EPTAs for gsync, I've seen a few people credibly argue that it's pretty much useless to someone on a budget. (Low or high. Just on a budget.) Why? Buying an equivalent monitor to one that supports gsync (assuming there's an equivalent) frees up enough money to buy a better video card setup, which increases framerates, which makes gysnc unnecessary. Any thoughts on that argument? It seems strong, but I might be missing something.
Teamliquid Monitor Thread - Page 91
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
MisterFred
United States2033 Posts
As for gsync, I've seen a few people credibly argue that it's pretty much useless to someone on a budget. (Low or high. Just on a budget.) Why? Buying an equivalent monitor to one that supports gsync (assuming there's an equivalent) frees up enough money to buy a better video card setup, which increases framerates, which makes gysnc unnecessary. Any thoughts on that argument? It seems strong, but I might be missing something. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20328 Posts
I've heard gsync benefits are godly on games with very uneven frametimes - sc2 is one of the most popular ones. I really can't judge it without literally having it sat in front of me though. It's on my short short list  | ||
|
MisterFred
United States2033 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20328 Posts
On April 13 2015 06:27 MisterFred wrote: Hmm. I didn't realize that gsync could improved the visual experience if low frame rates were being caused by the CPU. Interesting, that would change things. I wonder if freesync (or whatever AMD calls theirs) can do the same. It can, but it has several major issues 1; and the biggest one is poorly handling refreshes when frames are around the slow end of what the monitor can handle. On a 30hz monitor, that means if your sc2 is dipping below ~50fps*, you'll get tearing and stuttering; your experience would become pretty much the same as with a regular monitor. Gsync fixes a lot of that by keeping a frame buffer in the module and doing more crap with it. I've heard something about double/triple/quad refreshes, but IDK what they've done exactly there. They do some stuff with the module, while AMD just says hey - your frametimes are too slow - do you want vsync on or off? You either tear (which causes motion artifacts and jerking) or you have vsync on and syncing to like ~15-24hz static refresh, it's awful either way. 2; adaptive sync on displayport standard (non g-sync) doesn't actually work with monitor overdrive enabled. At all. That leads to some pretty terrible ghosting only usually seen in the leagues of the worse IPS monitors when at low framerates. You need some pretty complex and extensive calibration on a screen to screen basis to get around the problem of overdrive with variable refresh, which nvidia mandates for gsync stamp on the monitor, while AMD is just tagging pretty much anything as freesync as long as it runs adaptive refresh on some basic level. Also, you'd need a faster refreshing monitor preferably when dealing with highly variable frametimes. A 30-60hz window can't do the same magic (even at 50fps) as a 30-144hz window, because the adaptive refresh technologies work by adjusting the time delay between refresh periods. A 144hz monitor still scans 2.4x faster than a 60hz monitor, even if they're synced to a game with frametimes from ~30fps-50fps. If any frame was faster than 16.67ms, then a 60hz scan would lose information but a faster monitor would not. *by the time you're at ~45-50fps, you already have frames slower than 1/30'th of a second due to the weird frametime distribution in sc2 and those other games that supposedly benefit the most from adaptive refresh, falling out of the bottom of 30hz minimum refresh window. | ||
|
MisterFred
United States2033 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On April 13 2015 06:39 Cyro wrote:On a 30hz monitor, that means if your sc2 is dipping below ~50fps*, you'll get tearing and stuttering; your experience would become pretty much the same as with a regular monitor. Gsync fixes a lot of that by keeping a frame buffer in the module and doing more crap with it. I've heard something about double/triple/quad refreshes, but IDK what they've done exactly there. They do some stuff with the module, while AMD just says hey - your frametimes are too slow - do you want vsync on or off? You either tear (which causes motion artifacts and jerking) or you have vsync on and syncing to like ~15-24hz static refresh, it's awful either way. It's not like I really know what's going on either, but conceptually what they're doing at a high level shouldn't be difficult to figure out. The module on the monitor side keeps the last delivered frame buffered, and if the module notices that the graphics card hasn't sent it anything in a while but the panel needs a refresh, it refreshes the panel with that buffered frame. And it keeps doing that until it gets a new frame in. Now, when and how it decides to do the repeat frames seems to be part of the special sauce, but it seems to be done adaptively and generally at rates faster than the minimum required refresh rate to keep the screen image from deteriorating. If there's no special logic and buffer on the monitor side (AMD's solution), then the graphics card has to handle sending the new frame for the refresh, be it ready or not. The big problem at lower refresh rates is that AMD is running the monitor at the bottom of the adaptive range to avoid flickering (e.g. 40 Hz) and so it's worse than a normal 60 Hz monitor in terms of either tearing or stutters from VSync. That said, if they really wanted they might be able to optimize behavior for different monitors and do some more processing in software to be able to improve upon some aspects compared to the current state. I like how some people were wondering why Nvidia insisted on putting a module inside the monitor. Obviously it's there to do something useful. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20328 Posts
