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

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

its worth the money imo. just having a clear, smooth image in every game without worrying about the assorted issues (tearing, input delay) that comes with vsync is so nice.

the 28 inch philips I have was not cheap ($500) but it is by far the nicest monitor ive ever owned. I was already spending a fair amount of money building my pc, decided that a nice monitor that would hopefully last a while would be worth the investment as well.
 
It's only needed if you need to max out settings on AAA games, but are also anal about frametimes. I kept getting stuck at ~45FPS at 2K res on a 980ti and finally bit the bullet because it was kinda frustrating to me.

G-sync is for those unexpected times in games where the game demands a lot more than usual / where the framerate changes drastically.
Click to expand...

Or just when you're stuck at an odd frametiming and you have problems not focusing on dropped frames.
 
Crzy1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Was v-sync a common option in early 3D games on pc? I wouldn't have known what it was, but I don't think I ever used it back then.
 
I have a 980Ti, and besides it, my G Sync monitor at a native 2560 is easily the best purchase I have made towards PC Gaming. I just adore, absolutely adore, being able to get anywhere under 144 FPS and not get any screen tearing. And although sure, it is not 4K, 2560 is still a nice, very nice, step up from 1080p. Putting most games on Ultra or the equivalent usually gets me somewhere around 80-100 FPS. So the monitor itself should still last me a good couple of years before I am pushing things past the 144 FPS mark, even with an upgraded GPU.

And let's face it, even if I do have to cap my FPS because of a newer, better GPU, 144 is a pretty nice frame rate to cap things at. But I do not see that happening for some time.
 
Tbh, I have a Dell gsync monitor paired with a 980 and I didnt find the upgrade as mindblowing as people say. You still can notice when the game goes below 60 fps, so it isnt as smooth as I thought it was going to be. I guess the offset of going from 1080p to 1440p with the same card made the games more demanding and took a bit of the awe from the upgrade, but is far from the second coming of Jesus people will make you believe it is. In the end, still worth the upgrade to me (as I went from a poor 22', 7 year old samsung to this beauty) but if you are fine with vsync on, no need to upgrade, imo.

Edit: Agree with the guy above. Going from 60Hz to 120Hz is way more noticeable.
 
144hz gsync or go home.

Even with a high powered machine it's worth it because you don't have to use vsync.
 
well assuming you're not planning on upgrading your GPU every year g-sync will eventually be "needed"
 
even with high end components you can't max every game and hit your monitor's refresh rate cap 100% of the time.

g-sync and freesync removes that concern entirely. play with things like supersampling and SSAO all you like without ever worrying about tearing or input lag from vsync.
 
I don't think it's a good idea right now.

Currently $500+ for high resolution G-Sync monitors and I haven't seen one that supports HDR yet... might be worth it to me once they have HDR support.
 
Once your PC delivers solid 120 FPS, you're better off going with strobing (ULMB) over g-sync in my opinion.
 
It's always needed. People dismissing it are either jealous or blind. xD

Which is fine either way. But gsync/freesync is probably the biggest gaming upgrade of the last decade.

Hopefully we'll see it spread to more displays and not just gaming monitors. I'd kill for a good OLED tv with it or a 4k projector.

If HDR or a better screen tech is a priority, I'd wait for new releases before buying.

A good 4k 144hz VA or OLED panel might be around the corner.

Raticus79 said:
Once your PC delivers solid 120 FPS, you're better off going with strobing (ULMB) over g-sync in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Most gsync monitors (any that goes 120hz+) also include that option. And it's very hard to keep a solid 120fps in every game (same goes for the "a 144hz screen is all you need" argument). And many don't even benefit that much from ULMB (shooters are another thing, so I agree).
 
It doesn't matter how "fast" your machine is. Syncing the frames between the GPU and the monitor will have noticeable effects.

Is it required? No. Will I ever go back? No.

Raticus79 said:
Once your PC delivers solid 120 FPS, you're better off going with strobing (ULMB) over g-sync in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Unless you are running SLI 1080 you aren't running all of these new games in 120 on ultra.
 
The whole point of the gsync module is that it has functionality at all frequency ranges.

Are you playing below 90 fps? use gsync.

Are you playing above 90fps? Use ULMB.


ULMB is very useful function in smoothing out motion blur while playing at a high frame rate.
 
In a world where GTX 1070 is called low-end, G-sync is god-sent.
It's very useful feature with really high entry price, had a 4K G-sync TN monitor for few weeks, returned the monitor but it definitely sparked my interest in G-sync. I don't feel like it's essential or anything like that, but if you have the budget for it, it can save you from many worries.
 
