Blur Busters Forums

nimbulan wrote:Wow $200? I was expecting $150 at most. That is really disappointing.

Ouch. Same here. If I would have known that I would have held off on purchasing my monitor until I could buy it with the gsync module.

Unfortunately I wasn't eligible to enter the giveaway because my video card isn't compatible yet...

Dustmuffins wrote:

nimbulan wrote:Wow $200? I was expecting $150 at most. That is really disappointing.

Ouch. Same here. If I would have known that I would have held off on purchasing my monitor until I could buy it with the gsync module.

Unfortunately I wasn't eligible to enter the giveaway because my video card isn't compatible yet...

From the sound of it, buying a new G-sync monitor may actually be more expensive than upgrading a VG248QE, even with the kit costing $200.

nimbulan wrote:

Dustmuffins wrote:

nimbulan wrote:Wow $200? I was expecting $150 at most. That is really disappointing.

Ouch. Same here. If I would have known that I would have held off on purchasing my monitor until I could buy it with the gsync module.

Unfortunately I wasn't eligible to enter the giveaway because my video card isn't compatible yet...

From the sound of it, buying a new G-sync monitor may actually be more expensive than upgrading a VG248QE, even with the kit costing $200.

Exactly. What's the point of that? It initially sounded like the DIY option was cheaper, that's why I opted for it.

aMunster wrote:

nimbulan wrote:

Dustmuffins wrote:

nimbulan wrote:Wow $200? I was expecting $150 at most. That is really disappointing.

Ouch. Same here. If I would have known that I would have held off on purchasing my monitor until I could buy it with the gsync module.

Unfortunately I wasn't eligible to enter the giveaway because my video card isn't compatible yet...

From the sound of it, buying a new G-sync monitor may actually be more expensive than upgrading a VG248QE, even with the kit costing $200.

Exactly. What's the point of that? It initially sounded like the DIY option was cheaper, that's why I opted for it.

$200 actually isn't that bad considering the FPGA used in G-Sync appears to retail at roughly $1000. As long as we have access to the features it might offer such as being programmable for mods or future updates, it should be well worth the price.

Solar wrote:$200 actually isn't that bad considering the FPGA used in G-Sync appears to retail at roughly $1000. As long as we have access to the features it might offer such as being programmable for mods or future updates, it should be well worth the price.

Wow -- which FPGA would that be? I guess they haven't come up with dedicated circuit (ASIC) for G-SYNC use just yet, at least for 1920x1080p 120Hz.

AMD's FreeSync isn't running at 1920x1080 120Hz, so presumably, the FPGA is necessary here.

Either way, the motion quality during 40fps-50fps looked like a greater-than-$200 GPU upgrade, e.g. it sort of looked like I upgraded the GPU massively (more than $200 worth!) for recent highly-variable-framerate games such as Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4, the use of G-SYNC really helps since those games are often too slow to benefit well from LightBoost.

Although I prefer 120fps strobed, my eyes clearly preferred smooth 45fps G-SYNC (fps=Hz) over stuttery 80fps non-G-SYNC (fps!=Hz) non G-SYNC. G-SYNC gave Crysis 3 a permanent "framerate matching Hertz" look even when the framerate fluctuated. Only rare stutters (caused by disk loading / background computer activity) occured, all the remaining GPU stutters went away. The animation at http://www.testufo.com/stutter#demo=gsync shows how G-SYNC can pull off seamless, stutterless framerate transitions. (Well you do get the low framerate feel regular stutter at 30fps, but you don't get any erratic stutter during frame rate transition). If I was using a GPU that limited me to 50fps frequently (e.g. even Titan during Crysis 3 at Ultra settings, get brought to knees very often), G-SYNC improves motion quality more than LightBoost does.

Congrats to the winners! I didn't expect the mod to be $200...Good luck to the rest.

Having used G-Sync before I can tell you how absolutely beautiful the monitor is.

When it comes to early adoption, I don't mind spending more than I think I should, assuming I can afford it. I'm willing to believe G-Sync is as good as you say, Chief. If it isn't you'll never see me on the forums again

aMunster wrote:When it comes to early adoption, I don't mind spending more than I think I should, assuming I can afford it. I'm willing to believe G-Sync is as good as you say, Chief. If it isn't you'll never see me on the forums again

I have read what you posted, and I think you will probably love it (at least for games that work reliably with GSYNC). That said, it's no guarantee. What's good to me, might not be good to you. There are people, for instance, that do not like LightBoost, understandably -- e.g. more sensitive to flicker or color problem. It quite impressive to some people (like me) in certain games that were too slow for LightBoost benefit. There are some who say "ho hum" to G-SYNC, while it is "WOW!" to others.

Just so that everyone is clear;
G-SYNC: Fixes stutters/tearing, but not motion blur. Best for variable framerates and/or low framerates.
LightBoost/ULMB: Fixes motion blur, but not stutters/tearing. Best for consistently high framerates.

You get both in a G-SYNC monitor, but you can't run both simultaneously.

Chief Blur Buster wrote:

aMunster wrote:When it comes to early adoption, I don't mind spending more than I think I should, assuming I can afford it. I'm willing to believe G-Sync is as good as you say, Chief. If it isn't you'll never see me on the forums again

I have read what you posted, and I think you will probably love it (at least for games that work reliably with GSYNC). That said, it's no guarantee. What's good to me, might not be good to you. There are people, for instance, that do not like LightBoost, understandably -- e.g. more sensitive to flicker or color problem. It quite impressive to some people (like me) in certain games that were too slow for LightBoost benefit. There are some who say "ho hum" to G-SYNC, while it is "WOW!" to others.

Just so that everyone is clear;
G-SYNC: Fixes stutters/tearing, but not motion blur. Best for variable framerates and/or low framerates.
LightBoost/ULMB: Fixes motion blur, but not stutters/tearing. Best for consistently high framerates.

You get both in a G-SYNC monitor, but you can't run both simultaneously.

Right. This is a technical letdown, but Quake runs at a consistent 125 or 250 fps so it isn't a problem. I'm still skeptical that G-Sync adds a bit of input lag, so perhaps I'm better off using only ULMB. Runescape, on the other hand, runs at low framerates even in the best conditions. The amount of stutter in that game drives me up the wall. The use cases in these two games are on the extreme ends of the two modes offered by G-Sync. Again, I hope it exceeds my expectations, because I love digging into this esoteric material.