G-sync 4k why the hype?

3t3P · 16 Oct 2014 at 08:47

I know why in theory people think 4k gsync will increase fluidity but it won't all that much IMO

For example when I ran metro last light at 1440 with sli 680s I got 30-33 fps in one scene and with gsync on I could still tell I was getting low fps.

Upgraded to sli 970s, same scene and got 57-60 fps and much smoother look.

Low fps is low fps synced or not. The whole point in PC gaming is to push higher frames than console.

So why run at 4k and struggle when gsync isn't the magic bullet?

wunkley · 16 Oct 2014 at 09:25

It's been well documented by reviews and gsync owners, myself included, that it's only really effective above 40-45 fps. Dips to the low 30s are still going to feel poor.

You can also have games that just can't maintain 120fps or 144 like on my swift and dips down from this, like down to 70 or 80fps are handled very well by gsync.
As long as it's not an unreal 3 engine game, gsync is fantastic.

PCM2 · 16 Oct 2014 at 09:37

You're correct that low frame rates still feel like low frame rates and it's always best to try to maintain the highest possible frame rates if you want the best fluidity. Having said that, the stuttering (or tearing and juddering if you don't use VSync) comes into play if your frame rate diverges even a single frame per second from the refresh rate of the monitor. For example you may be maintaining 60fps most of the time but have occasional dips down to around 50fps. In that case, G-SYNC would certainly make a positive difference. It just makes the drops less jarring.

gronf · 16 Oct 2014 at 09:46

I recall one review that stated the increased fluidity makes 30 FPS feel like 40, which is coincidentally my sweet-spot (i.e. I can't easily tell the difference between 40 and 60, but notice if it dips below 40, at 60Hz...). That's the basis for my thought to next year have a 4K IPS with a single card would get a decent boost from G-sync/Freesync. Seems I'm mistaken

llamadal · 16 Oct 2014 at 10:04

So because you have a different opinion and think it's not worth it - thats it?

The point of PC gaming is higher fps? Um no, thats not it at all

Have you even seen 4k running? It's pretty damn amazing and no one ever claimed gsync to be the magic bullet - if you have a poorly coded game thats very demanding, it will enhance playability not bring world peace.

VEGACORTEZ · 16 Oct 2014 at 16:45

I found that as long as fps stay above around 38-40 then you can't tell much that it has dropped from 60fps. It is still pretty good lag wise and does not look juddery and double imaged like 30fps does. 30fps or slightly above with g-sync still looks crap as always. So 38-60 fps looks nice and at 4k that can make a big difference even in x2 sli on very intensive games.

Armageus · 16 Oct 2014 at 17:00

3t3P said:
So why run at 4k and struggle when gsync isn't the magic bullet?

Not sure anyone does think gsync is the magic bullet - but given the choice of 4k with or without gsync, not sure why you would choose not to have it?

4k will become the new standard at some point, in the same way that 1080p already has - technology is already evolving to drive 4k at acceptable frame rates, gsync will help regardless of that.

3t3P · 16 Oct 2014 at 18:31

You'd always rather have gsync than not of course but some people do seem to think its like an fps multiplier and apply it to 4k where current GPUs will struggle in an intensive titles.

chaparral · 16 Oct 2014 at 19:37

3t3P said:
but some people do seem to think its like an fps multiplier and apply it to 4k where current GPUs will struggle in an intensive titles.

They got it mixed up as G-sync is a price multiplier...

andybird123 · 17 Oct 2014 at 10:04

3t3P said:
You'd always rather have gsync than not of course but some people do seem to think its like an fps multiplier and apply it to 4k where current GPUs will struggle in an intensive titles.

Not quite sure where people got this idea from, all the early nvidia demos showed 45fps being equivalent to 60fps, which is still a 33% effective benefit to minimum frame rate

They even said that the problem with vsync is that when it dips below 60fps you get an effective 30fps, which is a glaring problem, they never said that gsync would make 30fps look like 60

NirK · 17 Oct 2014 at 16:35

andybird123 said:
Not quite sure where people got this idea from, all the early nvidia demos showed 45fps being equivalent to 60fps, which is still a 33% effective benefit to minimum frame rate

They even said that the problem with vsync is that when it dips below 60fps you get an effective 30fps, which is a glaring problem, they never said that gsync would make 30fps look like 60

You can make it so it goes 60-45-30 fps.

PCM2 · 17 Oct 2014 at 17:18

NirK said:
You can make it so it goes 60-45-30 fps.

Or use triple buffering which causes the frame rate to reach whatever the GPU is outputting without skipping down like that. Even the smallest drop in frame rate (single frame) would give you stuttering with VSync enabled, though.

NirK · 17 Oct 2014 at 18:36

PCM2 said:
Or use triple buffering which causes the frame rate to reach whatever the GPU is outputting without skipping down like that. Even the smallest drop in frame rate (single frame) would give you stuttering with VSync enabled, though.

I thought that was what triple buffering did... 60-45-30 instead of 60-30.

PCM2 · 17 Oct 2014 at 19:03

NirK said:
I thought that was what triple buffering did... 60-45-30 instead of 60-30.

Sorry, yes. As I understand it the perceived frame rate would jump like that regardless of what the in-game counter is saying. This is GPU stuff not monitor stuff, not really my area... Having now tested 3 G-SYNC monitors I do really like the technology. I can't stand tearing or stuttering and don't like to suffer through it even if the GPU isn't able to keep up with the monitor's refresh rate by a single FPS!

NirK · 18 Oct 2014 at 18:51

PCM2 said:
Sorry, yes. As I understand it the perceived frame rate would jump like that regardless of what the in-game counter is saying. This is GPU stuff not monitor stuff, not really my area... Having now tested 3 G-SYNC monitors I do really like the technology. I can't stand tearing or stuttering and don't like to suffer through it even if the GPU isn't able to keep up with the monitor's refresh rate by a single FPS!

I don't know if I am right, its just I noticed that when using normal Vsync it goes from 60-30 and when using d3doverrider force triple buffering it went 60-45-30, maybe someone can confirm if this is correct.