G-sync necessary?

[EXCellR8]

I would also vouch for sync... I can't say that I notice much with my monitor but if I were to use a hi-res monitor without it and got tearing it would probably drive me nuts. i suppose not noticing anything actually means it's working

 

[w3rd]

Yep, no tearing and smoother gameplay is a huge bonus

Smoother graphics, but not necessarily smoother gameplay.

 

[Bacon1]

Smoother graphics, but not necessarily smoother gameplay.

How is it not smoother gameplay? There is no disconnect from tearing or stuttering from vsync delays.

 

[w3rd]

Because my screen is no longer natively following my inputs, but waggling on making my card display smoothly, back at me.


For instance, when you are spinning around in a FPS game (ie: battlefield), is usually when you get screen tearing, ... if you don't have a capable enough video card, to maintain enough frames to whatever freq ur monitor is. That tear is essentially the latest information overwriting (in frame) the old information. It is unsightly and tearing does bring down the gameplay experience.


Unfortunately, the human's hand-eye coordination is reliant on a constant rate of time.

And heavy use of frame-syncing in FPS precision based games does not give One's in-game Avatar a constant tick-rate. You should be aiming ...here.... but your not. Because the display is all over the map. That is why there are very few (if any) pro gamers actually use using frame-syncing technology. They push those frames raw. PFS gamers want more frames, not for the monitor to slow down (& speed back up during gameplay).

I am not really knocking on the variable rate monitors, they work great when used with nearly any type of gaming. Specially games like MMO, or MOBA gameplay. I have an X34 and you can not beat the smoothness in certain games, specially like piloting in BF1, or in games like Watch Dogs 2.

Again, nothing wrong with freesync/gsync and just brought up some opposing points and was mentioning the technology is acting as a crutch (against screen tearing) for those who can't maintain a constant whatever...



That is why top gamers are going insane waiting on HDMI 2.1, etc.. <-- that will bring us close to the CRT days.

 

[Bacon1]

OK so you are talking purely about going way over your refresh range then and not playing within your range, thus not using free/gsync. Because a free/gsync 144hz would look much better than regular 144hz with tearing and there is no additional input lag

 

[w3rd]

OK so you are talking purely about going way over your refresh range then and not playing within your range, thus not using free/gsync. Because a free/gsync 144hz would look much better than regular 144hz with tearing and there is no additional input lag

No. I am saying that having a constant frequency, is better than having a range of frequencies it has to sync to, every other frame. (Which disrupts aiming & has nothing to do with input lag at all)

And the only way to assure yourself of this not happening is using raw horsepower to give you more frames, at a set Hz frequency. (ergo cost)
The reason most people relegate themselves to using a "range of frequencies" is to reduce tearing, because they (for whatever their build reason) can not push a constant FPS above a reasonable Hz.

I am a realist and even since my CRT days, I really liked around 120hz. My mouse felt good. So, that level of performance is my target for all three of my gaming rigs. Question is, where are the HDMI 2.1, 4k gaming monitors at..? (WTB an 38"/40" oled 4k @ 120hz, $2k x 3)

 

[Flapdrol1337]

I really don't get what point you're trying to make w3rd.

If you want to have completely consistent gameplay you maybe have to have a "constant frequency", but you also need the frames to be created at exactly that pace, and have vsync on. You can actually do this if you use an ingame fps limiter (which starts frames at a constant pace) and manage to find out the exact frequency of your monitor, my old one was 59.95 hz or something.

If you have "raw horsepower" to give more frames, at times with high fps you'll have less mouse/screen latency, and when there's a bunch of explosions you'll have more latency. Having free or gsync on doesn't make a difference in this regard compared to no vsync, only gets rid of unnecessary tearing

You can perhaps achieve consistency much more easily by using a gsync/freesync screen, fps with an ingame limiter, then run another fps limiter (from an external tool), maybe set it one fps higher to avoid conflicts/latency build up. And when it does go below it'll be less of a problem.

 

[w3rd]

Well, I was merely pointing out some simple facts. And it seems many newcomers to PC Gaming don't understand, because they may have never owned CRTs. (Which you could set Hz and resolution as you wish.)

Not sure why VRR negatives to gaming is so hard to understand. That for precision, it is much better for a pro FPS player to game at constant rate. And in no way.... have their monitor frequency scaling all over the place. Because your mouse speeds up and slows down with the monitor rate. This is known to effect to hand-eye coordination and is against human nature. As pointed out before in my earlier post. This effect of variable rate effecting mouse rate is already known and hashed out years ago.