Nvidia has built some logic into its G-Sync control module that attempts to avoid such collisions. This logic uses a moving average of the past couple of GPU frame times in order to estimate what the current GPU frame-to-frame interval is likely to be. If the estimated interval is expected to exceed the display's max refresh time, the G-Sync module will preemptively refresh the display part way through the wait, rather than letting the LCD reach the point where it must be refreshed immediately. This preemptive refresh "recharges" the LCD panel and extends its ability to wait for the next GPU frame. If the next frame arrives in about the same time as the last one, then this "early" refresh should pay off by preventing a collision between a new frame and a gotta-have-it-now refresh. I asked AMD's David Glen, one of the engineers behind FreeSync, about how AMD's variable-refresh scheme handles this same sort of low-FPS scenario. The basic behavior is similar to G-Sync's. If the wait for a new frame exceeds the display's tolerance, Glen said, "we show the frame again, and show it at the max rate the monitor supports." Once the screen has been painted, which presumably takes less than 6.94 ms on a 144Hz display, the monitor should be ready to accept a new frame at any time. What FreeSync apparently lacks is G-Sync's added timing logic to avoid collisions. However, FreeSync is capable of operating with vsync disabled outside of the display's refresh range. In the event of a collision with a required refresh, Glen pointed out, FreeSync can optionally swap to a new frame in the middle of that refresh. Tearing does make the motion feel less smooth. It's one of the reasons for the "gsync effect" when people playing at 40-45fps on a gsync monitor say it feels like playing on a regular monitor @60fps (because that regular monitor 60fps, due to tearing and other problems, would degrade the 60fps experience to feeling more like a perfect ~40-45) | ||
GTR
51602 Posts
| ||
|
colblitz
United States41 Posts
AOC G2770PQU - $350 - newegg ASUS VG278HE - $370 - newegg Acer XG270HU - $470 - newegg I saw the AOC listed in the recommendations, and was wondering if people had thoughts for the other two. I was looking primarily for a 27" with high refresh rates and was deciding between the AOC and the ASUS. The tradeoff seemed to be that the ASUS was slightly more expensive with a slightly slower response time (2ms to 1ms), but was more adjustable than the AOC. Then I came across the Acer, which is about $100 more, but is also 1440p. As I understand it the Acer seems to be a good deal overall, but an especially good deal for FreeSync capable cards. - Would that be a fair summary of the differences? I feel like the difference between 1080p and 1440p would be a lot more noticeable than going from 5ms to 2ms or 1ms, but I don't actually know. The games I play aren't that intense (League, maybe Civ 5), but the difference between 60fps and lower seems fairly noticeable to me, so I figured that I'd be able to benefit from 60+ fps. Is there anything that's just 1440p and 120/144hz but with a normal response time at around the $350 price range? - Secondary question, I currently have a GTX 780/i7 4770 powering a 23" Acer G235H and a 23" DELL U2312HM, would I be ok hooking up all three monitors? I seem to remember having some fps drop in League with three monitors hooked up (it's possible I just didn't have something set up properly.... >>) so if the idea is to get into 60+ fps I don't want to keep shooting myself in the foot Thanks! I haven't spent that much time researching things, so feel free to correct me on things .__. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20328 Posts
27" is too big for 1920x1080 IMO (pixel density is already low on 22-24" 1920x1080, 27" is like 1.6x bigger than 22") but the 1440p monitors are expensive, especially at >60hz. Even 1440p at 27" is not amazing density, it's not revolutionary like the jump to 4k and you still need decent antialiasing etc. 1080p 22" to 1440p 27" is a ~78% increase in pixel count and like a 60% increase in screen area. going from there to 28" 4k is a ~2.25x increase in pixel count at pretty much the same screen area, so you actually get a lot of benefits from the increased pixel density. Before that, the resolution (1440p) is basically just scaling up standard display density to ~27" screens, not really improving on it. freesync is also inferior to gsync especially when having framerate dips so definitely not worth switching to an AMD GPU for 24" is too small for you? | ||
|
colblitz
United States41 Posts
