Is G-Sync worth it???

I am looking to buy a new laptop since I can't stand waiting on Pascal any longer.

The big question I have is whether or not G-Sync is worth it or not? I've read a few threads regarding G-Sync and I know what it is but I haven't seen any opinions whether or not it's worth having.

Is it a gimmick?
Is it now a must have for future displays?
If you didn't have it, would you miss it?

 

After having owned 2 laptops with G-SYNC, I wouldn't ever wanna look at a non G-Sync screen.

 

It's one of those things that at first it's nice to have, then when you go to a non G-sync screen, it's something that you MUST have. I never used to be that sensitive to tearing, but now I notice it on non G-sync screens. I have a 21:9 non G-sync LCD and love it, but after playing on G-sync, I ordered one of those Acer X34 21:9 G-sync panels. It's THAT important IMHO.

 

If you want a non-biased and objective review, read Eurogamers take on G-Sync.

The bottom line:

That about sums up my experience. Yes it's great for getting rid of screen tear without input lag, but beyond that it doesn't do much else. If you're playing fast paced shooters/action games, G-Sync is NOT the panacea, and it does NOT make 40 FPS gaming feel like 60 FPS, not one bit.

I wouldn't call it a gimmick, but don't set your expectations too high lest you be disappointed.

 

It makes lower fps less unacceptable. I dont notice frame drops as badly as before.

 

It smooths it out overall. You don't notice frame dips unless it goes below 35 or so, and screen tearing is a thing of the past.

It's one of those things that you don't realize you appreciate until you've had it and then go back to non G-sync.

 

Eh maybe I'm just not as sensitive, but playing without G-Sync on, the only difference I really noticed was screen tearing. Spots where there would be inevitable frame drops still felt jerky, and 40 FPS gaming was still a subpar experience.

I still use G-Sync to get rid of screen tearing, but at least for me, it's definitely not a "must have", and certainly didn't "revolutionize" my gaming experience, as some reviews led me to believe. (which is why I was so let down by G-Sync, and that Eurogamer review felt like a breath of fresh air, but I digress)

 

I don't think it "revolutionizes" but it's just one of those things that you notice and hard to forget once you've had it. I've chosen a 21:9 60Hz LCD over G-sync for the time being because it's more functional for me. I had a 21:9 144Hz G-sync 2560x1440 LCD too. But gaming is 10% of my computer time. If I had more time to play I'd probably opt for a G-sync over 21:9, well unless I can get best of both worlds, which I'm planning on, just damn things are so hard to get ahold of for now.

 

It helps with tearing but I would say it's not worth spending any extra on. If it's free then great get it, but I wouldn't pay for it again. I don't even have it enabled much of the time on my external display.

My worry is it will eventually die off and we'll all be using freesync or whatever non-proprietary version becomes popular. At that point my gsync specific display won't even be needed for it anyway.

 

At the end of the day, this all may be a moot point. I'm basically asking this because I am looking at 2 laptops. One with G-Sync and one without. The one with is the MSI GT72 and the one without is the Acer Predator.

I have owned nothing but MSI's for the past 6 years so I kinda wanted something new. I love the look of the Predator and I personally think the Acer keyboard and trackpad are noticeably better than what's on the MSI. Not to mention, I like the small things here and there such as the Macro keys on the left side and the toggle switch for the touchpad. I also like how the Predator looks like a old school notebook.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone here is going to tell me go with the MSI and for good reason. Acer hasn't really impressed the gaming crowed lately and they still don't give us what we want such as an MXM GPU.

At the end of the day, the only flaw I can find with the Predator is its lack of gsync.

Should I just got with the MSI even though I think the Predator has a better keyboard/trackpad and I think it just looks better.

Decision decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...pgrade-on-ROG-G751JY-JT-Laptops-Now-Available!

Clevo doesn't care, but seems Asus does.

