Is this actually good to have for gaming?

Is this actually good to have for gaming?

How would something like 60hz Gsync compare to a 120hz Standard?

Other urls found in this thread:

if you have a good enough GPU, gsync/freesync is worthless

Gsync/freesync is only useful for eliminating input lag.
Its good for what it does but its nothing essential.

I thought these things just eliminated screen tearing but in a hardware level.

G-sync is for tear free frames at variable framerates with minimal latency. I'd say 120hz V-Sync off is preferable to 60hz G-sync though. Something else to consider is that many G-Sync monitors can also work in ULMB mode, which strobes the backlight to give CRT like motion clarity. Unfortunately, variable refresh rate backlight strobing isn't officially a thing yet, so you have to pick between the two technologies for now.

Considering it causes some games to break. No, G-Sync isn't that great and only really works with Goyworks games and normalfag cancer(basically any game consistently in Steam's top sellers)

Is it true that if you don't have 120 FPS to match 120Hz your image is gonna look like shit? I mean most game can only play on 60FPS

If you want to go full autist for competitive performance.

G-Sync, Free-Sync and V-Sync all add a small amount of input delay. Avoid these.

What you want is to get a 144hz TN Panel monitor with no fancy "features" these all add small amounts of input delay which add up. However as a caveat you should understand that most of these high performance monitors have inaccurate colours, sometimes things are too bright or too dark, it really depends on the manufacturer and no amount of playing with the monitor settings will make the colours totally accurate.

Not when they collude with developers to make games more shitty for the competition. No graphics card maker is angelic, but Nvidia is absolutely the actual, real life villain.

Check out this test for a visual example of what happens in various scenarios with and without V-sync.

It distorts the colors too much, this crap is not acceptable anymore.

That's a byproduct of what it does and it's true it's not essential (and so is 99.9% of everything in our society) but it's not only useful for input lag.

gsync is meant to solve a kind of temporal aliasing that happens when your frame rate doesn't match your screen's refresh rate and it has basically no FPS impact. Yes, it's great to have.

This is true for any refresh rate that you don't match and the reason gsync/freesync exist.

One of the issues with rendering at a different rate than your monitor refreshes is that a frame can picture what happened at X time and only be displayed at Y time. This is called temporal aliasing (although it's not the only form of temporal aliasing, be aware of that). It means time isn't represented correctly because frames represent different points in time but they're all displayed in the same interval of time. Another side effect is that those frames are displayed after they're meant to be displayed which means you also get input lag. You can solve this temporal aliasing with double buffering vsync assuming you can hit the target frame rate, but double buffering vsync adds latency of it's own so it's not a perfect solution.

To solve it while being unable to hit the target frame rate (which is extremely common) you need a monitor with an adaptive refresh rate technology like gsync or freesync which will allow it to display your unevenly rendered frames in their proper uneven time. Your other choice is playing a game several times over your monitor's refresh rate with no vsync and hoping the tearing is too small to spot (I've ran games at 300fps on a 75fps monitor and I seldom notice the tearing) which can only rarely be done. If you don't want tearing at all but you want less input lag you can cap your frame rate at a multiple of your refresh rate + 1 and enable triple buffering vsync.

You're both wrong and right.
Double buffering vsync is the only sync method that adds latency, there's not a single other one that does.
No they don't.
vsync off (or single buffering, but in the case of old consoles no buffering) is when your gpu writes frames to it's framebuffer (the area your monitor reads to get frames to output) and when it's done it wraps around and starts drawing the next one over it. Tearing happens because your monitor can be reading a frame and then the gpu draws over it and suddenly your monitor is reading a different frame in the same refresh, or the gpu draws it too slow and the monitor is suddenly reading the previous frame. The reason why vsync off gets slightly better "latency" measurements is that your monitor reads a work in progress frame and that's basically a hacky way of dealing with render lag.
Now that's some advanced ass-pulling of shit.

Them viewing angles.
TN is still cheaper to make (and with that, to buy) in a high refresh rate than it is to make an IPS that can refresh as fast, and TN still has way better pixel response times. It's a cost vs price tradeoff.

So between 60Hz Gsync VS. 120Hz standard which would you get?

60Hz Gsync because not only would 60Hz be more supported, the Gsync is a bonus.

All the information you could possibly need to make your own decision is contained in this article.


There's only a handful of good games with 60 and sub60fps caps anyway.


cheersfam, g-sync only rivals v-sync off, doesn't match or exceed performance.

what could he possibly be shilling for you retard? g-sync? freesync? do you even remember what the word "shill" means?

so what does it say exactly? gysnc better or bad?

what does this mean?