OP here.

Well, I guess maybe I'll just get a small cheap monitor to start, and save toward a "just right" one with g-sync and everything maybe next year.

Thanks for all the replies.
 
dogen said:
ok, so if you don't mind tearing at all there's no benefit to g-sync?
Click to expand...

No, it's not just about tearing - having your frames synced with your refresh provides a smoother image in general. It's why I play CSGO with G-Sync on vs V-Sync off (with fps_max below 144 to avoid extra input lag), it just looks so much smoother.

Raticus79 said:
Once your PC delivers solid 120 FPS, you're better off going with strobing (ULMB) over g-sync in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Tried it many times, and actually played with it for a long time on CSGO, but then went back to G-Sync and realised I really missed those smooth, in sync frames.
 
if you like emulation, there's really no choice. Gsync kills emulation's biggest shortcomings.

I still find it useful for pushing modern games visually further into slightly less than 60fps territories. Ultimately never ever seeing a torn or delayed image makes for a smoother experience at all performance ranges.
 
jrcbandit said:
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?
Click to expand...

Soon, according to AUO's roadmap. They have one such VA panel in the works. As for when we'll see it in an actual monitor ... I'd say Q1 2017 at the earliest, but it's pure speculation at this point.

LG have one such IPS panel planned for Q1 2017. It'll probably take another couple of months for the first monitors with it to appear. So possibly around April - May next year?

It's a frustrating time to be buying an expensive monitor for sure, with DP 1.3 displays kinda around the corner.
 
In have a GTX 1080 and can run very few games maxed out at 1080/144hz so yes I'd say its definitely needed.
 
I have a GTX 1080 and I'd still only consider getting a Gsync montior. Just never having to worry about whether vsync should be on or off for a game is worth it.
 
Zabojnik said:
Soon, according to AUO's roadmap. They have one such VA panel in the works. As for when we'll see it in an actual monitor ... I'd say Q1 2017 at the earliest, but it's pure speculation at this point.

LG have one such IPS panel planned for Q1 2017. It'll probably take another couple of months for the first monitors with it to appear. So possibly around April - May next year?

It's a frustrating time to be buying an expensive monitor for sure, with DP 1.3 displays kinda around the corner.
Click to expand...

If you want state-of-the-art tech, yes, it's a frustrating time indeed. But if you just want a new monitor with g-sync there are plenty of options now. See below.

The Dear Leader said:
After hearing the gospel I think I need to get a Gsync monitor.
Click to expand...

It depends on what do you expect out of a monitor. Some people seem to have a really big problem with any panel that isn't VA or OLED quality.

But since the majority of users just stick with what they have at home anyway, even a standard 1080p TN gsync panel is an enormous jump in gaming quality (and ultimately even in image quality while having a "good-enough" display, since blur, judder and tearing are all IQ issues).

I have the first iteration of the Asus ROG Swift and I love it, even if it's a TN panel.
 
Vitacat said:
So, in about a week I will have a PC with 6700K, 1080, 16GB etc. A pretty powerful PC.
Click to expand...



The sweetspot for G-Sync is 30-120fps...only when you start hitting 144Hz+ is when tech like ULMB is better than G-Sync

With that said, your PC is nowhere near powerful enough to max out 144Hz. I have about the same specs and with a 1440p monitor, I average 70-90fps in Witcher 3 which is prime for G-Sync. I considered a 34" 1440p ultrawide but realized I would probably need at least a Pascal Titan or 1070 SLI to max that out.
 
Vitacat said:
What exactly is the advantage of DP 1.3, and will my upcoming PC with Nvidia 1080 be able to support it?
Click to expand...

Oh my sweet summer child. :P The 1080 is not only DP 1.3 compliant, it's also DP 1.4 ready. Read below.

From Techfrag.com said:
GTX 1080 and 1070 graphics cards will support DisplayPort 1.3 and HDMI 2.0b, offering HDR support and allowing Pascal GPUs to support 1080p and 1440p displays at 240Hz. Also, the ultra-wide 1440p displays will be supported at 190Hz and 4K displays will be supported at 120Hz.

Nvidia has also stated that GTX 1080 and 1070 are DiplayPort 1.4 ready, which is a new DisplayPort standard that was introduced in March 2016. This will allow the resolution of up to 4K and 120Hz to support HDR and the bandwidth will be doubled than DisplayPort 1.3.

