Is G-sync really worth it?

Talk about NVIDIA G-SYNC, a variable refresh rate (VRR) technology. G-SYNC eliminates stutters, tearing, and reduces input lag.

Is G-sync really worth it?

Postby LaskoAA » 25 Mar 2017, 11:03

I have the BenQ XL2430 and I never notice tearing or shuttering. Maybe it's there but I just don't notice it. Is G-Sync worth it in my case?

Also, I know a lot of people love ASUS but I feel that the quality of BenQ is better. Am I wrong about this?


-
LaskoAA
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Mar 2017, 14:16

Re: Is G-sync really worth it?

Postby lexlazootin » 25 Mar 2017, 13:00

What game do you play? turn on V-Sync and you will notice how silky smooth the motion is. It's like that but with no latency added. It's the only way i can play now, anything else feels like a backward step.

Benq has it's fair share of goods and bads, but if you arn't going to use Benq's BBR tech i don't see any reason to go with them unless they are cheaper and you want to save a bit.

You tend to find better configurable picture quality and better response times with Asus which i find more important then anything else.
lexlazootin
 
Posts: 819
Joined: 16 Dec 2014, 02:57

Re: Is G-sync really worth it?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 25 Mar 2017, 15:52

To learn what stutters look, you can try this:

Stuttering -- www.testufo.com/stutter
Smooth -- www.testufo.com/stutter#demo=smooth
Tearing -- www.testufo.com/stutter#demo=tearing
GSYNC simulation -- www.testufo.com/stutter#demo=gsync

It is is easier to notice in high-contrast games (e.g. Borderlands type games) but it can be seen in almost any game if you pay really close attention.

Also, are you using Blur Reduction, or do you have it turned off?

Here's an animation of stuttering (which GSYNC helps eliminate).



And here's a TestUFO simulation of GSYNC (software simulation via interpolation).
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Is G-sync really worth it?

Postby CRTguy » 29 Mar 2017, 17:20

I got to see G-Sync a few days ago when I got the Asus PG258Q, which taught me a lot of about G-Sync.

I wrote a review of my experience with the PG258Q in the General forum, so feel free to check it out if you want to know more:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3287

Regarding G-Sync, I figured it was going to be a gimmick because my games run very smooth with V-Sync ON and I figured it can't get much smoother than that. However, once I tried games like For Honor, Mass Effect Andromeda Multiplayer, Rust, Tomb Raider (newest one), I was blown away by how smooth the gameplay was. What do I mean by that? For example, when I used to play Rust on my BENQ XL2420T with no G-Sync, the game would stutter when I would look around sometimes, and I figured this was just bad code from the Unity engine that Rust is using. Tomb Raider did the same thing, and again I figured it was bad code. Well, maybe it is bad code. But what I can tell you is that a game like Rust in particular, which suffers from a ton of stutters when looking around (especially in forest areas), almost NEVER stutters with G-Sync enabled. You get something like a 90% stutter reduction, and the experience is just so smooth and unbelievable. What's amazing is that even the fabled wide screen CRT, the Sony GDM-FW900, can't get motion as smooth as with G-Sync, because it doesn't support G-Sync. You will still see the stutters from Rust or Tomb Raider or other games on the CRT, even though the actual motion is beautiful and unparalleled when it isn't stuttering. So G-Sync is the very first technology when combined with a great motion LCD at 120hz+ that actually is superior to CRT in overall smoothness of gameplay. When I played Mass Effect Andromeda multiplayer, the explosions and laser effects were so smooth it just blew my mind. Smoother than even playing on CRT due to the lack of stutters (even if they are minor, they will show up frequently as you move and turn quickly through the map without G-Sync).

