Is G-sync really worth it? Starting to think maybe not.

[U6b36ef]

I was running a 1080 22" monitor, and this week I upgraded to a 1440p, G-sync, 144Hz, 27".

My initial impressions of the display overall was, how enormous it seems. It still does, but you sort of get used to it. I can't help wondering if a 25" (1440p) might be a better size for mostly gaming. However I use Cubase and screen size helps with that, so I am sort of resolved to stay at 27". (I can return or exchange this monitor because it has horrific IPS glow, and very bad BLB.)

Anyway onto G-sync. I am still running a GTX 980, and for the most part it can stay around 60fps. Many games though drop to about 40fps, and some a bit lower. (Using maxed settings.)

The problem I am finding is that when games get under 50 fps and nearer 40fps, they start to micro-stutter. (This could be the graphics card, or the monitor.) I recall it happening with my 1080p monitor. I would run in 1440p DSR (on the 1080p monitor), then switch off V-sync. I did this eliminate v-sync stutter. However games like The Witcher 3, would still start to stutter around 45fps.

I would hunt through my system to see if I had v-sync on anywhere like in Nvidia Control Panel (NCP). Mostly it's set to app controlled in NCP.


Anyway the conclusion is that while g-sync stops screen tearing by removing the need for v-sync. Gaming under 60fps, is still not so great and in the territory of ruining the gaming experience. I mean once frame rate hits 60fps+ on this g-sync, then gaming is smooth.

The only other time that G-sync would have any value, is gaming over 60fps. However I don't necessarily feel the need to game over 60fps. I think I would be content with 60hz 1440p monitor, as I am ok happy enough with 60fps. That would be much cheaper than keeping this G-sync monitor. If your GPU and CPU can manage 60fps, on a 60Hz screen, you're sitting pretty well.

 

[Wayfall]

I have Gsync on a Dell TN 1440p 144hz panel and i have a MSI GTX 1080 8GB X rendering to it.

Gsync's only use is to sync variable frame-rates so they do not cause tearing on the screen. If you play at a lock 60fps its certainly not needed.

I do enjoy Gsync and i'm glad i have it otherwise the tearing would drive me up the wall.

 

[U6b36ef]

I suppose it allows us to remove v-sync lag. However I can't say that I ever noticed lag from v-sync. (I think only competitive gamers would really benefit.)

It will I guess give that fraction of edge in tight battles where you die a lot and have to reload. Having that fraction more response time would help a bit. I mean if it helps pro-gamers, it will help us single player gamers too.


@Wayfall, yeah I have a GTX 980 myself. Right now I have the pages open and am trying to decide to buy either GTX 1080, or 1080 Ti.

If I stay with this g-sync, I will also be limiting frame rate where I can to maybe 90-100 fps. For me there's no point driving the graphics card any harder I think.

 

[Wayfall]

1080p 144hz = GTX 1050/60/70
1440p 120/144hz = GTX 1080 or TI
4K 60hz =GTX 1080 but recommend TI

 

[U6b36ef]

This is something I've never really understood.

Like I said above in my 'why' first post. Games when running under 60 fps tend to stutter anyway. ... However an example of a game that is smooth all the way to 40fps and less, is Crysis 3.

Why are some games smooth and others not. .. Therein lies my dilemma. There really seems like not much point to G-sync. I could run a 60fps 1440p monitor with v-sync, and enough graphics power to maintain 60fps. Meaning solid images.

Secondly I would like to cap the GPU to maybe 100fps, so as not to tax it all the time. Even with the monitor refresh rate set to 144Hz, some older games are producing more fps than that. I found that MSI Aferburner's RivaRuner can do that.

I would honestly be happy with 100fps. I would rather not push the GPU to use more electricity for another 44Hz, when it won't make that much difference. Realistically anything 60fps plus is smooth. Into 70+fps and it's smooth.

 

[Wayfall]

I think your talking about game engine stutter really

 

[U6b36ef]

I think your talking about game engine stutter really

Could well be. I think I have heard that expression before.

However that's partly my point about the value of spending extra bucks on G-sync. Under 60 fps and G-sync is rendered practically a waste, because you don't want to be gaming at that rate. (Less v-sync lag and screen tear.)

I initially thought I'd might be gaming down to a minimum g-sync rate of 30 fps, nice and smoothly.

What I mean though is if you have to maintain 60 fps to game smooth, why not stop at 60fps. 60fps is for the most part as they say, 'buttery smooth'. .... Staying with a regular 60fps monitor will save much money, by eliminating high refresh and G-sync. Cutting cost in half, if aiming for a 24" - 25". Or even a 27" without G-sync.

 

[U6b36ef]

I think your talking about game engine stutter really

To conclude.

G-sync seems to only have value if you are gaming over 60fps. As that is when most games seem to stop stuttering. (Crysis 3 aside.)

I will have to dig about to see if here is a setting somewhere that's affecting my game performance. (Like tonight I found my display setting (from Control Panel) set to 59fps. How did that happen?)

Anyway thanks for that input.

 

[Wayfall]

I think your talking about game engine stutter really

Could well be. I think I have heard that expression before.

However that's partly my point about the value of spending extra bucks on G-sync. Under 60 fps and G-sync is rendered practically a waste, because you don't want to be gaming at that rate. (Less v-sync lag and screen tear.)

I initially thought I'd might be gaming down to a minimum g-sync rate of 30 fps, nice and smoothly.

What I mean though is if you have to maintain 60 fps to game smooth, why not stop at 60fps. 60fps is for the most part as they say, 'buttery smooth'. .... Staying with a regular 60fps monitor will save much money, by eliminating high refresh and G-sync. Cutting cost in half, if aiming for a 24" - 25". Or even a 27" without G-sync.

Well a few will argue on the 'butter smooth' bit.

Its when play at game at 100-144fps then switch to 60fps lock game that you then realise how much your brain was filling in for you. It takes a while for your brain to make a rendering game with a slower refresh rate to look smooth.

 

[U6b36ef]

Well I do find playing at 60fps solid, is pretty smooth. It's a noticeable improvement from even a few fps less than 60fps. However I won't dispute your point that higher frame rates are smoother. It's generally what people think.

I am only saying that 60fps seemed enough for me. Then again playing games that get into 70-80fps like Far Cry on my GTX 980, it does look better.


Anyway another long story has arisen. I was noticing that my fps in some less demanding games was going well over 144Hz. After googling I have discovered that if your frame rate goes outside the monitor refresh rate, G-sync doesn't apply. I noticed this in a bit of Serious Sam 3 DLC I was testing out with last night. I was getting screen tearing at high frame rate.

Meaning G-sync needs fettling, and is losing its value.

The solution is to apply a frame rate limit. If the game you are playing has a limiter than it's win win. However there are option for no in-game frame rate limiter.

Either Nvidia Inspector, or RivaTuner (with MSI Afterburner - which I use). ... However applying either of these apps, induces lag. Nvidia Inspector induces lag almost identical in delay to v-sync lag. RivaTuner induces lag somewhere between no lag and v-sync lag time. See this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs0PYCpBJjc

G-sync really is starting to look a waste of money to me, but I am still hanging on and hoping.

Lastly though. I read that some people who are using RivaTuner to limit frame rate with G-sync, experience stutter. .........................Meaning back to square one, if this can not easily be fixed. Maybe something like changing frame rate cap works. Like not having it the same as you monitor refresh rate. ... I am looking at this now.

 

[U6b36ef]

Well a few will argue on the 'butter smooth' bit.

Its when play at game at 100-144fps then switch to 60fps lock game that you then realise how much your brain was filling in for you. It takes a while for your brain to make a rendering game with a slower refresh rate to look smooth.

After more playing about I find myself agreeing with you. There is a noticeable difference in game performance when I compare 60fps and 100 or 120 fps.

I am using RivaTuner to frame rate cap. However I will try out my old 22" 60Hz monitor just to be fair. After all RivaTuner could be causing some stutter, but I doubt it.

I have found that at 60fps, it generally looks smooth. However when moving mouse to sweep around for a look, you do see micro-stutter. I had actually put this down to mouse movement. Meaning moving mouse can't effectively be perfectly smooth.

However now at 100fps or 120fps, it's a lot smother moving the mouse about. Hitches tend not to be so drastic to at this frame rate.

