but the bottom half shows a more recent picture. The pole's movement is further along in time. This is why turning off vsync reduces input lag - even though there's tearing, you can see your movement translated to the screen as soon as the frame is ready; it doesn't have to wait for anything.

Now, 60 Hz, vsync off, and an arbitrarily high framerate (greater than 120):

Now there are many small slivers of screen, and the ones toward the bottom of the screen are very, very recent. This is why people say >60 FPS *feels* better even on a 60 Hz monitor. Even if it's just a sliver of a new image, you can still basically see it and get a sense of your position.

Having a high refresh monitor (120 or 144 Hz) obviously helps even more since you can see the whole new/more recent frame, rather than just a partial frame, but it's the same idea. If you had 1000 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor, sure you'd have a ton of tears on-screen and it would look like a very steep staircase, but you'd be seeing your camera movement translated to the screen practically in real-time, even if you're never seeing a whole frame.

If you're interested in how vsync works/how frames get drawn to the monitor, Anandtech had a good article a while back talking about it and comparing vsync off vs. double-buffered vsync vs. triple-buffered vsync (along with timing diagrams).

I disagree. Perceived Smoothness should be dependent on actual fluidity of information, thus, deviating from the norm refresh rate will lead to a decrease in fluidity and perceived smoothness.

 

[samuelmorris]

I run VSync off because I prefer tearing to frame rate adjustment. I'd rather the game be smooth and have occasional tearing lines than not be smooth. Of course, ideally speaking I'd like to have both, but never mind

 

[durquavian]

As a few point out, there is a difference in seeing smooth and feeling it. G-sync/Adaptive-sync/V-sync all try to smooth the visual of the game and the prior two, attempt to reduce input lag (the feeling part). However say your monitor is refreshing @60 fps, any of the previous sync methods locks any action calculation in game to 16.67ms or more. Granted we could talk the science of reaction times and perceptible action, but to keep it simple, lets not. Now this will make the visuals smooth being that the time of each frame is equal (assuming perfection for arguments sake). But any action/reaction is now limited to 16.67ms intervals.

Ok now consider same 60fps monitor but you are allowing up to 120fps to be rendered. This new action/reaction time is now 8.33ms. But this does add a bit of a quandary. If that frametime remains consistent then you are only seeing every 2 frames which is the same as the original setup 16.67ms. So indeed there would be no perceived increase in fluidity or smoothness. But now instead of your input ie:mouse/keyboard action being posted at 16.67ms intervals it is now at 8.33ms. So updates to rendered action although unseen is being set in motion a bit quicker hence the smoother feel.

So much of experience and opinion is also in the eye of the beholder.

 

[wizzi01]

I know someone that bought two 980s and put them in sli to play on a 15ms 60hz monitor. why would anyone do this? This person believes games "feel" smoother. Should it not be the exact opposite, where one is pushing frames the monitor cannot render (vsync off)?

You care about how others spend their money, because...?

 

[Rizen]

I disagree. Perceived Smoothness should be dependent on actual fluidity of information, thus, deviating from the norm refresh rate will lead to a decrease in fluidity and perceived smoothness.

This is what people have been trying to explain to you. Even on a 60hz monitor, since frames are usually not rendered exactly evenly, e.g. 16.67 ms for a 60 fps frame rate, higher frame rates generally translate into a better experience because the AVERAGE frame time is tighter. This translates into better input feel and smoothness.

Playing computer games is not the same thing as watching a film. A lot of the perceived smoothness comes from the input as well, and some people are more sensitive to it than others (and some people can barely notice it at all). So trying to argue that people are somehow "wrong" in their perception is pointless. Everyone has a different threshold for input lag, which is a big part of the equation.

 

[serpretetsky]

I disagree. Perceived Smoothness should be dependent on actual fluidity of information, thus, deviating from the norm refresh rate will lead to a decrease in fluidity and perceived smoothness.

He never mentioned perceived smoothness or fluidity in his post. What are you disagreeing with?

All he said is that information will be presented faster to the user if the user is running 100fps on a 60hz screen with vsync off (even if it's presented in with vsync tearing).

Are you disagreeing with that?

 

[Deleted member 89018]

He's also missing the point that "information" is not just what is displayed on the screen, but obviously he'd made up his mind about this already and thought we were all just going to agree with him so he could insult his friend, or something.