With that said, I noticed that when games run at 90+ FPS, G-Sync looks the best and feels the best. When I played Mass Effect Andromeda single player in a zone that was running at 50-90fps, the G-Sync actually made the game more choppy and sluggish. I had to turn off G-Sync to get a smoother game experience, because it felt almost like G-Sync was spreading the stuttering across everything like a bullet proof vest instead of taking hard stutter spikes like I'd normally get with boosts of faster motion. I actually prefer the hard stutter spikes with faster motion at lower fps than making the whole experience a more stuttery feel. I have no idea how some people online say that G-Sync is great for lower framerates because that certainly wasn't my experience. G-Sync (from my perspective) is ideal when you are about 90+ fps but can't quite max out the refresh rate of your monitor. In my case I was at 240hz so I was never reaching that maximum, but even at 120hz you can't always stay at a consistent 120 fps for every game, making G-Sync extremely useful for a consistent smooth experience in those cases. For lower framerate games you may just end up wanting to use ULMB instead if ULMB doesn't cause problems for you on the monitor in question. You may also want to use ULMB on games that have an fps that is constantly capped at your refresh rate.

While I thought the PG258Q was disappointing, the one thing I did learn from it is that G-Sync is an amazing new tool for those always looking for a smoother gameplay experience. It isn't a tool you use in all cases, but when you can use it, it is life changing to experience.
CRTguy
 
Posts: 14
Joined: 28 Mar 2017, 18:10

Re: Is G-sync really worth it?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 29 Mar 2017, 17:42

CRTguy wrote:While I thought the PG258Q was disappointing, the one thing I did learn from it is that G-Sync is an amazing new tool for those always looking for a smoother gameplay experience. It isn't a tool you use in all cases, but when you can use it, it is life changing to experience.

Now we need the Holy Grail.

A rolling-scan variable-refresh-rate OLED with 1000nits -- to combine blur-reduction AND variable-refreshrate.

More likely is a local-dimmed scanning backlight on an LCD, with top near-zero-strobe-crosstalk quality. We're actually "getting there", but it's tough going. I've actually seen REALLY GOOD scanning backlights with less strobe crosstalk than ULMB, and much better colors than LightBoost, so they do exist out there now -- but not in a low-lag gaming monitor format....YET.

It's going to be a unicorn for a long time, but it's possible to run VRR on a CRT to de-stutter on a CRT too. (ToastyX VGA FreeSync hack) Do you have an AMD graphics card and your old Sony widescreen CRT? If so, give 'er a spin -- and send me a PM too -- I'd love to feature a CRT FreeSync test in a BlurBusters article!
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Is G-sync really worth it?

Postby LaskoAA » 29 Mar 2017, 19:44

lexlazootin wrote:What game do you play? turn on V-Sync and you will notice how silky smooth the motion is. It's like that but with no latency added. It's the only way i can play now, anything else feels like a backward step.

Benq has it's fair share of goods and bads, but if you arn't going to use Benq's BBR tech i don't see any reason to go with them unless they are cheaper and you want to save a bit.

You tend to find better configurable picture quality and better response times with Asus which i find more important then anything else.



How do I know if V-Sync is on?


-
LaskoAA
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Mar 2017, 14:16

Re: Is G-sync really worth it?

Postby LaskoAA » 29 Mar 2017, 19:46

CRTguy wrote:I got to see G-Sync a few days ago when I got the Asus PG258Q, which taught me a lot of about G-Sync.

I wrote a review of my experience with the PG258Q in the General forum, so feel free to check it out if you want to know more:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3287

Regarding G-Sync, I figured it was going to be a gimmick because my games run very smooth with V-Sync ON and I figured it can't get much smoother than that. However, once I tried games like For Honor, Mass Effect Andromeda Multiplayer, Rust, Tomb Raider (newest one), I was blown away by how smooth the gameplay was. What do I mean by that? For example, when I used to play Rust on my BENQ XL2420T with no G-Sync, the game would stutter when I would look around sometimes, and I figured this was just bad code from the Unity engine that Rust is using. Tomb Raider did the same thing, and again I figured it was bad code. Well, maybe it is bad code. But what I can tell you is that a game like Rust in particular, which suffers from a ton of stutters when looking around (especially in forest areas), almost NEVER stutters with G-Sync enabled. You get something like a 90% stutter reduction, and the experience is just so smooth and unbelievable. What's amazing is that even the fabled wide screen CRT, the Sony GDM-FW900, can't get motion as smooth as with G-Sync, because it doesn't support G-Sync. You will still see the stutters from Rust or Tomb Raider or other games on the CRT, even though the actual motion is beautiful and unparalleled when it isn't stuttering. So G-Sync is the very first technology when combined with a great motion LCD at 120hz+ that actually is superior to CRT in overall smoothness of gameplay. When I played Mass Effect Andromeda multiplayer, the explosions and laser effects were so smooth it just blew my mind. Smoother than even playing on CRT due to the lack of stutters (even if they are minor, they will show up frequently as you move and turn quickly through the map without G-Sync).

