• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Is G-sync really "needed" if you have a fast PC?

V

Vitacat

Member
Please help PC GAF.

So, in about a week I will have a PC with 6700K, 1080, 16GB etc. A pretty powerful PC. My first gaming PC in many years, and looking forward to it.

I've been reading a lot about monitors and watching videos etc. It seems like IPS is still very problematic with light bleed and glow issues, and I've returned an IPS monitor in the past for those reasons, so I know they're real and they would bother me.

Yesterday I was reading about these new Samsung monitors coming out with "quantum dot" backlighting, which far as I can tell, is a VA panel with superior colors and blacks. I saw some quantum dot TV's at Bestbuy and the screens were gorgeous, very OLED-ish looking in a good way.

Unfortunately they are Freesync only, no Gsync option. But I really like the specs, the styling and the prices are cheaper than IPS equivalents. And I presume they would not have the rampant light bleed issues like IPS does.

Would my fast PC offset the need for Gsync? In other words, if I were to buy the C7F91 (34" 21:9 @ 100Hz) and my PC is running games at steady 60 or 100HZ, which I'd imagine it can, would Gsync even matter?

I'm new to Gsync so maybe I'm missing something. Please enlighten. If there are good reasons to get it even if you have a fast PC, then I will explore other options or just wait till something just right comes along.
 
Gsync costs too much. Yes it's great, but my PC is fast too and I mostly never have issues with Vsync.
 
G-sync works best between 60 and 144 fps so I would say yes. There is usually heavy fluctuation between 60 and 144 and g-sync smooths it out.
 
well I play witcher 3 with vsync off at like 80fps, and theres no screen tearing. surely thats the main benefit of gsync, getting vsync results without dealing with the mouse delay and fps lock?
 
I've never played on a G-Sync monitor, so keep that in mind. I'm running an i5 6600k at 4.4ghz, 1080 FTW, and 16gb of ram with an Acer 144hz monitor. I got the monitor on sale for around 200$, I wasn't able to afford G-Sync at the time.

I play most games at 120fps (I set my refresh to 120hz). Games like Battlefield 4 and 1 I run uncapped no vsync, getting 120-200fps during a match with no noticeable tearing. Running CS:GO without a cap, even at 300fps I don't have any issues. In fact I have yet to notice tearing in any game. So far I'm super happy with the setup, everything is really smooth.

With that being said, everything I've heard about G-Sync is once you experience it its hard to imagine living without it, so its possible I just don't know how good it could be.

Important Edit: I just checked and it turns out I have Fast Sync on a global setting...which would probably explain why I don't have tearing. I guess take this as evidence that Fast Sync works pretty well.
 
Now is a bad time to be buying monitors anyway because Displayport 1.3 Gsyn monitors aren't available yet. This would allow 3440x1440p at 144 Hz true native and 4k at 120Hz+, while the current ultrawidescreen monitors are 60 Hz with a possible overclock to 100 Hz, ie, the 100 Hz isn't even guaranteed. 4k G-sync monitors are a complete joke since they are limited to 60 Hz.

As for the necessity of G-sync, it depends on what resolution you want to play at. For ultrawidescreen and 4k, I'd say yes. Too bad AMD doesn't have a 1080 equivalent because there are a number of monitors that seem nice aside from lack of G-sync support. For 1080p it is completely unnecessary, you could be using Fast sync even. Now 1440p is more questionable about how necessary it is, but I don't think the $800 asking price is worth it considering you can get Korean freesync IPS monitors for like $200-300. Then again, I dunno if you would ever be satisfied with IPS displays, but IPS glow really isn't that bad unless the monitor line is semi-defective and has a ton of inherent glow.

If I could afford it, I'd want a 34 in ultrawidescreen 3440x1440 monitor with Gsync support that does 144 Hz. Doesn't exist yet, but that will be the ultimate gaming monitor and is possible with displayport 1.3 on Pascal video cards. Has any dates been announced yet?
 
You'd be able to run with Vsync off all the time if you went Gsync, which would result in reduced input lag. With every single setup ive used in the past whenever i disabled vsync i would get screen tearing no matter what, which Gsync this is never an issue
 
I have the same specs as you OP and some games still tear like cray. Some games are flawless with vsync off and others I still need vsync to prevent tearing. I have a gsync monitor @ 144hz too. I would still say it's pretty necessary tbh. It's funny on my ps4 tearing would slightly annoy me but if I notice a single tear on PC I immediately go to the settings and figure out if I can get rid of that shit.

Don't believe Lettuce's lies!
 
G-sync is for playing games without the input lag associated with v-sync or the tearing without it. If either of those things bother you then it's worth it. If you use the mouse in any games you play then v-sync will make you feel like you're playing underwater.

Also, the higher the refresh rate on your monitor the less apparent tearing will be (due to each individual tear lasting a shorter amount of time on screen). Just having a 144+hz monitor alone will alleviate these issues most of the way.

