Jump to content

40-60 FPS vs 80-100 FPS w/g-sync

brighttail

So I found a really good buy on a slightly used Acer 32 in, 4k, G-sync, IPS monitor. 

 

I'm used to gaming on a 100hz monitor where I get usually 80-100 FPS in most my games.  It is my plan to get a 1080ti once they are back in stock.


The place I'm purchasing from can show me a 4k monitor without g-sync.  The picture looks awesome but playing games of course causes stuttering.  I'm kinda then going to be buying this monitor without really knowing how 40-60FPS with g-sync will look?  I did cap my current monitor to 55hz and played a few games and found it to be smooth with the g-sync on.  I'm wondering if that is a reasonable test to perform to get an idea what type of smoothness I will see if I purchase the 4k monitor?  My biggest worry is that even with a 1080ti, I may not like the lower FPS.  I'm really hoping that the g-sync will smooth things out.

 

Anyone with some experience with 4k monitors with G-sync? What do you think?


Thanks!

Phanteks Enthoo Elite | Intel I9 - 7900X | Asus x299 Rampage VI Extreme | MSI 1080 TI 

32Gb Dominator Platinum Special Edition Blackout 3200MHz  | Samsung 960 Pro | 2x Samsung 961 Pro (Raid 0) 256Gb M.2 SSD  

Samsung 850 Pro 512Gb | WD Black 4TB | Corsair AX1200i

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

40-60FPS with G-Sync still looks very nice. However, the difference between 80-100FPS is still very apparent and much more prefered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

40-60FPS with G-Sync still looks very nice. However, the difference between 80-100FPS is still very apparent and much more prefered.

I was a little afraid of this.  Sadly, the newer monitors coming out in the next 3-6 months that will utilize DP 1.4 are going to be $2000 CAD or more and only 27in.  I'm not sure 4k at 27in is worth while  and anything bigger will be out of my price range.  As it is this monitor is about $600 CAD.

Phanteks Enthoo Elite | Intel I9 - 7900X | Asus x299 Rampage VI Extreme | MSI 1080 TI 

32Gb Dominator Platinum Special Edition Blackout 3200MHz  | Samsung 960 Pro | 2x Samsung 961 Pro (Raid 0) 256Gb M.2 SSD  

Samsung 850 Pro 512Gb | WD Black 4TB | Corsair AX1200i

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately G sync just eliminates tearing/stuttering, so 60fps will still look like 60fps vs 100fps.

 

However, the good news for you is that you won't get as much input lag. G sync displays add a bit more input lag simply because G sync panels need extra stuff to run.

Ryzen 5 3600 | MSI B450 PRO CARBON AC | EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER XC ULTRA |
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO Black Edition | Corsair Vengeance RGB 2x8GB 3200MHz |
Phaneks Evolv Tempered Glass | Seasonic FOCUS Gold+ 750W |
Samsung 960 EVO 250GB | 860 EVO 500GB | 850 PRO 256GB | Toshiba 2TB 7200RPM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only difference between 40-60 and 80-100 fps BOTH with G-Sync is the smoothness of the image. Both will run without tearing and without stuttering, and both will run smoothly. Thats what G-Sync is for!

 

Edit: so yes, as @TechyInAZ have said, the smoothness difference will be the same difference that already exists between 60 and 100 fps, BUT, the 40-60 will benefit more from G-Sync because It will help to look It smoother. What I am trying to say is that a game at 40fps benefits more from G-Sync that a game at 100fps, because the difference with and without G-Sync will be bigger at 40 than at 100.

 

Source: http://www.logicalincrements.com/monitors (look at the bottom of the page for the G-Sync and FreeSync explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TechyInAZ said:

Unfortunately G sync just eliminates tearing/stuttering, so 60fps will still look like 60fps vs 100fps.

 

However, the good news for you is that you won't get as much input lag. G sync displays add a bit more input lag simply because G sync panels need extra stuff to run.

I'm a little confused you said i won't get as much input lag, but then you said g-sync adds more input lag.  So I guess I would see a bit more input lag.  Tho I'm hoping the new 1080ti will eliminate that.

Phanteks Enthoo Elite | Intel I9 - 7900X | Asus x299 Rampage VI Extreme | MSI 1080 TI 

32Gb Dominator Platinum Special Edition Blackout 3200MHz  | Samsung 960 Pro | 2x Samsung 961 Pro (Raid 0) 256Gb M.2 SSD  

Samsung 850 Pro 512Gb | WD Black 4TB | Corsair AX1200i

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, brighttail said:

I was a little afraid of this.  Sadly, the newer monitors coming out in the next 3-6 months that will utilize DP 1.4 are going to be $2000 CAD or more and only 27in.  I'm not sure 4k at 27in is worth while  and anything bigger will be out of my price range.  As it is this monitor is about $600 CAD.