The logical argument of: 120hz constant -vs- 38hz ~ 144hz variable rate refresh...?


And this debate is only in the most extreme situations, but those are usually when it counts. Constant is better than variable in those situations, when ultimate precision is needed.

Again, this downside of VRR is mostly noticeable in extreme FPS situations & was worth pointing out in a gsync/freesync thread. VRR has many uses and great for 80% of the games out there, but in the end, G-Sync and FreeSync are just a stop-gap technologies, because there is typically not enough gpu to push the Hz people want yet.

I use both Gsync & freesync on my 3 PC gaming computers right now. I am really hope to push raw 140 frames @ 120hz on 4k OLED soon, someday.
Vega/Volta, HDMI2.1 and OLED will help in bringing back the CRT days.

 

[richaron]

Unfortunately, the human's hand-eye coordination is reliant on a constant rate of time.

And heavy use of frame-syncing in FPS precision based games does not give One's in-game Avatar a constant tick-rate. You should be aiming ...here.... but your not. Because the display is all over the map. That is why there are very few (if any) pro gamers actually use using frame-syncing technology. They push those frames raw. PFS gamers want more frames, not for the monitor to slow down (& speed back up during gameplay).

I might as well add my 2 cents because it seems you out-talk many posters here, but I'm another one who thinks you're missing the mark.

For starters I think you just made up this first part; I know from very recent experience playing CS on an APU that your claim "the human's hand-eye coordination is reliant on a constant rate of time" is simply wrong. Granted I've got decades worth of muscle memory, but I can assure you it's an odd sensation to pull off shots and moves just as the framerate totally tanks because your APU can't keep up during the action. Hell maybe I'm superhuman, but I think it's much more likely this claim of yours is wrong. In either case your sweeping generalization is off.

Secondly the reason "pro gamers" aren't using frame syncing tech' is much more likely that they are simply aiming for max fps and minimum monitor lag. Max fps will be above any 'sync range anyway. It has nothing to do with frame time variance.

 

[Bacon1]

The logical argument of: 120hz constant -vs- 38hz ~ 144hz variable rate refresh...?

You can still get 144hz consistent on a VRR monitor but your GPU will never have a constant output which is why VRR comes into play, you always see the frame immediately instead of having to wait. If you are gaming over your monitor hz even on a VRR monitor you'll still get tearing and the max refresh (144hz). So yes, maybe for a select few professionals its worse, but for 99% of gamers VRR is much better.

 

[w3rd]

I might as well add my 2 cents because it seems you out-talk many posters here, but I'm another one who thinks you're missing the mark.

For starters I think you just made up this first part; I know from very recent experience playing CS on an APU that your claim "the human's hand-eye coordination is reliant on a constant rate of time" is simply wrong. Granted I've got decades worth of muscle memory, but I can assure you it's an odd sensation to pull off shots and moves just as the framerate totally tanks because your APU can't keep up during the action. Hell maybe I'm superhuman, but I think it's much more likely this claim of yours is wrong. In either case your sweeping generalization is off.

Secondly the reason "pro gamers" aren't using frame syncing tech' is much more likely that they are simply aiming for max fps and minimum monitor lag. Max fps will be above any 'sync range anyway. It has nothing to do with frame time variance.

You are talking about what you THINK, not what is fact. So again, I am not making a claim, I am stating a KNOWN FACT.
Seriously, where have some of you people been. It is like you are just now learning about G-Sync and what it does. For example drawing a circle freehand with mouse, while having the display's rate constantly varied, then at constant... illustrates what I am talking about.

Showing those two circle drawing next to each other, will visually show you the difference of mouse input/outputs as the display's rate changes. And yes, all human beings base their movements on a constant rate. You do not get to have an opinion on it, this is science.


Lastly, there is not a single Pro FPS gamer who uses an APU.

 

[tamz_msc]

One thing though, if you're aiming for very high FPS(like 200FPS or more) gaming like CS:GO or the upcoming Quake Champions/Unreal Tournament, you're better off turning off GSync, unless you have a 240Hz display with GSync, because GSync introduces input lag.

 

[w3rd]

You can still get 144hz consistent on a VRR monitor but your GPU will never have a constant output which is why VRR comes into play, you always see the frame immediately instead of having to wait. If you are gaming over your monitor hz even on a VRR monitor you'll still get tearing and the max refresh (144hz). So yes, maybe for a select few professionals its worse, but for 99% of gamers VRR is much better.

