nVidia G-Sync Q&A with Tom Peterson

shankly1985 · 23 Aug 2014 at 11:59

andybird123 said:
Even that being the case, I would have no problem with limiting fps to 135 in every game to avoid input lag

And in csgo you put yourself at a disadvantaged doing so. 120fps vs someone with 300fps plus 64tick then add ping.

You asking for trouble. Someone with 300fps will always see you and kill you.

Deceptor · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:04

shankly1985 said:
And in csgo you put yourself at a disadvantaged doing so. 120fps vs someone with 300fps plus 64tick then add ping.

You asking for trouble. Someone with 300fps will always see you and kill you.

How so? Assuming both users had say 60Hz monitors then they would both see updates every 16.6ms regardless of framerate. Or am I missing something?

Silent_Scone · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:05

I thought the talk of latency was namely to do with the buffering technique...

As said though blurbusters did extensive testing proving it had no more or less lag than a panel with vsync disabled

shankly1985 · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:13

Deceptor said:
How so? Assuming both users had say 60Hz monitors then they would both see updates every 16.6ms regardless of framerate. Or am I missing something?

Have read here. It's all about frame rate and tick rate.
https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_Multiplayer_Networking

Stanners · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:16

shankly1985 said:
And in csgo you put yourself at a disadvantaged doing so. 120fps vs someone with 300fps plus 64tick then add ping.

You asking for trouble. Someone with 300fps will always see you and kill you.

And which monitor can render these 300fps?

Any monitor can only render to the Refresh rate

shankly1985 · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:17

Stanners said:
And which monitor can render these 300fps?

Again read above. Source latency is linked buy your ping and frame rate, you lower the frame rate you higher your latency.

Edit
Going bit OT now

llamadal · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:19

Wtf cares about cs go. If you really think it's going to cause that much of an issue an you won't win the world championship as a consequence then turn gsync off.

As frosty said, it's been tested extensively, think I'll take that guidence over a forum guru that probably hasn't seen it or used it.

Stanners · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:19

shankly1985 said:
Again read above. Source latency is linked buy your ping and frame rate, you lower the frame rate you higher your latency.

Edit
Going bit OT now

Will give it a read!

PCM2 · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:20

andybird123 said:
Even that being the case, I would have no problem with limiting fps to 135 in every game to avoid input lag

Indeed you could limit frame rate. You could also argue that on titles where such frame rates are consistently achievable, ULMB would be worth using instead. The added visual clarity would arguably be more beneficial than reduced latency. It's a very individual thing of course.

Deceptor · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:21

Yeah I'm aware of tick rates, and a rate of 64 means 64 updates a second (client to server and vice versa). Doesn't explain why 300 FPS vs 120 FPS is better, Ideally you want a minimum FPS to match the tick rate, anything more would mean nothing?

shankly1985 · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:24

llamadal said:
Wtf cares about cs go. If you really think it's going to cause that much of an issue an you won't win the world championship as a consequence then turn gsync off.

As frosty said, it's been tested extensively, think I'll take that guidence over a forum guru that probably hasn't seen it or used it.

Tbh I care, it's the only game I put stupid amount hours into each week. So therefore if I was buying Gsync or Freesync I would not like to be switching it off. I want to use it lol

OK if csgo wasn't on my list of most played games I wouldn't even be here now talking. Am not here putting down Gsync because I can understand for the guys who use vsync a lot this is a massive upgrade.

II have my doubts, and look forward to trying it.

Final8y · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:26

Deceptor said:
Yeah I'm aware of tick rates, and a rate of 64 means 64 updates a second (client to server and vice versa). Doesn't explain why 300 FPS vs 120 FPS is better, Ideally you want a minimum FPS to match the tick rate, anything more would mean nothing?

Higher fps is still more responsive, we dont limit our self's to 10fps in BF4 because it had a tick rate of 10.

shankly1985 · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:28

Deceptor said:
Yeah I'm aware of tick rates, and a rate of 64 means 64 updates a second (client to server and vice versa). Doesn't explain why 300 FPS vs 120 FPS is better, Ideally you want a minimum FPS to match the tick rate, anything more would mean nothing?

It then becomes, about hit detection and movement. 300fps vs 120fps or even 64fps feels completely different to each other. On hit reg and latency to server and other players.

They a reason if you watch the league games find some using netgraph you see they also sync off and 300fps

You know what this got me thinking we need a csgo pro to test Gsync Haaa am sure they could tell right away if it effects there latency.

Deceptor · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:29

Final8y said:
Higher fps is still more responsive, we dont limit our self's to 10fps in BF4 because it had a tick rate of 10.

Sure client side, although I think the subject matter was self explanatory on the competitive advantage with one vs the other as shankly originally mentioned and beyond that, we were talking at max refresh or above where client side there would be no more responsiveness.

Deceptor · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:32

shankly1985 said:
It then becomes, about hit detection and movement. 300fps vs 120fps or even 64fps feels completely different to each other. On hit reg and latency to server and other players.

They a reason if you watch the league games find some using netgraph you see they also sync off and 300fps

You know what this got me thinking we need a csgo pro to test Gsync Haaa am sure they could tell right away if it effects there latency.

That makes sense then, since the client is compensating for hit detection so the framerate would impact. To be clear though your original post mentioned "seeing" someone first, (killing aswell) but I won't hold you to that

Final8y · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:38

Deceptor said:
Sure client side, although I think the subject matter was self explanatory on the competitive advantage with one vs the other as shankly originally mentioned and beyond that, we were talking at max refresh or above where client side there would be no more responsiveness.

Higher fps will make the client side more responsive, better to acquire aim, that is an advantage in itself, it does not matter if it does not give an advantage in hit detection server side.

Orangey · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:39

Don't the pros use CRTs still?

Swear I've seen rows of fatscreens in some recent LAN pics.

andybird123 · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:40

Then you arent going to be using gsync at all, as that still limits the fps to 144, if you want 300fps regardless of any other factor then you want vsync off

But for people who dont like tearing or stutter, gsync is a massive improvement over vsync

Ive never even played CSGO so i really couldnt care less

Deceptor · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:40

Final8y said:
Higher fps will make the client side more responsive, better to acquire aim, that is an advantage in itself, it does not matter if it does not give an advantage in hit detection server side.

But we're talking at maximum refresh and above? It can only be as responsive as the monitor.

shankly1985 · 23 Aug 2014 at 12:42

Even BF4 and BF3 feel different to me with sync on vs off even tried capping to 120fps and a unlocked FPS just feels different.

Everything seems more smoother and 1 to 1...