To bigbeard86: run a benchmark on a 60hz screen with vsync on, then run it again with vsync off. See if it "looks" smoother to you. Turn down the quality settings, resolution, whatever you need to do to get that framerate way up. Tell us if you think it looks smoother despite the 60hz display when that framerate is up over 100.

Repeat this process with a game - ideally a shooter or driving sim. See if you notice that the response to input you give it changes with a higher framerate.

Or, just go on ignoring the point we're all trying to make.

 

[NoOther]

I disagree. Perceived Smoothness should be dependent on actual fluidity of information, thus, deviating from the norm refresh rate will lead to a decrease in fluidity and perceived smoothness.

Personally I prefer the "information" of where things "actually" are, rather than the perceived placement of them due to arbitrary "smoothing" engines. So if I point my gun and hit the trigger, I am more likely to hit the actual target rather than the visual approximation of the last known position of said target.

Thus, I use my SLI setup with Vsync off, and don't care as much about the tearing, because I tend to shoot and interact with the game far more accurately with it off. I don't understand why people have it on other than just for looks.

 

[durquavian]

Personally I prefer the "information" of where things "actually" are, rather than the perceived placement of them due to arbitrary "smoothing" engines. So if I point my gun and hit the trigger, I am more likely to hit the actual target rather than the visual approximation of the last known position of said target.

Thus, I use my SLI setup with Vsync off, and don't care as much about the tearing, because I tend to shoot and interact with the game far more accurately with it off. I don't understand why people have it on other than just for looks.

First I am agreeing with you. But reasons for vsync= reduced heat not creating frames you wont see ,ergo reduced power usage. That is the biggest reason. Ofcourse frame limits would prob be better here rather than vsync.

 

[NoOther]

First I am agreeing with you. But reasons for vsync= reduced heat not creating frames you wont see ,ergo reduced power usage. That is the biggest reason. Ofcourse frame limits would prob be better here rather than vsync.

Yeah, I was mostly playing devil's advocate using the same logic the OP was trying to use.

 

[bigbeard86]

Everything you all are attempting to argue would then invalidate the purpose and main reason of existence for things such as freesync and gsync.

 

[NoOther]

Everything you all are attempting to argue would then invalidate the purpose and main reason of existence for things such as freesync and gsync.

No, they would not. The fact that you do not understand the arguments, does not mean the arguments invalidate what you believe to be the purpose.

Your Argument: Visual imagery makes a game more smooth.
Other's Argument: Input Accuracy makes a game more smooth.

Both are valid points. For some, the tearing can be quite distracting, so they prefer Vsync. To others the display latency and/or lack of accuracy is distracting.

Now as for Gsync and Freesync, you are getting into a whole different debate. First off, Gsync and Freesync are not Vsync. They operate differently than Vsync to achieve a similar goal.

Vsync: Attempts to match the gpu rendered frames to the refresh rate. This causes display latency as it often does not display the most current image, but the last image the gpu rendered when the monitor's refresh is ready.

Gsync: Attempts to synchronize the refresh rate of the monitor with the GPUs rendering time. Thus when the screen refreshes it does so with the most current frame rendered. This attempts to eliminate display lag and tearing. Although their still might be some slight input lag depending on the type of game you are playing.

Freesync: Attempts to negotiate a rate between the GPU and Display using AdaptiveSync. This is inbetween Vsync and Gsync. While it cannot do as much as Gsync currently, it is less expensive.

It should be noted that where frame rates are higher than the maximum refresh rate of the monitor, both Freesync and Gsync default back to Vsync. Thus the goal of Gsync and Freesync is to eliminate display lag, such that it is always trying to render the current frame.

 

[Deleted member 83233]

A lot of people will argue against setups like this. The only thing I'd argue is that if the settings required to be enjoyable for the user can be accomplished with a single GPU, then that's likely the best setup. If not, then add the second card. Single GPU just rules out a few incompatibilities and other side-effect issues that can occur with multi GPU setups. Otherwise, get as much power as you can afford. Not only does it future proof things, (new games with higher requirements, the ability to easily upgrade the display later, physics load alleviation in some games, etc. etc.) but it also allows for much higher settings at "lower" resolutions. If he's playing at 1920x1080 and wants to crank all settings to the maximum including AO and AA etc. then that power is likely being used in some capacity.

