However did we play games without G Sync and FreeSync?

[Ian Evey]

It's a shame SED never took off:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display

FED is still experimental too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_display

Quite interesting really, I think Plasma TVs still have better picture quality and smoothness than LED TV's.

No matter how hard i try not to notice pixelated images on led and oled its still there along with the seemingly forced motion smoothing that looks fake imo.

I would love a newer tech to blow us all away but of course its all about cost.

 

[Nexus18]

OLED/QLED is the future, it blows all LCD tech. out of the water. I refuse to pay more than £500 max on any LCD tech. now, it has been milked for long enough!

Adaptive Sync is optional in the DP 1.2a spec, you do not need to support it to remain 1.2a compliant.

I've not read anything which suggests it will be mandatory in 1.3 and above? Do you have a source? The only reading I have come across confirms it remains as an optional requirement.

Sorry I should have worded my post better.

Yes, support for DP 1.2a adaptive sync is optional and chances are it will still be optional for future DP connections, in order for it to work, you need it to be enabled in the firmware on the monitor side, afaik, every monitor that has been released with DP1.2a since the freesync release has had it enabled though, after all, it doesn't cost anything to do that.

The main reason nvidia went with their gsync module is because none of their desktop GPUs have the required hardware to make use of adaptive sync, however, if/when nvidia implement DP 1.3 in their future GPUs, the only way they will be able to block it is via their drivers or/and making some kind of deal with the monitor manufacturer to disable it in the monitor firmware, however, given that intel have announced future support for adaptive sync + future TV's using adaptive sync, I doubt monitor manufacturers will go down that road.

 

[nashathedog]

Am I the only person who thought "yeah, it's nice, but i'm not paying £200 extra for the same screen"?

Admittedly AMD could solve that with some proper drivers.

(before anyone asks, Ubuntu 16.04)

You're on a Nano so you won't be asked for that much extra, They saved that honour for the Nvidia crew

 

[nashathedog]

According to PCM2, reviewer for PCmonitors.info, the low freesync range isn't really that big of a deal:



Apparently LG changed the freesync range for those 21.9 monitors anyway so it is now 40-75.

And as pointed out, you really don't want to be dropping to <50fps at most regardless of having sync tech anyway especially if you are wanting to get the proper benefit of a high 100+HZ refresh rate display.

It may not be a big issue, I can't say either way as I do not own one to test but at the time being told it had a working range of 47 to 75 and how it was a 60 hz panel too meaning it was more like a 13hz working range and the fact that the games I play often struggle to run faster than between 40 and 50 with the bells and whistles put me off. I'm glad it did now as we are getting 21:9's with 75 and 100 hz refresh rates.

 

[NirK]

Well you used to game at 60hz with Vsync because there was no other option, either use that or don't play at all. I always found the 60hz with Vsync annoying, you get input lag, stuttering or tearing with it off, but Gsync or Adaptive sync fixes all those problems and also allows higher HZ. If you are happy with 60hz and Vsync then nobody is forcing you to swap, but it is a lot better with Gsync and high HZ, night and day better.

 

[stooeh]

I still have my old Iiyama 19" CRT that does 1600x1200 @ 75Hz but can go to 100+ at lower resolutions. Always ran Vsync off on that as well. Screen size seemed massive when I got it (~2001) but now it's just a bulky heavy beast with a small screen.

The real reason I 'upgraded' from it back in the day was seeing the beautifully flat widescreen LCD that my gf had. I greeted mine with mixed reception due to the choice of hideous input lag vs hideous tearing and the fact that anything but native resolution looked really bad.

Nowadays I am much happier with the 2560x1440 27" GSync screen

 

[Nexus18]

It may not be a big issue, I can't say either way as I do not own one to test but at the time being told it had a working range of 47 to 75 and how it was a 60 hz panel too meaning it was more like a 13hz working range and the fact that the games I play often struggle to run faster than between 40 and 50 with the bells and whistles put me off. I'm glad it did now as we are getting 21:9's with 75 and 100 hz refresh rates.

Yeah I was also put off at first until I read that post of pcm2's.

All the current 21.9 75 and 100hz screens are just overclocked 60hz panels.

but Gsync or Adaptive sync fixes all those problems and also allows higher HZ

I don't think adaptive sync allows a higher refresh rate, only the gsync module does, although panels such as the x34 will rarely hit 100hz, more likely to get 95hz, which isn't a big deal, although the x34 is being pushed extremely hard to hit 95+hz and as a result coil whine and scan lines seem to be the side effects.

 

[Phixsator]

Well you used to game at 60hz with Vsync because there was no other option, either use that or don't play at all. I always found the 60hz with Vsync annoying, you get input lag, stuttering or tearing with it off, but Gsync or Adaptive sync fixes all those problems and also allows higher HZ. If you are happy with 60hz and Vsync then nobody is forcing you to swap, but it is a lot better with Gsync and high HZ, night and day better.

you can use vsync at "higher hz" just fine and 95% of the input lag you get from vsync can be removed using a simple fps limiter. I gamed for a long time on a 72hz IPS ultrawide with vsync without issues, input lag was not a problem with a fps limiter. So it's not really as bad as people are making it look like.

 

[NirK]

you can use vsync at "higher hz" just fine and 95% of the input lag you get from vsync can be removed using a simple fps limiter. I gamed for a long time on a 72hz IPS ultrawide with vsync without issues, input lag was not a problem with a fps limiter. So it's not really as bad as people are making it look like.

If you use Vsync at higher HZ then you most likely will get stuttering because you cannot get the higher FPS. With an FPS limiter you will either get tearing or input lag Vsync has lag and you cannot remove it.

I have no idea why people are arguing against gsync and high HZ, it is infinitely better with those 2 things. No tearing, no lag and at any FPS from 30-144hz, what is not good about that?

 

[Nexus18]

If you use a FPS limiter with vsync on, it removes most, if not all input lag, I do it for the majority of my games and the difference between no FPS cap and a 59FPS cap with vsync on is massively noticeable regarding input lag and most of the time, smoothness too.

No one is against g/free sync, they are superb techs, however, the issues brought up about 60HZ non g/free sync screens like input lag and "smoothness" are overblown imo, if you don't take the time to tweak with settings, vsync/fps options then it "might/will" be a problem but if you experiment, you can get a very satisfactory gaming experience i.e. the witcher 3 took a bit of tweaking to get it running smooth:

http://www.pcgamer.com/durantes-witcher-3-analysis-the-alchemy-of-smoothness/

imo the biggest problem with 60HZ and for that matter <60 fps on ANY screen is motion clarity.

 

[Phixsator]

If you use Vsync at higher HZ then you most likely will get stuttering because you cannot get the higher FPS. With an FPS limiter you will either get tearing or input lag Vsync has lag and you cannot remove it.

I have no idea why people are arguing against gsync and high HZ, it is infinitely better with those 2 things. No tearing, no lag and at any FPS from 30-144hz, what is not good about that?

I think you missed my point but perhaps i was not clear enough. You can vsync at any hz you want(within the supported range of the monitor including OC of the monitor), so you find an fps you can maintain and set your screen to that. Gsync/freesync doesn't give you 80hz(just a random picked number) either if you are only running 50 most of the time and if you have very inconsistent fps you will feel it even on a gsync/freesync screen, but granted with no tearing.

Variable refresh rate tech is not all its cracked up to be, there are issues associated with it that no one talks about and those issues will for some people be a bigger issue than tearing. An example of this would be blur. The lower you dip into the gsync/freesync range the more blur you will experience due to image persistence and i for one absolutely hate blur once it gets past a certain threshold. Another issue is if you dip even further down into the supported range the image will start to look like a slideshow as in you can actually differentiate between each drawn frame and that effect is extremely disturbing. "When" is different from person to person but i for one notice it quickly and i rather game at 144hz or 100hz static refresh and get a bit of tearing than that or blur. But i do understand that some people are not as sensitive to those negatives and thats a good thing for them but it doesn't mean they are not still negatives that is worth taking in to consideration when recommending to others.

If you use a FPS limiter with vsync on, it removes most, if not all input lag, I do it for the majority of my games and the difference between no FPS cap and a 59FPS cap with vsync on is massively noticeable regarding input lag and most of the time, smoothness too.

No one is against g/free sync, they are superb techs, however, the issues brought up about 60HZ non g/free sync screens like input lag and "smoothness" are overblown imo, if you don't take the time to tweak with settings, vsync/fps options then it "might/will" be a problem but if you experiment, you can get a very satisfactory gaming experience i.e. the witcher 3 took a bit of tweaking to get it running smooth:

http://www.pcgamer.com/durantes-witcher-3-analysis-the-alchemy-of-smoothness/

imo the biggest problem with 60HZ and for that matter <60 fps on ANY screen is motion clarity.

Could not have said it better.

 

[Sin_Chase]

My point? no point, I just think apart from the slimness benefit of LED they are no where near the quality of picture and smoothness that could be had on a crt years ago.

Imagine what they could do with CRT monitors nowadays and how often does anyone move their monitor so the size thing would not bother me in my man cave.

I have a 24" and 27" monitor. Even on my HUGE office sized desk I could not fit CRT equivalents on it.

It's not just about size and weight - but everything else already mentioned. Heat, Energy Consumption, Eye Strain etc.

I used to CARRY my CRT a mile down the road to go to LAN parties so I am not adverse to lugging hardware around. But I would not for one second consider going back to a CRT.

 

[Khrest]

I have the money, but too many QC problems in reviews for me to jump. Every one seems to have something wrong, whether it's backlight bleed, faulty PSUs or whatever. My luck (or lack thereof) is legendary and don't see the risk/reward balance personally.

Very happy gaming at 60fps ultra 1440p, cannot see why I would need anything more.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Quite interesting really, I think Plasma TVs still have better picture quality and smoothness than LED TV's.

No matter how hard i try not to notice pixelated images on led and oled its still there along with the seemingly forced motion smoothing that looks fake imo.

I would love a newer tech to blow us all away but of course its all about cost.

They would have all the advantages of traditional CRTs but in a thinner and more energy efficient monitor.

 

[Boomstick777]

I mean why are all the young ones on here going mad for GSync and FreeSync with the higher refresh rate Monitors? I don't know how to phrase this properly but I'm just finding it so annoying lol

I suppose what I'm getting at is, Before all the marketing of it all we were playing our games fine with no problems. Now it seems to be a problem if you don't have it?

Some sane person please explain this to me, preferably someone who doesn't own an iphone.

I agree with this, I play with V-Sync on and don't get any tearing issues. My PC maintains a nice 60FPS and beyond obviously, don't see any reason yo give up my gorgeous 'IPS' 1080, and 1440P non free sync / g sync screens.

Some of those TN FS, GS, panels are awful. Sticking with my current monitors until something really decent comes along, 4K / 8K..

 

[MyBrainz]

I agree with this, I play with V-Sync on and don't get any tearing issues. My PC maintains a nice 60FPS and beyond obviously, don't see any reason yo give up my gorgeous 'IPS' 1080, and 1440P non free sync / g sync screens.

Some of those TN FS, GS, panels are awful. Sticking with my current monitors until something really decent comes along, 4K / 8K..

Same here.. always use Vsync with my AMD 7950 on my Samsung 23inch 2ms Response Time monitors and have no problems with tearing or input lag. I even replicated input lag in BF4 once so i know i dont have input lag before anybody says 'you dont notice it', which has been said to me before.

Even before Nvidia released G Sync and were talking about getting rid of tearing and input lag with the demo videos, i was thinking.. wow Nvidia must have it pretty bad if they're saying they have fixed it with this tech.

Im not buying into G Sync or even Freesync.. not at the moment anyway.

I think some of the input lag issues are down to Response Time of monitors, my nephew has a 1ms Asus monitor with an AMD 270x, uses Vsync and has no issues either.

 

[Klo]

Quite easily tbh. Played around with a Freesync monitor at an expo thing I went to, felt a bit smoother but not exactly game changing. But then again I'm the person who doesn't mind playing games at 30fps or under, so ignore me.

 

[Rroff]

Same here.. always use Vsync with my AMD 7950 on my Samsung 23inch 2ms Response Time monitors and have no problems with tearing or input lag. I even replicated input lag in BF4 once so i know i dont have input lag before anybody says 'you dont notice it', which has been said to me before.

Even before Nvidia released G Sync and were talking about getting rid of tearing and input lag with the demo videos, i was thinking.. wow Nvidia must have it pretty bad if they're saying they have fixed it with this tech.

Im not buying into G Sync or even Freesync.. not at the moment anyway.

I think some of the input lag issues are down to Response Time of monitors, my nephew has a 1ms Asus monitor with an AMD 270x, uses Vsync and has no issues either.

Well you do have input latency (to the game) - atleast 16.666(r) ms at 60Hz V-Sync and likely a little above that - personally I find it very noticeable - even 120Hz V-Sync on my old Samsung 2233rz I could notice a tiny bit though most of the time it was transparent even for twitch gaming purposes.

I'm having a problem with my Swift at the moment where the DP socket is a little touchy and sometimes causes the monitor to drop down to 85Hz and I instantly notice if it has done that when trying to play FPS games versus the usual 120/144Hz.

 

[NirK]

I think you missed my point but perhaps i was not clear enough. You can vsync at any hz you want(within the supported range of the monitor including OC of the monitor), so you find an fps you can maintain and set your screen to that. Gsync/freesync doesn't give you 80hz(just a random picked number) either if you are only running 50 most of the time and if you have very inconsistent fps you will feel it even on a gsync/freesync screen, but granted with no tearing.

Variable refresh rate tech is not all its cracked up to be, there are issues associated with it that no one talks about and those issues will for some people be a bigger issue than tearing. An example of this would be blur. The lower you dip into the gsync/freesync range the more blur you will experience due to image persistence and i for one absolutely hate blur once it gets past a certain threshold. Another issue is if you dip even further down into the supported range the image will start to look like a slideshow as in you can actually differentiate between each drawn frame and that effect is extremely disturbing. "When" is different from person to person but i for one notice it quickly and i rather game at 144hz or 100hz static refresh and get a bit of tearing than that or blur. But i do understand that some people are not as sensitive to those negatives and thats a good thing for them but it doesn't mean they are not still negatives that is worth taking in to consideration when recommending to others.



Could not have said it better.

Well yes you have just listed the problems with LOW FPS, that has no relevance to Gsync or Freesync, low FPS is the same on any monitor except worse without Gsync due to stuttering or tearing. Most people with a gsync monitor would have probably got 60fps with a non Gsync monitor, but with a Gsync monitor they are getting 60-144fps, and if it drops under 60 then you don't get any stuttering. I am guessing at least half the people saying Gsync is pointless, have not actually used it.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Well yes you have just listed the problems with LOW FPS, that has no relevance to Gsync or Freesync, low FPS is the same on any monitor except worse without Gsync due to stuttering or tearing. Most people with a gsync monitor would have probably got 60fps with a non Gsync monitor, but with a Gsync monitor they are getting 60-144fps, and if it drops under 60 then you don't get any stuttering. I am guessing at least half the people saying Gsync is pointless, have not actually used it.

This^^ Bang on mate.