I think I will leave RivaTuner working at 100fps, or maybe go up to 120fps. For me that's OK. It will save on graphics wattage power too. ..... I just ordered a GTX 1080 Ti, which is a slightly thirstier card, than my GTX 980. It will drive games like Homefront: The Revolution at full fps, whereas my 980 can only pull about 55 fps. Capping the upper frame rate though will save me wattage power, and running cost.

Now I see the value of G-sync, in that gaming at 80, 90, 100, 120, fps, with no screen tearing, is spot on.

 

[Wayfall]

Well I do find playing at 60fps solid, is pretty smooth. It's a noticeable improvement from even a few fps less than 60fps. However I won't dispute your point that higher frame rates are smoother. It's generally what people think.

I am only saying that 60fps seemed enough for me. Then again playing games that get into 70-80fps like Far Cry on my GTX 980, it does look better.


Anyway another long story has arisen. I was noticing that my fps in some less demanding games was going well over 144Hz. After googling I have discovered that if your frame rate goes outside the monitor refresh rate, G-sync doesn't apply. I noticed this in a bit of Serious Sam 3 DLC I was testing out with last night. I was getting screen tearing at high frame rate.

Meaning G-sync needs fettling, and is losing its value.

The solution is to apply a frame rate limit. If the game you are playing has a limiter than it's win win. However there are option for no in-game frame rate limiter.

Either Nvidia Inspector, or RivaTuner (with MSI Afterburner - which I use). ... However applying either of these apps, induces lag. Nvidia Inspector induces lag almost identical in delay to v-sync lag. RivaTuner induces lag somewhere between no lag and v-sync lag time. See this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs0PYCpBJjc

G-sync really is starting to look a waste of money to me, but I am still hanging on and hoping.

Lastly though. I read that some people who are using RivaTuner to limit frame rate with G-sync, experience stutter. .........................Meaning back to square one, if this can not easily be fixed. Maybe something like changing frame rate cap works. Like not having it the same as you monitor refresh rate. ... I am looking at this now.

On the subject of you saying games that are going above your monitors refresh rate even thou you have Gsync on you have to enable Vysnc also in Nvidia control panel. Vsync will only cut in when you hit your max hz so say 144, to avoid using vsync just cap to 143. So one frame below your max hz.

Also i find stutter to be engine stutter on most occasions, for example Rising Storm 2's engine has tons of lag while if i play say Dishonored it has no stutter. I even get the rare mouse stutter while on my OS (Win 10) desktop.

 

[U6b36ef]

I am not using v-sync.

I am using RivaTuner, that comes with MSI Afterburner, to cap frame rate. Right now I have settled with 125fps, but I could of course go right up to 144Hz. However I think it might be better to settle at 140 if need be. Or a number not equal to monitor refresh rate.

I was thinking that it would be better if all game devs put a frame rate cap in their games. Then we can run without RivaTuner doing it. However even then, any frame rate cap in the game might also still cause a fraction of lag.

Have to say though, how much better it is to be gaming at 120Hz or 125Hz. I ordered a GTX 1080 Ti today, for more demanding games. However e.g. Serious Sam 3 (DLC) and Doom are hitting high frame rates at 1440p, even with my GTX 980. Doom looks unbelievable at 27".

However one of my games, Homefront: The Revolution, only scrape about 55fps. The Witcher 3, another game that hits about 50-60fps with GTX 980 at 1440p. Therefor even a GTX 1080 might have struggled to get over 100fps. I think I made the right choice buying a 1080 Ti. (Some of my games might be capped by my CPU and also my RAM though, at 1440p.)

 

[Wayfall]

I am not using v-sync.

I am using RivaTuner, that comes with MSI Afterburner, to cap frame rate. Right now I have settled with 125fps, but I could of course go right up to 144Hz. However I think it might be better to settle at 140 if need be. Or a number not equal to monitor refresh rate.

I was thinking that it would be better if all game devs put a frame rate cap in their games. Then we can run without RivaTuner doing it. However even then, any frame rate cap in the game might also still cause a fraction of lag.

Have to say though, how much better it is to be gaming at 120Hz or 125Hz. I ordered a GTX 1080 Ti today, for more demanding games. However e.g. Serious Sam 3 (DLC) and Doom are hitting high frame rates at 1440p, even with my GTX 980. Doom looks unbelievable at 27".

However one of my games, Homefront: The Revolution, only scrape about 55fps. The Witcher 3, another game that hits about 50-60fps with GTX 980 at 1440p. Therefor even a GTX 1080 might have struggled to get over 100fps. I think I made the right choice buying a 1080 Ti. (Some of my games might be capped by my CPU and also my RAM though, at 1440p.)

Ignore Homefront as that is a buggy mess. Witcher 3 well i play it on all high with ultra textures without any physics hair stuff and i get 80-110 (80-90 in forests). Its real smooth and i have no issues with that games.

 

[U6b36ef]

I really liked Homefront: TR. I did hit a game-breaking bug on my first play through, and froze on a save every-time.
Second play though was flawless, and it really did play/feel like part of a revolution. .... It plays like Far Cry (3 or 4) in a war-torn city, and then has more linear missions added in. The mix is good, but there is a touch too much open world, and capture forts and bases. It's not so much the gameplay of capturing bases gets bad. It's the klaxons when you get spotted, that I hate.

Anyway on max settings I am getting 80-90-120fps, with Homefront:TR. (Now trying with 1080 Ti.)
The Witcher 3, is about the same. I am using max settings and now using a bit of Hairworks and Hairworks AA. ... It does look stunning all said though. Somehow I think it might not be the same on a 60Hz monitor, therefor justifying G-sync. ... I have been wanting to play TW3 again for some time, but I have instead been doing Blood and Wine bit by bit. ... Whereas I would like to replay The Wild Hunt. It's really worth replaying now at 27", with heaps of GPU power.

Actually GPU power is a bit of an issue. I underestimated how much power my PC would draw with a 1080 Ti. I was thinking power out of the PSU, and forgetting in real terms it was power in that was important. I think the 356 bit-bus is also pushing power usage up a bit, even when using non-demanding games. ... Like my GTX 980 and system would max at about 345W out of the PSU. .. The 1080 Ti and system is pulling about 450W, or in real terms in demanding games 500W in. .. That's a lot of power for gaming. ... I got carried away though, and lost my eye off the ball. Firstly I wanted a bigger screen. That meant 1440p. G-sync didn't do much under 60fps so aim for over 60fps. Needed more GPU power, got carried away and bought 1080 Ti, instead of 1080. ... Anyway I do cap at 120fps (and less) so room for saving some power there, in future.

 

[Wayfall]

Well when a GPU hits the cap its told to hit the rest of the left-over power is put idle till it needs it say if there is a scene its finding difficult to achieve the desired cap so it uses more horsepower so to speak.

I have an i7 6800K and a GTX 1080 and at max load (both CPU and GPU at 99%) the system draws around 450W but i have a 850w as i wants tons of room when i need to overclock the CPU or when i add another GPU in for SLI.

 

[U6b36ef]

I think your talking about game engine stutter really

By the way. Since way back I was getting stutter under 60 fps with G-sync, I googled for it back then.

It lead me to a thread on Steam that suggested changing a value in one of the steam folders. Apparently that cured a lot of stutter. ... I really should look it up again.

It was something along the lines of what happened with The Witcher 3. That game had a stutter issue around towns. However by changing a value Max Pre-Rendered Frames, in Nvidia Control Panel, it was mostly fixed. Some stutter but not nearly as much, if not cured completely.

The fix in general was as I say, one it a Steam folder I think. Then change a value. ... If it's right, it would save a lot of hassle. It might actually mean stutter free gaming under 60fps. Therefor need for less expensive GPU.

To be honest I was shocked by how much I paid for the 1080 Ti. Then shocked by how much power it can consume. Like almost a whole 300W. I have used 100fps cap though to make it use less power. .. There really was no other way though, to run a 1440p monitor at high frame rates.... Many games like Doom can pull 100fps on my GTX 980. However Doom was never exceptionally demanding. ... I don't know, maybe I have laid too much interest in running Homefront: TR well. I added the heaviest anti-aliasing to it, and frame rate drops to only 80fps sometimes.