FreeSync coming next month! (?)

Ayahuasca · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:10

shankly1985 said:
The lower frame rate and Freesync could help them a lot. And input lag isn't this ment to be fixed when the GPU is telling the Display when to refresh? Input lag with Vsync was because the Display had a delay in refresh.

No, because you still aren't seeing enough frames per second.

shankly1985 · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:11

Martini1991 said:
I don't think you've actually used consoles for any prolonged period of time.
Pretty sure 30HZ on a desktop environment is consistent. Go run 30 HZ and move your mouse, tell me how smooth it is.

Go play GTA 5 on an Xbox 360, tell me how consistent and smooth it is.
Pro tip. It's not.

Consoles use motion blur to help with frame rate perception. But the Xbox 360/PS3 are fine from smooth lol.

Well I completed GTA5 on PS3 and the only thing put me off was the slow loading times. I can tell you it ran fine and fine for the Millions who also bought it.

Martini1991 · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:12

humbug said:
Now your just trying to force conjecture down peoples neck, there are millions of Console gamers who play at those frame rates who would argue it is smooth.

Its certainly smooth enough for most, even without Free-Sync.

Console gamers rarely know any better.
You've got people arguing GTA 5 is smooth on a console (People who have never used a gaming PC), but my brother who's now a PC gamer absolutely despises console frame rates. My girlfriend can even tell the difference at how dire it is.

Final8y · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:13

shankly1985 said:
Remember not every gamer, is an OCUK member. They is more PC gamers out ther on lower/medium end hardware than higher end.

The lower frame rate and Freesync could help them a lot. And input lag isn't this ment to be fixed when the GPU is telling the Display when to refresh? Input lag with Vsync was because the Display had a delay in refresh.

In this case input lag is due to the inherent low frame rate itself and nothing to do with synchronization or buffering, the only benefit of support for under 30hz is that at least it wont tear which would make it look even worse if it did so.

shankly1985 · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:13

Ayahuasca said:
No, because you still aren't seeing enough frames per second.

We dont see in FPS lol we see motion. its the ficker on the refresh rate that make us see a smooth image or not. The GPU telling the display when to update should keep the image smooth.

If it was only because of the FPS then we wouldn't need 120hz or 144hz monitors would we.

Gregster · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:14

shankly1985 said:
Because Gsync don't work correctly under 30fps, or is it under 40 fps you start to see less effect.
On paper Freesync support refresh rate lower than Gsync so it could very well work better at lower fps.
That's the point I getting at.

Well, I am sure that Freesync will be better than G-Sync because AMD are backing the tech. 4 weeks isn't long to go before we see all the cheap monitors out and we can compare then :cool:

Martini1991 said:
Console gamers rarely know any better.
You've got people arguing GTA 5 is smooth on a console (People who have never used a gaming PC), but my brother who's now a PC gamer absolutely despises console frame rates. My girlfriend can even tell the difference at how dire it is.

Spot on.

Ayahuasca · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:15

shankly1985 said:
We dont see in FPS lol we see motion. its the ficker on the refresh rate that make us see a smooth image or not. The GPU telling the display when to update should keep the image smooth.

You do see the fps, 20 fps with freesync is still only showing you 20 frames per second.

If what your saying is the case people with GSYNC wouldn't notice a difference between 30fps and 60fps on GSYNC when they clearly do.

Martini1991 · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:16

We see the frames, the frame rate gives the perception of motion.

Martini1991 · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:17

shankly1985 said:
Well I completed GTA5 on PS3 and the only thing put me off was the slow loading times. I can tell you it ran fine and fine for the Millions who also bought it.

Lets all become console gamers.

humbug · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:17

Martini1991 said:
Console gamers rarely know any better.
You've got people arguing GTA 5 is smooth on a console (People who have never used a gaming PC), but my brother who's now a PC gamer absolutely despises console frame rates. My girlfriend can even tell the difference at how dire it is.

What they know is perfectly acceptable to them. whether you agree or not is completely irrelevant to them and the point i'm making.

A lot of gamers don't have systems that can maintain 30+ FPS, if Free-Sync didn't work at below 30 FPS they would lose out, ergo; its a good idea.

The fact that its useless to you is not the point, the industry caters for more than just you, this is aimed at others besides you.

