GSYNC is really good or it's just useless ?

[Frey]

i wonder if GSYNC is useless or not ?

It's like perfum on an dirty man, although he puts perfum on himself, the truth is he smells bad.
So if you have 35FPS on a game , how can it be smooth ? the truth is 35FPS is not smooth.

[Air]

Well, G-Sync isn't for framerates that are that low. It's pretty much for higher refresh rate monitors with framerate differences there. I'd hardly call its useless but it's definitely over-priced tech, increasing prices of monitors that include it by ~$200 USD.

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.

[Frey]

Air님이 먼저 게시:

Well, G-Sync isn't for framerates that are that low. It's pretty much for higher refresh rate monitors with framerate differences there. I'd hardly call its useless but it's definitely over-priced tech, increasing prices of monitors that include it by ~$200 USD.

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.

[Andrius227]

Gsync is amazing. It makes any game look smooth. Not for 30fps ofc, nothing can make 30fps look smooth. It's meant for 120/144hz monitors, to smooth out any frame drops to as low as ~50fps. No one should buy 60hz gsync monitors because it is indeed useless there.

Also, Gsync is exactly the same as Freesync. Gsync is for nvidia, freesync for amd.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Think it started from around 40-45 FPS where G-sync and Freesync started to be useful. Below that it doesnt really help. If you have graphics card that can handle 40+ FPS though then it's pretty amazing.

[shiel]

Rumpelcrutchskin님이 먼저 게시:

Think it started from around 40-45 FPS where G-sync and Freesync started to be useful. Below that it doesnt really help. If you have graphics card that can handle 40+ FPS though then it's pretty amazing.

This^ it's actually jarring to play on a different monitor once you get used to it.

[Frey]

shiel님이 먼저 게시:

Rumpelcrutchskin님이 먼저 게시:

Think it started from around 40-45 FPS where G-sync and Freesync started to be useful. Below that it doesnt really help. If you have graphics card that can handle 40+ FPS though then it's pretty amazing.

This^ it's actually jarring to play on a different monitor once you get used to it.

really ?

[EliteGamer]

It's definitely a good thing to have. It really does help out with the smoothness from 40-60 fps.
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.

[Frey]

EliteGamer님이 먼저 게시:

It's definitely a good thing to have. It really does help out with the smoothness from 40-60 fps.
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 ?

[Revelene]

Gsync can't pull miracles. If that is what you were expecting, then you don't understand the technology.

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).

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Personally intuitively I would had felt like it should have the most usage for lower frame-rates before not having to be stuck with actual on monitor game-FPS switching between 1/60, 1/30, 1/20, 1/15 FPS vs having more in line with actual frame-time would be an improvement.
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.)

✪Koly™님이 먼저 게시:

Air님이 먼저 게시:

Well, G-Sync isn't for framerates that are that low. It's pretty much for higher refresh rate monitors with framerate differences there. I'd hardly call its useless but it's definitely over-priced tech, increasing prices of monitors that include it by ~$200 USD.

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.

No, and it's not Fastsync.

✪Koly™님이 먼저 게시:

EliteGamer님이 먼저 게시:

It's definitely a good thing to have. It really does help out with the smoothness from 40-60 fps.
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 ?

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.

[Lord Flashheart]

I went from a 60 hz 1080p monitor to a 144 hz 1080p gsync and it is a big difference.
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

[Azza ☠]

The human eye doesn't see in FPS... that is a myth.

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.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Laser Raptor님이 먼저 게시:

I went from a 60 hz 1080p monitor to a 144 hz 1080p gsync and it is a big difference.
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

Thankfully with AMD there is ~no money difference.
You're stuck with their graphics card lineup and drivers though.

Azza ☠님이 먼저 게시:

The human eye doesn't see in FPS... that is a myth.

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.

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.)

[Frey]

I HAVE BOUGHT ASUS 28" GSYNC 144hz 1440p !!!!

ALL I CAN SAY, it"s awesome, 144hz, but gsync i don"t know.

I really want to upgrade to 4k 144hz 32" !!!!!

[Lord Flashheart]

✪Koly™님이 먼저 게시:

I HAVE BOUGHT ASUS 28" GSYNC 144hz 1440p !!!!

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.