However did we play games without G Sync and FreeSync?

[ViRuS2k]

its not just the fast hz that people are after with high fps monitors.

its the massive massive INPUT LAG reduction that matters most.

those that stick to 60hz monitors have no idea of the feeling when playing @144hz
try playing a game on your 60hz monitors with vsync off, thats what you call input lag removed, with freesync/gsync you get best of both worlds. butter smooth no input lag andd no tairing.

 

[jubei]

See i game on a 60hz monitor currently and i used to play quake3/live at a high level. You get used to it and its really not that big of a deal. The initial change from my crt was noticeable but having gone through a multitude of monitors now its fine. When i finally get around to getting a higher hz monitor maybe i wlll realise how bad i have it, but it certainly doesnt stop me playing games well.

Also fps was a big deal on quake games, movement speeds/height was tied into it and the high hz/fps mattered a lot more than this console rubbish people play now like battlefield. People really need the high fps/hz to play a slow game like bf? :|

 

[Nexus18]

That is the other problem with non g/free sync displays, even if you are getting a constant 60/120/144 FPS, in order to achieve true smoothness, you often need to mess about with various things i.e. different vsync methods and/or different FPS locks, usually 1 fps below your refresh rate and in some cases, use borderless windowed mode instead of full screen mode. Most of the time using in game vsync with 59FPS lock via riva tuner is the best I find and it eliminates all the input lag too.

 

[Nexus18]

its not just the fast hz that people are after with high fps monitors.

its the massive massive INPUT LAG reduction that matters most.

those that stick to 60hz monitors have no idea of the feeling when playing @144hz
try playing a game on your 60hz monitors with vsync off, thats what you call input lag removed, with freesync/gsync you get best of both worlds. butter smooth no input lag andd no tairing.

Except, there is more to input lag than just a high refresh rate, taken from tftcentral:

As I mentioned above, you can also remove the input lag associated with vsync in various ways, main one being, locking the FPS one below your monitor when using vsync. Although a lot of faffing about is required and for some games, it might not even work at all, thankfully it has worked on most of the stuff I play. This is where g/free sync would be great, you don't have to faff about with getting games to run smooth with no tearing and little to no input lag.

See i game on a 60hz monitor currently and i used to play quake3/live at a high level. You get used to it and its really not that big of a deal. The initial change from my crt was noticeable but having gone through a multitude of monitors now its fine. When i finally get around to getting a higher hz monitor maybe i wlll realise how bad i have it, but it certainly doesnt stop me playing games well.

Also fps was a big deal on quake games, movement speeds/height was tied into it and the high hz/fps mattered a lot more than this console rubbish people play now like battlefield. People really need the high fps/hz to play a slow game like bf? :|

What's the saying, a good work man never blames his tools

And yup, I agree, the games where you really need 144HZ is for stuff like CS and quake, not BF, although when playing comp. 5vs5/8vs8/10vs10 on infy focused maps in bf especially on the higher tick servers, I imagine a higher HZ screen would help massively.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

I could easily live without FreeSync, as was running on 144Hz for donks before going to it, and i gamed fine

 

[wellibob]

I truly believe that everyone sees or perceives motion and colour differently. The more carefree your attitude towards anything and everything also has effects on how you see and perceive anything your vision allows. I have a medium theshold on motion and vision and I'm quite relaxed about it but with audio I'm so anal about it its become a bit of a chore tbh.

It's obvious faster response and higher refresh rates are better on newer Ltd monitors but not everyone can actually see the benefits or even care (ask the wife), so your always going to get people who disagree with one another over what the best type of display is to use.

Best enjoy what you can afford in life because pretty much your going to have to live with it the rest of your life baring a lotto win.

I gave up several years ago, well more than that showing and explaining the differences over newer super visual and audio technology. My conclusion was, I was right and everyone was wrong.

In a ideal world of like all my monitors and tvs to all be the best but once you start finding faults your fighting a losing battle. Enjoy what you do and get the best value or best type you can afford.

Now I'm going to listen to some music and it'll annoy me and I'll be back to the quacks about my ocd.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

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 don't even think there is such a thing as a freesycn/gsycn tv

 

[NoobCannon]

Never thought about g/free sync however couldnt ever go back to a 60hz monitor as it makes me feel sick.

120hz and above is a huge stepup

 

[Seanspeed]

Well, it's quite simple, regular 60Hz LCD monitors are useless for gaming, I would even go so far as to say they are useless for watching movies on too. There is tearing, slow response time, judder, input lag etc.

'Useless' is a strong word man.

I do agree with much of what you're saying and I think variable refresh rate(VRR) displays are genius and should be the way forwards, but most of us still manage fine and can, *gasp*, even be happy with our gaming and video experience on 60hz displays.

What I'm still bitter about is how proprietary VRR displays are. I simply wont invest in one until I can be reasonably sure that I wont be limited to buying specific brand GPU's just to keep the functionality.

 

[melmac]

'Useless' is a strong word man.

Maybe. But, I still think it's the right word It's just that we have become accustomed to 60Hz monitors. They are the norm. We have lived with their issues for so long that a lot of people don't even notice them anymore.

 

[Darujhistan]

Never thought about g/free sync however couldnt ever go back to a 60hz monitor as it makes me feel sick.

