Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,527
turn Vsync OFF in game, then run either an FPS limiter, OR Turn ON Vsync in NVCP
the reason you are getting 280fps is because you are running no vsync and no frame limiter
Gsync is damn good.
- Thread starter stulid
- Start date
turn Vsync OFF in game, then run either an FPS limiter, OR Turn ON Vsync in NVCP
the reason you are getting 280fps is because you are running no vsync and no frame limiter
I guess it varies person to person. I might not notice that with Vsync off, but with it on I think I would notice that in stutter.
I reinstalled AC Unity too (after never getting far due to performance), Gsync is brilliant on that. The framerate is certainly not stable but I almost never notice drops.
Whilst I can understand that people think it's an expensive add on, once you've used it (and set it up properly) it really is worth every penny imo. No tearing or input lag at high frames is utterly awesome. I got used to nasty image tearing but now I can't understand how I found it acceptable for so long. I didn't get it for it's low framerate compensation (I have 980ti SLI) so can't really comment on that as most stuff easily stays over 60fps.
What monitor do you have?
I've seen it mentioned many times over that the jump from 60Hz to 75Hz is the most noticeable... once you get beyond that, yes you see a difference, but it's very much diminishing returns, especially once you get over 100Hz. Of course, there will be some individuals who pick up on this more than others, but most would be MORE than happy anywhere around that 80-100 mark. Some monitors boasting 165Hz and 200Hz are just ridiculous and it's nothing short of a marketing gimmick. Same could be said of 144Hz also for that matter. In a blind test, 9.9 people out of 10 wouldn't notice the difference between 120Hz and 144Hz.
Uhm, it's not 3 or 4 times the cost.
If you compare a trash TN 60Hz panel with a top of the line G-SYNC 144Hz IPS panel then yes, it's significantly more expensive. But that is an apples to oranges comparison which is, quite frankly, utterly idiotic.
If you compare like for like monitors, GYSNC and non G-SYNC the cost difference is around £100-£150 extra. More than worth it for the experience it offers.
Whilst I agree that the 'top end' gaming monitors are getting into the realms of silly money, it's not just Gsync you are paying a premium for. It's other factors too such as the higher refresh, higher resolution (1440p+) and now super wide too.
Not very long ago a 'gaming monitor' simply meant it hit 120Hz, and that was about it. They were all only 1080p and had low quality TN panels with poor 6bit colour reproduction.
The original Rog Swift completely broke the mould by being 1440p, 8 bit VERY VERY GOOD colour repro for a TN, and it had a little thing called Gsync. Now we are even seeing IPS panels thrown into the goody mix - It's all good stuff and monitor tech can't move fast enough for me. OLED should have been here a long time ago.
Finally, as an original Rog swift owner I personally think Gsync is worth every god damn penny. It's the revolution I've been waiting for, for years.
Not very long ago a 'gaming monitor' simply meant it hit 120Hz, and that was about it. They were all only 1080p and had low quality TN panels with poor 6bit colour reproduction.
The original Rog Swift completely broke the mould by being 1440p, 8 bit VERY VERY GOOD colour repro for a TN, and it had a little thing called Gsync. Now we are even seeing IPS panels thrown into the goody mix - It's all good stuff and monitor tech can't move fast enough for me. OLED should have been here a long time ago.
Finally, as an original Rog swift owner I personally think Gsync is worth every god damn penny. It's the revolution I've been waiting for, for years.
Last edited:
I was under the impression that you could toggle between V-Sync Off/On now on Nvidia cards. They obviously didnt like being outdone by AMD and saw it as a bonus and added it it recently via driver update. Is this not so?
I have recently upgraded to a Sapphire Fury Tri-X and a Benq XL2730Z and can honestly say that it is brilliantly smooth using Freesync. G-sync has a slight advantage if dipping below the variable refresh range but that's about it.
I don't believe that G-sync is the vastly superior refresh rate product as many make it out to be. Slightly, at the moment yes due to the better management of lower end frames but it's not by much. (This doesnt bother me anyway as I cant see the Fury dipping below 40FPS in any game @2560x1440p).
It certainly wasn't justifiable to me for the extra cost of the monitors at the moment. I was not going to pay an extra £200 for almost the same performance. If the monitors came down in price to match the Freesync ones then at this point in time I might have been swayed a bit more.
