• 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?

nashathedog said:
???
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.
Click to expand...

I've never been happy with 60Hz for gaming - with V-Sync on I find the input latency very noticeable even when its not dropping frames and any framerate drop below 60fps is magnified in effect and 60Hz with V-Sync off is a rippling nightmare of tearing. For me G-Sync is one of the best things in a long time monitor wise as it not only nicely tunes things up at 100+FPS but also removes or massively reduces the perception of those negatives when you are dropping to around 60fps.
 
Rroff said:
I've never been happy with 60Hz for gaming - with V-Sync on I find the input latency very noticeable even when its not dropping frames and any framerate drop below 60fps is magnified in effect and 60Hz with V-Sync off is a rippling nightmare of tearing. For me G-Sync is one of the best things in a long time monitor wise as it not only nicely tunes things up at 100+FPS but also removes or massively reduces the perception of those negatives when you are dropping to around 60fps.
Click to expand...

I suppose the games and the fps they run at has a lot to do with it, I don't really play twitch titles like BF4 multiplayer and CS go etc.
With games like the Tomb Raiders, Stalkers, Far cry's and Fallout's at max settings if I can get close to a 60 fps average I'm happy, Anything above high 40's is okay and I think that's just about right for on a 60hz panel.
 
muziqaz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes I know that but they are all linked to give you the latency chain.

The posters point is that Battlefield is slow and to an extent he is correct, if the client takes 35ms from the point you press the mouse button to fire, then what use is a monitor with a 2ms refresh rate. You gain no competitive advantage right?

My point is that its not just about refresh speed, input lag is also important. Battlefield is now on par with Quake 3 in terms of its latency (due to the increase in tick and refresh speed) so a fast monitor with low-input lag is just as important if you are playing either game.

At the extreme we have CS:GO with a 120hz tick-rate, this means this is a true twitch shooter and so any possible advantage you can gain with refresh rate, input lag and network connection is worth it.
 
Besty said:
The posters point is that Battlefield is slow and to an extent he is correct, if the client takes 35ms from the point you press the mouse button to fire, then what use is a monitor with a 2ms refresh rate. You gain no competitive advantage right?
Click to expand...

Unless it is really bad the pixel response has more significant implications for clarity in motion than game input latency (though it has considerations for both). (Which is slightly confused by processing latency within the panel which when combined with pixel response can have a profound effect on game input latency).
 
Last edited:
Seanspeed said:
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.
Click to expand...

And people were quite happy using 240p resolutions, but that's doesn't change the fact that it was rubbish. We just didn't know any better, because there was nothing else available.

It's not quite the same with 60Hz LCD monitors. CRT's were really good for gaming on. We changed to LCD's for various reasons, which I understand, but, 60Hz LCD's are rubbish compared to CRT's for gaming.

All that 60Hz LCD's have shown to me is that some people will get used to anything.

It's only with tech like ULMB, high refresh rates and freesync/gsync are monitors getting close to been as good as CRTs used to be.
 
nashathedog said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

PCM2 said:
Low frame rates are low frame rates regardless. You really don't want to be getting under 56fps or anywhere near that on a 144Hz monitor, it feels and looks extremely sluggish. And besides, now that AMD has LFC the frame rates below the hardware floor (56Hz/56fps) are suitably compensated for to remove stuttering and tearing. It's very much a non-issue really.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Ian Evey said:
I bet a 20 year old 100hz+ CRT at 1600x1200 looks better and feels better than most of the current a sync monitors.
Click to expand...

i bet too
i wonder if benq didnt sponsor every gaming event we might still see them :)
i agree with besty its mostly about the games tho
csgo is maybe the last of the twitch shooter left
but even csgo the reaction times are not king like they were in UT and quake
and that new doom looks terrible :(
 
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)
 
Tute said:
Am I the only person who thought "yeah, it's nice, but i'm not paying £200 extra for the same screen"?
Click to expand...

Not the only one here,but I am more worried about image quality for image editing purposes. If it happens to have FreeSync,then fine,otherwise meh.

Still think I will suck at Planetside2 even with all this added tech.

:p :D
 
Don't care how good it is, not buying a G/FreeSync monitor until one "wins" and becomes the universal standard.

Not locking myself in to either vendor.
 
FoxEye said:
Don't care how good it is, not buying a G/FreeSync monitor until one "wins" and becomes the universal standard.

Not locking myself in to either vendor.
Click to expand...

Technically adaptive/free sync has already won since it is part of the universal standard found in display port :p

Gsync might stay around for a while but it will eventually die or become a niche product like the 3d vision stuff nvidia had.
 
FoxEye said:
Don't care how good it is, not buying a G/FreeSync monitor until one "wins" and becomes the universal standard.

Not locking myself in to either vendor.
Click to expand...

Freesync has been taken up by Intel so that and the fact it is a lot cheaper to design into monitors means that Freesync is very likely to be the standard.
 
Nexus18 said:
Technically adaptive/free sync has already won since it is part of the universal standard found in display port :p

Gsync might stay around for a while but it will eventually die or become a niche product like the 3d vision stuff nvidia had.
Click to expand...

But until nV support FreeSync I'd be "locked out" of nVidia, meaning (since it's a two horse race) I'd be "locked in" to AMD.

Basically I'm not buying until both support a single standard.
 
Couldn't go back to 60hz or not using Freesync really is a game changer. This coming from someone who was on the fence about freesync or Gsync, I never used vsync and screen tear was not a issue for me. So what's the point for this?
For me the biggest benefit is frame rate changes remain very smooth with freesync vs it being off.

Don't be fooled by a lot what you read on the Internet dropping down to low frame rates still is low frame rate. 30fps doesn't become 60fps
30fps is still 33ms input lag with or without FS/Gsync it might look smoother but it isn't going to change input lag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom