• 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.

NVIDIA Introduces G-SYNC Technology

How is Gsync going to remove the need? 40fps no matter how consistent is not 120 FPS. Its snake oil, selling people less as more. People said the same shit about vsync, adaptive vsync same thing, didn't pan out now its gsync. Not even close, to this day I completely disable any sync in every game. People said motion blur would remove the need for high fps, once again utter BS all it did was heavily increase input lag. Anyone who knows disables it.

lets bring the argument back a step to see how ridiculous it is. Would it be OK if it was 15 FPS?
 
Trimlock said:
If this can take off, I can see it lessening the demand for high end equipment.
Click to expand...
To some degree, yes. I don't think it's going to have a profound impact on how consumers make card-buying decisions, though. Most are still going to want frame rates as high as they can possibly get them: extremely high frame rates are part of what makes PC gaming such an attractive prospect.

rudy said:
Light boosted 120fps will continue to gain traction as the gold standard for anyone who cares about performance
Click to expand...
For those who care about motion clarity, yes. For those who are more concerned with fluidity, possibly not.
 
rudy said:
How is Gsync going to remove the need? 40fps no matter how consistent is not 120 FPS. Its snake oil, selling people less as more. People said the same shit about vsync, adaptive vsync same thing, didn't pan out now its gsync. Not even close, to this day I completely disable any sync in every game. People said motion blur would remove the need for high fps, once again utter BS all it did was heavily increase input lag. Anyone who knows disables it.

lets bring the argument back a step to see how ridiculous it is. Would it be OK if it was 15 FPS?
Click to expand...

You're all over the road as usual buddy. Blow into a brown bag and go read the Anandtech article.
 
rudy said:
How is Gsync going to remove the need? 40fps no matter how consistent is not 120 FPS. Its snake oil, selling people less as more. People said the same shit about vsync, adaptive vsync same thing, didn't pan out now its gsync. Not even close, to this day I completely disable any sync in every game. People said motion blur would remove the need for high fps, once again utter BS all it did was heavily increase input lag. Anyone who knows disables it.

lets bring the argument back a step to see how ridiculous it is. Would it be OK if it was 15 FPS?
Click to expand...

Vsync is extremely limited, adaptive gives some head room but it's still limited, gsync essentially on regardless the situation.

But you are right, we haven't seen it yet, only a couple of paid for developers so this is all speculation and plus it's going to be more proprietary then physx and most likely with a licensing free behind it.
 
I have already read the anandtech article, less FPS is not going to replace more FPS. Nothing in that article pointed to anything else. People have been perfectly capable of Vsync 60hz for a long time, if you actually read the article yourself you would see that to anandtech it looked the same on both monitors. So why are people still dropping hundreds of dollars to get 120hz lightboost?
 
rudy said:
I have already read the anandtech article, less FPS is not going to replace more FPS. Nothing in that article pointed to anything else. People have been perfectly capable of Vsync 60hz for a long time, if you actually read the article yourself you would see that to anandtech it looked the same on both monitors. So why are people still dropping hundreds of dollars to get 120hz lightboost?
Click to expand...

So, you think keeping FPS always above 60 will be an easy task at 4K resolution?
 
you have to buy a gsync monitor?

ugh, i dont think my issues with stuttering have never been due to refresh rate/fps differences, they have always been due to stub frame renders from shitty drivers. screen tearing doesnt bother me enough to buy a special monitor for it.
 
Ocean said:
you have to buy a gsync monitor?

ugh, i dont think my issues with stuttering have never been due to refresh rate/fps differences, they have always been due to stub frame renders from shitty drivers. screen tearing doesnt bother me enough to buy a special monitor for it.
Click to expand...

And which monitor vendors are going to bother licensing this tech? The high end makers, or the el cheap I sector?

I have a feeling this tech will fall flat whether it is a genuinely good thing or not
 
Not going to pay any extra for this bs. A whole chip for that alone. GIve me a brake. Quake has had com_maxfps since forever. Set that to 120 and you're done. vsync is a terrible feature, introducing TONS of lag. I am not a fan of tearing but it's not a biggie for me.
 
dgz said:
Not going to pay any extra for this bs. A whole chip for that alone. GIve me a brake. Quake has had com_maxfps since forever. Set that to 120 and you're done. vsync is a terrible feature, introducing TONS of lag. I am not a fan of tearing but it's not a biggie for me.
Click to expand...


