G-sync necessary?

[MuchTooSexy]

So i see that the GTX1080 has dropped in price now that the ti version has arrived. I was pondering getting something like the following to go with it:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0149QBOF0/

That seems to be quite a bit more expensive that non-gsync monitors. Would i be losing out on alot by not bothering with gsync?

I like playing shooters such as titanfall, battlefield and overwatch.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Dunno, some people love it, others say they barely notice it.

Do you know anyone irl who has a gsync or freesync screen?

 

[crisium]

If you're budget cannot stretch to both 1080 and G Sync, then I would suggest 1070 and G Sync.

But then again, ignorance is bliss. You game without G Sync already, so maintain the status quo if you're content.

 

[MuchTooSexy]

Dunno, some people love it, others say they barely notice it.

Do you know anyone irl who has a gsync or freesync screen?

Unfortunately, i don't know anyone who has such a monitor to see if it really makes that much difference to me.

Perhaps there is a different (cheaper) gsync monitor i should be shopping for?

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Perhaps there is a different (cheaper) gsync monitor i should be shopping for?

Gsync screens are all expensive. They use a special module with an fpga (expensive) on it. Maybe they'll switch to a cheaper asic with the upcoming HDR screens.

What is your current cpu/gpu/monitor? amd should have a 1080 competitor in a few months.

 

[MuchTooSexy]

What is your current cpu/gpu/monitor? amd should have a 1080 competitor in a few months.

I currently have two 7950 in crossfire running three regular 60hz monitors in 5760x1080 eyefinity. I am considering a 1080 as a single card replacement that doesn't need crossfire. but it seems eyefinity isn't that big a deal any more given the high resolution single monitors now.

thanks for the replies

 

[Flapdrol1337]

One big gpu, one big screen with gsync or freesync is the way to go imo.

Amd unfortunately doesn't have something above 480 until they release vega somewhere in Q2, but freesync screens are a lot more affordable.

I'm running a 2560x1080 75hz freesync screen with a 290. Runs things nicely with some settings lowered, but if I would've gone with a 3440x1440 I don't think a single amd card would manage, and crossfire/sli isn't great these days.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Eyefinity/surround is not as supported as it was in 2011-2015 (ishh). I just dropped 3 x 1440p (48:9) monitors to one 3440x1440 (21:9).

 

[MuchTooSexy]

Eyefinity/surround is not as supported as it was in 2011-2015 (ishh). I just dropped 3 x 1440p (48:9) monitors to one 3440x1440 (21:9).

are most games able to take advantage of that resolution?

 

[MuchTooSexy]

so in any case, is that dell monitor linked earlier worth considering? my local microcenter seems to have a few for $499.

 

[tamz_msc]

It is worth considering, the only problem being that the default setup is not very good. If you're now willing to spend 200$ more for IPS G-Sync panels, then this would be a good choice.

 

[wanderica]

Is G-Sync worth it? I think so . . . sort of. I can give you my experience if it helps. I upgraded from an older Dell 27" 1440p IPS @ 60Hz to that exact monitor, and don't at all regret the purchase. Gaming on it did indeed feel smoother, but I also upgraded my GPU at the same time (290x to 1070) for the total package, so obviously, it was better for that reason alone. Last week, however, I made the jump to 4k, and used my 1070 while waiting on my new 1080 Ti. I can tell the difference now that I no longer have it. For me personally, G-Sync was worth it, but I could certainly live without it if it came at the expense of better hardware in other areas such as a better CPU, GPU, or in my case, 4k.

 

[lehtv]

@wanderica It's kind of difficult to judge the value of GSync by comparing a 144Hz GSync monitor to a normal 60Hz monitor. The higher refresh rate makes everything a lot smoother already, so the comparison should be between GSync 144Hz and normal 144Hz.

 

[MuchTooSexy]

@wanderica It's kind of difficult to judge the value of GSync by comparing a 144Hz GSync monitor to a normal 60Hz monitor. The higher refresh rate makes everything a lot smoother already, so the comparison should be between GSync 144Hz and normal 144Hz.

That comes back to the original question, lol. The answer seems to be "maybe, depends on the individual."

It is worth considering, the only problem being that the default setup is not very good. If you're now willing to spend 200$ more for IPS G-Sync panels, then this would be a good choice.

