Why do people pay for g-sync?

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Must be 10 bit... surely?

14 bit lookup table? https://pcpartpicker.com/product/fsR48d/nec-monitor-pa272wsv

Quote

Yeah, that's true, and even if they don't offer the setting natively you should be able to set it with the same tool people use for display overclocking, but it would be a pain to switch back and forth imo.

Would it be possible to force the monitor to run natively at any point in between 60-144hz then? So you could run it in 90hz monitor and then get no tearing at 90fps?

[vanished]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

14 bit lookup table? https://pcpartpicker.com/product/fsR48d/nec-monitor-pa272wsv

idk, I just know most monitors are 8 bit (16.7 M colours or whatever) but the fancy ones are 10 (like 1 B colours)... there's 14 bit cameras but I've never heard of t a14 bit display.

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Would it be possible to force the monitor to run natively at any point in between 60-144hz then? So you could run it in 90hz monitor and then get no tearing at 90fps?

I would think so, but then, that's the point of gsync/freesync, so you don't have to

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

idk, I just know most monitors are 8 bit (16.7 M colours or whatever) but the fancy ones are 10 (like 1 B colours)... there's 14 bit cameras but I've never heard of t a14 bit display.

I would think so, but then, that's the point of gsync/freesync, so you don't have to

Yes, but if you don't want to spend the money, and you know that you have around 90fps in the game(s) you most frequently play, then forcing the monitor to 90hz would be a good solution. 

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yes, but if you don't want to spend the money, and you know that the game(s) you most frequently play you hover around 90fps, then forcing the monitor to 90hz would be a good solution. 

Yeah.  I know from experience that playing around the refresh rate of your monitor, whether you're lower (of course) or even higher gives an equally crappy experience compared to the supreme smoothness of vsync.  Now, if you can render at say 200+ fps, then I find this disappears and it looks and feels as smooth as vsync (even better in fact because of less input lag) but yeah, 80 fps for example on a 60 hz display is no good hence why these variable refresh rate technologies were created

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah.  I know from experience that playing around the refresh rate of your monitor, whether you're lower (of course) or even higher gives an equally crappy experience compared to the supreme smoothness of vsync.  Now, if you can render at say 200+ fps, then I find this disappears and it looks and feels as smooth as vsync (even better in fact because of less input lag) but yeah, 80 fps for example on a 60 hz display is no good hence why these variable refresh rate technologies were created

Why would 80fps on a 144hz display running at 80hz look bad if the monitor is natively running at 80hz? 

[porina]

5 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

idk, I just know most monitors are 8 bit (16.7 M colours or whatever) but the fancy ones are 10 (like 1 B colours)... there's 14 bit cameras but I've never heard of t a14 bit display.

There are 6 bit panels too... They use temporal and/or spatial dithering to give the appearance of more, as long as you don't hit the worst case content which interferes with it and shows up. But that's a different complaint than this thread so I'll leave it there...

[vanished]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Why would 80fps on a 144hz display running at 80hz look bad if the monitor is natively running at 80hz? 

It wouldn't

[79wjd]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

It wouldn't

Didn't you just say that it would. I'm confused. 

[vanished]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Didn't you just say that it would. I'm confused. 

I don't think so

[79wjd]

17 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I don't think so

 

23 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah.  I know from experience that playing around the refresh rate of your monitor, whether you're lower (of course) or even higher gives an equally crappy experience compared to the supreme smoothness of vsync.  

 

[ZenMonkey]

40 minutes ago, porina said:

When I had a 60 Hz fixed monitor, I could most of the time brute force output to 60 Hz, turn on V-sync and enjoy consistent tear-free images. Then games started getting more demanding and I found I had to cut down on display quality to keep the 60fps minimum. Things started going downhill.

 

The fixed 120 Hz monitor I had I never really used. I had no way to cap consistently at 120 Hz without making the image quality garbage, and again I hated V-sync off tearing. 

 

The 144 Hz G-sync was a "wow" moment. No tearing. High refresh, and I didn't have to care about maxing at 144 Hz. It might be the top rating, but you don't have to do it all the time. I can now have high quality settings (not necessarily ultra) and maintain a high variable fps.

 

Could I do the same with AMD? Not yet. Not until they have something competitive against the 1080Ti. The savings from going freesync is only a factor for the budget limited, and the still elevated pricing for Vega negates that to a degree.

 

I hear what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense to me. What i hear is something like "I paid an extra $300 to get a smooth 90 FPS on my 144Hz monitor with g-sync, and it's totally worth the extra money for the 15 FPS. Why would I want a 75Hz monitor that I'm always capped on? That's preposterous!"

