240Hz monitor vs 80-150fps = Screen Tearing?

[Casual Cube]

Hey guys, I cant seem to get a solid answer on this.

I know that when the fps is too high and the refresh rate can't keep up with it, images are half shown for a split second therefore causing screen tearing.

 

Would you experience screen tearing if your fps is much lower than your refresh rate?

I'm thinking of pairing a 1070 with a 144Hz or even 240Hz monitor and expect to play all kinds of games on close to max settings at average 100fps.

Also smaller games including CS:GO at the expected 400fps. 

I've heard both yes and no to the question. 

Can someone settle this for me? I'm no expert with displays.

 

Thank you!

 

[Enderman]

Yeah.

Some games more noticeable than others.

 

Only way to have no screen tearing is vsync (which causes more input lag) or gsync/freesync.

[Jurrunio]

If you can afford a 240Hz monitor, why not buy one that's Gsync-supported? It is an expensive extra, but on an already expensive product.

[Dang3r D3bbi3]

1. Dont get 240hz, its unneeded 

2. A 1070 should be fine...but what resolution?

3. Buy G-sync if your EVEN thinking about 240hz

4.  To answer your question..No if you had G-sync or Free Sync because the whole reason for those techs is to sync the gpu and monitor together to eliminate screen tearing

[Casual Cube]

3 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

If you can afford a 240Hz monitor, why not buy one that's Gsync-supported? It is an expensive extra, but on an already expensive product.

well if im going with 144hz i plan on it being 1440p. So I can enjoy that high res even if my average fps in graphics heavy games are going to be 80-100 (lower than refresh). But if I'm going 240hz I'm going with 1080p. Which is around the same price I think of 500USD. I expect only aroudn 150fps on that, Still lower than refresh. I don't know if I can cough up even more for G-Sync. Plus I dont know enough about it to evaluate if its worth it

 

[Casual Cube]

4 minutes ago, Dang3r D3bbi3 said:

1. Dont get 240hz, its unneeded 

2. A 1070 should be fine...but what resolution?

3. Buy G-sync if your EVEN thinking about 240hz

4.  To answer your question..No if you had G-sync or Free Sync because the whole reason for those techs is to sync the gpu and monitor together to eliminate screen tearing

1. I've seen that video, I remember that the guy(s) who played csgo could actually tell the difference so I was hoping to see for it myself in a showroom or something before I decided. 

2. I'm still deciding the resolution because if the screen tearing wont be noticeable with G-Sync then I have to see I'll probably go with 1080p@240Hz. But again I've never had hands on experience with these resolutions and refresh rates yet.

3. & 4. Will G-Sync/FreeSync eliminate Screentearing even if the difference is 100fps below?

[Jurrunio]

3 minutes ago, Casual Cube said:

well if im going with 144hz i plan on it being 1440p. So I can enjoy that high res even if my average fps in graphics heavy games are going to be 80-100 (lower than refresh). But if I'm going 240hz I'm going with 1080p. Which is around the same price I think of 500USD. I expect only aroudn 150fps on that, Still lower than refresh. I don't know if I can cough up even more for G-Sync. Plus I dont know enough about it to evaluate if its worth it

 

From what I know, when a screen doesn't get a new frame from the graphics card, it will display the previous frame. Therefore, if your FPS is between 72 and 144, the screen will sometimes show 1 frame per 2 refresh, sometimes 1 frame per refresh. If it's between 48 and 72, it will show 1 frame per 2~3 refreshes. From this, I can say that FPS below refresh rate won't cause tear.  Actually, thinking about it now, when we've all got bad PCs and still try to run games, it's usually just around 30-50FPS on a 60Hz screen. At these low refresh rates, any kind of tear should be obvious, but the truth is we never notice this.

[Dang3r D3bbi3]

1 hour ago, Casual Cube said:

1. I've seen that video, I remember that the guy(s) who played csgo could actually tell the difference so I was hoping to see for it myself in a showroom or something before I decided. 

2. I'm still deciding the resolution because if the screen tearing wont be noticeable with G-Sync then I have to see I'll probably go with 1080p@240Hz. But again I've never had hands on experience with these resolutions and refresh rates yet.

3. & 4. Will G-Sync/FreeSync eliminate Screentearing even if the difference is 100fps below?

3. & 4. yes

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, Casual Cube said:

Hey guys, I cant seem to get a solid answer on this.

I know that when the fps is too high and the refresh rate can't keep up with it, images are half shown for a split second therefore causing screen tearing.

 

Would you experience screen tearing if your fps is much lower than your refresh rate?

I'm thinking of pairing a 1070 with a 144Hz or even 240Hz monitor and expect to play all kinds of games on close to max settings at average 100fps.

Also smaller games including CS:GO at the expected 400fps. 

I've heard both yes and no to the question. 

Can someone settle this for me? I'm no expert with displays.