I see similarly spec'ed Asus and Acer monitors for $700+:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0173PEX20/
https://www.amazon.com/PG279Q-2560x1440-G-SYNC-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B017EVR2VM/

Is there something about those that i'm missing when comparing to the Dell?

 

[tamz_msc]

I see similarly spec'ed Asus and Acer monitors for $700+:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0173PEX20/
https://www.amazon.com/PG279Q-2560x1440-G-SYNC-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B017EVR2VM/

Is there something about those that i'm missing when comparing to the Dell?

Yes, the Acer and Asus are IPS panels.

 

[MuchTooSexy]

ah, forgot the Dell is TN.

Thanks

 

[w3rd]

I am wondering the same thing.

Even though I have a Predator X34 100hz G-sync... I do not fully subscribe to G-sync for FPS gaming, because of how it alters the mouse. I would much rather have a set/steady frame rate.


My not so big dilemma is:
That I am waiting on a MSI 1080ti to be released as an upgrade for my 980, on my Acer X35 G-Sync. I think by mid-month they will be out in full force. But I grew up with screen tearing and it's annoyance doesn't effect me. Yet, in casual gameplay no tearing is a relief to the human eye/well-being, g-sync'ing just offers a smoother experience (Racing games MMOs, etc).

That said, the 1080ti's power is perfect fit for 3440 x 1440p @ 100Hz. Using the Ti, I don't think I will have to use G-sync anymore & can just set it to whatever freq I deem. Having an ultra smooth gaming experience (BF1, Project Cars, etc).

 

[tential]

If you can't afford Gsync, you shouldn't buy Nvidia.

 

[nathanddrews]

G-Sync and FreeSync are great, but the usefulness is most impactful for sub-100Hz, sub-100fps scenarios. My own experience with G-Sync is based upon the 180Hz ASUS Swift TN alongside my GTX 970. I eventually returned it due to the extreme brightness of the panel - it was impossible to calibrate it using a non-blinding brightness level which made long gameplay sessions very tiring on my eyes. But that's a weakness of the display, not G-Sync itself. An OLED or VA panel would have allowed for greater contrast at lower brightness levels.

Most of the shooters I played ran well above 60fps, some above 120fps. MMOs like Rift and Marvel Heroes would fluctuate greatly between 40fps and 180fps due to the ever-changing complexity of a given scene or area. To me, the greatest aspect of G-Sync was emulating arcade and console games. Many old games are built to run at very specific frame rates or refresh rates that are nearly impossible to display correctly without a good CRT. It took some tweaking of my emulators, but it was honestly the best non-CRT experience I've ever had playing those games.

For what it's worth, I'm holding off on buying any variable refresh rate monitors until we see HDMI 2.1 displays arrive (2018). Higher bandwidth than DisplayPort 1.4 with more features like variable refresh rate and a low input lag game mode that bypasses other SoC functions. I'd love to see the HDTV market finally step up and compete against the monitor market for gamers.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I upgraded from a 1080 60Hz monitor with my same 1060 vid card to the 1440 144Hz Asus Gsync (PG279Q). My experience is relevant in that my gpu can't keep the framerate above 80 in most modern games at that rez (I mostly play BF1). So besides some future proofing, my biggest advantage is in smoothness in the 60-75 fps range that most of my game play falls within. Could I live without it? Of course. But I do notice it. Despite lower framerates than the guy running a 1080ti, I still get a very playable experience. I'll say the my K/D ratio went up noticeably within days of getting the monitor, where it has more or less stayed since.

I figure with the next gpu upgrade I'll be able to look forward to enjoying more of the refresh headroom on that monitor.

It ain't cheap though. I paid I think $500 for my display. That was a good price for what I got, but I still think it's crazy expensive.

 

[MuchTooSexy]

But is that from Gsync? or just from higher framerates?

 

[Headfoot]

GSync and Freesync are totally worth it in 90% of cases. The only time I wouldn't get it is if you can guarantee you have enough grunt to max out every game you play and will play for the life of the card at 144hz.

 

[Bacon1]

GSync and Freesync are totally worth it in 90% of cases

Yep, no tearing and smoother gameplay is a huge bonus

 

[thilanliyan]

I've only tried free sync on a 75hz monitor but I think it is worth it. I myself probably wouldn't pay extra for gsync though.

 

[Carfax83]

I was a Gsync hold out for years, but when I finally got a 165Hz Gsync monitor, I was like

So yeah, it's definitely worth it, especially for faster paced games like Doom.