Good for you, most of us do. Though 120hz does make it less noticeable.using 120hz, but no i notice 0 tearing
My initial impressions closely mirror what was reported by one of our G-Sync contest winners. If you're going from 60 Hz panels, there is a *huge* drop in latency and a corresponding increase in fluidity when gaming at 120+ Hz refresh rates, especially if the game FPS sits that high in the range. The higher you go on refresh, the harder it is to see tearing, even with lower FPS coming from the game and with vsync off. In those cases, torn frames are only on-screen for a fraction of the time, quickly replaced with a non-torn version of the new frame on the very next scan (only 7 msec later when refreshing at 144 Hz). At those speeds, tearing goes from smacking you in the face to you having to look for it.
Even though higher refresh rates attempt to solve the tearing issue, they do not correct the aggregate latency that comes from the GPU completing frame renders out-of-sync with display refreshes. If you've experienced the difference in feel going from a 60 to 120+ Hz panel, the best way to describe the transition to G-Sync is as a half-again gain over that 60-120 Hz change in feel - where those perceptions mainly apply to gaming above 120 Hz. If all games ran at 120+ Hz without issue, there would be much less of a need for G-Sync, but that's not reality as game developers tend to target 60 FPS.
Good for you, most of us do. Though 120hz does make it less noticeable.
This review was interesting, and kind of sums up your thoughts and how G-sync helps, non the less:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...stallation-and-Performance-Review/Impressions
dude, i've only seen tearing at less than 60 fps on a 60hz monitor, why do people see tearing under such completely different circumstances?
What you're stating is basically impossible if you're using an LCD. CRT? You don't get tearing. LCD technology? You will. If your framerate exceeds the refresh rate of the monitor, tearing will happen. Now, you may have become accustomed to it, it may not be as noticeable to you, but like I said...it is impossible to not have tearing when your framerate exceeds monitor refresh.
Just to be clear, "tearing" is a visual artifact that always happens when the framerate is not aligned with the sync of the monitor. In other words, if your monitor LCD refresh rate is 60hz, and your framerate goes up to 100, the lack of "sync" between two frames will cause a slight horizontal line that fades across the screen very quickly. It is called tearing because it creates a "torn" look on edges, but this is an absolute fact of LCD technology. If your framerate is not aligned to the refresh sync of the monitor, tearing happens. Always. It is a fact.
Like I said, you're accustomed to it and notice it less, but it happens. It is impossible for it to not happen with LCD technology. That's just the unfortunate trade-off for LCDs - superior power consumption, better image quality, but tearing is one of the trade-offs for 60hz fixed monitors. If your framerate exceeds the refresh sync of the monitor.
Unless you're using a CRT or something, and then that opens up an entirely different set of trade-offs. Like trinitron dampening wires, space heater heat output, convergence issues, uneven focus, having a 50 pound hunk of junk on your desk, etc etc etc. But you generally don't get tearing with CRTs because they don't have fixed sync refresh rates at 60hz (depending on resolution) as LCDs do.
Tearing is not new to LCD's. CRT's also have tearing for the exact same reasons. They update the screen in the same way that LCD's do, except that the pixels do not stay lit up. LCD's display the way they do because of CRT's.What you're stating is basically impossible if you're using an LCD. CRT? You don't get tearing. LCD technology? You will. If your framerate exceeds the refresh rate of the monitor, tearing will happen. Now, you may have become accustomed to it, it may not be as noticeable to you, but like I said...it is impossible to not have tearing when your framerate exceeds monitor refresh.
Just to be clear, "tearing" is a visual artifact that always happens when the framerate is not aligned with the sync of the monitor. In other words, if your monitor LCD refresh rate is 60hz, and your framerate goes up to 100, the lack of "sync" between two frames will cause a slight horizontal line that fades across the screen very quickly. It is called tearing because it creates a "torn" look on edges, but this is an absolute fact of LCD technology. If your framerate is not aligned to the refresh sync of the monitor, tearing happens. Always. It is a fact.
Like I said, you're accustomed to it and notice it less, but it happens. It is impossible for it to not happen with LCD technology. That's just the unfortunate trade-off for LCDs - superior power consumption, better image quality, but tearing is one of the trade-offs for 60hz fixed monitors. If your framerate exceeds the refresh sync of the monitor.
Unless you're using a CRT or something, and then that opens up an entirely different set of trade-offs. Like trinitron dampening wires, space heater heat output, convergence issues, uneven focus, having a 50 pound hunk of junk on your desk, etc etc etc. But you generally don't get tearing with CRTs because they don't have fixed sync refresh rates at 60hz (depending on resolution) as LCDs do.
