Anyone else disappointed with gsync?

[Sho'Nuff]

Long story short - I recently purchased an acer XB270HU to replace an aging 24" NEC multisync 2490WMGX2. I wanted a 27" monitor that I could game on at 2560x1440, but which would be good for productivity too. Given the higher resolution and that I have a GTX980TI - I thought gsync would be a good idea too. After futzing with the monitor for a few days I'm not sure I am correct as to that last point.

To my eyes, the overall effect of gsync is just . . . meh. Coupled with the fact that it doesn't seem to mesh well with certain games (e.g. dying light is a stutter fest with gsync on but is lag free with it off) - it just seems like its a PITA.

Am I doing something wrong? Everything I have read about gsync has been positive (price excepted), so I am pretty disappointed.

Mods - since gsync is nvidia specific I thought this would be the right forum. If this thread belongs over in displays please move it.

 

[stahlhart]

Do you have one of the models that supports ULMB at 120Hz refresh?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Do you have one of the models that supports ULMB at 120Hz refresh?

Yes, I do. Its the new(ish) IPS gsync monitor. Says it can do ULMB at 85, 100, and 120hz

 

[biostud]

Try to set a fps limit to 60 or lower to see if that helps. Dying light definitely has weird behavior when it comes to stuttering no matter what system you run.

 

[imaheadcase]

I have the same monitor as you, its a great monitor, Gsync seems to cater to specific types of games from my experience. Like lots of technology, you don't miss it till its gone. A driver update disabled it for a month before i realized it, and was wondering why some games i played felt weird.

Scrolling games for instance i notice it a lot when its off, i play this game called Rimworld, moving around the screen you can see how much it helps. That was one of those games it felt weird with it off.

Other games i disable it, not sure the exact reason, but it messed with my eyes. lol

 

[stahlhart]

Yes, I do. Its the new(ish) IPS gsync monitor. Says it can do ULMB at 85, 100, and 120hz

Reason I was asking was that TFTCentral indicated that the earlier builds of this panel only supported ULBM up to 100Hz refresh. I was wondering if you had had a chance to try this feature as a comparison to how the monitor works in Gsync mode with the game(s) in question.

I don't have Dying Light yet, so I'm not able to try it here to see if I get the same results (I have a ROG Swift). I pretty much leave it on, and have not yet run into anything that runs noticeably different or worse with it. The main difference for me now is that Vsync is off all of the time, whereas before with the VG248QE I was using previously I ran Vsync on at 120Hz.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Reason I was asking was that TFTCentral indicated that the earlier builds of this panel only supported ULBM up to 100Hz refresh. I was wondering if you had had a chance to try this feature as a comparison to how the monitor works in Gsync mode with the game(s) in question.

I don't have Dying Light yet, so I'm not able to try it here to see if I get the same results (I have a ROG Swift). I pretty much leave it on, and have not yet run into anything that runs noticeably different or worse with it. The main difference for me now is that Vsync is off all of the time, whereas before with the VG248QE I was using previously I ran Vsync on at 120Hz.

Yeah I know the earlier models of this monitor were limited to ULMB at 85 or 100hz. The models built after June can do 120hz though. The OSD menu on my monitor shows that mine can do all three.

I did try ULMB last night and IMO it provides a much more noticeable difference to my eyes than gsync. Maybe I just don't notice a lot of tearing in my games, but I am definitely sensitive to motion blur. Playing just cause 3 last night with ULMB at 120Hz was just awesome.

 

[lavaheadache]

Wait a minute, Gsync doesn't work correctly all the time? Is it that games need a profile or something? Are there game comparability drivers for it or something?

 

[tkrushing]

I kinda felt the same way as you at first and might still feel the same way. I came from a 120hz BenQ that I was using Toasty's (?) fix to keep constant strobing. I'm not sure it was worth the cash for the Gsync but it does shine in games where I can't keep a stable 100 fps which is rare with a 980ti. I do however love it for those games that are demanding. I mostly use the ULMB which is fantastic and easier than the toasty fix I was using. Also, the upgrade from 1080p to 1440p is fairly good. Overall, I am pleased with my purchase but it did come at a premium at the time. I am so spoiled with 120+hz with strobing. It is an amazing experience in gaming.

