Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 4 KB, 224x135, gsync on 144hz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
58049199 No.58049199 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

I "need" to buy a new monitor "for work" before the end of the year and am looking at 1440p144Hz. Is G-Sync really that useful at such a high refresh rate? At 60 Hz (w/ V-Sync), frames could be delayed over 16ms, but at 144 Hz, the max delay would be 6.9ms. Is such a small amount of time perceptible?

>> No.58049239

Yes, framerates over 60Hz are noticeable.
However, G-Sync is just there to lock you into novidia's products.

>> No.58049312

>>58049239
You've completely missed the point of the question. I'm not asking if a 144Hz monitor is worth it over 60Hz. I'm not asking if G-Sync is better or worse than Freesync. I'm not asking if I should build a rig to get more than 60 fps.

I'm asking does G-Sync make a noticeable and worthwhile difference over plain old V-Sync when the monitor refreshes at 144Hz.

>> No.58050284

>>58049312
Yes g-sync is better than v sync. Less frame delay.

>> No.58051970

>>58049199
>nvidia
lol just lol

>> No.58051997

>>58049199
Depends on the game.
Cs go or Cod ex enjoys 144hz

But I honestly don't notice Gsync being on or off.

I kinda regret going 1440p144hz
Most games won't run 144fps at 2K anyways.

>> No.58052145

>>58049312
Yes it's super useful as long as you have games that don't actually hit 144fps
If every game you own hit 144fps all the time, g sync would be useless

>> No.58052165

>>58052145
I prefer ULMB (strobing display for motion clarity) over gsync. But ULMB only works at certain framerates (I use it at 120hz)
I only use g sync when I play a game that has a huge, varying range of fps and it does help for that

>> No.58052240

gsync fucks are a lot of my games i've just decided to keep it off.

gsync, for me... in the past, has locked the framerate of certain games to 22 FPS. (counter-strike, dota 2, league of legends, hearthstone) and I have absolutely no idea why.

>> No.58052266
File: 42 KB, 365x500, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
58052266

>>58052240
Well that doesn't sound right

>> No.58053021

It's great (but it's a fucking shitty market practice, fuck Nvidia for not enabling freesync in drivers so that we can actually choose, if they're so confident in their proprietary tech).
The great thing about gsync that people often forget because it's usually just seen as an alternative for vsync for high refresh rate screens is that when you dip into the not-so-smooth fps ballpark in demanding scenes, gsync remains relatively smooth throughout, while with no adaptive sync you would get noticeable stuttering.

>> No.58053146

>>58053021
It's vsync but at every fps level

>> No.58053247

semi-related question: is it worth getting a 144Hz monitor without built-in monitor sync, if a lot games i play vary framerate considerably? i have an nvidia card, but gsync's too expensive

i guess what i'm asking is, what's better: 60fps w/ vsync, or wobbling between 90-144fps with no sync?

>> No.58053273
File: 137 KB, 960x960, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
58053273

>>58053247
Wobbling between 90-144fps with gsync is where it's at

>> No.58053294

>>58053247
Smooth frames > More frames
That being said, 60fps also sucks when you know that 90-144 is possible
Some monitors have some non-native refresh settings, maybe see if there's a 72hz or 85hz option?

>> No.58053295

>>58052165
This.

I've been only using ULMB at 120hz in games and I prefer it much more than 144hz.

>> No.58053377

>>58053294
>60fps also sucks when you know that 90-144 is possible

this, I flip vsync off just to see what I could be pulling if I had a better monitor, and see 130fps or whatever. it drives me crazy.

>> No.58053547

>>58053247
Vsync works at halved refresh rate too, vsync would work at 72fps on a 144hz screen

>> No.58053763

Gsync no thank you

>> No.58053800

>>58053547
yeah but that would be kind of a bummer having a monitor that can handle 144 fps, a game that can pull 110, and be stuck at 72

>> No.58053865

>>58049199
Whether tearing is even visible at 144Hz is highly debatable. From my own experience it isn't really much of an issue, it's more noticeable on 60Hz screens,

>> No.58053938

>>58053800
Yeah well I bet if you ask nvidia real nicely they'll send you a g sync module that you can't anything with

>> No.58053960

>>58053865
But if you're tearing you're not getting 144fps
A few fps off is less and less of a problem at higher Hz but still, 90fps on a 144hz monitor will look less choppy with adaptive sync

>> No.58054437

>>58053960
>But if you're tearing you're not getting 144fps
Do note that I said 144Hz, not 144FPS. Also that's not true in general either, you can get 144FPS on a 144Hz screen and still see tearing. Just because the numbers are the same doesn't mean they're in sync.

>90fps on a 144hz monitor will look less choppy with adaptive sync
90FPS shouldn't be choppy on a 144Hz screen with no VSync, though VSync does introduce judder otherwise, yeah.

>> No.58054456

>>58054437
On Windows it does mean they're in sync though

>> No.58054478

>>58054437
I'm talking about tearing not stuttering
You can see the chops, and you can see the smoothness get more consistent with gsync on, but 144hz can visibly tear

>> No.58054585

>>58054456
>On Windows it does mean they're in sync though
What are you talking about? No it doesn't, not in fullscreen exclusive mode. Are you playing windowed or what?

>>58054478
>You can see the chops
My bad, I'm used to people using "choppy" as a way to describe stuttering as well.

>> No.58054622
File: 116 KB, 560x431, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
58054622

>>58054585
I didn't want to say jaggies because I unironically like girls

>> No.58054703

>>58054622
>jaggies
Those refer to aliasing, not to tearing though. Tearing is just tearing.

>> No.58054727
File: 2.38 MB, 7680x4320, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
58054727

>>58054703
>aliasing is a problem
What year have I wound up in?

>> No.58054748

>>58054727
>What year have I wound up in?
2016, unless you're playing on a 5K 27" screen or something.

>> No.58054783

mainly you want it for 1. removing screen tearing so you can unlock framerates on low frequency monitors (likely irrelevant for a 144hz monitor) and 2. smoothing out sudden frame drops (if your video card has trouble maintaining a high framerate).

personally I think 144hz + freesync is a nice combo only because freesync doesnt add to the price of the monitor much, but if you use nvidia the extra price for g-sync is probably not worth it.

>> No.58054915

>>58054783
>1. removing screen tearing so you can unlock framerates on low frequency monitors
Not sure what you mean exactly, but if you're implying that GSync of FreeSync remove tearing when your FPS is above the refresh rate, then that's completely wrong. Both do exactly nothing if FPS > refresh rate, unless you're also running VSync, in which case GS/FS only kick in when you're below the refresh rate.

>> No.58056090

>>58053938
eventually they'll cave and support freesync

probably

maybe

>> No.58056286

>>58049312
at 144hz, no.
Below 60fps? Hell yes.

Are you going to be actually running all your games at 144fps? Probably not, considering how poorly optimised games are these days.

gsync is god tier when you're not quite reaching your fps target.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action