G-sync is not necessary (it's a great addition) but a high refresh absolutely is. 100hz isn't gonna cut it, IMO.
 
For getting rid of VSYNC lag and running between a fluctuation 120 and 165 FPS without tearing? Hell fucking yes.
 
ThoughtsOfSpeaking said:
Today's fast PC is next year's midtier and the year afters low tier.

You should expect alot more milage out of a monitor.
Click to expand...

While this is true, there have been some pretty significant advancements in display tech lately. In a way, they are moving as fast as PCs right now.

You are going to see HDR monitors, OLED ones, and DP 1.3 for higher refresh rates all within the next year or two.
 
I say it's worth it. I have the Acer Predator XB271 and it's the best monitor I've ever owned. No tearing, stuttering, or input lag is something you really don't appreciate it until you use a gsync monitor and then go without it. Since you have a 1080 you'll be able to play pretty much every game maxed out but few of the newer titles will get near 144fps. In those situations you're going to be fluctuating from around 90-130fps and without gsync you're going to get some screen tearing.
 
ThoughtsOfSpeaking said:
Today's fast PC is next year's midtier and the year afters low tier.

You should expect alot more milage out of a monitor.
Click to expand...
I agree. Your PC will struggle in the years to come to keep a steady 60 FPS. G-sync helps to keep your experience smooth. Also, it helps with poorly optimized games. Batman Arkham Knight was playable for me due to G-sync when it first came out. Also, with a setup like that you should be running your games at 4k, but today's hardware will not able to keep a steady 60 FPS on all games. With G-sync your 4K experience will be a lot better.
 
With hdr around the corner and dp 1.3 I don't think this is the right time to buy a monitor. Gsync is sure nice and I will buy a monitor that support it asap, but I can't find a single one that justify the price right now, everyone seems missing something and 800€ is a loooooot of money for just a 27" monitor With no hdr...
 
things you don't have to worry about anymore with gsync

1. tearing
2. fluctuation
3. frame pacing issues
4. stuttering


I will never game without it
 
To get the most out of your card if you're playing at resolutions higher than 1080p (including widescreen), I would say it's a huge benefit. I'm rolling with a 5820K and GTX 1080, but I have a 1440p 165Hz (OC'd) gsync monitor. It is incredible playing so smoothly and with such a crisp image. It takes me a good bit to get readjusted when I'm traveling and I have to play games on my laptop's screen.

However, if you're ok with 1080p, I think it's unnecessary if you have a high-end card. I would only say go for it if you were looking to up to a higher res.
 
It's not only about eliminating tearing, freesync and gsync are about the smoothness of frame rendering. It looks amazing and switching off is instantly noticeable.
 
IF you can afford it, playing games at variable framerates without stuttering or tearing anywhere between the 60-144 fps depending on the rest of the setup is pretty sweet. One of the best PC upgrades I've ever made, honestly.
 
Yes. Especially since you can curate your graphical settings to whatever you please instead of worrying about hitting a very specific framerate. I'm playing Deus Ex Mankind Divided fluctuating between 80 and 110 right now and it's been fantastic. I have a 1080 and it's nice to pump out crazy high visual fidelity with consistent looking frames and no tearing at all.

Hip Hop said:
Is G-sync viable for competitive FPS ?
Click to expand...

Most definitely. That genre probably sees the biggest benefit.

terencecah said:
things you don't have to worry about anymore with gsync

1. tearing
2. fluctuation
3. frame pacing issues
4. stuttering


I will never game without it
Click to expand...

Yep. It changed the way I played on PC. I used to switch between PS4 and PC a lot because PC games implementation of V-sync is horrible most of the times. I'd get screen tearing on tons of games and stuttering. It was a bit of a nightmare if the port wasn't fantastic. Now with G-sync I literally never have issues. I can never go back.
 
The inherent problems of fixed refresh displays are universal. It's just as beneficial on a high end PC as it is lowend.
 
It's definitely something else. If you can hit your max refresh without any worries in all games with vsync enabled, it's not going to give you any benefits. If you can't or have certain games that seem to stutter or can't quite get to that max refresh, it's a night and day difference. It's still pretty astounding to me to try to play something on my old monitor, even slight dips below vsync are jarring and triple buffering feels so terrible to me now.

Gsync isn't "needed", but neither is having a top-of-the-line graphics card in most cases, it all depends on what's "good enough" for you. In my case, I don't think I'll ever be able to game without an adaptive refresh monitor again for the rest of my life, it's that good.

Edit: Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it. Just a warning.

Hip Hop said:
Is G-sync viable for competitive FPS ?
Click to expand...

Depends on how "competitive", really. For Overwatch, it's been fantastic, but I'm no pro. Same with CS:GO. With it off (it won't go past max refresh) you might be able to hit lower frame rendering times and reduce input latency slightly, but I'd say that sort of adjustment is just for people in tournament play. And honestly, there's no loss of visual data due to torn frames which might actually help tracking in extremely close situations more than a little more latency in render times.
 
