Gsync vs: 144hz

[Comixbooks]

Can you tell the Difference or is it pretty subtle I couldn't find a video on Youtube just 60hz vs: 144hz monitor tests.

 

[flod]

gsync is a method for eliminating tearing without massive lag by using an adaptive refresh rate

144hz is a number

 

[Comixbooks]

I was thinking of picking up a Gsync monitor but if I can't tell the difference visually it wouldn't be worth it.....

 

[code137]

If you notice a difference visually between 144hz with and without v-sync, you would be able to tell the difference with and without g-sync.

 

[EvilViking]

I went from a 144hz 1080p to 60hz 4k gsync. Went back and forth and overall I like the gysnc 4k experience better. But I also don't play high speed first person shooters.

 

[bacon vest]

You guys should head over to the Blurbusters site to see their work on these topics. I ended up going lightburst 120hz based on their data. Sooooo glad I did. http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/ I believe that most G-Sync monitors come with ULBM (ultra low motion blur) mode, which is Almost as effective as BenQ's blur reduction but you have to chose between g-sync and ulmb mode as they cant be done simultaneously. This page demonstrated what G-Sync is all about http://www.testufo.com/#test=stutter&demo=gsync&foreground=FFFFFF&background=000000&max=12&pps=720

 

[deasnutz]

You guys should head over to the Blurbusters site to see their work on these topics. I ended up going lightburst 120hz based on their data. Sooooo glad I did. http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/

Any monitor with Gsync is capable of lightboost at 85,100, or 120hz. they call it ulmb now, and you can't use it in tandem with Gsync.

 

[bacon vest]

Well, am I correct though that some G-Sync Monitors (4k ones) are capped at 60hz?

 

[wonderfield]

144hz is a number

144 is a number — 144 Hz is a frequency

 

[deasnutz]

Well, am I correct though that some G-Sync Monitors (4k ones) are capped at 60hz?

Yes, but in the next year you will see 60+. But you have to account for gpu requirements when pushing 4k/60+hz also. it's a trade off between pixel density and refresh speed.

 

[bAMtan2]

Can you tell the Difference or is it pretty subtle

to answer what you're really asking: yes, you WILL regret not buying a gsync/freesync monitor.

 

[mope54]

You guys should head over to the Blurbusters site to see their work on these topics. I ended up going lightburst 120hz based on their data. Sooooo glad I did. http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/ I believe that most G-Sync monitors come with ULBM (ultra low motion blur) mode, which is Almost as effective as BenQ's blur reduction but you have to chose between g-sync and ulmb mode as they cant be done simultaneously. This page demonstrated what G-Sync is all about http://www.testufo.com/#test=stutter&demo=gsync&foreground=FFFFFF&background=000000&max=12&pps=720

how does this work in games? you go back to vsync?

I can't understand why g-sync and ulmb don't switch back and forth depending on frequency rather than manually. it seems like the only time ulmb is useful is for 2d applications

 

[damstr]

GSYNC for me wasn't too noticeable when gaming at triple digits besides having no screen tearing. GSYNC is most evident when you only have 1 card and the FPS is 60 or below then you truly appreciate how amazing GSYNC is.

 

[mope54]

GSYNC for me wasn't too noticeable when gaming at triple digits besides having no screen tearing. GSYNC is most evident when you only have 1 card and the FPS is 60 or below then you truly appreciate how amazing GSYNC is.

Yeah, I really like G-sync. I have a Swift with a 780 HOF so playing BF4 sometimes dips me below 60fps.

but unless something is wrong with my monitor, I always have to physically change the frequency with the turbo switch when I launch the game, have to drop it back to 120 when I am on the desktop, and it's always turning on at 60.

I'm not asking why we can't have ULMB and G-Sync at the same time I am meaning why can't it use G-Sync below some threshold (like set it to 85) and then use ULMB above 85, for example, without me having to toggle a button on the back. That's the weird part.

 

[dmonkey]

how does this work in games? you go back to vsync?

I can't understand why g-sync and ulmb don't switch back and forth depending on frequency rather than manually. it seems like the only time ulmb is useful is for 2d applications

ULMB strobes the display backlight so requires a constant refresh rate, which is how it is on every monitor except G-SYNC-capable ones with G-SYNC activated. G-SYNC means and is by definition variable refresh rate. The problem is strobing the backlight i.e. turning it off for a period during every refresh reduces brightness proportionally. So when going from full-persistence G-SYNC mode to low-persistence ULMB mode the brightness will change dramatically. If you are fluctuating between ULMB and G-SYNC operation the actual display quality will be terrible.

Note: ULMB doesn't actually require a constant framerate though it makes for the best motion quality. You can use ULMB for 24 fps movies and it will look the way film's supposed to look without the smearing of full-persistence LCD displays.

G-SYNC is however superior for gameplay (and any application that involves input-interaction) where framerate<refresh rate because you don't get the perceived stuttering, and tearing besides, that comes with having framerate and refresh rate being unsynchronized.

Edit: Freesync is variable refresh rate as well.

 

[sharknice]

If you're wondering if 144hz with GSYNC is an upgrade over plain 144hz... It is a huge upgrade and you can easily tell the difference.

 

[damstr]

If you're wondering if 144hz with GSYNC is an upgrade over plain 144hz... It is a huge upgrade and you can easily tell the difference.

