The Nvidia G-Sync Thread

[Pandora's Box]

I am pretty sure what he means is if you have a CPU/GPU that never drops below X FPS in the games you play, g-sync is not nearly as valuable as it is to somebody that is unable to sustain X FPS.

yeap

What I'm saying is there is no such hardware configuration where you can maintain 60 fps at all times.

And even compared to locked v-sync 60 there are benefits to g-sync.

True no such hardware exists where its 60fps 100% of the time, but 95% of the time, yes. Not worth dropping $$$ on a new monitor.

What benefits does g-sync have compared to locked vsync?

 

[smackababy]

I am pretty sure what he means is if you have a CPU/GPU that never drops below X FPS in the games you play, g-sync is not nearly as valuable as it is to somebody that is unable to sustain X FPS.

And in the event you have that, you're either not playing at maxed out settings, or you've spent a few thousand dollars on GPUs.

And, if that FPS ever drops to 59, you lose that synced benefit completely. G-sync is a technology that will eliminate that "problem" and will reach a wide market.

What I'm wondering, and I haven't seen this, is if the effects are the same for above 60FPS / 60hz gameplay as well. Say, I was running at 75FPS or something on a 120hz native monitor. Would I benefit from it syncing to 75hz as much as those at lower FPS?

 

[bystander36]

And in the event you have that, you're either not playing at maxed out settings, or you've spent a few thousand dollars on GPUs.

And, if that FPS ever drops to 59, you lose that synced benefit completely. G-sync is a technology that will eliminate that "problem" and will reach a wide market.

What I'm wondering, and I haven't seen this, is if the effects are the same for above 60FPS / 60hz gameplay as well. Say, I was running at 75FPS or something on a 120hz native monitor. Would I benefit from it syncing to 75hz as much as those at lower FPS?

If you are at 75 FPS on a 120hz monitor, you will still have uneven frame times or tearing. However, it may not be as noticeable of a difference.

Another thing that it does is keeps the animation time frame even with what is being generated by the GPU. This gets off with V-sync, if the frame rendering times vary, even though they are displayed evenly.

 

[MaestroQuark]

yeap

True no such hardware exists where its 60fps 100% of the time, but 95% of the time, yes. Not worth dropping $$$ on a new monitor.

What benefits does g-sync have compared to locked vsync?

Alternative approach: each video card purchase now lasts longer, because dropping from 61 fps to 59 fps as games become more demanding doesn't make your performance incredibly worse.

 

[smackababy]

If you are at 75 FPS on a 120hz monitor, you will still have uneven frame times or tearing. However, it may not be as noticeable of a difference.

Another thing that it does is keeps the animation time frame even with what is being generated by the GPU. This gets off with V-sync, if the frame rendering times vary, even though they are displayed evenly.

I know, which is why I used that number. >_> I was just wondering how pronounced the difference with g-sync would be.

 

[bystander36]

I know, which is why I used that number. >_> I was just wondering how pronounced the difference with g-sync would be.

I keep hearing it is noticeable, but not extremely so, like it is at lower FPS.

 

[Yo_Mama]

I noticed something strange in that video. The Vsync/Gsync comparison looked great. But when it went to Gsync alone at the end of the video I started seeing hitching in the pillars, but not in the pendulum.

Could it be because I watched on a 120hz monitor?

I've noticed something funny in that video. That part at 2:03 where they compare Vsync to Gsync is fake. The G-sync video on the right is actually playing at 60fps. I used Vegas Movie Studio and did a side by side comparison between a supposed 45fps Gsync part and a 45fps non-Gsync tearing part, and played it in slow-motion, there's no doubt the G-sync one had more frames per second that the tearing one.

 

[bystander36]

I've noticed something funny in that video. That part at 2:03 where they compare Vsync to Gsync is fake. The video on the right which is supposed to be G-sync playing at 45fps is actually playing at 60fps. I used Vegas movie studio and did a side by side comparison between a supposed 45 fps Gsync part and a 45 fps non-Gsync tearing part, and played it in slow-motion, there's no doubt the G-sync one had more frames that the tearing one.

Of course it is fake. There is no way to genuinely compare G-sync to V-sync when using a video. There is no way to compare them accurately with current monitors.

They are showing you an approximation of the difference. It's the best they can do.

