On a 144hz monitor, do you actually need to drive 144 FPS to fully benefit?

[maniacalpha1-1]

For example, on the XL2730Z or whatever the G-Sync equivalent is that has both g-sync and blur reduction, do you need to get close to 144hz (like, over 120) to get significant benefit of the blur reduction and response times these monitors offer? Or if you're in the 70-90 FPS range, is that enough?

I'm strongly considering either a Fury/XL2730Z, and the reason I ask about the 70-90 range is based on Anandtech's Fury benchmarks : http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1521)

Many games are over 70, and some are close, such as BF4 at 62; and I'm sure that in many games, I could turn down/off shadow quality or some other junk I don't care about to bump it just over 70. GTA V is a problem, but I'd be playing that for single player, so these issues don't matter so much.

If Fury isn't enough to benefit from the motion blur/response times I could consider a 980Ti and whichever g-sync monitor has motion blur (Rog Swift?).

One game I play though, in case any of you play it also and can offer up your own experience, is Planetside 2. Have any of you played that on a good 144hz monitor, and even better, have any of you moved from a 60hz monitor to a 144hz monitor and can describe the difference in feel? At 1080p with a 7970, I was getting 90+FPS in small battles, 50-60 in large ones; I'm figuring with a Fury at 1440p it would have to be well over 100.

 

[Madpacket]

Can't comment on Planetside 2 @ 144hz. No you don't need 144hz to fully benefit from these monitors but it helps. Really 90 FPS/Hz and up it get's hard to distinguish (visually) the difference but this will depend on how well your eyes work.

What you will notice with higher than 90 FPS/Hz however is a much more precise mouse and lower input lag if you can maintain 144hz / framerates. This where the real advantage comes in.

The faster your refresh and frame rates are, the less time it takes for your mouse / keyboard to register the input and respond to your actions. This can give you a significant advantage in some games (BF4, Quake, TF2, racing games, 2D indy games etc) I would imagine Planetside would benefit immensely as well.

To get anywhere close to 144 at native resolutions you will need a very fast CPU (overclocked 4790K is ideal) and will definitely have to reduce some graphic details regardless of the video card you end up with. Dual GPU's isn't necessary but will allow you to obviously keep more details cranked but you will still have to lower details.

I approach it this way. Aim for 60 - 90 FPS / Hz with G/F sync with as much eye candy for casual gaming. If blurring even during casual gaming bugs you enough turn down some details. However the nice thing about the new G/F sync tech is even if the game dips in spots (common) it'll be hard to distinguish visually a major difference. Totally worth it!

When you fire up planetside 2 or any other competitive game turn off g/f sync and turn everything down to maintain as close as possible to the maximum framerate of the monitor. The benefit of turning down graphic details is you can more clearly see what's going on during the game and the combination of the high refresh rates and framerates make this really worth it.

Blur reduction is an interesting option but my experience is it's limited to lower refresh rates at least on the IPS panels (which you should be aiming for, stay away from the Rog Swift, it suffers from a poor panel coating, QA issues and is really overpriced). Blur reduction really dulls or darkens the image which actually hinders how well you can see in some games. This negatively hurt my performance but may be game dependent. I owned a monitor with this feature but ended up turning it off for native 144Hz as the blur at these levels with a monitor with little to no overshoot will be a non issue. The faster input latency makes up for it as well.

If you're going with a Radeon Fury the choice of monitor right now is the Asus MG279Q.

Review here: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg279q.htm

If you're going 980Ti the monitor of choice is the Acer Predator XB270HU.

Review here: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm

Both monitors use the exact same panel so quality is very similar. Read the reviews to get an idea of the differences.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Hm, I really thought blur reduction would have been more important than that. My CPU is a 4690k so I've got some room to OC; but I'm thinking of doing a Skylake (that would be 6770k I believe?) system later on, so not too worried about that. But sure! I'll check out the MG279Q -

 

[bystander36]

Blur reduction is great, but people with more blur often don't realize it. It just becomes more like watching action on a movie, which people are used to. It can pop out to those who use ULMB mode as pretty special, but until you do use it, most people don't seem to care.

 

[moonbogg]

For me the magic number is 80fps. Anything above or around 80 feels fine to me. When it goes higher, it gets even crisper and cleaner. 60 literally feels like 30 used to feel for me though. Can't believe I was content with 60 for so long, but it was either that or a CRT.

 

[Stuka87]

I agree that 80 FPS/Hz and up looks and feels very fluid. I don't have the GPU power to hit 144FPS, but 80FPS is very doable in the majority of games that I play.