If you are able to maintain triple digit frame rates I would say it is definitely NOT a noticeable difference.

 

[deasnutz]

If you are able to maintain triple digit frame rates I would say it is definitely NOT a noticeable difference.

That's precisly why I switched from the fg2421 to the Swift. I no longer require a constant 120fps in every game, to get a smooth gaming experience. Those annoying little drops aren't a problem. And many games these days just can't do triple digit fps for game specific or performance reasons. Games are more playable in general.

 

[flod]

if, for the games you play on your computer, you get
<50fps: probably better investment to upgrade your gpu
between 50 and 140 fps: gsync is the best option here
>140fps: play with vsync off if you can handle the tearing. otherwise use gsync + a framerate capper

 

[bAMtan2]

I can't understand why g-sync and ulmb don't switch back and forth depending on frequency rather than manually. it seems like the only time ulmb is useful is for 2d applications

dynamic switching between gsync and ulmb. nvidia said this is a very difficult problem to solve (due to whatever arcane technical reasons) but they're working on it

 

[kalston]

If you are able to maintain triple digit frame rates I would say it is definitely NOT a noticeable difference.

Even with triple digit frame rates it's night and day for me after getting used to g-sync's perfect smoothness. Speaking of Quake Live for example, I tried 250fps + 144hz but I still prefer the look and feel of 125fps/125hz + g-sync. 250fps + 144hz is a wee bit better in theory but we are talking about really small numbers here and I'm not pro at Quake anyway.

 

[Zeblade]

G-SYNC is really nice. You can have low FPS and still its hard very hard to tell..its that smooth. Yet it does not work in ALL games.

Can you tell the diff between 60 and 144? Very much so. Me.. g-sync is awesome but right now not worth it.

 

[Opie]

If you are able to maintain triple digit frame rates I would say it is definitely NOT a noticeable difference.

This is absolutely untrue. For me at least I can see and feel the difference.

 

[MistaSparkul]

This is absolutely untrue. For me at least I can see and feel the difference.

Yes even in triple digit frame rates I saw an improvement in smoothness as well...however once I started playing games where my frame rate was skyrocketing in the 300's like CS:GO and Gary's Mod, I no longer saw or felt any difference as at that point G Sync will behave like traditional V Sync locked at 144Hz/fps (with less input lag than normal V Sync but honestly the difference is so small its negligable).

 

[flod]

if your frame rate is >144 gsync becomes vsync

you don't need it to go up to 300 for that to happen

 

[Torr Samaho]

I went from a 144hz 1080p to 60hz 4k gsync. Went back and forth and overall I like the gysnc 4k experience better. But I also don't play high speed first person shooters.

what's best for you depends on what type of games you play. as an fps only player, i'm most annoyed by motion blur and lag (from vsync for example).
tearing... not so much, at least i don't notice it nearly as easily as blur and lag.

would i still benefit from gsync?

That's precisly why I switched from the fg2421 to the Swift. I no longer require a constant 120fps in every game, to get a smooth gaming experience. Those annoying little drops aren't a problem. And many games these days just can't do triple digit fps for game specific or performance reasons. Games are more playable in general.

how is image quality on the swift compared to the eizo?

i also have a benq xl2411z, and while the picture is sharp with MBR, it has poor colors and barely contrast especially (even with the blurbusters tool) .

so i got the eizo... which has contrast but a little more blur and lag than the benq, and requires 120 fps.

i'd sell them both and get the swift... well, if games don't look bleached on that one, and i know no one with a swift to check it out myself.

 

[Comixbooks]

Yeah I run my Xl2411z in Photo Mode cause the Presets are Garbage....
I would get a swift but I have a 27" monitor already and I tried it thought it was too big so it's used for console gaming.

Soon as a 24" 25" Gsync monitor comes out with Good colors 1440P I'll pick one of those up.

 

[dmonkey]

what's best for you depends on what type of games you play. as an fps only player, i'm most annoyed by motion blur and lag (from vsync for example).
tearing... not so much, at least i don't notice it nearly as easily as blur and lag.

would i still benefit from gsync?





how is image quality on the swift compared to the eizo?

i also have a benq xl2411z, and while the picture is sharp with MBR, it has poor colors and barely contrast especially (even with the blurbusters tool) .

so i got the eizo... which has contrast but a little more blur and lag than the benq, and requires 120 fps.

i'd sell them both and get the swift... well, if games don't look bleached on that one, and i know no one with a swift to check it out myself.

If the FPS's you play aren't capable of being run at greater than 120/144 fps at all times, then you will benefit from G-SYNC.

The Swift has better colors than the BenQ XL series (and all displays with the same panel), but it's still a TN, so the contrast levels won't compare to the Eizo's.

 

[sharknice]

This is absolutely untrue. For me at least I can see and feel the difference.

Same for me. Even if a game is an almost constant 144hz you still get some stuttering, input lag if using VSYNC, and some occasional tearing without VSYNC. With GSYNC you can cap the game engine at 135 fps and you don't get any stuttering, tearing, or added input lag.

I pretty much can't even game in non-gsync anymore. After experiencing stutterless, tearless gaming I can't go back.

 

[Porter_]

I pretty much can't even game in non-gsync anymore. After experiencing stutterless, tearless gaming I can't go back.

^ same here. also i can distinguish a difference between 120hz g-sync and 120hz non g-sync. it's not enormous but it is definitely perceivable.