Smoothness: 120 hz or GSync and ping/lag in multiplayer

[beginner99]

With all the hype about smoothness, 120 hz and GSync I was wondering what their effect is in actual online multilayer games. I still play BF BC2 a lot. Now and then I get killed "strangely" meaning I just did not see the guy coming soon enough even though I was looking in the right direction. In other cases in close combat encounters when "running in circle and shooting" or quick turns it just feels choppy and I get bad accuracy. (vsync off, BC2 is unplayable with it, IMHO)

I play on low ping servers only and usually I have lower than average ping. I'm now wondering if any of the technologies actually help in multiplayer considering that the network lag is way higher than say time between frames. eg. with a ping of 100 ms (AFAIK in BC2 you have to half it to what it says on screen so 50 ms) makes the difference between 60 and 120 hz negligible.

Or how do i know the choppiness comes from 60 hz and not from network lag of myself or the other player?

 

[Venomous]

I don't have gsync on my setup but I do have two V248QEs which are gsync capable. I use lightboost in 120hz and 144hz non lightboost. Under crossfire since I still have 280x's I find the game play smoother at 120hz with LB.

I would imagine gsync would be even smoother than lightboost. So, does it make a difference in game play? Absolutely... My gaming strength has increased because of a matter of milliseconds. Keep in mind that BF4 Netcode is horrid and having an edge makes a big difference.

I'm sure others who actually have a gsync setup will tell you they will never go back ..

 

[Anarchist420]

network lag is how far the game is running behind... it isnt the same as input lag.

 

[bystander36]

Rubber banding, people running in circles and odd behavior are usually network lag.

Stuttering, response seeming to be slightly sluggish when moving your mouse and the like is related to framerate, refresh rate and/or v-sync.

I don't have G-sync, but from all the reviews and testing, it gives you similar results to not using V-sync, but with no tearing, and because it makes the refreshes happen when the GPU is ready, frames get displayed sooner and completely, unlike with v-sync. Even without V-sync, images the GPU has prepared do not get sent to the screen until a refresh happens, and if it happens in the middle of one, only part of that image gets updated. G-sync fixes all those weaknesses.

I think PCPer had one of the best ways to look at the choice. 60hz - 120hz is a big improvement, and G-sync is about half again as big of an improvement (G-sync monitors are 120+hz).

 

[BrightCandle]

I still have the same problems in BF4, its the netcode on the game series unfortunately that is a bit problematic. Its very advanced, hides a lot of latency, but in the process also causes odd artefacts. In BF4 at least there is an advantage to attacking around a corner first, you see them quicker than they see you by the lag time between you which is enough time typically to get an extra shot off.

I am still waiting for the good gsync monitors to arrive before I upgrade from my XL2411T but 120hz definitely improves my aim.

 

[Headfoot]

Consider that your opponents likely have the same delay, neutralizing the effect. That leaves the players skill and the players PC as the only remaining factors.

 

[Midwayman]

I don't have G-sync, but from all the reviews and testing, it gives you similar results to not using V-sync, but with no tearing, and because it makes the refreshes happen when the GPU is ready, frames get displayed sooner and completely, unlike with v-sync. Even without V-sync, images the GPU has prepared do not get sent to the screen until a refresh happens, and if it happens in the middle of one, only part of that image gets updated. G-sync fixes all those weaknesses.

I think PCPer had one of the best ways to look at the choice. 60hz - 120hz is a big improvement, and G-sync is about half again as big of an improvement (G-sync monitors are 120+hz).

G-sync is supposed to be most useful for people with lower frame rates. 40-80fps or so. It smooths out the stutter, but doesn't give you the motion clarity you get out of a lightboost setup. (gsynch monitors are either/or, not both) If you can run at least 85hz consistently you're better off using the lightboost mode on the gsync monitors. There is also the ezio turbo 240 which can synch down to 100hz, and the new BenQ Z series that will synch down to 75hz.

OP- The lag you are talking about isn't the same as lightboost, etc fixes.
Check out http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates and it will demo a lot of the various display level issues. Lightboost is mainly about getting rid of motion blur. Makes is easier to spot enemies will quickly looking around. They also tend to be very fast monitors which limits input lag.

 

[bystander36]

G-sync is supposed to be most useful for people with lower frame rates. 40-80fps or so. It smooths out the stutter, but doesn't give you the motion clarity you get out of a lightboost setup. (gsynch monitors are either/or, not both) If you can run at least 85hz consistently you're better off using the lightboost mode on the gsync monitors. There is also the ezio turbo 240 which can synch down to 100hz, and the new BenQ Z series that will synch down to 75hz.