 

Thank you!

 

 

1 hour ago, Jurrunio said:

From what I know, when a screen doesn't get a new frame from the graphics card, it will display the previous frame. Therefore, if your FPS is between 72 and 144, the screen will sometimes show 1 frame per 2 refresh, sometimes 1 frame per refresh. If it's between 48 and 72, it will show 1 frame per 2~3 refreshes. From this, I can say that FPS below refresh rate won't cause tear.  Actually, thinking about it now, when we've all got bad PCs and still try to run games, it's usually just around 30-50FPS on a 60Hz screen. At these low refresh rates, any kind of tear should be obvious, but the truth is we never notice this.

You can get tearing at any framerate, whether it's above or below the monitor's refresh rate, or even the same. If the framerate is lower then it will repeat the frame yes, but since the monitor does not refresh the image instantly, but instead line by line, if the graphics card starts sending pixels from a new frame while the monitor is in the process of refreshing, this will result in the bottom portion of the screen which hadn't been refresh yet being refreshed to show a different image than the top portion. It doesn't matter whether it was the monitor's first time displaying the previous frame, or whether it is on its second or third repeat. It's the same process every time, so it can be interrupted in the same way every time.

 

Tearing won't be any more visible or obvious at lower framerates than it is at higher framerates. At lower framerates yes each unique image is visible for a longer period of time, but tearing only comes from the refresh process which always goes at the same rate (without G-Sync/FreeSync). Even when you are only getting 20-30 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor, the monitor is still refreshing 60 times per second, and as you mentioned it will repeat the frame multiple times if necessary until a new one is received. However, the tear will only be present on the first time the new frame is transitioned to, any subsequent repeats of that frame will not have the tear in it, so tears at low framerates won't be on the screen for any longer than at 60 FPS. But at lower framerates there are fewer new frames, and so fewer opportunities for tearing to occur. So tearing is more common at higher framerates than lower ones, but it can happen at any framerate, as long as the GPU and monitor are not synchronized.

[Ricardo56]

1 hour ago, Casual Cube said:

 

Also smaller games including CS:GO at the expected 400fps. 

 

 

How does one go above 300 fps on cs:go? I've even tried console commands... Usually it's fps_max 0 right?

[Casual Cube]

On 6/19/2017 at 5:20 AM, Ricardo56 said:

How does one go above 300 fps on cs:go? I've even tried console commands... Usually it's fps_max 0 right?

well with an i5-6400 2.7Ghz and a slightly overclocked GTX 950 can get you around 200fps. This is my little brothers rig. With a GTX1080 and a higher cpu like an i7-7700k could get you around 400-500 fps. The gaem still runs on the Source engine which is very old and the game itself is designed to be extremely performance friendly so that any idiot on a 2--9 computer could play it. Its a large part of the reason why it has 100's of thousands of players on it at any given time.

[Casual Cube]

On 6/19/2017 at 5:19 AM, Glenwing said:

 

You can get tearing at any framerate, whether it's above or below the monitor's refresh rate, or even the same. If the framerate is lower then it will repeat the frame yes, but since the monitor does not refresh the image instantly, but instead line by line, if the graphics card starts sending pixels from a new frame while the monitor is in the process of refreshing, this will result in the bottom portion of the screen which hadn't been refresh yet being refreshed to show a different image than the top portion. It doesn't matter whether it was the monitor's first time displaying the previous frame, or whether it is on its second or third repeat. It's the same process every time, so it can be interrupted in the same way every time.

 

Tearing won't be any more visible or obvious at lower framerates than it is at higher framerates. At lower framerates yes each unique image is visible for a longer period of time, but tearing only comes from the refresh process which always goes at the same rate (without G-Sync/FreeSync). Even when you are only getting 20-30 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor, the monitor is still refreshing 60 times per second, and as you mentioned it will repeat the frame multiple times if necessary until a new one is received. However, the tear will only be present on the first time the new frame is transitioned to, any subsequent repeats of that frame will not have the tear in it, so tears at low framerates won't be on the screen for any longer than at 60 FPS. But at lower framerates there are fewer new frames, and so fewer opportunities for tearing to occur. So tearing is more common at higher framerates than lower ones, but it can happen at any framerate, as long as the GPU and monitor are not synchronized.

You gave me a new definition and deeper understanding of how it works. Will Adaptive Sync or G/Free-Sync align the incoming frames with each refresh to prevent maximum tearing?

[Glenwing]

2 minutes ago, Casual Cube said:

You gave me a new definition and deeper understanding of how it works. Will Adaptive Sync or G/Free-Sync align the incoming frames with each refresh to prevent maximum tearing?

Yes, when G-Sync/FreeSync are active, the monitor does not refresh continuously, it just refreshes whenever the GPU sends it a new frame, regardless of irregular timings, etc.

