nvidia: 5% adaptive-sync monitors pass G-sync Compatible tests

[Morgan MLGman]

23 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yes it is. It's a requirement for FreeSync 2.

If the monitor can't do LFC then it won't be classified as a Freesync 2 by AMD.

True, but there are monitors with LFC that don't have Freesync 2 certification. This makes your initial point invalid, hence why I pointed it out.

[Tamesh16]

17 hours ago, LAwLz said:

G-Sync

This was actually very helpful thank you 

 

17 hours ago, LAwLz said:

G-Sync compatible

 

[CarlBar]

On 5/29/2019 at 4:05 PM, Derangel said:

 

You don't get to radically alter the meaning of words in order to force them to fit your narrative. That isn't how language works. Snake oil has a specific meaning and that does not apply to G-Sync. Nothing about G-Sync is a con. If YOU don't think its worth the extra cost, that's fair. However, value is an entirely subjective measurement and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is a "con". You are not the be-all end-all arbiter of what is and is not worth something.

 

1. Freesync is AMD's version of the Adaptive-Sync open-standard. Nvidia fully supports the open-standard, but Freesync is AMD's trademarked name which Nvidia cannot use. Let's not mix up terms here.

 

2. Stop making up definitions for words.

 

Nvidia is not preventing anything. They have strict requirements for G-Sync and G-Sync compatible. If a monitor doesn't meet the G-Sync Compatible requirements you can still use A-Sync, it just won't be enabled by default in the drivers. If you watch the recent video Linus put up, Nvidia fails tons of official G-Sync panels as well. This high failure rate isn't exclusive to A-Sync panels, it is across the board. The strict standards are why first generation G-Sync monitors were so much better than most early Freesync/A-Sync panels. While both standards are two ways to accomplish the same thing, so many early Freesync monitors had such small ranges that it was effectively useless and there were a lot of plainly bad monitors with the Freesync name slapped onto them. With AMD enforcing requirements for Freesync 2 monitors the quality difference between the two has started to vanish, but that still does not make G-Sync a con of any kind.

 

Regarding 2. Stop making up definitions for words yourself.

 

Look at the end of the day Snake Oil is about somthing that doesn't do what it claims. NVIDIA dosen't just claim that G-Sync compatible means it meets X spec. They also claim X spec improves the viewing experiance. 

 

LTT themselves did a video where the put 3 monitors before the staff (240hz 1080p, 144hz 1440p and 60hz 4k), and different staff members had different opinions on them with many struggling to notice the difference between 144hz and 240hz and one or two not being able to pickup on the change from 60hz to 144hz.

 

Depending on your PC hardware and what you play falling below 60fps even 0.1% of the time might be impossible as well. So depending on what frame rate dips you can perceive and your hardware weather NVIDIA's claim about better image quality with g-sync can be completely bogus. It's going to vary from person to person and system to system. SO for some people G-Sync is snake oil, for other's it isn't. And whilst i'm not up on what freesync 2 entails it's entirely probable there will be cases where freesync 2 is better than basic freesync but g-syn isn't, (and vice versa, and times when they're equivalent).

 

Personally i'm not a fan of calling it snake oil as that has additional implications in popular lexicon, (whatever the dictionary definition of snake oil may be), that i feel are unwarranted. But calling it a false claim isn't strictly false.

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

 

Regarding 2. Stop making up definitions for words yourself.

 

Look at the end of the day Snake Oil is about somthing that doesn't do what it claims. NVIDIA dosen't just claim that G-Sync compatible means it meets X spec. They also claim X spec improves the viewing experiance. 

 

LTT themselves did a video where the put 3 monitors before the staff (240hz 1080p, 144hz 1440p and 60hz 4k), and different staff members had different opinions on them with many struggling to notice the difference between 144hz and 240hz and one or two not being able to pickup on the change from 60hz to 144hz.

 

Depending on your PC hardware and what you play falling below 60fps even 0.1% of the time might be impossible as well. So depending on what frame rate dips you can perceive and your hardware weather NVIDIA's claim about better image quality with g-sync can be completely bogus. It's going to vary from person to person and system to system. SO for some people G-Sync is snake oil, for other's it isn't. And whilst i'm not up on what freesync 2 entails it's entirely probable there will be cases where freesync 2 is better than basic freesync but g-syn isn't, (and vice versa, and times when they're equivalent).

 

Personally i'm not a fan of calling it snake oil as that has additional implications in popular lexicon, (whatever the dictionary definition of snake oil may be), that i feel are unwarranted. But calling it a false claim isn't strictly false.

Linus' test was about 4K on a small screen, which I agree is kind of pointless. Beyond that everything about the test was bad. It didn't look like anyone had a good amount of time to test each, all the people were in the room together influencing each other, and the set up was in no way a proper way to play a game in a natural way. The "test" was clearly set up with an ideal conclusion in mind instead of being set up to test a hypothesis. In short: It was fucking garbage.

 

Outside of that, what does 60hz vs 144hz have to do with G-Sync or Freesync? They're not limited to higher refresh rates and, no, Nvidia has never claimed that G-Sync improves image quality. " Delivers an amazing experience with no tearing, stutter, or input lag." THAT is what Nvidia says G-Sync does. Directly from the G-Sync page. The only claims about imagine quality at anti-ghosting (when it happens ghosting is a serious image quality issue) and the wide color gamut requirement for G-Sync Ultimate (something required for good HDR)

 

PS: Dropping from 144 fps to 60 is VERY noticeable. Since our eyes perceive motion smoothness a wild jump in FPS is going to effect how smooth the motion is and it will present itself as a stutter. Continued rapid swings in FPS are known as microstutter and it can be a huge problem. If you couldn't tell the difference between 60 and 144 then people playing at 144 would never be able to perceive microstuffer or the smoothness difference between the two, which they can and claiming otherwise is a blatant lie. I've been playing PC games since the days when everyone had CRTs. Going from a 100+hz CRT to a 60hz LCD was jarring as hell. Not as much from a gaming perspective as getting games to run that high was a challenge, but just doing stuff on the desktop felt a lot more sluggish.