Just my personal opinion of course
Last edited:
I went from a 980Ti with a 40" Philips 4K screen to an R9 Fury and the Freesync 32" Samsung 4K and even though it is around 15%-20% slower OC vs OC, the fact I have adaptive synchronization (Freesync) makes it a smoother experience overall.
It is still a noticeable drop going from 60 FPS to 40 FPS and back, but with no stutter or tearing it ia much more bearable. So as with the OP adaptive synchronization tech is a big improvement. I would never consider another monitor without it.
It is still a noticeable drop going from 60 FPS to 40 FPS and back, but with no stutter or tearing it ia much more bearable. So as with the OP adaptive synchronization tech is a big improvement. I would never consider another monitor without it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 5,474
- Location
- No Mans Land
I'd love to have a G-sync monitor.
But. . .
I just wish decent manufacturers (Samsung?) would make some premium G-sync monitors.
No way would I be happy with a Acer, Asus etc. To me they are just cheap plasticky overpriced junk.
Hopefully next year things might change.
Until then I'll keep using my trusty S27B970D.
But. . .
I just wish decent manufacturers (Samsung?) would make some premium G-sync monitors.
No way would I be happy with a Acer, Asus etc. To me they are just cheap plasticky overpriced junk.
Hopefully next year things might change.
Until then I'll keep using my trusty S27B970D.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,383
- Location
- Northampton
The Asus TN Swift is an awesome monitor, It really is, But the problem is that the QC of the panels is atrocious, Thankfully I got a good one now but I had to go through 7 !
If you are lucky to get a good one then you will have an awesome gaming experience but we really shouldn't have to go through a lottery of monitors after spending £600 and hope we get one that works properly or doesn't develop dead and stuck pixels like the plague.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 5,474
- Location
- No Mans Land
1. That's a TN panel - no thanks, only IPS, PLS for me.
2. It's a Asus monitor? Just does not cut it for me. Cheap and tacky as is the Acer.
As for price that's no problem for me, I will happily spend 1.5k+ on a quality non plastic looking decent make, Samsung, LG etc, etc.
I was in the same predicament as you a few weeks ago. I decided to go for adaptive synch tech but after a lot of research it was clear there were no G-sync monitors that matched my requirements.
Only the Freesync Samsung U32E850R met my requirements of 32" or larger, 4K and 16:9 ratio.
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sams...g-widescreen-led-monitor-black-mo-217-sa.html
As I reported above I am getting 15%-20% less performance (max OC vs max OC) depending upon the game. Yet the adaptive sync tech trully does make it a better experience overall.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,383
- Location
- Northampton
I have a 4K Dell Ultrasharp UP3216Q IPS which has 99.5% Adobe RGB, 100% sRGB, 100% REC709 and 87% DCI-P3 coverage that usually costs an arm and a leg but I got it for a massive discount as it has 2 dead pixels 1mm away from the top right bezel and the only packaging was minimal but otherwise in perfect condition.
Point is, Even with the TN Swift *which was calibrated with the help of a spyder pro* and IPS Dell side by side there really isn't a massive difference, I have the best of both worlds but It's amazing how much people over exaggerate the differences between TN and IPS, And before anyone asks no my eyes aren't bad I had an eye exam only 2 months ago.
Boot up a game and have the ICC/Nvclp gamma setting gone.
WASHED OUT IN YO FACE look of TN arrives.
Not to mention like Top 3 rectangles of TN panels are usually much darker than the rest of the screen.
And if you manage to get a 2.2 gamma @ center of screen the top will be more like 2.4-2.6 and details in dark will be gone.
And bottom will be cloer to 1.8-2.0.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,383
- Location
- Northampton
I don't know what you just said but I think it was nearly English
Point is I have both my panels calibrated and they both look good, IPS has a bit more colour depth and viewing angles but for the most part people really do over exaggerate IPS.
I don't know what you just said but I think it was nearly English
Point is I have both my panels calibrated and they both look good, IPS has a bit more colour depth and viewing angles but for the most part people really do over exaggerate IPS.
Dont see whats wrong with what I wrote.
I'd like you to take photos of both screens at the exact same distance and height. Simply leaning back or slouching infront of a TN panel means the top of the screen becomes much darker. You cant lean back while watching a movie with dark scenes or play dark games, because of the stupid gamma shift.