You're not understanding this technology at all man.
 
rudy said:
I have already read the anandtech article, less FPS is not going to replace more FPS. Nothing in that article pointed to anything else. People have been perfectly capable of Vsync 60hz for a long time, if you actually read the article yourself you would see that to anandtech it looked the same on both monitors. So why are people still dropping hundreds of dollars to get 120hz lightboost?
Click to expand...

I was thinking of doing just that. (120 hz lightboost)

Can you more clearly state your point? I feel like I am missing something.
 
dgz said:
Quake has had com_maxfps since forever. Set that to 120 and you're done.
Click to expand...

This tech isn't about what happens when you go above your LCD's refresh rate, it's about every single refresh rate that isn't your LCD's refresh rate, whether above or below. 47hz? 52hz? 63hz? No tearing or stuttering.

vsync is a terrible feature, introducing TONS of lag.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This tech is about completely removing the need for vsync, and in the process removing vsync's negative aspects (such as input lag).

I am not a fan of tearing but it's not a biggie for me.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind tearing, then don't buy in to the tech. For those who do, they now have a far better option than vsync that promises to eliminate tearing and stuttering that introduces no noticeable input lag.
 
Oh boy, here we go. This is not only useless for people like me, this is us generally useless.

You can't reduce FPS without increasing latency. Not fucking possible. Don't engage in semantics please.
 
dgz said:
Oh boy, here we go. This is not only useless for people like me, this is us generally useless.

You can't reduce FPS without increasing latency. Not fucking possible. Don't engage in semantics please.
Click to expand...

Wait, what?

GSync is simultaneously matching the monitor's hz with the reported FPS. Its doing this by using a monitor chip that is an extension of the Kepler GPU that is being fed the output number. As long as your GPU is feeding the monitor (which it would unless you like a black screen) your monitor will be as up to date as your current picture.

This is like adaptive VSync, except its supposed to cover all frequencies and introduce little to zero input lag.

Also, this will be mega huge with the HTPC market. IF TV sets start supporting this chip and you are using a Kepler GPU you will no longer have to give a damn about the recorted hz rate, should solve a lot of sound issues.
 
Trimlock said:
Wait, what?

GSync is simultaneously matching the monitor's hz with the reported FPS. Its doing this by using a monitor chip that is an extension of the Kepler GPU that is being fed the output number. As long as your GPU is feeding the monitor (which it would unless you like a black screen) your monitor will be as up to date as your current picture.

This is like adaptive VSync, except its supposed to cover all frequencies and introduce little to zero input lag.

Also, this will be mega huge with the HTPC market. IF TV sets start supporting this chip and you are using a Kepler GPU you will no longer have to give a damn abowwut the recorted hz rate, should solve a lot of sound issues.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Reading what I already knew really changed the way I think about this.

This is all about nvidia trying to sell illiterate people useless chips, while "fixing" a non-existent *gaming* problem with software.

If you really think adaptive vsync introduces "little to no lag", I have some news for you - you're either old, or simply not very sensitive to it.
 
Maybe work on that reading comprehension, nowhere did he say adaptive vsync introduced little to no lag, he was obviously referring to G-Sync. Are you drunk with rage? :)
 
Maybe work on that reading comprehension, nowhere did he say adaptive vsync introduced little to no lag, he was obviously referring to G-Sync. Are you drunk with Nvidia rage? :)
 
I am super pleased about this. I've spent alot over the years on keeping my PCs towards the high end, but nothing ever made vsync-stutter and tearing go away.

It's somewhat regrettable that it has to be a hardware solution, but I was looking at replacing my monitor anyway, and I'm willing to wait a few months for a gsync model.

Given the choice between a smooth 30fps and tearing 90fps, I'm fine with the 30 to be honest (although I'll be aiming for smooth 60+ obviously :p).
 
I can't believe some people are raging about this :eek:

I'm hoping that [H] will do a review of this in the future. For now, Anandtech is a pretty reputable site too, and it does look promising.

