How much difference does G-sync make at 144hz?

theaterix · 18 Oct 2015 at 01:00

I am looking to do PC upgrades and thinking of going Nvidia but G-sync monitors at 1440p are so bloody expensive!!
I am looking at the 980ti but the cheapest Gsync 1440p is £550 and compared to Freesync that is insane!! Does G-sync make a difference at 144hz?

bimbleuk · 18 Oct 2015 at 04:58

Personally I look at G-Sync (and FreeSync) as a way of running say less then 60Hz and still maintain a smooth experience. Above that it appears to give diminishing returns sorry my next monitor will likely have G-Sync.

As for 1440p. 3440 x 1440 on a 980Ti with High/Ultra settings in demanding games will struggle to maintian 60 fps. 2560x1440 will be 20-30 fps higher. Unless your playing on older game engines. I'm playing Witcher 3 at 3440 x 1440 in a borderless window on a UHD desktop at 60 Hz. Some settings are at medium foliage and people density in order to maintain a minimum 60 fps and it's smooth.

Sin_Chase · 18 Oct 2015 at 08:45

I cap my FPS at or near to 144FPS on my ROG Swift.

Even at 144 FPS having G-SYNC on is not only noticeable, it is now MANDATORY for me. Playing without it, even at triple digit FPS is a mess.

Sure, it helps in situations with low FPS, but do not underestimate just how damn good it is even at high FPS.

Josh · 18 Oct 2015 at 09:03

As above. I cap my fps at 139 and it's so smooth and fluid in all my games.

I don't agree with gsync and free sync etc, because you get brand locked, but it's one of the best upgrades I made. My little AOC gsync is brilliant.

setter · 18 Oct 2015 at 09:09

Cant wait to try it out myself, got a swift coming soon. First monitor upgrade in seven years.

theaterix · 18 Oct 2015 at 15:51

Yeah i was looking at the swift! Shame there is no G-sync 144hz monitors that are cheap, you can get a 1440p 144hz Freesync for £270 whereas the G-sync cheapest at 1440p is the Swift at £600.
Quite a price gap!! For that i could save on the 980ti and get almost 2x Fury X.
What do yous think? Is G-Sync better than FreeSync or is it purely Nvidia fans paying the premium for their brand of choice?

lamboman · 18 Oct 2015 at 16:13

theaterix said:
What do yous think? Is G-Sync better than FreeSync or is it purely Nvidia fans paying the premium for their brand of choice?

If we're talking about FreeSync and G-Sync exclusively (and not considering the cards they're compatible with), there's no perceivable real-world difference.

Some argue that FreeSync is superior as it's not a proprietary standard, however I'd argue that's of little relevance now, seeing as you have two options for performance graphics solutions.

A lot of it lies behind brand loyalty, GPU offerings and support (drivers), and the slightly better monitor options at the very high end (e.g. G-Sync and 3440x1440 ultrawide monitors with their higher refresh rates).

I wouldn't say that 2x Fury X cards with a MG279Q or similar would be a bad choice at all.

theaterix · 18 Oct 2015 at 17:03

lamboman said:
If we're talking about FreeSync and G-Sync exclusively (and not considering the cards they're compatible with), there's no perceivable real-world difference.

Some argue that FreeSync is superior as it's not a proprietary standard, however I'd argue that's of little relevance now, seeing as you have two options for performance graphics solutions.

A lot of it lies behind brand loyalty, GPU offerings and support (drivers), and the slightly better monitor options at the very high end (e.g. G-Sync and 3440x1440 ultrawide monitors with their higher refresh rates).

I wouldn't say that 2x Fury X cards with a MG279Q or similar would be a bad choice at all.

I didnt think there was any real difference so thanks for clearing that one up! Everything is being shipped over from America, so is extremely cheap compared to any UK retailer and everything that is cheaper over here is being bought from OCUK such as the case!
Out of curiosity would a single Fury X be able to push a 144hz 1440p screen? Ill mainly only be playing CS:GO which I run on the lowest res on lowest settings and always have.
Chances are ill be getting into some more games so what is the best option?

lamboman · 18 Oct 2015 at 17:53

theaterix said:
I didnt think there was any real difference so thanks for clearing that one up! Everything is being shipped over from America, so is extremely cheap compared to any UK retailer and everything that is cheaper over here is being bought from OCUK such as the case!
Out of curiosity would a single Fury X be able to push a 144hz 1440p screen? Ill mainly only be playing CS:GO which I run on the lowest res on lowest settings and always have.
Chances are ill be getting into some more games so what is the best option?

Even at maximum settings CS:GO will run at some silly high frame rate, so quite frankly any card you want would be sufficient. For more modern titles, that won't be the case.

Rofflay · 18 Oct 2015 at 18:55

I cannot comprehend how 144fps plain old V-Sync can be topped by 144fps G-Sync? Unless the frame rate drops below 144 how would there be a difference in percived smoothness?

The only thing happening is syncing between fps and refresh in that scenario. Are you people talking about the constant dipping and changing of the 144 numbers? Struggling to maintain it?

Vega · 18 Oct 2015 at 19:38

Even at 144 FPS/Hz With V-Sync on, not each frame from the game engine is given out at precisely 6.944 ms to sync exactly with the V-Sync timing. Stuttering can still be felt, G-Sync precisely times the frames with the monitor refresh giving a tremendously smooth experience. Dips are handled with ease.

Not only that, you lower your input lag when you FPS cap your game to 143 instead of letting it hit the 144 ceiling; all the while maintaining a perfect, input lag and tear free experience. If you do the same with traditional V-Sync, that one missing frame will cause the image to hiccup. G-Sync is worth it's weight in gold IMO.

Falkentyne · 19 Oct 2015 at 01:09

Vega said:
Even at 144 FPS/Hz With V-Sync on, not each frame from the game engine is given out at precisely 6.944 ms to sync exactly with the V-Sync timing. Stuttering can still be felt, G-Sync precisely times the frames with the monitor refresh giving a tremendously smooth experience. Dips are handled with ease.

Not only that, you lower your input lag when you FPS cap your game to 143 instead of letting it hit the 144 ceiling; all the while maintaining a perfect, input lag and tear free experience. If you do the same with traditional V-Sync, that one missing frame will cause the image to hiccup. G-Sync is worth it's weight in gold IMO.

Vega's on the mark, like usual.
Trying to cap fps to 143 with a 144hz refresh rate will, under the best conditions, still lead to a retrace line randomly appearing on the screen (and probably staying there for a few seconds). IF strobing is enabled when this happens, you can expect a rather unpleasant experience. With Gsync, none of this happens.

The smoothest thing you can get without gsync, is 125hz, 125 fps, vsync on, and backlight strobing, with a 250hz polling rate mouse (125hz has 8 ms input lag which can be felt, 4ms is tolerable. 1000ms will feel very slight jitters due to variations from 1khz, etc. Very nice to try this in Unreal Tournament 2004.

Arcane · 19 Oct 2015 at 11:25

It's been the best upgrade for me in years, equal in wow factor to my first SSD. I tried a game at 60z v-sync off and just laughed, it's utterly awful in comparison. I wouldn't buy a monitor now without either Free or G Sync.

Cueshark · 19 Oct 2015 at 17:18

Get my rog swift tomorrow.

Damn excited about G-Sync after reading all of this!

I just hope the 3d vision doesn't have the inversion lines that people have been complaining about.