G-Sync isn't worth 100 extra dollars on a 144hz monitor, right? If I get tearing, I can just cap my frames on a 144hz monitor to 120 and tearing won't be an issue? So g sync is basically pointless?
If the frame rate dips to below 120 gsync will prevent the frame rate from being halved due to the refresh rate being locked if you have vsync on or tearing if you don't have vsync on.
>>52155517
Say I were able to constantly maintain 120+ frames with a FPS cap of 120. Would G sync then serve no purpose?
>>52155592
>Say I were able to constantly maintain 120+ frames with a FPS cap of 120. Would G sync then serve no purpose?
Yes but you should avoid G-Sync in any case because it's proprietary and as such detrimental to everything that is good in this world.
>>52156782
who cares.
OP get the g sync screen tearing sucks.
>>52156803
Neo-/g/ everyone
I have a free-sync monitor, and I honestly hate to look at my tv during certain commercials, my phone and any other screen since using it.
G sync is a bit nicer in my opinion, but I already had an AMD card and didn't want to pay the extra $200~ for the same level monitor
So am I better off spending $100 on a regular 60hz monitor vs a freesync one?
>>52156877
Freesync is fine as it is not proprietary freedom hating technology
>>52155592
You're still going to have tearing even with a FPS Cap unless you use V-Sync but that introduces input lag.
>>52156885
You killed Ian didn't you
>>52156896
OP here. Yeah, I've been using 60 hz for a while now, and I never used v sync because whenever I enabled it there was unplayable input delay, and from my research g sync's input delay is unnoticeable, which is why I'm interested in the first place.
>>52156839
But your TV, phone, etc. are surely much lesser than 120/144hz. Are you sure it's the lack of free/g-sync and not the lower refresh rate that's disgusting you on your tv and phone? Do you have a 120/144hz monitor without free/g-sync to compare it to? I've never used a 120/144 hz so I have no clue, except that I remember using a CRT in my younger years and that it was much less motion blurry
>>52156923
Ian was not an enemy of freedom
>>52156782
have you ever met anyone in real life that gives a shit whether something is proprietary or not? yeah, me neither. you fell for a /g/ meme
>>52156970
I had been using GNU+Linux for years before /g/ even existed, and yes, I know several people IRL who care a lot about freedom.
Freesync is useless. Gsync isn't.
>>52157030
OP here. This is from blur busters' 60hz vs 120hz vs lightboost article
aren't lightboost and g sync different things?
>>52155592
Yes so long as you are certain you can do that for every game (hint: you can't be). If you're just buying it for 1 or 2 games that you can easily max out like CS/DOTA then I would say don't bother. If you play lots of games you can't be sure how the framerate is going to be on your hardware. I suppose it is proprietary so there is that. I have a G-Sync monitor and for me the cost was worth it.
>>52155375
>100 dollars extra.
MG279Q ISP Freesync panel was 550 euros here.
PG278 was 850 euros.
PG279 was 950 euros.
It's 250 to 300 euros more to the monitor
nvidia are fucking max kikes
>>52157096
The types of games where I wont' be able to maintain that for every game, I'm not concerned about that. I'm fine with even dipping a bit below 60 fps in single player games like that.
I play TF2 (same engine as CS) a ton, have thousands of hours. That's the only game I play where I need constant 120+ frames. If I decide to play a casual game like fallout 4 or something then obviously 60 fps or even lower isn't problematic to me, and if g sync makes that look better than I don't see why it isn't worth it.
Also I like to emulate old console games, and there is seriously notciable motion blur compared to playing them on an old CRT. It's more and more sounding like G sync will be worth it.
>>52157075
light boost is now called ulmb and is a feature of gsync monitors (such as 3d)
I never really got the appeal of gsync and freesync
If you're looking for a high refresh monitor you want fluidity
And gsync and freesync induces input lag, freesync I know has a shit ton of it
So you get a 144hz display with tons of input lag when you can just cap the fps
The only appeal to me is ulmb because it makes a real, human perceptible difference
You can barely see screen tearing above 100 fps in a 144hz monitor.
I've seen it three times in a month, meaning, I actually recognized and saw it and I try to actively look for tearing when I play because I just want to see if there is much of it.
>>52157153
I own a light boost monitor and playing the scout with it is basically cheating. Rocket jumping and general flickering is made so much easier.
>>52157260
Scout is the main benefit I think I''ll get from finally getting a 144hz monitor, I notice the inability to aim properly in some situations caused by motion blur all the time.
I'm already good at rocket jumping, I can beat tier 4 soldier maps and tier 3 demo maps. I'm excited to see how it feels.
>>52157242
This is one of the reasonsI thought g sync might not be worth it, like from some people's accounts the tearing itself just isn't as noticeable at higher refresh rates is the impression I get
>>52157198
So any g sync monitor is also a lightboost monitor?
>>52157343
I own MG279 and 980Ti and I am honest with you senpai, I don't 'see' tearing. I made this rig 2nd of December 2015 and Iike I've said, seen tearing three times. Once in the Witcher 2, once in Assetto Corsa, once in GTA V.
and I was honestly actively looking for tearing because if I had seen much of it I might've bought and tried out PG279 from Asus (same as MG279 but with G-Sync instead of FreeSync).
I think it might be tad bit overmarkated, overshilled, and spooked (tearing that is).
MG279 also cost 550 euros.
PG278 850 and PG279 950 euros
Predator was like 900 to 850 depending on where I looked.
So expensive addition for such little gain. Worse than changing 980Ti to Titan X imo.
>>52157343
Light boost is a modification of 3d vision, a predecessor to the ulmb feature that's on gsync monitors. Light boost have quite a few drawbacks which modern ulmb monitors fixed. You can't buy new light boost monitors anymore.
>>52157403
How long has it been since you used a 60hz monitor? Because you don't have to look for the tearing to notice it in my case, though it's not this horrible thing that ruins the game, it'd just be pleasant to not have it.
So lightboost doesn't have anything to do with tearing, right? It just reduces motion blur? Honestly I'm more interested in reducing motion blur than tearing, especially if the storeis about tearing at higher refresh rates being hard to notice are true.
>>52157444
I used Dell's 32" 1660p UltraSharp which was 60hz together with my MG279.
>>52157435
So g sync monitors have ulmb, which is an upgraded version of light boost? In other words, if I get a g-sync monitor, I'm getting a monitor with ulmb as an option?
>>52157444
Ulmb increases the visibility of tearing because it reduces blur, but it's not a problem above 100fps.
>>52157510
Yep. If you buy a gsync monitor you get gsync (frame synching), ulmb, and 3d (eBay cheapo $5 glasses works)
