Gameguru Mania

[ggrobot]

included a surprise about its G-Sync display standard. That screen-tear and input-lag-smoothing technology will soon work with select monitors designed for VESA's competing DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync protocol (which is used in AMD's FreeSync monitors). In announcing the move, Nvidia says the gaming experience on these

Read more...

Source: GGMania headlines
GGMania.com - Daily Gaming and Tech news

[Csimbi]

*yawn*

[Tom]

G-Sync... god damn, how have i been surviving with 60fps for so long...?! Oh that's right because I wont pay an extra $100-$200 for a G-Sync... I might be old but 60fps is good enough still for me.

[gx-x]

it's not about 60 fps being enough but if fps dips under 60and you don't notice that it's ~42 at that point and 54 the next. I am simplifying the thing. I am sensitive to fps changes, I am v-sync ON guy but to be honest, if it's not 60, it's just not smooth and it bothers me. I had the chance to test g-sync and freesync and it does work. YouTube video doen't do them justice at all.

The thing is, it is cheaper, for now, to get a better gpu and have 60fps 99.9% of time, then to change the display.

[Csimbi]

Seems peeps have no clue what's this about.
You might want to read up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_G-Sync
It's about telling the monitor what refresh rate to use, dynamically and drawing the last buffered full image in its entirety.
If you produce 10FPS, your monitor will draw 10 FPS.
If you produce 30FPS, your monitor will draw 30 FPS.
If you produce 60FPS, your monitor will draw 60 FPS.
If you produce >100FPS, same thing but it won't matter because you eyes won't see the difference; most people are limited to 100-120 Hz.

Anyway, there three two scenarios.
1. your card is slow and produces less images than your monitor can display.
2. your card is fast and produces more images than your monitor can display.
3. your card and monitor are in sync (same rate)

In scenario #1, in the times between images (when the monitor is 144Hz but your card pumps only 10FPS), your monitor draws the last buffered frame over and over again at 144Hz until it receives the next image.
This eliminates tearing 100%, without having to use VSync.

Then, there's a collision avoidance in scenario #2, too (when the card draws images faster than the monitor can display), dropping the images that cannot possibly be drawn before the next is received. Ideally, this should tell your GPU to throttle FPS down to what your monitor is capable of and save you power (and this is what scenario #3 is all about: do not render images when I don't need them).

That's all there is to it. No magic, just clockwork and buffering to achieve adaptive sync.
Consider it a hardware-based VSync and you won't be too far from the truth because it's all about eliminating the tearing, nothing else.
So, if your card is slow, G-sync won't give you better FPS, however, it will ensure that each image is fully drawn.

Either way, I do agree that it's a convoluted sales pitch and most people can live without it (and live quite well). Things is, there's been tearing in gaming since day 1. I am guessing it's NVidia's attempt to show that sticking to an NVidia card is better than going with an AMD card. Problem is, AMD has a similar, lol

Lastly, the funny thing is, it is actually the gamers that can't afford these premium prices (the very market these peeps target)...
Rich kids will have high-end cards that can drive multiple 100Hz+ monitors and not need G-sync at all...

[gx-x]

Bigger problem is that, without hacks (I haven't tested them) you are married to AMD if you go for FREEsync and nVidia if you go g-sync. I'd buy freesync monitor, they are not too expensive, but I don't want to use AMD cards.

[El_Coyote]

[gx-x]