With that said, I noticed that when games run at 90+ FPS, G-Sync looks the best and feels the best. When I played Mass Effect Andromeda single player in a zone that was running at 50-90fps, the G-Sync actually made the game more choppy and sluggish. I had to turn off G-Sync to get a smoother game experience, because it felt almost like G-Sync was spreading the stuttering across everything like a bullet proof vest instead of taking hard stutter spikes like I'd normally get with boosts of faster motion. I actually prefer the hard stutter spikes with faster motion at lower fps than making the whole experience a more stuttery feel. I have no idea how some people online say that G-Sync is great for lower framerates because that certainly wasn't my experience. G-Sync (from my perspective) is ideal when you are about 90+ fps but can't quite max out the refresh rate of your monitor. In my case I was at 240hz so I was never reaching that maximum, but even at 120hz you can't always stay at a consistent 120 fps for every game, making G-Sync extremely useful for a consistent smooth experience in those cases. For lower framerate games you may just end up wanting to use ULMB instead if ULMB doesn't cause problems for you on the monitor in question. You may also want to use ULMB on games that have an fps that is constantly capped at your refresh rate.

While I thought the PG258Q was disappointing, the one thing I did learn from it is that G-Sync is an amazing new tool for those always looking for a smoother gameplay experience. It isn't a tool you use in all cases, but when you can use it, it is life changing to experience.



I have the ASUS PG248Q and the BenQ XL2430 hooked up to my comp right now. The colors on the BenQ are definitely better (the whites are white on the BenQ while the whites on the Asus are more grey). Also, the fonts when browsing the internet are better on the BenQ (due to the BenQ having a "Sharpness" option (I don't see the Asus having this)). With that said, I did notice that the game felt a little smoother on the Asus due to G-Sync. My FPS is exactly the same on both monitors (it fluctuates between 100 fps - 109 fps) and I'm not seeing tearing or stutter on either monitor.

I really just don't know where to go from here to be honest when it comes to choosing the right monitor. I wish there weren't so many options or if there was just one clear choice (one monitor stood out as being the best). I just want a good monitor to game on.


-
LaskoAA
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Mar 2017, 14:16

Re: Is G-sync really worth it?

Postby RealNC » 29 Mar 2017, 23:38

LaskoAA wrote:My FPS is exactly the same on both monitors (it fluctuates between 100 fps - 109 fps) and I'm not seeing tearing or stutter on either monitor.

There IS stutter. It's physically impossible for stutter not to exist in this situation. You have 100 frames per second from the game, but the monitor displays 120 frames per second. It's IMPOSSIBLE to not get stuttering due to the mismatch. 100 is NOT 120.

That means you are not able to perceive stutter. Which is good. That means you don't need to spend money for G-Sync.

I'm not that fortunate. I can see the 100FPS on 120Hz stutter VERY easily, and it ruins games for me.

Actually, I envy you :-)
The views and opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Blur Busters.
User avatar
RealNC
 
Posts: 1046
Joined: 24 Dec 2013, 18:32

Re: Is G-sync really worth it?

Postby CRTguy » 30 Mar 2017, 22:53

Chief Blur Buster wrote:It's going to be a unicorn for a long time, but it's possible to run VRR on a CRT to de-stutter on a CRT too. (ToastyX VGA FreeSync hack) Do you have an AMD graphics card and your old Sony widescreen CRT? If so, give 'er a spin -- and send me a PM too -- I'd love to feature a CRT FreeSync test in a BlurBusters article!


I actually don't own any AMD graphics cards (at least not any card from the last 8+ years) and have nothing but negative experiences with AMD/ATI for both CPUs and GPUs. However, if I could get a digital to analog adapter working on my FW900, I might consider investigating the FreeSync hack down the road. Probably way down the road since I'm about to spend a chunk of money on a new monitor with G-Sync.
CRTguy
 
Posts: 14
Joined: 28 Mar 2017, 18:10


Return to G-SYNC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests