Ah, OK. I wasn't sure if latency occurred only with dips below 60fps.
The 120Hz issue is an important one, but like others have mentioned, a 60Hz IPS monitor is often preferable overall.
Two things would change with the G-sync monitor. 1st, it is on 120hz or higher refresh monitors, so you'd have higher FPS, and it removes the added latency v-sync causes when triple buffering is on and maintaining 60 FPS (pretty much always in games today that build in triple buffering).
The latency happens in DX games that maintain their refresh rate, though latency does occur when frames have to skip a refresh due to not quite being ready at lower FPS. So latency is always happening due to v-sync in DirectX. OpenGL doesn't have the same problem, once your FPS beat your refresh rate...at least not as much. All forms cause some delays, DirectX just causes an added frame worth of latency once you beat the refresh rate with FPS.Ah, OK. I wasn't sure if latency occurred only with dips below 60fps.
The 120Hz issue is an important one, but like others have mentioned, a 60Hz IPS monitor is often preferable overall.
Mostly, though stutter and judder can occur in some game engines if the even spacing out of frames causes a time laps issue.even if you had a 60hz monitor and could maintain +60fps with vsync on, you still have the input lag of vsync despite having no tearing, stutter, or judder.
Do you use V-sync? Because if not, you still get tearing, which is a quality issue (though not a performance issue).
Personally, I almost always use V-sync where my games run above 60fps, and I don't have an issue with it. From the description of Gsync, I don't think it will be an improvement over a system locked at 60fps with Vsync.
By the way, Tom's has a very good write-up on it too: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/g-sync-v-sync-monitor,3699.html
Finally, NVIDIA has been quietly (and lately not-so-quietly) engaged with Valve in its SteamOS and Steam Machine efforts (admittedly, so is AMD).
All of this makes sense after all. With ATI and AMD fully integrated, and Intel finally taking graphics (somewhat) seriously, NVIDIA needs to do a lot more to remain relevant (and dominant) in the industry going forward. Simply putting out good GPUs will only take the company so far.
I use vsync in single player games, where the additional latency doesn't matter or make a difference. In mulitplayer games I cap my framerate to 60 or 65fps and don't experience any tearing so long as I hold that framerate or am above it.
Gsync looks to be useful if you are below 60fps as Anand stated and want gameplay to feel smoother. Of course the caveat would be why spend $400+ for the monitor instead of just getting a better GPU solution that lets you hold a higher frame rate and gives all the additional benefits of having more straight-up raw GPU power.
With the painfully slow rollout of this tech and zero announcements of any decent monitors using it, just the expectation that they will come at some point, this all may be a non-issue. By the time there actually are any decent monitors with it available, something similar using a generic and universal standard may have been rolled into the DP standard or adopted by more monitor manufacturers without the vendor ID lock. Because of how it works it doesn't look like gsync is something that can be kept proprietary even if there was a desire for it to be so. You can't patent a variable refresh rate monitor. The hardware is all on the monitor side of things and the GPU side is all done via software.
I hope that review was rushed because it had little content for anyone to actually draw any conclusions from.
Also, [what the heck] is this?
Let me start by saying this is not off topic because the thread is "[AT]NVIDIA G-Sync Review." The bolded parts are so completely useless for the article and sound like they were copy pasted out of the Nvidia review guide. Why do you have to grudgingly admit that AMD is working with Valve also? Why do you have to mention that Nvidia is dominant?
This crap just sounds biased and truly reflects the overall quality of the articles that have been coming out of AT lately. Focus on editing out the unnecessary stuff that makes it into these articles. The statements were pointless, and all they do is call into question the bias of Anandtech which I think has truly come into question with recent reviews.
Im curious did you purposely look for that?
I'm genuinely interested in G-sync. I bought the ASUS monitor for the specific purpose of being able to upgrade it if Gsync is good.