Any good recommendations for 27" + 4k + >60hz / 24" + 1080p + >60hz? | ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
At work I've used two monitors that fell into this range by Dell and they both served admirably. The Dell U2713HM has 2560x1440@60hz and supports DisplayPort. It also has a built-in USB hub which is quite nice and is VESA compliant. The gamut is fine for my purposes but if you're doing serious color work you may want something else? I think Dell's U2713H might have better gamut but I'm not sure. What I'm using now at work is the Dell U3011 which also has good picture quality, and is 2560x1600@60hz. I prefer the taller aspect ratio (at home I use a dell U2412M which is 24"1920x1200@60hz) but I'm not sure how it does in terms of gamut. It's great for screen space though. U2713HM: http://www.amazon.com/Dell-U2713HM-27-Inch-LED-lit-Monitor/dp/B009H0XQQY U3011: http://www.amazon.com/Dell-UltraSharp-U3011-30-Monitor/dp/B004KKGF1O/ If you care a ton about color there might be something better than these though. Also, if you want more than 60hz don't go for these. If you want space AND a high refresh rate, LogicalIncrements has a list of 1440p screens that failed QC and are put on cheap stands, that I think can be overclocked http://www.logicalincrements.com/peripherals/#aminuscreen | ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
http://slickdeals.net/f/7930019-27-dell-ultrasharp-u2715h-2560x1440-ips-monitor-200-dell-egift-card-539-99-with-free-shipping for >60 I'd generally recommend going Korean, but those have their own problems (though they do cost significantly less for similar quality panels) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Perfect-Pixel-QNIX-QX2710-LED-EVOLUTION-II-27-MULTI-TRUE10-2560x1440-Monitor-/111364284557?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19edd4208d | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
On June 20 2015 07:23 Kupon3ss wrote: the slightly newer U2715H is actually on sale through some coupons on dell's site http://slickdeals.net/f/7930019-27-dell-ultrasharp-u2715h-2560x1440-ips-monitor-200-dell-egift-card-539-99-with-free-shipping Oooh, that's a good deal. If I didn't have all the monitors I needed already I'd go for it | ||
|
colblitz
United States41 Posts
On June 20 2015 07:23 Kupon3ss wrote: for >60 I'd generally recommend going Korean, but those have their own problems (though they do cost significantly less for similar quality panels) What are the problems? (Lack of support/warranty?) | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
1. Use of lower-grade panels 2. Single input only; or, multi-input but with more latency 3. No OSD / poor controls 4. Brightness control cutting down contrast rather than actually adjusting brightness (so white level brightness drops, dark level does not...) 5. Few stand adjustments and no VESA mount Some models have multiple of the above. Nowadays the model to get if you're fine with DVI only and matte seems to be the Crossover 2795QHD, which is reviewed by one of the good monitor review sites (the Korean one): http://www.overclock.net/t/1555354/official-crossover-2795qhd-pwm-flicker-free-overclock-able-matte-1440p-ah-ips Same poster's general thread for 27" 2560x1440 monitors. Seems reasonable enough and well done but I haven't exactly cross-checked for accuracy: http://wecravegamestoo.com/forums/monitor-reviews-discussion/15027-best-27-2560x1440p-monitors-ahva-ips-pls.html edit: so $350ish. Note that I have not really kept up, so please verify and look around on your own and/or listen to others. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4955 Posts
Otherwise I was thinking about either the BenQ XL2411Z or the ASUS VG248QE. That's really all I know at this point. I know almost nothing about monitors, except that I will be missing my sweet IPS panel. :/ | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20328 Posts
TL;DR - black magic that stops your experience from being degraded in certain ways due to the way screen refresh works. Your 70fps before might have not been much smoother than a perfect 55fps would have, but with adaptive refresh and a way higher refresh rate monitor (like 144hz) it could be much closer to a perfectly paced 70fps without parts of any frames cut off or repeated unevenly. Availability is still not ideal. Adaptive refresh monitors have been rolling out for 2 years. They've been a few months away for most of that time. I'd say it's worth it for some people, but the gsync implementation is both superior and way more expensive. They have a module in the monitor for control which they charge quite a lot of money for - but they have actually used it to get very notable benefits (gsnyc monitors have much better control of overdrive for less ghosting - as well as better smoothness if you're getting frames towards the slow end of what the monitor can handle, which is important for games like sc2) overall, i think don't go out of your way for it unless you specifically care for it. Maybe if you want to keep the monitor for like 5 or 10 years, but the experience right now isn't that great, nowhere near potential. Gsync is much closer but wrong hardware vendor and they charge like $200 extra for it so that ****ing sucks | ||
|
Introvert
United States4955 Posts
| ||
| ||