 

[f1sherman]

I've noticed something funny in that video. That part at 2:03 where they compare Vsync to Gsync is fake. The G-sync video on the right is actually playing at 60fps. I used Vegas Movie Studio and did a side by side comparison between a supposed 45fps Gsync part and a 45fps non-Gsync tearing part, and played it in slow-motion, there's no doubt the G-sync one had more frames per second that the tearing one.

That's what G-Sync does 😉

Every single frame-rendered makes it into a display screen(in orderly fashion, and as soon as it is ready)

Vsync-ON reports 45 fps, as rendered on GPU,
but in order to make it into a display - it has to wait for a monitor refresh!
So ofc there is less frames with Vsync-ON.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Long story short. You need to see this in person to actually know if it's worth it to you. I hope they get some type of kiosk going at electronics stores. Highly doubt they will, but I think it would greatly help adoption if it's out there to be seen in person.

Of course they could make bullshots for the kiosks too, but that's beside point.

 

[Yo_Mama]

Of course it is fake. There is no way to genuinely compare G-sync to V-sync when using a video. There is no way to compare them accurately with current monitors.

They are showing you an approximation of the difference. It's the best they can do.

I'm sure 45 fps with G-sync will look slightly smoother than 45fps with V-sync, but to claim it will look like 60 is [false]. There's no way a human eye couldn't tell the difference between 45fps and 60fps. Same as I can easily tell the difference between a 75 hz monitor and a 60 hz monitor.

Profanity isn't allowed in the technical forums.
-- stahlhart

 

[3DVagabond]

I'd want a 1440p@100Hz with G-Sync. But it will cost a ton if anyone makes one.

I think this is going to be a great feature. I think by the time they get it into more monitors it will be a standard feature and won't cost extra.

 

[3DVagabond]

This sounds useless to someone who bought hardware ensuring fps stays above or at monitor refresh rate. Maybe I'm wrong??

This is what I thought as well. I don't see how it can make a difference at or above the refresh rate.

 

[bystander36]

I'm sure 45 fps with G-sync will look slightly smoother than 45fps with V-sync, but to claim it will look like 60 is horseshit. There's no way a human eye couldn't tell the difference between 45fps and 60fps. Same as I can easily tell the difference between a 75 hz monitor and a 60 hz monitor.

The difference is likely more than "slightly". A big reason that 45 FPS looks and feels so bad, is because it is either tearing, or it is stuttering. 45 FPS with G-sync would have neither of those problems, and it would also keep the integrity of time sequence from what the GPU creates, unlike V-sync at 60 FPS in some cases (some games stutter at 60 FPS with V-sync due to this).

Without actually using a G-sync monitor, we cannot form an accurate impression, but we can take the word from those who do.

Edit: About the 60hz vs 75hz comparison...Since 75hz never was adpotive with LCD's, I can only assume you are recalling your CRT days. I recall that too, but it wasn't directly the FPS or hz that made a huge difference then. It was the flickering that came with lower hz that made it very apparently worse. While there should be a difference, I'm not really sure how much of a difference 60hz vs 75hz has if you remove the CRT flickering issue. I'm likely to notice it more than most, as lower than 80 FPS without a 120hz monitor causes me nausea.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

The difference is likely more than "slightly". A big reason that 45 FPS looks and feels so bad, is because it is either tearing, or it is stuttering. 45 FPS with G-sync would have neither of those problems, and it would also keep the integrity of time sequence from what the GPU creates, unlike V-sync at 60 FPS in some cases (some games stutter at 60 FPS with V-sync due to this).

Without actually using a G-sync monitor, we cannot form an accurate impression, but we can take the word from those who do.

Eh, 45fps feeling "bad" is usually dependent on the game.

Crysis at 45fps played great. BF3/4 at 45fps plays like hot garbage. Far Cry 3 plays like crap no matter what FPS you have.

 

[bystander36]

Eh, 45fps feeling "bad" is usually dependent on the game.

Crysis at 45fps played great. BF3/4 at 45fps plays like hot garbage. Far Cry 3 plays like crap no matter what FPS you have.

The stuttering and tearing differences don't change from game to game (at least display induced stuttering). How apparent it is might, is due to how often you might change your camera angle. Latency differences from game to game may also make it feel better or worse from game to game.

