Lanarchy wrote:Glide: I have serious framerate problems on these because I borrowed a 660 while my 980 is being stepped up. And to be sure I was always in the 30-60 range (*apparently* Gsync's sweet spot, isn't it ?)
That's personal preference. I'd say that the ideal G-Sync range is 50-144 FPS, not 30-60.
Low framerates have inherent limitations for how fast motion can be, and if you're not using motion blur, those limitations show up far sooner.
I would still be targeting a minimum of 60 FPS - just like I do already. The point is that when the framerate dips below 60 FPS for a brief moment, it doesn't kill the experience by introducing horrible judder.
There are some games where, no matter what settings I change, unless I drop the resolution, the game is going to dip below 60 FPS at some point. It may only drop to the 55-60 FPS range, but that still judders horribly with triple-buffering, or tears with Adaptive V-Sync.
Lanarchy wrote:After reading and watching so many reviews and features on Gsync, saying you really notice it in the 30 to 60 range, I was excited to finally be able to see its magic on the 660, but nope. Not even.
Well there are millions of people that are perfectly happy with 30 FPS console gaming too.
Lanarchy wrote:I find it funny that on page 1, someone said
While it certainly sounds like you have properly enabled v-sync, the fact that you are seeing framerates in the 40's and 50's is proof that V-sync is not active. With v-sync working on a monitor with fixed refresh of 60 Hz, you will only ever see framerates of 60, 30, 20, 15, etc. That's fundamental to how v-sync works
and now you say
G-Sync is more about displaying unlocked framerates above ~50 FPS without judder
.
So, which is it ? That other guy says it is IMPOSSIBLE to get framerates in the 40s and 50s. I have clearly demonstrated I do.
It does seem to be less rigid now in most games than the hard flip between 60/30 that it used to be.
And more games seem to be using triple-buffering now when you enable the "v-sync" option.
I've just never noticed that until now because as soon as NVIDIA introduced Adaptive V-Sync (around 2011?) I started using that everywhere.
I still target 60 FPS, because I hate screen tearing almost as much as the judder and latency from triple-buffering or 60 fps dropping to 30, but I prefer the behavior with Adaptive V-Sync to the alternatives.
The judder, latency and tearing is the reason that v-sync or triple-buffering is bad.
The fact that v-sync would drop from 60 to 30 only made it more obvious, but that doesn't make dropping to anything below 60 FPS any less bad.
Even something like 58 FPS will stutter badly on a standard 60Hz monitor, while a game dropping from 60 FPS to 58 FPS should be imperceptible on a G-Sync display. It should look just as smooth as if it were a constant 60. And in the less demanding scenes, you're no longer capped at 60 FPS.
It relaxes the strict "never drop below 60" policy that you have to adopt in order to have smooth gameplay.
It doesn't throw it out the window and make 30 FPS a good experience. (unless you were already happy playing at low framerates)
Sure, low 30's to 40's are
better on a G-Sync display, but still not that good.
Lanarchy wrote:I can do Fraps Benchmark Viewer frametimes tests later tonight and post them here, but I don't think when people say "Oh I could never go back to a non-Gsync monitor" they mean frametimes on a diagram. So, that guy on page 1 says it's impossible, you say it is but it's actually frametimes that are different. I swear if I hadn't seen so much praise for Gsync all around, I'd believe 100% I got scammed. Things are changing by the page.
When people have just spent almost $1000 on a monitor, it's no surprise that they're hyping it up as this amazing thing.
It's really good, and a big improvement over V-Sync, but it doesn't magically make low framerates look like high framerates - unless you were never sensitive to framerates before anyway, and it was only the judder that you noticed.
Personally, there still isn't a G-Sync display that I feel is worth the cost yet.
I've spent time with them and it's great, but I'm not ready to spend that much to replace my current displays.
I'd be more inclined on waiting for Adaptive-Sync to appear in televisions than spending almost $1000 on a monitor.
Or if NEC/Eizo released a high-end graphics monitor that also supports high framerates for gaming, I'd buy that immediately.
But right now we're seeing "gaming-class" displays at graphics monitor prices - without the strict image quality, and quality control that you would expect from a graphics monitor.