Is GSync important?

Andrew1793 · 15 Jun 2017 at 14:54

Hi All,

I have a generic 1080p monitor that I currently use for gaming. I'm currently running an I5 6600K and a GTX 1070.

Is it worth going for a Gsync 144hz over a generic 144hz? The price jump to GSync seems excessive.

Thanks,

Andrew

Alty · 15 Jun 2017 at 15:15

People say its buttery smooth but tbh I don't get it... not sure if I'm missing the hype about it.... (currently using a Acer Predator 27" 144hz Gsync TN Panel)

Watlinguk · 15 Jun 2017 at 15:27

I'm susceptible to screen tearing. It make mes feel sick whilst playing games. So the fact it eliminates that is a god send for me. I don't understand people saying it makes frames sub 60fps smooth because it doesn't for me

Rroff · 15 Jun 2017 at 15:33

It will depend person to person.

Personally wouldn't do without it.

Watlinguk said:
I don't understand people saying it makes frames sub 60fps smooth because it doesn't for me

The behaviour of lower framerates can be a bit better with masking the inadequacies in some cases - for me the advantage at those kind of framerates is that I don't have to try and find a compromise between V-Sync input lag and the huge latency swing as it jumps off 30 or 45FPS if you can't quite make 60FPS or tearing with V-Sync off which can be quite noticeable at those kind of framerates.

hornetstinger · 15 Jun 2017 at 15:34

Not owning anything over 60hz, but surely having a 144hz monitor pretty much makes freesync/gsync not worthwhile addition, because you just set desktop to 144hz, games will be at that, if framerate is below 144fps then

Evian · 15 Jun 2017 at 19:51

I wondered this too, Ever since I got my 144hz monitor back in 2013 I have not saw any screen tearing tbh.

Efour · 16 Jun 2017 at 04:56

I went from 144hz to 144hz gysnc.

Really can't tell a thing to be honest.
It works you just don't know it is.

Andrew1793 · 16 Jun 2017 at 11:11

So its it worth buying a 144hz monitor that is Gsync for £350 or should I just buy a regular 144hz non Gsync monitor for £200

Glanza · 16 Jun 2017 at 11:17

Depends on the games you play and how high you have your settings, it's noticeable when it's off and on, for me atleast.

andybird123 · 17 Jun 2017 at 00:10

Andrew1793 said:
So its it worth buying a 144hz monitor that is Gsync for £350 or should I just buy a regular 144hz non Gsync monitor for £200

For me it is totally worth it.
On a regular monitor when the frame rate dips say 20-30fps below the refresh, i notice it. If it dips to say 90fps then it really jarring.

With gsync i dont notice dips anywhere down to about 90fps. So instead of dropping settings to where it maintains 120fps+ i can use settings that drop to 90's, so its basically like running SLI but for the cost of a single GPU... suddenly the cost of the monitor doesnt seem so bad, no way I could go back to non-gsync now.

Tearing and stutter are things that affect/bother people to different degrees though, so it will be highly subjective.

FloppyPoppy · 17 Jun 2017 at 07:27

best thing since sliced bread.

Furyus · 17 Jun 2017 at 07:42

G-sync isn't a requirement nowadays! It's a way of life! and a must have !

Glanza · 17 Jun 2017 at 09:33

One thing to note, if you happily change between AMD and Nvidia when changing your GPU a G Sync monitor will lock you into Nvidia.

FloppyPoppy · 17 Jun 2017 at 09:37

^ Just to point out IIRC so does buying a freesync monitor but locks you to amd.

hornetstinger · 17 Jun 2017 at 09:39

harry5522 said:
^ Just to point out IIRC so does buying a freesync monitor but locks you to amd.

Won't nvidia support adaptive sync, which is standardised system?

FloppyPoppy · 17 Jun 2017 at 09:45

hornetstinger said:
Won't nvidia support adaptive sync, which is standardised system?

I know the variable refresh rate tech does not work with nvidia cards on freesync monitors. Unless this has now changed?

I am also unsure as to why this is. It's probably nvidia spitting their dummy out and saying no to it because we have our own tech ( that admittedly in my eyes is a superior option. ) All market/money and less about the consumer. <-- hard to say as what would call a borderline nvidia fanboy.

Blackjack Davy · 17 Jun 2017 at 11:53

For that card, cpu and that resolution, probably not worth it. If every game you're playing has no problem matching the monitors refresh rate with Vsync on that is. Its more useful if you can't maintain a steady fps or have issues with Vsync.

harry5522 said:
I am also unsure as to why this is. It's probably nvidia spitting their dummy out and saying no to it because we have our own tech ( that admittedly in my eyes is a superior option. )

In a word, money. Nvidia charge a premium for Gsync.

Doogles · 17 Jun 2017 at 13:51

harry5522 said:
I know the variable refresh rate tech does not work with nvidia cards on freesync monitors. Unless this has now changed?

I am also unsure as to why this is. It's probably nvidia spitting their dummy out and saying no to it because we have our own tech ( that admittedly in my eyes is a superior option. ) All market/money and less about the consumer. <-- hard to say as what would call a borderline nvidia fanboy.

It hasn't changed makes me want to get an AMD card but nothing powerful enough is available from them my bet is that once AMD have something that is close to nVidia' top tier Freesync will be magically supported by them.

Nexus18 · 17 Jun 2017 at 13:56

The only reason nvidia users are locked out from using free/adaptive sync is because of nvidia refusing to support it, they had an excuse with it for all pre 10xx desktop GPUs (as the GPUs didn't have the required hardware hence the need for them to build their own module), but not anymore.

Tom Peterson has said "never say never" with regards to it so it is only a matter of time especially when freesync monitors are dwarfing the number of gsync monitors out there:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3129...ia-g-sync-on-monitor-selection-and-price.html

Superior option? For the range, sure, but everything else, not really as pointed out by tftcentral, anandtech and all the other good review sites (especially since AMD added support for LFC in a driver ages ago and most recently windowed support)

Just remember that regardless of sync tech., you really don't want to be dropping below 45 fps at most still.

UFOtest actually have a pretty good comparison tool to show of gsync and its effects on tearing, stutter/smoothness etc.:

https://www.testufo.com/#test=stutter&demo=gsync&foreground=FFFFFF&background=000000&max=12&pps=720

Of course as they mentioned, you can't get a feel for input lag etc. though.

BowdonUK · 17 Jun 2017 at 14:31

In my limited experience of g-sync it doesn't really make a big difference to the games I play. I rarely play first person shooter games.

I think it depends on the games your playing. If they are very fast FPS type of games then having a high and smooth fps will give you a slight advantage. If your not really in to FPS'ers then there isnt much to write home about.

Remember consoles are only just hitting 60fps. I'd say unless you want to play fast paced games at 144 fps then for most games they dont realistically use 144 fps.