Also, when you're talking about times 10ms and greater, there is a little room for "feel" to come into play. I can appreciate super low latencies, but I'm also fairly forgiving with more latency. (unless maybe I'm playing something like Quake or Q3A...) It may not be entirely quantifiable to anyone but yourself, but IMO certain things just DO feel better even if you can't put your finger on why. Also, let's just say for a minute that it is COMPLETELY placebo effect. If he's happy, and doesn't feel like he's over-spent, then who cares? Even just the satisfaction of knowing you put together a really powerful machine can be worth a little extra cash sometimes if it's something you're interested in.

Even with all that, I think there is some benefit to be had. I still would use VSync in all cases though myself. I just prefer it.

 

[bigbeard86]

No, they would not. The fact that you do not understand the arguments, does not mean the arguments invalidate what you believe to be the purpose.

Your Argument: Visual imagery makes a game more smooth.
Other's Argument: Input Accuracy makes a game more smooth.

Both are valid points. For some, the tearing can be quite distracting, so they prefer Vsync. To others the display latency and/or lack of accuracy is distracting.

Now as for Gsync and Freesync, you are getting into a whole different debate. First off, Gsync and Freesync are not Vsync. They operate differently than Vsync to achieve a similar goal.

Vsync: Attempts to match the gpu rendered frames to the refresh rate. This causes display latency as it often does not display the most current image, but the last image the gpu rendered when the monitor's refresh is ready.

Gsync: Attempts to synchronize the refresh rate of the monitor with the GPUs rendering time. Thus when the screen refreshes it does so with the most current frame rendered. This attempts to eliminate display lag and tearing. Although their still might be some slight input lag depending on the type of game you are playing.

Freesync: Attempts to negotiate a rate between the GPU and Display using AdaptiveSync. This is inbetween Vsync and Gsync. While it cannot do as much as Gsync currently, it is less expensive.

It should be noted that where frame rates are higher than the maximum refresh rate of the monitor, both Freesync and Gsync default back to Vsync. Thus the goal of Gsync and Freesync is to eliminate display lag, such that it is always trying to render the current frame.

How can there be input accuracy, when a large portion of the input will be missing. I am surprised you people here do not really know any better.

Also, you write as if gsync and freesync were not created to create the feeling of smoothness. Every single review out there will tell how smoother games feel with those technologies. Now reason with yourself why, and you will easily see the reason is what i have been saying throughout this entire thread. The more one deviates from the coincidence of frame rendering and display output, the smoothness of game-play suffers.

 

[durquavian]

How can there be input accuracy, when a large portion of the input will be missing. I am surprised you people here do not really know any better.

Also, you write as if gsync and freesync were not created to create the feeling of smoothness. Every single review out there will tell how smoother games feel with those technologies. Now reason with yourself why, and you will easily see the reason is what i have been saying throughout this entire thread. The more one deviates from the coincidence of frame rendering and display output, the smoothness of game-play suffers.

you keep talking about visual smoothness when most were talking about the feeling of smoothness, absent the video. True getting frame rendering to match the display output will produce a smoother picture. However it will have precious little to do with gameplay smoothness. Pro players will render as high as their GPUs will allow without starting a fire or taking out the power on the block. These extreme frame rates are considerably higher than the refresh rate of the monitors they play on. They do this for the quickest response to input they can get.

A matched frame to a 60hz monitor will be 16.67ms, ergo that is the absolute quickest any input can be made and rendered with new information. But say running at just twice, quite lower than pros still, the refresh rate of that same monitor you get 8.33ms between each frame rendered albeit not perceived since only half those frames will be displayed on the monitor. Ok now 240fps = 4.16ms. This makes for nearly immediate response to input (ofcourse assuming no other input lag issues that will exist, but seeing as each of these will be present in all possible FPS debates they cancel themselves out). So with higher frame rates your input will be taken into account for the next frame much quicker although seeing the results will be strictly limited to 16.67ms.

Also what is more likely helping with higher frame rates is that the frame you are seeing is quite newer than the lower rendered rate. If in fact the frame you are rendering is in intervals of 16.67ms then that frame you are seeing was began 16.67ms ago. But with 240fps that frame you are seeing was begun 4.16ms ago so it is a far more accurate frame. So if you are aiming at a guy in some PVP modern warfare game he may actually not be where you see him at the time you shoot, hence why really high frame rates are more desirable regardless of monitor refresh rates.

That is what the original argument was. But you are correct that a perfect picture in a game would require some form of frame metering to make it so. But you have to realize there is a cost to that visual perfection just as having the smoother feel as in the previous example must forgo that visual perfection you spoke of.