Also, at least with my ASUS (in sig), as you go to higher refresh rates, things get more and more washed out. The overall color quality of this ASUS that I have is crap, but it has no motion blur and good refresh rate choices.

 

[lehtv]

144 hz is beneficial at every framerate. Below 60 fps, motion is more fluid and responsive than on 60 hz, partly due to the refresh rate itself, and partly due to not needing VSync. Also, not having to use VSync allows you to transition between sub 60 fps and above 60 fps without any downsides; on 60 hz, you either have bad fluidity at sub 60 fps with VSync enabled, or tearing at above 60 fps with VSync disabled.

Of course, the difference is the most obvious when you get to significantly above 60 fps. IME, it's hard to distinguish 120-144 fps from 80-90 fps except in the most fast paced games (arena shooters for instance).

 

[Termie]

I've used 60Hz IPS, 144Hz TN, and now 144Hz IPS/G-Sync. In short, 120hz is infinitely better than 60hz for fast-paced gaming, and G-Sync makes 80hz feel like 120hz. That's the magic of G-Sync. Is it critical on a 1080p monitor? No, not really, because plenty of modern video cards can approach 120fps at 1080p. But it opens up a whole new world of gaming at 1440p, at least until next-gen GPU hardware arrives.

To answer the OP's exact question, I think the Fury may be borderline in BF4 at 1440p/Sync. For whatever reason, Fury just isn't that strong in BF4. Unfortunately, while a 980/G-Sync combo would be very similar in feel, it won't actually be cheaper, so you're a bit stuck there. If the Fury/BenQ best fit your budget, then go for them and just turn a few settings down to get the fps above 80 or so. Also note that you can't use ULMB and G-Sync at the same time - you seemed to suggest you wanted to run both features together.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I've used 60Hz IPS, 144Hz TN, and now 144Hz IPS/G-Sync. In short, 120hz is infinitely better than 60hz for fast-paced gaming, and G-Sync makes 80hz feel like 120hz. That's the magic of G-Sync. Is it critical on a 1080p monitor? No, not really, because plenty of modern video cards can approach 120fps at 1080p. But it opens up a whole new world of gaming at 1440p, at least until next-gen GPU hardware arrives.

To answer the OP's exact question, I think the Fury may be borderline in BF4 at 1440p/Sync. For whatever reason, Fury just isn't that strong in BF4. Unfortunately, while a 980/G-Sync combo would be very similar in feel, it won't actually be cheaper, so you're a bit stuck there. If the Fury/BenQ best fit your budget, then go for them and just turn a few settings down to get the fps above 80 or so. Also note that you can't use ULMB and G-Sync at the same time - you seemed to suggest you wanted to run both features together.

Actually, I was figuring on using it in place of F/G-sync in some situations. To be honest, and maybe there's a reason for this, but I've never seen screen tearing or visually similar artifacts in games that I play unless I'm having some issue like overheating GPU. And that's even when I've turned off AA and such. Maybe because I'm very much gameplay > graphics....so I kind of figured that the free/G-sync would be something I'd hold in reserve and use ULMB. Or if the sync features improve the response time in shooters like PS2, then certainly use it there.

Also, I don't really play BF4, but I've chosen it and DA Inquisition (which I do play, or did, I should say, since it's a finite storyline game DLC notwithstanding) as the benchmark I use to determine purchasing decisions. While it's not the most taxing game, it's not far from it.

 

[bystander36]

Do you always play with V-sync on? V-sync does remove tearing. But the other thing is that G/Freesync is make it so the images are properly time synced. Even if you don't notice the tearing, they are being refreshed out of time from the GPU, which is not as smooth as using it.

ULMB vs these techs is a harder one, as they bring different pros and cons.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Do you always play with V-sync on? V-sync does remove tearing.

I usually leave it off, have it off more often than on. Is no v-sync tearing something you'd see instantly upon taking it off?

 

[bystander36]

I usually leave it off, have it off more often than on. Is no v-sync tearing something you'd see instantly upon taking it off?

Assuming the game doesn't lock V-sync on, which some do, and you don't have it forced on in your GPU control panel, tearing happens when V-sync is turned off. Some people don't notice it as much as others.

 

[Pottuvoi]

For me the biggest improvement came from the fact that monitors can display additional stable framerates.
On 120hz suddenly we have framerates like 40 and 24 between old 60, 30 and 20 which can be v-synced and displayed properly.

Also if one doesn't like v-sync the amount of time tearline is visible each refresh is smaller and make it harder to notice.

 

[lehtv]

Yep, VSync is practically pointless on 144hz because there's just so little time for each screen tear to be visible. Only if you really try to pay attention to it, you'll see the tearing.