[ThumbWarriorDX]

The main perk 240hz monitor isn't the marginal increased motion clarity but the fact that 240 is essentially the holy grail of perfect film and video frame timing should Peter Jackson's dream of 48fps cinema come to life. (fat chance)

Or the holy grail of 3D shutter glasses running at 120hz per eye (fat chance again)

240hz is a resounding meh with other technologies like strobing backlights (lightboost) and LCD overdrive around.

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

9 hours ago, Glenwing said:

Yes, when G-Sync/FreeSync are active, the monitor does not refresh continuously, it just refreshes whenever the GPU sends it a new frame, regardless of irregular timings, etc.

So...thinking back to the old video Linus did...will there ever be a follow-up to that? Which is better, G-Sync or FreeSync? Or are they both about the same?

[Glenwing]

3 minutes ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

So...thinking back to the old video Linus did...will there ever be a follow-up to that? Which is better, G-Sync or FreeSync? Or are they both about the same?

They're basically the same. They used to have some differences, but by now they've both been updated to add the advantages that the other team had over them.

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

5 hours ago, Glenwing said:

They're basically the same. They used to have some differences, but by now they've both been updated to add the advantages that the other team had over them.

Wait...so...do these advantages include the price? If they basically have the same performance, wouldn't FreeSync be better in most cases since FreeSync monitors cost less? Then again...Nvidia cards are more popular...

 

Sorry for necroposting btw

[Glenwing]

46 minutes ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

Wait...so...do these advantages include the price? If they basically have the same performance, wouldn't FreeSync be better in most cases since FreeSync monitors cost less? Then again...Nvidia cards are more popular...

 

Sorry for necroposting btw

They provide the same functionality, but FreeSync is much cheaper.

[eltouristo]

On 7/14/2017 at 7:31 PM, Glenwing said:

They provide the same functionality, but FreeSync is much cheaper.

Don't publish misinformation. They are not the same. Everyone has to do there own reading from good sources. For starters,  I think G-sync will do lower framerates than freesync, lower framerates being the scenario needing sync the most ! There are other difference more slight. But G-sync is superior enough to make it the 'easy' choice if you want these sorts of sync tech. In other words, wanting that feature, but getting freesync, defeats a large part of the reason for getting that sort of sync!

[Glenwing]

4 hours ago, eltouristo said:

Don't publish misinformation. They are not the same. Everyone has to do there own reading from good sources.

I didn't say they were identical, I said they provide the same functionality, I was referring to their main feature, variable refresh rate function. There can be differences in their operation, but it depends on FreeSync implementation. G-Sync hasn't been superior in implementation since about 2015 or so.

 

4 hours ago, eltouristo said:

But G-sync is superior enough to make it the 'easy' choice if you want these sorts of sync tech.

Not really, not anymore. Like I said:

On 7/14/2017 at 10:25 AM, Glenwing said:

They're basically the same. They used to have some differences, but by now they've both been updated to add the advantages that the other team had over them.

There is virtually no difference in operation between a modern FreeSync monitor and a G-Sync monitor. 

4 hours ago, eltouristo said:

For starters,  I think G-sync will do lower framerates than freesync, lower framerates being the scenario needing sync the most !

This is out of date by a few years, the ability to continue operating in FreeSync down to 0 FPS was added to AMD drivers since I think around 2015, and doesn't require specific support from the monitor, other than a large enough FreeSync range (max at least 2x the min). Nearly all FreeSync monitors have this requirement, other than some 4K models which go from 40–60 Hz, and some of the really early ultrawide models which only go from 48–75 Hz, etc. These are somewhat uncommon though.

 

The forced V-Sync behavior from G-Sync when above the refresh rate was also removed in a driver update (user can now choose).

 

Other than that, there are not many differences left, except the fact that FreeSync can potentially vary by implementation, so there's more potential for quality issues than G-Sync.

[eltouristo]

My sincere apologies if they are now truly comparable!* If what you say is an accurate representation, it should be more widely published and known. It doesn't seem so long ago that I repeated such reading. Because if freesync is 'every bit as good' then there should be a much greater stink about the cost of g-sync. The point of the 'version' of freesync may still be relevant, as in, you may be describing 'ideals' that are not yet commonly available, I don't know.  Improvements could have 'sneaked up 'on me, lol. I think maybe still, if you search 'freesync vs gsync' you will get an impression similar to mine. I'm still somewhat skeptical, and I think you may still be downplaying some difference a bit, but I'm not sure about that, and will  have to dig for verification of what you have reported and implied. Thanks ! * EDIT: My basic message is still relevant. It seems yours is still too forgiving of freesync. Here is a quote from an article dated June 2018 " Given the price gap, you might wonder why anyone would prefer G-Sync. The answer is simple — it’s superior. Nvidia’s adaptive refresh technology just delivers more consistent overall performance.  " https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-g-sync-or-amd-freesync-pick-a-side-and-stick-with-it/