A lot of gamers notice judder at 60 FPS with V-sync in many games. Those are examples of where G-sync would be much better.Another thing you seem to not realize, is G-sync does more than just fix tearing and latency. It allows the GPU to display frames with the same display time as the games internal clock. If the game starts frames with variable times, the sequence of events gets off, when forced to be displayed at steady time intervals on the display. With G-sync, the time intervals between the start of each frame is only altered by rendering times, the display does not interfere. This results in smoother, more accurate time sequences.
You have a very poor understanding of G-Sync.
As mentioned by everybody, it's only really worth it at the 40-60fps range.
As far as your Mantle point goes ams, I stopped listening to anyone who thought it was only useful for CPU-limited situations a long, long time ago.
He assumes that everyone uses vsync. That isn't the case.
Does G-Sync also allow magical switches to lower IQ when the fps drops to 25 and below?Even with the magical 60 fps "cut-off" that he suggests, g-sync allows you to add more image quality without any corresponding stuttering which WOULD happen when framerates dip below 60.
I'd also like to repeat the paragraph that was ignored, that even at 60 FPS, games do not behave as well as G-sync.
A lot of gamers notice judder at 60 FPS with V-sync in many games. Those are examples of where G-sync would be much better.
Damn look at those minimums - I'm not sure I'd want to lower those much more by adding more IQ to a basically flawed API/graphics card combo.
The point is...obvious.
Yes it is, completely distorting reality while pretending we all run around suffering 15 fps in games with the fastest video card on the planet.
A lot of console games run extra smooth at 30 fps - way better than PC games appear at 30 fps. The reason for this is the consoles are running at a *constant* ~30 fps instead of 70 fps average with 20 fps dips all over the place.
G-Sync cannot ever solve this issue, Mantle should.
Its two things. Motion blur and frame smoothing and that stuff (play crysis 3 at 20 fps vs a game like skyrim and see the difference). Crysis 3 feels 'heavy', like you are under a blanket while skyrim shudders and breaks and tears.
Also its the controller vs. mouse issue. Controllers tend to hide stuttering and latency better than a mouse having less precision. Its not so much as you see a visible difference between 30 and 60 fps; its that the game feel so much more responsive. Add the slower and less precise motions of a controller and games like crysis 3 feel the same as most console games.
This is more of a game thing than mantle related. Crysis 3 fixed it quite a bit by not allowing framerates to go crazy staring at a wall and then getting the judder when they drop back down when you turn around (metro seems to have this problem, stare at a wall 70 fps, turn around 30 fps, stutter drives me nuts).
Could mantle fix this? Maybe, but it seems more like a driver and game issue.
I have never heard of the wall-turn-around stutter problem. Can't you just fix that with VSYNC?
Lets say that Nvidia and Intel ignore it regardless of how awesome it appears to be. Both favour a standard they can work with in DirectX and openGL. Given that Mantle would then be on about ~5% of cards worldwide, maybe a little more I don't know the exact numbers but its not many on the grand scheme of things. It would thus lack critical market penetration and hence despite all its benefits it would never take off, and that would be a shame (assuming it does what its meant to).
I have the same concern about Gsync. I don't want to be stuck on Nvidia's cards, I would quite like a pair of 290X's but the only reason I haven't bought them is because I want gsync more than anything else. What I really want is 4k, gsync, Mantle, physX and trueAudio. I see the benefits from every bit of the advancements that both parties are making and its extremely annoying having to choose between them, because they are all great improvements.
If there was one wish I would have for this year its that AMD, Nvidia and whoever else can start working on making all this stuff work more widely, and if Microsoft is in the way then do it yourselves by choosing the API together and then working on their own implementations.
The current situation sucks, it potentially kills perfectly good improvements because of the limited availability. If its not on all cards then developers wont use it as much if at all.
I am stuck between knowing that innovation comes from a company working in isolation without standards stifling its creativity and at the same time wanting progress like with had with DX 7-> DX11 where the companies managed to work together to improve graphics without adding too much fragmentation. The current situation just sucks and we can't seem to have it all and if some of the players don't want to play the Mantle game it might not ever be popular enough to be anything more than a basic addon like physX.
nVidia has stated that they won't allow their efforts to be shared by the competition and people applaud them for it. AMD has continually worked for open standards and continually get accused of being lazy for it.
I agree, I wish all features were available to all vendors, which would mean all consumers.
Did AMD ask nvidia and intel to contribute to the standard? If no, I won't call it very open...
If a closed feature has no negative effect on game development, how is that feature bad for the consumer? If that feature never came to be, would it be better for the consumer?Which standard are you talking about? If you mean Mantle, it's not a standard.
My statement was meant to be a general one referring to vendor specific features and how they are bad for consumers overall.
If a closed feature has no negative effect on game development, how is that feature bad for the consumer? If that feature never came to be, would it be better for the consumer?
It is better to have open features than proprietary, but they aren't bad for the consumer, unless it has negative effects the development or enjoyment of games.
If a closed feature has no negative effect on game development, how is that feature bad for the consumer? If that feature never came to be, would it be better for the consumer?
It is better to have open features than proprietary, but they aren't bad for the consumer, unless it has negative effects the development or enjoyment of games.
Physx takes ressources away from amd cards the same way mantle does the other way.
Except with mantle half the future gaming market is on cgn consoles sharing the cost. That means far bigger momentum behind mantle.
You realize Mantle is not presently being targeted for consoles, yes? The only people who will benefit from Mantle so far are PC users with GCN cards.
He didn't say Mantle was on consoles. He said GCN was on consoles and PC's. Both support the same feature set which enhances Mantle's compatibility with the consoles.