-
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.
John Carmack & Tim Sweeney on G-Sync
- Thread starter Sampsy
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 781
- Location
- JARRA!
Good stuff, thanks.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
hmm, low persistence I'm not sure he said it implicitly but, would it reduce ghosting, in which case I'm for it, particularly if it meant somewhat the end of ruddy overdrive features. Though, would low persistence end up reintroducing flickering basically, which is why he's saying it's only useful for 90+ which went the same for me for CRT's. 120Hz ilyama whatever the hell it was CRT was awesome, so much less tiring on eyes than lower hz + flicker.
I'd far prefer they move towards 120hz and less ghosting with better screens than thinking low FPS is okay because tearing is gone.
I think low persistence might be the first thing since a CRT I would want to try in person in shop before knowing if it was worth it. If it induces a flicker style effect but reduces gaming... I can see it taking a while to get the balance right there, slight flicker + decent reduction in ghosting rather than all ghosting gone but loads of flicker. It may not induce any flicker at all but surely if they want the light on for less time between frames it would have to effectively induce flicker?
g-sync I can see taking off pretty big with most monitors jumping on board and AMD having the ability too, basically all monitors couldn't add the ability and cut AMD and Intel out of the market. It's smart but not ground breaking tech in so far as, it's just an extra piece of data and having a different source tell the screen when to update. I think it will be less good than they are saying, but still pretty good. It's going to make low FPS LESS bad, but it will still suck. It shouldn't ever be worse than v-sync, at times significantly better, probably average somewhere in the middle. Though if you're at 120fps it won't make a difference.
I'd far prefer they move towards 120hz and less ghosting with better screens than thinking low FPS is okay because tearing is gone.
I think low persistence might be the first thing since a CRT I would want to try in person in shop before knowing if it was worth it. If it induces a flicker style effect but reduces gaming... I can see it taking a while to get the balance right there, slight flicker + decent reduction in ghosting rather than all ghosting gone but loads of flicker. It may not induce any flicker at all but surely if they want the light on for less time between frames it would have to effectively induce flicker?
g-sync I can see taking off pretty big with most monitors jumping on board and AMD having the ability too, basically all monitors couldn't add the ability and cut AMD and Intel out of the market. It's smart but not ground breaking tech in so far as, it's just an extra piece of data and having a different source tell the screen when to update. I think it will be less good than they are saying, but still pretty good. It's going to make low FPS LESS bad, but it will still suck. It shouldn't ever be worse than v-sync, at times significantly better, probably average somewhere in the middle. Though if you're at 120fps it won't make a difference.
From what I have read I think it will. Unless you can LOCK 120fps 100% of the time, in which case your FPS will always be synced with 120Hz.
I have a BenQxl2420t and have used the lightboost trick before and it works really well. It almost completely removes noticable motion blur, there is an explanation & a video down the page here. There are a few good tests out there that you can run, one with a car moving across the screen & another text but I can't remember what they are called. I have used them before however and lightboost strobing makes a huge difference.
I'm not using it right now as I have just reinstalled windows and haven't got around to setting it up again. When it was installed though I didn't like to use it for too long. I could never tell that there was any strobing on my 120hz monitor but I was worried about damaging my eyes. Although going by the video on the page I linked there isn't much difference - both displays lighten & darken in much the same way regardless of what the backlight is doing.
So that is where I get confused. I totally understand why you wouldn't want to watch a strobing light at 30hz while it might be unnoticable (and undamaging to your eyes) at 120hz or above. But looking at that video both displays still light up and darken in pretty much the same way so I'm not sure what effect the strobing backlight actually has in terms of eye fatigue.
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/