As someone has mentioned, if screen tearing isn't an issue, then this clearly isn't for you. It's aimed at users who do hate screen tearing.
 
MartinX said:
I am super pleased about this. I've spent alot over the years on keeping my PCs towards the high end, but nothing ever made vsync-stutter and tearing go away.

It's somewhat regrettable that it has to be a hardware solution, but I was looking at replacing my monitor anyway, and I'm willing to wait a few months for a gsync model.

Given the choice between a smooth 30fps and tearing 90fps, I'm fine with the 30 to be honest (although I'll be aiming for smooth 60+ obviously :p).
Click to expand...

It didn't seem like there was much left that could truly upgrade the PC experience anymore (after SDDs), CPU and GPU changes over the last few years have been at best incremental, with nothing that genuinely improved the experience, so I'm pretty excited about this.

I'm pretty much in the nvidia camp since AMD quit competing on performance, but I hope Nvidia aren't dicks about locking this down and it's interoperable with AMD cards down the line, if only to ensure it's success (and on the off chance AMD put out something that's a real upgrade at some point and I want to switch over :p ).
 
Unknown-One said:
That's the entire point of adaptive V-Sync... V-Sync is only enabled when your hardware can keep up.

If you want V-Sync on at all times, then use regular V-Sync.


Could also just use regular V-Sync and enable triple-buffering.
Click to expand...

I've been using Vsync longer than I can remember. I was just pointing out that when adaptive vsync finally rolled out around the 600 series release, everyone was singing its praises while it benefited me not at all.
 
I'm skeptical. I never use to buy monitors the way I've bought GPU's. In fact I've recently bought 3 27 inch 1440p monitors which all hit 120hz without breaking a sweat and have no intention of buying another round of monitors even if the motion clarity is superior.

The only upgrade I'm interested in are 4k 60hz cheap monitors (something under $500) and then I'll upgrade. I realize since Nvidia isn't apart of the console wars anymore it has to carve out more space and competition against AMD who completely owns the entire next generation console era and make sure Nvidia can stay ahead of them in the PC genre but as cool as this tech is I'm not willing to downgrade to TN panels just for more smoothness.

The only chance I would even consider dropping down to a TN panel would be if they could implement Lightboost without it looking like someone placed a cloudy filter over my screen making it as fucking ugly as possible to use. Lightboost is incredible , but unusable unless you just don't care about having good PQ. If all you want is a CRT level of smooth motion clarity its the shit. But if you are like me and you want at least a decent picture to go along with it then its just not possible right now.
 
DPI said:
And I gotta say adaptive v-sync has been great, ive been tearing-free in BF3 and other games for a long time now. So if they're improving on that then it's just icing, way to go in any case. Love my NV
Click to expand...

Adaptive vsync is a half solution to a problem. If you've got a 60hz monitor and your system can maintain 60fps in the games you play, then you're golden. Otherwise, you will encounter tearing or stuttering at some point.

It eliminates tearing at 60 fps by turning on vsync, and then it turns off vsync when you get below 60fps in order to reduce stutter, but then now you have tearing.

G-sync eliminates tearing and stuttering at any fps.
 
This is a godsend.
If you're the kind of person who needs to bump up all details and AA and effects and post-processing and sacrifice framerate because otherwise the demons will get you. Not joking, not trying sarcasm. Just saying wtf because I know so many of you. This guy for BF3 launch built a fat computer with dual 6990s and SSDs. You bet he did like shit compared to the 60fps me and complained of poor performance, tearing, sync issues.
 
DPI said:
Maybe work on that reading comprehension, nowhere did he say adaptive vsync introduced little to no lag, he was obviously referring to G-Sync. Are you drunk with rage? :)
Click to expand...

If someone's raging, it's not me :D I'd laugh to anyone who buys this placebo.

Just to remind you that reducing your FPS means more latency. nvidia isn't fixing jack shit here but hey, no one's stopping you from buying this snake oil haha
 
Trimlock said:
Also, this will be mega huge with the HTPC market. IF TV sets start supporting this chip and you are using a Kepler GPU you will no longer have to give a damn about the recorted hz rate, should solve a lot of sound issues.
Click to expand...

