• 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.

ROG question......Gsync pointless with OLED?

U

Ultranifty

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
167
I'll not get deeply into the whole 120hz debate. I'm fine with 60hz cuz I don't ONLY play BF4. 120hz nuts are for people who only play shooters.

I play:

BF4
Diablo3
Xcom (new one)
Company of Heroes 2
Wildstar
Borderlands 2
Sins of a Solar Empire

Now.....120hz is really only noticable in BF4, and slightly in Borderlands 2. Meaning, just shooters. If you play other things, that smoothness isn't so noticable. I used to have 120hz screen. I went from 2560x1600 30" to 1920x1080 27" (120hz). It was smoother in a couple games, but damn did I REALLY notice that resolution difference in ALL games.

You 120hz guys like to say "once you go 120hz, you can't go back". Not necessarily. How about, "once you go High rez, you can't go back".

But that's why there's now the Asus ROG (2560x1440 144hz TN monitor), with Gsync.....and here in lies my question.

OLED is on the horizon. Wonder if it's only 2-3 years off till they figure out how to make the blue color last longer and we have OLED gaming screens. OLED has no backlight and it's supposedly not refresh rate limited. It's like natural Gsync built in. Can go as low or as high as your vid cards can push.

So I'm wondering why did Nvidia get all into Gsync when, won't OLED tech just make that pointless?
 
oled does not have infinite refresh rate, so even if it is very fast, frames will still be torn and skipped irregularly

not to mention that they need to make money today somehow, so it wouldn't make sense to not sell something they can sell

since you're wrong about that last part, you might also re-think the anti-120hz crusade you began with
 
Gsync is just electronics and software that tell the panel when you want to refresh, instead of refreshing at a set rate.

Whether or not the panel is OLED does not change the fact that you still need to be able to tell it when to refresh if you want a variable refresh rate, nor does it eliminate the benefits of having a variable refresh rate.
 
Ultranifty said:
I'll not get deeply into the whole 120hz debate. I'm fine with 60hz cuz I don't ONLY play BF4. 120hz nuts are for people who only play shooters.

I play:

BF4
Diablo3
Xcom (new one)
Company of Heroes 2
Wildstar
Borderlands 2
Sins of a Solar Empire

Now.....120hz is really only noticable in BF4, and slightly in Borderlands 2. Meaning, just shooters. If you play other things, that smoothness isn't so noticable. I used to have 120hz screen. I went from 2560x1600 30" to 1920x1080 27" (120hz). It was smoother in a couple games, but damn did I REALLY notice that resolution difference in ALL games.

You 120hz guys like to say "once you go 120hz, you can't go back". Not necessarily. How about, "once you go High rez, you can't go back".

But that's why there's now the Asus ROG (2560x1440 144hz TN monitor), with Gsync.....and here in lies my question.

OLED is on the horizon. Wonder if it's only 2-3 years off till they figure out how to make the blue color last longer and we have OLED gaming screens. OLED has no backlight and it's supposedly not refresh rate limited. It's like natural Gsync built in. Can go as low or as high as your vid cards can push.

So I'm wondering why did Nvidia get all into Gsync when, won't OLED tech just make that pointless?
Click to expand...

I doubt that OLED mass production is only 2-3 years away, as much as I wish that was true...
 
OLED mass production is here... LG is making 55-77" televisions, and you can buy the 55" 1080p versions for as little as $3800. Many phones and the Oculus rift use OLED as well.

It's still in the very high cost, enthusiast level of technology, but it's definitely in mass production... when or if it will make it into consumer level desktop PC monitors is another story. The TVs are way too prone to image retention to be desktop monitors, and the super expensive Sony video monitors probably are too. It is possible that we'll never see OLED PC desktop monitors due to IR/burn-in issues, or at least not anytime soon, but for some applications the technology is definitely in production.

Given the very very tiny market for premium-priced desktop monitors, it's not too surprising that no one has tried to tackle this yet in anything priced lower than $6000 or so. We're still a long way away from OLED being competitive at cheap <$500 price points. The desktop market also continues to become less and less important relative to mobile, so that's another hurdle for development of new desktop monitor tech.
 
I've tried both, high res and 120+hz. To me the smoothness of higher refresh rate is much more noticeable even on the desktop. I can live with 60hz but I don't have to like it. We'll see how UHD feels, my 4k monitor is out for delivery today, but so far I have sold all of my 1440/1600p monitors in favor of keeping my old 1080p 120hz around. Maybe an overclockable 1440p panel would be nice, but I only had one and it caught fire after a week.
 
