• 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.

Is G-Sync really necessary now?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I paid $950 for a really nice dell monitor in 2008. I still have it and use it weekly and it's still a really good picture.

Some monitors are worth it.
 
DigDog said:
tearing occurs when there is fast movement.

many games do not have very fast movement.

now, i'm sure *every* game looks nicer with a nice monitor; but the person playing Myst will have an easier time coping with a $100 monitor, rather than someone who depends on the lower latency of a $800 monitor.

makes sense?

at least thats what i make of the phrase " Is G-Sync really necessary now?"
Click to expand...

I doubt there's a single game out there that has no fast movement - even scrolling in Civ5 can cause tearing. Clearly that's a game that can get away with Vsync, but that's only true of turn based games honestly.

I'm not a huge FPS fan, the biggest advantage for me has been all my RPGs. Vsync was a pretty default on for me because of how much tearing bothers me, but now I can get the equivalent without a frame drop or lag.

Speaking of which, Diablo 3 G-Sync is working for me (ROG Swift, 970).
 
bystander36 said:
Tearing is very noticeable to me in any 1st person game where you turn and any game which you screen view is in constant motion when you move around, like Diablo and Starcraft games. Pretty much any game I play has lots of tearing when I turn off v-sync. It is just the nature of monitors.
Click to expand...
might be, but that tearing just looks ugly. and it will stop in a few milliseconds.

what it doesn't, is cause you to lose ELO score due to having eaten a rocket you didn't see.

let's not confuse needing g-sync and liking g-sync. and while we're at it, let's no confuse badly coded games with hardware shortcomings.
 
DigDog said:
might be, but that tearing just looks ugly. and it will stop in a few milliseconds.

what it doesn't, is cause you to lose ELO score due to having eaten a rocket you didn't see.

let's not confuse needing g-sync and liking g-sync. and while we're at it, let's no confuse badly coded games with hardware shortcomings.
Click to expand...

Did I say you "needed" G-sync? Ready my first reply (first reply on the thread), but I find it annoying that people seem to think that G-sync is a FPS thing. It isn't.
 
DigDog said:
might be, but that tearing just looks ugly. and it will stop in a few milliseconds.
Click to expand...
...and then be back in a few more milliseconds (the next frame). Whichever standard becomes the norm, I look forward to future affordable IPS monitors where I won't have to choose between v-sync and stutter w/o lower-than-max FPS.
 
Looks like G-Sync is not that appealing for now (for me...) but if I could find a great monitor with it i'd not turn my back on it.

I've been looking a lot at what the market looks like and i've been tempted by a few 27" IPS monitors like the BenQ GW2765HT and the ASUS PB278Q especially. The BenQ can be bought for 450CAD free shipping but I heard it 's a lottery with the corner bleeding for this one, but those that don't have that problem are amazed by it...27" IPS with 1440p res but 60Hz...for Under 500 bucks is pretty good.
 
Last edited:
I finally couldn't wait and bought a Samsung S27D590P 27" PLS panel. It's not impressive with it's 1080p and 60Hz but compared to my LG 23" bought in 2008 it's night and day. What an amazing monitor, great colors, quick, beautiful.

It was 300CAD so no brainer really and I couldn't convince me that spending 500+ on a monitor was the only good option.

Great buy, awesome monitor, i'm happy.
 
I haven't seen it in action, and I would probably love it, but its just not an alternative at the moment since I have a 30" 1600p monitor and I am NOT willing to sacrifice color depth, viewing angle, size, or resolution.
 
I was considering getting a swift to see if I could tolerate a TN screen for the tradeoff of gsync and refresh rate, but, after reading all the user accounts on how buggy the panel and gysnc module is I decided against it.

They need to get out a decent piece of hardware that supports it. I haven't see any users or reviews on the new Acer 4K gsync screen yet, so it may be decent. The rog swift has a ton of issues ranging from the panel its self suffering from major visual artifacts, dead pixels, backlight bleed, pixel inversion resulting in lines across the image to the gsync module overheating and/or being buggy in some units causing green screens or the unit not displaying anything.

I think most of the issue is the swift is running a new unproven 144hz 1440p panel that obviously has a ton of issues that still need to be worked out in production. For $900 I can get an incredible 1440p IPS from Dell, Benq has a 32" 4K IPS for $1000 now. The rog swift needs to fix their QC issues if they expect to charge the same for a TN screen. It's bad enough it's a TN, it at least needs to not ship with a pile of panel issues on so many units.
 
Grooveriding said:
I was considering getting a swift to see if I could tolerate a TN screen for the tradeoff of gsync and refresh rate, but, after reading all the user accounts on how buggy the panel and gysnc module is I decided against it.

