Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
In my opinion, Nvidia should just support FreeSync. Even if I do prefer Nvidia cards, I don't think that G-Sync is worth $200 to me.
Fastsync is for when framerate is higher than the refresh rate monitor.
Gsync is for the framerate is lower than the refresh rate monitor.
But GSYNC or not GSYNC, 35FPS is not smooth.
Also, Gsync is exactly the same as Freesync. Gsync is for nvidia, freesync for amd.
really ?
On a budget monitor with no G-SYNC or TV , if you dip below 60 fps, even 59 fps it will act and feel like 30 fps. Gaming on a budget monitor or TV is only good if you can get a stable 60 fps.
really ?
It synchronizes refresh rate with the frame rate. This alone should make any somewhat experienced gamer excited.
Yeah, 35 FPS is still 35 FPS. Gsync doesn't change this fact. However, it does do its job, which is eliminating screen tearing and refresh rate induced stuttering, with low latency. It would simply be a better 35 FPS experience.
In my opinion, Gsync on a 60hz monitor would be a waste. Gsync really starts to shine over 60hz. You get a game that averages around 100 frames. Instead of dealing with screen tearing, and other affects of unsync'd frames, you can enjoy that 100 frames in a smooth and tear and stutter free experience (with less latency than vsync).
Of course such hard stutter would still be felt but it's not improved by having additional one created by V-sync.
Scenarios without V-sync is less relevant because the idea with adaptive sync is of course that you can still remain tear-free.
Though to be fair at higher refresh-rates on the opposite end of the spectrum maybe you're ok turning G-Sync on and go tear-free at a slightly lower refresh-rate on the monitor rather than getting your full 60 or 144 Hz or whatever but get tearing (if you'd turn on V-sync you'd get those much more massive drops otherwise.)
No, and it's not Fastsync.
With V-sync on yes. For that one too slow frame-render. With V-sync you'll get a repeated image whereas with adaptive sync you'd just get a slightly delayed one.
Even if gaming you goes below 60 Hz gsync does help.
Basically if you have a fixed refresh rate and you go below it when then it looks awful compared to gsync being used.
The question is it it worth it for the extra money?
You need to decide
It sees leaps in FPS and notices the edges of animation depending on how high detailed they are... also flickering of frames light (which is why we have a backlight).
Hense G-SYNC smooths this one and greatly improves in appearance.
If it was maxing out FPS, there would be no difference.
The human eye will happily watch a movie in the cinemas at 24FPS, because it's a continous smooth flow.
If it was dropping below 30 FPS on PC, the human eye would still notice due to edge jumps when rotating, etc.
This is due to FPS on PC is never a solid value, explosions and other high details can cause it to drop and vary. The lower the FPS, the greater the change is noticed.
However, rather than going from 60FPS to 30FPS in a single leap, it would be 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, etc... while keeping in sync with whatever the graphics card can dish out at that time.
You're stuck with their graphics card lineup and drivers though.
Maybe motion blur make you not suffer as much from it / feel it but maybe it break acurracy instead.
One way to get very nice smoothness in movies would be to use a shutter speed of 1/24 second, that is to actually film the whole time because then you wouldn't get any jumps in animation whatsoever, everything which move would be blured though which would be part of the outcome. More frames would make it clearer but not affect the smoothness. With the shutter just opened for a very short time you could get much clearer/sharped/fixed in time images but you'd easier notice the frame-switches.
As for how easy the brain stitches together the motion at 30 or 24 Hz as long as it's a steady one I don't know. For an FPS where the whole world stutter around I would imagine it's harder then for something like Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 where the objects which move are tiny and most stuff are stuck in place (except when changing scene of course.)
ALL I CAN SAY, it"s awesome, 144hz, but gsync i don"t know.
I really want to upgrade to 4k 144hz 32" !!!!!
I would like a monitor like that as well. Sadly it seems there is no GPU in existence to handle decent frame rates for that setup. Muli GPU setups are trouble as they are not supported that well. By decent frame rates I mean 100 + fps. There is also the question of the display port being able to handle the throughput.