Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,733
- Location
- Planet Earth
Because it's a hardware enthusiasts forum and people want an excuse to buy new shiny all the time??!!
-
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.
However did we play games without G Sync and FreeSync?
- Thread starter Reality|Bites
- Start date
Because it's a hardware enthusiasts forum and people want an excuse to buy new shiny all the time??!!
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 654
try it before judge it, you wont regret it 
yes i used to hate playing games locked at 60hz rippling on screen moved to 120/144hz in fps games driving games is just so different makes me actually feel sick at 60 hz now.
crt monitor obviously wasnt so bad at least kept your face warm
crt monitor obviously wasnt so bad at least kept your face warm
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,850
I have freesync on my current monitor up to 144hz and I'm not sure I get it either, you can still feel it when the fps dips from say 60/70 into the low 40s just there isnt visual difference on the screen
I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about to be honest
I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about to be honest
I found G-Sync overrated to be honest.
It's good don't get me wrong, but it's not worth ranting and raving about IMO.
As for super wide, certainly not for me due to having to faff getting some games to work, especially as I'm a fan of older games as well! Then there's the desk space required.
I would prefer the 4K ratio of 1.9:1, which gives that tiny bit more over 16:9. But we're never going to have that mainstream, despite it being widely used in film and video industry, which is bloody annoying. It'll be whatever we have in the living room which will be 16:9 for years to come.
It's good don't get me wrong, but it's not worth ranting and raving about IMO.
As for super wide, certainly not for me due to having to faff getting some games to work, especially as I'm a fan of older games as well! Then there's the desk space required.
I would prefer the 4K ratio of 1.9:1, which gives that tiny bit more over 16:9. But we're never going to have that mainstream, despite it being widely used in film and video industry, which is bloody annoying. It'll be whatever we have in the living room which will be 16:9 for years to come.
Like someone else said earlier, 60hz was a massive step back for most of us. I (my Dad since I was in my teens at the time) had a trusty Iiyama CRT that mustered a cool 100hz refresh and it was lovely.
I truly hated our computer the day we moved to a 60hz LCD panel. Sure it didn't have the flicker that CRT did on 60hz, but it was clearly slower.
Now we're finally back to the good times of fast refresh rates, why would you settle for less? 60hz/fps is garbage.
I truly hated our computer the day we moved to a 60hz LCD panel. Sure it didn't have the flicker that CRT did on 60hz, but it was clearly slower.
Now we're finally back to the good times of fast refresh rates, why would you settle for less? 60hz/fps is garbage.
I'm 48, but thanks for the compliment.
Well I used to game on a Yusmart 1650x1080 (Running R9 280X) and I could just ignore the tearing if I am honest. However, after grabbing a BenQ XL2730Z and a Fury Tri-X I find it does indeed make a difference. As others have said...gaming is now a silky smooth experience and until I experienced it I could have done without it.
The problem for me is not wanting to go back once I had tried it.
Until decently priced and spec'ed freesync TVs arrive above 40 inch, I have no desire to go for that tech. Don't really want to swap confy gaming on bed/sofa with large TV for desk, chair and small monitor. It would be great, but with my requirements mentioned above it will be awhile till I am able to get what I want.
I game just fine on 60HZ LCD, come face me in bf 4/3 etc. and see who comes top
g/free sync is a game changer "if" your fps fluctuate a lot, more so in the 40-80 fps range since you will avoid all screen tearing and the judder associated with normal vsync.
The problem with these 100HZ refresh rate displays is that in order to get the "full" benefit from them you need to be pushing those FPS too otherwise you encounter the exact same problem as you would on 60HZ displays i.e. motion blur. People saying this isn't true, go and read PCM2's reviews on PCmonitors.info. I believe badass's tftcentral reviews also briefly explains this but not as well.
Personally, if I can maintain a constant 60FPS with a frame latency of about 15-20ms in games with some form of vsync, I have no problem with input lag (my 29um65 is pretty good for this) nor "smoothness", only the motion clarity ****es me of and I believe when people say 100+HZ displays are so much smoother, they really mean to say the fluidity/motion is so much clearer looking
Emmmm what...
There is no screen tearing whatsoever with watching media content on non g/free sync displays.
Judder yes... but that is down to the 24fps that is used for films not matching the refresh rate of the monitors i.e. 60, 120, 144HZ, this is easily fixed by using either reclock where you can change the refresh rate of your monitor to match the films or using something like madvr which enables smooth motion (a frame blending system) or even AMD's built in AMD steady video or smooth video project etc.
Anyway, you all need to join the 21.9 master race, 16.9 belongs in a museum now
g/free sync is a game changer "if" your fps fluctuate a lot, more so in the 40-80 fps range since you will avoid all screen tearing and the judder associated with normal vsync.
