Jump to content

Is G-Sync worth it?

Bergami

Hi there

 

I was wondering if investing in a G-Sync display is worth it.

 

Getting tired having to low graphic options to run badly optimazed games at 60 fps, anything below it feels stuttering to me. I heard with g-sync even at 35-40 FPS the game feels smooth.

 

I think the cheapest g-sync display on the market is the Acer xb270h - 27" : 1080p @144Hz.

 

So the question is, does it worth the almost $500 investment?

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally!

 

I have an ROG swift and i think it's worth every single penny.

 

From my own experience, G-sync starts to feel smooth at around 40-45 fps, but i was allready used to locked 60 fps so your experience may vary on this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

best way to find out is visiting the next hardware store, or be an asshole and order it online and maybe returning it ^^

CPU: Xeon 1230v3 - GPU: GTX 770  - SSD: 120GB 840 Evo - HDD: WD Blue 1TB - RAM: Ballistix 8GB - Case: CM N400 - PSU: CX 600M - Cooling: Cooler Master 212 Evo

Update Plans: Mini ITX this bitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're struggling to run 1080p at 60FPS, then I'd say the money is better spent on a better GPU. 

 

G-Sync only makes sense to me at high res. Even at 1440p 144Hz, it doesn't make much sense to me as G-Sync is most useful at around 45FPS and the drops down to it. If you're running at 45FPS, then 144Hz is going to be wasted and the money could be better spent on a better GPU and cheaper monitor. 

 

I'd say 4K is the only place that G-Sync really makes sense for me. Seeing as even very high end setups struggle with it, it becomes more cost effective to buy a G-Sync monitor than buying a third GPU. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're struggling to run 1080p at 60FPS, then I'd say the money is better spent on a better GPU. 

 

G-Sync only makes sense to me at high res. Even at 1440p 144Hz, it doesn't make much sense to me as G-Sync is most useful at around 45FPS and the drops down to it. If you're running at 45FPS, then 144Hz is going to be wasted and the money could be better spent on a better GPU and cheaper monitor. 

 

I'd say 4K is the only place that G-Sync really makes sense for me. Seeing as even very high end setups struggle with it, it becomes more cost effective to buy a G-Sync monitor than buying a third GPU. 

 

Nop, there are no games that will run at a constant framerate. And if your game does, it means lots of the gpu is wasted.

Not to mention people might want to play more than 1 game on a particular monitor... dunno, i assumed this one.

And even if you have quad titans, Ill find you games that your system will struggle with @ 1080p, dont worry.

 

F/A/G sync MAKES SENSE @ ANY resolution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy with a 1080p @60hz display, but currently, none has g-sync build in.

 

Problem is not the average frame or maintain it, one may say upgrade gpu or system, but doesn't really matter as long as we pc gamers are stuck with bad ports.

Problem is the minimum frame a game can reach, if you want your minimum to be 60 you are likely to down a lot of graphic options and this is my case.

 

Feels even sad to know what smooth means, I wish I never knew that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nop, there are no games that will run at a constant framerate. And if your game does, it means lots of the gpu is wasted.

Not to mention people might want to play more than 1 game on a particular monitor... dunno, i assumed this one.

And even if you have quad titans, Ill find you games that your system will struggle with @ 1080p, dont worry.

 

F/A/G sync MAKES SENSE @ ANY resolution. 

I still think it's a waste at 1080p. 

 

It's not very hard to run, and the majority of games look just as smooth with 60FPS without G-Sync as they do with it. Obviously in games where tearing is noticeable, G-Sync does improve the experience. G-Sync is most useful for the drops to lower FPS, but at 1080p, you can buy a GPU that can push 60FPS at 1080p for the same price as the G-Sync module adds to a monitor. 

 

G-Sync is not doubt useful at 1080p and makes the experience better, but it doesn't make sense to me when there are other, cheaper options that don't tie you down as much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it's a waste at 1080p. 

 

It's not very hard to run, and the majority of games look just as smooth with 60FPS without G-Sync as they do with it. Obviously in games where tearing is noticeable, G-Sync does improve the experience. G-Sync is most useful for the drops to lower FPS, but at 1080p, you can buy a GPU that can push 60FPS at 1080p for the same price as the G-Sync module adds to a monitor. 

 

G-Sync is not doubt useful at 1080p and makes the experience better, but it doesn't make sense to me when there are other, cheaper options that don't tie you down as much. 

 

Let me put it this way.

Since adaptivesync adds not cost, or adds 1-2% to the price of the monitor....

