Is GSync important?

I used to have 60Hz monitors and with v-sync on I never had any screen tearing. I never minded when the fps went down to about 52. Nowadays with my 144Hz it seems like a massive failure to go down to 52fps, and I think a big sudden dip in fps is more noticeable compared to when it's just a small % decrease to a low but playable figure. And when I had a PS3 on a 32 inch TV I never had tearing and it seemed to look really good at the time.
I didn't notice much difference going to v-sync. But I think I would notice if I turned it off now.
 
Never used to bother me before I had Gsync, I gamed at 144hz 1080p and had no issues with tearing. Now upgraded to a 3440x1440 ultrawide with Gsync and I still don't know its there, maybe that is the good thing about it?
 
Really not sure if people notice the Hz more and think it's G-Sync doing something.... After they have upgraded from 60Hz.
 
Just got my first experience of gsync today after buying a second hand Dell s2417dg, and coming from an old 60Hz IPS 22" monitor to this is like night and day, I've been going back through my steam library to experience the difference in lots of different games!
 
G-sync isn't worth it. The effect is more noticeable at lower framerates, but close to the limit on most of these 144Hz monitors, you won't notice much at all. And the higher refresh rate helps to combat screen-tearing anyway.

I might have said it's worth a try had the pricing been right, but as it is, you pay £200+ premium for this single feature of G-sync. Ask yourself whether you really value this feature enough to pay that much extra for it? Alternative is to go non-Gync (even FreeSync since it literally has no extra cost unlike G-sync) and put that money towards more useful features like a better IPS panel type, I/O options or curved ultra-wide.
 
mahius said:
G-sync isn't worth it. The effect is more noticeable at lower framerates, but close to the limit on most of these 144Hz monitors, you won't notice much at all. And the higher refresh rate helps to combat screen-tearing anyway.

I might have said it's worth a try had the pricing been right, but as it is, you pay £200+ premium for this single feature of G-sync. Ask yourself whether you really value this feature enough to pay that much extra for it? Alternative is to go non-Gync (even FreeSync since it literally has no extra cost unlike G-sync) and put that money towards more useful features like a better IPS panel type, I/O options or curved ultra-wide.
Click to expand...

yeah surely if you buy a 144hz monitor, it doesn't matter if you don't get matching sync type, you just use v-sync, typically it'll be less than 144fps so it's not used, and when it does go above 144fps then vsynced. But probably only get 144fps in menus.
 
hornetstinger said:
yeah surely if you buy a 144hz monitor, it doesn't matter if you don't get matching sync type, you just use v-sync, typically it'll be less than 144fps so it's not used, and when it does go above 144fps then vsynced. But probably only get 144fps in menus.
Click to expand...

I don't even use V-sync and I've not noticed any screen-tearing since upgrading to this 144Hz (1440p) monitor lol.

If I remember correctly, the most common type of screen-tearing is the where the GPU outputs frames faster than the monitor can display. The result is the monitor starts showing the first part of one frame and then starts showing part of the next frame. This is the tearing effect. V-sync limits the GPU to output frames at the monitor's max refresh rate, G-sync is the other way around, the monitor works to output complete frames as the GPU puts them out. With a high refresh monitor that type of tearing is nullified, but you do get some small benefit with G-sync, but not £200+ worth.

I've known many folks mention on 4k G-sync monitors it's been handy in making games look smooth with sub-par framerates. Those are capped at 60hz refresh currently.
 
BowdonUK said:
In my limited experience of g-sync it doesn't really make a big difference to the games I play. I rarely play first person shooter games.

I think it depends on the games your playing. If they are very fast FPS type of games then having a high and smooth fps will give you a slight advantage. If your not really in to FPS'ers then there isnt much to write home about.

Remember consoles are only just hitting 60fps. I'd say unless you want to play fast paced games at 144 fps then for most games they dont realistically use 144 fps.
Click to expand...
To me the difference is pretty obvious running above 100fps in any game, in response time 120hz/fps is basically 50% extra smoothness on top of going from 30fps to 60fps.. with diminishing returns as you go up. Though yes more moderately paced games will benefit more, so racing/fps etc.. i don't get how some people say can't feel/see the difference over 60fps.

Getting used to higher fps you can see the difference even dipping into the 60's-70's.
 
What about playing a game you can max out easily, You have 120.0 fps not moving and you can choose between G-Sync on or ULMB? Having seen ULMB i think i may not even use G-Sync when i get one but no one ever really states what happens in this scenrio. Is G-Sync a way to play 60hz games without stutter? Games that have nasty drops?

I do get locked out due to those two scenarios but i tend to buy a ULMB monitor and wait rather than G-Sync and go now. I do have super human patience though sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom