144 hz signal the highest any GPU's display logic can do?

[Anarchist420]

was thinking that a direct drive VA panel that did 288 hz input (i.e., could do 288 Hz vsync, which would add only a negligible amount of input lag) would be as good as anything with gsync in it. and openGL's triple buffering, if i am not mistaken, does not add lag, but is variable frame rate.

i just dont see much of a need for gsync given that display port 1.2 has the bandwidth to do 1920x1200 @ 288 hz.

 

[Black Octagon]

But if you can afford a rig that delivers a consistent 288fps (needed to take full advantage of 288Hz) then you really should be moving beyond 1920x1080 anyway, in my book.

By the way. Mark from BlurBusters reckons that visual gains continue to be had right up to 1000fps@1000hz, so if he's right your 288hz may not be the holy grail you think

 

[bystander36]

I think he may be thinking in terms of how many different frame time variations a 288hz monitor can support at playable FPS. With a 144hz monitor, you get smooth game play at 72 FPS, 48 FPS, 36 FPS and of course 144 FPS.

A 288hz monitor has good smooth FPS at 144 FPS, 96 FPS, 72 FPS, 57 FPS, 48 FPS, 41 FPS....

With all those variables, it is not as bad to have wait for the next refresh if the card isn't ready. That said, G-sync should be a standard for PC's. It makes more sense, and is a better method. It is better G-sync come about so that the prices can come down and just become a standard monitor tech in time.

 

[Anarchist420]

But if you can afford a rig that delivers a consistent 288fps (needed to take full advantage of 288Hz) then you really should be moving beyond 1920x1080 anyway, in my book.

i am talking about increasing the signal rate for less lag, not for frame rate increases. 30 fps in most cases is fine with me and 1600x900 and sometimes even 800x600 (if the game is older) are fine with me as well i care much more about effects, no optimizations that reduce image quality, texture filtering quality, AA quality, render target precision and type, depth buffer precision and type, color depth, and signal rate than i do about screen resolution and performance.

I think he may be thinking in terms of how many different frame time variations a 288hz monitor can support at playable FPS. With a 144hz monitor, you get smooth game play at 72 FPS, 48 FPS, 36 FPS and of course 144 FPS. A 288hz monitor has good smooth FPS at 144 FPS, 96 FPS, 72 FPS, 57 FPS, 48 FPS, 41 FPS.... With all those variables, it is not as bad to have wait for the next refresh if the card isn't ready. That said, G-sync should be a standard for PC's. It makes more sense, and is a better method. It is better G-sync come about so that the prices can come down and just become a standard monitor tech in time.

that wasnt exactly what i meant, but thank you anyway i agree that gsync is best, but there arent any really good panels that use it and there probably wont be. i have just never understood why all IPS panels are coupled with receivers that dont do high signal rates without frame skipping.

 

[Mand]

From my understanding the limit is on the display side. While the GPUs may have limits themselves, they're likely not inherent to the GPU itself and have more to do with them not bothering to set them up to do things that are impossible to display.

Theoretically, if you reduce the resolution you should be able to get higher frame rates out of the GPU. But as of now there isn't any reason for them to tell the GPUs to do that, to spend the time optimizing the design for it.

And even if you did get 288 Hz, G-Sync is still a better solution. Only updating the display when a new frame is ready is fundamentally superior to ANY fixed-refresh setup.

 

[omeds]

You will still get jittering if not a 1:1 frame to refresh ratio, TB or not. It's just the nature of the tech. The only solution for perfectly smooth motion is to maintain FPS at/above your refresh rate, or gsync if you cannot.

 

[BrightCandle]

You will still get jittering if not a 1:1 frame to refresh ratio, TB or not. It's just the nature of the tech. The only solution for perfectly smooth motion is to maintain FPS at/above your refresh rate, or gsync if you cannot.

Exactly this.

At 288hz the time between frames is just 3.46ms so the amount of time a frame can be wrong by is limited by that threshold. Most of the complaints of microstutter and such are based around variances in and around 6+ms, so 288hz even with really variable frame rates of 50% or more might very well be hard to detect.

The problem is you only get 3.47ms to produce a frame. That means a dramatic reduction in image quality compared to todays games and applications, and we need to also consider motion blur and persistence in this as well to make sure we are getting the full benefits of those high FPS numbers.

Gsync can be viewed as an optimisation to reduce the variance while still having relatively low bandwidth cables and slowish GPU rendering (>16ms) and get a smooth motion despite the variance in the game. 288hz is kind of brute forcing the problem whereas gsync gets to the heart of the underling concern allowing smoother motion on low frequency screens which allows better visuals and its still potentially smoother than a 288hz screen without it.

 

[bystander36]

Exactly this.

At 288hz the time between frames is just 3.46ms so the amount of time a frame can be wrong by is limited by that threshold. Most of the complaints of microstutter and such are based around variances in and around 6+ms, so 288hz even with really variable frame rates of 50% or more might very well be hard to detect.

