FreeSync coming next month! (?)

Sin_Chase · 17 Oct 2014 at 01:18

shankly1985 said:
They no reason why it couldn't be better. Freesync supports wider refresh rate range and also less over head. What this means to us we after wait and see. Csgo should be one the first games to be tested though. Gsync is very bad on this game, going by blurbusters.

Less overhead.....

Less than zero is....zero.

Let's just wait for launch, consumer models on consumer cards and see what happens eh.

Assuming a smooth and bug free launch one of the biggest issues I see facing FreeSync right now is the relatively narrow band of supported GPUs. This is going to hurt uptake a little.

shankly1985 · 17 Oct 2014 at 01:28

Sin_Chase said:
Less overhead.....

Less than zero is....zero.

Let's just wait for launch, consumer models on consumer cards and see what happens eh.

Assuming a smooth and bug free launch one of the biggest issues I see facing FreeSync right now is the relatively narrow band of supported GPUs. This is going to hurt uptake a little.

Look at csgo with Gsync and you see its far from zero.
Like I did already say, we know more once released.

I did say that

Sin_Chase · 17 Oct 2014 at 01:35

shankly1985 said:
Look at csgo with Gsync and you see its far from zero.
Like I did already say, we know more once released.

I did say that

Did you even read the article you are referring to?

Conclusion

As even the input lag in CS:GO was solvable, I found no perceptible input lag disadvantage to G-SYNC relative to VSYNC OFF, even in older source engine games, provided the games were configured correctly (NVIDIA Control Panel configured correctly to use G-SYNC, and game configuration updated correctly). G-SYNC gives the game player a license to use higher graphics settings in the game, while keeping the gameplay smooth.

It was identified very early on that some engines which pushed past 144FPS could introduce some input lag. But that it was entirely solvable by capping the engine FPS to at or below 144 (Or whatever max refresh you are running) There is zero disadvantage to such a cap in a G-SYNC configured environment and, as the article concludes, no perceivable input lag concerns.

triss · 17 Oct 2014 at 01:53

Martini1991 said:
Freesync has a more extensive list of ranges supported.

While as a blanket thing Freesync might support a wider range IMO i can see it being just like gsync and only supporting what that model monitor supports refresh wise,, EG theres no point saying freesync is better cos it goes to 1 or 500 if monitors with it dont cover these ranges .
Still exciting times for us all and i'm looking forward to see how it goes

shankly1985 · 17 Oct 2014 at 02:04

Sin_Chase said:
Did you even read the article you are referring to?

It was identified very early on that some engines which pushed past 144FPS could introduce some input lag. But that it was entirely solvable by capping the engine FPS to at or below 144 (Or whatever max refresh you are running) There is zero disadvantage to such a cap in a G-SYNC configured environment and, as the article concludes, no perceivable input lag concerns.

And do you understand capping a frame rate on csgo is a bad thing to do? It effects your latency you put yourself at a disadvantaged.
And on csgo on the 144hz they had to cap it at 120fps to reduce the input lag, not something you want to be doing after buying a 144hz display is it?

shankly1985 · 17 Oct 2014 at 02:17

"We currently suspect that fps_max 143 is frequently colliding near the G-SYNC frame rate cap, possibly having something to do with NVIDIA’s technique in polling the monitor whether the monitor is ready for the next refresh. I did hear they are working on eliminating polling behavior, so that eventually G-SYNC frames can begin delivering immediately upon monitor readiness, even if it means simply waiting a fraction of a millisecond in situations where the monitor is nearly finished with its previous refresh"

So maybe this is what AMD is talking about when they say less over head?
Sure only one game in there where you easy hit the 144hz and get the input lag. I wonder what FPS they was getting in BF4 or Crysis 3 ? I very doubt they was keeping a solid 144fps to so the weakness in Gsync it would seem.

Dont take this like I having ago and trying to find anything to put a downer on Gsync. I simply reporting what AMD is saying, if true or not we wait and see.

http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/

Sin_Chase · 17 Oct 2014 at 02:45

shankly1985 said:
"We currently suspect that fps_max 143 is frequently colliding near the G-SYNC frame rate cap, possibly having something to do with NVIDIA’s technique in polling the monitor whether the monitor is ready for the next refresh. I did hear they are working on eliminating polling behavior, so that eventually G-SYNC frames can begin delivering immediately upon monitor readiness, even if it means simply waiting a fraction of a millisecond in situations where the monitor is nearly finished with its previous refresh"

So maybe this is what AMD is talking about when they say less over head?
Sure only one game in there where you easy hit the 144hz and get the input lag. I wonder what FPS they was getting in BF4 or Crysis 3 ? I very doubt they was keeping a solid 144fps to so the weakness in Gsync it would seem.

Dont take this like I having ago and trying to find anything to put a downer on Gsync. I simply reporting what AMD is saying, if true or not we wait and see.

http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/

Quite frankly CS:GO is a total non issue.

It's a competitive title in which ridiculous things like playing at 800x600 and getting as much FPS as possible because it gives engine based competitive advantage is rife.

Who seriously cares to use a G-SYNC monitor in such an environment? Just use a CRT and be done with it, or ULMB it instead. I hate to break it to you, unless FreeSync is coming out with monitors that support 300Hz refresh rates, FreeSync is going to be equally as useless for players who want to cap out 300FPS.

Do CS:GO players give a toss about tearing? Genuine question.

shankly1985 · 17 Oct 2014 at 03:02

Sin_Chase said:
Quite frankly CS:GO is a total non issue.

It's a competitive title in which ridiculous things like playing at 800x600 and getting as much FPS as possible because it gives engine based competitive advantage is rife.

Who seriously cares to use a G-SYNC monitor in such an environment? Just use a CRT and be done with it, or ULMB it instead. I hate to break it to you, unless FreeSync is coming out with monitors that support 300Hz refresh rates, FreeSync is going to be equally as useless for players who want to cap out 300FPS.

Do CS:GO players give a toss about tearing? Genuine question.

Nope I dont care about Gsync or FreeSync tbh

I run with sync off all the time.

rankftw · 17 Oct 2014 at 04:20

I have about 1100 hours in CSGO and play competitively in some low ass resolution with the graphics on minimum on my ROG Swift with GSYNC turned off. It's the only game I turn GSYNC off for and have it on for every other game. However CSGO plays exactly the same if you cap it to 120 fps with GSYNC on but I'm just used to playing without so I don't bother.

So to reiterate, I notice no difference in competitive CSGO with GSYNC on at 120 fps, I am LEM.

Gregster · 17 Oct 2014 at 04:32

I use G-Sync in every game I play and find it fantastic. I only really play BF4 online and am far from competitive enough to worry about 1 million fps to be good

shankly1985 · 17 Oct 2014 at 04:44

Gregster said:
I use G-Sync in every game I play and find it fantastic. I only really play BF4 online and am far from competitive enough to worry about 1 million fps to be good

Questions Greg, do you keep a solid 144fps to match the refresh rate? I do wonder if the issue with CSGO is because you able to push a frame rate way over the refresh rate so easy.

Or is they a know reason why CSGO input lag is so high? and has what I posted above already been fixed?

Deceptor · 17 Oct 2014 at 06:32

shankly1985 said:
Questions Greg, do you keep a solid 144fps to match the refresh rate? I do wonder if the issue with CSGO is because you able to push a frame rate way over the refresh rate so easy.

Or is they a know reason why CSGO input lag is so high? and has what I posted above already been fixed?

No issues in L4D2 which easily stays locked at 300FPS that I've ever noticed with g-sync at 144Hz, not 100% sure if it's the same engine but probably close if not?

Gregster · 17 Oct 2014 at 06:45

shankly1985 said:
Questions Greg, do you keep a solid 144fps to match the refresh rate? I do wonder if the issue with CSGO is because you able to push a frame rate way over the refresh rate so easy.

Or is they a know reason why CSGO input lag is so high? and has what I posted above already been fixed?

I don't play CS:GO and as for any other game, the frames vary from game to game and some games run 45 fps and another will be 100's. I don't bother running with MSI AB or frame counters and just enjoy the game in truth.

Silent_Scone · 17 Oct 2014 at 07:23

I'm exactly the same regarding frame rate. If you can't notice an issue don't make it one by looking at a readout, just do it by eye.

Orangey · 17 Oct 2014 at 08:59

Silent_Scone said:
I'm exactly the same regarding frame rate. If you can't notice an issue don't make it one by looking at a readout, just do it by eye.

"my 8800gt still plays all games full ultra 60fps"

"i dont think so, how are you measuring that"

"i just use my eyes"

Actual conversations I used to have with plebs.

Silent_Scone · 17 Oct 2014 at 09:11

lmao.

Yeah that's a different matter, with my system it's not normally an issue

Whey

It's not though

Stas823 · 17 Oct 2014 at 09:38

Why can't we have gsync and freesync available for both brands?

Orangey · 17 Oct 2014 at 09:51

Presumably because they rely on the architecture of each vendor... FreeSync is a driver-level implementation I think, so it's possible Nvidia could ask AMD for their code but why would they when they already have gsync. Also last I read they are not supporting VESA adaptive sync which fs relies on.

andybird123 · 17 Oct 2014 at 10:08

shankly1985 said:
They no reason why it couldn't be better. Freesync supports wider refresh rate range and also less over head. What this means to us we after wait and see. Csgo should be one the first games to be tested though. Gsync is very bad on this game, going by blurbusters.

Gsync is tuned on a per monitor basis and supports whatever the minimum refresh rate the monitor supports, if that is one fps then gsync supports it, so no freesync does not magically support wider refresh ranges than gsync, they both support whatever the monitor makers put in the monitor as supported

pgi947 · 17 Oct 2014 at 10:10

Silent_Scone said:
I'm exactly the same regarding frame rate. If you can't notice an issue don't make it one by looking at a readout, just do it by eye.

In most instances you wouldn't believe the frame counter vs your eyes with gsync on anyhow. Like SoM, my eyes say it's locked at 144fps, in reality it's somewhere in the 80-100fps range.

As I've said previously, I hope AMD deliver on this and I hope it provides the experience gsync users are getting as it really is a must for all gamers, brilliant tech.

I also no longer care about premiums be it from either side, worth paying for IMO.