• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[AT]NVIDIA G-Sync Review

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'm still wondering if there is a review out there that doesn't limit the testing to god awful FPS and 60hz?

Can someone point me to a Gsync vs. 120hz/144hz monitor at high fps review?
 
VulgarDisplay said:
I'm still wondering if there is a review out there that doesn't limit the testing to god awful FPS and 60hz?

Can someone point me to a Gsync vs. 120hz/144hz monitor at high fps review?
Click to expand...

I have seen mentioned a few times in this thread that they tested at sub 30 FPS, but you do realize that they spent most their time testing at 40-60 FPS. The only tested a little bit below 30 to see how G-sync handles it, as G-sync requires a minimum FPS to function properly.

What FPS do you want them to test it? I personally think they tested at the typical FPS most people want, though I personally would also like to hear about 60-120 FPS.
 
bystander36 said:
I have seen mentioned a few times in this thread that they tested at sub 30 FPS, but you do realize that they spent most their time testing at 40-60 FPS. The only tested a little bit below 30 to see how G-sync handles it, as G-sync requires a minimum FPS to function properly.

What FPS do you want them to test it? I personally think they tested at the typical FPS most people want, though I personally would also like to hear about 60-120 FPS.
Click to expand...

I honestly just want this compared to 120hz/144hz with greater than 60fps. Anyone who actually cares about "smoothness" is running a setup like that. If it shows an improvement there and is as responsive (input wise) as a 100+fps game on a 120hz monitor then I would by the upgrade module for my monitor in a second.

The reviews just don't seem to be catering to the people who will buy Gsync.
 
Nintendesert said:
Are there any reviews out there exploring if GSync helps alleviate the motion sickness or headaches some people get while gaming?
Click to expand...

I would assume this is a benefit. Motion blur really screws me up. This has been a problem since I started using LCDs. The reason I bought the Asus monitor in the first place was to reduce motion blur. And running BF4 at over 120fps with lightboost enabled for 2D, I dont get headaches even after gaming all day (I took a day off on the BF4 launch). G-sync should allow gaming at less than 120fps and still have the same benefit.
 
VulgarDisplay said:
I honestly just want this compared to 120hz/144hz with greater than 60fps. Anyone who actually cares about "smoothness" is running a setup like that. If it shows an improvement there and is as responsive (input wise) as a 100+fps game on a 120hz monitor then I would by the upgrade module for my monitor in a second.

The reviews just don't seem to be catering to the people who will buy Gsync.
Click to expand...

Input lag and or smoothness will be improved by the tech. It is simply a matter of math, but it would be nice to see how much of an improvement we'll notice.
 
bystander36 said:
Input lag and or smoothness will be improved by the tech. It is simply a matter of math, but it would be nice to see how much of an improvement we'll notice.
Click to expand...

What is the correlation between input lag and gsync? I would think the variation would cause it to change randomly with the refresh rate and fps?

Higher refresh rate and higher frames give faster more precise mouse input. This I what I want a review to test.
 
VulgarDisplay said:
What is the correlation between input lag and gsync? I would think the variation would cause it to change randomly with the refresh rate and fps?

Higher refresh rate and higher frames give faster more precise mouse input. This I what I want a review to test.
Click to expand...

With v-sync, anytime your FPS do not match your refresh rate, you incur latency due to frames having to wait for an additional refresh time before it can be displayed.

With v-sync and while maintaining your refresh rate in a DirectX game that uses triple buffering (most), you get an additional frame time worth of latency due to DirectX requiring the displaying of frames one frame behind what is most recently rendered due to how frames get backed up.

Either way, you are always facing some latency with v-sync on in DirectX games.

G-sync removes latency, as frames are immediately displayed once created.
 
Randomoneh said:
Because tearing is much less pronounced at fast refresh rates (120/144 Hz), GS will shine with 60Hz displays, right?
Click to expand...

To some degree, yes. Although if you are at 60/72 FPS on 120/144hz monitors, you will see very pronounced tearing, but for the most part, if your FPS are lower than your refresh rate, is seems to be less noticeable.
 
VulgarDisplay said:
What is the correlation between input lag and gsync? I would think the variation would cause it to change randomly with the refresh rate and fps?

Higher refresh rate and higher frames give faster more precise mouse input. This I what I want a review to test.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, G-sync makes your frame take the shortest possible path between the frame buffer and the display by removing the wait for prerendered frames and cutting the possibility of frames having to wait between V-syncs periods. This will improve the portion of input lag that is happens between your gpu and your monitor and mainly make the game feel more responsive; obviously, other input lag due to network or other hardware/software issues will be unaffected.

As far as the reviews not giving relevant information to potential buyers, the only thing I took away from it is that it will make my games have the "60fps smooth feel" as long as my hardware can keep up 35fps or so which is all that's needed to spark my interest and go check it out for myself.
 
bystander36 said:
To some degree, yes. Although if you are at 60/72 FPS on 120/144hz monitors, you will see very pronounced tearing, but for the most part, if your FPS are lower than your refresh rate, is seems to be less noticeable.
Click to expand...
I see no reason for tearing to be more pronounced at 60/72 FPS. Care to explain?
 
Randomoneh said:
I see no reason for tearing to be more pronounced at 60/72 FPS. Care to explain?
Click to expand...
When ever your FPS are near a number that evenly divides into your refresh rate, the tear does not move fast, and stays in a similar spot long enough to be very visible. This is known as a harmonic.
 
Hearing Anand interviewed on Linus Tech Tips' stream tonight was interesting in regards to gsync. They couldn't get gsync working on any card but the GTX 760. Trying it with a Titan, 780, 660 etc. all caused system hard-locks and crashing etc. Must be why we still have not seen these modules released and have no concrete info on a release date for the Asus monitor releasing with the hardware pre-installed; the tech is still being worked on.

Also, they both said apart from gsync functionality, the Asus monitor looked like trash and low-budget. Both decrying the lack of any announcements of decent monitors getting the functionality and Linus mentioned he'd of preferred to see a 1440p panel shipped out to reviewers so they could of seen a use case where there were real demands on the GPU to help highlight gsync's benefit. This seems to be the chorus from several reviewers, that it just is not a big deal if you can run games at high frame rates and really shows its benefits between 40-60fps if you fluctuate there. It also doesn't work at all below 30fps.

I'm not getting the 1080p low budget TN launch. This seems much more appropriate for a good 2560x1600 or 2560x1440p IPS screen where you very well may not be able to hold 60fps unless you are running multiple 780/290x/Titan/290 cards. If you're playing at 1080p, just get one of those aforementioned cards and rock 60fps constant.

Putting this in a crappy screen like that Asus, or any TN for that matter, is like putting lipstick on a pig.
 
Grooveriding said:
Putting this in a crappy screen like that Asus, or any TN for that matter, is like putting lipstick on a pig.
Click to expand...

You dont buy 144hz monitors for Photoshop. Strangely, it does seem to look better with Lightboost enabled in 2D than turning it off and running it in sRGB. I probably wouldnt even notice the color differences if it wasn't sitting next to a U2711.
 
From the outset I have wished for this to come to all monitor types and resolutions and for it to be on AMD cards as well. I suspected the limitations of being only on a 144hz 1080p TN screen are simply because that was Nvidias prototype. Given some time the monitor manufacturers will be able to produce a controller for other monitors.

Saying that it is concerning that none of the other partners have announced monitors yet. I was hoping for gsync modules to be out by now. The expectation was set that retail availability was Q1 but if that is just the Asus monitor that is a bit disappointing.
 
Childs said:
You dont buy 144hz monitors for Photoshop.
Click to expand...


Steam survey anyone?

1920 x 1080
32.61%
+0.10%


trans.gif

2560 x 1440
0.98%
-0.01%

trans.gif

2560 x 1600
0.16%
0.00%


The 3rd row is adoption, ouch 😉
 
Last edited:
What I want is a 24"/27" full colour gamut (IPS or whatever) 4k resolution with 144+ hz and gsync. That would be my ideal next monitor. I don't want to choose, I want it all and ideally its about $300. Yeah not going to happen but maybe one day. For now I live with the trade off of resolution, refresh and motion blur reduction to resolution and colour accuracy. Its not a great trade off but most people choose TN screens because they are cheaper. Alas the steam survey doesn't show refresh rate, but if they had there would probably be a similar number of 120/144hz monitor users as there are 1440/1600 users.
 
I think that the comments asking for 1440p and IPS somewhat miss the point. There is fast or there is great looking. I like to be competitive, so I choose fast. I get it, some people play slow games and use their PC to look at pictures so they want high res and deep blacks. G-Sync however seems to be aimed at people who find 60 Hz V-Sync to be unacceptable. Therefore it makes sense to put G-Sync on a 144 Hz panel with 1 ms pixel response (which in 2013 means a 1080p TN).

What is the point of putting this technology on a IPS monitor if 99% of IPS monitors feel slow (usually ~10+ ms pixel response and 30 ms+ total input lag). Certainly if I was willing to use a slow setup I would just use triple buffer V-Sync.
 
Last edited:
Freaksterz said:
600$ for a 1080p TN monitor is a tad too much for my tastes, Gsync or not tbh..
Especially with the fullscreen limitation.
Click to expand...



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.
 
Bottom line is Nvidia needs to get this into a few 1440/1600 panels to satisfy the 1%.

I understand the money is in 1080p, and they should get there first to spread the word both through reviewers and posters who obtain them. 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top