 

[Xed]

In some games I have to alt-tab out and return to get gsync to work properly. Otherwise it's plagued with microstutters.

 

[TheRyuu]

Wait a minute, Gsync doesn't work correctly all the time? Is it that games need a profile or something? Are there game comparability drivers for it or something?

Yes I believe it requires support in the driver for it to work.

 

[xorbe]

I came from a sluggish 60Hz IPS panel to the Acer XB270HU, and the "144Hz gsync 5ms" was a huge improvement for me, except in colors (yeah had the legendary NEC2490WUXi).

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I came from a sluggish 60Hz IPS panel to the Acer XB270HU, and the "144Hz gsync 5ms" was a huge improvement for me, except in colors (yeah had the legendary NEC2490WUXi).

LOL - I made almost the exact the same transition. When from the NEC2490WUXi2 to the XB270HU.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I came from a sluggish 60Hz IPS panel to the Acer XB270HU, and the "144Hz gsync 5ms" was a huge improvement for me, except in colors (yeah had the legendary NEC2490WUXi).

LOL - I made almost the exact the same transition. When from a really nice NEC (color wise) to the XB270HU.

 

[moonbogg]

I can't honestly say I have noticed Gsync do much of anything for me. I didn't notice tearing before and tearing is the least of my concerns anyway. If a game is skipping and feels sluggish, its usually because the game itself is doing that and has nothing to do with tearing.
Some games feel smooth even at lower FPS, such as Crysis 3, and some games feel like sluggish crap even at 60+ FPS. So yeah, if a game runs sluggish and skips and stutters, Gsync can't fix that and if a game is smooth, then it feels smooth even without Gsync.
Gsync just adds a slight bit of extra cleanness and niceness to an already well running, smooth game.

 

[Mercennarius]

Personally i'd rather have a nice 4K monitor over a 1080P/1440P with G-Sync/Freesync.

 

[Madpacket]

It's definitely game dependant. I've no experience with Gsync, only Freesync (and I have the same LCD panel as the OP but made by Asus). Try playing games like The Witcher 3 or BF4 without it enabled. They look terrible unless you run with vsync enabled in which case you add latency or for faster paced games like multiplayer BF4 where you normally disable vsync for obvious reasons the lack of tearing makes it much easier to track and follow enemies as there's no more distractions.

I'm not sure how many games you tried out but if you've only played a few games you're not getting the full benefit of synchronized frames.

 

[VashHT]

I've tried the same monitor and I've also used freesync and in my experience they both work quite well. Certain games had far worse tearing for me than others (borderlands 2, metro 2033 redux, Witcher 2 and 3 to name a few) but in both g sync and free sync they look great.

 

[Subyman]

Strange, when I had my swift I noticed a pretty big difference with Gsync. I don't remember having to do anything in particular to get it running. There was an LED light that turned red I believe when Gsync was active, so you may want to make sure it is actually running properly. I noticed no screen tearing. FWIW, gysnc does not help stuttering, that is part of the engine. Gsync makes sure there is no tearing.

 

[Subyman]

Wait a minute, Gsync doesn't work correctly all the time? Is it that games need a profile or something? Are there game comparability drivers for it or something?

I don't believe the game matters at all. Gsync is only the communication between the GPU and the monitor, after rendering is complete.

 

[Mondozei]

I have had two G-Sync capable monitors, first a 1080p TN 144 Hz one and now the Asus 1440p 165 Hz IPS panel.

I basically never used G-Sync with the 1080p one. ULMB for me was just too amazing. Then again, I'm typically playing fast-paced shooters like NS2 where the enemy(especially if you are marine and are facing the aliens) are moving extremely fast and jumping all over the place. In such an environment, ULMB is absolutely golden.

In games like R6: Siege, I find it a lot less useful but I've tried with G-Sync and can't honestly say it was a huge difference.

The one area where G-Sync absolutely demolishes ULMB is in very heavy scenes. Again, going back to NS2, when you're trying to storm their base and you have 10-15 players outside the entrance and their 10-15 players are trying to keep you out, you have one hell of a epic showdown. Granades are flying off every other second and all the enemies and friendlies moving in such a tight space crushes the framerate.

