G-Sync: 144GH
999nekrofom666
Germany Join Date: 2014-04-07 Member: 195224Members, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow
Germany Join Date: 2014-04-07 Member: 195224Members, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow
Comments
Yes. I use an Asus ROG PG278Q 144 Hz G-sync monitor without problems.
Just showing off now fred
I "discovered" that when using classic Vsync on any type of monitor you can cap the max fps to 1 frame below the monitor refresh rate
using the console command "maxfps" to removes tearing with 0 input lag cost (as long as the framerate stays constant).
Lightboost @ 120hz with vsync is extremely nice with this technique.
no blur, no tear, no lag
Capping your frames with vsync might not be ideal. I have never tried gsync or freesync, but according to that video it could be better to have vsync off and gsync/freesync off and just max out frames for the best gameplay. I also have no idea how accurate this video is. Perhaps someone with gsync or freesync can tell us if having it on with your frames capped is better than maxing out frames with it off. You might have to cap your frames a certain amount below your refresh rate setting to avoid input lag with gsync/freesync. Also, lightboost might not be ideal either. Lightboost can make motion extremely smooth with the right amount of fps, but does that cause input lag as well?
but it's like using a mouse on 3200 dpi or higher, the input becomes invisible on screen basically.
Gsync sounds pretty nice if it has both advantages (removing tearing and allowing higher fps).
But I dont think there is a Gsync lighboost monitor.
(Lightboost is that 3d vision hack that uses backlight strobing to remove motion blur)
Anyway it's really personal preference at this point.
Negligible in the way that if I were to try reallll hard again to be good at this game and go crazy yada yada, I would turn off gsync To max out my frames with lower graphics settings to reduce that input lag as close to my monitors 1ms response as possible.
According to random info I found online:
G-Sync: seems to have an advantage at variable framerates as it eliminates stutters/tearing, but has more blur than lightboost - might have to cap your frames a certain amount below your refresh rate to reduce input lag.
Lightboost: Can eliminate blur, but stutters can be more noticeable. It also might be smoother at high fps uncapped or perhaps it's better at a capped frame setting. I'm not sure if lighboost causes input lag or the best way to reduce it if it does.
*Edit - so frozen, you have access to gsync and seem to use it, perhaps because less tearing? Interesting that you would turn it off though and max out frames if you were going all out though. If it really is better to just have all that stuff off and max out your frames/hz setting on monitor - then it's kinda funny with gsync being expensive, that good old highest fps setting with everything off is still the best. Or maybe it's like Revan said it's preference.
Gsync for low fps and Lightboost for high fps.
Like the video from above mentioned, the higher the fps the more inputdelay you have with gsync.
You could counter that by capping to lower fps rates but higher fps have another sideeffect:
You can see the enemy earlier.
Ok, we talking about ms here, but still, these short time can be enough to give you an advantage.
But same time I'm playing mgsv on my new 55" 4k tv. I get like 25 fps max with ultra settings but I enjoy the shit out of it 12 ft back on my couch
Good point about higher fps being better and that's why lightboost might be a better option than gsync. Or is it better to have lightboost off as well and just max out fps to reduce input lag as much as possible? I know there are advantages to seeing smoothly, and some of this is preference. I bet some of it is also dependent on what fps you can maintain with lightboost. NS2 is a tough game unless you have a really great computer to keep constant high fps which may be ideal for lightboost like you said.
I use it myself with great satisfaction
So its more an placebo that you you have more.
Just cap the fps at the lowest ammount you get and you are fine.
The important factor is to have constant fps.
Stable frametimes=less stutter and more precise aiming cause constant inputdelay.
My Eizo has has inbuild Lightboost and never had issues with it.
Just wanted to clarify for others : He means increased motion blur compared to ULMB, not compared to your typical 60hz LCD etc.
G-sync still has less motion blur than non ULMB or non G-sync monitors.
From what I know about each, I would choose G-sync purely because of NS2's highly varying and unpredictable FPS.
Seriously, it's insane if you've ever logged it over hours of play or compared it to other games.
If it were any other game / engine, then I might choose ULMB because of the motion blur advantage in fast paced competitive games.
But yeah, like Nominous said, dealing with stuttering in NS2 may not be worth the average 5 ms persistence difference between ULMB/LB and Gsync...
Consider the difference between a 60 hz LCD and Gsync is already 2.5 times less persistence, so with Gsync you're improving motion blur (just not as much as ULMB) while also having something that deals well with varying FPS.
In summary,
G-SYNC: Eliminates stutters and tearing but only reduces lag and motion blur somewhat.
LightBoost/ULMB: Eliminates motion blur, but not stutters or tearing.
I own an Eizo Foris with inbuild lightboost and im always capping FPS, in EVERY shooter.
So my goal is always to find the highest constant rate where the game has the less stutter.
Im very sensitive to stutter/tearing and inputdelay btw. so i can see and feel a fps drop from 180 to 150 right away.
NS2: Capped @ 180fps (it stutters noticale more at 150fps for example)
BF4: Capped @ 130fps (it stutters noticable more at 140 fps for example)
CS:Go: Capped @ 300fps (it stutters noticable more at 350 fps for example)
Could be a timing thing also so these values might be different on other monitors.
It takes some time but in the end worth it cause you have all the advantages you need:
No motion blur, nearly no stutter, nearly no tearing, high fps and consistent frametimes for consistent aiming.
If you detest tearing and are put off by tearing most of all, gsync is the way to go. (results on higher hz/fps may not show tearing minimizing its use)
If you detest blurring above all, go for ULMB, as long as you can maintain high fps.
While it does reduce stutters, and still has far less input lag then vsync, we should not forget its main goal is to reduce tearing with gsync.
I for one would take blur over tearing any day. Its a personal choice.
I loved having antiblur on the desktop anything which could blur for me.. Sadly, cant do that anymore on the latest drivers if you want gsync
I use an Asus ROG Swift PG279Q with G-sync and 144 Hz
the best results I achieve but with ULMB and "maxfps 200" in games maybe are not my settings at NVIDIA optimally
would be happy for optimal settings under NS2 NVIDIA ...