 

It gets rid of tearing but it does absolutely not make dips to 30-50fps feel good, at least imo. Also it doesn't appear to work at all in some games

 

It always works. It's a hardware thing, so it's game agnostic. But if you don't disable Vsync in game it will run like vsync which has its own issues. It feels smoother as it dips lower because it's updating the frame as soon as the GPU can spit it out, but if you're sensitive to 30-40 FPS and can see the individual frames, then it won't make much difference to you. But I've noticed it definitely makes the experience better overall.

I was a skeptic as well. Can probably dig up some posts from a couple years ago where I'm a disbeliever until I tried it then I was convinced it was a noticeable improvement. You could throw two screens in front of me, one g-sync and one not g-sync and within minutes could probably tell you which one is G-sync and which one isn't.

 

Is there an easy way to test if gsync is working? or doing anything at all?

If I run a game on my external gsync display at 4k with high enough settings to make it run 40fps I still cannot see a difference between gsync on or off. I don't see any tearing and it doesn't feel any smoother either way.

I wanted to see the difference so I could test it on my internal display. It is not supposed to be gsync capable but it lets me turn it on and it does indeed greatly affect my 3dmark scores. I was under the impression it wouldn't even let me enable it and would make zero difference on a non gsync display.

My biggest thing with gsync is if I can only play a game at 30-50 fps I will just lower settings or resolution to get 60 anyway, so in my case it probably doesn't help me at all. Like instead of playing The Witcher 3 at 4k ultra an only getting 30 fps, I would rather just drop it to 1080 ultra at 60.

 

G-sync is really best to eliminate tearing (usually happens when FPS is greater than LCD refresh) and smooth out rapid changes in frame rates. To see if it's really working just download the Nvidia G-sync pendulum demo.

 

Thanks HTWingnut, exactly what I needed. The demo definitely shows a difference in smoothness with it on or off, but I can't seem to see that in an actual game. I can't think of any games where I go above my refresh. Normally I choose to limit to 60 if there is one or sometimes I use vsync. I wouldn't want to play above my refresh because that just creates more heat for no reason IMO.

My internal is definitely not gsync capable, but it limits my 3dmark to 60 for some reason, which kills my score. Weird. I assume that this issue would carry into games as well. Maybe it's just a driver issue? Also means I either have to always remember to disable gsync when I undock or just always run with it off, which is what I am leaning towards. That way I don't ever have to worry about forgetting.

 

When you enable G-sync in the control panel it automatically enabled V-sync in control panel as well. You want this in games, just as long as you have G-sync enabled. V-sync can cause nightmares for mouse input lag and known for drastic changes in frame rates. But with G-sync enabled V-sync essentially is a frame limiter instead of acting like V-sync. I actually still turn off V-sync and enable a frame limiter (either Nvidia Inspector or MSI Afterburner/RivaTuner or DxTory) equal to my LCD's refresh rate because this way I know that FPS are being displayed as quickly as possible without any hindrance from V-sync.

Just *ALWAYS* disable V-sync in the options of any game you're playing.

 

What's so dumb about this is that adaptive v-sync has existed for years, except Nvidia choose to limit to to fullscreen only. Seriously if they just fixed adaptive v-sync I don't think many would care about G-sync. Fullscreen is just too annoying to play in. Waiting a few seconds to alt tab is infuriating and unnecessary.

 

Without G-sync I use Rivatuner which lets me set an FPS limit per game.

I just got out of Skyrim running at 100fps with 18" internal screen refresh set to 100hz and Rivatuner set for Skyrim @ 100 FPS.

Beautiful, with no tearing. No G-sync necessary

Games performance varies , but most are fine at Ultra settings at 100/100/100

For games like Arkham Knight I turn it down to 75hz/75fps/75fps - I can run it higher, but I look to set it at the average FPS.

So it is possible to have zero tearing without G-sync.