 

I have a 144Hz monitor with freesync I can't use, but I took that extra money I would have spent on G-Sync and bought a GTX 1080 instead. I stay consistently stay above 144 FPS in Overwatch and CS:GO on nearly the highest settings. Seems a better use of the money.

 

Also, the Vega 64 is in the same pricerange as the GTX 1080, so the $250 saved by picking freesync over g-sync could let someone upgrade to a watercooled Vega 64 and push it to its limits, and still have a few bucks leftover.

[vanished]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

 

 

I mean exactly what I said I'm not sure what you're interpreting it as but I can't really see it any other way.

 

If you run X fps content on a screen running at X hz, it will look good, if you run Y fps content on a screen running at X Hz, where abs(X - Y) < ~20 (I mean, the limit is not hard and fast but that's the range I have experience with) then it looks like shit.  If you run Y fps content on a screen running at X Hz where Y >> X, it looks good again.

[79wjd]

19 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I mean exactly what I said I'm not sure what you're interpreting it as but I can't really see it any other way.

 

If you run X fps content on a screen running at X hz, it will look good, if you run Y fps content on a screen running at X Hz, where abs(X - Y) < ~20 (I mean, the limit is not hard and fast but that's the range I have experience with) then it looks like shit.  If you run Y fps content on a screen running at X Hz where Y >> X, it looks good again.

Oh, I was thinking you meant running at X fps on a monitor that normally runs at Y that has been overclocked to X hz also looks bad. 

 

19 minutes ago, ZenMonkey said:

I have a 144Hz monitor with freesync I can't use, but I took that extra money I would have spent on G-Sync and bought a GTX 1080 instead. I stay consistently stay above 144 FPS in Overwatch and CS:GO on nearly the highest settings. Seems a better use of the money.

 

Also, the Vega 64 is in the same pricerange as the GTX 1080, so the $250 saved by picking freesync over g-sync could let someone upgrade to a watercooled Vega 64 and push it to its limits, and still have a few bucks leftover.

The difference is that the GSYNC monitor will also work with an 1180, 1280, etc... whereas the 1080 is dead weight once you get an 1180. 

 

Also, if you want to talk a waste of money, then a 1080 for CSGO/Overwatch is a prime example of that. A 1060 can get 144fps in Overwatch and 500fps~ in CSGO. 

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Oh, I was thinking you meant running at X fps on a monitor that normally runs at Y that has been overclocked to X hz also looks bad.

Ah I see, no worries no, the original speed doesn't matter, only what it's running at when you watch 

[porina]

7 hours ago, ZenMonkey said:

What i hear is something like "I paid an extra $300 to get a smooth 90 FPS on my 144Hz monitor with g-sync, and it's totally worth the extra money for the 15 FPS. Why would I want a 75Hz monitor that I'm always capped on? That's preposterous!"

I don't get smooth 90fps on the monitor, I get smooth 90-144fps on the monitor. It typically hangs around 120fps, only some areas drop to 90 or so. The key point is, no matter where I am in that range I still get smooth tearing free display. A fixed 120 Hz monitor would not give that. A fixed 75 Hz monitor would not give that. An AMD solution would not give that.

 

Oh, and it wasn't an "extra $300". The G-sync monitor I'm using is currently listed on both newegg and amazon at $430. The non-G-sync equivalent for sure isn't $130.

[Simon771]

I suggest you to buy 1440p 144Hz monitor with G-sync and use it for a month.

Then go back to any other monitor that doesn't have G-sync, and you tell me if you see any difference.

[ZenMonkey]

On 10/26/2017 at 4:52 AM, Simon771 said:

I suggest you to buy 1440p 144Hz monitor with G-sync and use it for a month.

Then go back to any other monitor that doesn't have G-sync, and you tell me if you see any difference.

 

I'm not going to do that until I find a large G-Sync monitors I like. Right now every g-sync monitor l find larger than 27" is either 1080p or has a refresh rate of 100Hz or lower.

 

The monitor I have my eye on is the Samsung C32HG70. I can't find anything comparable with g-sync.

[Morgan Everett]

 

4 hours ago, ZenMonkey said:

 

I'm not going to do that until I find a large G-Sync monitors I like. Right now every g-sync monitor l find larger than 27" is either 1080p or has a refresh rate of 100Hz or lower.

 

The monitor I have my eye on is the Samsung C32HG70. I can't find anything comparable with g-sync.

 

I’ve recently got the 27” version of the monitor you’re looking at, having sold my PG279Q, but that’s because I’ve given up on gaming. G-Sync, and all variable refresh rate technology, really is excellent for gaming.