120hz and above is a huge stepup

Ditto. Haven't used g or free sync, the overwhelming opinion is that both are a huge improvement - i'm inclined to believe that.

 

[melmac]

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.

Your welcome. A lot of people think freesync and Gysnc are about high frame rates. At high frame rates, you don't really need sync tech at all. It's sweet spot is between 35 and 90fps. And the difference in smoothness is amazing.

 

[Besty]

See i game on a 60hz monitor currently and i used to play quake3/live at a high level. You get used to it and its really not that big of a deal. The initial change from my crt was noticeable but having gone through a multitude of monitors now its fine. When i finally get around to getting a higher hz monitor maybe i wlll realise how bad i have it, but it certainly doesnt stop me playing games well.

Also fps was a big deal on quake games, movement speeds/height was tied into it and the high hz/fps mattered a lot more than this console rubbish people play now like battlefield. People really need the high fps/hz to play a slow game like bf? :|

I used to play quakeworld and the main reason to switch monitors to 144hz is not just frame-rate but input lag reduction. Battlenonsense has a great youtube video explaining how the latency chain works for BF4 and CS:O.

Input lag can be a big problem on 60hz screens, less so with 120hz. With these new 144h screens input lag has been almost eliminated.

It has to be said BF4 has been recently upgraded to run at 60hz refresh / 60hz tick rate so this is now on par with Quake 3 which has a similar refresh. It can also handle 120hz refresh / 120 tick rate just like CS:O however, the server you would need to run 64 players is too excessive on CPU.

I gave up playing BF4 before the upgrade but I did not think it was a slow game, just frustrating because of the netcode

 

[muziqaz]

I used to play quakeworld and the main reason to switch monitors to 144hz is not just frame-rate but input lag reduction. Battlenonsense has a great youtube video explaining how the latency chain works for BF4 and CS:O.

Input lag can be a big problem on 60hz screens, less so with 120hz. With these new 144h screens input lag has been almost eliminated.

It has to be said BF4 has been recently upgraded to run at 60hz refresh / 60hz tick rate so this is now on par with Quake 3 which has a similar refresh. It can also handle 120hz refresh / 120 tick rate just like CS:O however, the server you would need to run 64 players is too excessive on CPU.

I gave up playing BF4 before the upgrade but I did not think it was a slow game, just frustrating because of the netcode

Your mentioned server tick rate has nothing to do with monitors refresh rate
Server tick rate is communication from server to client PC, and monitor refresh rates are related to vision and displaying your actions and movement of your character on your PC.

 

[Seanspeed]

Maybe. But, I still think it's the right word It's just that we have become accustomed to 60Hz monitors. They are the norm. We have lived with their issues for so long that a lot of people don't even notice them anymore.

We used to live with 240p resolutions, we used to live with phones that had to be linked to walls and did nothing but make phone connections, we used to live with cars that had windows that could only move up or down by manual power.

None of these things were 'useless'.

It could not be a more wrong word for what you're describing.

 

[Disco_P]

I have no doubt there was a massive amount of stubborn gits who were opposed to ssds when they first came out.

"They want how much for 120GB?"

"I like the slow boot, gives me time to make a cup of tea"

Etc etc.

Does OP still have dial up and a roller ball mouse? No he had the latest skylake cpu and maxwell gpu. Cause they're better than pentium 4 and 6800gt.

 

[Seanspeed]

I have no doubt there was a massive amount of stubborn gits who were opposed to ssds when they first came out.

"They want how much for 120GB?"

Finding value issues with new technology is not a bad or unreasonable stance to take.

 

[Disco_P]

Finding value issues with new technology is not a bad or unreasonable stance to take.

But OP doesn't complain about the price. He complains that people really like it and want to share how great it is.

 

[nashathedog]

Well, it's quite simple, regular 60Hz LCD monitors are useless for gaming, I would even go so far as to say they are useless for watching movies on too. There is tearing, slow response time, judder, input lag etc.

???
The reason I'm still on the 60hz Benq GL2750 is because it's been great for gaming, When I got it I spent 200 quid on it, It has a 2ms refresh and it does a good job with colours etc. I've wanted a 21:9 for some time and haven't been in a rush to get one thankfully. I'm waiting until there's a big choice of nice IPS panels with a sync. That's another reason I'm glad I haven't got to rush, when I do finally go sync I'm tied to a brand which I hate. But back on topic my 60hz Benq panel is great and I game on it daily.

60hz/fps is garbage IMO.

Fixed

A lot of people think freesync and Gysnc are about high frame rates. At high frame rates, you don't really need sync tech at all. It's sweet spot is between 35 and 90fps. And the difference in smoothness is amazing.

Exactly, The reason I disliked the first freesync 21:9 from LG was because the sync working range was something like 47 to 75, Benq's 2560x1440 was a bit better at 40 but really you want one that starts no higher than 30. After all how fast are you really expecting to run games like Witcher 3 at res's higher than 1080p?

 

[muziqaz]

I don't even think there is such a thing as a freesycn/gsycn tv

I do believe I seen couple of them. I mean I don't need TV as such, just I need monitor/TV which is bigger than 42 inch. At the moment I am with TV in the sig, so I wouldn't want to downsize too much, and prices for 32 inch freesync monitor are astronomical as far as I remember.