DisplayPort 1.4 is not that much superior to DisplayPort 1.3, adding VESA Display Stream Compression (DSC), which is a compression method and it is claimed by VESA that this compression method is lossless and supports resolutions up to 8K 60Hz with a single cable.

As DisplayPort 1.4 is only superior in terms of compression so we are sure that all the GPUs that support DisplayPort 1.3 will be able to support DisplayPort 1.4.
Click to expand...

metareferential said:
If you want state-of-the-art tech, yes, it's a frustrating time indeed. But if you just want a new monitor with g-sync there are plenty of options now. See below.
Click to expand...

Of course, I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was responding to Vitacat, though there are plenty of people (myself included) who've decided to postpone buying a new monitor until the 21:9 VA 1440p 144hz gsync / freesync dream finally becomes a reality. Almost there. :)
 
Seems really cool and I think if you can afford it then it's worth it. It's too expensive for me though.

Maybe Gsync will allow you to not upgrade your GPU as often and that would pay for itself in the long run
 
Vitacat said:
OP here.

Well, I guess maybe I'll just get a small cheap monitor to start, and save toward a "just right" one with g-sync and everything maybe next year.

Thanks for all the replies.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't only look out for gsync.

You should look out for a freesync module made by BenQ, LG and Eizo because all 3 companies have invested in making motion blur technology that is GPU agnostic.

Funny enough Samsung was ahead of the curve in 2009/2010 but they abandoned the idea and never went back to it even after gamers made the Lightboost discovery.
 
Roboleon said:
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.
Click to expand...

This sounds nice but does G-Sync help in those cases where the framerate fluctuates between 30 and fps? This is a much more common scenario.
 
It's good for high framerates. I have a i7 3770k (OC to 4.5GHz) & GTX1070 in my system, and whilst that's overkill from 1080p60, it's still not enough for 1080p144 in most current gen mulitplats. In that respect G-sync is definitely best way to enjoy my monitors refresh rate (Sure triple buffer v-sync would still be ok but g-sync is better).

Edit: Also another benefit is when you come across a game that annoyingly has a framerate cap (Usually 60fps but sometimes odd ones, like 90fps in Batman AK), it means you don't have to manually adjust your monitors refresh rate to match, as g-sync handle that automatically.
 
Sad Affleck said:
This sounds nice but does G-Sync help in those cases where the framerate fluctuates between 30 and fps? This is a much more common scenario.
Click to expand...

Yes, it helps a lot. Having uncapped 30fps fluctuating up to say 45-55 without tearing and constant stuttering is really a big step up.

It really depends on the game: a bad code is a bad code, there's no way to fix bad framepacing with g-sync.

It's a lot better from 45 up, though. But that is because 30 fps is too low a framerate anyway. It's better than locking it a 30, that's for sure.
 
I don't care how fast you think your PC is because:

1) Some games have long, demanding sections where a locked 60fps is impossible
2) Today it's powerful, but what about the games of tomorrow? What about in a year's time when every game has jittery sections where you can't hit 60fps?

The lack of an answer to those questions is why G-sync.
 
Tyl3n0L85 said:
What if I don't mind playing with VSync on. Would GSync still be worth it?
Click to expand...

All I know is my gut says maybe.

Depends. G-sync is definitely better than V-sync but whether or not it's equal to the price of entry better is something that only you can answer, based on your circumstances (How much disposable income are you willing to part with? What sort of framerates can your current GPU get? How do you feel about your current monitor? etc).
 
G-Sync is amazing, but it's not perfect. Tearing will go away, but other effects like stutter remains.
I think that G-Sync is a god send when you're playing above 60fps and have a 144hz monitor, I'm in this scenario with my Dell S2716G and every framerates above the 60s feel super smooth.

Long story short, 1440p 144hz G-Sync monitor. Do it.
 
FantasticMrSnake said:
And, what's your personal opinion? would you go back? do you regret it or recommend it?
Click to expand...

If you're playing a game with v-sync on and you notice the hitches, like in the video I posted - It's definitely worth it.

I don't think I could ever go back.

The first game I tested it with was Dark Souls III, a game that has awful screen tearing without v-sync on - You turn v-sync on and the hitches are very noticeable too.

G-SYNC abolishes those hitches.
 
Luigiv said:
All I know is my gut says maybe.

Depends. G-sync is definitely better than V-sync but whether or not it's equal to the price of entry better is something that only you can answer, based on your circumstances (How much disposable income are you willing to part with? What sort of framerates can your current GPU get? How do you feel about your current monitor? etc).
Click to expand...