Well, You will not have a constant frames (gpu), but you will always have a constant Hz (monitor), if you don't use VRR.

Understand, the best thing about FreeSync/Gsync monitors is not that they are VRR, but also that they are multi-sync, just like old CRTs and you can set your monitor to any Hz you want. Unlike fixed frequency monitors (ie: 60Hz panel, or 120hz panel).

And yes, setting your monitor to 144hz and flipping 160 frames, will help mitigate against any screen tearing.



Remember, "tearing" is something we all learned to live with it, until about a few years ago. VRR has it places, but I presented a case where it is a hindrance. We need better Connectivity (HDMI 2.1) & GPUs to get stronger, not monitors that slow down to the pace of our video cards.

 

[richaron]

You are talking about what you THINK, not what is fact. So again, I am not making a claim, I am stating a KNOWN FACT.
Seriously, where have some of you people been. It is like you are just now learning about G-Sync and what it does. For example drawing a circle freehand with mouse, while having the display's rate constantly varied, then at constant... illustrates what I am talking about.

Showing those two circle drawing next to each other, will visually show you the difference of mouse input/outputs as the display's rate changes. And yes, all human beings base their movements on a constant rate. You do not get to have an opinion on it, this is science.


Lastly, there is not a single Pro FPS gamer who uses an APU.

Do you think you have a point stating no pro gamer uses an APU? Like you think that backs up the rest of what you've written? Lol.

I'm telling you that your claims about hand-eye coordination and frame pacing are wrong. They are dead wrong. I know they are wrong because I can tell you from personal experience they are wrong. I'm not claiming to know how everyone else thinks and works: like you are.

This is your fault for making guesses and sweeping generalizations without including disclaimers like "I think...", or "from that I know...", or the usual "AFAIK...". And that is the problem with relying generalizations and simplistic arguments because all you need is a single counter point to completely disprove everything you've built upon these baseless claims. And most of your arguments are based on this incorrect claim.

I also propose the reason "pro gamers" don't use monitors with variable refresh rates is because (again) "pro gamers" are most interested is max fps and minimum input lag. So since they are interested in max fps, and these max fps's are higher than any VRR monitor, there is no situation where variable sync will even effect a "pro gamer". Again, I posit, this line of thinking is much more likely than any of your claims of "frame variations".

 

[Flapdrol1337]

because GSync introduces input lag.

Yay, more misinformation.

 

[tamz_msc]

Yay, more misinformation.

You don't say?

Misinformation? Not!

 

[Bacon1]

because GSync introduces input lag.

Not true unless you are limiting fps with a fps limiter to stay inside your *Sync range

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8bFWk61KWA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs0PYCpBJjc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVNRNOcLUuA

Your test was from 2014 before you could turn off vsync, so when going above the refresh rate (> 144 I suspect) you had vsync lag

 

[tamz_msc]

Not true unless you are limiting fps with a fps limiter to stay inside your *Sync range

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8bFWk61KWA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs0PYCpBJjc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVNRNOcLUuA

Your test was from 2014 before you could turn off vsync, so when going above the refresh rate (> 144 I suspect) you had vsync lag

As far as I am aware, exceeding Gsync range still introduces input lag when you have Vsync or fast Sync enabled:

As you said, previously the engaging of Vsync when exceeding the GSync range did indeed introduce input lag. My initial comment was with regards to scenarios where you will regularly exceed you monitor's refresh rate. Once you exceed the range you still have to deal with tearing.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

As far as I am aware, exceeding Gsync range still introduces input lag when you have Vsync or fast Sync enabled

That latency is from the vsync or fast sync, not gsync.

 

[tamz_msc]

That latency is from the vsync or fast sync, not gsync.

Maybe we are being pedantic here, but my point is that before Gsync allowed disabling Vsync when exceeding its range, you got input lag because Vsync was automatically engaged in those situations.

 

[Bacon1]

As far as I am aware, exceeding Gsync range still introduces input lag when you have Vsync or fast Sync enabled:

Sure, but those aren't from gsync/freesync but from the other *sync causing the input lag by reducing the output to match your max refresh rate.

Remember, "tearing" is something we all learned to live with it, until about a few years ago.

Tearing isn't something most people learned to live with though, thats why VSync is still very popular to this day and so is borderless windowed mode which uses windows triple buffered vsync (slightly less input lag) (Tested here: https://youtu.be/oc28SH2ESA4)

Not everyone is a Pro gamer who needs 300fps in CSGO

 

[shortylickens]

It is not necessary but it is nice. I like my new monitor and its especially pleasant while gaming.

