• 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.

Sync vs Refresh Rate

J

JCNiest5

Supreme [H]ardness
2FA
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
4,137
So, if your monitor has either Freesync or G-Sync, why do you still need 144Hz or higher refresh rate?

Enlight me, please...
 
No input lag @ or above 100 Hz. I can swing from 144 to 70 FPS in game without lag, micro-stutter or tearing.
 
JCNiest5 said:
So, if your monitor has either Freesync or G-Sync, why do you still need 144Hz or higher refresh rate?

Enlight me, please...
Click to expand...

gsync and freesync are solutions for when you computer is to slow for the monitor
higher refresh rate = more smoothnes/ less input delay. im not even sure why you would make that kind of apples to oranges comparison

but seriously read any technical documentation on how framebuffers work and it will enlighten you in sync

you can try looking into the other threads where this has been gone over in details
 
Last I tried 144Hz with Battlefield 5, each time I exited the game, my screen went blank and I had to do a hard reset. Video card is 2080 Ti.
 
JCNiest5 said:
Last I tried 144Hz with Battlefield 5, each time I exited the game, my screen went blank and I had to do a hard reset. Video card is 2080 Ti.
Click to expand...

I can wholly confirm that there's something weird going on there- likely software related. Nuke the drivers (DDU) and try again.
 
Adaptive sync (like GSync or FreeSync) can synchronize the monitor's refresh rate to the game BUT only within the range the monitor physically supports.

For example, if you are running an old game and getting 1000 fps, it won't turn your monitor into 1000Hz. It will still have to update at the maximum rate, usually 60Hz.

The main advantage is that adaptive sync technology can update at arbitrary rates within the range it supports. On a normal 60Hz VSync monitor, if one frame takes slightly longer to render, it will drop down to 30Hz momentarily. On Adaptive Sync, it CAN update at 57Hz or whatever without stutter.

Ideally you want both high refresh AND adaptive sync for the ultimate experience. 144Hz is good enough for most people, but there are gains even up to 240Hz or maybe more. Hope that helps.
 
Nv should put away their fighting gloves and allow everyone to use Gsync AND Freesync as while they both offer "near the same thing" they are also different enough to justify having both available on any monitor/display that supports the one (Gsync) seeing as many many times Nv said that it really does not add much if anything to the consumer (the makers such as Asus etc) reality says that is BS and they know full well it is.

$1 to their customer (Asus) often means 5-10x as much to us the end purchaser, if they really cared as they say "we are the leader" they would just suck the cost of Gsync on their end, the makers can choose to use or not use (likely would if not cost anything extra) which means more of us consumers would have ready access to it.

That being said, I know I am not using the best of the best, but I found very very few games actually benefitted from Sync of any sort, except for Emulation stuff and/or way back when Athlon's where first coming out, a bit of an overclock cause the entire system to act like it got hit with testosterone AND adrenaline :D
 
dragonstongue said:
but I found very very few games actually benefitted from Sync of any sort
Click to expand...

I demonstrated this best to myself- try anything that requires input reactions with V-Sync on and off. If you can't tell the difference, then you likely won't notice Freesync or G-Sync.

With V-Sync on, I feel 'input lag'. It depends on the game of course, but it ranges from annoying to debilitating.

With V-Sync off, tearing leaps off the screen. I'm one of those that had a hard time looking at 60Hz CRTs and went out of my way to find stuff that did 85Hz+.

With G-Sync I get no input lag and no tearing. It's no longer either / or.
 
In theory, some form of sync technology (Freesync, Gsync, or HDMI Forum VRR) is the best when operating within the refresh intervals the sync supports. When you fall outside that region, that's where the higher base refresh helps.

Ideally, later VRR implementations will support everything from <1 up to 240 (or at least 120) Hz, making things moot.
 
dragonstongue said:
Nv should put away their fighting gloves and allow everyone to use Gsync AND Freesync as while they both offer "near the same thing" they are also different enough to justify having both available on any monitor/display that supports the one (Gsync) seeing as many many times Nv said that it really does not add much if anything to the consumer (the makers such as Asus etc) reality says that is BS and they know full well it is.

$1 to their customer (Asus) often means 5-10x as much to us the end purchaser, if they really cared as they say "we are the leader" they would just suck the cost of Gsync on their end, the makers can choose to use or not use (likely would if not cost anything extra) which means more of us consumers would have ready access to it.
Click to expand...

I would not be surprised if manufacturers bank more on Freesync 2 going forward because it allows more flexibility as you don't need to use the expensive G-Sync module in the display and both AMD and Nvidia GPU owners can buy the model. Of course with bad implementations this leads to varying performance but I think display manufacturers are starting to get it right on their new and upcoming displays. When properly implemented you should not experience any relevant difference between G-Sync vs Freesync 2.

I think having a variable refresh rate solution is important and would not buy a gaming screen without it. Who doesn't want less input lag, no screen tearing and less noticeable fluctuations in framerate?

Likewise for refresh rate I want at least 120 Hz for less motion blur and smoother gameplay in games that can go to that high framerates.

The real shame is that ULMB type backlight strobing is no longer found on many monitors. It's still the best way to reduce motion persistence and with new screens capable of higher brightness levels that should not be an issue either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top