 

My personal opinion on 4k at 27" is that it is useless. Now I can see why some people would like that but I don't care about very high PPI. I would rather have 34"-38" 4k screen with about the same PPI as 27" 1440p so that I can use it without scaling and take advantage of the extra screen real estate.

My other opinion on 4k is that it makes no sense for gaming. Sure, you need to use less AA, but even if you disable AA you will get much worse performance than on 1440p or 1080p, and you won't see any other difference besides less aliasing in games.

I think that if you will go from 100Hz 80-100FPS back to 40-60FPS, you won't be very pleased unless you can get used to it.

32" 4k just barely cuts it in my book for usability without scaling. If you do a lot of work besides gaming then I can see why that appeals to you. It is really hard decision to make as I had to make it as well. In the end, I went with 1440p and 165Hz and I am satisfied for the time being.

I would maybe suggest to you, look at 100Hz 21:9 1440p panels with G-Sync and compare prices, maybe that will appeal to you more if you are not against curved screens. I don't exactly know your use scenarios so I can't really give you a good advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, brighttail said:

I'm a little confused you said i won't get as much input lag, but then you said g-sync adds more input lag.  So I guess I would see a bit more input lag.  Tho I'm hoping the new 1080ti will eliminate that.

Nope. Input lag in this case is all the monitor. However you really won't notice it unless your a very competitive FPS gamer. So if you are more casual, G sync is still a good choice.

Ryzen 5 3600 | MSI B450 PRO CARBON AC | EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER XC ULTRA |
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO Black Edition | Corsair Vengeance RGB 2x8GB 3200MHz |
Phaneks Evolv Tempered Glass | Seasonic FOCUS Gold+ 750W |
Samsung 960 EVO 250GB | 860 EVO 500GB | 850 PRO 256GB | Toshiba 2TB 7200RPM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, TechyInAZ said:

Nope. Input lag in this case is all the monitor. However you really won't notice it unless your a very competitive FPS gamer. So if you are more casual, G sync is still a good choice.

Gotcha.  Thanks.  I'm not a competitive FPS gamer. If i was i wouldn't be going 4k. :)

Phanteks Enthoo Elite | Intel I9 - 7900X | Asus x299 Rampage VI Extreme | MSI 1080 TI 

32Gb Dominator Platinum Special Edition Blackout 3200MHz  | Samsung 960 Pro | 2x Samsung 961 Pro (Raid 0) 256Gb M.2 SSD  

Samsung 850 Pro 512Gb | WD Black 4TB | Corsair AX1200i

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, brighttail said:

I'm a little confused you said i won't get as much input lag, but then you said g-sync adds more input lag.  So I guess I would see a bit more input lag.  Tho I'm hoping the new 1080ti will eliminate that.

 
 

Higher resolution displays generally have higher input lag than the lower resolution ones. Now, on good monitors, the difference is nothing you should be worried about unless you are a professional competitive player, in which case you would not aim for 4k and G-Sync anyway.

G-Sync adds a tiny bit of input lag compared to when it is disabled, but unlike V-Sync it is basically nothing. Also, the more FPS you have, the better frame time you have, the less input lag you have so there is more to it than just monitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WereCat said:

My personal opinion on 4k at 27" is that it is useless. Now I can see why some people would like that but I don't care about very high PPI. I would rather have 34"-38" 4k screen with about the same PPI as 27" 1440p so that I can use it without scaling and take advantage of the extra screen real estate.

My other opinion on 4k is that it makes no sense for gaming. Sure, you need to use less AA, but even if you disable AA you will get much worse performance than on 1440p or 1080p, and you won't see any other difference besides less aliasing in games.

I think that if you will go from 100Hz 80-100FPS back to 40-60FPS, you won't be very pleased unless you can get used to it.

32" 4k just barely cuts it in my book for usability without scaling. If you do a lot of work besides gaming then I can see why that appeals to you. It is really hard decision to make as I had to make it as well. In the end, I went with 1440p and 165Hz and I am satisfied for the time being.

I would maybe suggest to you, look at 100Hz 21:9 1440p panels with G-Sync and compare prices, maybe that will appeal to you more if you are not against curved screens. I don't exactly know your use scenarios so I can't really give you a good advice.

I totally agree with you.

 

4k gaming is too performance intensive to run It at high refresh rates, which will give you a better image quality than a higher PPI at 27". 4k I would say that is for 30"< monitors, but event then I prefer a >30" monitor at 1440p and a high refresh rate, you will get a better image quality and will enjoy It more :)

 

Not into the G-Sync adds input lag matter... You dont need to be a "professional/competitive games" to feel the difference, Im a total casual at CSGO but the difference with V-Sync activated and deactivated is SO big, theres like 0.1s (100ms) difference between the mouse and your actual movement. Its so horrible. Its unplayable IMO. 