 

[Yo_Mama]

The difference is likely more than "slightly". A big reason that 45 FPS looks and feels so bad, is because it is either tearing, or it is stuttering. 45 FPS with G-sync would have neither of those problems, and it would also keep the integrity of time sequence from what the GPU creates, unlike V-sync at 60 FPS in some cases (some games stutter at 60 FPS with V-sync due to this).

Without actually using a G-sync monitor, we cannot form an accurate impression, but we can take the word from those who do.

Edit: About the 60hz vs 75hz comparison...Since 75hz never was adpotive with LCD's, I can only assume you are recalling your CRT days. I recall that too, but it wasn't directly the FPS or hz that made a huge difference then. It was the flickering that came with lower hz that made it very apparently worse. While there should be a difference, I'm not really sure how much of a difference 60hz vs 75hz has if you remove the CRT flickering issue. I'm likely to notice it more than most, as lower than 80 FPS without a 120hz monitor causes me nausea.

What I was saying is claiming that 45hz looks like 60hz is not an "approximation", it's [false].
You can even test it on your own monitor, just turn V-sync off, aside from the tearing you can easily tell that 60 fps is smoother than 45 fps.
And the word of who? The reviewers who would lose their advertising contracts with Nvidia if they gave negative reviews?

Profanity isn't allowed in the technical forums.
-- stahlhart

 

[MaestroQuark]

And the word of who? The reviewers who would lose their advertising contracts with Nvidia if they gave negative reviews?

Are you for real?

Warning issued for thread crapping.
-- stahlhart

 

[BallaTheFeared]

This is what I thought as well. I don't see how it can make a difference at or above the refresh rate.

It shouldn't...

Two things that interest me are...

Saving money on upgrades.

Saving power with FPS targets while retaining higher than current "v-sync" quality.

 

[Pandora's Box]

It shouldn't...

Two things that interest me are...

Saving money on upgrades.

Saving power with FPS targets while retaining higher than current "v-sync" quality.

Right. I can see myself upgrading my monitor to a gsync one when these 780 ti's cant give the performance i need instead of new graphics cards.

 

[bystander36]

What I was saying is claiming that 45hz looks like 60hz is not an "approximation", it's horseshit.
You can even test it on your own monitor, just turn V-sync off, aside from the tearing you can easily tell that 60 fps is smoother than 45 fps.
And the word of who? The reviewers who would lose their advertising contracts with Nvidia if they gave negative reviews?

Ignoring your idiotic comment about losing advertising, basically those who have used the G-sync monitors have said that 45 FPS with G-sync feels as good as 60 FPS with V-sync.

Warning issued for personal attack.
--stahlhart

 

[smackababy]

Ignoring your idiotic comment about losing advertising, basically those who have used the G-sync monitors have said that 45 FPS with G-sync feels as good as 60 FPS with V-sync.

And better in cases where the input lag is detectable, correct?

 

[bystander36]

And better in cases where the input lag is detectable, correct?

Theoretically, based on how DirectX with triple buffering and V-sync cause 16.7ms of latency if you reach 60 FPS on a 60hz monitor, 45 FPS with V-sync will have less latency.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

It should also be better than 60Hz synced, since it will not have the jutter present with v-sync.

 

[Wall Street]

1. To the people who can't feel display lag with v-sync - When I turn V-Sync on, a 30 ping feels and plays like a 50 ping. Maybe this doesn't make a difference in what you play or at your framerates, but playing Quake Live (at frame limiter speed of 125 FPS) I feel like this can change lightning gun and railgun accuracy by about 5-10% and also impact dodging ability which can add up when looking at k/d. Certainly there are games (Starcraft & MOBAs) where ping/lag doesn't matter as much and also games (shooters & fighters) where every frame counts. If you play multiplayer with V-Sync, try turning it off and turning down the settings to something where you get 100+ FPS. I suspect you accuracy and k/d will improve.

2. To people who already have GPUs that stay 60 FPS constant. 60 FPS isn't some sort of holy grail or target level. People have target 60 frame only BECAUSE it is a monitor standard refresh rate. Remember the CRT days when you could play at 72, 85 or 120 Hz? Higher refresh and frame rates are better. G-sync lets you get both the higher frame/refresh rates and the no-tear look of v-sync, a win-win.