Does G-SYNC reduce motion blur?

[whitestar]

Maybe we should all just go back to our CRT monitors.

Ironic how all these issues were effectively non-issues some years ago on CRT.
And this is supposed to be progress? Bah, humbug!

[RealNC]

Ironic how all these issues were effectively non-issues some years ago on CRT.
And this is supposed to be progress? Bah, humbug!

But when it comes to stutter though, CRTs had exactly the same issues. G-Sync would help a CRT in exactly the same way.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Maybe we should all just go back to our CRT monitors.
Ironic how all these issues were effectively non-issues some years ago on CRT.
And this is supposed to be progress? Bah, humbug!

I could see tearing and stutter at all refresh rates even at 120Hz on CRT during floating framerate situations. The visual behaviors of stutter and tearing are no different for CRT versus strobed monitors. Back in the day, CRT could not change refresh rates 100+ times a second like GSYNC can't, but a CRT could in theory be modified to do variable refresh rate to float the refresh rate in sync with the fluctuating framerate, if you could solve the variable-rate flicker problem.

If you don't care about stutter/tearing, then we already have motion blur parity. Some of the strobe backlights have less motion blur than an average CRT computer monitor now. Even with the old LightBoost, it still competes in motion clarity. As an example, see rave reviews of LightBoost at http://www.blurbusters.com/lightboost/testimonials/

[whitestar]

Just wish there will be a solution soon that takes care of both fluctuating fps stutter AND motion blur without visible flicker. That's actually what I hoped OLED would do, but it doesn't look like it.

[Edmond]

Just wish there will be a solution soon that takes care of both fluctuating fps stutter AND motion blur without visible flicker. That's actually what I hoped OLED would do, but it doesn't look like it.

THO, oleds apparently are capable of like 1000hz and have wicked fast response times. 200fps seems realistic for games. So a 200hz oled would be quite doable for the masses - which would bring with it a 5ms pixel persistence.

And thats good, ye its not crt 1ms, but in order to have gsync operation you cant have strobing. And 5ms is a gargantuan improvement and enough for the masses. You def cant expect to everyone game on 500 or 1000fps suddenly. But 200fps might be doable easily.

So a 200hz flicker free gsync oled is the most realistic low blur gsync panel i can think of for the future.

[Chief Blur Buster]

THO, oleds apparently are capable of like 1000hz and have wicked fast response times. 200fps seems realistic for games. So a 200hz oled would be quite doable for the masses - which would bring with it a 5ms pixel persistence.

And thats good, ye its not crt 1ms, but in order to have gsync operation you cant have strobing. And 5ms is a gargantuan improvement and enough for the masses. You def cant expect to everyone game on 500 or 1000fps suddenly. But 200fps might be doable easily.

So a 200hz flicker free gsync oled is the most realistic low blur gsync panel i can think of for the future.

There is also ways to do variable-rate strobing, if done creatively, as long strobing is disabled as framerates fall towards flicker fusion threshold. Check Strobing on Variable Refresh Rate Displays. It's not impossible, but require creative solutions to solve the visible-flicker problem.

[whitestar]

THO, oleds apparently are capable of like 1000hz and have wicked fast response times. 200fps seems realistic for games. So a 200hz oled would be quite doable for the masses - which would bring with it a 5ms pixel persistence.

And thats good, ye its not crt 1ms, but in order to have gsync operation you cant have strobing. And 5ms is a gargantuan improvement and enough for the masses. You def cant expect to everyone game on 500 or 1000fps suddenly. But 200fps might be doable easily.

So a 200hz flicker free gsync oled is the most realistic low blur gsync panel i can think of for the future.

Well, this is the whole issue really. The framerate I mean. It doesn't really seem to progress all that much. There are far too many new games coming out that stresses the GPUs to such an extent that you can pretty much forget even 100 or 85fps.

The key thing here being the minimum framerate. Sure, you have Just Cause 2, Valve's Source engine and whatnot. But then you also have Crysis 3, Metro: Last Light etc. You will be lucky to even get the minimum framerate out of the mud at ultra settings.

200? I don't see that happening for new titles in the near future. The only titles I can play at 200 are those that have been around for like 5-10 years. But I don't want that. I want to play new titles with decent fps. I think the focus should be on display solutions and getting the best possible display at 60fps.

Right now I'm playing Far Cry 3 at 85hz, and thats' on High settings. The fps stays on 85 for about ... well 75 % of the time, so it's bearable. Ideally I should set the hz to 75, but that would mean a visible increase in blur. For me 85hz is the limit where I can live with the blur in such first person titles. If I cranked all settings up to ultra then I would probably be looking at a minimum framerate in the 50s, possibly 60s. Haven't really tested.

[Edmond]

Well, this is the whole issue really. The framerate I mean. It doesn't really seem to progress all that much. There are far too many new games coming out that stresses the GPUs to such an extent that you can pretty much forget even 100 or 85fps.

The key thing here being the minimum framerate. Sure, you have Just Cause 2, Valve's Source engine and whatnot. But then you also have Crysis 3, Metro: Last Light etc. You will be lucky to even get the minimum framerate out of the mud at ultra settings.

200? I don't see that happening for new titles in the near future. The only titles I can play at 200 are those that have been around for like 5-10 years. But I don't want that. I want to play new titles with decent fps. I think the focus should be on display solutions and getting the best possible display at 60fps.

Right now I'm playing Far Cry 3 at 85hz, and thats' on High settings. The fps stays on 85 for about ... well 75 % of the time, so it's bearable. Ideally I should set the hz to 75, but that would mean a visible increase in blur. For me 85hz is the limit where I can live with the blur in such first person titles. If I cranked all settings up to ultra then I would probably be looking at a minimum framerate in the 50s, possibly 60s. Haven't really tested.

Yes, but dont forget that it would be a 200hz gsync panel. Meaning the framerate is clean regadless what fps you are getting(when above 30). And as you get higher and closer to 200 the smoother it feels and the less motion blur you see.

Thats the case with current 120hz gsync monitors - the higher framerate you get the less motion blur in addition to smoothness. Up to a cap of 8.3ms of blur @120fps. (or 6.9 ms cap @ 144fps).

But the problem remains that - If you would want to play the hottest games with high fps you are going to have to lower the settings; a lot even if you cap is 5ms of blur @200fps. The developers of games would have to calm the fuck down a little with the graphics,.. its not like games are ugly now or smth. As far as gsync with low motion blur, i dont see any other way.

[whitestar]

The developers of games would have to calm the fuck down a little with the graphics,.. its not like games are ugly now or smth.

Heheh, yeah I quite agree.
I am also under the impression that too many developers just rely on the hardware to to the job, instead of optimizing the code as best they can.

[RealNC]

Devs should stop developing on monster machines. Develop on slow ones instead. This isn't just good advice for games development, but for pretty much everything.