For those who have it, is it worth it?
I want to get a new 1440p 144hz monitor for the GTX 1080 I'm getting, but I haven't upgraded anything since 2012, so this is all new to me.
>>54995392
It is worth it but be prepared to pay a couple hundred dollar premium for g-sync over freesync.
>>54995456
Not a problem. I mean, shit, I'm already paying $680 for a graphics card.
Got any recommendations? I wanted to go for a 27", but I'll take a look at anything.
Gsync is a complete gimmick. The vsync-like delay is terrible. Just use 144hz which is itself amazing.
>>54995558
would gsync at 144 still have lag?
what do you think of the 1000 series new "fast sync"?
Depends what you consider worthy, G-sync and Freesync are only really useful when the framerate drops below your refresh rate, lets say at 60HZ framerate is at 30FPS game will be smoother because of the process Gsync does(repeating frames) than a normal 60hz monitor at 30FPS.
Now, at high consistent frames like 60FPS you're not going to see much benefit to it compared to what you can currently get in any monitor with some settings like Max Pre-rendered frames set to 1 to mitigate almost all input lag paired with Vsync to avoid any tearing and triple buffering to get smooth game play.
At high frame rate like 200FPS Gsync/FReesync are practically the same as a normal monitor.
It's really up to you, try first settings the Nvidia control panel to max pre-rendered frames to 1 with vsync and trippe buffering enabled and if you don't like the input lag/image quality and gameplay thenG-sync is the only way to go.
>>54995558
>i've never used a gysync monitor
>>54995612
Doesn't vsync and especially triple buffering add a ton of input lag though?
>>54995716
setting max pre-rendered frames to 1 will give you near vsync off latency, not the same as vsync off but neither is g-sync.
Why doesn't everyone just cap their FPS at whatever their monitor refresh rate is? No tearing, no input lag, and having more FPS is pointless anyways.
>>54995499
check out the dell s2716dg, that's what i'm using. i love it.
>>54995558
there is no 'vsync-like delay' with gsync, that's the entire point of the technology.
>>54995790
Because there are still dips?
>>54995791
Nice, it's only $100 more than the one I was looking at, and has better reviews
>>54995392
Variable sync of any flavor just serves to make 30-50 fps gaming slightly more tolerable on a 60 Hz display.
The improvement it offers for 100+ fps rendering on a 120/144 Hz display is not worth much of a price premium, especially for G-sync.
In that scenario, you're better off dedicating shekels towards a strobing/ULMB/LightBoost display and a GPU that can deliver the 120/144 fps at the required resolution.
strobing >>>> variable sync (and they are unfortunately still impossible to have simultaneously)
>>54995790
The only way to stop tearing is by syncing the frames to the refresh rate, using a frame limiter doesn't do that.
Just because you can't notice it doesn't means its not there, you're just blind.
>>54995392
Free sync is worth it. Gsync is retarded.
>>54996342
Isn't it the same thing?
>>54996047
I think other anon is talking about FastSync, in which case he's completely correct.
FastSync is just a worthless bandaid for shitty games that don't support render FPS caps.
It's likely in response to FreeSync's ability to allow users to choose between tearing and judder when FPS exceeded max Hz, which was also a pretty worthless feature.
FreeSync Pros :
– Easier to integrate into a wider range of monitors due to lack of any additional hardware.
– Significantly less expensive than G-Sync, no licensing fees.
– Enables all the usual monitor features and display outputs.
– Gives users the option of V-Sync on or Off.
FreeSync Cons :
– Currently limited to six graphics cards and six APUs.
– Reverts back to the monitor’s maximum fixed refresh rate when the framerate dips below the minimum threshold. *No longer the case since AMD introduced FreeSync Low Framerate Compensation on November 4 2015 via the Crimson driver package.
G-Sync Pros :
– Compatible with a wider range of graphics cards.
– Frame duplication extends G-Sync’s functionality below the minimum threshold but may cause flickering.
G-Sync Cons :
– Requires a license from Nvidia and the addition of dedicated, costly hardware in the monitor.
– Limits monitor features, sound and display output options to DisplayPort.
– Measurably more expensive than FreeSync.
– Currently doesn’t give users the option to disable V-Sync above the maximum refresh rate of the monitor.
Freesync also support a higher refresh rate than G-Sync
>>54995392
I have a 144Hz Gsync monitor. On most games Gsync is actually redundant because i rarely actuallly hit 144 fps and lot of the time tearing happens when the framerate is higher than the refresh rate of your monitor.
>>54995392
Or you could get a free-sync version for probably $200 less with a price dropped Fury card and be set
>>54998288
This post tells me a lot about the average Nvidia user.
Jesus fucking christ. 90% of people posting itt are either trolling or have no fucking idea what they're talking about.
>>54996597
You're not even close.
>>54998610
Please elaborate then.
FastSync is only relevant for situations where rendered FPS exceed max display Hz.
It's a uniformly better solution in these cases to just skip rendering excess frames than trying to use a janky heuristic to try to guess which ones should be displayed for less lag/judder.
>>54995499
Im got the Dell S2716DG about a week ago after I got a GTX 1080. This thing is butter. Coming from a 60hz 1080P monitor is like night and day. Sure there are 1440p 144hz IPS monitors out there but then you have to deal with the shit korean quality control and backlight issues.
>>54998288
>buys a ~500 dollar monitor
>sticks with his GTX 660
you graphics card is shit if you cant pull 144 at medium quality
I really like freesync- it's very convenient. It means I don't have to think about whether to set my monitor to 60Hz or 144Hz to play open world or FPS. The tearing effect when GPU FPS is greater than refresh rate is eliminated, and the lack of 'smoothness' when GPU FPS is less than refresh rate is also significantly reduced. I can easily tell the difference between 48 FPS and 60 FPS on a non-freesync 60Hz display. It's a lot harder to tell when the rates are synced.
>>54998909
>Gsync
Change refresh rate to match the frame to be displayed
>Vsync
Change the frame to be displayed to match the display refresh rate, if nothing match flush the whole pipeline and ltierally slow down the game engine until there is one that matches.
>FastSync
Pick the frame to be displayed to match the display refresh rate out of 3 buffers, which is why you need 3x times the amount of frames relative to your display refresh rate for it to work, at 60HZ you need 180FPS average for it to work properly. Game engine works just as vsync off but the pipeline picks one frame out of the buffe at the last step, which only introduces a very low input latency, but nothing compared to Vsync.
Fastsync solves a problem not even G-sync/Freesync can fix and that is image tearing at high framerates.
>>54999166
>FastSync
So it's a shitty proprietary version of triple buffering?
>>54999460
yes, it's just semi-intelligent backbuffer flipping when rendering more frames than a display could push out without tearing.
everything else said is basically pure retardation:
>>54999166
> need 3x times the amount of frames
> 60HZ you need 180FPS average
As said elsewhere, the "right" solution to this scenario is just
> renderer FPS cap
> double buffering
> v-sync
which has no tearing, judder, extra latency, or excessive power consumption.
