- Mar 6, 2006
- 6,490
- 1,021
- 136
Sounds like if your FPS drops low the monitor locks at a minimum refresh, but is it not possible to simply double/triple the refresh rate and display 2-3 frames?
Say your running at 18FPS, instead of tearing and migrains locked at 30Hz (or whatever the mnimum is) why not triple it and set the refresh to 54Hz?
I'm not sure how much detail is out there on this, but I figure I'll ask.
Personally I don't think G-Sync should be on any monitor under ~120Hz and anything under 60FPS gets doubled and under 40FPS should automatically be tripled. Maybe we could have a few otions, like a 90Hz mode that sets the numbers to 45/30. If we had a 60Hz monitor/mode then at least we could double anything under 30FPS and triple anything under 20FPS.
Having monitors work in conjuction with the GPU sounds good, but not at the expense of refresh rates. I can't stand low refresh rates...G-Sync has potential, but no way in heck am I going to use it if I'm getting less than 60Hz on my monitor.
I'm still waiting for a superior option to my CRT...high res (and high DPI), high refresh, no lag, great color and solid blacks. I hate tearing, and between vsync and my variable refresh and resolution options I never have a problem and I never have to go below 72Hz.
So my ideal monitor: 24" 120Hz 2560x1600 w/ G-Synce 60Hz lowest refresh.
I'd be willing to sacrifice a little on the color/input lag and I'd be willing to pay up to $800.
I think there should be 27-30" 120Hz "4k" options at ~$1200.
Knock $200 off for G-Synce and $200 for 120Hz, so $400 for a "regular" 2560x1600 24"
Anybody think there's more than a 1% chance of this happening in the next ~5 years?
Since the chip is built into the monitor, what would stop AMD from using G-Sync? I absolutely think this should be a standard option for either GPU, if Nvidia tries to vendor lock this I am going to murder them.
Say your running at 18FPS, instead of tearing and migrains locked at 30Hz (or whatever the mnimum is) why not triple it and set the refresh to 54Hz?
I'm not sure how much detail is out there on this, but I figure I'll ask.
Personally I don't think G-Sync should be on any monitor under ~120Hz and anything under 60FPS gets doubled and under 40FPS should automatically be tripled. Maybe we could have a few otions, like a 90Hz mode that sets the numbers to 45/30. If we had a 60Hz monitor/mode then at least we could double anything under 30FPS and triple anything under 20FPS.
Having monitors work in conjuction with the GPU sounds good, but not at the expense of refresh rates. I can't stand low refresh rates...G-Sync has potential, but no way in heck am I going to use it if I'm getting less than 60Hz on my monitor.
I'm still waiting for a superior option to my CRT...high res (and high DPI), high refresh, no lag, great color and solid blacks. I hate tearing, and between vsync and my variable refresh and resolution options I never have a problem and I never have to go below 72Hz.
So my ideal monitor: 24" 120Hz 2560x1600 w/ G-Synce 60Hz lowest refresh.
I'd be willing to sacrifice a little on the color/input lag and I'd be willing to pay up to $800.
I think there should be 27-30" 120Hz "4k" options at ~$1200.
Knock $200 off for G-Synce and $200 for 120Hz, so $400 for a "regular" 2560x1600 24"
Anybody think there's more than a 1% chance of this happening in the next ~5 years?
Since the chip is built into the monitor, what would stop AMD from using G-Sync? I absolutely think this should be a standard option for either GPU, if Nvidia tries to vendor lock this I am going to murder them.