Blur Busters Forums

Edmond wrote:The more i search on this the more i keep bumping into something like -

Freesync guesses what hz the monitor should be.
Gsync lets the video card drive the monitor directly.

This isn't how I interpret things. There are mechanisms to allow FreeSync to behave more akin to GSYNC.

The 9Hz operation would only occur for 9fps, or for battery management. Low Hz is great for low fps since it reduces stutter of low fps situations noticeably, to a certain extent. But you could conceivably set a minimum. A wider Hz range is beneficial as 30Hz is only to avoid LCD inversion artifacts. But if you used GSYNC on OLED, then the lower Hz limit doesn't hurt things for real world gameplay, provided it only occurs during low framerate situations or to save battery power when idle. However, playable rates should stay at 30fps and up, but I would like to see the lower framerate to be a bit under 24fps for better playback of movies, provided the inversion artifacts ( www.testufo.com/inversion )are a nonissue.

Wait, did I hear that right? Adaptive Sync is going to be limited to 60hz initially?

hashtonkutcher wrote:Wait, did I hear that right? Adaptive Sync is going to be limited to 60hz initially?

Only insofar as existing chips and electronics. Nothing stops them from doing 120Hz eventually, or potentially being overclocked, but this was originally a battery/power management technique (dynamically lowering refresh rate to save power during idle moments) being co-opted into a GSYNC-style tearing/stutter removal standard. It'll take time for this to occur for high-performance situations. Even NVIDIA had to use FPGA's to get variable refresh rate all the way up to 144Hz at 1080p resolutions. Plus, NVIDIA does some work for the manufacturers, providing them with GSYNC electronics, while display manufacturers will have to design their own stuff for Adaptive Sync / FreeSync. Designing a display that goes into a million laptops (for power management) versus designing a display that goes into a few thousand gaming monitors, is a whole different ballgame.

Competition is very good and I am excited about Adaptive Sync, but this isn't a "it's here today" standard -- it's still one full upgrade generation away from becoming very significant competition in the 120Hz+ gaming monitor leagues -- so people will still have plenty of time to enjoy GSYNC during this upgrade cycle.

Eventually VRR support (FreeSync/GSYNC) will be an inexpensive add-on to a monitor, I hope this happens within a few years.

NVIDIA did drop the ball with G-Sync and it's slow adoption. Announced in Oct 2013, they've only had a single small 1080p monitor with poor image quality as their only product. The next product, the ROG Swift is highly delayed and will come out some 10 months after the G-Sync press release.

vg248qe image quality is poor? well probably it is compared to ips, but how does it compare to the other 120hz+ displays?

will nvidia be selling more diy kits in the future?

flood wrote:vg248qe image quality is poor? well probably it is compared to ips, but how does it compare to the other 120hz+ displays?

will nvidia be selling more diy kits in the future?

Yes, it is poor as it's a TN panel. Especially against something like the Eizo FG2421.

Vega wrote:

flood wrote:vg248qe image quality is poor? well probably it is compared to ips, but how does it compare to the other 120hz+ displays?

will nvidia be selling more diy kits in the future?

Yes, it is poor as it's a TN panel. Especially against something like the Eizo FG2421.

It may be a TN, but it's very impressive compared to other TN panels when properly calibrated. Unfortunately there's nothing we can do about the color banding though.

I don't think Gsync is dead yet. AMD claims that monitors will be available in 6-12 months, and companies rarely keep a deadline. Gsync could be around for a few more years at least. Here's some information I found about all the many syncs out there right now http://toptengamer.squidoo.com/top-g-sync-monitors .