G-Sync Input Lag Tested

okashira said:
BF4 has terrible input lag.
Click to expand...

Wait, compared to other shooters? Every game has a certain amount of input lag, is BF4's more than COD, CS, or Quake?

EDIT: Nevermind, article answered that question. Answer is yes, at least compared to CS.
 
EnhancedInterrogator said:
Wait, compared to other shooters? Every game has a certain amount of input lag, is BF4's more than COD, CS, or Quake?

EDIT: Nevermind, article answered that question. Answer is yes, at least compared to CS.
Click to expand...

I knew it! Something just didnt feel right!
 
Very nice to see that there's no input lag penalty for modern game engines. Sure beats the hell out of V-Sync!
 
Just wait. You guys are going to gush big time when you finally have a G-sync monitor.

I simply can't say this enough .. this is a big deal.
 
I going to go with Godmachine and say that this will be monumental in terms of gamplay. And, I also envy you sir.

And I thought my 120Hz monitor I've had for 2 years was cool.. This I can't wait for...
 
Hmm, wait till Q2 or just buy the Asus and DIY kit now... the decisions!
 
BenQ claims they'll be releasing 24" and 27" G-Sync displays in Q1. Essentially just G-syncified versions of their existing 144 Hz displays

Also, I wouldn't argue that BF4 has terrible input latency. I'd just argue that CS:GO has exceptionally low input latency.
 
Not interested if not at least 1440p, any panel are coming in that resolution? Hope doesn't cost 1000$
 
Warrior said:
I going to go with Godmachine and say that this will be monumental in terms of gamplay. And, I also envy you sir.

And I thought my 120Hz monitor I've had for 2 years was cool.. This I can't wait for...
Click to expand...

I envy you , you will be buying a real G-sync monitor probably with a 1440p resolution and you'll have better PQ and that much more of an experience to enjoy :)

Me on the other hand I won't be upgrading anymore monitors anytime soon. I need to save money for a new car but for now this DIY upgrade will suit me well.
 
Godmachine said:
Just wait. You guys are going to gush big time when you finally have a G-sync monitor.

I simply can't say this enough .. this is a big deal.
Click to expand...

i don't think so. tearing isn't noticeable at 120/144 fps without vsync, and i'd much rather have no motion blur than no tearing when i can't even see it at such high framerates.
 
I'll be getting the Asus 1440p 120Hz if there will be a way to get Gsync working with my AMD cards. I really don't want to/shouldn't have to switch to nVidia cards.
 
Odellus said:
i don't think so. tearing isn't noticeable at 120/144 fps without vsync, and i'd much rather have no motion blur than no tearing when i can't even see it at such high framerates.
Click to expand...

Except we all perceive things differently and for many this does make a difference.
 
Seriously....if you are running a 120hz display why is any kind of sync even remotely necessary? I don't get that at all...I DO use vsync but my display only does 75hz but I doubt very seriously i would even turn it on ever with 120hz display
 
primetime said:
Seriously....if you are running a 120hz display why is any kind of sync even remotely necessary?
Click to expand...
At 120 Hz, tears lines appear, on average, twice as frequently as they do at 60 Hz. This isn't completely mitigated by the fact that a torn frame is displayed for half as long.
 
I can say that the screen tearing issue seems to heavily depend on what game is being played. For instance on my overclocked 1440p Overlord I do not notice screen tearing in BF4... But it is VERY evident in BioShock Infinite. And since introducing Vsync in either game destroys the frame rate, I have to simply deal with it.
 
primetime said:
Seriously....if you are running a 120hz display why is any kind of sync even remotely necessary? I don't get that at all...I DO use vsync but my display only does 75hz but I doubt very seriously i would even turn it on ever with 120hz display
Click to expand...

If the framerate is less than max refresh, it will cause tearing. I have no idea where you get the idea that tearing doesn't happen on a 120hz screen, because it does happen.

It is less noticeable than it would be compared to a low response time IPS panel with a 60hz refresh, but nonetheless, tearing happens.
 
Odellus said:
i don't think so. tearing isn't noticeable at 120/144 fps without vsync, and i'd much rather have no motion blur than no tearing when i can't even see it at such high framerates.
Click to expand...
Depends on the game, shuddering and screen tearing can occur at any fps, it's minimized more in 120/144 monitors as there are less interval chances for significant screen tearing to occur, ie frames produced mid way between a monitor refresh but they can still occur and it can strongly vary between games at any fps. I mean games like skyrim if you force vsync off, it's on for a reason you get a ton of shuddering and screen tearing no matter what, it just depends how sensitive you are to it. Frankly it annoys me as much as texture flickering and crawling.

Plus Gsync also ensures that you're getting full frames produced at lowest possible latency. I'd use it over ULMB/lightboost(lightboost is worse than ULMB anyways) as i'm more sensitive to screen tears than i am to ghosting.
 
wonderfield said:
At 120 Hz, tears lines appear, on average, twice as frequently as they do at 60 Hz. This isn't completely mitigated by the fact that a torn frame is displayed for half as long.
Click to expand...

and here i was thinking it didn't tear until the fr went above the refreshrate
 
I would like a 24 or 27" at 1080 with G-Sync. Don't have the money for multiple GPUs and 1080 is rather manageable for most mid-high end cards. Also don't want to deal with the loud noise and possible SLI issues.
 
