[AT]NVIDIA G-Sync Review

[bystander36]

I wont drop a res for this tech*shrugs*

Just because the first ones will be 1080p, does not mean it is only going to be on 1080p. They've already reached out to IPS makers.

I'll be getting one with TN, unless some new tech comes out before, that reduces response times. Between my simulator sickness due to latency, and my liking of 3D Vision which also requires very fast response times, I'm stuck with TN anyways.

 

[Zanovar]

Just because the first ones will be 1080p, does not mean it is only going to be on 1080p. They've already reached out to IPS makers.

I'll be getting one with TN, unless some new tech comes out before, that reduces response times. Between my simulator sickness due to latency, and my liking of 3D Vision which also requires very fast response times, I'm stuck with TN anyways.

Ya i kind of gathered that

 

[wand3r3r]

You obviously didn't read the anand review but the guru3d one and came in here to shit up this thread. The monitor will be sold for $400. Multiple sources besides anand state this price. Guru was in error.

^ This post looks like a threadcrap moreso than the quoted one imo.

Asus monitors are coming first and there are 27" 1080p 120/144 Hz monitors for $500-600 which will presumably work with gsync. Yeah the cheapest might be $400 but there will be up to $700 1080p monitors ($600 + gsync $100+). I'm assuming that's where the $600 came from.

 

[mutantmagnet]

^ This post looks like a threadcrap moreso than the quoted one imo.

Asus monitors are coming first and there are 27" 1080p 120/144 Hz monitors for $500-600 which will presumably work with gsync. Yeah the cheapest might be $400 but there will be up to $700 1080p monitors ($600 + gsync $100+). I'm assuming that's where the $600 came from.

You assumed wrong. When I did a google search for gsync and isolated for the past week results at the top was some post on MMO-chamion about the Asus monitor that will sell for $400 as actually being sold for $600. The discussion already gets heated up when people want to argue the merits of keeping AMD as an option or that they don't care for 1080p TN panels.

There is no reason to allow factually incorrect posts to go unchallenged and spreading into other forums.

 

[wand3r3r]

You assumed wrong.

Really? How about letting the poster clarify what price they are referring to. I assume that there will be $600+ gsync monitors, the 27" ones are coming and Asus has exclusive rights for a while. Thanks for the clarification that this particular one will be $400.

/done here

 

[Wall Street]

That said I don't know the technical limitations of G-Sync, does it require 120Hz for instance? If it does it might be a long wait for users hoping for a G-Sync ISP panel with 1440/1600 res because there are zero of such panels on the market today that ship in such a state through OEMs.

My understanding of how the technology works is that if the framerate goes up to the max refresh of the monitor, then it basically works like V-Sync again. Therefore, implementing this on a 60 Hz monitor still ends up with the situation where you have V-Sync like lag. At 60 Hz that is 16.7 ms between when the frame starts and when it will be displayed, which is an appreciable lag. At 144 Hz it is 6.9 ms which is quite a bit better.

 

[bystander36]

My understanding of how the technology works is that if the framerate goes up to the max refresh of the monitor, then it basically works like V-Sync again. Therefore, implementing this on a 60 Hz monitor still ends up with the situation where you have V-Sync like lag. At 60 Hz that is 16.7 ms between when the frame starts and when it will be displayed, which is an appreciable lag. At 144 Hz it is 6.9 ms which is quite a bit better.

You could easily fix that problem by setting a FPS limit of 59, and since G-sync can handle evenly spaced frames at 59 FPS, it is good and smooth.

 

[Wall Street]

You could easily fix that problem by setting a FPS limit of 59, and since G-sync can handle evenly spaced frames at 59 FPS, it is good and smooth.

59 FPS still is slow. To me the whole idea of G-Sync is that you get the feel of 100+ FPS without having to have tearing.

I was able to try G-Sync at Redbull Battlegrounds NYC. The whole point is that it is both fast and tear free. If you sacrifice either of those you may as well not have it.

 

[bystander36]

59 FPS still is slow. To me the whole idea of G-Sync is that you get the feel of 100+ FPS without having to have tearing.

I was able to try G-Sync at Redbull Battlegrounds NYC. The whole point is that it is both fast and tear free. If you sacrifice either of those you may as well not have it.

Even at 59 FPS, it is faster and smoother than 59 FPS with V-sync. The point of G-sync is to improve performance of existing monitors.

While I will opt for a 120+hz alternative, it is quite useful in the 60hz arena. It is most drastically noticeable when using sub 60 FPS.

 

[blastingcap]

While G-Sync is impressive, I don't want to get locked into NV. I think for me personally I can live with TN and a regular 120Hz TN monitor would be cheaper and fairly effectively as long as my system mostly stays at or above 60 fps.