do we need now card like titans and 780ti? what do you guys think i mean if my goal is smoothness in games, and if i supposed have Nsync and a card that can do say 30+fps, isent high end cards not needed anymore for the avarage gamer. Im looking at this a just a gaming rig, not photoshop or any other mean of multimedia process other than gaming. what's your thought about this?
haha funny, but srlsy, like if a mid range lets say a 660gtx can do 30+ will an upgrade to a 780 be just overkill? ofc with gsync enabled monitor?
well considering i can't play games like crysis or battlefield 4 at a mere 1080p with constant 60 fps let alone a higher res then I would say yes we do need cards like these which are great upgrades if you haven't upgraded in a good while. However for me I am still able to play all my games basically maxed out with very playable frame rates so I don't mind waiting for the next series of AMD and NVIDIA GPU's. An keep in mind the only reason GPUs seemed like they were getting so powerful is because consoles were using utterly ancient tech and now that we have new consoles we will be getting a new wave of games that will be far more graphically advanced than anything we have previously seen as we pc gamers get at least 90 percent of our triple a titles ported from consoles.
gsync just mean you have smoother animation on videogames even on low fps and on high fps no tearing and no input lag bigger is still better but now everything from 30-60fps makes now fun, too (with gsync)
Had any of you seen it by your two eyes in action? It will not make 30-60 fps good enough, it can only eliminate tearing due to v-syncing every frame given to display as monitor will wait for it to refresh. And compared to full-time-Vsync it has bit lower display lag. But for input lag, if you go down to 30fps, then entire rendering process from start to end takes 33ms. Once done image may be flushed immediately to screen, but even at that moment data at which image is based on are 33ms old or older. Therefore gsync at low fps will still have negative effects of low fps gaming: 1st: playing slideshow 2nd: high delay between issued commands from user input and displaying results. But there is already available Dynamic-Vsync and Dynamic Framerate Control in RP. And nVidia has similar technologies available. There is no value in low fps gaming on gsync. Only high fps gaming gets real advantage, which I'll rather not explain since xodius want to know about low fps gaming.
Basically at low frames it just tries to make it look smoother, there's nothing else to gain but appearance.
G-Sync is for a lag and stutter free gaming experience, including between 30-60fps. http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_g_sync_preview_article,1.html http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2013/10/18/g-sync/ http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/ar...evolutionary-ultra-smooth-stutter-free-gaming
Very nice that nV compared 60Hz math there vs 144Hz gsync. They should have compared 144Hz vsync vs Gsync: And just to correct one small mistake. New Draw does not start once image is shown on screen with sync, but immediately after previous is complete. And don't forget you can have multiple frames in works.
Technology delays if you play just below display refresh rate (theoretical, variable part of lag only) Code: Freq. Tech. Frame Time Avg.lag Avg.frame skip lag. 60Hz VSync 16.6ms 8.3ms 25ms 120Hz VSync 8.3ms 4.2ms 12.5ms 144Hz VSync 6.9ms 3.5ms 10.4ms 144Hz GSynz 0ms 0ms 0ms Real World Scenarios: Code: 35fps Practical Scenario one frame Takes 28.6ms to render + 2ms to burn into TN panel = 30.6ms (static time) Freq. Tech. Avg.lag Shortest Longest 60Hz VSync 38.9ms 30.6ms 47.2ms 120Hz VSync 34.8ms 30.6ms 38.9ms 144Hz VSync 34.1ms 30.6ms 37.5ms 144Hz GSynz 30.6ms 30.6ms 30.6ms Code: 60fps Scenario one frame Takes 16.6ms to render + 2ms to burn into TN panel = 18.6ms (static time) Freq. Tech. Avg.lag Shortest Longest 60Hz VSync 26.9ms 18.6ms 35.2ms (frame is always ready, lag lenght is static) 120Hz VSync 22.8ms 18.6ms 26.9ms 144Hz VSync 22.1ms 18.6ms 25.5ms 144Hz GSynz 18.6ms 18.6ms 18.6ms Code: 120fps Scenario one frame Takes 8.3ms to render + 2ms to burn into TN panel = 10.3ms (static time) Freq. Tech. Avg.lag Shortest Longest 60Hz VSync 14.5ms 10.3ms 18.6ms (frame is always ready, lag lenght is static) 120Hz VSync 14.5ms 10.3ms 18.6ms (frame is always ready, lag lenght is static) 144Hz VSync 13.8ms 10.3ms 17.2ms 144Hz GSynz 10.3ms 10.3ms 10.3ms If you look at screnario for 35fps on 144Hz, Gsync vs VSync improves average input lag by 10.3%. If you look at screnario for 120fps on 144Hz, Gsync vs VSync improves average input lag by 25.4%. But comparing 144Hz screen lag for Vsync 35fps vs 120fps gives improvement 59.5%. And comparing VSync 35fps@144Hz vs GSync 120fps@144Hz gives improvement 69.8%. This shows that fps has much higher impact on input lag than GSync. Now for funny part: I used for reason 120fps scenario. You see input lag for 60Hz and 120Hz is same. Why? Because on 120Hz you get 120 windows in which you fit 120 frames. While on 60Hz you have only 60 windows and in each you time distribute 2 frames and only later is shown. And at moment this frame is shown it's average age is same as on 120Hz. But it affects input lag department only. 120fps shown >> 60fps shown. Last thing to look at is: 144Hz screen has frame delay variance between 0-6.9ms regardless fps (so it's same for 35 and 85fps). Do you think it is cause for noticeable stutter which is around 70ms+ (long enough to be visible even at 30fps youtube presents to you)?