OP- The lag you are talking about isn't the same as lightboost, etc fixes.
Check out http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates and it will demo a lot of the various display level issues. Lightboost is mainly about getting rid of motion blur. Makes is easier to spot enemies will quickly looking around. They also tend to be very fast monitors which limits input lag.

I'm pretty sure that will be a matter of preference.

Lightboost gives better motion clarity.

G-sync reduces latency and stutter without tearing.

They both have their advantages, and I imagine we'll hear people who prefer one or the other, though which will be clearly better is uncertain. I do know that maintaining 85 FPS is not an easy thing.

 

[apoe]

They use the same units, but input lag and network latency should not be compared directly like that.

I would much rather have 33 additional milliseconds of network latency, than play with 33 ms more input lag from having triple buffered vsync @ 60 fps.

In fast paced FPS games, you are constantly adjusting your aim and making corrections. For example, if the target suddenly changes direction. Input lag directly affects the feel of the game, making aiming more difficult. The more input lag, the more unavoidable misses you will have no matter how good you are, unless you can see into the future and predict exactly where to aim in the next X ms. With network latency, the actual feel of aiming based on what you see on your screen is not affected, not to mention most games have some form of lag compensation.

Now, if the game actually delayed all your actions to the screen by your latency (thus giving it the same effect as input lag), it would be just as bad. I can't think of any game in the last 10 years that does that.

 

[Midwayman]

I'm pretty sure that will be a matter of preference.

Lightboost gives better motion clarity.

G-sync reduces latency and stutter without tearing.

They both have their advantages, and I imagine we'll hear people who prefer one or the other, though which will be clearly better is uncertain. I do know that maintaining 85 FPS is not an easy thing.

Gsync increases latency.
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/

Its primary benefit is it has less input lag than vsync on (which nobody interested in lag ever does) while having better image quality (no tears) and better apparent smoothness. It does add a couple MS less lag than ULMB however.

I expect gsync to be extremely popular (though the newest display port spec will support free sync) since it covers mid to low end solutions. People with high end setups will be running ULMB or the other various strobing techs.

 

[bystander36]

Gsync increases latency.
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/

Its primary benefit is it has less input lag than vsync on (which nobody interested in lag ever does) while having better image quality (no tears) and better apparent smoothness. It does add a couple MS less lag than ULMB however.

I expect gsync to be extremely popular (though the newest display port spec will support free sync) since it covers mid to low end solutions. People with high end setups will be running ULMB or the other various strobing techs.

I don't think you read the whole thing, or looked at the charts very closely.

G-sync increases latency, only when you reach 140 FPS. Using a FPS limiter at 120 (the highest tested), the latency disappeared. V-sync on the other hand, increases latency, always. V-sync adds additional latency if you reach your refresh rate in FPS (same reason for G-sync to add latency at 140+ FPS in those tests), or adds stuttering if you fail to reach those FPS. Neither of which is good. If you don't use V-sync, then you get tearing instead, also not good.

The 1-2ms of latency for polling, with G-sync, is small, but gives you a complete updated image, rather than the 8-16ms it takes for a full image to update without v-sync. While a tear may get part of an image update immediately, images sent between refreshes have to wait for the next, and those that happen in the middle, are only part of an image.

The good news now comes: As a last-ditch, I lowered fps_max more significantly to 120, and got an immediate, sudden reduction in input lag (27ms/24ms for G-SYNC). I could no longer tell the difference in latency between G-SYNC and VSYNC OFF in Counterstrike: GO! Except there was no tearing, and no stutters anymore, the full benefits of G-SYNC without the lag of VSYNC ON.

So my point isn't lost. They both have significant advantages. To say Lightboost is better, is a matter of opinion.