As someone who played with Vsync + Triple Buffering almost religiously since I hated tearing that much and was willing to put up with the slight input latency that it introduced, G-Sync has been a godsend for me. Though it wasn't cheap (I bought a 144hz 1440p ROG Swift back when they first came out. I would have probably been fine with a 60hz G-Sync panel except my last monitor was already 120hz and going back to 60hz felt like too much of a sacrifice). G-Sync has its own issues though (in my case it tends to make the screen start flickering at around 30-40FPS or lower - especially noticeable on loading screens or when the game is loading assets. Also some games don't play well with it or flat out don't work at all and you're stuck with having to settle with standard V-Sync or even no sync at all).

Can't comment personally on Freesync but from what I've read it's still not as good as G-Sync yet, at least not with the majority of compatible monitors out there. Apparently some are better than others and have larger frequency ranges in which they'll work but the majority apparently only eliminate tearing inside of a very narrow range - something like 40hz-75hz unless you get a higher quality monitor - while G-Sync is much more consistent and works from around 30hz up to the monitor's refresh rate (which could be as high as 240hz depending on the monitor, albeit with possible flickering at lower framerates as I mentioned earlier). Of course Freesync is cheaper than G-Sync, but ultimately just as you're locked into buying Nvidia cards if you get a G-Sync monitor, you're effectively locked into buying AMD cards if you grab a Freesync monitor since Nvidia is never in a million years going to support Freesync and vice versa. If you're a fanboy that's all well and great, but if you're someone who doesn't give a shit about brand loyalty and just gets what is best at the time both technologies suck ass in that regard.

All I can say is that if you're one of those people who don't notice tearing (or for some reason don't even mind it), I envy you. Once you start noticing that shit and start becoming bothered by it there's no turning back.

9e9547 is not exactly wrong. G-sync is the fastest way to display tear free frames. If it were any faster, it would be tearing instead. In that sense, no latency is added.

Any thoughts/experience on blur reduction modes like ULMB? I get the feeling that not many people have actually tried it as G-sync/Freesync seem to be more prominently marketed. I got my first G-Sync monitor about a month ago after keeping an eye on the technology for years, but I actually ended up being more impressed by the ULMB mode of the monitor. Variable refresh rates and backlight strobing are currently incompatible techniques, but I suspect we're not too far off from being able to have both activated.

My monitor has ULMB and it works well enough, but my main issue with it is how much it darkens the screen (also I have to switch to 120hz mode to use ULMB).

I feel like I'd probably use it a lot more otherwise.


It's a meme. Freesync is superior and free. If you see anyone defending Gsync he is either a shill or an underage Nvidia worshiper

Freesync beats it pretty much every way
Proprietary solutions are bad for the market

I'm using the PG258Q, which has an absurdly bright backlight, so that must be why I'm finding ULMB more useful than most. I have to drop the refresh rate down to 144 from 240 to use ULMB, but even 240Hz can't compare to 144Hz ULMB when it comes to motion clarity.

On this test, the tiny text retains pixel perfect sharpness while scrolling in 144Hz ULMB. At 240Hz, its only almost readable.

It's you pulling shit out of your ass.
Freesync is inferior to gsync, but freesync doesn't require the manufacturer of a monitor to give 100bux to nvidia for every screen they make + the logistics of dealing with having nvidia deliver their shitty hardware and it's consumer friendly, and although freesync generally requires pricier internal components on a monitor + the displayport license that's still in the 5$ range

This meme again. Prove it you fucking dipshit. How exactly is freesync inferior to Israel's overpriced Gsync

nigga if you can drive games to 120fps then gsync is useless. g and fressync are only useful when you have variable framerate as it causes screen tearing. if you are sitting at your monitor's refresh rate then no screen tearing will happen so it will accomplish nothing.

so long you can drive 120fps there's NO reason to pay a premium for free sync

also I just took the time to read the thread. Did we get featured in a news article or something? I feel like the average IQ is falling in this place.

I disagree
1080p is essential (except for older games)
60fps is essential
Good gameplay is essential
Varied color palette for me is essential
etc etc

G-Sync is a good thing to have if you have either tearing or stutter problems. But otherwise, it doesn't really do a whole lot. All it does is eliminate the calls to wait for flush on the GPU. So the GPU keeps sending signals whether a frame gets onto the screen or not.