Decisions decisions 360 vs 500 as a g-sync gamer

[hockeyfanyeg97]

360 hz vs 500 hz monitor

Currently I play OW2 and I get between 400-450 fps on a 240 hz monitor. I have a powerful machine with a i9-11900k and a 3090. I do prefer g-sync on and that's where my question comes into play.

If I buy a 360 hz monitor then I will only be in g-sync when the game suddenly drops below 360 fps which doesn't happen often but can happen when there is a lot going on.

If I go with the 500 hz monitor I will pretty much always be in g-sync. Would always being in g-sync be better for fps games?

[jabbo]

Assuming price is not a factor then, from a competitive standpoint, sure the 500hz monitor would be best if you are concerned with only input latency. That assumes the monitor itself functions correctly and has good color/display/blur/sync controls to your liking. There are diminishing returns, however, in increasing refresh rate to getting reduced input latency. 30hz to 60hz is huge. 60 to 120 is slightly less huge. 120 to 240 slightly less, and so on.

Many pros still play OW2 on 240hz monitors so my advice would be to enable gysnc+vsync then turn on nvidia reflex in OW2 settings and feel safe knowing you are getting the least amount of input lag while staying tear free.

[Haste]

360 hz vs 500 hz monitor

Currently I play OW2 and I get between 400-450 fps on a 240 hz monitor. I have a powerful machine with a i9-11900k and a 3090. I do prefer g-sync on and that's where my question comes into play.

If I buy a 360 hz monitor then I will only be in g-sync when the game suddenly drops below 360 fps which doesn't happen often but can happen when there is a lot going on.

If I go with the 500 hz monitor I will pretty much always be in g-sync. Would always being in g-sync be better for fps games?

yes.
The experience of running gsync at frame rate below max refresh rate is superior to running frame rate above max refresh rate with vsync off, (or frame rate at refresh rate with vsync on)

There are no downsides and only positives for you by going the 500Hz route in that regard.

That said, you might want to still use a frame rate limiter for 2 reasons:
- avoiding hitting max gpu utilization
- keeping the frame pacing more consistent

[Inco^]

Currently you always have higher FPS than Hz, so how do you know you are a G-Sync gamer? (your G-Sync is never activated because for it to be activated you would need to have FPS lower than Hz)

I used to care for screen tearing when my FPS/Hz was around 100, 144 or maybe 240. I am using XL2566K now with 360Hz and without freesync (I use DyAc+ which cannot be enabled simultaneously with freesync) I do not notice screen tearing. My understanding is that screen tearing gets less and less noticeable as refresh rate increases.

The gain from going from 360 Hz to 500 Hz would be better smoothness (in addition to having a new frame sooner which I'm not sure it really matters) and better motion clarity if no motion blur reduction (MBR) technique (DyAc+ is one of them) is considered in the comparison.

I can safely say that right now, BenQ's XL2566K is the best monitor for competitive FPS. Because compared to other 360Hz monitors, it has faster pixel transitions. As a consequence, there is less ghosting and better motion clarity. Also, the DyAc+ allows to improve the motion clarity further. Probably, upcoming Asus's 500+ Hz monitor will use the same panel or possibly, a better one. But it won't have BenQ's DyAc+. Will they implement an MBR feature? To conclude, it remains to be seen if upcoming Asus monitor will beat the XL2566K.