It should be irrelevant for HTPC. All you need there is the proper frequency. Movies don't have a variable frame rates.
 
dgz said:
This is not only useless for people like me
Click to expand...

Would you take a moment and describe people like you? If you mean people who don't play under 120 FPS no matter what, you are an extremely small minority.

this is us generally useless. You can't reduce FPS without increasing latency.
Click to expand...

This is about eliminating tearing without increasing latency. G-Sync doesn't reduce FPS.
 
Snowdog said:
It should be irrelevant for HTPC. All you need there is the proper frequency. Movies don't have a variable frame rates.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right? There's a huge range of frame-rates that video comes in, and not all of them are divisible by one another...

Common formats include: 24p, 25p, 30p, 48p, 50i, 60i, 50p, 60p.

Go ahead, try watching 24 FPS content on a 60 Hz monitor... you can't. 24 doesn't go into 60 evenly, so you have to use a 3:2 pulldown in order to display it, but this reduces motion quality.

Ok, so lets move to a 120Hz monitor. 24 goes into 120 evenly, so we can just display each frames for 5 refreshes. 30, and 60 also go evenly into 120, so content recorded at 30 and 60 FPS will also play smoothly. Sounds good, right?

Nope, try watching 25p, 50i, or 50p content. Still needs a pulldown on a 120Hz monitor. Refresh rate needs to be dropped to 100Hz or 50Hz to play this content without framerate conversion.

And then there's the new 48p standard, which cannot be displayed on a 50Hz, 60Hz, 100Hz, or 120Hz monitor without a pulldown. The display needs to be set to 48Hz, 96Hz or 144Hz in order to display 48p without processing.

Because of this, a lot of media center software includes the ability to automatically adjust the refresh rate of your monitor to suit the content being played. Problem is, most monitors don't support all of the refresh rates required to play back all content, so you still end up having to do framerate conversion sometimes... and you also deal with your monitor doing a full reset when you fire up a video that requires an alternate refresh rate. Not a great end-user experience.

With G-Sync, all of those issues go out the window. The display will dynamically adjust to the framerate of the video, with no flicker or reset of the display. This will eliminate the need for a any kind of frame-rate conversion, leading to better motion quality.

As an HTPC user, I am VERY excited about this.
 
Oh, and I forgot to mention displays that will accept alternate timings, but then internally up-convert them (making your efforts to attain pulldown-free video pointless).

For example, I can feed my Dell U2412M a 50Hz refresh rate, but it internally up-converts it to 60Hz anyway (leading to poor motion quality with periodic stutters). It's impossible to display 24p, 25p, 48p, 50i, and 50p content on this display without using framerate conversion. This is a real problem.
 
Unknown-One: +1 for your explanation to those who simply doesn't get it.

G-Sync is a huge deal. and I'm going to upgrade into it along with a pair of top-tiered Maxwells when the time comes, there is no other way.
 
For those trashing it, read the explanation from another forum:

Regular Vsync...
If your frame rate drops below the refresh rate, you can only display that with the next Vsync cycle. So on a 60hz display that's 16ms per Vsync. If your frame takes longer than that, your frame time doubles to 33ms per frame, even if it only took 17 ms to render. So now even if you can render 59fps you'll only get 30fps. If it takes longer than 33 ms to render it jumps to 50ms (3 refresh cycles) to display.... I.e. 20fps. If it takes longer to render than 50ms it jumps to 66ms (4 vsync cycles) which is 15fps. These jumps are effectively artificially added input latency which is only there because of the need to wait for the Vsync cycle. THIS is how Vsync adds input latency... It drops your framerate.

Adaptive Vsync...
If your frame rate drops below the refresh rate, Vsync is dynamically disabled and you'll get tearing but you get the benefit of avoiding the massive and discrete performance drops that I detailed above with regular Vsync. So dropping from 60fps to 59fps will run at 59fps with tearing instead of 30fps without tearing. If it hits 60ms again, it will re-enable Vsync.

GSync...
The refresh is initiated at the exact moment that the frame is done rendering, instead of happening on a fixed schedule... As long as you are running at a frametime that is between...

