Has anyone here tried G-Sync ULTIMATE yet and is it worth the premium for it?

[Actual_Criminal]

I am still torn between 2 monitors. Yes, I know they are sort of the same as long as it has G-Sync, but is it worth paying extra for the mark-up on monitors to get the G-Sync enabled monitors? I do play alot of FPS multiplayer games.

 

Has have you tried it?

[RONOTHAN##]

What monitors are you comparing? G-Sync ULTIMATE is IIRC G Sync but with HDR support. For some single player games, that's really noticeable, but for multiplayer FPS games it's not likely to be an option and do nothing to benefit you. Odds are you'll actually want to disable G-Sync if you're playing those games anyway since G-Sync does have a small but measurable input latency, and if you have a high enough FPS that shouldn't be too much of an issue. 

[Alex Atkin UK]

5 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Odds are you'll actually want to disable G-Sync if you're playing those games anyway since G-Sync does have a small but measurable input latency, and if you have a high enough FPS that shouldn't be too much of an issue. 

Really?  People constantly say it offers the LEAST least input latency, as the frame displays immediately once its been rendered rather than waiting for the next refresh.

[xg32]

it's nice to have but it's not worth it if it's the same monitor just with a premium, on top of that you don't get hdmi 2.1 ports.

 

probably wanna get a good monitor and if it's comes with gsync that's just a bonus, not a requirement.

[Actual_Criminal]

3 hours ago, RONOTHAN## said:

What monitors are you comparing? G-Sync ULTIMATE is IIRC G Sync but with HDR support. For some single player games, that's really noticeable, but for multiplayer FPS games it's not likely to be an option and do nothing to benefit you. Odds are you'll actually want to disable G-Sync if you're playing those games anyway since G-Sync does have a small but measurable input latency, and if you have a high enough FPS that shouldn't be too much of an issue. 

3 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Really?  People constantly say it offers the LEAST least input latency, as the frame displays immediately once its been rendered rather than waiting for the next refresh.

Yeah i'm the same as Alex; i have heard it is supposed to offer the least latency and is marketed for that reason towards FPS gamers etc.

[Actual_Criminal]

15 minutes ago, xg32 said:

it's nice to have but it's not worth it if it's the same monitor just with a premium, on top of that you don't get hdmi 2.1 ports.

 

probably wanna get a good monitor and if it's comes with gsync that's just a bonus, not a requirement.

Is HDMI 2.1 better than DP 1.4a? 

[xg32]

12 minutes ago, Actual_Criminal said:

Is HDMI 2.1 better than DP 1.4a? 

max bandwidth yes, but in case you wanna plug something else like a console in, then hdmi 2.1 is prefered over 2.0

 

it's not a huge deal but if i had to pick a monitor with gsync +hdmi 2.0 vs the same monitor with just freesync + hdmi 2.1, it's always gonna be the freesync version.

 

however thats just me, if you did ur research and it offers lower latency for fps then pick what's the most important for you.

[Andrewtst]

G-Sync Ultimate the differences is they had more than 300 test and also ensure the HDR is 1000 nits. Nowadays most G-Sync compatible monitor also run very well and it reduce the cost as the manufacturer no need send the unit for Nvidia test. G-Sync compatible wise is not tested by Nvidia but the manufacturing itself and also no need to have HDR in 1000 nits requirement. More information - https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-gsync-monitor-glossary-definition-explained,6008.html

 

I suggest you throw more money on others aspect to check out, for example VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) which give you even better experience, with VRR On, you get totally no tearing screen issue where you can turn V-Sync off in your game, this eliminate the input lag cause by V-Sync. VRR currently only support in GTX 10 series, RTX 20 series and also RTX 30 series.

 

G-Sync was design to prevent tearing with V-Sync off but it is not perfect and cannot fully eliminate the tearing especially when you hit low framerate, that the reason Nvidia release another tech VRR and by combining G-Sync and VRR, it total eliminate the tearing issue.

 

Please remember, G-Sync is only work for PC when you connect by Display Port, it will not work when connect by HDMI and Nvidia only do HDMI support in selected G-Sync compatible TV.

[Andrewtst]

On 5/15/2022 at 5:44 AM, Actual_Criminal said:

Is HDMI 2.1 better than DP 1.4a? 

HDMI 2.1 had higher bandwidth and suppose better than DP 1.4 but due to current status not sure what is the issue, seems no HDMI 2.1 monitor manage to output 240hz at the moment when your resolution is 1440p or 2160p and it cap at 144hz.

 

For example my Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 monitor can output refresh rate at 240hz in 5120x1440 resolution when using DP 1.4, but this is not the case and Samsung still capping the refresh rate to 144hz when you connect to HDMI port even though both my monitor and GPU (RTX 3080) HDMI is version 2.1

[Stahlmann]

On 5/14/2022 at 8:09 PM, RONOTHAN## said:

What monitors are you comparing? G-Sync ULTIMATE is IIRC G Sync but with HDR support. For some single player games, that's really noticeable, but for multiplayer FPS games it's not likely to be an option and do nothing to benefit you. Odds are you'll actually want to disable G-Sync if you're playing those games anyway since G-Sync does have a small but measurable input latency, and if you have a high enough FPS that shouldn't be too much of an issue. 

G-Sync Ultimate was never about HDR "support". Even non-ultimate can do G-Sync and HDR at the same time without any issues. Ultimate was a certification process that was so harsh, only REAL HDR monitors could pass. In some way it was a guarantee for a good HDR experience and also a native G-Sync module. But they recently changed the certification to accomodate more monitors, which made it practically useless in terms of finding HDR monitors again. So nowadays the "ultimate" is practically worthless. In VRR's early days it was more of a selling point, as Nvidia GPU users could ONLY use G-Sync monitors, not FreeSync. Nowadays they are practically interchangeable.

 

On 5/14/2022 at 8:22 PM, Alex Atkin UK said:

Really?  People constantly say it offers the LEAST least input latency, as the frame displays immediately once its been rendered rather than waiting for the next refresh.

It doesn't make any difference in terms of latency or input lag. There are FreeSync monitors that offer just as low latency as G-Sync Ultimate.

 

In the end G-Sync Ultimate has way more drawbacks than advantages. The only remaining advantage over FreeSync nowadays is that they can use VRR all the way to 1 fps. Still, most FreeSync monitors can go as low as 40Hz before VRR stops working and most people will start to drop settings to stay above that either way.

 

And as far as drawbacks go: G-Sync needs active cooling, which means it will add otherwise unnecessary fans and it typically adds a few hundred $ of cost that don't impact the UX at all. Plus, it limits connectivity, as even the newest G-Sync monitors do NOT support HDMI 2.1, making 4K 144Hz monitors much less versatile.

 

I had G-Sync, G-Sync Ultimate and FreeSync monitors over the last few years. All of them worked equally as good on my 1080Ti and 3080. So i'd personally NOT make a buying decision based on the "brand" of VRR, but rather that it HAS VRR at all (which basically all gaming monitors nowadays do).

 

 

On 5/14/2022 at 11:44 PM, Actual_Criminal said:

Is HDMI 2.1 better than DP 1.4a? 

The only advantage DP 1.4 still has is the locking connector. In terms of technical capabilities HDMI 2.1 is better in every way.