You likely will not get a clear answer anywhere, as these are Nvidia secrets.i think the last time i saw tearing (guild wars 1) i was using a CRT and got heavy tearing at <60 fps, idk - vsync fixed it
another question, does anyone have a link to a more technical explanation of g-sync than AT provides?
i'm having trouble understanding why a hardware solution with 768MB of memory is necessary if they are just changing the timing of the vertical blanking signal, which is part of the hdmi/displayport specs
Such an amount is undoubtly for buffering the frames
over a few cycles....
i agree, raw 24-bit color 1080p frames are very large, but why would you need to buffer frames if you are truly making the monitor a slave to the gpu's frame output? if you're displaying frames immediately (as they claim) by adjusting vblank timing, there should be no need to buffer anything - which is why the explanation provided seems dubious at best to me
not to mention 768 MB is enough to buffer 128 frames of 1080p, so clearly thats not all it's used for
just saying -won't go back to 1080 and tn ever.All those tech's are things people like, and things people won't give up easily. 3D is about the only one that is a bit controversial, though I personally won't give it up.
G-sync is the next big thing that people will want, and not give up. That does not mean most people need to throw away their current monitor. It is something you'll purchase with your next monitor upgrade.
They do have 1440 Gsync 120hz monitors on the way. Just not in IPS because they are so terrible in the pixel response and latency department.just saying -won't go back to 1080 and tn ever.
remember having a sam.2443 having to turn it on a 45 angle when someone sat in my chair and I sat in the corner corner chair 3' to the right to somewhat watch the game.
the promise of 1440 gsync and 120 hz ips/pls will require new panel tech. or we could have it now or show me.
To bring FreeSync to desktop monitors, AMD applied for a DisplayPort 1.2a Specification Change Request, according to this hardware.fr article (Article is in French).
Benefits as a result of changes
This enables the ability for external DisplayPort to take advantage of the option to ignore MSA timing parameter and have the sink slave to source timing to realize per frame dynamic refresh rate.
They do have 1440 Gsync 120hz monitors on the way. Just not in IPS because they are so terrible in the pixel response and latency department.
If that isn't good enough, then you will pass, I'm sure.
Tearing is not new to LCD's. CRT's also have tearing for the exact same reasons. They update the screen in the same way that LCD's do, except that the pixels do not stay lit up. LCD's display the way they do because of CRT's.
I was responding to rgallant's post, where he said 1440p 120hz G-sync monitors won't exist, but there are already announcements from Asus of one.You mean vaporware? Go with your G-sync promises somewhere else - like g-sync thread.
I'm mad they decided now it is a good time to release new display tech - just when I upgraded to fullhd display. Great! I'm on around 10 years upgrade cycle when it comes to displays...
I know, but it certainly was not as common on CRTs due to the fact that CRTs generally had super high refresh rates as compared to LCDs. There wasn't a situation to where you were limited to 60hz at your max resolution, generally speaking, I used CRTs for some time in the early 2k years and the max refresh at highest resolutions ranged from 85hz to 100hz or higher in many cases. I didn't notice tearing so much as I noticed "flickering" with CRTs.
That said, I would take LCDs with tearing over CRTs anyday. I loved Trinitron screens back in the day, but thinking back to having a 50 pound 19 inch space heater on my desk with convergence issues and dampening wires....it was amazing for that time frame, now? Not so much. I'll still take LCD tech with tearing over that, even if most LCDs don't have higher than 60hz refresh.
I agree that I expect Freesync to come of age, though I have a feeling it may be renamed, especially if it turns out it costs extra.freesync, gsync, whatever comes out of it, it really doesnt matter too much. The fact these issues are finally being addressed, that is what is important.
3D,
AMD applying for a change request only shows how early they are in this process. Its at the very start. Hopefully it goes somewhere. Say it does. Say freesync is rushed out and available this time next year (which i believe is unlikely) , we still would be fools to believe it is automatically better. Without ever seeing it, testing it, we will never know which approach is the right approach.
AMD is trying to do the same thing but going a different route. This may or may not work as well as gsync. It might work way better, we just do not know. But what we do know is, gsync is out and it works as advertised. Freesync is no where close to the stage for anyone to know how it will fair. It is in the earliest stage of concept. Its a long long way out. Often a concept design and the final production differ greatly. Cause once you have prototypes, you find all the things you never thought of. This is why we have prototypes. Freesync has a long way to come. I find it interesting why AMD would even bring it up at such an early early stage. Its really nowhere near release
I definitely had tearing back then, but I used only 85hz. The thing was, we were also struggling with low FPS and lower settings, and didn't know just how clean and good games could look. I think we just tolerated more back then. I used to tolerate motion sickness when playing 1st person games, not anymore. I now use 120hz and high FPS so it all feels good.
This should answer those critics who say AMD has no plans to bring Free-Sync to market.
Blur Busters via hardware.fr
I agree that I expect Freesync to come of age, though I have a feeling it may be renamed, especially if it turns out it costs extra.
I also do not thing it'll take years to come available. I'd bet it takes no more than 1 year. There just isn't that many moving parts on this one. Not if they plan to use existing tech and standards.
How well it will work is the biggest question. I have a feeling it won't have the bells as whistles of Gsync (strobe mode and color calibrating).
This should answer those critics who say AMD has no plans to bring Free-Sync to market.
Blur Busters via hardware.fr
If you continue to say freesync uses existing standards then you are continuing to spread misinformation. Its that simple.To bring FreeSync to desktop monitors, AMD applied for a DisplayPort 1.2a Specification Change Request,