I'm usually at 120-150 fps on 1440p on NS2 with everything maxed but in these scenarios I'm at 40-60 and it's here where ULMB becomes far less valuable and G-Sync becomes a golden addition. It's the same in BF4. I prefer ULMB for most of the time but when you're playing rush and there's a lot of action around an objective, lots of smoke, nades going off and a ton of players, I'm happy using G-Sync.

For me, G-Sync is like an insurance policy, a safeguard against the "worst-case scenarios". But for day to day playing, at least the kind of games I'm playing, ULMB is better. In fact, one of the primary reasons why I've been using NV for the past year or so is precisely because of ULMB. I bought my first G-Sync monitor with the expectation of it being amazing as everyone said and while I certainly appreciate it(G-Sync) in some situations, it was ULMB that was the run-away winner for me, which wasn't what I expected at all. I still like using G-Sync though, because you can always relax using it.

ULMB's peaks are higher but the lows are lower, too. G-Sync gives you a more consistent playing experience. It's not as amazing as ULMB at its peak, but it manages the rough areas better, too.

 

[moonbogg]

I have had two G-Sync capable monitors, first a 1080p TN 144 Hz one and now the Asus 1440p 165 Hz IPS panel.

I basically never used G-Sync with the 1080p one. ULMB for me was just too amazing. Then again, I'm typically playing fast-paced shooters like NS2 where the enemy(especially if you are marine and are facing the aliens) are moving extremely fast and jumping all over the place. In such an environment, ULMB is absolutely golden.

In games like R6: Siege, I find it a lot less useful but I've tried with G-Sync and can't honestly say it was a huge difference.

The one area where G-Sync absolutely demolishes ULMB is in very heavy scenes. Again, going back to NS2, when you're trying to storm their base and you have 10-15 players outside the entrance and their 10-15 players are trying to keep you out, you have one hell of a epic showdown. Granades are flying off every other second and all the enemies and friendlies moving in such a tight space crushes the framerate.

I'm usually at 120-150 fps on 1440p on NS2 with everything maxed but in these scenarios I'm at 40-60 and it's here where ULMB becomes far less valuable and G-Sync becomes a golden addition. It's the same in BF4. I prefer ULMB for most of the time but when you're playing rush and there's a lot of action around an objective, lots of smoke, nades going off and a ton of players, I'm happy using G-Sync.

For me, G-Sync is like an insurance policy, a safeguard against the "worst-case scenarios". But for day to day playing, at least the kind of games I'm playing, ULMB is better. In fact, one of the primary reasons why I've been using NV for the past year or so is precisely because of ULMB. I bought my first G-Sync monitor with the expectation of it being amazing as everyone said and while I certainly appreciate it(G-Sync) in some situations, it was ULMB that was the run-away winner for me, which wasn't what I expected at all. I still like using G-Sync though, because you can always relax using it.

ULMB's peaks are higher but the lows are lower, too. G-Sync gives you a more consistent playing experience. It's not as amazing as ULMB at its peak, but it manages the rough areas better, too.

I didn't know need for speed 2 was that demanding.

 

[krumme]

We have a pg279q waiting to unpack for one of the kids but is wondering if a mg279q is sufficient. The price difference is like a gtx970. Lol.

Actually freesync is preferred as we recon its more future proof. Its running a 7970 now but when 14nm arives in 0.756 year that will change.

But i am wondering if this ulmb is worth it?

Toms doesnt think so
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asus-mg279q-27-inch-freesync-monitor,4262.html

"
The other thing left out here is any sort of blur-reduction feature. Since you can't use ULMB at the same time as FreeSync or G-Sync, we don't think it's an issue. After testing many other screens that provide smooth motion, courtesy of their high framerates, we found we didn't use ULMB much at all. Besides, it reduces light output, sometimes significantly.
"

 

[alcoholbob]

If you are disappointing in gsync than freesync will be even worse lol. For 4K displays, adaptive sync only covers roughly the 40-60 Hz range and it will look pretty much indistinguishable from most games that run triple or double buffered vsync.

 

[krumme]

Arg.. just tried the mg279q and its way to blurry but otherwise fine. Will try pg279q tomorrow. Damn that segmenting nonsense. Is there no way to enable some kind of strobing on the mg279q?