Sentenza
Member
(Please don't start a 30vs60 debate )
There's no debate worth having. 30 fps suck, period.
And yes, if that's your issue Gsync would help a lot.
(Please don't start a 30vs60 debate )
Would the smoothness from ULMB mode address that?
When I ordered it, it was the only 1080p G-sync monitor I could get in Australia, and only one of two total 1080p ones available anywhere in the world. They didn't sell DIY kits here and I would have had to import the imported the Asus one from another country. I think there are one or two more available around the world now. I'm not sure how it compares to other 1080p G-sync displays that are currently available.
My main problem is with constant ups and downs. If the game has perfect 60 frames I have nearly zero problems.
But with recent games even with a good gaming pc you can't make sure that you get the 60 frames 100% of the time. The alternative would be constant 30 frames, but I didn't spent over 1500 on a PC to play with 30 frames (Please don't start a 30vs60 debate )
I can't say enough of this, they need to add variable refresh rate to HDMI specs, and most TV sets already has the capability to adjust their refresh rate (multiples of 24,25,30) so some sets could get freesync-like functionality with firmware upgrades..
Below 30, gsync flat out stops working. Although sometimes it doesn't switch fast enough when dipping below, so you see that the back light is kinda flashing on and off. I guess that is the reason why they disable it.According to those AMD slides the other day, G-sync monitor refresh rates bottom out at 30hz. So it's a standard monitor below 30, presumably.
Wake me up when I can get a quality panel with G-sync, 21:9 and *x1440 + 144Hz.
There's no debate worth having. 30 fps suck, period.
And yes, if that's your issue Gsync would help a lot.
Yeah it'll solve your issue provided the drops are in the 40s. Anything around 30fps still feels bad, but without the screen tearing or input lag you usually get with other solutions like V-Sync.
Anyone tried an ASUS VG248QE with a G-Sync DIY install?
I'm really hoping that it'll be the magic bullet I'm looking for to help me with the motion sickness I get with unstable framerates, but it seems like it'll be a while before I can get such a monitor, since I'm not paying $700+ for a monitor. At least not at the moment.
A fellow motion sicker eh? Not sure if this would help me however since mine seems to be related more to motion blur (and a few other blurs, like DoF). Anything that messes with how my eyes focus.
I think so. Not being anchored to a single digit divisible by your monitor's refreshrate is a total gamechanger. No longer do I worry about changing settings to get a consistent fps. I just play and adjust a few things here and there if I want the gameplay to be smoother. It's that simple.
I'm really hoping that it'll be the magic bullet I'm looking for to help me with the motion sickness I get with unstable framerates, but it seems like it'll be a while before I can get such a monitor, since I'm not paying $700+ for a monitor. At least not at the moment.
Free-sync might be the answer. From what I've gathered, it's going to be part of the displayport 1.2 standard, so all monitors with displayport 1.2 will support it, no extra licensing and chip needed.
Beside, I'm not sure why people keep banking on Freesync (sometimes even dismissing Gsync in the process), since so far it's just an unproved attempt to match the competition's offering.DP 1.2a/3 include an option for adaptive sync, but it is not mandatory. It is an optional inclusion in monitors using it.
We have so many standards these days, why are there so many shitty tvs out there??? So many techniques and shit no one cares and no one is able to distinguish.
There needs to be a gaming tv.
Sounds like a decent idea for a startup/kickstarter.
Beside, I'm not sure why people keep banking on Freesync (sometimes even dismissing Gsync in the process), since so far it's just an unproved attempt to match the competition's offering.
Something that no one had yet a chance to test first-hand. It needs to be stressed.
DP 1.2a/3 include an option for adaptive sync, but it is not mandatory. It is an optional inclusion in monitors using it.
Beside, I'm not sure why people keep banking on Freesync (sometimes even dismissing Gsync in the process), since so far it's just an unproved attempt to match the competition's offering.
Something that no one had yet a chance to test first-hand. It needs to be stressed.
It'd cost way too much to produce something competitive on a small scale I think.
I'm surprised NVIDIA haven't tried. They'd be in a better position than most, have the money and would be pushing their own tech.
Sooo about G-sync.
Has anyone figured out a way to install the G-sync DIY Kits on different monitors other that one BenQ(Or was it Asus?) monitor?
I would love to mod the monitor that I already have with G-syn if that's a possibility.
