Why the average gamer doesn't need G-Sync, but need Mantle.

[Precourser]

I don't think most average gamers need Nvidia G-Sync as much as they do AMD Mantle. Linus recently uploaded a video that said that all gamers will want and need G-Sync, even if they don't know it, because they won't have to deal with either screen tearing or V-Sync. I play with V-Sync on all my games because I don't feel a difference between using it and not, and I can't play well with screen tearing. Most of my friends that play video games a lot feel the same way. One of my friends came from console, and still can't tell the difference between 30 frames and 60 frames. I however can, but have a GTX 650, so unless I want to play on a game that looks like literal crap, I won't be able to feel the awesomeness of 60 frames (I have an IPS 60 Hz monitor that is smooth enough for me). I am going to upgrade to a Gigabyte R9 270x soon, which will be able to give me rediculous frames once AMD Mantle for Battlefield 4 comes out. More gamers will be able to see the difference between 45 frames than 60 frames than the difference of a few fractions of milliseconds that V-Sync includes. I am not saying that G-Sync eventually be an everything if Nvidia plays it right, but at the moment, AMD's new technology is looking much more appealing to me than G-Sync. This is a very long and disjointed wall of text, so anyone below can consilidate my toughts for me because I am very tired right now (yes, I am giving you the permission to copy my thoughts, so go to town, please, because I want Linus to see this and give us his own imput).

[WoodenMarker]

G-sync will be 'needed' when we're used to having it and don't want to deal with not having it.

[cjeffcoatjr]

You cant compare them like that. They are two very different things. Its like saying that DirectX is superior to V-Sync. You cant do it. 

[Lord Pantaloons]

G-sync will be 'needed' when we're used to having it and don't want to deal with not having it.

^^ This so much this

[bob345]

i view g-sync as a technology that should have been there from the start. For what it does, i am curious why no one did it until now. i personally think g-sync will be more useful in the long run. What will happen once every game has optimizations like mantle? it will end up being just another api just like direct x.

[Tea1337]

G-Sync makes everything in the past look like crap. It's revolutionized the gaming and animation industry forever.

[beebskadoo]

Mantle + Gsync would be a great experience. But Gsync on it's own is more important in my opinion.

[TheMissxu]

It's like saying G-Sync is better than another 280x (ie crossfire 280x's). With another 280x, you should be able to max most games with no less than 60FPS. If you happen to have AMD, the 2x280x will also have Mantle (increased performance [for more guaranteed 60FPS] and compatibility).

 

Also, with 2x280x, you can accelerate GPGPU tasks much faster.

 

I believe, in the future, G-Sync type technology will become a standard. Right now, if G-Sync matters to you, you'll have to pay for it. G-Sync isn't a "killer feature" for Nvidia; it costs too much.

[JLCitadel]

I don't think most average gamers need Nvidia G-Sync as much as they do AMD Mantle. Linus recently uploaded a video that said that all gamers will want and need G-Sync, even if they don't know it, because they won't have to deal with either screen tearing or V-Sync. I play with V-Sync on all my games because I don't feel a difference between using it and not, and I can't play well with screen tearing. Most of my friends that play video games a lot feel the same way. One of my friends came from console, and still can't tell the difference between 30 frames and 60 frames. I however can, but have a GTX 650, so unless I want to play on a game that looks like literal crap, I won't be able to feel the awesomeness of 60 frames (I have an IPS 60 Hz monitor that is smooth enough for me). I am going to upgrade to a Gigabyte R9 270x soon, which will be able to give me rediculous frames once AMD Mantle for Battlefield 4 comes out. More gamers will be able to see the difference between 45 frames than 60 frames than the difference of a few fractions of milliseconds that V-Sync includes. I am not saying that G-Sync eventually be an everything if Nvidia plays it right, but at the moment, AMD's new technology is looking much more appealing to me than G-Sync. This is a very long and disjointed wall of text, so anyone below can consilidate my toughts for me because I am very tired right now (yes, I am giving you the permission to copy my thoughts, so go to town, please, because I want Linus to see this and give us his own imput).

 

The 'average' gamer doesn't need either.

People will have mantle.

Enthusiests will adopt g-sync first.

It will then become a standard if successful

Then the average gamer will have both after 5-6 years along with mainstream 4k.

 

Are either needed? No. not really. Will you get both eventually? Yes.

[JAW96]

To be honest I am more excited about mantel, but G-sync sounds pretty cool sadly even if I had the money for one of those monitors I'm using amd so it wouldn't work, I mean come on only if AMD and Nvidia would work together instead of having to make us consumers decide some pretty awesome stuff would come into existence. 

[Kamina]

Mantle makes CPU intensive games run butter smooth with thousands of AI on screen. 

[Hyydrah]

We should see how Mantle performs before drawing any conclusions.

[Hans Christian | Teri]

Please for the love of god don't write stuff like this when you don't even know what you're talking about. Don't take that as me calling you stupid, but NO ONE knows how much Mantle will increase performance. It could be 3% or it could be 100%, no one will know until it's out. The first one does seem a lot more probable to me though.

[Lord Pantaloons]

I don't even have to read this article to realize this is AMD fanboyism at it's best.

 

I appreciate high FPS counts as much as the next bloke, but having a stable, non laggy and non tearing display coming at me constantly is much more important to me than higher FPS.

