Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

VSync

19 replies to this topic
ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#1

Posted 26 December 2016 - 05:15 PM

So what kind of vertical sync technology do you use (if any) on your PC?

 

I used to use the normal vsync option with triple buffering but now that I've tried Fast Sync I think it is the superior sync technology.

 

 

It actually does significantly improve latency because normal vsync puts things on hold for quite some time until the monitor is able to display the next frame. Fast Sync is a bit more tricky. It lets the game render as many frames as possible and discards the extra ones if the content is higher than the refresh rate. The result is significantly reduced latency\input lag and no tearing. I've tested it in a bunch of games and the results are really good. I think I can feel the decrease in input lag but I'm not sure how it compares to vsync once the frame rate dips below the refresh rate. In that case it seems to offer similar results to triple buffering and obviously the ideal solution would be to have a G-sync monitor (which also lowers the refresh rate of your monitor based on your frame rate). However, as far as frame pacing is concerned (below the refresh rate) there might be some issues but again, I'm not sure if it's worse than triple buffering.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2

Posted 26 December 2016 - 06:50 PM

I usually use fast sync where it's supported, sometimes use Nvidia Adaptive when it isn't but these days it doesn't make a huge difference to me. Going to get a G-Sync monitor at some point in the next couple of years so hopefully won't need it at all soon.

ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#3

Posted 26 December 2016 - 06:57 PM Edited by ΣΓ, 30 December 2016 - 10:56 AM.

A G-sync monitor would be nice if they weren't so expensive but I want a large 4K monitor more. Fast sync works with pretty much any game as far as I can tell provided that you can turn off vsync in-game.

 

Edit: Windowed borderless is another way to run your games unlocked with no screen tearing. Apparently it works the same way as fast sync (it decouples the graphics pipeline from the monitor) but it forces Windows to sync the frames. I don't think there's any difference between them only fast sync is easier to enable.


HaRdSTyLe_83
  • HaRdSTyLe_83

    ☆★☆★☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • Portugal

#4

Posted 12 January 2017 - 11:58 AM

Gsync all the way. Not only gets rid of the input lag of other syncs but also the game feels alot more smoother. I feel alot of improvments on games like horizon3 that have those random mini stutters.

Its one of those things that makes me think about "why did i pay extra 200 ?" just for a module, but then i turn it off and i know why

ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#5

Posted 12 January 2017 - 01:22 PM Edited by ΣΓ, 12 January 2017 - 05:43 PM.

I can build a decent PC with the money you spent on your monitor. I don't think that I would drop that amount of money on one even if I had it lying around. For that amount of money they better not f*cking have any backlight bleed\IPS glow. It's something you would pay for a premium monitor. Also, 32-34 inches is kinda meh for 4K.

 

Gsync is nice but I think I'll stick at 60 Hz with Fast Sync. Way cheaper that way.


X S
  • X S

    .

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Miss Los Santos Host Extraordinaire

#6

Posted 16 January 2017 - 02:28 AM

I have the PF279Q refurbished.  Pricetag was $600.  It's butter smooth even at sub-60 framerates, but I still don't think it warrants the ridiculous premium for a brand new one, though, which is like $800 to $900.  The refurb price is what it should be brand new.

 

Hopefully, they'll develop a better solution in the future.


HaRdSTyLe_83
  • HaRdSTyLe_83

    ☆★☆★☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • Portugal

#7

Posted 17 January 2017 - 05:40 PM Edited by HaRdSTyLe_83, 17 January 2017 - 09:44 PM.

I can build a decent PC with the money you spent on your monitor. I don't think that I would drop that amount of money on one even if I had it lying around.

 
some can... some cant... i thought this was about syncs not monitors
 
 

For that amount of money they better not f*cking have any backlight bleed\IPS glow. It's something you would pay for a premium monitor. Also, 32-34 inches is kinda meh for 4K.
 
Gsync is nice but I think I'll stick at 60 Hz with Fast Sync. Way cheaper that way.

 
a) it doesnt have backlight bleed but thanx for your concern /if you buy one that have, you can always send it back.
b )its not 4k its 3440x1440 100hz
c) 60 Hz ??? cmon... mine only got 100Hz and on shooters i wish it could get more.

 

to me its not the best monitor and if i could i would want a 4k / 165Hz / Gsync / Ultrawide monitor etc etc... so to me it was the one that fitted most of my needs.

 

 

now monitors aside, and back on topic of syncs, i thought that was the point right ??... by the way you speak and trying to compare Gsync with Fast sync my bet is you never actually used Gsync at all. once you go bla... Gsync you will never go back.


ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#8

Posted 26 January 2017 - 12:00 PM

G-sync and Fast Sync complement each other. I know how the first is supposed to work in practice.  I was briefly considering getting a 1440p G-sync panel but I think I would benefit more from 4K for productivity.


Natasha
  • Natasha

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2017
  • United-Kingdom

#9

Posted 03 February 2017 - 11:47 AM

I think I will benefit from a simple 100+Hz monitor before I considered going GSync, plus in truth I need to actually built a machine capable of getting anymore than 5fps in GTAV before I even bother getting a monitor. If I could just play it on my tele it would be a start.

Can anyone actually distinguish a difference between 60fps and over 100fps? By the laws of physics one shouldn't actually notice any difference in reality.

HaRdSTyLe_83
  • HaRdSTyLe_83

    ☆★☆★☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • Portugal

#10

Posted 03 February 2017 - 04:06 PM Edited by HaRdSTyLe_83, 03 February 2017 - 04:08 PM.

I think I will benefit from a simple 100+Hz monitor before I considered going GSync,
 

 

i agree, fast refresh rate b4 Gync, but that type of monitors  will come with Freesync or Gsync anyway. it would be a shame to buy one with Freesync if one have a nvidia Gpu and not take advantage

 

 

Can anyone actually distinguish a difference between 60fps and over 100fps?