 

There is a big difference between Adaptive V-sync and G-sync. G-sync synchronizes the LCD refresh to allow it to display as fast as the video card can throw out frames (up to LCD max refresh). It also greatly reduces or eliminates stuttering associated with rapid changes in FPS. And it also eliminates any input lag due to V-sync. Adaptive V-sync only turns on V-sync when FPS is at monitor refresh rate and turns it off when FPS is below it, so kind of like a modified frame cap. Although I'll take frame cap over adaptive V-sync, because frame cap you can do in full screen or windowed mode, and don't have input lag associated with V-sync.

Some games behave better than others without G-sync. Honestly, you have to use a G-sync display for a bit to appreciate it. I'm not saying it's for everyone or even justifies the added cost, that's up to the individual, but it is something tangible and noticeable.

 

I thought that you need to enable Vsync for Gsync to be effective?

 

Nope. Well kinda. You can turn off V-sync independent of G-sync, but apparently turning off V-sync with G-sync enabled won't limit FPS to max LCD refresh. Doesn't make sense to run faster than screen refresh though, because then you risk tearing, so whatever.

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/g-sync-gets-even-better

" For enthusiasts, we’ve included a new advanced control option that enables G-SYNC to be disabled when the frame rate of a game exceeds the maximum refresh rate of the G-SYNC monitor. For instance, if your frame rate can reach 250 on a 144Hz monitor, the new option will disable G-SYNC once you exceed 144 frames per second. Doing so will disable G-SYNCs goodness and reintroduce tearing, which G-SYNC eliminates, but it will improve input latency ever so slightly in games that require lighting fast reactions."

Go to 1:18 in this video, the side scroll panning is where it's most apparent and gives a great representation of what the difference is.

 

Besides the side scrolling, I couldn't really tell a difference between any of them......I personally think the one with "No Sync" looked the best most of the time.

 

I think it's overrated and with some GeForce driver versions I have had issues with it re-enabling itself over and over again. I prefer just disabling it and I don't think I would ever pay extra for it on purpose. Like many NVIDIA "features" this seems like more of a marketing gimmick than an advantage to me. Now, having said that, I am not OCD about screen tearing and unless the tearing is really horrible I usually don't even notice it. If it bugged the daylights out of my, I might be more impressed by it than I am.

With the 4K (non-G-SYNC) panel on the Sky X9 now, I absolutely do not miss G-SYNC at all. And, it's not because of the 4K screen, as I actually prefer 1080p over 4K.

 

I think probably the most objective thing to say, is that G-Sync definitely eliminates screen tearing without input lag, which is an advantage no matter what. However beyond that, it appears whether you can perceive the extra smoothness is entirely up to the individual, and even down to the games you play. I leave G-Sync on if it doesn't cause weird issues with games, but otherwise as I've said previously, it's not a must have for me.

 

I think it's a step in the right direction. I don't know that G-sync is worth the price premium, but if you're in the market for a quality LCD for gaming it's something to consider. Hopefully this tech does become commonplace in LCD's and doesn't require special GPU's and special licensing to work, because quite frankly, it really should just be part of any gaming monitor and completely agnostic of the hardware connected to it.

 

Fixed it.

 

I can't speak from experience but I understood that G-sync is targeting the image quality (screen tearing) not so much the smoothness of the actually game-play/movement (discounting the lag from regular V-sync). Maybe it "feels" smoother because screen tearing itself comes and goes sporadically at a lower frequency then your fps or refresh rate giving the illusion of choppy gameplay....?

Agreed, G-sync/Adaptive-Sync should become normal for monitors, that's why VESA added it the the displayport standard.

 

+1 this tech should be free. I'm wondering how long Nvidia will save face an not enable VESA support.
They really need to just concede on this one.

 

G-Sync does require special licensing, along with a licensing fee, an additional resistor on the MXM GPU to make it proprietary, a specific hardware ID and specific LCD before it will work. As usual, an overpriced, proprietary feature from NGREEDIA.

It's a lot like the NVIDIA 3D gimmick redux as far as I am concerned... pay extra for a proprietary crap fad feature when all you really wanted at the end of the day is a nice 120Hz panel. I guess looking on the bright side, you don't have to wear a dorky looking pair of eyeglass for G-Sync to work, so that's a plus.