The problem with these 100HZ refresh rate displays is that in order to get the "full" benefit from them you need to be pushing those FPS too otherwise you encounter the exact same problem as you would on 60HZ displays i.e. motion blur. People saying this isn't true, go and read PCM2's reviews on PCmonitors.info. I believe badass's tftcentral reviews also briefly explains this but not as well.
Personally, if I can maintain a constant 60FPS with a frame latency of about 15-20ms in games with some form of vsync, I have no problem with input lag (my 29um65 is pretty good for this) nor "smoothness", only the motion clarity ****es me of and I believe when people say 100+HZ displays are so much smoother, they really mean to say the fluidity/motion is so much clearer looking
Emmmm what...
There is no screen tearing whatsoever with watching media content on non g/free sync displays.
Judder yes... but that is down to the 24fps that is used for films not matching the refresh rate of the monitors i.e. 60, 120, 144HZ, this is easily fixed by using either reclock where you can change the refresh rate of your monitor to match the films or using something like madvr which enables smooth motion (a frame blending system) or even AMD's built in AMD steady video or smooth video project etc.
Anyway, you all need to join the 21.9 master race, 16.9 belongs in a museum now
Last edited:
Unfortunately smooth video project has been broken since last couple of driver updates for me
Unfortunately smooth video project has been broken since last couple of driver updates for me
Ah shame that, you could try out AMD's steady video, supposedly it is very good.
Personally I use madvr with MPC, it provides the best media watching experience you can get, it isn't as good for motion clarity as SVP etc. but everything else is superb and the built in smooth motion gets rid of all judder.
I was using AMD Steady Video/Smooth Video with some 3rd party app(which was suggested by you I think or someone else), it was working decent until I updated drivers couple of revisions ago.
Freesync and G-Sync are good for people who can accept 60fps.
I can't in fast action games, the game needs to be running at 100fps+ and I will tweak the settings until i get it.
Blur reduction (ULMB) is much more important than either Freesync or G-sync.
Once they work out how to deliver ULMB with G-sync/Freesync switched on then it will be the nirvana.
I can't in fast action games, the game needs to be running at 100fps+ and I will tweak the settings until i get it.
Blur reduction (ULMB) is much more important than either Freesync or G-sync.
Once they work out how to deliver ULMB with G-sync/Freesync switched on then it will be the nirvana.
My initial experience with adaptive sync was on a Asus RoG Swift 1440p and it was meh to be honest. The problem was the games I tested were getting 100Hz + FPS with vysnc off and when Gsync was enabled to me it was practically inperceptable.
I then got to try it on a 60Hz 4K screen and the difference was immediately apparent. When running normal vsync on the FPS fluctuations were unbearable and when vsync was off the tearing was clearly noticeable. Turning on Freesync it was night and day comparison and 35 FPS Freesync on felt more like 50.
IMHO Adaptive sync is more beneficial and apparent the lower your FPS goes. I now have a 4K Samsung Freesync IPS screen and could not game without Adaptive Sync.
As long as I stay above 33FPS
No Judder
No tearing
no percetable input lag
I then got to try it on a 60Hz 4K screen and the difference was immediately apparent. When running normal vsync on the FPS fluctuations were unbearable and when vsync was off the tearing was clearly noticeable. Turning on Freesync it was night and day comparison and 35 FPS Freesync on felt more like 50.
IMHO Adaptive sync is more beneficial and apparent the lower your FPS goes. I now have a 4K Samsung Freesync IPS screen and could not game without Adaptive Sync.
As long as I stay above 33FPS
No Judder
No tearing
no percetable input lag
I'm a stickler for smooth gameplay. I just don't feel comfortable with 60fps anymore. My minimum with a mouse is 100hz and with a controller 85hz.
I've had 4K g-sync and it does make a big difference if your regularly dropping below 60fps as 4K is hard to run well. It keeps you more immersed. I wouldn't get a 4K panel without it.
But having had 1440p 144hz. Im not a fan of 4k 60hz and thus sold my 4K g-sync panel several months back.
I've had 4K g-sync and it does make a big difference if your regularly dropping below 60fps as 4K is hard to run well. It keeps you more immersed. I wouldn't get a 4K panel without it.
But having had 1440p 144hz. Im not a fan of 4k 60hz and thus sold my 4K g-sync panel several months back.
Last edited:
No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
Errm...No.
It's worth it all day of the week, 52 weeks a year, even with solid/high frame rates. Even locked out at 144FPS the difference between Adaptive Sync technology and none is IMMEDIATELY OBVIOUS.
If my G-SYNC disables I now about it without even looking for status indicators.
Thanks for that explanation, not a PC gamer now so haven't researched what the tech is about, thought it was only about high FPS.
And as you say with movies, if my TV isn't at the correct refresh rate 24p movies won't be smooth.