A) The fastest a display can possibly refresh its pixels (I.e. Doing full refresh cycles immediately back to back)

And

B) The amount of time that LCD pixel technology can keep a pixel holding its color.

Example...
Let's use a 120hz display for ease of numbers. The refresh cycle of a 120hz display is around 8ms. So with gsync on, the highest frame rate you can get is 120fps, just like regular Vsync. The lowest that gsync can work its "rendered-frame-triggers-the-refresh-cycle" magic on is whatever the longest pixel technology can hold its color for per refresh... I think that's somewhere just north of 33ms.

So below ~30fps (that ~33ms pixel color limitation), the LCD pixels can't wait any longer and need to trigger the refresh. This "emergency" refresh is probably going to start as late as it can while still having no corruption in pixel color. That's because it wants to give the GPU as much time as possible to finish rendering and let the GPU be the one to trigger the refresh. Let's pick an "emergency pixel refresh deadline" value of 32ms (this may vary per LCD vendor). Let's say the frame is done at 36ms... You will have to wait for the full 8ms refresh time before you get a chance to show that frame. So if a frame is taking 36ms, it will be in the middle of finishing the emergency refresh when the frame is ready/rendered. As soon as the emergency refresh is done at 40ms, the finished frame will trigger another immediate refresh. This is exactly what regular Vsync would do... Effectively make the frametime take longer than it otherwise would because the rendered frame "missed the bus".

So below a certain fps it is bound to fallback to regular Vsync behavior, but this doesn't matter as long as the fallback point is below frame rates you'd willingly play at anyway.

So you get Vsync-like lack of tearing without any added input latency/discrete perf drops that you'd normally get with Vsync. It will refresh exactly when your frame is done and be identical in input latency to running with Vsync off.... Win-win.
 
There is also the perceptual factor for those who claim not to see tearing.. Even if you don't consciously see it, without tearing I bet your brain can better estimate motion and velocities because the brain is seeing whole images that line up with what it experiences in reality. It might have slight gameplay advantages. Of course Vsync would have the same advantage but would introduce input lag so that has always been a compromise.
 
dgz said:
Oh boy, here we go. This is not only useless for people like me, this is us generally useless.

You can't reduce FPS without increasing latency. Not fucking possible. Don't engage in semantics please.
Click to expand...
Don't engage in a red herring please.
 
BusyBeaverHP said:
Unknown-One: +1 for your explanation to those who simply doesn't get it.

G-Sync is a huge deal. and I'm going to upgrade into it along with a pair of top-tiered Maxwells when the time comes, there is no other way.
Click to expand...

Got htpc proposes your tv set has to have hardware support for it.

Unknown-One said:
Oh, and I forgot to mention displays that will accept alternate timings, but then internally up-convert them (making your efforts to attain pulldown-free video pointless).

For example, I can feed my Dell U2412M a 50Hz refresh rate, but it internally up-converts it to 60Hz anyway (leading to poor motion quality with periodic stutters). It's impossible to display 24p, 25p, 48p, 50i, and 50p content on this display without using framerate conversion. This is a real problem.
Click to expand...

Nice explanation. You definitely put more effort then I would of.
 
BlueStorm said:
There is also the perceptual factor for those who claim not to see tearing.. Even if you don't consciously see it, without tearing I bet your brain can better estimate motion and velocities because the brain is seeing whole images that line up with what it experiences in reality. It might have slight gameplay advantages. Of course Vsync would have the same advantage but would introduce input lag so that has always been a compromise.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have experienced firsthand how annoying that trying to "just tolerate" tearing and stuttering can be, especially in a game like BF3 when it first came out before I upgraded GPU's and I was flying around in aircraft. Within 20-30min I had a headache and when I got up to take a break I actually felt a bit dizzy.

Having a G-Sync setup at that point in time would've rendered the issue moot and bought me more time to upgrade videocards. As I said in a previous post I think the biggest takeaway is it hedges you more time to upgrade to the latest GPU every time a more demanding game comes out, also makes it easier to skip a generation of GPU.

That said, I'm in love with these 27" 1440p S-IPS panels and can't see myself going back to TN, I'd rather overspend on videocards to make sure I never drop below 60FPS or 120FPS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top