 

G-Sync is just VESA's Adaptive Sync with DRM

 

It is smoother because the LCD is synced with every single frame coming from the GPU, not having to wait for the fixed refresh cadence and no frames lost, or wait for refresh to display next frame.

From Nvidia's video (granted they do exaggerate the condition) it shows it perfectly.





I would prefer this to be a "free" technology which AMD tried to implement with FreeSync, unfortunately Nvidia has grabbed the reigns along with the money bag for the time being. I personally don't care who uses it and who doesn't, I just think it's a step in the right direction is all and hate to see technology hindered because of greed.

Plus I've read lots of comments about it, not necessarily at NBR but other forums and sites from people that haven't even tried it yet and bashing it. I'm always a skeptic, like I am with all new tech, as I was with G-sync and also with Oculus Rift. Some things are gimmicks, some have some merit, too.

 

I used triple-buffering vsync+ frame limit and that was ideal for 60Hz... ideal in the world without GSync.
Now I overclocked monitor to 96Hz and I don't need triple buffering for fluent gaming when GPU provides close to 96 fps. But anytime game hits 70s I see stuttering like it was 40fps on 60Hz monitor before.
So here we came to the definition of GSYNC. GSYNC is what provides the best possible visualization in any kind of fps you GPU provides.

 

My new-to-me notebook has a non-G-Sync built-in screen, though a revision was released later that supported it. I also had it connected to an Asus VG248QE, which is 144Hz but no G-Sync, and I'm currently running an Acer XB240H, which is 144Hz and G-Sync. Gaming on my built-in screen is just like that of any typical 60Hz display, with a trace of input lag with vsync on and a bit of tearing with it off. The Asus monitor did not suffer from any noticeable lag, though I did not heavily test it with demanding games. Most everything ran at or very near the maximum refresh rate. To be honest, the worst thing about the Asus is its color reproduction, which is pretty poor even with a fair amount of tweaking.

The Acer has been fantastic thus far. G-Sync does exactly what it advertises. With some minor calibration, the colors are some of the most vibrant you'll see on something that isn't IPS. I couldn't be happier with it or the notebook connected to it. If you can afford a G-Sync monitor, it is absolutely worth the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thanks, surprised I hadn't seen that video before, really made it clear in my mind how it works.

I don't like tearing but I dislike the lag from V-sync much more! So I have just tried to ignore tearing and never really put much thought into it....... until today were I limited the fps in COD4 to 30, 40, 45, 55, 60, 115, 120 and 125 fps using RTSS at 60Hz refresh rate.
At 30 and 40 fps the tearing show up in 2 or 3 small areas (thin strips) of the screen. I compared playing with the screen normally and with the screen tearing physically hidden with some tape. Everything felt much smoother (as smooth as things get at 30-40fps) just by not being able to see the tearing (Not really ideal though having tape across your screen )
45 and 55 fps made it impossible to avoid the tearing as it was pretty much all over the screen, it just looked bad rather then actually feeling choppy. 60 fps produced a single large tear that moved up and down the screen as the frame times vary slightly, this in my opinion looks worse then the tearing at 55 fps.
In the same way 120 fps looked horrible compared to 115 and 125 as it made a dirty big tear right in the middle of the screen while 115 and 125 fps had the tearing sort of flicker over the entire screen which I found to be less annoying and distracting.

So bringing this post back on-topic with regards to the OP, maybe G-sync is slightly overrated/overpriced if one can play with the fps limit to get the tearing to a more acceptable level/state like I did with COD4... probably not possible with newer more intensive titles though and depending how sensitive you are to tearing. I hopefully, will be able to pick up a PG279Q in a week or so, then I will have a first hand opinion for myself if its worth it or not, although I'm thinking G-sync might take a back seat when considering the extra 105Hz, 3 inchs of screen and the extra pixel density compared to my old U2410!