 

[bystander36]

http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/


Further down, if you read about the two choices, they gave their opinion:

Should I use G-SYNC or ULMB? Currently, G-SYNC and ULMB is a mutually-exclusive choice – you cannot use both simultaneously (yet), since it is a huge engineering challenge to combine the two.
G-SYNC: Eliminates stutters, tearing and reduces lag, but not motion blur.
LightBoost/ULMB: Eliminates motion blur, but not stutters or tearing.
Motion blur eliminating strobe backlights (LightBoost or ULMB) always looks best when strobe rate matches frame rate. Such strobe backlights tend to run at high refresh rates only, in order to avoid flicker (to avoid eyestrain-inducing 60Hz style CRT flicker).
We found that G-SYNC looked nicer at the low frame rates experienced in both Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3, while ULMB looked very nice during Counter Strike: GO. We did not yet do extensive tests on input lag, but preliminary checks shows that ULMB adds only approximately 4ms (center/average) input lag compared to VSYNC OFF or good frame-capped G-SYNC. If you do, however, use ULMB, and you prefer not to fully lock the frame rate to refresh rate, then using a close frame rate works well (e.g. fps_max 118) as a latency compromise, if you prefer the motion clarity of ULMB.
It is a personal preference whether to use G-SYNC or ULMB. As a rule of thumb:
G-SYNC: Enhances motion quality of lower & stuttery frame rates.
LightBoost/ULMB: Enhances motion quality of higher & consistent frame rates.
Yes, the G-SYNC upgrade kit includes ULMB. ULMB works in multiple monitor mode (much more easily than LightBoost) even if G-SYNC can only work on one monitor at a time. Currently, G-SYNC only works on the primary monitor at this time, with current NVIDIA drivers.

 

[Midwayman]

The 1-2ms of latency for polling, with G-sync, is small, but gives you a complete updated image, rather than the 8-16ms it takes for a full image to update without v-sync. While a tear may get part of an image update immediately, images sent between refreshes have to wait for the next, and those that happen in the middle, are only part of an image.

So my point isn't lost. They both have significant advantages. To say Lightboost is better, is a matter of opinion.

The latency isn't much, and yes both have good points. However saying it *reduces* latency as in your original post is incorrect. It does increase it by a few MS. So does ULMB. I think the tradeoff in either case is worthwhile.

 

[bystander36]

The latency isn't much, and yes both have good points. However saying it *reduces* latency as in your original post is incorrect. It does increase it by a few MS. So does ULMB. I think the tradeoff in either case is worthwhile.

ULMB increases it by more (4ms) and without v-sync or ULMB, it is a little more complicated because...

1-2ms of latency gives you a complete frame with G-sync.

Without V-sync, you can get a partial image immediately at times, but it is only part of an image, and other times you can have more waiting on a refresh. What if the information you need was on the part of the image not updated? That means you have to wait 8ms at 120hz. What is better, 0-8ms with tearing, or 1-2ms without?

Either way, G-sync has the advantage in latency.

 

[beginner99]

With network latency, the actual feel of aiming based on what you see on your screen is not affected, not to mention most games have some form of lag compensation.

That's were the issue comes in. In BC2 at least, you clearly are hitting the laggers on screen however they get away unharmed because they weren't actually were you were shooting at. Also sometimes the server seems to lag like when it takes rather long till you see the kill confirmation (get points).

Reason for this thread is because I'm thinking about new display and GPU. Should I go 120 hz or 1440p (or the upcoming asus rog display for $$$$)? AMD or NV?

 

[Venomous]

That's were the issue comes in. In BC2 at least, you clearly are hitting the laggers on screen however they get away unharmed because they weren't actually were you were shooting at. Also sometimes the server seems to lag like when it takes rather long till you see the kill confirmation (get points).

Reason for this thread is because I'm thinking about new display and GPU. Should I go 120 hz or 1440p (or the upcoming asus rog display for $$$$)? AMD or NV?

Well what's your budget? That's the key factor.. How much are you willing to invest to be competitive to other gamers?

 

[beginner99]

Well what's your budget? That's the key factor.. How much are you willing to invest to be competitive to other gamers?

No idea. if the solution is meh, I'm not willing to pay much for it. I think I'm going to wait for that asus display and especially it's pricing were I live. 1080p 120 hz screens aren't really that cool except 120 hz compared than my current screen. If the asus display costs $800 I could live with it as 1440p 27" IPS monitors (ignoring cheap koreans over ebay) are in the same price range here anyway.

 

[Venomous]

That 27" Asus will be $700 due to the gsync module. A lot of people are bagging on it because it's a TN panel and being $700.

I personally don't have an issue gaming on a TN panel and using IPS for the desktop, however not everyone has several monitors to choose from at home/dorm.

A 780 in SLI could drive that panel with everything damn near maxed out.

You are looking at $500 per card, X2 plus $700 for the panel. You still may need to address CPU bottle necking depending on your current setup.

Cheaper solution would be a Asus V248QE with a 780 @ 1080p. One card would drive it and you would be right at the $1000 mark total. Like I said, lightboost @ 120/144 hz works wonders compared to just a regular monitor.