I didn't come in the article looking for ANYTHING regarding AMD. It was pointless, and as I stated, it only makes the quality of the article suffer. The bolded in my quote are wasted bytes downloading the webpage, and should have been edited out.
Too bad they can't sell a G-Sync module of some kind that you connect between your monitor and PC. That way anyone with any monitor can use it and they still can sell the G-Sync tech. I know it might not work that way but it would have been nice, especially if you actually like your current monitor.
With the painfully slow rollout of this tech and zero announcements of any decent monitors using it...
http://overlordforum.com/topic/603-nvidia-g-sync/page-2#entry6702It will take some time to get G-Sync expanded out even beyond the ASUS unit.
There are several issues here - one is that each G-Sync module must be tuned to the specific panel and PCBs used for that panel. As of now, the OEM makers - ASUS, BENQ, etc have the tech from Nvidia and are implementing them the best way they see fit (read: in whatever way makes them the most money). This goes to my point that people claiming exclusivity have no idea what they are talking about. The tech has been released to OEM makers already. The second issue is that of development. Since the tech must be tuned for each application it means it will take time for the modules to make their way into a bunch of different panel formats since R&D and production is pricey.
We here at Overlord are small potatoes and have not been given such worldly access to the OEM specs for G-Sync. We couldn't do much with it anyway since we don't have a large R&D department to make custom PCBs with the modules properly tuned to our panel (IPS) and TCONs.
After a conversation with Nvidia last week the whole expansion to IPS - and more importantly as far as we here at Overlord are concerned - to IPS/1440 panels is in the works. I am waiting to hear back on where in the R&D timeline the 1440/IPS G-Sync module is. Until then I continue to hammer home with Nvidia that the holy grail, short of a real 4k at 60hz or above, not the hybrids out now, is a 1440/120Hz selectable/G-Sync model. TN at 1080 is ok if you run 3 panels, but a single panel? Please. With GPUs ramping up each quarter it seems, soon 3 x 1440/120/GSYNC will be attainable and price effective compared to the upcoming 4K models.
Bottom line I think people don't understand that you cannot take the module and just plug it into a different setup. The module must be engineered to each specific application making it more time consuming and ultimately more expensive.
Let me start by saying this is not off topic because the thread is "[AT]NVIDIA G-Sync Review." The bolded parts are so completely useless for the article and sound like they were copy pasted out of the Nvidia review guide. Why do you have to grudgingly admit that AMD is working with Valve also? Why do you have to mention that Nvidia is dominant?
This crap just sounds biased and truly reflects the overall quality of the articles that have been coming out of AT lately. Focus on editing out the unnecessary stuff that makes it into these articles. The statements were pointless, and all they do is call into question the bias of Anandtech which I think has truly come into question with recent reviews.
Finally, NVIDIA has been quietly (and lately not-so-quietly) engaged with Valve in its SteamOS and Steam Machine efforts (admittedly, so is AMD).
All of this makes sense after all. With ATI and AMD fully integrated, and Intel finally taking graphics (somewhat) seriously, NVIDIA needs to do a lot more to remain relevant (and dominant) in the industry going forward. Simply putting out good GPUs will only take the company so far.
I hope that review was rushed because it had little content for anyone to actually draw any conclusions from.
Also, [what the heck] is this?
Let me start by saying this is not off topic because the thread is "[AT]NVIDIA G-Sync Review." The bolded parts are so completely useless for the article and sound like they were copy pasted out of the Nvidia review guide. Why do you have to grudgingly admit that AMD is working with Valve also? Why do you have to mention that Nvidia is dominant?
This crap just sounds biased and truly reflects the overall quality of the articles that have been coming out of AT lately. Focus on editing out the unnecessary stuff that makes it into these articles. The statements were pointless, and all they do is call into question the bias of Anandtech which I think has truly come into question with recent reviews.
Here's what I don't get.....a lot of AMD fans have a tendency to automatically to don the tin foil hat and cry conspiracy, sabotage or bias as soon as they perceive something as not being positive for their company. I seriously don't get it.