 

[Nauseous]

Everyone has a different feel on what they call smooth, and thats why we have options to change settings to make it to our liking.

 

[reaper12]

How can there be input accuracy, when a large portion of the input will be missing. I am surprised you people here do not really know any better.

Also, you write as if gsync and freesync were not created to create the feeling of smoothness. Every single review out there will tell how smoother games feel with those technologies. Now reason with yourself why, and you will easily see the reason is what i have been saying throughout this entire thread. The more one deviates from the coincidence of frame rendering and display output, the smoothness of game-play suffers.

LOL how can there be a discussion with you when you ignore what everyone is trying to tell you.

This post back on the first page summed it up

It sounds to me like you've already made up your mind and you're ignoring the information being presented to you.

You are also conflating the "look" of the thing (display of rendered frames) with the "feel" of the thing (responsiveness of input). If you want to just avoid that part of the conversation you probably shouldn't have asked this question in the first place, because it's wholly relevant to what your friend has said, and what a lot of us have tried to explain.

But I will try to explain what others are saying again. Gsync and Freesync solve the tearing problem which makes games look way smoother. They solves this without causing much, if any, input lag.

But low framerate is still low framerate. While this doesn't matter in some games, in other games like First person shooters, high frame rates have a big impact on how the game plays and feels. It's why FPS gamers turn down settings and use lower resolutions so that they can get higher frame rates.

And I have seen a lot of people with Gsync monitors who play FPS games, turn off Gysnc and turn on ULMB when playing because you get the smooth look and the smooth feel.

 

[NoOther]

How can there be input accuracy, when a large portion of the input will be missing. I am surprised you people here do not really know any better.

Also, you write as if gsync and freesync were not created to create the feeling of smoothness. Every single review out there will tell how smoother games feel with those technologies. Now reason with yourself why, and you will easily see the reason is what i have been saying throughout this entire thread. The more one deviates from the coincidence of frame rendering and display output, the smoothness of game-play suffers.

I am sorry, but how do you not know simple computer technology? You come in here telling everyone that has been a part of this community for years that they know nothing, and yet you cannot grasp the simplest ideas. Input accuracy has to do with the input of your keyboard and mouse with the game. That is often processed by the CPU, which is separate from the GPU. Things happen even if they aren't always displayed on the screen. The faster you can display something, the better accuracy your input will have to what you see. Just because something is not displayed, it does not mean it is not happening.

Secondly I talk as if Gsync and Freesync are designed for graphical smoothness. Vsync was meant to fix tearing, but introduced display lag. Gsync and Freesync were designed to take it one step further and reduce display lag. All of this is to help make the graphics smoother. But it doesn't necessarily make the whole game smoother. Many things go into making a game feel smooth. For many competitive FPS or MOBA gamers where and when you point and click is extremely important. For this reason they will often play at lower settings to reduce tearing and to get higher frames per second . This allows them to see the picture more accurately in realtime and helps them to be more accurate with their moves. To them, that feels smoother.

Others like the more movie quality of the game, they want a flawless beautiful picture. They want the whole story, all the bells and whistles, they want to be immersed. For them having a pefectly fluid picture is more important than how accurate the action is. It doesn't matter to them that when they shoot their display is a few milliseconds behind the action.

So it all depends on what you are going for. I live in both worlds. I love all the fancy bells and whistles when i play my RPG games and more story mode games. I like realtime accuracy when I play my FPS and MOBA games. So I set my settings accordingly per game.

 

[blade52x]

How can there be input accuracy, when a large portion of the input will be missing. I am surprised you people here do not really know any better.

No portion of the input is missing. Only the output. If your brain is receiving more up to date data, and even if that data comes in a only 20% of the image due to tearing, it still makes use of it and your as next reaction takes that information into account, and so on. This is why running above 60fps may feel better on a 60Hz monitor. Because the data that is being received by your brain at any given moment is overall, more up to date than if running Vsync. But this is only if you can truly ignore the tearing. If the tearing bothers you then it will continuously break this input -> output -> input (reaction) cycle you've got going on, even if only for a fraction of a second at a time. This is probably one reason why gamers love adaptive sync.

It still doesn't compare in any way to running 120fps on a 120Hz monitor where your brain effectively receives double the amount of information that it does on a 60Hz monitor for a given time period.

 

[bigbeard86]

You are all so very wrong.

You are all claiming the exact opposite of what things are supposed to be. There is no physical fluidity if frames are not, in completion, being outputted to the monitor.