Displays though are something you very rarely upgrade. Some gamers still play on an old 22" 1080p or 1050p they have from early 2000. Some just buy the cheapest 1080p monitor they can get.

They way I see it, there's no point in mid to high end graphics card and cpus if you're still dealing with 60hz and fixed refreshes (IQ is another whole can of worms).
 
I wonder why noone is truly explaining the choices u really have.
Since u have a 1080 u got a nice card for now
So :
You really care about colors and vibrance u have to go IPS/VA
Choices:
1440p+Gsync144hz+IPS = Asus PG279Q,Acer XB271HU ->Best screens you can buy but they got terrible QC issues,so u have to really play the lottery for like 3-10 times to get a decent one so u have to be prepared.(dont believe me? go to overclock.net and see how many posts have been made for those 2 screens)
1440p+60hz->Plenty of choices from Dell,Aoc and pretty much every company
If you dont care about colors being washed up
1440p/1080p+Gsync144HZ+TN ---> Dell S2716DG,Benq monitors
1080P+144HZ-> Benq XL2430T and plenty of other choices.

Most competitive fps players use the Benq XL2430T and generally 1080p with ULMB 144hz without gsync
 
For those with fast GPUs, the reason why you want a G-Sync display are many:

  • The displays that have it are usually ones with the fastest response times and least input lag on the market
  • ULMB mode allows CRT-like motion clarity. Even with the fastest LCDs it makes a difference due to the sample-and-hold effect.
  • G-Sync is still useful for games with varying framerates and it allows you to push the graphics further while G-Sync helps the game feel smoother overall

I have a 6600K @ 4.7 GHz and a heavily overclocked 980 Ti. I play in 1440p @ 144 or 120 Hz and use G-Sync or ULMB depending on the game. Basically anything that runs 60+ fps constantly I use ULMB and for the games that vary more I use G-Sync. Never having to deal with V-Sync and the input lag it introduces is pretty great.

Don't skimp on your display. It is usually a device that last you anything from 3 to 10+ years. I've had mine for a few years now and will only change when 4K @ 120+ Hz with G-Sync displays becomes available.
 
Raxanas said:
Not true at all. There is nothing wrong with the 8-bit TN panels found in several G-Sync models. Their colors are accurate according to reviews and a lot better than what is found in any 6-bit TN. Viewing angles are a non issue too in my experience.

Your "vibrance" is just oversaturation caused by the higher gamut found in VA/IPS displays. Most content on the web or in games is sRGB, which is what the 8-bit TN panels will do. This is not washed up, it's just that you are used to displays that oversaturate colors.
Click to expand...
 
Renekton said:
I think 4.stuttering still exists?
Click to expand...

Only really if it's caused by something like hard drive reads. For example Dark Souls 3 had a noticeable stutter on autosave before a patch fixed it. In my experience G-Sync somehow seems to smooth out the experience to the point where I don't notice framerate fluctuation much.
 
laxu said:
Not true at all. There is nothing wrong with the 8-bit TN panels found in several G-Sync models. Their colors are accurate according to reviews and a lot better than what is found in any 6-bit TN. Viewing angles are a non issue too in my experience.

Your "vibrance" is just oversaturation caused by the higher gamut found in VA/IPS displays. Most content on the web or in games is sRGB, which is what the 8-bit TN panels will do. This is not washed up, it's just that you are used to displays that oversaturate colors.
Click to expand...
I have to agree on this point, I have an Acer g-sync monitor which is a TN panel (1080p but running everything @ 1440p) and I have no issues from a colour perspective, then one thing I notice about using an IPS panel is colour oversaturation and almost looking garish. I will say that thee are issues with viewing angles, but only for someone watching over my shoulder, for me again I agree it's a non issue.

I can't get my head around ULMB mode however, it just makes the picture too, dull, for want of a better word. Maybe I haven't given it long enough.
 
JoJo UK said:
It does reduce brightness but at least on my ASUS PG278Q there is absolutely minimal change between normal mode and ULMB mode in brightness. I run the brightness on that display down at 22% and use ULMB with 100% brightness and 80% pulse width.

I believe way too many people run their displays at far too bright settings.
Click to expand...
 
metareferential said:
Frame pacing and stuttering can still occur and depend on the game. There's nothing a gpu+display can do for that.

But eliminating all other issues might heavily mitigate those two anyway.
Click to expand...

G-Sync definitely corrects some types of microstutter. Not everything though.
 
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