at 60fps gsync will turn my 144hz monitor into a 60hz monitor?

[raknarius]

ok ill be single carding my games, 770gtx, most my framerates will be around 60-70fps.
now ive heard the smoothness on a 120hz or 144hz monitor is still an advantage at those fps. so I was going to get one of those, then im told gsync is a new tec coming out that will improve gameplay. but im reading it basicly adjusts your monitor to the hz of the framerates so my 120hz monitor will effectively be a 60-70hz monitor. so my question is. what will be better gaming experience, playing 60fps on a 144hz monitor without gsync. or say gsync on a 60hz monitor playing at 60fps.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

How much does tearing bother you? I rarely ever notice it.

If you hate tearing then gsync at 60hz/60fps will be better. Your input response should be basically the same either way. Gsync will also be far superior when you drop below 60fps.

 

[raknarius]

its never bothered me before

 

[bystander36]

G-sync variable refresh rate is optimal. 120-144hz makes things more response, and slightly disguises tearing, but having your refreshes synced up with your FPS without latency is better.

 

[raknarius]

ok after doing a lot of reading heres what I got so far for 60fps gaming

Fast response time such as 1ms Big help with motion blurr and input lag
120/144hz refresh rate Some help, in smoothness but may not be worth it at 60fps
lightboost Completely useless at 60fps non 3d games
gsync Big help for variable frame rates below monitors refresh rate (but effectively turns 144hz monitor to 60hz monitor at 60fps)


so me buying 144hz and gsync is pretty much a waste for 60fps gaming, as is lightboost, but 1ms is still worth my gaming money.


what do you think?

 

[bystander36]

The only time 120/144hz is better than G-sync is with 100/120 FPS with Lightboost. G-sync monitors also have 1ms response times. G-sync makes it so the moment a frame is finished, it gets displayed. All fixed rate monitors cannot do that. They require a frame to wait until the next refresh time comes around.

So, if you are going to get a 120-144hz monitor, making it a G-sync monitor is always better, especially if you can't maintain 120-144 FPS.

V-sync at 60 FPS with a 60hz monitor causes a lot of extra latency. G-sync prevents that, as long as you don't reach the monitors refresh cap of 120-144. Then it also has a lot of extra latency.

G-sync also makes variable FPS, of 40-70 to feel like 60 FPS solid, without the latency.

The question is not whether G-sync is better, it is a lot better. The question is it worth the cost?

 

[Mark Rejhon]

but im reading it basicly adjusts your monitor to the hz of the framerates so my 120hz monitor will effectively be a 60-70hz monitor. so my question is. what will be better gaming experience, playing 60fps on a 144hz monitor without gsync. or say gsync on a 60hz monitor playing at 60fps.

60fps on 60Hz == more input lag, will stutter during frame drops
60-70fps on 144Hz == stuttery
60-70fps on G-SYNC == no stutter, less input lag

G-SYNC eliminates visible stutters during frame drops. G-SYNC essentially gives everything the beautiful "full frame rate VSYNC ON look" even during varying frame rates, you don't notice small framerate changes, because going to 60fps->59fps is 100% completely stutterless on GSYNC, whereas if you see 60fps->59fps on regular 60Hz, you see a single stutter. Random varying frame rates 60-70fps becomes stutterless.

(but effectively turns 144hz monitor to 60hz monitor at 60fps)

That's still vastly better than 60fps at 144Hz, because of stutters (aliasing effect between frame rate and refresh rate). And you get less input lag, because the individual frames is transmitted to the monitor faster (1/144sec frame transmission time, even at 60fps) even when the monitor is refreshing slower than 144Hz

 

[raknarius]

very interesting