KashunatoR said:
I doubt that OLED mass production is only 2-3 years away, as much as I wish that was true...
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. No company has even announced any plans to do OLED desktop monitors.

As for 120hz advocates only playing FPS games that is quite false. I play a lot of StarCraft 2 and Smite and I would never go back to playing them in 60hz.

Also GSYNC makes an enormous difference for StarCraft 2. StarCraft 2 is heavily CPU limited (even with a 4.7GHz OCd 4770k) and it is impossible to maintain 144 fps throughout an entire game. But GSYNC keeps everything silky smooth with no stutters or tearing.

Even if OLED came out, it would still need GSYNC or an equivalent technology.
 
Blue_Scholar said:
You say this:



And then you say this:




Hmm.
Click to expand...

As he said, he wasn't going deeply into the debate. Also, re-read that sentence. He's not calling people who like 120Hz "nuts", he's saying 120Hz nutz as if it's a performance spec. (like, "this has 144Hz BALLS, man!"). That was clear based on how it was worded, otherwise he would have said "120hz is for people who are nuts and only play shooters".

Anyway, for the people jumping all over him based on poor reading comprehension, he was saying higher-res 60Hz is preferable in many/most cases compared to 120Hz at a lower res. And he's right, if we're talking bang for your buck and wanting the best graphics possible for the vast majority of gamers... not the best mltiplayer advantages for pro gaming.

And let's be honest, almost none (if any) of the people here are pro players at such a high level that they need every tiny advantage possible to compete, so they don't really need to worry about it, do they? I like the highest refresh rate possible too, but the 144Hz TN panels look like shit compared to 75Hz-100Hz IPS panels. And the input lag difference is becoming negligible as well.

This whole 144Hz/144+FPS obsession that many have is silly, when most people don't want (or wouldn't want, if they knew) to sacrifice the panel/color quality and graphical bells and whistles, only to attain that lofty standard that only really benefits the top .01% of the population's dexterity who happen to be seriously interested in Pro gaming/eSports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
Ultranifty said:
I'll not get deeply into the whole 120hz debate. I'm fine with 60hz cuz I don't ONLY play BF4. 120hz nuts are for people who only play shooters.

I play:

BF4
Diablo3
Xcom (new one)
Company of Heroes 2
Wildstar
Borderlands 2
Sins of a Solar Empire

Now.....120hz is really only noticable in BF4, and slightly in Borderlands 2. Meaning, just shooters. If you play other things, that smoothness isn't so noticable. I used to have 120hz screen. I went from 2560x1600 30" to 1920x1080 27" (120hz). It was smoother in a couple games, but damn did I REALLY notice that resolution difference in ALL games.

You 120hz guys like to say "once you go 120hz, you can't go back". Not necessarily. How about, "once you go High rez, you can't go back".

But that's why there's now the Asus ROG (2560x1440 144hz TN monitor), with Gsync.....and here in lies my question.

OLED is on the horizon. Wonder if it's only 2-3 years off till they figure out how to make the blue color last longer and we have OLED gaming screens. OLED has no backlight and it's supposedly not refresh rate limited. It's like natural Gsync built in. Can go as low or as high as your vid cards can push.

So I'm wondering why did Nvidia get all into Gsync when, won't OLED tech just make that pointless?
Click to expand...
The low response time of pixels in an OLED display just means that they can run at a higher refresh rate before ghosting becomes an issue. A 0.1ms GTG response time means it would theoretically be possible to have a vertical refresh rate up to 10 kHz without compromising image quality.

OLED displays are still sample-and-hold, meaning there is still going to be a delay between new images that are displayed on the screen. Black frame insertion, strobing, or variable refresh rate technologies are still needed to eliminate tearing and judder if the source material isn't running at a constant integer divisor of the panel's refresh rate.
 
to each its own.
i tried 1080p 120Hz on the seiki 39" 4k and i felt the benefits even at desktop, and this is without the strobing backlight that most high refresh gaming monitors have. and no, i am not a particularly picky gamer: 120hz just felt better for my eyes, even outside of games.
 
Armenius said:
A 0.1ms GTG response time means it would theoretically be possible to have a vertical refresh rate up to 10 kHz without compromising image quality.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this is wrong on several levels

1: First of its GTG so B/W response time will be higher so even if we went with your math there would still be ghosting.
2: Response times is not measure in change from color X to another Y but in a change from Color X to color Y and back to color X again aka its a measure of both rise and fall in light intensity in the colors not just a single change.
3: if we ignored the above two mistakes and still go with you 0.1ms is the time to change from any kind of color to any other. Then you still face the facts that its a cyclic measurements.
At 10khz you displayed frametime is 0.1ms if you take 0.1ms to change from one color to another it means you are still having ghosting in 0.1ms out of 0.1ms frametime aka 100% of the time.

Just because numbers match nicely doesn't meant you can draw arbitrary conclusion without understanding what the numbers represent in physical world.



also if you can run you screen at 10khz you do close the gap to VFR, because your framedrops from not having VRF in synced mode is minimized, as your caps are now divided from a higher value.

aka 60hz can show fps at
x/1 = 60
x/2 = 30
x/3 = 20
x/4 =15
x/5 =12
x/6 =10 fps
etc

144hz monitor:
x/1 = 144
x/2 = 72
x/3 = 48
x/4 = 36
x/5 = 28.8
x/6 = 24
x/7 = ~20.6
x/8 = 18
x/9 = 16
x/10 = 14.4
etc

10khz monitor (only showing those around 60)
x/166 = 60.240963855421686746987951807229
x/167= 59.880239520958083832335329341317
x/168 = 59.52380952380952380952380952381
etc ec

You see how FPS drops are not really a thing because the different caps are so close together? as the monitor is perfectly capable of showing a plenitude of different fps.

Its pretty close tho the results you would get with gsync ( but not exactly as good)
 
Last edited:
SvenBent said:
I'm sorry but this is wrong on several levels

1: First of its GTG so B/W response time will be higher so even if we went with your math there would still be ghosting.
2: Response times is not measure in change from color X to another Y but in a change from Color X to color Y and back to color X again aka its a measure of both rise and fall in light intensity in the colors not just a single change.
3: if we ignored the above two mistakes and still go with you 0.1ms is the time to change from any kind of color to any other. Then you still face the facts that its a cyclic measurements.
At 10khz you displayed frametime is 0.1ms if you take 0.1ms to change from one color to another it means you are still having ghosting in 0.1ms out of 0.1ms frametime aka 100% of the time.

Just because numbers match nicely doesn't meant you can draw arbitrary conclusion without understanding what the numbers represent in physical world.



also if you can run you screen at 10khz you do close the gap to VFR, because your framedrops from not having VRF in synced mode is minimized, as your caps are now divided from a higher value.

aka 60hz can show fps at
x/1 = 60
x/2 = 30
x/3 = 20
x/4 =15
x/5 =12
x/6 =10 fps
etc

144hz monitor:
x/1 = 144
x/2 = 72
x/3 = 48
x/4 = 36
x/5 = 28.8
x/6 = 24
x/7 = ~20.6
x/8 = 18
x/9 = 16
x/10 = 14.4
etc

10khz monitor (only showing those around 60)
x/166 = 60.240963855421686746987951807229
x/167= 59.880239520958083832335329341317
x/168 = 59.52380952380952380952380952381
etc ec

You see how FPS drops are not really a thing because the different caps are so close together? as the monitor is perfectly capable of showing a plenitude of different fps.

Its pretty close tho the results you would get with gsync ( but not exactly as good)
Click to expand...
Thanks, Adam Ruins Everything. You picked one statement in my post that I qualified with the word "theoretically" and completely missed the point.
 
Armenius said:
Thanks, Adam Ruins Everything. You picked one statement in my post that I qualified with the word "theoretically" and completely missed the point.
Click to expand...

The problem is you are dismissing the claim from OP which is in fact very valid, that if you are not limited by refresh rate the gains from gsync becomes close to null.
And even if you claims was theoretical. It was still theoretically wrong because that is not how the things work. With the same logic you put out in you theoretically claim, we would not need lowere than 16ms response time on a 60hz monitor to be ghost free. The problem is you theoretically claims is putting out misinformation and wrong math.
 
Hi guys. It's us. From the future. 2016 to be exact. Welp, all we can say about your monitor question is Oled still ain't here so Gsync it is.

In other news 2016 has been a terrible year. We lost alot of really great musicians. Bowie Died, Prince Died. Can you believe it? Well, that's pretty terrible, but not even the worst of it. Sorry to break the news to you, but Hillary Clinton is running for president...again,.. and... well, you'll never guess who's running against her. I'd give you 100 guesses but buy the time your answers reach the future it will probably be too late for us all. You know what. I'm not going to tell you. No need to ruin the next few years of your lives more than i already have. Hows 2014 by the way? We sure miss it. Welp. See you in the future, if we're all lucky. Peace out from 2016.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top