The way they're selling it sounds too good to be true - 9-240hz instead of 30-144, zero added latency, costs nothing, allows for fancy monitor features at the same time. Well I mean we know it requires additional hardware, which itself was something they have been sending (presumably deliberately) mixed messages about in PR. But I'm really holding out for the catch.
Sounds like a decent idea for a startup/kickstarter.
You'll be asleep for a while. I don't think there will be any interfaces that can handle that amount of data for a while.
Will eventually get one a 144hz 1440p 27in IPS display exists...
I will never settle for a TN panel sorry.
Well, if you are moving the mouse, that would cause an update, which I assume you're talking desktop here. If an update occurs it should update the monitor ASAP right - therefore it should match with very low latency if you can run the desktop in G-Sync mode.
I think you can, but I heard there was increased power consumption when running G-Sync all the time. I don't know how big of an impact it is though.
On the other hand, I doubt I'll want anything more than a 1080p for at least the next 4-5 years, since the whole point of a monitor like this for me would be to enjoy the increased framerate (144hz FTW) and a tri-SLI of top gamma GPUs is definitely out of reach for my pockets.Yeah, I think at the minimum I'd need a G-Sync panel to be IPS, high refresh rate low latency and 1440p at least 28".
Ideally, and probably far into the future it would be ultra wide 21:9, OLED, 144 Hz and 3K resolution.
Wake me up when I can get a quality panel with G-sync, 21:9 and *x1440 + 144Hz.
Too bad it has a very aggressive matte coating, that shit makes me want to vomit sometimes.
Do they actually make oled monitors? A TV I could understand but your taskbar would be present so often on the display there's no way it wouldn't burn in.Yeah, I think at the minimum I'd need a G-Sync panel to be IPS, high refresh rate low latency and 1440p at least 28".
Ideally, and probably far into the future it would be ultra wide 21:9, OLED, 144 Hz and 3K resolution.
Do they actually make oled monitors? A TV I could understand but your taskbar would be present so often on the display there's no way it wouldn't burn in.
Is that no longer an issue? I don't like having to think about it with my Vita, even if it does look really nice
Pretty much zero. G-Sync as it stands requires a scaler made by Nvidia. You'd need a monitor that has two scaler boards in it, the Nvidia one and another one that has the Adaptive-Sync support. I think there actually isone model out there, that also has their own scaler in it, and there's a switch to alternate between it and the Nvidia board. But that one doesn't have Adaptive-Sync support. At the end of the day the problem with using dual boards is the costs - you're essentially doubling things inside the monitor, and G-Sync itself costs extra already.
If the pixel motion in the scene is below a certain threshold a steady 40fps is nearly indistinguishable from 60fps with Gsync. That's a big caveat, but at CES I was fooled into thinking Assassin's Creed was running at 60fps when it was in fact running around 40. You can also simulate this effect with a slow pan in the pendulum demo. In something like an FPS with a mouse the lower framerate becomes obvious. The other interesting thing is that games look smoother when you decrease the viewing angle (i.e. use a smaller screen / sit farther away). That could be part of the reason why 30fps looks so horrible on the PC.You can try capping your frame rate to something like 40 which will help reduce the frame time variance leading to a subjectively smoother experience.
Capping a frame rate to anything other than a standard refresh rate results in persistent micro stutter in traditional monitors but with g-sync it works fine.
The sad thing is that a g-synced 40 FPS is not as pleasurable of an experience as nVidia marketing would lead you to believe.
Until then, ... Borderless window mode is a great alternative.
Lol isn't this a contradiction
How so? How so? How so? No one has still explained this.
I think before G-Sync becomes mass market appeal and will be available on TVs also, VR will be the standard and no one will ask for G-Sync anymore. It'll be a niche product for a short period of time.
That said, if it would be available as an external device, I'd buy it in a heartbeat for my monitor AND my TV.
So question about this whole Gsync thing. My next monitor is going to probably be the 4k one from Acer, which I'm pretty excited for. Hopefully it'll last me a long time. However, just conceptually, what happens if you have Gsync turned on and you're pumping out frame rates higher than what the monitor caps at? Wouldn't you still get tearing then?
Um, what? What does VR have to do with the demand for G-sync/Free-sync at all? VR headsets would benefit just as much from adaptive frame rates as any other video display. There's absolutely no reason we can't have both simultaneously.
I would guess that with VR developers finally have to optimize for framerate and performance, even frametimes. No one wants stutter in a virtual world. If frametimes are good, we wouldn't need G-Sync anymore.