 

There is no logical reason why someone buying a monitor would NOT get a adaptivesync monitor.

Even it you have a nvidia card now, you should still get the adaptivesync monitor IF cash is tight and you KNOW you cant afford a gsync one. Cuz in the future when you upgrade your gpu, you might want to go AMD to get variable refresh rates working, or maybe nvidia will have started supporting it too.

 

Actually, the more i think about it the more gsync feels like a ripoff and you seem to be right about it in terms of cost. However, variable refresh rates are a must at ANY resolution, luckily adaptive sync adds almost no cost.

 

 

I'd be happy with a 1080p @60hz display, but currently, none has g-sync build in.

 

Problem is not the average frame or maintain it, one may say upgrade gpu or system, but doesn't really matter as long as we pc gamers are stuck with bad ports.

Problem is the minimum frame a game can reach, if you want your minimum to be 60 you are likely to down a lot of graphic options and this is my case.

 

Feels even sad to know what smooth means, I wish I never knew that. 

 

 

There are 1080p gsync TN monitors out there... for 400 EUR.

I suggest you wait a month and get the 29", 2560x1080, 75hz, freesync, IPS monitor from LG for 330EUR, tho. Just be ready to become addicted to gaming again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way.

Since adaptivesync adds not cost, or adds 1-2% to the price of the monitor....

 

There is no logical reason why someone buying a monitor would NOT get a adaptivesync monitor.

Even it you have a nvidia card now, you should still get the adaptivesync monitor IF cash is tight and you KNOW you cant afford a gsync one. Cuz in the future when you upgrade your gpu, you might want to go AMD to get variable refresh rates working, or maybe nvidia will have started supporting it too.

 

Actually, the more i think about it the more gsync feels like a ripoff and you seem to be right about it in terms of cost. However, variable refresh rates are a must at ANY resolution, luckily adaptive sync adds almost no cost.

 

Well, yes, but I was talking about G-Sync, rather than adaptive or free. 

 

Free/adaptive sync is likely to add some cost, but nowhere near the £200 or so that G-Sync adds. In adaptive sync's case, there's no particular reason to not go with it if there's very little cost, yes. But for G-Sync, it just doesn't make sense unless you're at a point where it's cheaper to upgrade something else and get similar results. 

 

For me, I bought a G-Sync monitor because I wanted to play at 4K, but didn't want to turn down any settings. The extra £150 over a similar monitor was much cheaper than any other way of getting a smooth experience, seeing as I didn't really have anywhere to go in terms of increasing performance. If adaptive sync worked with Nvidia cards, I would have waited and swapped out all of my monitors for compatible ones, but considering Nvidia's track record, they're not going to adopt it very willingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes, but I was talking about G-Sync, rather than adaptive or free. 

 

Free/adaptive sync is likely to add some cost, but nowhere near the £200 or so that G-Sync adds. In adaptive sync's case, there's no particular reason to not go with it if there's very little cost, yes. But for G-Sync, it just doesn't make sense unless you're at a point where it's cheaper to upgrade something else and get similar results. 

 

For me, I bought a G-Sync monitor because I wanted to play at 4K, but didn't want to turn down any settings. The extra £150 over a similar monitor was much cheaper than any other way of getting a smooth experience, seeing as I didn't really have anywhere to go in terms of increasing performance. If adaptive sync worked with Nvidia cards, I would have waited and swapped out all of my monitors for compatible ones, but considering Nvidia's track record, they're not going to adopt it very willingly. 

So you can play at 4k at low frames and games still feeling smooth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you can play at 4k at low frames and games still feeling smooth?

At around 45FPS, it feels smooth. Below that and it becomes more noticeable, although better than it is without G-Sync. 

 

It doesn't make 30FPS feel like 60FPS, but it does make the drops and frames in between around 40FPS and 60FPS much less jarring and noticeable. A lot of people seem to think of G-Sync as a magic technology that will let them play games at 30FPS with it feeling butter smooth, but it's not the case. It's not something I would consider essential, due to the cost, but it is something I would highly recommend for 4K, as it makes the experience so much better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO once you see it in action you would be amazed! Got my Swift today and honestly very happy paired with my 980.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having owned 120hz monitors and now owning the Swift there's a huge difference. You can see the difference of G-Sync even at higher frame rates. Even with a 120hz monitor I'd still get the occasional stutter or tearing even when running at over 100fps. With G-sync it's just butter all the time and you don't even watch FPS anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×