 

[w3rd]

Do you think you have a point stating no pro gamer uses an APU? Like you think that backs up the rest of what you've written? Lol.

I'm telling you that your claims about hand-eye coordination and frame pacing are wrong. They are dead wrong. I know they are wrong because I can tell you from personal experience they are wrong. I'm not claiming to know how everyone else thinks and works: like you are.

This is your fault for making guesses and sweeping generalizations without including disclaimers like "I think...", or "from that I know...", or the usual "AFAIK...". And that is the problem with relying generalizations and simplistic arguments because all you need is a single counter point to completely disprove everything you've built upon these baseless claims. And most of your arguments are based on this incorrect claim.

I also propose the reason "pro gamers" don't use monitors with variable refresh rates is because (again) "pro gamers" are most interested is max fps and minimum input lag. So since they are interested in max fps, and these max fps's are higher than any VRR monitor, there is no situation where variable sync will even effect a "pro gamer". Again, I posit, this line of thinking is much more likely than any of your claims of "frame variations".

Well, perhaps that is your problem right here, you keep insinuating people are saying things, they are not.

I am not talking about Gamers, but First Person Professional Gamers.... and those people do not use an APU's my friend. Not even sure if you are serious, or even what you are arguing about. No generalizations here, I am being specific.

Secondly, I am not wrong for stating a fact. The mere fact you can't grasp what "variable rate" means (to the mouse) and then thinking people are making generalized statements, when they are facts... pretty much means YOUR opinions doesn't matter. Because we are not talking about opinions, but facts. And nobody is claiming anything here, was pointing out a downside to the technology when used in fast-paced precision gaming. No need to get upset over it.

Lastly, to make one further point. Human's timing... is based on constant rate of time. If you want to argue this, please finish high school first.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Secondly, I am not wrong for stating a fact. The mere fact you can't grasp what "variable rate" means (to the mouse)

It means very little. With vsync off and fluctuating fps there will still be inconsistency in mouse-screen response time.

If your fps drop below the monitor max frequency vrr is better in every way. if your fps are above it's not really active.

 

[richaron]

Well, perhaps that is your problem right here, you keep insinuating people are saying things, they are not.

I am not talking about Gamers, but First Person Professional Gamers.... and those people do not use an APU's my friend. Not even sure if you are serious, or even what you are arguing about. No generalizations here, I am being specific.

Lol I never claimed any pro gamers did. It's honestly amusing how you have latched on to a tiny part of my story and keep trying to argue against it as if I'm disagreeing with you.

I brought up the APU as an extreme case situation with which I have had recent experience, and from that recent experience I know the main basis for your argument is simply wrong. Also your claim was not about pro gamers, nor was it about gamers at all. You claimed:

Unfortunately, the human's hand-eye coordination is reliant on a constant rate of time.

But you are wrong. As I've said many times I have had recent experience in a situation of extreme frame rate variations and my hand-eye coordination was still functioning surprisingly well. So it is in no way reliant on consistent frame rates. Since you made such a generalization you only need one counter point to knock over your "logic" and the conclusions you have reached. It's odd you're not understanding the point I'm trying to make.

Secondly, I am not wrong for stating a fact. The mere fact you can't grasp what "variable rate" means (to the mouse) and then thinking people are making generalized statements, when they are facts... pretty much means YOUR opinions doesn't matter. Because we are not talking about opinions, but facts. And nobody is claiming anything here, was pointing out a downside to the technology when used in fast-paced precision gaming. No need to get upset over it.

This is where you've completely missed the similarities and differences between a fact and an opinion. My opinion on this matter is also a fact because my opinion is about how I behave and what I notice. But in this case your opinion is about how other people behave and what other people notice. See how they are different?

So when I come along and tell you that your opinion about my behavior is wrong you should just listen and learn something.

Lastly, to make one further point. Human's timing... is based on constant rate of time. If you want to argue this, please finish high school first.

Nopes, the human brain asynchronous. Plus time isn't particularly reliable if you want to get all academic. Was this an attempt to change subjects?

I've given a fairly sound logical argument why your initial claim is unjustified. It's really the only thing I'm interested in debating at this stage, and I'll continue to return the subject to this claim about being "reliant on a constant rate of time". Please respond in kind.

Edit: Misread last point. Updated reply.