Nah I have the same specs (6700k, 1080) and don't miss it. I play at 1440p60 tho. It's diferentes with higher refresh screens.
 
Absolutely 100% yes. Being able to have a game with a framerate that fluctuates wildly feel as smooth as if it was running at a fixed rate is amazing. GTAV can run anywhere between 50-90 fps but it always feels completely smooth, with zero tearing.
 
The main benefit of GSYNC is the ability to provide tear free gaming with no input lag. Variable framerate is only a secondary benefit, IMO, since it doesn't resolve frame pacing issues which can still result in stutter.

If you're not bothered by input lag, don't worry about not having GSYNC.
 
Only if your PC can render every game at its maximum refresh rate without dips (sometimes over 144fps - depends on the monitor). If not, you're essentially capping your GPU in order to prevent screen tearing. With GSync you're pretty much using it to its full potential.
 
G-Sync and (in my case) Freesync is super useful if you're gaming at 4k and your frame-rate fluctuates between 30-40 fps.
 
I have a 6600K/1070 and locking at 60fps is good. If you are already spending the money and need a new monitor why not just get Gsync. I recently got a new 1080/144Mhz screen. My secondary monitor is an aging 1080/60. I will likely replace it with a 1440 GSync in a year or so.
 
TheExodu5 said:
The main benefit of GSYNC is the ability to provide tear free gaming with no input lag. Variable framerate is only a secondary benefit, IMO, since it doesn't resolve frame pacing issues which can still result in stutter.

If you're not bothered by input lag, don't worry about not having GSYNC.
Click to expand...

how does g-sync compare in input lag to no v-sync at all?

it can't be better right?
 
Some of these early access games where optimization is the last part of game development in order not to waste resources can be rough without a Gsync monitor.
 
i have a gtx 960 which evidently is g-sync compatible... was thinking about getting a 144hz monitor and it was only when i started browsing around that i even heard about g-sync

i don't ever plan on having a bleeding edge setup, so with that in mind i was having an internal debate about whether to eventually:

get a g-sync 144hz monitor,
get a 144hz vanilla monitor, or
get a freesync 144hz monitor with a mind to eventually switch to an amd card

after cogitating for some time, i think i will opt for the g-sync monitor. the one thing i am worried about is, could advances in related technologies potentially make a current g-sync monitor useless in the future? or is this technology a pretty stable/comprehensive solution to a persistent issue?
 
dogen said:
ok, so if you don't mind tearing at all there's no benefit to g-sync?
Click to expand...

I suppose not. It's about aesthetics more than performance, although adaptive sync definitely feels like a performance improvement for someone who pretty much had to have vsync enabled. If you're only worried about how low your input latency can be, it's not going to help you.

poppedcollar69 said:
i have a gtx 960 which evidently is g-sync compatible... was thinking about getting a 144hz monitor and it was only when i started browsing around that i even heard about g-sync

i don't ever plan on having a bleeding edge setup, so with that in mind i was having an internal debate about whether to eventually:

get a g-sync 144hz monitor,
get a 144hz vanilla monitor, or
get a freesync 144hz monitor with a mind to eventually switch to an amd card

after cogitating for some time, i think i will opt for the g-sync monitor. the one thing i am worried about is, could advances in related technologies potentially make a current g-sync monitor useless in the future? or is this technology a pretty stable/comprehensive solution to a persistent issue?
Click to expand...

Going Gsync is going to stick you with Nvidia if you want adaptive sync. In the future they may support Freesync. It's doubtful that the monitor will become obsolete so long as you have an Nvidia card attached as there's not really any hardware on the graphics adapter side of things, it's just drivers. Nvidia doesn't typically abandon their tech outright, they still have 3D Vision drivers available even though everyone's forgotten about it. There have been issues with Windows Store games not supporting Gsync, but I've boycotted the whole UWP thing anyway (and it may be working if Quantum Break is any indication).
 
I have a 6700k and a 1070. I play MGSV maxed out with some down sampling and extended graphics mods at an average of 80-90 fps, but when I return to motherbase the fps sometimes drops to 50-60 fps due to the immense amount of lighting that location has. With a G-sync monitor I barely notice the drop or difference. If I wasn't using G-sync I would notice screen tearing and the drops in fps would be much more apparent. G-sync is for those unexpected times in games where the game demands a lot more than usual / where the framerate changes drastically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

If Sony really cared about making money on PC with single player games
2
94
1K
Larxia replied
PC GAF what is the Max you would pay for a GPU
2 3
145
146
CliffBronger replied
Are folks really buying RE9 on PC?
2 3
148
2K
Smiggs replied
What makes a device a PC to you?
2 3 4 5
208
1K
twilo99 replied
psa console archives don't really have many options
6
281
Zacfoldor replied
Top Bottom