After a long time i bought a second hand XB270HU (WQHD, 144 HZ, and G Sync) monitor. I am seriously amazed to see that even on 40 Fps the game fell so smooth and responsive. Right now i have GTX 1080 but i think even GTX 1060 will be enough for 1440p g sync.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
G Sync impression.
- Thread starter Doom112
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
While Gsync and Freesync both make games smoother they dont work wonders. They is still limits
30FPS is still 30FPS no matter what, 40FPS is still 40FPS
By this I mean input latency, frame latency doesn't change.
It is night and day vs No sync though
30FPS is still 30FPS no matter what, 40FPS is still 40FPS
By this I mean input latency, frame latency doesn't change.
It is night and day vs No sync though
I remember digital foundry did a review on gsync, they mention in the latter part of the review that Overall, G-Sync is a hardware triumph, but the quest for a consistent, enjoyable gameplay experience is far from over. By eliminating the video artefacts, G-Sync lays bare the underlying problems of wildly variable gameplay frame-rates in PC gaming and highlights the problems of inconsistent input latency. If the hardware issue is now fixed, what's required now are software solutions to make the most of this exceptional technology.
I don't game anymore but when i tried a gsync monitor at 144Hz and then tried a none gsync monitor at 144Hz and on the same computer hardware i could not tell the difference but that is from memory, the only way i think i could probably tell the difference is if i had two identical computers side by side but i don't have the funds to waste money like that. It's not an issue for me anymore but i still prefer 144Hz over 60Hz.
I don't game anymore but when i tried a gsync monitor at 144Hz and then tried a none gsync monitor at 144Hz and on the same computer hardware i could not tell the difference but that is from memory, the only way i think i could probably tell the difference is if i had two identical computers side by side but i don't have the funds to waste money like that. It's not an issue for me anymore but i still prefer 144Hz over 60Hz.
I'm actually not that impressed with either TBH. They work by lowering the refresh of the monitor to match the fps and I don't find it all that nice to look at. Also on a high Hz monitor, where you don't get noticeable tearing anyway, you will struggle tell the difference in them being on or off.
But as someone who owns both, there's nothing between them now really. Nvidia's hardware method is mainly to trap people in to having to buy their stuff and paying the Nvidia tax. Because if they put DP 1.2a on their cards people would be able to use adaptivesync/freesync which is free.
But as someone who owns both, there's nothing between them now really. Nvidia's hardware method is mainly to trap people in to having to buy their stuff and paying the Nvidia tax. Because if they put DP 1.2a on their cards people would be able to use adaptivesync/freesync which is free.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
As opposed to what? The refresh rate being higher than it needs to be and causing tearing in the process? The monitor refresh rate should absolutely be the same as the graphics card frame rate. This is the optimal solution.
Right now the only drawbacks of the technology is that you can't have refresh rates below 30hz and there is a relatively low upper limit (144hz/165hz). Both of these I am sure will be addressed as screen technology matures and higher bandwidth interconnects are used.
Where I notice G-Sync the most is in games that have a forced 60 fps cap or mostly played around 60fps which were horrendous to try and play before where both tearing with V-Sync off or the input lag with V-Sync on were equally destructive of the experience. With G-Sync it is smooth, responsive and no tearing and I can go back and play games I couldn't in the past.
Its nice to have overall though - in Battlefield 4 at high framerates I do notice the difference in some situations where I'd enter a room or turn towards a base area, etc. and without G-Sync there would be a noticeable ripple on the screen and there are other games like Left 4 Dead which are just incredibly smooth with G-Sync where you'd notice some minor stuttering before.
Its nice to have overall though - in Battlefield 4 at high framerates I do notice the difference in some situations where I'd enter a room or turn towards a base area, etc. and without G-Sync there would be a noticeable ripple on the screen and there are other games like Left 4 Dead which are just incredibly smooth with G-Sync where you'd notice some minor stuttering before.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 5,533
G-Sync is amazing on my Acer x34a 3440x1440p Ultra-Wide. I still go WOW!
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2016
- Posts
- 4,798
- Location
- Third Earth
Yeah, I echo this.
In Forza Horizon 3, my 4K AOC was terrible (I had two) so I gave one of the monitors to my best mate and got a Dell S2716DG which has Gsync, difference was night and day!
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 1,492
- Location
- kintyre
Did you drop from 4k resolution to 1440p at the same time?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
Just how much a difference alone going to 144hz vs 60hz This will be the biggest factor in why you enjoying it much more.
The AOC 4K has horrendous input latency
I pretty much relegated mine to 4K movies and occasionally beside my main monitor if I'm working on something where its useful to have a big album/library/palette of stuff open.like day and night tbh
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 2,310
- Location
- Droitwich, UK
I disagree. G-sync doesn't work in BF1 for me and the tearing when I shift my view quickly is very noticeable.
Also as Shankly said it isn't a magic fix, I find it doesn't do a lot to reduce the impact of low FPS, at least not in Deus Ex: Mankind Divided. At Ultra settings the game drops to 40-45FPS during the prologue sequence and it's horrible. In fact it's far worse on a 144hz monitor as the halving of framerate is very noticeable (elsewhere in the game it runs at 70-95), where from 60FPS on a 60hz monitor the change would be nowhere near as drastic. I'll probably try capping FPS at 60 to compensate.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,243
- Location
- Edinburgh
Worth remembering it (& rival solutions) can also reduce effective input latency in some scenarios. If the display begins rendering the frame as soon as it's ready (complete with the result of whatever input you've done most recently) rather than at a set interval that may be up to the refresh cycle time later then you get to see that sooner 
obviously this effect diminishes as the FPS increases and as the refresh rate increases (calling them out separately as when on non-sync monitors each has a different mechanism for impact, though both result in reduced input latency)
obviously this effect diminishes as the FPS increases and as the refresh rate increases (calling them out separately as when on non-sync monitors each has a different mechanism for impact, though both result in reduced input latency)