 

That said, the benefit from G-Sync (also) is that you dont add any input lag at all. The is reason is because the with V-Sync the GPU waits the monitor to refresh to show the new frame (so you dont get any tearing), but with G-Sync is the monitor which waits to the GPU and adapts Its refresh rate so it refreshes as soon as the frame is ready (whenever is possible, meaning: you wont show 300fps if your monitor refresh rate is up to 144Hz). This is explained better on the source I mentioned earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Maxinfamily said:

I totally agree with you.

 

4k gaming is too performance intensive to run It at high refresh rates, which will give you a better image quality than a higher PPI at 27". 4k I would say that is for 30"< monitors, but event then I prefer a >30" monitor at 1440p and a high refresh rate, you will get a better image quality and will enjoy It more :)

 

Not into the G-Sync adds input lag matter... You dont need to be a "professional/competitive games" to feel the difference, Im a total casual at CSGO but the difference with V-Sync activated and deactivated is SO big, theres like 0.1s (100ms) difference between the mouse and your actual movement. Its so horrible. Its unplayable IMO. 

 

That said, the benefit from G-Sync (also) is that you dont add any input lag at all. The is reason is because the with V-Sync the GPU waits the monitor to refresh to show the new frame (so you dont get any tearing), but with G-Sync is the monitor which waits to the GPU and adapts Its refresh rate so it refreshes as soon as the frame is ready (whenever is possible, meaning: you wont show 300fps if your monitor refresh rate is up to 144Hz). This is explained better on the source I mentioned earlier.

 
 

With V-Sync it really comes down to the game and its implementation.

Most of the time I hate it with passion, in very few other games it is reasonably ok.

 

G-Sync does add input lag as well, just not near as much as V-Sync, it is low enough to not be an issue unless you are a highly competitive player. There is another reason for that, as you mentioned with G-Sync you are limited to your max refresh rate for G-Sync to work properly, competitive players want as much FPS as possible to reduce input lag as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WereCat said:

With V-Sync it really comes down to the game and its implementation.

Most of the time I hate it with passion, in very few other games it is reasonably ok.

 

G-Sync does add input lag as well, just not near as much as V-Sync, it is low enough to not be an issue unless you are a highly competitive player. There is another reason for that, as you mentioned with G-Sync you are limited to your max refresh rate for G-Sync to work properly, competitive players want as much FPS as possible to reduce input lag as much as possible.

Yep, but since is not the problem of our OP, i think that the question is solved!

 

Resolution: buy a 1440p high refresh monitor if you care for image quality. If you only care about the size of the monitor, buy a 34"< 4k monitor :D. I think we all agree with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maxinfamily said:

Yep, but since is not the problem of our OP, i think that the question is solved!

 

Resolution: buy a 1440p high refresh monitor if you care for image quality. If you only care about the size of the monitor, buy a 34"< 4k monitor :D. I think we all agree with this.

 
 

Agree. However, OP said he has a good deal on the 32" 4k monitor so it is even harder to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Agree. However, OP said he has a good deal on the 32" 4k monitor so it is even harder to decide.

Only if he cares about the money. I dont know whats the price of the deal, but there are good TN + 144Hz +1440p + G-Sync monitors at 500$. The IPS with that specifications are pricier, about 700$. If the monitor is not too expensive (in relation with the TN Ive mentioned) and he DOESNt really care about the image quality (those HIGH refresh rates...), go for the 4k one. 40-60 fps with G-Sync are very playable and I think that can be very enjoyable. In the end all comes to the price of the deal he found and his preferences (size or smoothness).

 

Ex: Lets say that Ive been playing in a 22" monitor 1080p at 100Hz and I have the chance (for a good price) of acquiring a 34" monitor 4k + G-Sync, I would take the deal. You can always get a good 1440p later if you have the money, I really think that this is not a crazy idea.

 

Edit: so let us know, @brighttail the price and what your preferences are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The XB321HK is normally $1700CAD here in Canada.  I found a recertified for $900 and couldn't pass it up so i bought it. :)  Full 3 year warranty still on it. :)

Phanteks Enthoo Elite | Intel I9 - 7900X | Asus x299 Rampage VI Extreme | MSI 1080 TI 

32Gb Dominator Platinum Special Edition Blackout 3200MHz  | Samsung 960 Pro | 2x Samsung 961 Pro (Raid 0) 256Gb M.2 SSD  

Samsung 850 Pro 512Gb | WD Black 4TB | Corsair AX1200i

 

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

×