So G-sync monitors affect your performance?

[Azurenys]

I've recently got around learning more about G-sync technology and what it does for a gamer.

Yet, for example on the model I liked - Acer Predator XB240HA 144Hz G-Sync
Comments say people that don't have 980 or more are forced to remove Anti-aliasing all together and even some shadows to get acceptable frames. Sure they also say it looks better than with AA but.. ? It's not even 1440p, it's a 1080p 24 inch monitor so...
From what I gather the way G-Sync works and the resources used, it puts much more rendering stress on the components in order to display the graphics properly.

Anyone with a G-Sync monitor can comment on this?

[Deleted]

Well, according to http://www.g-sync.com, G-Sync does not affect performance in games. It does not add extra input lag nor other performance hits. The only drawback is $$$.

See the images below

[Akainakali]

Whomever is saying this doesn't understand what G-Sync does.

It sounds like they are talking about V-sync, which does try to do something similar in preventing "tearing" on the screen. It tries to "lock" the frame rate so that the cards isn't changing the picture sent to the monitor halfway through a scan cycle (the tearing) and that can cause jumps/drops in frame rate as it tries to keep the frame pacing consistent (usually either 30 or 60 fps) and introduces more lag. So for it to work well, you pretty much have to have your minimum frame rate greater than what ever it's trying to sync to, which might well necessitate those sorts of compromises for frame rates.

G-sync is much more sophisticated. Refresh rate is in many respects an artifact from the CRT monitor days, where the speed of the electron beam traversing the tube was generally a fixed rate. G-sync is an attempt to work around the limitations of a refresh rate architecture.

This is a better explanation of things than I can offer

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7582/nvidia-gsync-review

[fixx]

Comments say people that don't have 980 or more are forced to remove Anti-aliasing all together and even some shadows to get acceptable frames. Sure they also say it looks better than with AA but.. ? It's not even 1440p, it's a 1080p 24 inch monitor so...

There's no performance hit from G-sync.

What the comments probably mean is that without achieving well over 60fps speeds (closer to 150fps) having 144Hz monitor is essentially useless. It takes shitloads of GPU power to run new games at close to 150fps, or even at 100fps with ultra settings.

[Remilia]

G-sync is much more sophisticated. Refresh rate is in many respects an artifact from the CRT monitor days, where the speed of the electron beam traversing the tube was generally a fixed rate. G-sync is an attempt to work around the limitations of a refresh rate architecture.

Eh, just wanted to add to this. One of the reasons is CRTs had a refresh rate because it didn't use a sample and hold method and so if the data feed in is too low you'd be getting a blank screen. The beam isn't really the issue more so the phosphor's response time granted nowadays it's the fastest display of all types. Similarly LCDs have a pixel response too which is why a max refresh rate is needed. If the refresh rate is higher than the panel can handle then you get major visual artifacts.

While variable refresh rates existed about 6 years ago on laptops / eDP, which is why the "no module" G-sync on laptops exist, it's a shameful rename for something that already exists. It was made for power savings, amusingly. G-sync and Free-Sync / Adaptive sync are all still within the limitations of the maximum refresh rate of the panel. There's also manufacturing the controller to handle higher inputs though I won't say I'm an expert at that, it won't surprise me if there is any difficulty going with a higher or no limit.

[Akainakali]

I believe the laptop screens are also different in that the panels are controlled directly by the graphics chip, where as with a conventional monitor, there's the input connection and the hardware scaler. Which is why the recent G-sync laptops don't need a G-sync module like the standalone monitors do.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/29287...-rages-on.html

[Azurenys]

So, in other words, there's no point in getting one for myself if I'm not switching my 970 for something stronger?

[Remilia]

So, in other words, there's no point in getting one for myself if I'm not switching my 970 for something stronger?

I personally don't care all that much about adaptive refresh rate tech that much, but GPU power wise it really depends on the game. 40-60Hz is apparently the 'sweet spot' in which it has the most effect.

I believe the laptop screens are also different in that the panels are controlled directly by the graphics chip, where as with a conventional monitor, there's the input connection and the hardware scaler. Which is why the recent G-sync laptops don't need a G-sync module like the standalone monitors do.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/29287...-rages-on.html

Yes they are different for quite a few aspects. The eDP is the main thing that allows adaptive sync and without it it's useless. AMD first demonstrated FreeSync with a Laptop to begin with showing that the tech already existed quite a long while ago. Then with VESA they implemented it into DP1.2a.

[fixx]

So, in other words, there's no point in getting one for myself if I'm not switching my 970 for something stronger?

It's supposedly a gamechanger for people who are easily annoyed by screen tearing.

[Akainakali]

G-sync is by all accounts terrific if your system isn't consistently producing frame rates beyond that which the monitor refreshes at or is producing inconsistent frame rates in IIRC about the 20-60 fps range.

It dramatically smooths out things and may let you actually turn up the eye candy since the frame rate variability and lower frame rates won't hurt what you're seeing nearly as much.

In general it's probably most helpful if your system's frame rates at your settings are marginal, so weaker video cards (within reason) probably benefit more.

If your system is powerful enough that you're pegging the FPS meter, G-sync isn't going to do much of anything since there is no issue there to correct. However it does have it's limits, if you're < something like 20 FPS, you simply aren't producing enough frames to keep up with the changes and it can't fix that.

[Azurenys]

G-sync is by all accounts terrific if your system isn't consistently producing frame rates beyond that which the monitor refreshes at or is producing inconsistent frame rates in IIRC about the 20-60 fps range.

It dramatically smooths out things and may let you actually turn up the eye candy since the frame rate variability and lower frame rates won't hurt what you're seeing nearly as much.

In general it's probably most helpful if your system's frame rates at your settings are marginal, so weaker video cards (within reason) probably benefit more.

If your system is powerful enough that you're pegging the FPS meter, G-sync isn't going to do much of anything since there is no issue there to correct. However it does have it's limits, if you're < something like 20 FPS, you simply aren't producing enough frames to keep up with the changes and it can't fix that.

Well I'm in the range of 60+ frames (probably much more if Vsync was gone) so I suppose I'm going to get this baby soon:
Acer Predator XB240H 24" G-Sync 144Hz Gaming Widescreen LED Monitor
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=MO-079-AC

[aarro]

I have the Asus PG278Q ROG Swift G-Sync 144Hz and you can definitely tell the difference going from a standard monitor to this. Maybe it improves game play slightly but it definitely improves visuals.