The problem is you only get 3.47ms to produce a frame. That means a dramatic reduction in image quality compared to todays games and applications, and we need to also consider motion blur and persistence in this as well to make sure we are getting the full benefits of those high FPS numbers.

Gsync can be viewed as an optimisation to reduce the variance while still having relatively low bandwidth cables and slowish GPU rendering (>16ms) and get a smooth motion despite the variance in the game. 288hz is kind of brute forcing the problem whereas gsync gets to the heart of the underling concern allowing smoother motion on low frequency screens which allows better visuals and its still potentially smoother than a 288hz screen without it.

I was thinking this at first, but realize that it is 3.47ms of variance, not total frame times. Frame times will really be closer to 7-11ms at best, unless you try to push 288 FPS.

And either G-sync or 288hz is requiring new monitors, so I would rather go for new G-sync monitors, rather than 288hz.

 

[Midwayman]

And even if you did get 288 Hz, G-Sync is still a better solution. Only updating the display when a new frame is ready is fundamentally superior to ANY fixed-refresh setup.

If they can make gsync work with strobed backlights I would agree. Right now its a trade off. If you can make 85fps or better you can have substantially better motion clarity. Gsync is great at low frame rates however.

However if you had a 288hz monitor I'm not sure I'd care much. You're talking less than 4ms delay to display the next frame worst case. Gsync adds a few ms of input lag anyways. There would be other considerations far more important at that time anyways.

 

[Midwayman]

Gsync can be viewed as an optimisation to reduce the variance while still having relatively low bandwidth cables and slowish GPU rendering (>16ms) and get a smooth motion despite the variance in the game. 288hz is kind of brute forcing the problem whereas gsync gets to the heart of the underling concern allowing smoother motion on low frequency screens which allows better visuals and its still potentially smoother than a 288hz screen without it.

Right, but at that point the difference is minimal Gsync makes a ton of sense on a 60hz screen, but the return gets smaller as the refresh goes up. Good thing about a 288hz screen would be that it would actually allow you to display games like counter strike, etc at the well into triple digit frame rates people can get. Also its not a proprietary standard, which is a big deal.

 

[BrightCandle]

288hz or 1000hz you still have a quantization error and the subsequent issues that causes. At 288hz and 288fps you still adding in 3ms of extra latency while you wait for the monitor to come around, in which the GPU might very well be idle or having to work on the next frame and causing microstutter. Doesn't really matter what frame rate you get to quantization problems associated with mismatched speeds on the monitor and GPU are going to manifest and reduce the smoothness and quality of the overall image experience.

If you put 60fps into a 288hz screen it will vary by 3.5ms from the ideal timing whereas with gsync it would be more like 0.1ms or less. That is a substantial improvement and doesn't require a cable and controller on the monitor that can handle vast frequencies which will be expensive. Its not that gsync is cheap today but it will be because it solves the problem more smartly. Frankly I would take a 288hz monitor with gsync in preference to without gsync and given the choice of 144 + gsync and 288hz I think I would choose the gsync one because its probably going to be smoother.

 

[Midwayman]

288hz or 1000hz you still have a quantization error and the subsequent issues that causes. At 288hz and 288fps you still adding in 3ms of extra latency while you wait for the monitor to come around, in which the GPU might very well be idle or having to work on the next frame and causing microstutter. Doesn't really matter what frame rate you get to quantization problems associated with mismatched speeds on the monitor and GPU are going to manifest and reduce the smoothness and quality of the overall image experience.

If you put 60fps into a 288hz screen it will vary by 3.5ms from the ideal timing whereas with gsync it would be more like 0.1ms or less. That is a substantial improvement and doesn't require a cable and controller on the monitor that can handle vast frequencies which will be expensive. Its not that gsync is cheap today but it will be because it solves the problem more smartly. Frankly I would take a 288hz monitor with gsync in preference to without gsync and given the choice of 144 + gsync and 288hz I think I would choose the gsync one because its probably going to be smoother.

3.5ms MAX deviation. Average half that. Gsync adds a couple MS input lag anyways. http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/ Its not 0.1ms by a long shot. ULMB is the same way FWIW. You're talking sub MS differences in lag here.

Complaining about the cost of a cable that will support 288hz seems silly when gsync will add at least $100 to the cost of a monitor.

I think the bigger issue is really if there are panels that can support 288hz with pixel transition times. 144hz strobing still has cross talk because panels are really fast enough.

Gsync is a neat idea, but I'll care a lot more when its implemented in displayport 1.2a cheaply and doesn't fragment the industry.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Gsync makes the most difference for lower frame rates; if you're getting frames fast enough for 120+ fps you're probably going to be more interested in low persistence techniques like the ULMB feature of G-Sync (ultra low motion blur) than you are with frame syncing.

Holy grail would be a successful combination of the two, but we're a ways off yet.