 

yes, from 60 to 100 is a big jump and you feel alot more smoother gameplay, if you would ask between 60 to 75 the ansewr would be different.i would like to buy one with 144 or 165Hz but idk, probably would need to Sli the 1080 to take advantage of it.

 

 

 By the laws of physics one shouldn't actually notice any difference in reality.

 

ROFL. please explain it a bit more

  • Natasha likes this

Natasha
  • Natasha

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2017
  • United-Kingdom

#11

Posted 04 February 2017 - 03:48 PM

ROFL. please explain it a bit more


Well I'm just thinking, can the eyes perceive more than 60fps? I'm sure (could be wrong though) that our eyes can't work any 'faster' than that.

yojc
  • yojc

    2A03

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2008
  • Poland
  • Best Poster [Tech] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Tech] 2013
    Helpfulness Award

#12

Posted 04 February 2017 - 05:16 PM

Why wouldn't they?
  • Android likes this

HaRdSTyLe_83
  • HaRdSTyLe_83

    ☆★☆★☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • Portugal

#13

Posted 05 February 2017 - 02:34 AM

 

ROFL. please explain it a bit more


Well I'm just thinking, can the eyes perceive more than 60fps? I'm sure (could be wrong though) that our eyes can't work any 'faster' than that.

 

 

where did you got the idea that it couldnt? playstation forums? :p

 

test it for yourself, it depends on each people. i never tried a 240Hz one, but i can notice the difference from my 100Hz to a 144Hz


Natasha
  • Natasha

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2017
  • United-Kingdom

#14

Posted 06 February 2017 - 10:48 AM

ROFL. please explain it a bit more


Well I'm just thinking, can the eyes perceive more than 60fps? I'm sure (could be wrong though) that our eyes can't work any 'faster' than that.

 
where did you got the idea that it couldnt? playstation forums? :p
 
test it for yourself, it depends on each people. i never tried a 240Hz one, but i can notice the difference from my 100Hz to a 144Hz

I've went from 40/45fps and played at 80fps and personally...I can't see any difference in truth.

HaRdSTyLe_83
  • HaRdSTyLe_83

    ☆★☆★☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • Portugal

#15

Posted 06 February 2017 - 12:53 PM

^^ it doesnt matter how many Fps you have if you are still on a 60Hz monitor/tv

also it will depend on what game you are playing, more noticeble in fast moving games.

i like to play gta at least with 60- 80 but on battlefield 1 i want to get the 100hz


Natasha
  • Natasha

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2017
  • United-Kingdom

#16

Posted 06 February 2017 - 01:27 PM

^^ it doesnt matter how many Fps you have if you are still on a 60Hz monitor/tv
also it will depend on what game you are playing, more noticeble in fast moving games.
i like to play gta at least with 60- 80 but on battlefield 1 i want to get the 100hz

I'm aware of this, I beleive the monitor in question was 144Hz if I remember right. I'm just saying personally I couldn't perceive any difference in the frame rates. However I'm getting old, perhaps my eye to brain function is depreciating over time!

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#17

Posted 06 February 2017 - 02:24 PM

It's quite game dependent. 40-50fps in an RTS or TBT game is eminently playable, and the difference between that and 80fps not that noticeable. 40fps in an online shooter is absolutely not playable, and the difference is huge.
  • Natasha likes this

yojc
  • yojc

    2A03

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2008
  • Poland
  • Best Poster [Tech] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Tech] 2013
    Helpfulness Award

#18

Posted 06 February 2017 - 03:07 PM

It should be also noted that in many games FPS affects the gameplay (physics, etc.), for example in CS:GO higher FPS decreases lag, since the game communicates with servers after each frame (and servers work on pretty much the same principle - apparently many of them are optimised for 144FPS)

HaRdSTyLe_83
  • HaRdSTyLe_83

    ☆★☆★☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • Portugal

#19

Posted 07 February 2017 - 02:53 PM Edited by HaRdSTyLe_83, 07 February 2017 - 02:55 PM.

i guess its one of those things that only matters once you get used to them. like Gsync or ultrawide etc .. is it really worth the money? probably not, but you will still want them when chosing your next monitor. i switched from a low budget gaming monitor 1080p 1ms 60 Hz to a mutch better one and my only regreat is that its not a 1ms but 5 ms. im being picky? probably...

i can notice if my monitor is at 60 or 100 by just being in the desktop or browser and looking at the mouse cursor when it moves, it creates that blurred movement  behind it while in 100hz it doesnt, same with scrolling up and down the web pages, the letters etc get blurred when the page is moving while at 100hz its smooth and can be read even if its moving.

yes its a small thing but in frst person shooters it can be the difference between killing or being killed


ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#20

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:30 AM Edited by ΣΓ, 10 February 2017 - 11:31 AM.

I could definitely tell a difference between 60 Hz with Vsync and 60 HZ with Fast Sync (which is close to no Vsync). It's not just about the smoothness of motion, which by the way should be noticeable to a point above 60 FPS. You're probably not going to feel much of a difference above 144/165 Hz. This may also be a limitation of the animations in the game or a limitation of your eyes. I think 200 Hz would be overkill for a future gaming monitor.

However, back to my 60 Hz (Vsync\Fast Sync) experiment, the other benefit of fast refresh rates is low input lag. I tested some of the Hitman games with Fast Sync and I almost felt like I was moving the camera with my hand. There was very little input lag without the traditional Vsync which can add tens of milliseconds of lag. Gsync plus Fast Sync and a fast refresh rate will greatly improve motion perception and hand eye coordination in games because things happen a lot faster. So it is worth getting a monitor that supports these features if you can afford it.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users