JCviggen said:
I'll take a 75 or 100 Hz IPS for that money but not a bloody TN.
Click to expand...

You know, if it was a panel that's used strictly for gaming, TN isn't bad. At least Asus uses a decent TN panel and not the crappiest one they can find.

I hear you though, gsync will be much more popular with a quality panel and it needs to be observed as a long term investment. Who wants to spend $800 on a lower quality panel is the question many ask themselves.

Early adopters are willing to take it however. I have 2 gsync capable monitors but I'm simply not switching to Nvidia to be able to use them. I'm hoping it gets hacked to work on other video cards.
 
JCviggen said:
I'll take a 75 or 100 Hz IPS for that money but not a bloody TN.
Click to expand...

I really do like IPS panels, but gaming and fast response times are not the strength. It just...isn't. My solution as of late has been using multi monitor, with 1 light boost screen for gaming and an IPS for general productivity tasks.

Asus mentioned something about this at CES - they stated that they would love to bring high refresh rate IPS panels to market, but they just can't because the technology is inherently limiting. I can dig up their statement on this if you'd like. They also mentioned that IZGO allows response times just as fast as lightboost TN, however IZGO 4k panels are obviously *very* cost prohibitive for the time being. I don't think anyone cares all that much about IZGO 4k panels being great for gaming when they cost 3500$. Screw that mess, know what I'm saying. ;) As well, not all TN panels are equal; some are better than others. Don't get me wrong, I really do appreciate IPS - but TN panels are fine for gaming really. They're better for fast response time gaming, generally speaking.

I should also add that G-sync *is* coming to IPS panels. Overlord was just recently quoted as stating that they're in the process of bring g-sync IPS panels to market, and Viewsonic has some PLS panels with G-sync in the works. So it will happen, G-sync is not TN exclusive.
 
TN first for Gsync seems obvious. TN is cheaper and it's the most suited for games as it has the least amount of ghosting and lowest input lag plus native 120hz 144hz monitors aren't entirely cost prohibited. As long as they come with height and tilt adjustment vertical viewing angle isn't too large of a determinate if it's main use is gaming.

Plus the current Asus TN monitor isn't a cheap TN it's a quality one has decent viewing angles don't get a very easy color shift at shallow angles, plus it comes with proper height, pivot, swivel, tilt, although why you would ever pivot a TN monitor into a vertical position is beyond me.

Too many companies cheap out with TN's even when putting a quality TN panel in their monitor they only use tilt, a good TN still needs proper height and angle adjustment.

IPS/PLS is more of a general productivity / color fidelity deal so it's not unusual that would take the back seat. Even then a cheap IPS isn't suitable for graphics work as bleeding and blacks become an issue esp if you're pushing it to 120hz where than all IPS has over a TN at that speed is viewing angles as colors and contrast gets all wonky, those monitors run fine but you're losing the fidelity esp when you using samsungs pls color get worse so then all you have are viewing angles.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, TN is still the most popular panel type for competetive gamers and gamers in general. So it isn't surprising that the first g-sync panel is a TN lightboost.
 
I am very impressed with the picture quality of my Samsung S27A750D. If they made a 1440p version of it I'd be all over it. Do it Samsung!
 
This does look promising. That said, I've been gaming on a 30" monitor for too long now to downsize. Nvidia showed off a 32" 4k monitor running Gsync at CES, so when I see 1600p or better, on 30" or better, doing at least 60hz (preferably 120hz) WITH a reasonably priced graphics card that can push it at 60 fps or better, then I will start to get serious about spending money. Given that is a couple years off I'd guess, then I'll suffice with what I have for now.
 
Frraksurred said:
This does look promising. That said, I've been gaming on a 30" monitor for too long now to downsize. Nvidia showed off a 32" 4k monitor running Gsync at CES, so when I see 1600p or better, on 30" or better, doing at least 60hz (preferably 120hz) WITH a reasonably priced graphics card that can push it at 60 fps or better, then I will start to get serious about spending money. Given that is a couple years off I'd guess, then I'll suffice with what I have for now.
Click to expand...
Well yeah that's a couple years away to hoping for 1600p+ to be ran 60fps+ at a "reasonable price"
 
Frraksurred said:
This does look promising. That said, I've been gaming on a 30" monitor for too long now to downsize. Nvidia showed off a 32" 4k monitor running Gsync at CES, so when I see 1600p or better, on 30" or better, doing at least 60hz (preferably 120hz) WITH a reasonably priced graphics card that can push it at 60 fps or better, then I will start to get serious about spending money. Given that is a couple years off I'd guess, then I'll suffice with what I have for now.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle, but it should be mentioned that on a 1600p monitor the required framerate for a smooth gameplay experience with g-sync would be less than 60 fps. Whereas, with current monitors the gold standard if you're using vsync is a constant 60 fps all the time, or if you're using lightboost you'll want near 120 fps all the time. That's the entire draw of g-sync. If you dip below 60 fps you won't get the stuttery feeling, you won't get input lag and you won't get tearing even with vsync off. I'm quite stoked for it.

Like I said, though, I agree on principle. More monitors would be better. I quite like 30 inch IPS panels myself (although it isn't my preference for FPS games) but I don't think that 1600p availability will be a long term issue. From what I've read from CES coverage, a wide variety of 1440p,1600p and 4k monitors are being developed right now with g-sync capability, so that won't be an issue in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top