Ayahuasca · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:19

I think people are forgetting the point of these sync technologies, they were never meant to make extremely low consistent framerates appear smooth. If you can't achieve 30+fps in most of your games buy a new graphics card not a freesync monitor.

Martini1991 · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:19

humbug said:
What they know is perfectly acceptable to them. whether you agree or not is completely irrelevant to them and the point i'm making.

A lot of gamers don't have systems that can maintain 30+ FPS, if Free-Sync didn't work at below 30 FPS they would lose out, ergo; its a good idea.

The fact that its useless to you is not the point, the industry caters for more than just you, this is aimed at others besides you.

I've never said it's useless. I'm just not stroking my crystal ball and telling the world that 24 FPS is now playable thanks to Freesync though.

Your point was these low frame rates will now be "smooth". Do you mean smooth to people who don't know any better? Or to everyone?

Martini1991 · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:21

Ayahuasca said:
I think people are forgetting the point of these sync technologies, they were never meant to make extremely low consistent framerates appear smooth. If you can't achieve 30+fps in most of your games buy a new graphics card not a freesync monitor.

Indeed.
It's to remove the variance isn't it?
24 FPS is still 24 FPS whichever way you swing it. And 24 frames per second isn't enough to convey interactive motion. Show some motion blur, it helps. But it's not what you'd consider smooth.

Gregster · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:23

humbug said:
What they know is perfectly acceptable to them. whether you agree or not is completely irrelevant to them and the point i'm making.

A lot of gamers don't have systems that can maintain 30+ FPS, if Free-Sync didn't work at below 30 FPS they would lose out, ergo; its a good idea.

The fact that its useless to you is not the point, the industry caters for more than just you, this is aimed at others besides you.

But we are talking about a tech that is relevant to PC gamers and not consoles. I have a few friends who game on console and they are perfectly happy with it because they don't know any better but does that make the point less different? Consoles at 30 fps looks and feels rubbish. End of. Freesync at 30 fps or under will look and feel rubbish. End of.

humbug · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:24

Martini1991 said:
I've never said it's useless. I'm just not stroking my crystal ball and telling the world that 24 FPS is now playable thanks to Freesync though.

Your point was these low frame rates will now be "smooth". Do you mean smooth to people who don't know any better? Or to everyone?

Your still trying to force your own conjecture down peoples neck, what is not smooth to you but is to another does not make them an idiot, they might argue your just a pretentious snob, and they could just as easily be right.

What are you saying, because you don't believe it to be useful it shouldn't exist?

Martini1991 · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:25

Does anyone remember that guy with those videos who was powering through games at like 20 FPS on his low powered GPU at 1080p ultra settings and was adamant that it was ultra smooth

?

He reckoned he'd unlocked some epic drivers or something rofl.

shankly1985 · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:26

Well lets wait and see... Once the displays are reviewed and in our hands. Maybe we can carry this discussion on?

Am out, work time cya

Martini1991 · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:27

humbug said:
Your still trying to force your own conjecture down peoples neck, what is not smooth to you but is to another does not make them an idiot, they might argue your just a snob, and they could just as easily be right.

What are you saying, because you don't believe it to be useful it shouldn't exist?

I've never said anything on its usefulness.

Smoothness is perception. Consoles gamers as a rule are console gamers because they don't really care, they don't know any better. How is their perception more accurate than someone who's experienced higher frame rates and higher refresh rates? It's not.

Consoles aren't smooth. Well, more like last generation aren't smooth. PS4 for what I've played is fine thus far.
Go play GTA 5 on an Xbox 360 and tell me it's smooth.

Gregster · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:28

Martini1991 said:
Does anyone remember that guy with those videos who was powering through games at like 20 FPS on his low powered GPU at 1080p ultra settings and was adamant that it was ultra smooth ?

He reckoned he'd unlocked some epic drivers or something rofl.

Yer, playing the Witcher 2 at 20 fps or even lower in places claiming it was running really nice and nVidia were conning us and ripping us off, as all you needed was some double sided tape and a cornflake box to play it (or summit like that)

Martini1991 · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:28

Gregster said:
Yer, playing the Witcher 2 at 20 fps or even lower in places claiming it was running really nice and nVidia were conning us and ripping us off, as all you needed was some double sided tape and a cornflake box to play it (or summit like that)

According Humbugs logic, who are we to tell him he's wrong?