 

[tweakboy]

Whats the latency on this.. ?

 

[tweakboy]

Yep, VSync is practically pointless on 144hz because there's just so little time for each screen tear to be visible. Only if you really try to pay attention to it, you'll see the tearing.

WRONG! ,, you will get screen tearing ..... vsync .

Vsync On , for all 760 to 980 Ti ....... smooth ,,,,, yours would be locked at 144Mhz ,,, let me know.. gl

 

[tweakboy]

Vsync OFF .= screen tearing motion blur ,,, nasty experience. It will not lag your mouse Unless your 2ms and higher , My mouse is instant just like my Sony CRT fw900 I had. This is as close as it gets to CRT gaming. 1ms powns ,,,,,,, btw.

 

[RobertR1]

What do you guys think of matching a 980ti with the upcoming Acer Predator 34inch utlra wide screen with GSync at 100hz?

I'm currently on a dell 3008wfp (2560x1600) so I think it'll be a nice experience change going ultra wide and a much higher refresh rate.

Any reasons why i should hold off?

 

[Termie]

What do you guys think of matching a 980ti with the upcoming Acer Predator 34inch utlra wide screen with GSync at 100hz?

I'm currently on a dell 3008wfp (2560x1600) so I think it'll be a nice experience change going ultra wide and a much higher refresh rate.

Any reasons why i should hold off?

A few problems with your question:

First, what do you mean GSync at 100Hz? By definition, GSync has no set refresh rate.

Second, that monitor can't do 100Hz. It's a 75Hz panel.

Third, there's no way a 980Ti can push 100fps at that resolution.

And of course, the Acer XR341CKA that you're referring to doesn't even have a release date, so you might be jumping the gun a bit!

 

[moonbogg]

980ti doesn't have the muscle for 1440p @ high FPS. You need two in SLI or else turn down settings. If you turn down settings you'll be just fine and get high FPS. I think its hilarious that people think this is a 4K card. There is no 4K card.

 

[bystander36]

You can, however, turn down a few settings and push that high on new high end games, and older games can certainly hit 100 FPS.

 

[RobertR1]

Yeah that's what I figured. For newer games I can turn down AA and other GPU intensive features to maintain high FPS.

I currently use DSR at 2.0x from native 1600p and in games like CS:GO, dota 2, and hots isn't an issue to hit 100fps. Even BF4 with a few settings turned down runs well above 60.

This is where I'm hoping the G-Sync technology helps smooth out the gameplay for when 100fps isn't possible.

 

[MagickMan]

G-Sync @40fps feels as fluid as non G-Sync @60 or even 70. It's pretty awesome.

 

[kasakka]

The faster your refresh and frame rates are, the less time it takes for your mouse / keyboard to register the input and respond to your actions. This can give you a significant advantage in some games (BF4, Quake, TF2, racing games, 2D indy games etc) I would imagine Planetside would benefit immensely as well.

That depends on what kind of input polling the game uses. I doubt you'll notice any real difference in actual input response but the smoother overall feel of the game is perceivable.

Blur reduction is an interesting option but my experience is it's limited to lower refresh rates at least on the IPS panels (which you should be aiming for, stay away from the Rog Swift, it suffers from a poor panel coating, QA issues and is really overpriced). Blur reduction really dulls or darkens the image which actually hinders how well you can see in some games. This negatively hurt my performance but may be game dependent.

I don't agree about the coating on the ROG Swift (it's fine IMO) or blur reduction darkening the image. Darkening only happens if you set the pulse width very low but at 90% on my ROG Swift there is no real difference in ULMB mode to normal in brightness. I have my regular brightness setting around 20 which is just fine for using even in daylight. I find ULMB is best for very fast paced games that can also run at 60+ fps so mostly first person shooters.

Just by virtue of having a high refresh rate display you get less motion blur overall even if you use G-Sync instead of ULMB.

The ROG Swift is still afaik the absolute fastest panel. It's main drawback is less than stellar vertical viewing angles which are not at all problematic in normal use (sitting in front of the display). I don't notice an annoying color shift when moving around when sitting in front like you had on older TN panels. Colors are also excellent with very good factory calibration. I lucked out and got a near perfect sample but there have been others who have had terrible luck with these. But the same seems to be true for the Acer models as well, just different issues.

A single 980 Ti is the perfect companion for a 1440p 144 Hz display. That's the sweet spot right now IMO.

 

[bystander36]

That depends on what kind of input polling the game uses. I doubt you'll notice any real difference in actual input response but the smoother overall feel of the game is perceivable.

While button pressing response would likely not be noticeable at all, mouse motions are quite noticeable to many if not most.