 

If I need more FPS I'll buy another GPU

I agree, the quality of the experience is what's important

[MbV93]

Like many people have said, they're two very different things that shouldn't be compared but I agree with one thing, Mantle will benefit the average gamer way more and much sooner. All you need to take advantage of Mantle is an AMD Radeon GPU and you'll be on your way to getting a small boost on FPS or having a much more optimized, GPU bound game, but with G-Sync, while it is awesome, It is for now, limited to expensive and scarce 144hz expensive monitors and we all know the average gamer won't go out of his way and buy a new expensive monitor just for G-Sync instead of getting an upgrade for his/her PC or even getting anything. The average gamer is not rich, G-Sync will be a niche product for quite sometime I suspect.

[TheGhostVII]

Depends on what they want.

If they're competitive and have a 144hz monitor, their FPS will almost never go above their monitor capabilities.

But if they're going for looks and have a 60hz monitor on a beast machine, they'll need it.

[Hyydrah]

I don't even have to read this article to realize this is AMD fanboyism at it's best.

 

I appreciate high FPS counts as much as the next bloke, but having a stable, non laggy and non tearing display coming at me constantly is much more important to me than higher FPS.

 

If I need more FPS I'll buy another GPU

I think there will be a bit of a divide over which is more useful that correlates to the person's budget. I don't mean that one is for the rich and the other for the poor, but that Mantle will probably be more valuable for lower budget people since AMD cards are generally cheaper and the FPS boost will be more beneficial for lower-end builds, plus the fact that you're less likely to need new hardware (ie. a GSync monitor).

[Lord Pantaloons]

I think there will be a bit of a divide over which is more useful that correlates to the person's budget. I don't mean that one is for the rich and the other for the poor, but that Mantle will probably be more valuable for lower budget people since AMD cards are generally cheaper and the FPS boost will be more beneficial for lower-end builds, plus the fact that you're less likely to need new hardware (ie. a GSync monitor).

Keep in mind that benefit is only of use when a dev utilizes Mantle and it will only make a significant difference of A LOT of games come out that make use of mantle.

[TheRetiredSlave]

Like Woodenmarker said, G-sync isn't technically 'needed' by everyone right now. However, it will (hopefully) become standard for all devices just because of how it will change how we view our content.. It will make varying framerates a complete non-issue.

 

Currently, if you want to have perfectly smooth gameplay, you need to overspend on your GPU just so you can have enough power to maintain a constant V-synced 60 FPS all the time. If your GPU isn't strong enough, your only options are to deal with FPS drops below 60, lower some settings, or buy a stronger GPU. With G-sync, you'll be able to have all the eye candy you want, without ever having to worry about FPS variance because it won't really matter. 

 

 

Is the average console gamer going to be able to tell the difference between G-sync'd 45 FPS and non-G-sync'd 45 FPS? Probably not, but after the technology spreads and people get used to it, they'll realize the benefit. 

[Tigerbomb8]

G-Sync makes everything in the past look like crap. It's revolutionized the gaming and animation industry forever.

G-Sync in no way will benefit the animation industry..

[Hyydrah]

Keep in mind that benefit is only of use when a dev utilizes Mantle and it will only make a significant difference of A LOT of games come out that make use of mantle.

True, but I think that the people that value high FPS the most are probably FPS gamers (pun unintended), and one of the most popular ones at the moment is Battlefield 4 as far as I'm aware, which is apparently going to have Mantle implemented, not to mention Crysis 4, etc. Personally I'm not nearly as bothered with low framerates in other games, as are a lot of people I'd imagine.

 

Based on Crytek's reaction to Mantle, the future looks promising.

[mr moose]

I thought g-sync worked on every card from the 650ti and after, also the cost of integrating it into monitors was supposedly almost non-consequential, meaning g-sync may be available in all monitors within 2 years at no real extra cost.    Would that not invalidate any cost argument?

[Tea1337]

G-Sync in no way will benefit the animation industry..

Yes it will, when creating an animation, they don't have to worry about rips and tears when going through the frames. My teacher animates things and he said he is greatly looking forward to G-Sync because of how much it will help.

[mr moose]

Yes it will, when creating an animation, they don't have to worry about rips and tears when going through the frames. My teacher animates things and he said he is greatly looking forward to G-Sync because of how much it will help.

really? I thought they animated at set frame rates, like all other video work (not game related of course).

[beebskadoo]

I thought g-sync worked on every card from the 650ti and after, also the cost of integrating it into monitors was supposedly almost non-consequential, meaning g-sync may be available in all monitors within 2 years at no real extra cost.    Would that not invalidate any cost argument?

Essentially both technologies are limited to specific hardware. GCN cards for Mantle and Kepler and above for G-sync. Each technology has backing companies pre-launch but must rely on adoption for success. They both are most likely not compatible with eachother which further segments the market. 

I can certainly see Nvidias technology implemented on more things than just consumer monitors, but also TV's, mobile devices, and professional displays. I can also see Mantle being a big boon for game studios that want to make the best possible games on the PC platform, so adoption might take time much like G-sync but it's potentially inevitable.

Both AMD and Nvidia are up against the current technologies that exist in the market. Display manufacturers have their own technologies that might make it a bit of a challenge for Nvidia to offer up an advantage towards.

AMD is up against Microsoft and Direct3D, Microsoft has a tight grip on the Windows platform (obviously) so Mantle adoption by game studios is going to be a challenge because DirectX is so commonly used and history shows that competing API's have always flopped in the past. Microsoft has a history of paying off game studios to use their technology/Platforms over the competition.

 

Bottom line is AMD and Nvidia are up against some tough competition and time will tell how their decisions influence the market. I see both technologies as a great thing for PC technology and I hope the best for both AMD and Nvidia.

Though I still think they need to set aside their differences and band together and release their products to eachother, because closed platforms always fail, open one's last longer and provide a better overall experience to the consumer.