They need to get out a decent piece of hardware that supports it. I haven't see any users or reviews on the new Acer 4K gsync screen yet, so it may be decent. The rog swift has a ton of issues ranging from the panel its self suffering from major visual artifacts, dead pixels, backlight bleed, pixel inversion resulting in lines across the image to the gsync module overheating and/or being buggy in some units causing green screens or the unit not displaying anything.

I think most of the issue is the swift is running a new unproven 144hz 1440p panel that obviously has a ton of issues that still need to be worked out in production. For $900 I can get an incredible 1440p IPS from Dell, Benq has a 32" 4K IPS for $1000 now. The rog swift needs to fix their QC issues if they expect to charge the same for a TN screen. It's bad enough it's a TN, it at least needs to not ship with a pile of panel issues on so many units.
Click to expand...

I've had my swift for about a month now and played probably 10 hours of video games (FPS type games.) Aside from a weird smell and a little smoke one time from the back of the panel, I haven't noticed anything wrong. No dead pixels, even backlighting, etc. I don't know what pixie inversion is, but I don't play a lot of RPGs so that may not be an issue for me.
 
Grooveriding said:
I was considering getting a swift to see if I could tolerate a TN screen for the tradeoff of gsync and refresh rate, but, after reading all the user accounts on how buggy the panel and gysnc module is I decided against it.

They need to get out a decent piece of hardware that supports it. I haven't see any users or reviews on the new Acer 4K gsync screen yet, so it may be decent. The rog swift has a ton of issues ranging from the panel its self suffering from major visual artifacts, dead pixels, backlight bleed, pixel inversion resulting in lines across the image to the gsync module overheating and/or being buggy in some units causing green screens or the unit not displaying anything.
Click to expand...

The Swift seems to have QC issues but it's not that the panel itself is buggy. The one I got is absolutely perfect - none of the problems you mention. The 344.11 Nvidia driver update also fixed all the issues on the software side and aside from one Windows 7 issue with Displayport (windows resizing to 640x480 after sleep - I use an Autohotkey script called RestoreWin to reset them) it's been smooth sailing ever since.
 
Rezist said:
Ask yourself if you want the monitor even if it didn't have G-sync, if your looking for a fast display then it kinda makes sense, if you want a smooth experience below 60 fps would spending money on a sli set up to boost performance make more sense?
Click to expand...

The primary pitfall of SLi is not the money, it's the headache.
 
Nebor said:
I've had my swift for about a month now and played probably 10 hours of video games (FPS type games.) Aside from a weird smell and a little smoke one time from the back of the panel, I haven't noticed anything wrong. No dead pixels, even backlighting, etc. I don't know what pixie inversion is, but I don't play a lot of RPGs so that may not be an issue for me.
Click to expand...
yes clearly sounds like a quality product...
 
Nebor said:
Only so much you can expect for $800. It's not gonna be perfect.
Click to expand...
your post seems as if it needs sarcasm tags. you act like 800 bucks is some low budget monitor. hell most people dont pay even half that for a monitor and I am sure the odd smell accompanied by smoke coming from the monitor is not acceptable at ANY price for normal people.
 
Jumpem said:
Can you expand on this a little?

I keep debating between 970, 980, or 970 SLI. After reading many comments like this I am leading towards a 980.
Click to expand...

Quite a bit has been said about the topic but in general you may be susceptible to microstutter, waiting for driver support on new games, scaling factor varies by game, and from my personal experience Fallout New Vegas used Sli fine except during certain game actions which caused it to slow down dramatically in certain scenes. Just adds a whole new set of variables.
 
toyota said:
your post seems as if it needs sarcasm tags. you act like 800 bucks is some low budget monitor. hell most people dont pay even half that for a monitor and I am sure the odd smell accompanied by smoke coming from the monitor is not acceptable at ANY price for normal people.
Click to expand...

It was between this and the Dell 4ks for me, and the Dells were significantly more expensive.
 
godihatework said:
i remember paying 600+ for a 17" NEC 1280*1024 LCD monitor back in the early 2000's as well.

thats over 800.00 now per the BLS inflation calculator.

Kids these days.
Click to expand...

We also got hosed due to price collusion by the panel makers. about a year after i paid $500 for my 24" Samsung LCD prices finally started coming down.
 
godihatework said:
i remember paying 600+ for a 17" NEC 1280*1024 LCD monitor back in the early 2000's as well.

thats over 800.00 now per the BLS inflation calculator.

Kids these days.
Click to expand...
And, those 17" and 18.5" NEC IPSes are still taking daily use, without so much as a stuck pixel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top