yeap
True no such hardware exists where its 60fps 100% of the time, but 95% of the time, yes. Not worth dropping $$$ on a new monitor.
What benefits does g-sync have compared to locked vsync?
I am pretty sure what he means is if you have a CPU/GPU that never drops below X FPS in the games you play, g-sync is not nearly as valuable as it is to somebody that is unable to sustain X FPS.
What I'm saying is there is no such hardware configuration where you can maintain 60 fps at all times.
And even compared to locked v-sync 60 there are benefits to g-sync.
I am pretty sure what he means is if you have a CPU/GPU that never drops below X FPS in the games you play, g-sync is not nearly as valuable as it is to somebody that is unable to sustain X FPS.
And in the event you have that, you're either not playing at maxed out settings, or you've spent a few thousand dollars on GPUs.
And, if that FPS ever drops to 59, you lose that synced benefit completely. G-sync is a technology that will eliminate that "problem" and will reach a wide market.
What I'm wondering, and I haven't seen this, is if the effects are the same for above 60FPS / 60hz gameplay as well. Say, I was running at 75FPS or something on a 120hz native monitor. Would I benefit from it syncing to 75hz as much as those at lower FPS?
yeap
True no such hardware exists where its 60fps 100% of the time, but 95% of the time, yes. Not worth dropping $$$ on a new monitor.
What benefits does g-sync have compared to locked vsync?
If you are at 75 FPS on a 120hz monitor, you will still have uneven frame times or tearing. However, it may not be as noticeable of a difference.
Another thing that it does is keeps the animation time frame even with what is being generated by the GPU. This gets off with V-sync, if the frame rendering times vary, even though they are displayed evenly.
I keep hearing it is noticeable, but not extremely so, like it is at lower FPS.I know, which is why I used that number. >_> I was just wondering how pronounced the difference with g-sync would be.
I noticed something strange in that video. The Vsync/Gsync comparison looked great. But when it went to Gsync alone at the end of the video I started seeing hitching in the pillars, but not in the pendulum.
Could it be because I watched on a 120hz monitor?
Of course it is fake. There is no way to genuinely compare G-sync to V-sync when using a video. There is no way to compare them accurately with current monitors.I've noticed something funny in that video. That part at 2:03 where they compare Vsync to Gsync is fake. The video on the right which is supposed to be G-sync playing at 45fps is actually playing at 60fps. I used Vegas movie studio and did a side by side comparison between a supposed 45 fps Gsync part and a 45 fps non-Gsync tearing part, and played it in slow-motion, there's no doubt the G-sync one had more frames that the tearing one.
I've noticed something funny in that video. That part at 2:03 where they compare Vsync to Gsync is fake. The G-sync video on the right is actually playing at 60fps. I used Vegas Movie Studio and did a side by side comparison between a supposed 45fps Gsync part and a 45fps non-Gsync tearing part, and played it in slow-motion, there's no doubt the G-sync one had more frames per second that the tearing one.
Of course it is fake. There is no way to genuinely compare G-sync to V-sync when using a video. There is no way to compare them accurately with current monitors.
They are showing you an approximation of the difference. It's the best they can do.
I'd want a 1440p@100Hz with G-Sync. But it will cost a ton if anyone makes one.
This sounds useless to someone who bought hardware ensuring fps stays above or at monitor refresh rate. Maybe I'm wrong??
I'm sure 45 fps with G-sync will look slightly smoother than 45fps with V-sync, but to claim it will look like 60 is horseshit. There's no way a human eye couldn't tell the difference between 45fps and 60fps. Same as I can easily tell the difference between a 75 hz monitor and a 60 hz monitor.
The difference is likely more than "slightly". A big reason that 45 FPS looks and feels so bad, is because it is either tearing, or it is stuttering. 45 FPS with G-sync would have neither of those problems, and it would also keep the integrity of time sequence from what the GPU creates, unlike V-sync at 60 FPS in some cases (some games stutter at 60 FPS with V-sync due to this).
Without actually using a G-sync monitor, we cannot form an accurate impression, but we can take the word from those who do.
The stuttering and tearing differences don't change from game to game (at least display induced stuttering). How apparent it is might, is due to how often you might change your camera angle. Latency differences from game to game may also make it feel better or worse from game to game.Eh, 45fps feeling "bad" is usually dependent on the game.
Crysis at 45fps played great. BF3/4 at 45fps plays like hot garbage. Far Cry 3 plays like crap no matter what FPS you have.
What I was saying is claiming that 45hz looks like 60hz is not an "approximation", it's [false].The difference is likely more than "slightly". A big reason that 45 FPS looks and feels so bad, is because it is either tearing, or it is stuttering. 45 FPS with G-sync would have neither of those problems, and it would also keep the integrity of time sequence from what the GPU creates, unlike V-sync at 60 FPS in some cases (some games stutter at 60 FPS with V-sync due to this).
Without actually using a G-sync monitor, we cannot form an accurate impression, but we can take the word from those who do.
Edit: About the 60hz vs 75hz comparison...Since 75hz never was adpotive with LCD's, I can only assume you are recalling your CRT days. I recall that too, but it wasn't directly the FPS or hz that made a huge difference then. It was the flickering that came with lower hz that made it very apparently worse. While there should be a difference, I'm not really sure how much of a difference 60hz vs 75hz has if you remove the CRT flickering issue. I'm likely to notice it more than most, as lower than 80 FPS without a 120hz monitor causes me nausea.
And the word of who? The reviewers who would lose their advertising contracts with Nvidia if they gave negative reviews?
This is what I thought as well. I don't see how it can make a difference at or above the refresh rate.
It shouldn't...
Two things that interest me are...
Saving money on upgrades.
Saving power with FPS targets while retaining higher than current "v-sync" quality.
What I was saying is claiming that 45hz looks like 60hz is not an "approximation", it's horseshit.
You can even test it on your own monitor, just turn V-sync off, aside from the tearing you can easily tell that 60 fps is smoother than 45 fps.
And the word of who? The reviewers who would lose their advertising contracts with Nvidia if they gave negative reviews?
Ignoring your idiotic comment about losing advertising, basically those who have used the G-sync monitors have said that 45 FPS with G-sync feels as good as 60 FPS with V-sync.
And better in cases where the input lag is detectable, correct?