I was basically saying that if AMD offers a kit, and they both are offering similar tech, it would open the door to unified standard. At least I hope. If AMD never tries to do the same, the tech could die.
My point is that if this was an ISO standard, it could be included in displays from the factory, and work with a GPU from any manufacturer that supported the data signal for the controller in the display.
AMD having a kit and nVidia having a kit means you need to have a display for that manufacturer. This is not good for consumers.
They used different wording in that review. PCPER called it light variance.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Refresh-Rate/Potential-Benefits-New-Interface
It doesn't change that it only has an issue when approaching 15 hz (I assume they are using 30hz as the minimum to make certain there are no issues). Of course, that is much lower than 60hz as you said earlier. Not to mention, this has nothing to do with the pulsing backlighting used with Lighboost and who games with FPS lower than 30 FPS?
Doesn't matter the point is there are issues, LCD is not immune to flickering like you said. NV could just be syncing the back light to a multiple of the refresh, it doesn't have to be matched 1:1. They probably chose 30 Hz because internally the DC is likely being converted to 60 Hz AC again (no way the back light now magically works at low voltage) so the minimum display refresh has to be a common denominator for the back light scanning to work properly. And just like PCPER said, anything below 30 Hz would cause the scanning back light to display brightness variation for each frame, causing flickering. This would not be an issue if like you said, LCDs stayed on "indefinitely". So stop arguing back and forth.
You should read through the review I gave you.
Some of your ideas are still very outdated. Such as the AC frequency deal (it does mention it, and how it has changed).
You kept changing your argument, from the pulsing backlight, and now that you found something close, you are claiming that is what you meant, which still is not a flicker exactly. At least not in the same sense that Lightboost or CRT's flicker.
You're the one who's had to change your argument since LCDs clearly do flicker. I never changed my argument. The flickering back light is the problem, I said it before and I'm saying it now. Seems like it's hard for you to understand this simple concept.
Knowing what I do know about LCD's, I believe the article you posted poorly choose their words. Besides, no one games at that low of FPS anyways, so it is pretty much a non issue.LCDs produce an image on the screen with the combination of a persistent back light (CCFL, LED) and by direct voltage application. These pixels can be updated without interference from or with other segments of the display, in any order or at any rate. There is also no need to refresh the pixels in an LCD due to the CRT limitation called phosphor persistence as the pixels do not go dark between refreshes. This means that there is effectively no minimum refresh rate for LCD panels. (Though, in extreme cases of sub-15 FPS instances, a refresh might be necessary to avoid visible light variance.)
My point is that if this was an ISO standard, it could be included in displays from the factory, and work with a GPU from any manufacturer that supported the data signal for the controller in the display.
AMD having a kit and nVidia having a kit means you need to have a display for that manufacturer. This is not good for consumers.
I was basically saying that if AMD offers a kit, and they both are offering similar tech, it would open the door to unified standard. At least I hope. If AMD never tries to do the same, the tech could die.
Well, I think you took a poorly worded article to try to support your claim.
Look at the other article for example:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...-Death-Refresh-Rate/Introduction-LCD-Monitors
Knowing what I do know about LCD's, I believe the article you posted poorly choose their words. Besides, no one games at that low of FPS anyways, so it is pretty much a non issue.
You realize of course that the part you bold in brackets is a direct contradiction of the phrase that came before it.... right?
Ohh... last time I checked stuttering was no longer a problem. I'm waiting to see how that changed in one day
You must not play video games.
so you will be just as oblivious today as you were yesterday then. perhaps you should email Nvidia and let them know that games dont stutter and they are wasting thier time. and whats next? games dont ever tear for you either?Last time I played yesterday, something changed in 24h?
Can someone please explain how this G-sync actually works?
So it's a monitor with a dynamic refresh rate that stays equal to the framerate, but the graphics card and the monitor still have to be in sync to prevent tearing right? Meaning V-sync is still being used?
And another thing, what happens if your framerate jumps up to 500 fps? Will the monitor have a 500 Hz refresh rate?
Also, what happens if your framerate dips to 2 fps, will it become a 2 Hz monitor? i.e. you will end up watching how the frames are being built?
Yes it will, practically all 120 Hz LCDs have a scanning back light. Unless they somehow decoupled the back light refresh from the display refresh... I'm not really sure about this. But a back light scanning below 60 Hz would seriously drive you crazy.
so you will be just as oblivious today as you were yesterday then. perhaps you should email Nvidia and let them know that games dont stutter and they are wasting thier time. and whats next? games dont ever tear for you either?
G-sync works in reverse of how V-sync works.
In V-sync, the GPU synchronizes to the displays refresh. This results in the GPU having to wait a lot.
In G-sync, the Display's refreshes synchronize with the GPU. This way images are immediately updated to the display as soon as a frame is ready. This removes tearing without any delays.
lol oh yes you are the guy that claims to get no tearing. it must be nice to blind to that.Not for me. Its not susceptible to LOTS of people.
That's what they said. I'm still wondering what happens when you go above that maximum refresh rate.Anything below the 144 Hz maximum refresh rate of this monitor will be running at full speed without the tearing associated with the lack of vertical sync.
That's what they said. I'm still wondering what happens when you go above that maximum refresh rate.
There would only be two options, and perhaps they'll have a choice for you:
1) it will allow tearing, with the refresh rate at 144hz.
2) it will apply v-sync, with the refresh rate at 144hz.
the monitor costs like 250 bucks plus what ever g-sync adds so its not very expensive at all.This is a very expensive high-end monitor, so I assume that only people with an expensive high end PC, with a killer CPU and the latest GTX's in SLI, will buy it. So whoever owns this monitor will most likely be able to maintain 144 fps in most of his games and will use the second option. So it really ends up not being that much different than a regular monitor?
Secondly, if whenever that fps threshold is crossed the GPU and monitor will suddenly switch roles as to who is synced with who, wouldn't that cause problems?